Imagine the Result Nature-Based Parks Master Plan Update

Home , Hardberger Park, San Antonio River

Imagine the result

SAN ANTONIO RIVER AUTHORITY

Nature-Based Parks Master Plan Update

May 2013

Nature-Based Parks Master Plan Update

Prepared for: San Antonio River Authority

Prepared by: ARCADIS U.S., Inc. 70 N E Loop 410 Suite 1150 San Antonio Texas 78216 Tel 210 375 1500 Fax 210 375 1550

Our Ref.: 06353025.0000

Date: May, 2013

This document is intended only for the use of the individual or entity for which it was prepared and may contain information that is privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. Any dissemination, distribution or copying of this document is strictly prohibited.

Table of Contents

Executive Summary ...... 1

1. Introduction ...... 8

1.1 Goals of the Plan and the Plan Update ...... 8

1.2 Study Area ...... 9

1.3 Benefits of Public Parks and Natural Areas ...... 9

1.4 SARA’s Areas of Emphasis ...... 10

2. Public Input Methods ...... 12

3. Existing Conditions ...... 14

3.1 Project Setting ...... 14

3.2 Existing Infrastructure ...... 15

3.2.1 Civic Features / Political Boundaries ...... 15

3.2.2 Existing Parks, Trails and Natural Features ...... 16

4. Opportunities and Resources ...... 18

4.1 System Wide Resources and Opportunities...... 18

4.1.1 Park and Trail Resources ...... 18

4.1.2 Historic and Cultural Resources ...... 18

4.2 Resources Opportunities and Ideas ...... 19

4.2.1 Karnes County...... 19

4.2.2 Goliad County ...... 19

4.2.3 Wilson County ...... 20

4.2.4 Bexar County ...... 20

5. Guiding Principles ...... 23

5.1 Users ...... 23

5.2 Cultural Centers ...... 23

5.3 Historic Points of Interest ...... 23

5.4 Water Access Areas and Trails ...... 23

5.5 Railroad Corridors ...... 24

Table of Contents

5.6 Connectors ...... 24

6. Concept Plan ...... 25

6.1 Cultural Centers ...... 25

6.2 Culture-Based Opportunities ...... 25

6.3 Resource Opportunities ...... 26

6.4 Water Trails and Paddling Trail Access...... 27

6.5 Abandoned Rail Lines ...... 27

6.6 On-Road Bicycle Trails ...... 28

6.7 Trails ...... 28

7. Local Planning ...... 29

8. Prioritization ...... 30

8.1 General Priorities ...... 30

8.2 Specific Project Priorities ...... 32

8.2.1 Bexar County ...... 32

8.2.2 Wilson County ...... 33

8.2.3 Karnes County...... 34

8.2.4 Goliad County ...... 35

9. Implementation Strategies ...... 37

9.1 Cooperation, Partnerships and Multi-Purpose Projects ...... 37

9.2 Funding Sources ...... 40

9.2.1 Funding for Capital Improvements ...... 40

9.2.2 Funding for Operations and Maintenance ...... 43

10. Paddling Trails and River Access ...... 44

Table of Contents

Appendices

A 2006 Plan for Nature-Based Park Resources

B Intercept Survey Results

C Study Area Demographic Information

D Maps

Figure 2.1: Civic Features ...... D-1

Figure 2.2: Industrial Features ...... D-2

Figure 2.3.1: Bexar County Existing Park and Natural Resources ...... D-3

Figure 2.3.2: Wilson County Existing Park and Natural Resources ...... D-4

Figure 2.3.3: Karnes County Existing Park and Natural Resources ...... D-5

Figure 2.3.4: Goliad County Existing Park and Natural Resources ...... D-6

Figure 2.4.1: Bexar County Existing and Planned Trails...... D-7

Figure 2.4.2: Wilson County Existing and Planned Trails ...... D-8

Figure 2.4.3: Karnes County Existing and Planned Trails ...... D-9

Figure 2.4.4: Goliad County Existing and Planned Trails ...... D-10

Figure 2.5: Natural Subregions ...... D- 11

Figure 2.6: Vegetative Types ...... D- 12

Figure 2.7: Land Use / Land Cover ...... D-13

Figure 2.8: Bexar County Archaeological Sites Key ...... D-14

Figure 2.8: Bexar County Archeological Sites ...... D-16

Figure 3.1.1: Bexar County Opportunities / Recommendations ...... D-17

Figure 3.1.2: Wilson County Opportunities / Recommendations ...... D-18

Figure 3.1.3: Karnes County Opportunities / Recommendations ...... D-19

Figure 3.1.4: Goliad County Opportunities / Recommendations ...... D-20

iii

Nature-Based Parks Master Plan Update

Executive Summary

Introduction

In 2006 the San Antonio River Authority (SARA) Board of Directors adopted the San Antonio River Basin Plan for Nature-Based Park Resources (the “Plan”). This award-winning Plan was the first of its kind for a river authority in Texas, and it was enthusiastically received by local communities, Texas Parks & Wildlife Department (TPWD), and entities that have used the Plan as a guidance document and resource over the last six years. The Plan is incorporated into this document as Appendix A.

In June 2012, SARA engaged a team of professional consultants led by Malcolm Pirnie, the Water Division of ARCADIS U.S., Inc. (Pirnie/ARCADIS) to prepare an update to the Plan (the “Plan Update”).

The purposes of this Plan Update are to: incorporate new population information and demographics; gather additional input from users, stakeholders and the general public; integrate new information on park and natural area facilities constructed in the last six years; develop information on additional needs that have developed since the Plan was prepared; and document new implementation strategies and funding sources.

This Plan Update does not duplicate the concepts or valid information presented in the original Plan. Therefore, the Plan and the Plan Update should be used conjunctively as a complete parks and open spaces master plan.

The goals of the Plan and the Plan Update are to encourage the development of:

1. Outdoor recreation opportunities compatible with the surroundings 2. Educational and interpretive opportunities 3. River and creek-related recreational opportunities 4. Community support and enthusiasm 5. Sustainable materials and maintenance practices 6. Public and private partnerships, strategies, and funding sources 7. Economic development and tourism 8. Celebration of diverse local heritage 9. Stewardship of natural, cultural, and historic resources 10. Support for the preservation of natural beauty and aesthetic quality 11. Increased public awareness of the San Antonio River watershed and its opportunities

This Plan Update serves as a guidance document for regional activities related to parks, recreation and open spaces. It also provides a valuable resource to other entities and agencies. The Plan Update supports and encourages the park and recreation efforts of cities, counties, state, federal and private entities. As a supporting document for funding efforts, this Update is also intended to assist entities in the implementation of projects and programs.

Nature-Based Parks Master Plan Update

The study area for the Plan included southern Bexar County, and all of Wilson, Karnes and Goliad Counties. For the Plan Update, the study area was expanded to include all of Bexar County, as well as Wilson, Karnes and Goliad Counties.

The Plan Update serves as a valuable and appropriate resource in support of SARA’s core values, by supporting its commitment to:

• The preservation, protection and sustainability of the San Antonio River Watershed; • Making the rivers and creeks safe, healthy and enjoyable; and • Working with partners to pioneer innovative solutions that sustain and enrich the lives of the people within its four-county service area.

Therefore, the Plan Update emphasizes park, recreation and open space needs, opportunities, facilities, projects and programs that relate to the San Antonio River and its tributaries.

Public Involvement

Although there was a significant amount of community involvement during the preparation of the Plan, SARA and the Pirnie/ARCADIS team placed even more emphasis on public input during the preparation of this Update. A total of four stakeholder meetings and eight public open house meetings were held. The SARA staff also had individual meetings with local elected officials. In addition, the draft Plan Update was posted on the SARA website in order to give interested persons an opportunity to provide comments. Comments were received by telephone, email, website input, and comment cards. Throughout the planning process, the study team had regular meetings to brief and get input from the Regional Parks Coordinating Council (RPCC).

The eight public open houses were held to increase public input and give other stakeholders an opportunity for further engagement on the Plan Update. The first round of public open houses was held in each county early in the study process on November 7, 8, 14, and 15, 2012. The second round was held in each county after the draft Plan Update had been developed and posted on the SARA website. The second open houses were held on February 26, 27, 28, and March 6, 2013.

Input from the public was grouped into four major categories:

• New information on existing facilities not included in the original Plan • New needs and opportunities as identified by participants, known as “wish lists” • Suggested ways to fund and/or implement the ideas in the Plan Update • Top priorities within each county

Nature-Based Parks Master Plan Update

Existing Resources

The original Plan was developed around the resources that were existing at the time that initial planning was conducted. Section 3 of the Plan Update discusses the new resources currently found within the study area. These park, open space, cultural and natural resources found in the four-county area provide the basis from which this updated regional master plan for park, open space and natural resources is envisioned. For example, over the last six years, SARA has purchased several properties that provide additional destinations for implementation of the original Plan. The first to be acquired was the Helton San Antonio River Nature Park, located at the confluence of the San Antonio River and Calaveras Creek. The second and third properties are located at the intersection of Loop 1604 and the San Antonio River, and at CR 125 and the San Antonio River. These sites provide river access for canoes and kayaks, and have visitor parking, and restroom facilities.

Existing parks, trails and natural resources within each county that have been developed since the original Plan are shown on the maps in Figures 2.3.1 through 2.4.4 found in Appendix D.

New Opportunities

Section 4 of this Plan Update identifies new resources, opportunities, needs, and ideas that were gathered through the public involvement outreach efforts and field research. For this Update, general or generic park planning guidelines from TPWD or the National Park Service were not used. The study team’s focus was on listening to the input of stakeholders and citizens from each county; documenting the vision described in the public meetings as accurately as possible; and developing realistic recommendations on how SARA and the communities within its district can implement that vision.

New opportunities and recommendations that were identified in the public meetings are shown on the maps in Figures 3.1.1 through 3.1.4 found in Appendix D.

Conceptual Plan

The Plan Update encourages a regional approach to creating a system-wide collection of resources; unifying natural, cultural, and recreational opportunities located within the study area, while keeping its focus on the San Antonio River and its tributaries. Multi-purpose projects and coordination strengthen individual communities by developing locally, but thinking regionally.

The following elements each play an important role in creating a regional system, while addressing the needs of local users.

• Cultural Centers • Culture-based Opportunities

Nature-Based Parks Master Plan Update

• Resource Opportunities • Paddling Trails and Water Access • Abandoned Railroad Rights of Way • On-Road Bicycle Trails • Other Trails

Recommendations and Priorities

The Plan, as outlined in 2006, gave general guidance for prioritized projects, but it was primarily directed toward giving local communities the ability to establish their own priorities. It was intended as a “living document” that had the flexibility to change as projects were completed and new opportunities were identified. Based on more public input, this Plan Update provides more specific ideas for the four-county study area, as well as for each county individually.

In addition to specific project recommendations and priorities for each county found in Section 8, several concepts apply to all portions of the study area. Some of these broader concepts and policies include the following recommended actions:

• Increase public awareness and education about community park systems. • Develop public outreach strategies to increase awareness of existing trails and natural areas. • Use technology to help educate users and non-users as to what is available to them. • Reduce redundancy and duplication of effort.

Section 8 also includes a conceptual estimate of total construction costs for the priority recommendations in each county, as those priorities were developed during the public meetings. The following estimates of probable construction cost do not include land acquisition, engineering and design, environmental assessments, and permitting:

• Bexar County: $555.0 million • Wilson County: $ 19.2 million • Karnes County: $ 24.0 million • Goliad County: $ 9.5 million

Nature-Based Parks Master Plan Update

Implementation Strategies

The Plan included a discussion of various implementation strategies and funding opportunities, many of which have been successfully used over the last six years. Appendix C of the Plan includes detailed information on various funding sources.

A few new funding sources and programs have been created and some funding sources have been reduced or eliminated since 2006. The key strategies discussed in Section 9 of this Update include the following.

Cooperation, Partnerships and Multi-Purpose Projects

Following one of SARA’s Key Thrusts, the Plan and this Update encourage coordination, interlocal agreements among political subdivisions, and partnerships as important strategies for implementing projects. The study team also encourages the development of multi-purpose projects in order to maximize beneficiaries, diversify funding options, and spread operational responsibility. Multi-purpose facilities such as park facilities located within floodwater detention areas offer an array of quality of life, educational, resource management and cultural opportunities.

Within the SARA district there have been several success stories of partnerships between parks departments and other entities, such as Type B Economic Development Corporations. Within limitations, Type B sales taxes may be used for “quality of life” improvements, including land, buildings, equipment, facilities, targeted infrastructure and improvements for:

• Public parks; • Sports facilities such as ball fields and stadiums; • Tourism and entertainment facilities; • Convention facilities; • Related concession, parking and transportation facilities; and • Related street, water and sewer facilities.

Funding Sources

Funding for parks, recreation and open space projects involves two major components: (i) financing the planning, design and construction of facilities; and (ii) funding the daily operation and maintenance (O&M) of those facilities. Cities and counties have typically financed the implementation of capital improvements using bonds backed up by ad valorem tax revenues. O&M expenses have typically been paid with ad valorem (general fund) tax revenues augmented by entrance, user, special event and activity fees for certain programs and facilities. At least two river authorities have financed the design and construction of regional water-based parks using revenue bonds backed by entrance and user fees at the facilities.

Nature-Based Parks Master Plan Update

Since 2005 there has been a new avenue for development of outdoor recreation facilities using voter- approved bonds. Senate Bill 624 resulted in amended regulations that provide new implementation strategies, funded by voter-approved taxes. Under these new regulations some river authorities may issue bonds supported by ad valorem taxes to develop certain park and recreation facilities, if the bonds are authorized by the voters in the district.

Most municipal and county park systems use general tax revenues for O&M of facilities. SARA is also authorized to use ad valorem tax revenues for planning, operation and maintenance of park-related land, facilities and improvements. Over the last 40 years, most parks departments have diversified their revenue sources for O&M in order to improve the level of service and to provide more outdoor opportunities. Today it is very common for users to pay some type of fee for special facilities such as campsites, cabins, group picnic areas and pavilions. Where appropriate and feasible, entrance fees have become a major source of O&M revenue.

Paddling Trails and River Access

One of the major comments that the study team consistently heard at the stakeholder meetings and the public open houses is the need for more paddling trails and public access to water bodies. This interest mirrors the national increase in canoeing and kayaking. The San Antonio River and several of its tributaries have been described in publications as having exceptional value for these activities.

The successful Goliad Paddling Trail, the SASPAMCO Paddling Trail, the recently opened section of the Mission Reach, and the access points SARA has already constructed on the upper San Antonio River serve as models for future development. However, the implementation of paddling trails and public river access must be approached thoughtfully and with sufficient study and research in order to avoid potential conflicts with riparian landowners and others who sometimes have concerns about public use of the State’s water bodies.

In those areas where paddling trails have been successfully implemented, the following techniques, approaches and ideas were used:

• Fully understanding and appreciating the concerns of riparian landowners • Meeting early and often with landowners to answer questions and address concerns • Providing accurate information on liability issues and insurance coverage so that landowners understand their protection

Nature-Based Parks Master Plan Update

• Developing effective local organizations to spearhead the effort • Developing support from local political leaders • Designing and promoting the paddling trail as a family experience by distinguishing that type of river use from the commercial activities on some other rivers • Promoting the paddling trail as a resource for canoeists and kayakers, not tubers • Prohibiting swimming in the area of the paddling trail • Keeping the area as primitive as possible, while still providing safe access and sanitary conditions • Promoting trash and debris cleanup as part of the paddling experience • Organizing trash and debris cleanup events to help landowners

Nature-Based Parks Master Plan Update

1. Introduction

In 2006 the San Antonio River Authority (SARA) Board of Directors adopted the San Antonio River Basin Plan for Nature-Based Park Resources (the “Plan”). The award-winning Plan was the first of its kind for a river authority in Texas, and it was enthusiastically received by local communities, Texas Parks & Wildlife Department (TPWD), and entities that have used the Plan as a guidance document and resource over the last six years. The Plan is incorporated into this document as Appendix A.

The Plan was developed by SARA and its consultants with a significant amount of input from local residents and a citizen-driven advisory committee. The Plan addressed: population growth; a 20-year vision for connecting existing and future parks, trails and natural areas within a significant portion of SARA’s four- county (Bexar, Goliad, Karnes and Wilson Counties) district.

In June 2012, SARA engaged Malcolm Pirnie, the Water Division of ARCADIS U.S., Inc. (Pirnie/ARCADIS) to prepare an update to the Plan (the “Plan Update”) so that this document can continue to serve as a valuable resource. The Pirnie/ARCADIS Team included Bury+Partners for park planning and landscape architecture, and Adisa Communications for assistance with public involvement and communication.

The purposes of the Plan Update are to: incorporate new population information and demographics; gather additional input from users, stakeholders and the general public; integrate new information on park and natural area facilities constructed in the last six years; develop information on additional needs that have developed since the Plan was prepared; and document new implementation strategies and funding sources.

1.1 Goals of the Plan and the Plan Update

The goals of the Plan Update are the same as those used to guide the initial planning process. The goals of the Plan and the Plan Update are to encourage the development of:

Nature-Based Parks Master Plan Update

8. Celebration of diverse local heritage 9. Stewardship of natural, cultural, and historic resources 10. Support for the preservation of natural beauty and aesthetic quality 11. Increased public awareness of the San Antonio River watershed and its opportunities

This Plan Update serves as a guidance document for Regional activities related to parks, recreation and open spaces. It also provides a valuable resource to other entities and agencies. The Plan Update supports and encourages the park and recreation efforts of cities, counties, state, federal and private entities by providing an additional source of information. As a supporting document for funding efforts, the Plan Update is also intended to assist entities in the implementation of projects and programs.

1.2 Study Area

The study area for the Plan included southern Bexar County, and all of Wilson, Karnes and Goliad Counties. For the Plan Update, the study area has been expanded to include all of Bexar County, as well as Wilson, Karnes and Goliad Counties.

1.3 Benefits of Public Parks and Natural Areas

Over the last few decades, people have begun to better understand and objectively document the various benefits of public parks, outdoor recreation facilities and natural areas. A study by The Trust for Public Land (Measuring the Economic Value of a City Park System; Harnik, Peter and Welle, Ben; 2009) discusses the more objective benefits of public spaces. Some benefits such as improved mental health are difficult to quantify because scientists cannot readily agree on an appropriate methodology. Other aspects such as property values, tourism dollars, clean water and clean air can be more scientifically measured and quantified. For example, more than 30 studies have documented that parks have a positive impact on nearby residential property values; engineering studies have consistently shown that parkland and riparian natural areas reduce stormwater management costs by retaining precipitation, slowing runoff, and improving the quality of the water that is discharged; and the U.S. Forest Service has developed a computer model that calculates the air pollution removal efficiency and economic value of urban trees.

On March 11, 2013, the San Antonio Express News reported on a study showing that outdoor recreation provides nearly 277,000 direct jobs in Texas and generates $1.9 billion per year in state and local tax revenue. The Outdoor Industry Association found consumers spend $28.7 billion on outdoor recreation in Texas, and that this spending provides about $8.9 billion in annual wages and salaries. Not including hunting, fishing and wildlife viewing, the study says at least 51% of Texans participate in outdoor activities. According to the report Texas ranks third in the nation in the number of jobs that outdoor recreation generates.

Nature-Based Parks Master Plan Update

1.4 SARA’s Areas of Emphasis

As a river authority created by the Texas Legislature, SARA’s primary responsibilities relate to protecting, managing and developing water resources. SARA is not a regulatory agency; its responsibilities relate to planning, coordination and implementation. SARA is authorized to collect an ad valorem operations and maintenance (O&M) tax within its district. The tax revenues can be used generally for O&M purposes and cannot be a source of funding for major capital improvements. The maximum authorized tax rate is $0.02 per $100 of assessed valuation, however the rate for SARA’s 2013 fiscal year is $0.01737.

In its Five Year Service and Financial Plan for 2012-2017, SARA has identified the following Key Thrusts for the organization:

• Generate lasting and recognized improvements to the health of San Antonio River Watershed • Enhance community appreciation for and access to the San Antonio River and its tributaries • Strengthen, develop and anticipate expertise at all levels and build employee dedication to the River Authority’s vision and values

• Explore, diversify and leverage funding sources • Influence, through its expertise, sustainable watershed solutions by balancing the environmental, economic and quality of life needs of its communities

• Expand public and private partnerships

The Plan Update serves as a valuable and appropriate resource in support of SARA’s core values, by supporting its commitment to:

Therefore, the Plan Update emphasizes park, recreation and open space needs, opportunities, facilities, projects and programs that relate to the San Antonio River and its tributaries. SARA’s interest and effort is understandably focused on water resources, waterways and watershed health. The following are only four examples that illustrate SARA’s areas of emphasis and their relation to nature-based park resources:

Nature-Based Parks Master Plan Update

• As SARA and other entities develop parks along the River and its tributaries, those natural areas serve as riparian buffers that protect water quality and make appropriate use of flood-prone areas.

• People are naturally attracted to the water. Trails along the River and its tributaries can serve as much-appreciated linkages between park facilities and access points.

• Improving access to waterways, rivers and creeks puts more people in touch with water resources and promotes their understanding and appreciation of these valuable assets. This appreciation will hopefully foster stewardship and a long-term benefit for the river and its tributaries.

• The Plan Update encourages sustainable professional park maintenance practices such as the proper use of fertilizers and herbicides, and the incorporation of low impact development (LID) concepts, stream restoration and stormwater best management practices (BMPs) so that water quality is protected.

Nature-Based Parks Master Plan Update

2. Public Input Methods

Although there was a significant amount of community involvement during the preparation of the Plan, SARA and the Pirnie/ARCADIS team placed even more emphasis on public input during the preparation of this Plan Update. The public involvement effort produced extremely valuable information and a number of innovative ideas that were incorporated into the Update. As described below, numerous meetings were held with stakeholder groups and the public. A total of four stakeholder meetings and eight public open house meetings were held. The SARA staff also had individual meetings with local elected officials.

In addition, the draft Plan Update was posted on the SARA website in order to give interested persons an opportunity to provide comments. Comments were received by telephone, email, website input, and comment cards.

Throughout the planning process, the study team had regular meetings to brief and get input from the Regional Parks Coordinating Council (RPCC). The RPCC is a group of interested organizations from each of the four counties; it grew out of the advisory committee used during the original planning process. The RPCC includes representatives from organizations such as the National Park Service, Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, Land Heritage Institute, park boards, local governments, chambers of commerce, economic development corporations, and historical commissions. Meetings that included a briefing on the Update were held with the RPCC on July 26, 2012, September 27, 2012 and December 6, 2012. RPCC members were involved in the second round of open houses conducted in the Spring of 2013.

Early in the planning process, stakeholder meetings with groups and individuals recommended by the RPCC were held in each county. The purposes of the stakeholder meetings were to: gather information for the inventory of existing parks and natural areas; generate ideas on new facilities and programs that are needed; discuss ideas for funding sources and implementation strategies that are appropriate for each county; and understand how to get maximum participation at public meetings and open houses. The series of four stakeholder meetings were held on October 30 and 31, 2012.

In order to increase public input and give other stakeholders an opportunity for further engagement on the Plan Update, two rounds of public open houses were held in the Fall of 2012 and Spring of 2013. The first round of public open houses was held in each county early in the study process on November 7, 8, 14, and 15, 2012. The second round was held in each county after the draft Plan Update had been developed and posted on the SARA website. The second open houses were held on February 26, 27, 28, and March 6, 2013. Each open house was publicized by posting meeting information on websites and by placing articles and notices in local newspapers. In addition to the general public, invited stakeholders included parks and recreation departments, school districts, nature conservancy and wildlife organizations, elected officials, economic development corporations, and neighborhood organizations. Members of the RPCC and the initial stakeholder groups typically attended the open houses.

Nature-Based Parks Master Plan Update

The first round of open houses was held early in the planning process. During those meetings, the study team and SARA solicited input on the same topics addressed in the stakeholder meetings. Input from those who attended the first round of open house meetings, as well as those who provided input on comment cards and online resulted in the ideas and proposed projects that were included in the draft Plan Update. Input was grouped into four major categories:

• New information on existing facilities not included in the original Plan • New needs and opportunities as identified by participants, known as ‘wish lists’ • Suggested ways to fund and/or implement the ideas in the Update • Top priorities within each county

The second round of open house meetings in each county was held toward the end of the planning process to get input and validation of the draft Plan Update. Participants were encouraged to review the draft Plan Update online and to provide input during the meetings or on comment cards. During the second round of meetings, attendees received a brief overview of the draft Plan Update, and they were also able to provide additional input on the list of projects identified by the community during the public input process. Input was grouped into three major categories:

• Priorities and areas of interest common to more than one county • Top priorities within each individual county • Areas of interest within each individual county

Additionally, at the second round of open house meetings, the study team provided a conceptual total cost estimate for the desired projects in each county.

Nature-Based Parks Master Plan Update

3. Existing Conditions

3.1 Project Setting

The study area for this Update of the San Antonio River Basin Plan for Nature-Based Park Resources is situated in south central Texas along the course of the San Antonio River, including all of Bexar County, Wilson County, Karnes County, and Goliad County. The study area starts at the northern boundary of Bexar County and runs southeast along the San Antonio River to Goliad County. The study area is approximately 3,600 square miles and follows the river from northwest to southeast. The study area for this Update now includes all of Bexar County, while the previous study focused only within the southern portion of Bexar County. The rest of the study area boundary follows the county lines of Wilson County, Karnes County, and Goliad County.

The study area is rich in history, with some of the oldest Spanish colonial settlements and many sites of significance to the Texas Revolution. The natural character of the study area varies depending upon location and begins with the Hill Country topography and ecosystems and rapidly developing area of northern Bexar County, and continues through the highly urbanized character found within the City of San Antonio. However, the study area also includes flat to gently rolling croplands, pasturelands and forested areas associated with southern Bexar County, and the three rural counties to the southeast. The three downstream counties are located in the Rio Grande Plain and the upper coastal plain of South Texas. In Wilson County the terrain is gently rolling. About 90% of the county land acreage is presently used for farming and ranching. Karnes County’s terrain is level to rolling, draining to the San Antonio River, which traverses the county from north to south. About 85% of the county is being utilized in farms and ranches. In Goliad County the land surface is gently sloping from the northwest to the southeast and follows the San Antonio River and its tributaries. About 95% of the land use in Goliad County is rangeland and wildlife habitat. Cropland makes up about 2% of the county.

There are numerous vegetative types and ecosystems throughout the study area, many of which have evolved as the agricultural uses have evolved over the decades. A vegetative survey is included in the initial Plan.

The study area is predominantly within the San Antonio River Watershed. The San Antonio River and its tributaries comprise the most important surface water features. Other natural resources important to the region are subterranean, including the Edwards, Carrizo-Wilcox and Gulf Coast Aquifers and numerous minor groundwater formations. A great deal of mining and energy transfer has taken place in the counties that make up the study area.

Historic sites, municipal parks, cultural amenities, and environmental resources abound throughout the four counties, and many are already being used for recreation. There are many opportunities through making use of underutilized natural resources to expand current networks of recreational resources as well as to

Nature-Based Parks Master Plan Update

create connections at a regional level. The following sections will begin to outline what exists in the study area so that those opportunities may be utilized in the future.

3.2 Existing Infrastructure

3.2.1 Civic Features / Political Boundaries

The study area is comprised of four counties. Of all the four counties, Bexar County is the most urban, including the entire City of San Antonio, its ever expanding developments and businesses, and a wonderful diversity of culture, topography, flora and fauna across the expanse of the County. Each of the other three counties is rural in character with small towns dotting the predominantly agricultural landscape. Major Interstate, U.S., State and Farm to Market highways traverse the study area providing connections between the towns as well as the natural and historic amenities.

As with most of Texas, weather patterns and riparian resources are heavily influenced by the vagaries of drought and flood. SARA works with leaders in Bexar, Wilson, Karnes and Goliad Counties to address flooding on a regional basis and helps to identify and prioritize the most beneficial capital projects to address stormwater issues.

Bexar County Bexar County is approximately 1,100 square miles and has a population of approximately 1.7 million people.

Bexar County is the most urbanized county within the study area. The municipalities that fall within the Bexar County study area, that were not included in the original Plan, include: Alamo Heights, Hill Country Village, Hollywood Park, Balcones Heights, Castle Hills, Live Oak, Kirby, Universal City, Converse, Windcrest, Terrell Hills, Olmos Park, Shavano Park, Leon Valley, Helotes, Grey Forest, Schertz, Selma, Fair Oaks Ranch and portions of the City of San Antonio.

Wilson County Wilson County is approximately 807 square miles and has a population of approximately 43,000 people. All of Wilson County was included in the original Plan.

Karnes County Karnes County is approximately 750 square miles and has a population of over 15,000 people. All of Karnes County was included in the original Plan.

Nature-Based Parks Master Plan Update

Goliad County Goliad County is the southernmost county in the study area. It is over 850 square miles and has approximately 7,200 people. All of Goliad County was included in the original Plan.

Updated demographic information on all four counties is found in Appendix C.

3.2.2 Existing Parks, Trails and Natural Features

Since the original Plan was completed, a variety of new resources have been developed within the Study Area. As a result of the stakeholder meetings and public workshops held in Bexar, Wilson, Karnes and Goliad Counties, the following are new or expanded resources that were identified for inclusion in this Update. Please note that for Bexar County, the facilities listed below are those provided to the study team during the stakeholder and public workshop meetings. Please refer to the City of San Antonio, Bexar County, Texas Parks and Wildlife or the National Park Service for complete listings of all of their existing parks, trails and resources.

Bexar County Kirby City Park Crownridge Canyon Natural Area Government Canyon State Natural Area Beacon Hill Park Hardberger Park Mitchell Lake Audubon Center Balcones Heights city parks Eisenhower Park Woodlawn Lake Converse Creekway Trail Old Spanish Trail Schertz Creekway Trail Woodlake Golf Course Westside Creeks Plan City of San Antonio Linear Creekways program SASPAMCO Paddling Trail (SARA) Loop 1604 Access Site (SARA) San Antonio River Mission Reaches 1 and 2 San Antonio Museum Reach

Nature-Based Parks Master Plan Update

Wilson County River Park in Floresville El Camino Real de los Tejas Local Fishing Location – Near Jackson Nature Park Lodi Crossing – Near the Old Town Lodi Hike and Bike Trail A new picnic area and birding platform west of Stockdale on Old Floresville Road (CR 401) Stockdale Central Park Stockdale City Park La Vernia City Park Poth City Park SASPAMCO Paddling Trail south of Elmendorf to FM 775 Helton San Antonio River Nature Park CR125 River Access Site Floresville City River Park Floresville Pecan Park Floresville American Legion Park Floresville Masonic Youth Park Floresville Lodi Park

Karnes County Escondido Creek Parkway Project

Through the public meetings held as a part of this Plan Update, no additional existing resources or new developments were identified in Karnes County. However, the following comments were made about existing resources or conditions: (i) request to provide the location of existing waterfalls on the maps; (ii) two areas where debris/log jams need to be addressed at bridges along the San Antonio River south of Falls City; and (iii) additional debris on Cibolo Creek from the confluence of the San Antonio River upstream to FM 627/2724.

Goliad County Branch River Park

In addition, during public open houses and stakeholder meetings, the study team was asked to: (i) move the location of the San Antonio River Valley Rural Historic District closer to the intersection of Hwy 239 and FM 2043 on Update maps; (ii) change the title to “Goliad State Park and Historic Site”; (iii) correct the spelling for “Barnhart Ranch and Nature Retreat;” and (iv) show existing canoe launch facilities at Highway 59, Goliad State Park & Historic Site, and Ferry Street in Goliad.

Nature-Based Parks Master Plan Update

4. Opportunities and Resources

4.1 System Wide Resources and Opportunities

The San Antonio River Basin Plan for Nature-Based Park Resources was originally developed around the resources that were available at the time that initial plan was developed. The current resources found in the four-county area provide the basis from which this updated regional master plan for park, open space and natural resources is envisioned. This Plan Update identifies the new system resources, opportunities, needs, and ideas that were gathered through a variety of public involvement outreach efforts and field research. For this Update, general or generic park planning guidelines such as those used by TPWD or the National Park Service were not used. The study team’s focus was on listening to the input of stakeholders and other citizens from each county; documenting the vision described in the meetings as accurately as possible; and developing realistic recommendations on how SARA and the communities within its district can implement that vision.

4.1.1 Park and Trail Resources

Since 2006 the original Plan has been used as a guide for the development of park, open space and natural resources by SARA, cities and communities within the district and by the four counties. Over the last six years, SARA has purchased several properties that provide additional destinations for implementation of the Plan. The first to be acquired was the Helton San Antonio River Nature Park, which is a wonderful new facility. It is located at the confluence of the San Antonio River and Calaveras Creek. The nature park includes two large pecan orchard areas and provides visitors camping, nature trails, and river access for canoes and kayaks. The second and third properties are located at the intersection of Loop 1604 and the San Antonio River, and at CR 125 and the San Antonio River. These sites provide river access for canoes and kayaks, and have visitor parking, and restroom facilities.

The facilities and programs developed by cities, communities and counties since the original Plan was completed are documented in the Existing Conditions section of this Update.

4.1.2 Historic and Cultural Resources

The San Antonio River Watershed has a wealth of historic, cultural and archaeological resources. These resources provide valuable human connectivity to natural resources, and park and open space facilities. It is imperative that these resources are documented and incorporated into plans for public facilities through interpretive features. Historic and cultural resources within the study area have been updated to reflect northern Bexar County and any new sites since the original Plan. Maps showing the location of these resources are found in Appendix D.

Nature-Based Parks Master Plan Update

4.2 Resources Opportunities and Ideas

Through the public involvement activities for the Plan Update, the study team compiled lists of opportunities and ideas expressed by stakeholders and the public. These opportunities are discussed below by county.

4.2.1 Karnes County

In addition to the continuing development of the Escondido Creek Parkway, one of the major needs identified for Karnes City is the development of a new park for youth sports activities. The complex would be located south of town. The citizens described the need for four full-size soccer fields, two baseball fields, two softball fields, a football field, three batting cages, a pitching cage, and a multi-purpose practice field.

4.2.2 Goliad County

In Goliad County, much of the Plan Update centers on the continuing development of paddling trails, but also includes biking trails and the ability to provide users with an adequate system of signs and way-finding. The needs discussed in Goliad County include:

• A new splash pad at Branch River Park or Fort Fun • New parks by the fairgrounds • Birding viewing platforms, wildlife viewing blinds, and bird viewing towers that include information for species identification • Dog parks • Additional hiking / biking trails • Additional playgrounds within the city and county; with a variety of playground equipment (including swings) • Way finding signage at, and around, Branch River Park • Mountain bike trails located on old railroad rights-of-way (ROWs) • New San Antonio River access point at the county line southeast of Goliad near the existing RV Park • Three new canoe launch sites located at:

o Duke Bridge – crossing of Duke Bridge Road (FM 2506) and the San Antonio River

o Charco – crossing of Highway 239 and the San Antonio River

o Riverdale - crossing of N. Riverdale Lane and the San Antonio River

Nature-Based Parks Master Plan Update

• Buoys and identification markers at each access site along the river so people using the paddling trails know where they are, and when to pull out

• A network of on-road bike trails throughout the county – clockwise, starting from the intersection of Highway 59/FM 1351; right on FM 883; right on FM 2442; right on 239; left on FM 81; right on FM 884; right on FM 1726; back to Highway 59, including bike lane striping on the road shoulders and way finding signage

4.2.3 Wilson County

The opportunities and ideas identified in Wilson County were focused on connections to the river and between communities. A great emphasis is placed on securing the river banks and protecting recreational and cultural resources. The specific opportunities in Wilson County include:

• Improvements at County Road 125 River Access Point • Adding a river access site at Rancho de Las Cabras • Planning for paddling trails along Cibolo Creek and along San Antonio River from Floresville to Falls City and Goliad

• New paddling trail from Rancho de las Cabras along the San Antonio River south to the Dewees- Remschel property; which is a 130 acre historical society project

• Creating a trails map and brochure showing both paddling trail and hike and bike trail opportunities throughout the county • Adding signage describing the Camino Royale Remnant at the Community of Marcelino cemetery, church and community center • Developing a cultural resource identification/park system – to connect historic points of interest through the use of signs, trails and other way finding resources • Developing a hike & bike trail connecting Stockdale, Floresville, and Poth

4.2.4 Bexar County

The Bexar County stakeholder and public meeting discussions focused on larger connections between resources and communities. The County and many of the cities already have park and trail master plans, so many of the opportunities in Bexar County relate to how existing (or planned) facilities connect to each other where connections do not currently exist.

Nature-Based Parks Master Plan Update

Opportunities in Bexar County include:

• Developing cultural and historic interpretive information to be accessed by phone when using trails, etc.

• Getting additional participation through web input • Hike and bike trails – looking for more opportunities • Pearsall Watson Farmstead - National registered 180 acre district • Connecting the Medina River Greenway trail to El Camino Real de las Tejas (NPS) • Las Camino Naturales trail system – equestrian, hiking, biking, camping and RV sites • Connecting Beacon Hill to Martinez Creek trail • Assessing the opportunities for three (3) specific properties along the Medina River (SARA):

o Otillo Dam – as a potential river access site

o Old Catfish Farm property—currently owned by San Antonio Water System (SAWS)

o Strauss-Medina Ranch property • Woodlake Golf Course auto road – preserving the concrete low water crossing • Preserving the Leon Creek low water crossing • For riparian trails, looking for balance between clearing guidelines and retention of vegetation • Put ADA paths further from water to retain riparian vegetation • Looking for opportunities to link Mitchell Lake Audubon Center • Olmos Creek Creekway trails • Recreational opportunities in Balcones Heights – link to creeks • Implementing the Westside Creeks Restoration Project and restoring other creeks • Linking City of San Antonio (COSA) creekway trails to water • Interpretive signs to:

o Explain vegetation cycle on Mission Reach

o Make public aware that stormwater goes to creeks/rivers and affects water quality • Correcting references to “bird sanctuary” with the phrase “bird habitat” • Looking for linkage and connectivity opportunities, including:

Nature-Based Parks Master Plan Update

o Government Canyon through Helotes to Leon Creek

o Leon Creek to Olmos Creek

o Olmos Creek to Salado Creek

The maps in Appendix D, Figures 3.1.1 – 3.1.4, are graphic representations of the preceding text. As some of the needs/ideas/opportunities are more general concepts, not everything listed above is provided in the mapping. These maps share general locations and are not to be used to indicate specific parcels of land or trail alignments. Through the course of actual specific project implementation for any of these opportunities, more detailed information will need to be gathered to assess feasibility.

Nature-Based Parks Master Plan Update

5. Guiding Principles

The Plan Update builds on the basic principles outlined in the original Plan by providing opportunities to local users (single-day) and tourists (multi-day) alike. Although the focus has shifted slightly more toward the needs of the local user, the ideas that form the foundation of the Plan remain: cultural centers (existing cities and towns); historic points of interest; active and passive areas; transportation corridors; and most importantly, rivers, creeks and streams. The following principles reinforce the original vision of the Plan.

5.1 Users

The Plan Update continues to address two types of users in its system: the residents and tourists. These users represent either the communities they live in or the people attracted to the region by what is offered. Much of the focus in this Update centers on the needs of the local users. Addressing the needs of the cultural centers, and providing connectivity between these centers (which begins with the local user groups), will help develop a more comprehensive, regional system attractive to tourists and those immediately outside the study area.

5.2 Cultural Centers

Cultural Centers are the cities and communities within the study area that provide services for residents, multi-day users and tourists. Cultural centers continue to provide the largest amount of opportunity for recreational and cultural activities. Trail heads, trail access, and river access, among other facilities should be located in or near cultural centers where possible. With growing populations in the study area, new focus should be given to addressing the needs of the local users through readily available facilities. Cultural centers should highlight and celebrate the diverse and individual local characteristics of each town, while providing accommodations and amenities for a more transient user.

5.3 Historic Points of Interest

Historic points of interest located inside and outside of cultural centers provide additional destinations for heritage tourists. The region’s unique history and its place among the history of the State can be a unifying feature for the study area. The opportunity to relive ranching, farming, or transportation milestones exists in the study area, and should be explored. Along with this historic regionalism, the history of the river corridor and watershed provide a strong link to the area. The San Antonio River’s influence on historic settlement patterns throughout the basin over time promotes a sense of place and establishment of culture.

5.4 Water Access Areas and Trails

Water access areas are crossings of State and US Highways over the San Antonio River and its major tributaries. These areas provide visual and physical access to the water as canoe/kayak launch or picnic

Nature-Based Parks Master Plan Update

areas. From an educational standpoint, the river offers hydrological features, geological features, and other natural aspects to explore and study. Human use of the river through transportation, recreation, and water quality provide an opportunity to understand current and future issues related to the San Antonio River. One aspect of water access that is prevalent throughout the region is the need for paddling trails. Paddling trails can be accessed at water access areas, cultural centers, through local parks and other public land. These trails can provide local and regional connectivity, and can also spur private industry growth with the need for support services.

5.5 Railroad Corridors

Where possible, railroad corridors should be utilized to link cultural and historic points of interest. Trails along railroad corridors should be multi-use for pedestrians and cyclists. Equestrians can also be served along a separate side path within the corridor. Railroad corridors provide insight into man’s influence on the San Antonio River Basin. The history of transportation in the study area begins with routes established by Spanish explorers and eventually leads to the rail system development. Railroad corridors also explain the existence of many of the cultural centers found in the river basin. These rail lines provide the link to understanding the present situation of many of the communities.

5.6 Connectors

Connectors serve as on- and off-road connections between cultural centers and other resources. They may also serve as connections from one cultural center to another. Connectors create a variety of interpretive or educational opportunities by highlighting unique resources found in the region. Connectors can also provide linkages for facilities within a cultural center, thus addressing the needs of a particular community. Connectors should offer a hierarchy of opportunities to provide local and regional users the ability to experience single and multi-day experiences.

Nature-Based Parks Master Plan Update

6. Concept Plan

The Plan Update encourages a regional approach to creating a system-wide collection of resources; unifying natural, cultural, and recreational opportunities located within the study area, while keeping its focus on the San Antonio River and its tributaries. Multi-purpose projects and coordination are going to strengthen the needs of the individual communities by developing locally, but thinking regionally.

The following elements each play an important role in creating the regional system, while addressing the needs of the local users.

• Cultural Centers • Culture-based Opportunities • Resource Opportunities • Water Trail and Water Trail Access • Abandoned Rail Lines • On-Road Bicycle Trails • Trails

6.1 Cultural Centers

Cultural Centers are the cities and communities within the study area that provide services for residents, multi-day users and tourists. These centers contain natural and historical resources of significance. In addition to the cities and towns identified in the original plan, new cultural centers in northern Bexar County include Alamo Heights, Hill Country Village, Hollywood Park, Balcones Heights, Castle Hills, Live Oak, Kirby, Universal City, Converse, Windcrest, Terrell Hills, Olmos Park, Shavano Park, Leon Valley, Helotes and Grey Forest. Portions of San Antonio, Schertz, Selma and Fair Oaks Ranch are also within the limits of the Plan Update. Ample recreational, cultural and educational opportunities exist within the additional limits of the plan. These local projects will not only serve the community they reside in, but might act as the catalyst for future development connecting at a more regional level.

6.2 Culture-Based Opportunities

Culture-based opportunities include historic points of interest, but also communities or settlements in the river basin that provide historic or cultural opportunities. These communities may not currently serve the role of providing user services, but may be developed to support such services as future market conditions allow. Culture-based opportunities may provide stopping points along on-road bike routes and water trails, but may not necessarily have the ability to currently support long-term, heavy use. Culture-based opportunities

Nature-Based Parks Master Plan Update

throughout the study area are discussed in the original Plan in more detail, but several sites located along the San Antonio River in Bexar County have been added to this Plan Update. The Plan Update does not identify the specific location of the individual sites, but a map of Bexar County and a general description of each site have been provided in Appendix D, Figure 3.1.1.

6.3 Resource Opportunities

Resource opportunities are natural areas that are either established or being developed for public use; or resources that have been established by other governmental agencies independently of this study. These locations are generally public domain and may offer recreation, interpretive, or educational opportunities. They do not have to be associated with a town or community, but are within adequate distance of these population centers. These opportunities are often destinations themselves, but also act as links/connections to other places. These resources have been identified based on their proximity to cultural, natural, or historical amenities within the study area and can range from local city parks to nationally and internationally listed sites. Within the study area, the following are a few examples of major resource opportunities that provide users with amenities that can help link a regional system:

• Westside Creeks/Elmendorf Lake Park Improvements • Mitchell Lake Audubon Center • Land Heritage Institute • San Antonio River Mission Reach Improvements • Dewees – Remschel House • El Camino Real de Los Tejas • Presnall/ Watson Farmstead • Old Spanish Trail • Helton San Antonio River Nature Park • Conquista Crossing • Rancho de las Cabras • Escondido Creek Parkway • Goliad State Park & Historic Site • Coleto Creek

Nature-Based Parks Master Plan Update

6.4 Water Trails and Paddling Trail Access

The purpose of paddling trail access areas is to provide users with a connection to the San Antonio River, its tributaries, or area creeks and streams. These points are intended to serve the local communities, but also provide a regular pattern of access for multi-day users. Through the general guidelines established below, other opportunities should be identified and explored.

Canoeing, kayaking, and fishing were activities identified through the public input process as being an important community need through most of the study area. Generally, users surveyed indicated that they would appreciate a form of public access to the river rather than crossing private land. It is intended that water access occur in areas that provide the greatest amount of public access such as highway bridges or county road crossings. Part of the challenge in creating public access to the water is finding adequate areas that are relatively open and contain gradual slopes that would require less site grading. Bridge crossings generally provide these conditions. Possible access points as identified by users include US 87, State Highway 97, State Highway 123, State Highway 80, State Highway 72, State Highway 239, North Riverdale Lane, US 59, and Duke Bridge Road (FM 2506). Other entry points associated with existing facilities might include: Mitchell Lake Audubon Center, Land Heritage Institute, and Floresville’s River Park. Cultural and historic locations, such as in Falls City and Rancho de las Cabras, can also provide access points.

The locations provided as part of this Plan Update have not been studied in great detail. As specific projects are prioritized and funded, a more detailed feasibility study and site investigation will need to be conducted.

Refer to Section 10 for a more in-depth discussion related to paddling trails and river access.

6.5 Abandoned Rail Lines

The utilization of abandoned rail lines was reiterated throughout the public workshops and stakeholder discussions. As recorded in the original Plan, two separate abandoned rail lines are present within the study area. The first rail line runs from the northern edge of the study area in Bexar County to the southern edge of Karnes County, and the second rail line is identified as crossing Goliad County from near Berclair to south of Coleto Creek. Both of these lines converge in Beeville, south of the study area.

The main abandoned rail line through the study area begins approximately where Loop 410 and the San Antonio River intersect in southern Bexar County. From that point, the line proceeds through Elmendorf southward to Floresville, Poth, Falls City, Karnes City, Kenedy, and then turns south towards Beeville (located outside the study limits). The historical documentation of this rail line can be found in the Cultural Resources Analysis in the original Plan. As previously mentioned, the City of Floresville has turned the rail corridor into a multi-use trail for its citizens, but the opportunity to also make larger, regional connections exists. Generally, there is adequate room for different uses (hike, bike, equestrian), but each will need to be researched in greater detail for specific locations. Also, negotiations with rail companies can be a lengthy

Nature-Based Parks Master Plan Update

process, so implementation may not be immediate. The second rail line is located in Goliad County, and can be used to serve local users and regional users (or tourists) at the same time. The rail trail, combined with a possible bicycle loop system, gives users various options of length, difficulty, and interest.

6.6 On-Road Bicycle Trails

On-road bikeways provide a connection to destinations, especially where off-road trail corridors are not available. These on-road bicycle facilities can be utilized by both local residents and tourists to explore natural and cultural resources. On-road trails can also provide various single or multi-day trips. For instance, one potential bike route in Goliad starts downtown and loops west into the County, ultimately terminating downtown again. This single-day loop intersects multiple opportunities to expand into a longer, more regional route. These loops provide access to culture based resources, as well as multiple San Antonio River access points.

The suitability of specific segments of roadways has not been studied in detail. Further analysis of roadway conditions will be needed prior to determining whether specific routes are signed as Bicycle Tourism Trails or local bike routes. Roadways with low traffic volumes and speeds, together with adequate space for bicyclists to operate (wide outside lanes, bike lanes, or suitable shoulders) and good sight lines are all important factors in considering the suitability of specific roadway segments for encouraging bicycling.

6.7 Trails

As outlined in the original Plan, within the four-county area, there exists an opportunity for a network of trails to provide recreation, as well as access to the abundant natural and cultural resources. There are currently multi-use and nature trails in existence, including the new areas in northern Bexar County. Most trail networks are site-based, suitable for exercise, recreation, and nature interpretation. However, longer trail segments, such as the COSA Linear Creekways trails and Mission Reach in Bexar County, or the Old Town Lodi Trail in Floresville, are being created as future linkages to other ventures. Other trail improvements include the Escondido Creek Parkway in Karnes County and the Angel of Goliad in Goliad County. Key constraints to the development of local or regional trails include right-of-way availability, landowner attitudes, funding for construction and maintenance.

Nature-Based Parks Master Plan Update

7. Local Planning

Included as part of the plan Update are very conceptual cost estimates related to local parks planning, and opportunities discussed during stakeholder and public meetings. The cost information found in Section 8 is presented by county for the project needs listed or described in previous sections of the Update, and is provided to assist local jurisdictions in planning for facilities in their respective communities. These construction cost estimates are very general in nature and are intended to provide an order of magnitude assessment for future planning purposes. As individual projects are developed, more detailed conceptual designs and preliminary cost estimates will be needed for each facility. In addition to construction costs, those more detailed estimates should include costs related to: engineering and design; land acquisition; surveying; environmental assessment; permitting; and contingencies.

Nature-Based Parks Master Plan Update

8. Prioritization

8.1 General Priorities

The Plan, as outlined in 2006, gave general guidance for prioritized projects, but was mainly geared towards giving local communities the ability to establish their own priorities. It was intended as a “living document” that had the flexibility to change as old projects were completed and new projects were identified. Based on more public input, this Plan Update provides more specific ideas for the four-county study area, as well as for each county individually. In addition to the specific project recommendations, several broad-based ideas were discussed that apply to all portions of the study area.

Some of the broader concepts/policies include the following recommended actions:

• Increase public awareness and education. • Develop public outreach strategies to bring awareness to existing parks, trails, and natural areas within each community.

• Use technology to help educate users and non-users as to what is available to them. Technology can also be used to enhance the user experience by connecting them to, or guiding them through, a particular activity. • Increase education/ marketing/ promotion of and about each community park system. • Promote existing facilities to boost usage of parks, trails, and river access. • Reduce redundancy and duplication of effort by:

o Integrating services/amenities provided by different entities o Ensuring that all entities with overlapping initiatives are involved in the planning (e.g., San Antonio River Mission Reach)

o Creating integrated systems of infrastructure, open space, and public lands rather than an uncoordinated patchwork of parks, trails, linear greenways, etc.

o Building upon existing park resources, thereby leveraging past investments. For example, look for opportunities to expand existing parks and natural areas, rather than starting new developments unless there are overriding reasons to do so.

Nature-Based Parks Master Plan Update

Other priority activities include the following:

Increase Signage/Wayfinding: Provide comprehensive sign programs for interpretive, cultural, historical and way finding purposes. At a minimum, signage provides landmarks for orientation and access. Signage can also enhance the user experience by describing flora/fauna, historic facts, natural processes and stewardship opportunities. Signage should provide the user with useful information.

Provide/Develop Recreation Areas: Every county within the study area is experiencing population growth. In Karnes County and parts of Wilson and Goliad Counties, this growth is due to Eagle Ford Shale activity, and it is anticipated to continue for some time. Parks, open space and natural areas are important for economic development, tourism and for the quality of life of residents. Municipalities and recreation-related agencies are in the process of looking for ways to provide the quality of life facilities that residents need. As an example, paddling trails and play areas in local parks are resources that can fulfill user needs.

Establish and/or Enhance Maintenance Programs: As new facilities are developed, maintenance policies, programs and processes need to be put in place for sustainability and long-term usability. Maintenance programs can be developed regionally or project-by- project, but should be established and understood during the early planning stages. Regional entities such as SARA can provide a benefit to local parks and recreation agencies because of their experience in operating and maintaining widely separated facilities. For example, SARA is maintaining flood retarding dams in several of its district counties, and the SARA maintenance crews are experienced in land management techniques on open spaces.

Continue to Look for Linkages and Connectivity: A large part of the initial Plan focuses on connections and linkages between facilities and communities to provide a broader network of opportunities. During the input process, this concept was reinforced; with emphasis placed on connecting to the San Antonio River and other water-based resources.

Document Accomplishments: It is important to develop a means to track progress on the recommendations provided in the Plan, and to highlight those accomplishments. It is also vital for communities to share experiences and success stories.

Nature-Based Parks Master Plan Update

8.2 Specific Project Priorities

8.2.1 Bexar County

• Westside Creeks Ecosystem Restoration and Recreation Project: o Connect to Elmendorf Lake improvements o San Pedro Creek improvements o Connect Woodlawn Lake to Alazan Creek • Development of properties along the San Antonio and Medina Rivers: o Strauss/Medina Ranch, Catfish Farm, Truehart Ranch/Otillo Dam • Create ADA accessible linkages between parks and natural areas through hike, bike and paddling trails: o Medina River Greenway to Mission Reach o Mission Espada connection to Rancho De Las Cabras o Medina River Greenway to El Camino Real de las Tejas o Government Canyon through Helotes to Leon Creek o Leon Creek to Olmos Creek o Olmos Creek to Salado Creek o Beacon Hill to Martinez Creek Trail o Mitchell Lake Audubon Center to Medina River o Brooks City Base to San Antonio River Improvements o Hot Wells property • Land Bridge at Hardberger Park • Howard W. Peak Greenway Trails system: o Complete the trail system “loop” o Improve existing connections to creeks and add new connections to creeks o Develop neighborhood connections to greenways o Restore segments of creeks • Brackenridge Park improvements • Binz-Engleman dam site - park / trail development • Develop recreational opportunities in Balcones Heights • Provide interpretive signage and web based, interactive information • Develop natural areas along the Medina River: o Presnall-Watson Farmstead o Las Camino Naturales • Low Impact Development opportunities

Nature-Based Parks Master Plan Update

• Kayak/paddle boarding rental • Dog parks to coincide with development of San Antonio River Improvements

Total Estimated Construction Cost for Bexar County Priority List: $555,000,000

Please note that the conceptual estimate of probable construction cost shown above is in 2013 dollars and is intended for planning purposes only. This figure does not include additional implementation costs such as land acquisition, engineering and design fees, environmental assessments and permitting.

8.2.2 Wilson County

• Create ADA accessible linkages in between parks and natural areas through hike and bike trails and paddling trails: o Developing a hike and bike trail connecting Stockdale, Floresville and Poth o Paddling trails at Cibolo Creek with public access points, and along San Antonio River from Floresville to Falls City and Goliad, and Rancho de Las Cabras • Improve access to River at County Road 125 and include parking, restrooms, trail, meeting facility and operations yard • Develop a unified cultural wayfinding system to highlight historic areas, (e.g. brochure, signage at Camino Royale Remnant and the Community of Marcelino cemetery) • Extend Poth hiking trail approximately 2 miles; provide playground at end of trail • Establish community gardens • Expand existing city park in Poth with soccer fields, fishing pond, swimming pool, splash pad, skate park and restrooms • Construct needed restrooms at Stockdale City Park and Central Park • Connect parks with hike/bike trails • La Vernia City Park improvements – pavilion, small playground, water fountain, walking trail with lights, splash pad and parking lot • Cibolo Creek access from La Vernia • Renovate Veterans Park in Falls City • Complete Helton-San Antonio River Nature Park: o Restrooms o Camping o Nature trails o Education center

Nature-Based Parks Master Plan Update

o Roads o Sports fields o Pavilions with lighting • Develop La Vernia Nature Park • City of Stockdale trails to connect city parks and East/West sides of town • Wilson County list for Jackson Nature Park: o River access o Restrooms o Pavilion with lighting o Amphitheatre – utilize old gravel pit location o More trails

Total Estimated Construction Cost for Wilson County Priority List: $19,200,000

8.2.3 Karnes County

• Youth sports activity complex that includes: o Fields for soccer, baseball, softball, football o Batting and pitching cages o Multi-purpose fields • Create hiking trail on railroad right-of-way through Karnes City to connect to Kenedy and Falls City • Install new furniture and equipment for use by parks department staff for operations and maintenance • Design and build a Karnes County-wide park; nature and active recreational amenities and opportunities for families to gather, fish, swim and picnic along the river • Complete design and construction of Escondido Creek Parkway • Address Kenedy’s Joe Gulley Park needs including a new pavilion, drainage and better lighting on ball fields • Runge: o Dam reconstruction for Lake Paul o Restrooms at ball fields

Nature-Based Parks Master Plan Update

o Restrooms at the lake if rebuilt o River access • Karnes County: o Public swimming pool o Skate park o Disc golf o Possible trail along Cibolo Creek • Karnes City: o Install bridge between “A” and “B” Parks . “A” – Play areas . “B” – Pond / Nature Area o Complete amphitheater o Fishing pier o Nature trails at City Park o City Park entrance sign o Install flag poles at entrance to create gateway entrance o Improve safety of pavilion o Add BBQ facilities to pavilion o Expand volleyball courts and install bleachers • Link Panna Maria to the San Antonio River • River crossing/access at “Hargreaves Crossing” – near CR 123 southwest of Runge • Develop park and river access in Helena

Total Estimated Construction Cost for Karnes County Priority List: $24,000,000

8.2.4 Goliad County

• Create ADA accessible linkages in between parks and natural areas through hike and bike trails and paddling trails: o Mountain bike trails on old railroad right of way o Complete on-road bike trail network throughout Goliad County o Canoe launches at (in order of priority): 1) Charco, 2) Riverdale, 3) Duke Bridge, and 4) near southeastern County Line RV park and TX-239 access • Improve or add way finding for Branch River Park

Nature-Based Parks Master Plan Update

• Add equipment and use areas to existing parks and upgrading park amenities including: o Dog park o Bird viewing stations and towers o Baseball complex; 4 fields and amenities o Basketball courts o Splash pad at Fort Fun o Playgrounds • Create new and larger park with nature and active recreational amenities and opportunities in close proximity to the fairgrounds • Provide upgrades and improvements at Branch Park including: o Amphitheater and lights o Connect Angel of Goliad Hike and Bike Trail o Way finding signage o Adjacent land opportunities • New roof on the auditorium at the fairgrounds • Build a multi-purpose pavilion at fairgrounds: o Rodeo o Auctions o Events o Basketball courts o Restrooms

Total Estimated Construction Cost for Goliad County Priority List: $9,500,000

Nature-Based Parks Master Plan Update

9. Implementation Strategies

The Plan included a discussion of various implementation strategies and funding opportunities, many of which have been successfully used to increase nature-based opportunities within the SARA district. Appendix C of the Plan includes detailed information on various funding sources. The appendix includes a funding flow chart, opportunity list and glossary.

A few new funding sources and programs have been created and some funding sources have been reduced or eliminated since 2006. The focus of this section of the Plan Update will be on major funding sources, new strategies and changes, as well as recommendations and ideas produced during the public involvement meetings.

9.1 Cooperation, Partnerships and Multi-Purpose Projects

Following one of SARA’s Key Thrusts, the Plan and this Update encourage coordination, interlocal agreements among political subdivisions, and partnerships as important strategies for implementing projects. Such cooperation allows SARA and its partners to pool resources, reduce duplication of effort and utilize the unique capabilities of each participant. The study team also encourages the development of multi-purpose projects in order to maximize beneficiaries, diversify funding options, and spread operational responsibility. Multi-purpose facilities offer an array of quality of life, educational, resource management and cultural opportunities. It is important to seek out partners with complementary visions and goals. The more benefits the proposed project has to offer, the wider the public support and the greater the availability of possible funding.

Partnering with existing organizations -- public or private -- increases the perceived strength and viability of a project and creates a greater likelihood of winning the funds necessary for a project or series of projects. State, federal and private (foundations) funding agencies correctly understand that well- structured and administered partnerships provide a greater likelihood of successful and efficient project(s) construction and operation. In some instances, partnerships may receive funding from the planning stages through early operations, if the project has the support of multiple entities.

Other partnerships that may be beneficial include school districts, tourism-related organizations (migratory corridors, heritage sites, etc.), and health agencies. Often times, these partners have access to monies that are not considered a part of the typical funding mechanisms. For example the San Antonio Metropolitan Health District in Bexar County can provide access to Health and Human Services or HUD assistance. For school districts, encouraging the development of new schools near open space is an opportunity to link resources together, as discussed above. The best approach is to identify the need for a project, and then seek compatible beneficiaries and partners in the area.

Locally, in recent years there has been a significant increase in the network of “Friends of” parks, which host fundraisers and even assist with maintenance activities. Recent years have also seen the creation of

Nature-Based Parks Master Plan Update

foundations such as the San Antonio River Foundation. The mission of the San Antonio River Foundation is to promote educational, cultural, and scientific projects and activities that enhance the conservation, stewardship, restoration, preservation, and enjoyment of the land and water resources within the watershed. These organizations provide volunteer labor, networking opportunities and the ability to seek monetary contributions to help with the long-term viability of projects. Education of developers and private landowners (especially owners that impact the watershed) on tax advantages of conservation easements and need for protected riparian corridors can have positive, long-lasting effects.

Many foundations and endowment organizations have been successful in raising money to support parks and recreation projects and operations. High visibility projects provide an opportunity for donor’s names to be displayed in materials used during the development or the improvement of facilities. This strategy can ensure timely development and maintenance of specific high profile facilities, but can also be subject to varying tastes and preferences. Over time, more established programs see substantial revenue growth.

Public/private partnerships, particularly the emergence of energy (oil and gas) companies within the SARA district, provide a relationship opportunity benefiting both parties. Oil companies and their suppliers bring new jobs, but they also bring the requirement for housing, roads, infrastructure and the need for an increased quality of life for the employees and their families. This infusion of people and goods can directly and indirectly influence the short-term development of recreational opportunities. Regarding long-term opportunities, land once used for drilling pads, camps and supply yards might make for restoration and future park opportunities. In return for these partnerships, investing entities can receive naming rights, operate as concessionaires, or provide merchandising to support an activity.

Land dedication is another way to provide outdoor recreation amenities for communities and new developments. This is typically a direct dedication of land for parks or open space as a percentage of a new residential development. The percentage calculation can be done based on the number of residents or the number of dwelling units. In many communities developers may also pay a flat fee instead of dedicating land (a “Fee-in-Lieu-Of”). Developers can contribute fees instead of providing a land dedication, particularly in situations where the land dedication would not provide an adequately sized neighborhood park. Revenues from these fees can be placed in a fund dedicated to future purchases of parkland by the municipality.

Private partnerships may also take the form of program sponsorships, media sponsorships, event sponsorships, advertising, or public relations efforts. Partnerships in this realm can be explored at the local, state, regional, and even national level. This can be a source of revenue, or cost avoidance, depending upon the needs of the project and/or the needs of the private sector entity. Public/Private partnerships are best undertaken when there are high profile projects of interest to a corporate public relations, marketing or community affairs department. To use this approach it is important for the public entity to have a well- established sponsorship/partnership policy. In an effort to gain market share, the private sector has begun to realize the benefit of name recognition on outdoor recreation projects and the value of public sector

Nature-Based Parks Master Plan Update

resources. Public agencies must be careful, though, to not give away too much in an effort to simply attract the private sector. A long-term relationship with a fair return for both sides must underlie every partnership agreement crafted.

Within the SARA district there have been several success stories of partnerships between parks entities and Type B Economic Development Corporations. Within limitations, Type B sales taxes may be used for “quality of life” improvements, including land, buildings, equipment, facilities, targeted infrastructure and improvements for:

Public Sector Partnership Example

Cities working together can help reduce duplication of effort while building resources that have regional functions. For example, in the public open houses, it was mentioned that Karnes City and Kenedy in Karnes County have discovered that the terminus of an abandoned rail line developed into a multi-use trail in one community was in close proximity to the extension of a park and trail in the other. Building on this opportunity, those communities can begin to understand the regional possibilities and regional effects of their projects and be motivated to seek out other partners.

Multi-Purpose Project Example

An example of the type of cooperative, multi-purpose project envisioned by SARA is a watershed management project that includes trails and park facilities, environmental education opportunities and the purchase of conservation easements. Watershed planning processes typically include water quality, and hydrologic and hydraulic modeling. The modeling is performed to document areas with flooding problems and sources of potential pollutants. The modeling and follow up planning then identifies projects, mitigation measures, best management practices (BMPs) and other opportunities to solve or prevent the problems. Using a holistic planning approach often results in non-traditional multi-purpose projects and programs to address these issues. For example, conservation easements or the purchase of land for stream-side trails and parks can be used to protect riparian corridors and reduce the amount of pollutants entering the stream. Likewise, if detention ponds are proposed for flood mitigation, those ponds can often serve as areas for ballfields and other park facilities. Detention ponds near schools can also incorporate wetlands for water

Nature-Based Parks Master Plan Update

quality improvement and to serve as opportunities for environmental education programs. Trails can also be developed in concert with flood control structures.

9.2 Funding Sources

At least two river authorities (Trinity River Authority and Guadalupe-Blanco River Authority) have financed the design and construction of regional water-based parks using revenue bonds backed up by entrance and user fees at the facilities. This approach has been successful because the parks have generated enough revenue to pay both the debt service on the bonds and the O&M expenses. The revenue has been produced by entrance fees, and other charges such as campsite and cabin rentals, boat launch and parking fees, and group pavilion reservations.

9.2.1 Funding for Capital Improvements

Since the 1960’s matching grants have been a major form of funding assistance for outdoor recreation projects. In Texas, TPWD and the Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT) are two examples of public partners that make funding available through grants. TPWD has been the major source of matching grants for public entities over the last 40 years. TxDOT had been instrumental in assisting in the construction of boat ramps across the State, but that program has recently suffered for lack of resources. TxDOT does have other newer programs that are described below.

The TPWD Recreation Grants Branch administers the following six Local Park Grant Programs: (i) Outdoor Recreation (ii) Indoor Recreation; (iii) Urban Outdoor Recreation; (iv) Urban Indoor Recreation; (v) Small Community; and (vi) Regional. These grant programs assist local units of government with the acquisition and/or development of public recreation areas and facilities. The Programs provide 50% matching-fund, reimbursement grants.

Nature-Based Parks Master Plan Update

As of 2013 the maximum amount which may be granted under each Program is:

GRANT PROGRAM MAXIMUM MATCH AMOUNT Outdoor Recreation (communities <500,000 population) ...... $ 100,000.00 Indoor Recreation (communities <500,000 population) ...... suspended Urban Outdoor Recreation (communities >500,000 population) ...... $ 220,000.00 Urban Indoor Recreation (communities >500,000 population) ...... suspended Small Community (communities <20,000 population) ...... suspended 2013 Regional Outdoor Recreation ...... currently suspended

Eligible applicants include all political subdivisions of the State that are legally responsible for providing public recreation services. The eligible entities include cities, counties, river authorities, municipal utility districts, and other special districts. Questions regarding eligibility should be directed to TPWD at 512-389- 8224 or by email at [email protected].

The source of the TPWD grant money has typically included federal funds from the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF), supplemented by State funds. For example, in 2012 Texas received $2,302,679 for its federal apportionment through the LWCF. Of this amount, 40% was set aside for the Urban Outdoor Recreation grant program and 60% was set aside for the Outdoor Recreation program.

The 82nd Texas Legislature suspended State funding for the Texas Recreation and Parks Account (TRPA), and for the Large County & Municipality Recreation and Parks Account. Due to this suspension, the grant funds available from TPWD have been limited to the federal LWCF apportionment.

There are several sources that public entities can use to match the TPWD grant; however there are also restrictions on the matching funds. For example, lands already owned by the public agency cannot be used as a part of the non-federal matching share of a project unless such land is to be acquired by the sponsoring agency from another public entity. There is a statutory requirement that the selling agency be reimbursed for the value of the property. Also, property cannot be "donated" between the State and its political subdivisions to serve as a match for grant assistance. The only federal funds allowed as match include grants from the Community Development Block Grant and the National Recreational Trails Fund programs. Projects on leased land can only be funded by TPWD if the lessor: (i) is an eligible government entity; and (ii) dedicates the land as public parkland in perpetuity.

TxDOT administers the federal transportation program Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU) which currently has funding programmed through the 2014 fiscal year. SAFETEA-LU continues programs established under programs entitled ISTEA and TEA-21, its predecessors.

Nature-Based Parks Master Plan Update

SAFETEA-LU includes the Statewide Transportation Enhancement Program (STEP), Congestion Mitigation / Air Quality Improvement Program (CMAQ), the new Highway Safety Improvement Program, the new Safe Routes to School (SR2S) Program, and the Recreational Trails Program (RTP). While most trails funding programs are administered by TxDOT, the RTP is administered by TPWD. All funds are awarded through competitive reimbursement grants.

The local matches for different SAFETEA-LU programs vary. STEP projects and most other programs provide up to 80% of the project cost. Projects that are likely to be funded include those located near schools and those that attract tourists. SR2S is a new program established by SAFETEA-LU, the projects are 100% funded. For projects requiring a match, exactly what may be counted toward credit for the local match varies by program. SAFETEA-LU and TxDOT call for bicycle and pedestrian projects to be considered in conjunction with all new transportation project construction and reconstruction. Transportation plans and projects must also consider the need for pedestrian and bicyclist safety, and contiguous routes.

The Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) replaces the Safety Set-aside Program. The detailed definition of “highway safety improvement projects” includes improvements for pedestrian or bicyclist safety, construction of traffic calming features, and installation and maintenance of fluorescent yellow-green pedestrian / bicycle crossing warning signs.

The Alternative Transportation in Parks and Public Lands Program is available to promote alternative transportation, including non-motorized modes, in national parks and on other public lands. Funds can be spent to construct new recreational trails, improve or maintain existing trails, develop or improve trailheads or trailside facilities, install signage, purchase trail tools and acquire trail corridors or easements. There are limits on reimbursements from this program though the limits may be increased in the future. Federal guidelines allow RTP funded trails to receive up to an 80% funding match, and other federal agencies, such as the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) can bring the total federal share up to 95 percent. Allowable costs for the sponsor’s match can include appraised value of donated land or easements, service contracts, volunteer labor, materials, rental equipment or money.

As stated above, the traditional way that most cities and counties have financed the construction of facilities is by general obligation bond issues which are backed up by ad valorem taxes. Such bond issues require voter approval. Some entities have also used revenue bonds which require the pledge of revenues from the system being developed. Revenue bond issues typically do not require voter approval.

Since 2005 there has been a new avenue for development of outdoor recreation facilities using voter- approved bonds. Senate Bill 624 resulted in amended regulations in the Texas Administrative Code (30 TAC 293.41). The legislation and regulations provide new implementation strategies, funded by voter- approved taxes. Under these new regulations SARA and some other larger river authorities and water districts can issue bonds for the development of park and recreation facilities.

Nature-Based Parks Master Plan Update

SARA may issue bonds supported by ad valorem taxes to develop park and recreation facilities, if the bonds are authorized by the voters in the district. The regulations limit the types of facilities that SARA can develop, but the authorized facilities conform to SARA’s mission and its focus areas. For example, the authorized recreational facilities include parks and parkways, greenbelts and open spaces, and trails. Prior to the bond election, SARA must prepare and file a park plan that describes and illustrates with maps, plans and drawings the land, improvements, facilities and equipment that will be constructed or purchased with the bond proceeds. The plan must also include cost estimates. The plan must also document that the proposed facilities do not duplicate the planned activities of other entities such as city and county parks departments.

9.2.2 Funding for Operations and Maintenance

Most municipal and county park systems use general tax revenues for operations and maintenance (O&M) of facilities. SARA is also authorized to use ad valorem tax revenues for planning, operation and maintenance of park-related land, facilities and improvements.

Over the last 40 years, most parks departments have diversified their revenue sources for O&M purposes in order to improve the level of service and to provide more outdoor opportunities. Today it is very common for users to pay some type of fee for special facilities such as campsites, cabins, group picnic areas and pavilions. Where appropriate and feasible, entrance fees have become a major source of O&M revenue. Entrance fees are commonly used at state and federal parks, and historic sites. Entrance fees are sometimes collected on an honor basis using drop boxes, but they are most effective when the park is large enough to support the staff for an entrance station. At the entrance station both entrance and user fees can be collected.

One of the documented ancillary benefits of entrance stations is reduced expenses for vandalism repair and trash collection. Parks with entrance stations also tend to have fewer problems with crime and disruptive behavior. As stated above, many park systems now use foundations and endowment organizations to raise money for support of parks and recreation projects and operations. Support from these types of “Friends of” groups can be used to provide more diverse and special opportunities.

Nature-Based Parks Master Plan Update

10. Paddling Trails and River Access

One of the comments that the study team consistently heard at the stakeholder meetings and the public open houses is the need for more paddling trails and public access on the San Antonio River and its major tributaries. This interest mirrors research found in two recent reports. A 2011 report by the Recreational Boating and Fishing Foundation, and the Outdoor Foundation stated that about 21% of all boating participation in the United States is now by kayakers and canoeists. The 2012 Outdoor Recreation Participation report by the Outdoor Foundation stated that recreational kayaking in the U.S. increased 32% between 2009 and 2011.

The successful Goliad Paddling Trail, the SASPAMCO Paddling Trail, the recently opened section of the Mission Reach, and the access points SARA has already constructed on the upper San Antonio River serve as models for future development. However, the implementation of paddling trails and public river access has to be approached thoughtfully and with sufficient study and research in order to avoid potential conflicts with riparian landowners and others who sometimes have concerns about public use of the State’s water bodies. Within the San Antonio River Watershed, there are segments where SARA owns the bed and banks of the river. In other areas, the bed and banks are owned either by the State or by private landowners.

The serious development of paddling trails and the promotion of river access began in the late 1960’s and early 1970’s with a trails and scenic waterways feasibility study funded by the Texas Legislature. The study was conducted by TPWD. The study report (Pathways and Paddleways, TPWD, 1971) discussed the fact that the State’s 13,000 miles of waterways were largely inaccessible to the public and that none of these waterways were classified as wild and scenic. Since that time recreational use of Texas rivers and streams has increased significantly.

In 1978 Congress designated a segment of the Rio Grande in Texas as the Rio Grande Wild and Scenic River because of its “outstandingly remarkable” scenic, geologic, fish and wildlife, and recreational values. More recently a 311-mile segment of the Neches River in East Texas (from Lake Palestine to IH 10) has been proposed as a second Texas Wild and Scenic River. In addition to these federal designations, TPWD has designated 28 Inland Paddling Trails across the state, including two along the San Antonio River.

SARA has been instrumental in developing multiple paddling trails within its district. The King William, Eagleland and Mission Reach Paddling Trails have been developed in conjunction with the City of San Antonio Parks and Recreation Department. They are located within the urban area of San Antonio, offering easy public access. The 12-mile SASPAMCO Paddling Trail is located in southern Bexar County and northern Wilson County. It extends from SARA’s access point on Loop 1604 to the Helton San Antonio River Nature Park. The 6.6-mile Goliad Paddling Trail starts at Hwy 59 and ends at Goliad State Park. The SASPAMCO and Goliad trails have been designated as Texas Inland Paddling Trails.

Nature-Based Parks Master Plan Update

The San Antonio River and several of its tributaries have been described in publications as having exceptional value for canoeing and kayaking. TPWD identified three river reaches with particular potential. These three segments extend for almost the entire length of the River: (i) the 48-mile segment of the River from San Antonio to Floresville; (ii) the 36-mile segment from Floresville to Hobson; and (iii) the 152-mile segment from Hobson to the confluence with the Guadalupe River near Tivoli, Texas. There are no large rapids found on the San Antonio River. There are waterfalls located approximately three miles downstream of FM 791 (Skiles Falls), and approximately one mile upstream of Hwy 181, near Falls City. For the most part, the San Antonio River is free of dams and other man-made obstacles. Log jams are a continual problem on the lower river, and they can require a portage. In addition to the Medina River, 96-mile Cibolo Creek is a tributary identified as having canoeing and kayaking potential. Of particular interest are the segment from RM 1863 northeast of San Antonio to FM 2252 near Luxello, just north of IH 35, and the segment in Wilson County to Jackson Nature Park.

Since the 1970’s, riparian landowner concerns about trespassing, property damage and financial liability have largely been overcome. This is especially true in rural areas where river use is typically light, and most serious paddlers know how to respect private property. Although confrontations between paddlers and landowners still happen, the serious problems associated with heavy commercial use of the Guadalupe and Comal Rivers in New Braunfels and the San Marcos River in Hays County have typically not been experienced in other areas.

In October 2011 Scott McWilliams, who managed the Texas Nature Conservancy Del Rio office said in an issue of Texas Parks & Wildlife magazine: “We think private land ownership is the best-case scenario for landowners and the public to be on the same page as far as protecting the river. What I wish the public could get clear about is that the river they enjoy so much and find in such pristine condition would not be that way without the landowners protecting it. We advocate a reasonable balance between the need to protect and preserve the watershed and the desire of the public to utilize the river for recreation while respecting the property rights of the watershed landowners.”

As SARA implements more opportunities for recreationists to use the San Antonio River, it is important to maintain good relations with riparian landowners and to design access sites and trails in ways that protect private property. In those areas where paddling trails have been successfully implemented, the following techniques, approaches and ideas were used:

• Fully understanding and appreciating the concerns of riparian landowners

• Meeting early and often with landowners to answer questions and address concerns

• Providing accurate information on liability issues and insurance coverage so that landowners understand their protections

Nature-Based Parks Master Plan Update

• Developing effective local organizations to spearhead the effort

• Developing support from local political leaders

• Designing and promoting the paddling trail as a family experience by distinguishing that type of river use from the commercial activities on some other rivers

• Promoting the paddling trail as a resource for canoeists and kayakers, not tubers

• Prohibiting swimming in the area of the paddling trail

• Keeping the area as primitive as possible, while still providing safe access and sanitary conditions

• Promoting trash and debris cleanup as part of the paddling experience

• Organizing trash and debris cleanup events to help landowners

46 Appendix A

2006 Plan for Nature-Based Park Resources

Appendix B

Intercept Survey Results

Nature-Based Parks

Master Plan Update

APPENDIX B

Intercept Survey Results

The following pages are the result of specific questions asked of residents located in northern Bexar County only. As described in the introduction, this portion of Bexar County was not included in the original Plan. In addition to general questions such as residence zip code, etc., respondents were asked more than 20 questions related to parks, trails, rivers and open space, and how they use those resources. These questions and responses are shown in this Appendix.

In order to objectively compare answers between the original Plan and this Update, no alterations were made to the wording or how the questions were presented.

San Antonio River Basin Plan for Nature-Based Park Resources San Antonio River Basin Plan for Nature-Based Resources

Q10 In general, how would you rate the importance of public parks and open space in your county?

Answered: 40 Skipped: 0

Very important 72.50%

Somewhat important 27.50%

Neither important nor unimportant

Not important at all

Don't know

N/A

Other (please specify)

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

1 / 23 San Antonio River Basin Plan for Nature-Based Park Resources San Antonio River Basin Plan for Nature-Based Resources Q11 In general, how often do you visit regional public parks in your area? (such as: Goliad State Park, San Antonio Missions National Park, Sequin Outdoor Learning Center, Braunig Park, Calaveras Park, etc.)

Answered: 40 Skipped: 0

Once or twice per year 42.50%

Once or twice per month 37.50%

Once or twice per week 2.50%

Don't visit 10%

Don’t know 2.50%

Other (please specify) 5%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

2 / 23 San Antonio River Basin Plan for Nature-Based Park Resources San Antonio River Basin Plan for Nature-Based Resources

Q12 In general, how often do you visit your neighborhood or community public parks and/or open space?

Answered: 40 Skipped: 0

Once or twice per year 10%

Once or twice per month 57.50%

Once or twice per week 22.50%

Don't visit 7.50%

Other (please specify) 2.50%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

3 / 23 San Antonio River Basin Plan for Nature-Based Park Resources San Antonio River Basin Plan for Nature-Based Resources Q13 If you use public parks and open space, what are your three favorite activities?

Answered: 37 Skipped: 3

BMX bicycling 10.81%

Camping 24.32%

Canoeing/kaya king 13.51%

Children's play 56.76% areas/play...

Cycling 43.24%

Dog exercise/trai 18.92% ning

Dog off-leash play 13.51%

Equestrian activities 2.70%

Fishing/hunti ng 24.32%

Education - history 8.11%

Education - wildlife 10.81% viewing/na...

Hiking 54.05%

Picnicking 27.03%

Public Events/sports 16.22% , cultural... Relaxing/peop le 13.51% watching/q...

Visiting gardens 5.41%

Swimming 8.11%

Walking, running, 56.76% jogging Field sports (soccer, 27.03% football,... Court sports (volleyball, 10.81% tennis, etc.)

Senior/Adult activities

Teen activities 5.41% 4 / 23 Teen SanSan Antonio River Basin Plan for Nature-Based Park Resources Antonio River Basin Plan for Nature-Based Resources activities 5.41%

Don't know/don't visit

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

5 / 23 San Antonio River Basin Plan for Nature-Based Park Resources San Antonio River Basin Plan for Nature-Based Resources Q14 How long does it usually take to get to the neighborhood or community public park nearest your home?

Answered: 37 Skipped: 3

Under 15 minutes 86.49%

15 to 30 minutes 13.51%

30 to 60 minutes (one hour)

More than one hour

Don't know

Other (please specify)

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

6 / 23 San Antonio River Basin Plan for Nature-Based Park Resources San Antonio River Basin Plan for Nature-Based Resources Q15 When thinking about planning for activities within public parks, open space and trails in your area, what should be park planners' top three guiding interests?

Answered: 40 Skipped: 0

Environmental 62.50%

Economic 17.50%

Social 25%

Historical 20%

Recreational 95%

Aesthetic (beauty) 50%

Educational 12.50%

Don't know 2.50%

Other (please specify) 2.50%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

7 / 23 San Antonio River Basin Plan for Nature-Based Park Resources San Antonio River Basin Plan for Nature-Based Resources Q16 In general, how would you rate the importance of public trails in your area?

Answered: 40 Skipped: 0

Very important 67.50%

Somewhat important 30%

Neither important nor 2.50% unimportant

Not important at all

Other (specify)

Don't know

Other (please specify)

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

8 / 23 San Antonio River Basin Plan for Nature-Based Park Resources San Antonio River Basin Plan for Nature-Based Resources

Q17 In general, how often do you use public trails in your area?

Answered: 40 Skipped: 0

Once or twice per year 25%

Once or twice per month 40%

Once or twice per week 22.50%

Don't visit 7.50%

Don't know

Other (please specify) 5%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

9 / 23 San Antonio River Basin Plan for Nature-Based Park Resources San Antonio River Basin Plan for Nature-Based Resources Q18 If you do use public trails, what are your three favorite activities?

Answered: 37 Skipped: 3

BMX bicycling 13.51%

Canoeing/kaya king 5.41%

Cycling 56.76%

Dog exercise/trai 35.14% ning

Education - history 2.70%

Education - wildlife 18.92% viewing/na...

Equestrian activities

Fishing 10.81%

Hiking 62.16%

In-line skating, 2.70% in-line...

Picnicking 16.22%

Public Events/sports 8.11% , cultural... Relaxing/peop le 16.22% watching/q... Walking, running, 81.08% jogging

Commuting/run ning errands 2.70%

Don't know

Other (please specify)

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

10 / 23 San Antonio River Basin Plan for Nature-Based Park Resources San Antonio River Basin Plan for Nature-Based Resources Q19 How long does it usually take to get the public trail nearest your home?

Answered: 37 Skipped: 3

Under 15 minutes 72.97%

15 to 30 minutes 24.32%

30 to 60 minutes (one 2.70% hour)

More than one hour

Don't know

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

11 / 23 San Antonio River Basin Plan for Nature-Based Park Resources San Antonio River Basin Plan for Nature-Based Resources Q20 In general, do you consider the public parks, trails, and open space facilities that you visit to be in what condition?

Answered: 37 Skipped: 3

Excellent (need no 21.62% improvements) Good (need some 70.27% improvements) Fair (need many 8.11% improvements) Poor (need complete redevelopm...

Don't know

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

12 / 23 San Antonio River Basin Plan for Nature-Based Park Resources San Antonio River Basin Plan for Nature-Based Resources Q21 In general, how often do you use streams or rivers in your area for recreation?

Answered: 40 Skipped: 0

Once or twice per year 62.50%

Once or twice per month 10%

Once or twice per week

Don't visit 20%

Don't know 2.50%

Other (please specify) 5%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

13 / 23 San Antonio River Basin Plan for Nature-Based Park Resources San Antonio River Basin Plan for Nature-Based Resources

Q22 If you do use streams or rivers in your area for recreation, what are your three favorite activities?

Answered: 32 Skipped: 8

Canoeing/kaya king/boating 62.50%

Dog exercise/play 25%

Fishing 43.75%

Education - history 3.13%

Education - wildlife 12.50% viewing/na...

Picnicking 31.25%

Public events 3.13%

Relaxing/peop le 28.13% watching/q...

Swimming/tubi ng 71.88%

Don't know 6.25%

Other (please specify) 3.13%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

14 / 23 San Antonio River Basin Plan for Nature-Based Park Resources San Antonio River Basin Plan for Nature-Based Resources Q23 How do you get to the stream or river?

Answered: 32 Skipped: 8

Through a park 46.88%

Through private 15.63% property w... Through private property... Through another 31.25% public acc...

Don't know 3.13%

Other (please specify) 3.13%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

15 / 23 San Antonio River Basin Plan for Nature-Based Park Resources San Antonio River Basin Plan for Nature-Based Resources

Q24 Streams and rivers are public property in Texas. Do you believe that there should be public access to the rivers and streams in your area?

Answered: 40 Skipped: 0

There should be unlimited 17.50% public access There should be public 65% access onl... There should be public 12.50% access in... Access should stay the way 5% it is

Don't know

Other (please specify)

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

16 / 23 San Antonio River Basin Plan for Nature-Based Park Resources San Antonio River Basin Plan for Nature-Based Resources Q25 Would you visit a natural area (nature-based, informal, undeveloped, passive) public parks, trails or open spaces, if they were available?

Answered: 40 Skipped: 0

Yes 70%

Maybe 25%

No 2.50%

Don't know

N/A

Other (please specify) 2.50%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

17 / 23 San Antonio River Basin Plan for Nature-Based Park Resources San Antonio River Basin Plan for Nature-Based Resources Q26 In general, if facilities were available, which three activities would you participate in most frequently?

Answered: 40 Skipped: 0

18 / 23 San Antonio River Basin Plan for Nature-Based Park ResourcesSan Antonio River Basin Plan for Nature-Based Resources

Boating - motorized 17.50%

Boating - non-motorized 10% canoeing/k...

Camping 30%

Community gardens 5%

Children's play 40% areas/play... Equestrian activities 2.50% (at a center) Equestrian activities - 5% riding hor...

Fishing/hunti ng 35%

Relaxing/peop le 12.50% watching/q... Education: wildlife or 10% habitat... Education: historic or cultural... Education: nature park 5% (interpret...

Biking on trails 37.50%

Hiking on trails 47.50%

Fitness trails for 30% running or...

Walking paths 25%

Pool swimming/aqua 2.50% tics... Lake/river/st ream 27.50% swimming/t...

Don’t know

Other (please specify)

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

19 / 23 San Antonio River Basin Plan for Nature-Based Park Resources San Antonio River Basin Plan for Nature-Based Resources Q27 In general, what are the three most important problems to solve in order to make the parks, trails and open space experience in your community more pleasant? There needs to be an improvement in:

Answered: 40 Skipped: 0

20 / 23 San Antonio River Basin Plan for Nature-Based Park ResourcesSan Antonio River Basin Plan for Nature-Based Resources

Amount of parks and 45% open space

Amount of trails 40%

Access to open space 22.50% and trails

Availability of restrooms 20%

Beautificatio n 7.50%

Cleanliness 37.50%

Quality of the water 7.50%

Comforts - water, 15% benches,...

Location of parks/trails 32.50%

Maintenance - weed control, 12.50% repairs,... Environmental education/int erpretive... Activities (swim 2.50% classes,... Nuisance management - 15% noise,... Trail conflicts 2.50% among cycl... Trail surfaces, 5% need...

Location of parks 7.50%

Safety - crime 27.50% (vandalism...

Safety - flood control 2.50%

Don't know

Other (please specify) 7.50%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

21 / 23 San Antonio River Basin Plan for Nature-Based Park Resources San Antonio River Basin Plan for Nature-Based Resources Q28 How would you be willing to pay for new nature based parks, trails, and related facilities?

Answered: 40 Skipped: 0

Sales Tax 47.50%

Property Tax 12.50%

User fees for park entry 12.50%

User fees for trail use

Permit fees for park 17.50% features...

Other (please specify) 10%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

22 / 23 San Antonio River Basin Plan for Nature-Based Park Resources San Antonio River Basin Plan for Nature-Based Resources Q29 Any further comments?

Answered: 3 Skipped: 37

# Responses Date

1 Concerning question 28 - please do not put this all on home owners, but I also believe non-state or national 1/9/2013 7:15 AM parks should be open to the public free of charge

2 I would love to have more parks! 1/8/2013 4:38 PM

3 Would be nice to have more open water areas for both canoe and swimming in natural like areas. 1/8/2013 12:36 PM

23 / 23 Appendix C

Study Area Demographic Information

Nature-Based Parks

Master Plan Update

APPENDIX C

Study Area Demographic Information

Table 1 (shown at the end of this appendix) provides demographic information on the four-county study area derived from the 2010 Census.

During one of the early RPCC meetings, Council members asked the study team to also include a population projection for each county. Table 2 provides the population projections from the Texas State Data Center. While these projections are probably reasonably accurate for Bexar County because of the magnitude of the population, they may significantly underestimate the future impact on Wilson, Karnes and Goliad Counties because of the Eagle Ford shale oil and gas activities.

The Eagle Ford geologic formation covers a major part of rural South Texas. The 50-mile wide by 400- mile long formation runs from the southern portion of Texas to the east, covering 20 counties. The Eagle Ford produces natural gas, condensate, oil, and natural gas liquids at higher levels than other shale plays. In 2011, the 20-county region generated over $25 billion in revenue for South Texas. With this economic boom in the region come changes in the demographic profile. Goliad, Wilson, and Karnes counties are all within the Eagle Ford Shale Play, and Bexar County benefits from the increased need for support services to oil and gas workers and businesses.

Karnes County is in a prolific area of Eagle Ford where wells produce high amounts of condensate, oil and wet gas. The county has a high prospective for shale oil, shale gas, and the gas-condensate and liquids rich window of the formation. Although not new to the oil and gas industry due to previous production of gas from the Edwards Reef formation, the Eagle Ford drilling has brought development levels not seen before to this county.

Wilson County also benefits economically from the Eagle Ford Shale activity, falling within the liquids rich oil window. Deeper portions of the county are more prospective as the formation is thicker in these areas. Previous production in this county exploited the Austin Chalk and conventional formations, but recent activity has shifted to the higher yielding Eagle Ford Shale Play.

Goliad County currently produces mostly dry gas and is one of the smallest producers of product compared to large volumes coming from other Eagle Ford wells. Currently, Eagle Ford drilling targets the wet gas window further to the north in Karnes and Wilson counties. Dry gas drilling will likely increase in Goliad County when natural gas prices increase.

Bexar County, although not located in the play, has the capacity to provide comprehensive support services located in close proximity to the oil and gas production areas. Support services include groceries, restaurants, government facilities, and public utilities like solid waste services and water supply. Because of this, there is a strong likelihood that some population impacts may be felt.

A study performed by the Center for Community and Business Research at the University of Texas-San Antonio (UTSA) Institute for Economic Development (http://ccbr.iedtexas.org/) attributed 47,097 full time

Page 1 of 8 Nature-Based Parks

Master Plan Update

jobs to the Eagle Ford Shale Play in 2011 and projects 116,792 full time jobs will be attributable to Eagle Ford by the year 2021. The Center also projects that 25,104 new oil and gas wells will be built between 2012 and 2021. As the workforce increases in these areas, the demographic profile in SARA’s rural counties will likely shift. Population of both transient and permanent workers and their households will rise with migration. Occupancy rates will change, with the majority being renter occupied and occupancy rates reaching at or near 100%. Median incomes will also shift higher as this work is performed by skilled and trained workers, and the make-up of the labor force changes.

The UTSA study looked at six counties to the west of the SARA district and assessed demographic data between 2010 and 2011, as well as comparable shale development in other communities such as Bakken, North Dakota and Central Oregon. The purpose of the study was to develop population projections that might be similar to those Karnes, Goliad, and Wilson counties will experience. The analysis projected a 24% increase in the population of the Eagle Ford region over the next 15 years. Using the UTSA estimates results in significantly higher population projections than those shown in Table 2.

The UTSA study took into account typical population projection criteria such as aging, birth, mortality, and fertility and augmented it with an adjusted migration rate for the increased industrial growth. It also projected that ages 0-44 will make up a larger percentage of the growing population, thus increasing the need for public services such as school classroom capacity, groceries, restaurants; the need for infrastructure improvements and development such as roadways, horizontal and vertical water and wastewater services; and increased capacity for public utilities such as cell phone service and solid waste services. These impacts will also undoubtedly increase the demand and need for recreation facilities and natural areas.

Page 2 of 8 Nature-Based Parks

Master Plan Update

Table 1: Four County Study Area Demographic Information from 2010 Census

Bexar Goliad Karnes Wilson Demographic County County County County TOTAL POPULATION 1,714,773 7,210 14,824 42,918 UNDER 5 130,087 385 834 2,641 5-9 130,307 442 800 3,138 10-14 128,117 472 823 3,457 15-19 132,660 528 878 3,185 20-24 133,455 273 1,160 1,973 25-29 133,038 301 1,280 2,095 30-34 120,229 299 1,176 2,225 35-39 118,070 387 1,031 2,775 40-44 112,684 453 971 3,142 45-49 118,502 537 1,144 3,689 50-54 108,614 591 1,006 3,427 55-59 93,957 615 914 3,073 60-64 79,170 555 739 2,686 65-69 55,481 440 522 1,823 70-74 40,760 332 497 1,271 75-79 32,770 243 441 967 80-84 24,468 187 333 688 85 PLUS 22,404 170 275 663 MALE 840,840 3,596 8,842 21,372 UNDER 5 66,465 206 419 1,331 5-9 66,009 237 405 1,630 10-14 65,432 251 430 1,769 15-19 68,794 273 490 1,676 20-24 68,289 141 829 1,018 25-29 66,669 137 979 1,020 30-34 59,845 147 867 1,050 35-39 57,702 187 723 1,354 40-44 55,543 227 627 1,554 45-49 58,035 253 738 1,822 50-54 52,604 300 558 1,692 55-59 43,982 297 464 1,464 60-64 36,934 287 388 1,375 65-69 25,639 212 265 947 70-74 17,989 171 234 637 75-79 14,113 112 185 470 80-84 9,297 95 144 318 85 PLUS 7,499 63 97 245

Page 3 of 8 Nature-Based Parks

Master Plan Update

Bexar Goliad Karnes Wilson Demographic County County County County FEMALE 873,933 3,614 5,982 21,546 UNDER 5 63,622 179 415 1,310 5-9 64,298 205 395 1,508 10-14 62,685 221 393 1,688 15-19 63,866 255 388 1,509 20-24 65,166 132 331 955 25-29 66,369 164 301 1,075 30-34 60,384 152 309 1,175 35-39 60,368 200 308 1,421 40-44 57,141 226 344 1,588 45-49 60,467 284 406 1,867 50-54 56,010 291 448 1,735 55-59 49,975 318 450 1,609 60-64 42,236 268 351 1,311 65-69 29,842 228 257 876 70-74 22,771 161 263 634 75-79 18,657 131 256 497 80-84 15,171 92 189 370 85 PLUS 14,905 107 178 418 MEDIAN AGE BOTH SEXES 33 46 37 40 MEDIAN AGE MALE 32 45 35 39 MEDIAN AGE FEMALE 34 46 42 40 SEX POPULATION 16 YRS AND OLDER 1,300,647 5,792 12,199 32,999 MALE SEX POPULATION 16 YRS AND OLDER 629,789 2,846 7,499 16,288 FEMALE SEX POPULATION 16 YRS AND OLDER 670,858 2,946 4,700 16,711 SEX POPULATION 18 YRS AND OLDER 1,249,487 5,562 11,862 31,584 SEX POPULATION 18 YRS AND OLDER MALE 603,575 2,731 7,324 15,557 SEX POPULATION 18 YRS AND OLDER FEMALE 645,912 2,831 4,538 16,027 SEX POPULATION 21 AND OVER 1,166,671 5,318 11,285 30,056 SEX POPULATION 21 AND OVER MALE 560,185 2,592 6,963 14,712 SEX POPULATION 21 AND OVER FEMALE 606,486 2,726 4,322 15,344 SEX POPULATION 62 YRS AND OLDER 220,887 1,694 2,514 6,925 SEX POPULATION 62 YRS AND OLDER MALE 95,463 813 1,151 3,395 SEX POPULATION 62 YRS AND OLDER FEMALE 125,424 881 1,363 3,530 SEX POPULATION 65 YRS AND OLDER 175,883 1,372 2,068 5,412 SEX POPULATION 65 YRS AND OLDER MALE 74,537 653 925 2,617 SEX POPULATION 65 YRS AND OLDER FEMALE 101,346 719 1,143 2,795

Page 4 of 8 Nature-Based Parks

Master Plan Update

Bexar Goliad Karnes Wilson Demographic County County County County TOTAL POPULATION RACE 1,714,773 7,210 14,824 42,918 POPULATION OF ONE RACE 1,655,097 7,040 14,624 41,999 WHITE 1,250,252 6,035 10,408 38,231 BLACK/AFRAMER 128,892 343 1,377 701 AMERIND/ALASKANATIVE 14,475 50 71 281 ASIAN 41,739 15 32 163 ASIAN INDIAN 10,097 7 9 19 CHINESE 5,491 0 0 33 FILIPINO 9,308 1 9 54 JAPANESE 1,917 1 1 13 KOREAN 3,843 1 1 14 VIETNAMESE 4,847 4 5 10 OTHER ASIAN 6,236 1 7 20 NATIVE HAWAIIAN/PACIFIC ISLANDER 2,350 2 2 9 NATIVE HAWAIIAN 721 2 0 1 GUAMARANIAN/CHAMORRO 913 0 2 0 SAMOAN 304 0 0 2 OTHER PACIFIC ISLANDER 412 0 0 6 SOME OTHER RACE 217,389 595 2,734 2,614 POPULATION OF 2 OR MORE RACES 59,676 170 200 919 WHITE; AMERICAN INDIAN AND ALASKA NATIVE 6,209 26 12 237 WHITE; ASIAN 8,699 12 7 105 WHITE; BLACK/AFRAMERICAN 8,427 24 32 101 WHITE; SOME OTHER RACE 22,147 79 119 370 WHITE ALONE OR IN COMBINATION WITH ONE OR MORE OTHER RACES 1,299,823 6,176 10,582 39,098 BLACK ALONE OR IN COMBINATION WITH ONE OR MORE OTHER RACES 145,063 385 1,422 840 AMERICAN INDIAN ALONE OR IN COMBO WITH ONE OR MORE RACES 25,480 87 89 574 ASIAN ALONE OR IN COMBO WITH ONE OR MORE RACES 56,146 31 50 295 NATIVE HAWAIIAN/PACIFIC ISLANDER ALONE OR WITH COMBO OTHER RACES 5,015 3 7 33 SOME OTHER RACE ALONE OR IN COMBO 247,204 698 2,878 3,044 TOTALPOPULATION 1,714,773 7,210 14,824 42,918 HISPANIC/LATINO ANY RACE 1,006,958 2,462 7,376 16,412 MEXICAN 843,619 2,187 5,000 13,976 PUERTO RICAN 18,829 0 10 165 CUBAN 3,301 2 11 32

Page 5 of 8 Nature-Based Parks

Master Plan Update

Bexar Goliad Karnes Wilson Demographic County County County County

OTHER HISPANIC/LATINO 141,209 273 2,355 2,239 NOT HISPANIC OR LATINO 707,815 4,748 7,448 26,506 TOTAL POULATION 1,714,773 7,210 14,824 42,918 HISPANIC OR LATINO 1,006,958 2,462 7,376 16,412 WHITE ALONE 731,129 1,698 4,452 13,045 BLACK ALONE 10,432 33 26 57 AMER INDIAN ALONE 10,666 21 34 156 ASIAN ALONE 2,178 4 7 20 NATIVE HAWAIIAN ALONE 544 2 0 0 SOME OTHER RACE ALONE 214,508 589 2,716 2,589 TWO OR MORE RACES 37,501 115 141 545 NOT HISPANIC OR LATINO 707,815 4,748 7,448 26,506 WHITE ALONE 519,123 4,337 5,956 25,186 BLACK ALONE 118,460 310 1,351 644 AMER INDIAN ALONE 3,809 29 37 125 ASIAN ALONE 39,561 11 25 143 NATIVE HAWAIIAN ALONE 1,806 0 2 9 SOME OTHER RACE ALONE 2,881 6 18 25 TWO OR MORE RACES 22,175 55 59 374 TOTAL POPULATION 1,714,773 7,210 14,824 42,918 IN HOUSEHOLDS 1,672,772 7,117 11,488 42,367 HOUSEHOLDER 608,931 2,868 4,463 15,009 SPOUSE 280,683 1,623 2,225 9,631 CHILD 544,939 1,946 3,525 13,465 OWN CHILD UNDER 18 YRS 392,365 1,376 2,484 9,829 OTHER RELATIVES 145,923 426 851 2,791 UNDER 18 YRS 64,528 227 452 1,310 65+ OTHER RELATIVES 16,273 59 83 397 NONRELATIVES TOTAL 92,296 254 424 1,471 NONRELATIVES UNDER 18 6,732 33 22 191 NONRELATIVES OVER 65 3,385 22 25 86 NONRELATIVE UNMARRIED PARTNER 42,201 139 293 805 IN GROUP QUARTERS 42,001 93 3,336 551 INSTITUTIONALIZED POPULATION 15,632 88 3,331 549 MALE INSTITUTION 10,031 40 3,218 303 FEMALE INSTITUTION 5,601 48 113 246 NONINSTITUTIONALIZED POPULATION 26,369 5 5 2 MALE NONINSTITUTIONALIZED 16,996 1 0 2 FEMALE NONINSTITUTIONALIZED 9,373 4 5 0

Page 6 of 8 Nature-Based Parks

Master Plan Update

Bexar Goliad Karnes Wilson Demographic County County County County TOTAL HOUSEHOLDS 608,931 2,868 4,463 15,009 FAMILY HOUSEHOLDS 416,356 2,061 3,109 11,865 FAMILIES WITH CHILDREN UNDER 18 203,499 717 1,254 5,177 HUSBAND WIFE FAMILY 280,683 1,623 2,225 9,631 HUSBAND WIFE WITH CHILDREN UNDER 18 130,819 501 794 3,999 MALE HOUSEHOLDER, NO WIFE 34,658 123 245 740 MALE HOUSEHOLDER, NO WIFE, CHILDREN UNDER 18 16,248 51 129 388 FEMALE HOUSHOLDER, NO HUSBAND 101,015 315 639 1,494 FEMALE HOUSEHOLDER, NO HUSBAND, WITH CHILDREN UNDER 18 56,432 165 331 790 NONFAMILY HOUSEHOLDS 192,575 807 1,354 3,144 NONFAMILY HOUSHOLDER LIVING ALONE 154,009 711 1,211 2,615 NONFAMLIY HOUSEHOLDER ALONE MALE 71,709 359 574 1,298 NONFAMILY HOUSEHOLDER ALONE MALE OVER 65 12,689 143 199 377 NONFAMILY HOUSEHOLDER ALONE FEMALE 82,300 352 637 1,317 NONFAMILY HOUSEHOLDER ALONE FEMALE OVER 65 29,806 211 374 652 HOUSEHOLDS WITH INDIVID UNDER 18 234,943 833 1,466 5,876 HOUSEHOLDS WITH INDIVID 65 YRS PLUS 128,604 977 1,435 3,646 AVERAGE HOUSEHOLD SIZE 3.00 2.00 3.00 3.00 AVERAGE FAMILY SIZE 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 TOTAL HOUSING 662,872 3,710 5,650 16,766 TOTAL HOUSING OCCUPIED 608,931 2,868 4,463 15,009 TOTAL HOUSING VACANT 53,941 842 1,187 1,757 VACANT HOUSING RENT 25,551 45 125 179 VACANT HOUSING RENTED, NOT OCCUPIED 1,058 2 9 8 VACANT HOUSING FOR SALE 7,235 11 49 240 VACANT SOLD, NOT OCCUPIED 1,537 19 52 63 VACANT- SEASONAL RECREATIONAL USE 4,553 463 423 496 ALL OTHER VACANTS 14,007 302 529 771 HOMEOWNER VACANCY RATE 1.90% 0.50% 1.50% 1.90% RENTAL VACANCY RATE 9.60% 7.30% 8.90% 6.80% TOTAL OCCUPIED HOUSING UNITS 608,931 2,868 4,463 15,009 OWNER OCCUPIED 368,638 2,295 3,191 12,566 RENTER OCCUPIED 240,293 573 1,272 2,443 POPULATION IN OCCUPIED HOUSING - OWNER 1,068,405 5,687 8,274 35,577 POPULATION IN OCCUPIED HOUSING - RENTER 604,367 1,430 3,214 6,790

AVG HOUSEHOLD SIZE OCCUPIED HOUSING OWNER 2.90 2.48 2.59 2.83

AVG HOUSEHOLD SIZE OCCUPIED HOUSING RENTER 2.52 2.50 2.53 2.78

Page 7 of 8 Nature-Based Parks

Master Plan Update

Table 2: Population Projections

Year Bexar County Goliad County Karnes County Wilson County 2015 1,755,755 8,015 17,449 53,139 2020 1,870,589 8,248 17,864 61,253 2025 1,978,613 8,420 18,060 69,490 2030 2,078,549 8,539 18,040 77,534 2035 2,170,654 8,642 17,755 85,176 2040 2,253,060 8,651 17,214 92,372 Source: Age, Sex, and Race/Ethnicity Population Projections by Migration Scenario for Texas Counties and Regions - 2000 to 2007 Migration Rate Migration Scenario, Texas State Data Center

Page 8 of 8 Appendix D

Maps

FM 2672FM

FM 306 FM 1101 FM 2762 Bulverde FM 86 FM 2238 FM 671 Kendall FM 3353 FM 154 Fair Oaks Ranch FM 1339 nm FM 1863 FM 609 183 FM 1115 80 ¤£ FM 1386 UV FM 1322 New Braunfels FM 3009 Comal Waelder Flatonia FM 3351 FM 725 FM 2623 FM 20

FM2696 Luling Bandera 337 ¤£90 304 nm UV FM 1104 UV FM2814 FIGURE 2.1

nm FM 1680 FM 37 nm nm 10 FM1295 16 FM 2438 ¦¨§ Garden Ridge FM 1150 UV nm FM 1044 FM 11 Grey Forest Hollywood Park Seguin UV97 FM 957 CIVIC FEATURES nm FM 532 nm nm nm nmnmnmnm Shavano Parknm nm Selma Cibolo FM 794 Moulton nm FM 2091 211 nm nm nm nm nm nm FM 78 Marion FM 532 nm FM 465 FM 1283 UV Helotes Guadalupe nm nmnm nmHill Countrynm nm Village nm nm nmSchertz nm Live Oaknm FM 340 nm nm nmnmnm nm FM 725 nm FM 795 nm nm nm nm nm FM 1518 FM 1560 nm nm nm nm FM 2252 FM 471 nm FM 1517 nmCastlenmnm Hills nm FM nm1976 46 FM 466 Legend nm nm nm nm nm nm nmnm UV FM 2091 95 nm nm nmnmnmnm nmnmnmnmnm Conversenm nm Gonzales UV nm nm nm nmnm nm nmnmnm FM 1891 nmnmLeonnm Valleynm nm nm nm nm nm nm nm nm nm FM 3487 nm nm nmnmnmTerrellnm Hills nm Dam nm nm nmnm nm nmnm nm San Antonio FM 467 nm nm nmnmnm nmnmnm nmnm nm nm New Berlin FM 2676 nm nm nm nm nm nm Kirbynm Hallettsville nm nmnm nmnm FM 531 FM 1957 nm nm nmnmnmnmnmnmnm nmnm nm nm nm Gonzales Lakes nm nmBexarnm nm nm FM 1346 Shiner 151 nm nm FM 1682 nm FM 775 nmnm nmnm nm FM 443 UVnm nm nmnmnm nmnmnmnmnm nmnm 97 FM 318 nmnmnm nm nmnmnmnm nmnm nm UV FM 533 nm nm nmnm nm nmnm nmnmnm nmnm FM 1516 nmnm nm San nmAntonionm nmnmnmnmnmnm nmnm 183 Railroad nmnmnmnmnm nmnmnm nm nmnm ¤£ nmnm nm nm nmnm nm FM 1117 FM 958 35 nm FM 539 San Antonionm nm nm¦¨§nmnmnmnm nm nm 106 nm nm nmnm nmnmnm nm nm nm UV FM 531 Major Rivers nmnm nmnm nm nmnm FM 3465 nmnm nm 353 nm nm 321 FM 1116 Castroville nm UVnmnmnmnmnmnmUVnmnm13 UV 123 FM 77 nm nm FM 318 Medina FM 2536nm nm nm UV FM 966 FM 2543 nm nmnm nm nm FM 2067 422nm 122 FM 3432 FM 1681 Counties nmnm UV 536 UVnm FM 3234 Lacoste UV FM 2922 FM 1937 Yoakum FM 3335 Road

FM 775 FM 2537 Nixon Smiley FM 951 111 FM 2790 FM 2790 FM 327 87 UV FM 1107 £ FM 538 ¤ nm Schools nmnm nm FM 682

FM 471 Lytle City nmnm 1604 97 FM 3010 UV UV FM 1447

FM 463 FM 3175 FM 1303 FM 766 Sources: Texas Department of Transportation, FM 1343 nm Texas Natural Resources Information System, Natalia FM 1347 FM 537 San Antonio River Authority FM 476 FM 2579 FM 1447 nm Wilson FM 238 77 FM 2200 nmnm ¤£ Devine nmnm FM 2816 190 FM 953 FM 536 UV FM 2542 Cuero ¤£77 FM 427 281 FM 1344 FM 1784 ¤£ FM 108 FM 1470 FM 2505 FM 3161 FM 3176 nm DeWitt FM 444 FM 2724 FM 887 Text 119 FM 462 FM 2504 173 nm FM 3191 UV UV UV97 FM 240 FM 1344 Poteet FM 3006 FM 478

FM 476 FM 1354 FM 2656 FM 627

FM 2779 FM 541 FM 2718 105 FM 2146 FM 472 FM 2505 UV nm Yorktown FM 237 FM 887 nm FM 952 FM 1549 Pleasanton FM 81

FM 2146 FM 2980 FM 3157

FM 1333 Jourdanton Nordheim FM 447 FM 140 FM 81 Karnes FM 2773nm FM 1020 nmnm FM 884 FM 1961 Atascosa 37 FM 791 FM 1144 § FM 792 463 ¦¨ FM 1685 UV FM 236 Charlotte FM 1332 16 FM 1353 UV FM 2924 FM nm719 72 nm UV FM 81 FM 1145 85 FM 2102 FM 1582 UV FM 2102 Victoria FM 884 FM 140 FM 632 Christine FM 743 185 FM 3387 FM 2509 UV FM 1726 FM 622

FM 1099 FM 626 239 FM 791 FM 2443 UV FM2043 UV91 FM 2987 01.25 2.5 5 7.5 10 12.5 FM 2442 183 ¤£ FM 446 Miles FM 2985 °

FM 1091 FM 882 nm 281 FM 2506 UV97 ¤£ FM 798 Goliad FM 673FM FM 1351 UV71 FM 883 FM 3192

FM 2049 FM 2441 FM 1465 FM 445 FM 623 UV239 Live Oak ¤£77 FM 3445 FM 1358 Bee

72 FM 3355 UV FM 7 FM 2824 Three Rivers FM 1203 UV72 FM 1545

FM 99 Refugio 281 FM 799 FM 3410

FM 469 FM 1042 £ ¤ FM 1596 Beeville FM 351 UV202

D-1 Martindale

Boerne

Bulverde

Fair Oaks Ranch Bandera New Braunfels Waelder Flatonia Schulenburg Luling FIGURE 2.2

Garden Ridge Grey Forest Hollywood Park INDUSTRIAL Selma Shavano Park Hill Country Village Moulton Schertz Marion Seguin FEATURES Helotes Cibolo Live Oak Universal City Castle Hills Windcrest Gonzales Converse Legend Leon Valley Balcones Heights Alamo Heights Terrell Hills Olmos Park Active Railroads New Berlin Kirby Hallettsville Abandoned Railroads, once in use Shiner Saint Hedwig Abandoned Railroad, probably never San Antonio used or constructed China Grove # Railyards

Source: Bureau of Transportation Statistics Castroville La Vernia Transmission Lines Lacoste Yoakum Source: Platts Global Energy POWERmap Nixon Smiley Pipelines Elmendorf Lytle City Mines: Status Somerset Stockdale (! Producer Natalia (! Intermittent Producer (! Temp Shutdown Devine Floresville (! Past Producer Cuero (! Other Poth (! Unknown

Mines: Type Poteet ") Calcium

") Falls City Yorktown Clay

") Pleasanton Coal

") Nordheim Sand and Gravel Jourdanton ") Silicon Runge Pearsall Karnes City ") Stone Charlotte ") Sulfur Victoria Kenedy ") Uranium

") Christine Vermiculite Source: San Antonio River Authority

0 1.25 2.5 5 7.5 10 12.5 Miles ° Goliad

NOTE: Three Rivers DUE TO THE RAPIDLY EXPANDING EAGLEFORD SHALE DEVELOPMENT, THIS EXHIBIT WILL NOT REFLECT THE TOTAL SCOPE OF ALL SUPPORT INDUSTRIES Beeville (INCLUDING RAIL YARDS, PIPELINES, GRAVEL MINES, ETC.) D-2 George West Refugio San Boerne Marcos

¤£87 FIGURE 2.3.1 Bulverde UV46 BEXAR COUNTY 46 Fair UV Oaks EXISTING PARK Ranch AND NATURAL New RESOURCES k[ 281 ¤£ Braunfels Park Legend 10 ¨¦§ Panther Springs UV337 k[ Natural Resource Bullis Woodland Hills k[ City / County / SARA Park Emile and Albert Friedrich k[ National Parks Cedar Creek Golf Course Raymond Russell k[ k[ Stone Oak Centex Donated Properties k[ State Parks k[ k[ k[ San Gold Canyon Garden k[ Cedar Creek k[ Privately Owned Antonio Oakhaven UV16 k[ k[ k[ k[ Mud Creek Ridge # Trailhead Crownridge Canyon k[ Friesenhaun Scenic Canyon k[ Virgil T Blossom Lorence Creek McClain Salado Creek Greenway North k[ k[ Rancho Diana Hardberger k[ Comanche Lookout Edwyn J. Gorrell Orsinger k[ Lakes Bonnie Conner k[ k[ k[ Selma Seguin k[ k[ Star Soccer Complex Bamberger k[ Cibolo Marion k[ k[ k[ Walker Ranch £90 Source: San Antonio River Authority Oxbow 90 ¤ 211 k[ Foxk[ k[ Raintree ¤£ UV Helotes k[ k[ k[k[ k[ Universal UV539 Scenic Sunset Rohde Voelcker k[ k[ Denman Windsor W W McAllister City Leon Vista Morrison Kallison O P Schnabel k[ Haskin k[ Robert L B Tobin French Creek k[ 537 k[ Olympia UV New Territories k[ k[ Olmos Basin k[ Nani Falconek[ Dellview k[ Windcrest Lakewood Acres Oscar Perez Memorial Conversek[ k[ Oak Hills k[ k[ Wilshire Terrace Northampton Government Canyon Crystal Hills k[ k[ Clover Lawn Park John James Balcones Brackenridgek[ Lou Kardon Schertz Culebra Creek Cathedral Rock Heights k[ k[ 10 k[ Woody Tucker k[ k[ ¨¦§ k[ Woodlawn Lake Old Spanish Trail Leon Creek Greenway North k[ k[ Beacon Hill Allison Belmeade Low Water Crossing Seeling k[ New Hilltop Acres Caracol Creek Park k[ k[ k[ Gene Flores Traffic Island Park Tom Slick Monterrey Smith k[ k[ k[ k[ k[ Friendship Berlin Acme Willie Ojeda Scates Pershing k[ Pletz Park Lackland Terrace Amistad k[ Woodlawn k[ k[ Heritage Duck Pond k[ k[ Ruth Woodard 123 k[ Meadowcliff k[ Park k[ UV k[ k[ Kelly Area k[ Milam Historic City Cemeteries Sunrise Saint Heritage Neighborhood Pool k[ k[ k[k[k[k[k[ k[ k[ Adams Hill k[ k[ Lincoln Skyline k[ k[ k[ k[k[ k[ k[ Hedwig Rainbow Hills k[ Elmendorfk[ Lake Healy Murphy k[ Nicholas Copernicus 1604 211 k[ k[ k[ Dellcrest UV UV k[ k[ Levi Strauss Cassiano Travis Pytel Dignowity Highland Stablewood Farms k[ Escobar Field Alamo Plaza k[ Westwood Village k[ King William k[ San Juan/Brady Confluence J Street Leon Creek Greenway South k[ k[ Jimmy Flores Parkk[ Lakeside 106 ¤£90 k[ Mission k[Concepcion UV Medina Base Road Southside Lions 107 South San k[ Padre k[ Stinson k[ UV k[ Concepcion k[ Calaveras 87 La Vernia Castroville Hillside Acres k[ Al Forge k[ k[ ¤£ k[ k[ k[ Villa Coronado Morrill k[ k[ Salado Creek Greenway South Millers Pond k[ k[ k[ Brooks Alamo River 353 Pearsall UV Harlandale Pickwell RV Resort k[ k[ k[ Acequia Calaveras Golden Community Espada Lacoste Bellaire Mission Lake k[ Calaveras Lake Palo Alto San Juan Palo Alto Terrace Brown Mission Capistrano Braunig Lake Mitchell Lake Espada ¨¦§35 Audobon Center Braunig Spicewood Lake Hidalgo Medina River k[ k[ Natural Area k[ k[ Elmendorf Medina River k[ 00.75 1.5 3 4.5 6 7.5 Lytle Loop 1604 Otilla Stockdale Miles Land Heritage River ° Dam City Somerset Institute of Access the Americas Medina River Greenway UV119 UV132 Medina River Preserve 181 UV97 Natalia ¤£ UV16 ¤£281 ¨¦§37 UV181 Devine Floresville UV173

UV97 Poth

Poteet D-3 Castle FM 1976 FM 466 Hills 281 368 Converse ¤£90 410 ¤£ UV FM 466 ¦¨§ Schertz FM 2538 Alamo FM 78 New FIGURE 2.3.2 345 Heights UV421 UV Kirby Berlin ¨¦§10 WILSON COUNTY FM 467 ¨¦§10 FM 1518 EXISTING PARK FM 1117 FM 1682 FM 1516 Saint AND NATURAL 35 FM 775 ¨¦§ San FM 1346 Hedwig La Vernia RESOURCES ¤£90 China City Park Antonio UV97 Grove 13 Park Legend 536 UV UV106 107 UV353 UV UV k[ FM k[ Natural Resource 117 k[ City / County / SARA Park UV FM 3465 La Vernia 2772 Stockdale k[ National Parks Birding Stockdale k[ State Parks UV122 410 FM 3432 k[ 422 Central FM 77 Privately Owned UV ¦¨§ FM 539 Platform FM 1681 *# Park FM 3234 Trailhead ") Ruins Sutherland FM 3335 FM 2922 UV16 Helton San Springs Stockdale Lakes FM 1937 1604 Antonio River k[ City Park UV Nixon Smiley Source: San Antonio River Authority 66 FM Nature Park FM 775 UV FM 1107 FM 108 2537 Elmendorf FM 775 Masonic ¤£87 FM 1116 k[ k[ FM 538 FM Youth Park k[ 327 Stockdale FM Segiun FM 1922 k[ 3499 k[ Branch k[ Park UV97 County Road Wilson Cycle FM FM 1303 125 River County FM 537 2579 k[ Ranch FM 1347 Access k[ k[Fairgrounds UV80 River k[ Jackson Bend Golf 181 k[ American *#UV k[ Nature Community Legion City 123 1001 k[ Park UV 37 Crossing FM*# k[536 Tennis Park Kosciusko UV190 ¨¦§ FM 536 Floresville Ballfields k[ UV119 Old Town Hike Pecan 281 ") Park ¤£ and Bike River FM k[ Trail, End FM 1344 FM 1784 Park 427 Pothk[ FM 2505 FM 887 FM 1470 Poth

FM627 City FM 3191 97 Rancho 282 UV Park FM 2656

UV 3161 FM Old Town Lodi Hike FM 476 FM 478 de las Poteet FM 3006 Cabras and Bike FM Trail, Start 1354 FM 541 Pleasanton FM 2724 FM 952 00.75 1.5 3 4.5 6 7.5

2505 FM Falls Miles ° 242 FM 3350 UV City FM 81 181

FM 1334 ¤£ 3510 173 FM UV FM 1344 FM 81 UV162 UV97 Nordheim FM 239 199 FM UV FM 81 Jourdanton 2773 Karnes FM 1020 FM 791 Runge FM 1332 FM 885 16 FM 1144 City UV FM 792 UV72

FM 99 FM FM 2924 626 FM 1353 Kenedy FM 743 239 FM 2102 UV D-4 3 1681 33 2 5 2 77 6 5 9 1 2067 1604 33 2 1 UV 3 ¤£87 1 1107 Nixon Smiley Elmendorf FIGURE 2.3.3 7 32 9 San 775 3 5 Stockdale Antonio KARNES COUNTY 538 EXISTING PARK AND NATURAL 1 303 UV97 1 9 RESOURCES 2 2 1347 108 Park Legend 2579 UV181 238 k[ 537 2816 Natural Resource 536 k[ City / County / SARA Park k[ National Parks 36 Floresville UV190 k[ 5 2542 State Parks 0 k[ Privately Owned 7 953 42 4 2 *# Trailhead UV123 ") Ruins/Ghost Town 2505 1344 Lakes Poth 887 80 97 3 Veterans UV UV119 UV 1 Source: San Antonio River Authority 6 Park 1

Ballfields 2 3 1 6 9 1 478 Skiles 2656 541 1354 Falls Falls 1344 8 952 1 2 237 7 2 887 k[k[ 7 Yorktown 2 5 k[City 2 0 4 Helena 5 Mays k[ VFW Hall 181 81 Crossing k[ £ and Fields 2980 k[ ¤ ")

81 3 81 7 Nordheim Highland 7 Falls 2 239 Park Karnesk[ Conquista Runge k[ 884 k[k[ k[ Crossing City 2 1020 1961 Mary 1144 9 7 Escondido 8 8 Bianchi Creek Park 5 791 Park 72 Runge UV City Karnes 1353 719k[ Park 2924 k[ City Park k[ A & B 1145 884 Joe 2102 2102 Gulley Kenedy Park Ball 626 632 99 Park 00.4 0.8 1.6 2.4 3.2 4 Miles °

140 1 743 7 2 UV239 6 1099 2509 2443 ¨¦§37 1 2 9 2985 4 7 4 2

281 882 ¤£ 1091 1348 Goliad 2043 798 883 1351 ¤£59

3192 673

623 2441

D-5 FM2656 105 4 YorktownF 8 UV 2 1 7 M 2 7

2 2 M

9 F M 8 F FM952 0 FM237 7 1 F F 5 M8 M8 1 F M 8 FIGURE 2.3.4 4 3 6 M 123 2 F UV 7 3 GOLIAD COUNTY 80 FM81 7 UV 7 Nordheim EXISTING PARK 2 FM239 M FM447

F AND NATURAL F M 87 RESOURCES 2 2 ¤£ Karnes 3 9 M 119 Runge F 102 6 FM1144 7 0 UV F F M1 M 9 City M 61 463 Park Legend F

8 UV 9

9 8 77 5 £ M 72 ¤ ^_ District F 3 UV 5 FM1315 k[ 3 F Natural Resource 1 M 1 k[ City / County / SARA Park M 200 Acre Wildlife Reserve 6 F 8 k[ National Parks FM719 4 5 8 k[ 8 Victoria State Parks M k[ Privately Owned FM2102 Kenedy F k[ FM1145 Other Agency 185 *# Trailhead Fort Fun City Park UV ") Ruins FM632 9 Lakes 0 FM743 Little League Ball Park 5 k[ 183 7 2 £ ¤ 8 Source: San Antonio River Authority M FM1726 9 F 239 FM622 2 UV M 91 F UV FM2443 k[ k[ 2 4 Goliad County Fairgrounds FM2985 4 FM446 2 FM27 M F Goliad Golf Club k[ San Antonio River Valley Rural Historic District F Goliad M Coleto Creek Park Mission Rosario State Historic Site 2 k[ 0 k[ FM623 4 k[ k[k[ FM 3 ^_ k[ k[ k[ 25 k[ 06 k[ Encino Grande RV Park KOA Campground 1

FM798 5 k[

k[ 1 £181 M

¤ F 59 F ¤£

FM2617 3 F M1465 FM445 River Access Site Presidio La Bahia UV239

F Ferry St. River Access Site M Barnhardt Nature Retreat 2 k[ 4

4 F Branch River Park 1 Fannin Memorial Battleground State Park M 6 7 3 ¤£77 0 0.40.8 1.6 2.4 3.2 4 Miles ° FM2824 Goliad State Park & Historic Site

FM3355 & River Acces Site Berclair City Park (Including Mission Espintu Santo)

FM 351 799 FM FM3410 Beeville 202 FM475 UV FM351

FM888 2

M FM1349 F FM774 FM796 Refugio D-6 San Marcos

£87 Boerne ¤ FIGURE 2.4.1 Bulverde UV46 UV46 BEXAR COUNTY Fair Oaks Ranch EXISTING AND PLANNED TRAILS Stone Oak Park Trails New Braunfels Mud Creek UV337 Trails Legend Park Trail Texas Independence Trail Mission Reach 10 Converse Creekway Trail ¨¦§ Garden Ridge El Camino Real de los Tejas UV16 Grey Forest ¤£281 Linear Creeks SASPAMCO Paddling Trail Hollywood Park 1604 UV Westside Creek Trails Shavano ParkHill Country Village Selma Seguin 53 Cibolo ¤£90 Medina River Greenway System 211 UV Marion ¤£90 UV Helotes Schertz 539 Government Canyon Boundary Live Oak 218 UV UVUniversal City

Castle HillsUV537 Leon Valley Windcrest Converse UV345 ¨¦§10 ¦¨§410 Alamo HeightsUV368 Olmos ParkTerrell Hills New Berlin UV421 Kirby 35 UV123 UV151 ¨¦§ Saint Hedwig

San Antonio UV371 China Grove 536 ¤£90 UV UV106 UV107 UV353 117 ¤£87 La Vernia Castroville UV13 UV UV422 Lacoste UV122

UV66 ¨¦§37 Elmendorf Stockdale 00.5 1 2 3 4 5 Lytle City Somerset Miles ° Natalia UV97 UV119 UV132 ¤£181 UV16 ¤£281 Devine UV181 UV173 Floresville

UV97 Poth UV282 D-7 Windcrest Converse 90 FM ¤£ 6 Schertz 4 66 410 Alamo Heights 1 F 5 ¦¨§ M2 FM1117 10 Terrell Hills 1 538 ¨¦§ ¤£281 M 7 FM78 F New Berlin 6 FIGURE 2.4.2 421 Kirby 4 UV ¨¦§10 M 8 F 1 WILSON COUNTY 5 Saint Hedwig 35 FM775 ¨¦§ FM1346 1 FM1682 EXISTING AND

F PLANNED TRAILS ¤£90 UV97 China Grove San Antonio Trails Legend UV106 FM2772 UV353 UV536 UV107 321 13 UV Texas Independence Trail UV La Vernia FM77 Old Town Lodi Hike and Bike Trail UV422 410 2 ¦¨§ FM3432 FM1681 2 SASPAMCO Paddling Trail 9 FM3234

2 122 35 M UV 33 F FM

FM1937

FM775 Smiley 66 1604 Nixon Source: UTSA Center for UV FM2537 UV Archeological Research FM327 Elmendorf ¤£87 FM1107 F Stockdale M538

9 3 5 123 FM1922 UV M UV97 FM F 130 3 80 F FM1347 UV M FM2579 FM537 1 08 UV181 ¨¦§37 Floresville UV119 FM 5 36 27 4 M ¤£281 F 181 FM2505 ¤£ 1470 F FM1344 FM M 1 Poth 7 8 FM887

4 97 1 F UV 6 M 1 Poteet 3 3 4 FM3006 FM1344 1 F FM478 M 91 2 F

M F 7 FM1354 M FM627 47 2 2 6 65 M 6 FM541 F

FM2505 00.5 1 2 3 4 5 Falls City Miles FM887 ° 242 FM FM952 FM3350 UV 81 Pleasanton 97 UV16 UV Nordheim FM239 Jourdanton UV199 FM81 FM2773Runge FM1332 F Karnes City M 102 FM1144 UV72 0 FM791 3 FM792 5 3

1 FM81 FM885 M FM2924 FM99FM626 F FM719 FM2102 KenedyUV239 D-8 FM 1681 FM 3335 ¤£87 Smiley FM 1116 Elmendorf Nixon FM 539 1604 FM 1107 FIGURE 2.4.3 UV FM 775 Stockdale FM 538 KARNES COUNTY FM 1922 UV97 EXISTING AND FM 1303 PLANNED TRAILS

FM 1347 Trails Legend FM 537 FM 2579 FM 238 181 Texas Independence Trail UV FM 2816 Floresville Escondido Creek Parkway FM 536 190 UV 953 FM Joe Gulley Park Trails FM 2542 Karnes City Park B-Side Planned Trail Potential Karnes County Trail FM 427 123 FM 1344 UV

FM 108 FM 3161 Poth UV80 119 UV97 FM 887 UV

FM 3191 FM 627 FM 240

FM 2505 FM 1344 FM 478 FM 1354 FM 2656

FM 2980 FM 541 Yorktown FM 2505 181 FM 2724 FM 237 FM 887 ¤£ FM 2718 Falls City FM 952 FM 884 FM 81

Nordheim FM 239

FM 81

FM 2773 Runge Karnes City FM 1020 FM 1961 Source: UTSA Center for Archeological Research FM 791 FM 1144 FM 792 FM 885 UV72

FM 1353 FM 2924 Kenedy FM 1145 FM 81 FM 2102 FM 1726

FM 2102 FM 884

FM 632 00.75 1.5 3 4.5 6 7.5 FM 743 Miles ° FM 2509 FM 140 ¨¦§37 UV239 FM 791 FM 1099 FM 99 FM 626 FM 2443 FM 882 FM 2442

FM 2985 281 £ FM 1091 Goliad ¤ FM 623 FM 2043 FM 798 FM 1351 ¤£59 FM 883

FM3192 FM 673 FM

FM 2441

D-9 Yorktown 105 FM 627 FM 237 UV

FM 952 FM 884 FM 81 FM 2718 123 FIGURE 2.4.4 UV FM 2980 FM 3157 UV80 Nordheim GOLIAD COUNTY FM 239 FM 447 EXISTING AND PLANNED TRAILS FM 2773 87 FM 1020 ¤£ Karnes City Runge 119 UV FM 1961 72 77 Legend FM 792 UV ¤£ FM 99 Coastal Birding Trail FM 236 Victoria FM 1353 Texas Independence Trail Goliad Canoe Trail FM 2102 FM 1685 Angel of Goliad Trail Kenedy FM 81 Coleto Creek Park Trails FM 1145 Goliad State Park Trails

FM 884 FM 632 Source: UTSA Center for Archeological Research FM 743

FM 2509 UV239 FM 1726 FM 622 UV91 FM 2443

FM 2987 FM 2442 FM 446

FM 2985 Goliad

FM 623 183 FM 2043 ¤£ FM 2506

FM 1351 FM 798 UV71 ¤£181 FM 883 ¤£59

FM 2617

FM 2441 FM 1465 UV239 FM 445

¤£77 00.5 1 2 3 4 5 Miles °

FM 3355 FM 2824

FM 673

FM 799 FM 351 FM 3410

Beeville UV202

FM 2441

FM 888 FM 1349 Refugio D-10 Bulverde Fair Oaks Ranch New Waelder Flatonia Live Oak-Mesquite Savanna Braunfels Luling Schulenburg FIGURE 2.5 Grey Garden Ridge NATURAL Forest Hill Country Selma SUBREGIONS Seguin Moulton Helotes Shavano Village Cibolo Marion Park Universal Converse City Windcrest Gonzales Balcones Canyonlands Terrell Schertz Leon Alamo Hills New Valley Berlin Hallettsville Legend Heights Shiner Saint San China Hedwig Balcones Canyonlands Antonio Grove Castroville La Vernia Oak Woodlands Blackland Prairie Lacoste Yoakum Blackland Prairie Brush Country Nixon Smiley Elmendorf Lytle Stockdale Oak Woodlands City Somerset Brush Country Upland Prairies & Natalia Woods

Devine Floresville Source: Texas Parks and Wildlife Department Cuero Poth Poteet

Falls Yorktown Pleasanton City

Jourdanton Karnes Nordheim City Runge Charlotte Brush Country Victoria Kenedy Christine Upland Prairies & Woods 0 1.25 2.5 5 7.5 10 12.5 Miles ° Goliad

Brush Country

Three Rivers

Beeville

D-11 Live Oak - Ashe Juniper Parks Live Oak - Mesquite - Ashe Juniper Parks Live Oak - Ashe Juniper Woods Live Oak - Ashe Juniper Woods Live Oak - Mesquite - Ashe Juniper ParksLive Oak - Mesquite - Ashe Juniper Parks Live Oak - Mesquite - Ashe Juniper Parks Fair Oaks Ranch Post Oak Woods / Forest Live Oak - Ashe Juniper ParksLive Oak - Ashe Juniper Parks Bulverde Highway 46 Post Oak Woods / Forest Farm-to-Market Live Oak - Ashe Juniper Parks Ih 35 State Live Oak - Mesquite - Ashe Juniper Parks Waelder Flatonia Schulenburg New Luling Road 1680 Live Oak - Mesquite - Ashe Juniper Parks Braunfels Road 20 I-10 I-35 Farm-to-Market Ih 10 FIGURE 2.6 Post Oak Woods / Forest Grey Garden Ridge Crops ForestLive Oak - Mesquite - Ashe Juniper Parks Ih I-10 I-10 Post Oak Woods, Forest and Grassland Mosaic VEGETATIVE Selma 10Seguin Pecan Elm Forest State Live Oak - Ashe Juniper Woods Cibolo United States Moulton TYPES 211 Universal Other Helotes I-10 Marion Post Oak Woods, Forest and Grassland Mosaic Highway Loop City Highway United Castle 410 I-10 90A States Leon Hills Converse Gonzales Highway 90A Farm-to-Market Ih 10 Post Oak Woods / Forest Valley Alamo Road 471 I-410 Kings Heights Schertz I-X L Kirby State Pecan Elm Forest Hallettsville Urban Farm-to-MarketRoad 467 Mesquite - Live Oak - Bluewood Parks Crops Saint Shiner Legend I- I- 37 Highway 97 35 Access Loop Hedwig China Post OakPost Oak Bluestem Grassland San Crops Grove 106 Woods Woods State Antonio Mesquite - La Vernia Post Oak Woods, Forest and Grassland Mosaic Highway Crops Castroville I-35 Loop / Forest / Forest State Crops Live Oak - Post Oak 111 Mesquiter - Live Oak - Bluewood Parks Loop 410 United States Highway 87 Road 443 Mesquite Blackbrush Brush 1604 Urban Bluewood Parks Woods / Farm-to-Market Pecan Elm Forest Lacoste Farm-to-Market Calaveras Road 3335 Farm-to-Market Mesquite Blackbrush Brush Forest Yoakum Mesquite Granjeno Woods Farm-to-Market Smiley Mesquite - Granjeno Woods Crops Lake Other Nixon Elmendorf Pecan Elm ForestMesquiter - Live Oak - Bluewood Parks Loop 1604 Road 1922 Mesquite Liveoak Bluewood Parks Stockdale Road Farm-to-Market United Mesquite Blackbrush Brush Lytle Somerset I-37 108 Highway Road Pecan Elm Forest Natalia City 97E 77 (Alt)Farm-to-Market Road 682 Pecan Elm Forest Post Oak 1447 Crops Post Oak Woods, Crops States Highway Post Oak Woods, Forest and Devine Woods / Grassland Mosaic Floresville Forest and Post Oak Woods, Forest and Grassland Mosaic Forest Grassland Mosaic Post Oak Woods Forest I-35 Crops Post Oak Woods / Forest Cuero I-13 Other Poth Mesquite Crops Mesquite Blackbrush Road 240 State Poteet Urban Mesquite - Granjeno Woods - Granjeno Brush Farm-to-Market Farm-to-Market Highway 72 Farm-to-Market Crops Lakes

States Woods Falls Post Oak Woods, Forest and Grassland Mosaic United StatesUnited Pleasanton Crops Highway Road 1549 City Road 81 Yorktown State Highway 87 Mesquite - Granjeno Woods Source: Texas Parks and Wildlife Department Crops 119

Farm-to-Market Highway 77 North Nordheim Jourdanton I-37 Road Farm-to-Market Farm-to-Market Mesquite 1144 Karnes Runge Post Oak Woods, City Charlotte Road - Granjeno Forest and Pecan Elm Forest Farm-to-Market State Road 81 Victoria 140 Woods Farm-to-Market Grassland Mosaic Road Highway 72 Urban Mesquite - Granjeno Woods Kenedy Coleto Christine 140 Road Crops Mesquite 743 Post Oak Woods, Creek Blackbrush Reservoir US Hwy Mesquite Blackbrush Brush 281 (Alt) Forest and Brush 0 1.25 2.5 5 7.5 10 12.5 Mesquite - Granjeno Woods Grassland Mosaic Miles

Road 446 States Farm-to-Market United ° State Highway 97 Farm-to-Market Crops Farm-to-MarketCropsMesquite Farm-to-Market Goliad Bluestem 77 Highway Mesquite Blackbrush Brush Farm-to-Market Blackbrush Road 883Road 1351 Grassland Bluestem Grassland Mesquite - Granjeno Woods Road 673 Brush Pecan Road Elm Forest Crops 2049 Crops State Marsh Barrier F-M Mesquite Bluestem Pecan Elm Forest Highway Marsh Barrier 623 Blackbrush Grassland State 239 Brush Road 2441 Crops Highway 72 Mesquite Blackbrush Brush Choke Canyon Reservoir Crops Farm-to-Market Mesquite Three Rivers Crops Beeville Mesquite - Blackbrush Crops F-M Live Oak - Brush 351 Crops Mesquite Blackbrush Brush Urban Bluewood Parks

Mesquite Blackbrush Brush D-12 Mesquite Blackbrush Brush Boerne Fair Bulverde Oaks Ranch Kendall New Braunfels Comal Waelder Flatonia Schulenburg Bandera Luling FIGURE 2.7 Garden Grey Ridge Forest Hollywood Schertz Guadalupe LAND USE / Park Selma Hill Seguin Moulton LAND COVER Shavano Country Cibolo Marion Park Helotes Village Live Oak Universal Castle City Windcrest Gonzales Leon Hills Converse Legend Valley Balcones Unclassified Heights Alamo Kirby Schertz New Terrell Hallettsville Residential Hills Heights Berlin Gonzales Shiner Commercial and Services Bexar Saint San Hedwig Industrial Antonio China Grove Transportation, Communications, Utilities

Medina La Vernia Castroville Industrial and Commercial Complexes Mixed Urban or Built-up Land

Lacoste Yoakum Other Urban or Built-up Land

Nixon Smiley Cropland and Pasture Nixon Elmendorf Orchards, Groves, Vinyards, Nurseries, etc. Lytle Stockdale City Somerset Confined Feeding Operations

Natalia Other Agricultural Land Wilson Herbaceous Rangeland Devine Floresville Shrub and Brush Rangeland

Cuero Mixed Rangeland

Poth DeWitt Deciduous Forest Land Evergreen Forest Land Poteet Mixed Forest Land

Streams and Canals Yorktown Falls City Lakes Pleasanton Reservoirs Nordheim Jourdanton Karnes Bays and Estuaries

Karnes Runge Forested Wetland City Victoria Atascosa Nonforested Wetland Charlotte Victoria Beaches

Kenedy Sandy Areas other than Beaches

Christine Strip Mines, Quarries, and Gravel Pits

0 1.25 2.5 5 7.5 10 12.5 Miles °

Goliad Goliad

Calhoun Live Oak Bee Refugio

Three Rivers Refugio

Beeville

D-13 APPENDIX D

Bexar County Archeological Sites Key (Figure 2.8)

ID # DESCRIPTION 41BX282 N/A 41BX1798 Historic; unknown prehistoric 41BX1273 Historic, campsite 41BX323 N/A 41BX293 Occupation 41BX13 Buried camp or village 41BX1817 Historic 41BX1913 Buried lithic scatter 41BX1818 Historic 41BX235 19th century convent and girls school 41BX1476 Other 41BX1369 Historic 41BX1370 Historic 41BX1752 Historic; forts, battlefields and skirmish 41BX622 N/A 41BX342 Historic 41BX1627 Farmstead 41BX1935 Prehistoric artifact scatter 41BX237 N/A 41BX1628 Lithic scatter 41BX266 Spanish colonial dam 41BX1888 Occupation; lithic scatter; hearth field 41BX280 N/A 41BX1902 Hearth field; occupation 41BX269 Irrigation ditch 41BX268 Acequia 41BX243 N/A 41BX246 Historic 41BX253 N/A 41BX248 N/A 41BX254 Unknown prehistoric 41BX256 Lithic scatter; campsite 41BX1785 Farmstead; prehistoric artifact scatter 41BX1780 Farmstead 41BX1626 Lithic scatter 41BX1784 Farmstead 41BX1816 Historic

D-14 ID # DESCRIPTION 41BX1372 Unknown prehistoric 41BX1371 Unknown prehistoric 41BX692 Undetermined 41BX693 Gravel bar island 41BX688 Open lithic scatter- no features as yet 41BX330 Lithic scatter (some sherds-historic) one Goliad sherd 41BX1623 Unknown prehistoric 41BX1377 Historic; unknown prehistoric 41BX567 Late Prehistoric 41BX226 N/A 41BX1240 Open prehistoric occupational site with a minor historic component 41BX1239 Mammoth Remains 41BX1474 Unknown prehistoric

D-15 San San Marcos Boerne Marcos £87 ¤ Bulverde FIGURE 2.8 UV46 UV46 Fair Bexar County Oaks Archeological Sites Ranch UV337 New Braunfels Legend

(! Archeological Sites 16 UV ¨¦§10 281 Garden Grey ¤£ Ridge Forest Source: UTSA Center for Archeological Research Hollywood 1604 Shavano Park UV Selma Seguin Park Hill Country Cibolo UV53 Marion 211 Village ¤£90 ¤£90 UV Helotes UV539 Live Oak UV218 Universal UV537 City 345 Windcrest Leon UV Balcones UV368 Converse Valley Heights 41BX282 Schertz ¨¦§10 421 41BX1273 Terrell 41BX1798 San UV 41BX13 Olmos Hills 41BX323 New Antonio 41BX1913 Park 41BX293 Berlin 41BX235 41BX1817 41BX1476 UV123 151 41BX1818 41BX1370 UV 41BX1369 41BX1752 Saint 41BX622 41BX342 48029 Hedwig 41BX1935 China 211 Grove UV 371 41BX237 UV13 UV 41BX1627 41BX1628 106 £90 41BX266 UV UV107 ¤ 41BX1888 41BX1902 ¤£87 321 Castroville 353 41BX280 UV 410 UV 41BX269 41BX268 ¨§ 41BX253 ¦ 41BX243 41BX248 41BX25441BX246 UV122 Lacoste 41BX1816 41BX25641BX1785 41BX1372 41BX1780 41BX692 41BX1626 ¨¦§35 41BX330 41BX1784 41BX1377 41BX1371 Elmendorf 41BX693 41BX567 Lytle 41BX688 41BX1240 Stockdale 00.5 1 2 3 4 5 Miles ° City Somerset 41BX1623 132 UV 41BX226 41BX1474 §37 41BX1239 181 UV97 119 Natalia ¨¦ ¤£ UV UV16 ¤£281 Devine UV181 UV173 Floresville

UV97 Poth UV282 D-16 San Martindale Boerne San Marcos Marcos ¤£87 FIGURE 3.1.1 173 Bulverde UV46 UV Fair UV46 BEXAR COUNTY Oaks OPPORTUNITIES/ RECOMMENDATIONS Bandera Ranch New Braunfels UV337 Legend UV173 Leon Creek k[ Parks 16 Greenway UV 10 *# Trailheads Grey ¨¦§ ¤£281 Garden Hollywood Ridge Forest Olmos Park Creek 1604 )" River Access Hill UV Selma ¤£90 Greenway Country Salado Creek Cibolo Seguin Hike/Bike/Road Trail Helotes UV53 Marion ¤£90 211 Village Greenway UV *# *# UV539 Paddling Trail Olmos UV218 345 Creek Live Oak UV 537 Trail Leon *# UV Windcrest Converse Creek *# 10 Government Greenway Leon k[ Alamo UV368 Schertz ¨¦§ Canyon Valley *# Heights *# Greenway Olmos *# *# k[ Binz New UV421 Kirby Engleman Berlin Balcones Park Dam Site Beacon *#35 UV123 Heights 151 Hill k[ ¨¦§ Saint Trail UV Trail Old Hedwig Westside k[ China Spanish UV211 Creeks UV371 UV13 Trail Recreation Grove San UV536 106 ¤£90 UV UV107 Antonio 117 321 Castroville UV Salado UV k[ *# Creek UV122 Brooks UV353 UV422 Greenway 410 City Base ¤£87 Lacoste Dog Park ¦¨§ k[ Recommendation " Mitchell ) Lake Audobon Strauss/Medina k[ Center ° Ranch UV66 " k[ ) Elmendorf Lytle ¨¦§37 k[*# Stockdale 00.75 1.5 3 4.5 6 7.5 Somerset Miles ° City Truehart Catfish Ranch/Otillo UV132 Farm Dam UV97 Los Caminos £181 Natalia ¤ UV16 Naturales Medina 119 Trail System River UV UV173 Trail UV181 Devine Los Caminos & ¤£281 Presnall/Watson Floresville Farmstead

UV97 Poth UV282 D-17 F Castle Hills 368 Windcrest Converse M £90 6 ¤ UV 1 New Balcones Alamo 8 1 5 7 1 FM Olmos M 5 Schertz FM 466 Terrell 8 F 1 2 Berlin

5 FM1117 Heights Heights 3 Park M 8 Hills F FM467 FIGURE 3.1.2 421 345 281 Kirby 5 UV UV ¤£ 10 7 ¨¦§ 7 WILSON COUNTY 35 M ¨¦§10 ¨¦§ F Cibolo OPPORTUNITIES/ FM1346 Saint Creek FM1682 RECOMMENDATIONS San Hedwig Access ¤£90 Antonio China UV97 371 Grove UV 106 Legend 536 UV 107 FM2772 353 UV UV )" k[ UV UV117 Lak[ Vernia Parks UV13 k[ Cibolo Creek FM3432 *# Trailheads Improvements Access 422 122 410 9 UV UV 3 2 to City Park 5 ¦¨§ Cibolo Creek 2 F

M M 9 FM3234 F Access 2 River Access Nature 16 )" 8 M

5 1 F Improvements Park M333 F FM77 Hike/Bike/Road Trail 16 to Helton Nature 87 Improvements to UV FM1937 ¤£ Park Two City Parks; Smiley Paddling Trail 66 1604 Provide Connection Nixon UV FM2537 UV Improvements 75 )" Elmendorf 7 to Jackson k[ FM Stockdale On-Road Nature Park *# FM538 F k[ k[ M Bike Loop F )" 1 M On-Road 0 FM3499 181 1 8 ¤£ 9 Bike Loop )" 2 123 FM 97 2 UV 13 UV 7 03 53 Cibolo Creek M F FM1347 UV80 181 Access )" FM2579 C.R. 125 UV Ballfield River Improvements Access Historical FM536*# Wayside Extend Existing 37 Floresville Exhibits UV190 ¨¦§ Trail k[k[ Walking *# 119 27 UV FM536 Trail 4 k[ 281 )" M ¤£ Bridge New F Soccer New F FM M FM2505 Park k[Poth 1470 1 Fields 7 *# 8 k[ 4 FM887 On-Road River Access F 97 Bike Loop M UV )" 4 at Rancho de 3 2

1 7 FM478 Poteet Las Cabras 9 2 F FM3006 1

M M FM2656 FM1354 FM627

4 F 76 FM1344 FM541 2 Falls 5 00.5 1 2 3 4 5 9 Miles ° FM887 City M UV242 River Acces and Link F FM3350 M81 FM1334 To Dewees-Remschel Extend Existing F Pleasanton Property Trail FM81 3 162 97 Fishing 7 Nordheim UV UV 7 FM239 Pond 2

199 M

Jourdanton FM81 UV F 1 9 7 Karnes 2 M 9 F F Runge M102 16 7 0 UV FM1144 City F M M

F 8

3 8

5 5 3 72 FM99 1 UV FM2924 F M M F 6 FM719 2

6 2102 FM Kenedy D-18 FM FM 1681 3335 FM FM FM 77 FM 3335 2067 San 2922 ¤£87 Smiley Nixon FM 1116 Antonio FM 1107 Elmendorf FIGURE 3.1.3 FM 327 FM 775 FM 539 Stockdale 1604 FM 538 KARNES COUNTY UV OPPORTUNITIES/ 97 FM 1922 RECOMMENDATIONS FM 1303 UV

FM 1347 FM 108 FM 2579 Legend UV181 FM 238 FM 537 FM 2816 FM 536 Floresville k[ Parks UV190 FM FM 536 953 FM 2542 # Trailheads FM 427 UV123 FM 240 " Water Trail/River Access Hike/Bike/Road Trail FM 2505 FM 1344 Poth 80 97 FM 887 UV UV119 UV Paddling Trail FM 627 Water Trail Potential FM 3191 Park FM3161 FM 478 ¤£181 k[ FM 2656 River Access FM 1354

FM 2724 FM 541 Falls FM 952 FM 2505 FM Yorktown FM 2718 887Cityk[ FM 237 FM 81 *# )" k[ River Access FM 2980 FM 1344

FM 81 Nordheim FM 884 FM 239

FM 81

FM 2773 Karnes Runge Update Parks/Natural Areas k[ FM 1020 Trail Opportunity @ Conquista Crossing City[k[ FM 1961 k FM 792 FM 1144

FM 885

FM 791

Develop Sports Park FM 1353 KenedyFM UV72 FM 2924 k[ *#719 )" Potential k[ Water Trail Opportunity FM 884 Park FM 2102 FM 2102 FM 183 ¤£ 00.75 1.5 3 4.5 6 7.5 FM 99 Escondido Creek Parkway 632 Miles ° Improvements FM 1726 FM 140 Improvements 37 FM 2509 to Joe UV239 FM ¨¦§ FM 1099 Gulley Park 622 FM 626 FM 2443 FM 743

FM 2985

FM 791

FM 2043 FM 882FM

281 FM 2442

¤£ FM 6B FM FM 1348 Goliad 1091 FM 798 FM 1351

FM 883 ¤£59

FM3192 FM 623 FM 673 FM

FM 2441

D-19 Yorktown FM 237 105 FM 627 UV

FM 952 FM 884 FM 81 FM 2718 FIGURE 3.1.4 123 UV FM 2980 FM 3157 UV80 Nordheim GOLIAD COUNTY FM 239 OPPORTUNITIES/ FM 447 Runge RECOMMENDATIONS FM 2773 ¤£87 FM 1020 119 Karnes City UV FM 1961 72 77 FM 792 UV ¤£ Legend FM 99 FM 81 k[ Parks FM 884 FM 236 FM 1353 On-Road Bike Trail FM 622 Victoria # Trailheads On-Road Bike Trail FM 1685 * FM 2102 Kenedy FM 1145 *# )" River Access Improvements to Fort Fun Hike/Bike/Road Trail FM 743 *# Paddling Trail FM 2509 Improvements to Branch River Park *# On-Road Bike Trail River Access )" UV91 Upgrade Facilities at On-Road Bike Trail Parks Near Fairgrounds FM 446 FM 2985 River Access k[ )" k[ FM 623 *# k[ FM 2506 )" River Access *# 183 FM 798 ¤£ ¤£181 *# )"

On-Road Bike Trail FM 2441

FM 2617 *# FM 1465 FM 445 On-Road Bike Trail UV239 FM 883 )" On-Road Bike Trail

¤£77 00.5 1 2 3 4 5 River Access Miles °

FM 3355 FM 2824

FM 673

FM 799 FM 351 FM 3410 Beeville UV202

FM 2441

FM 888 FM 1349 Refugio D-20