BMP Assessment Report Update

BBMMPP AAsssseessssmmeenntt RReeppoorrtt UUppddaattee

San Antonio River Authority Bexar Regional Watershed Management Partnership Texas Commission on Environmental Quality

JJaammeess MMiieerrttsscchhiinn && AAssssoocciiaatteess,, IInncc.. EEnnvviiirroonnmmeennttaalll EEnnggiiinneeeerriiinngg

JAMES MIERTSCHIN & ASSOCIATES, INC. ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING P.O. BOX 162305 ◦ AUSTIN, TEXAS 78716-2305 ◦ (512) 327-2708

14 September 2010

Mr. Ernest Moran Environmental Services Department San Antonio River Authority PO Box 839980 San Antonio, Texas 78283-9980

RE: Final BMP Assessment Report Update Development of an Implementation Plan for Bacteria for Segment 1910 Salado Creek, Segment 1910A Walzem Creek, Segment 1911 Upper San Antonio River

Dear Mr. Moran:

James Miertschin & Associates, Inc (JMA) is pleased to provide the Final BMP Assessment Report Update for the project referenced above. This Final Update incorporates comments provided by stakeholders on the Draft Update Report that was released in April 2010. This Update will provide the basis for moving forward with implementation of control measures for bacteria impairment on the subject watercourses.

We are grateful for the opportunity to assist the stakeholders with this important project. The work you accomplish here will likely provide a template for others around the State, showing the path forward to a successful implementation project.

Yours truly,

JAMES MIERTSCHIN & ASSOCIATES, INC.

James Miertschin, PE, PhD

JAMES MIERTSCHIN & ASSOCIATES, INC. ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING P.O. BOX 162305 ◦ AUSTIN, TEXAS 78716-2305 ◦ (512) 327-2708

BMP ASSESSMENT REPORT UPDATE

Development of an Implementation Plan for Bacteria for: Segment 1910 Salado Creek Segment 1910A Walzem Creek Segment 1911 Upper San Antonio River

Prepared For:

San Antonio River Authority 100 East Guenther St. San Antonio, Texas 78204

and

Bexar Regional Watershed Management Partnership

Prepared in Cooperation with:

Texas Commission on Environmental Quality and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

The preparation of this report was financed through grants from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, through the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality

Prepared By:

James Miertschin & Associates, Inc.

September 2010

TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Page

LIST OF FIGURES ...... iii LIST OF TABLES ...... vi 1.0 INTRODUCTION ...... 1 1.1 PROJECT DEVELOPMENT ...... 1 1.2 PROJECT BACKGROUND ...... 3 1.3 REVIEW OF TMDL RESULTS ...... 8 1.4 STAKEHOLDER INVOLVMENT ...... 13

2.0 WATER QUALITY DATA REVIEW ...... 15 2.1 HISTORICAL SAMPLING ...... 15 2.2 IMPLEMENTATION SAMPLING PLAN...... 23 2.3 RESULTS OF ADDITIONAL MONITORING ...... 26 2.4 ANALYSIS BASED UPON LOADINGS ...... 145 2.4 ANALYSIS BASED UPON LOADINGS ...... 145 2.5 INFERENCES REGARDING BACTERIA SOURCES ...... 190

3.0 WATER QUALITY MODEL ...... 205 3.1 MODEL BACKGROUND ...... 205 3.2 SALADO CREEK MODEL ENHANCEMENTS ...... 206

4.0 POINT SOURCES AND CONTROL MEASURES ...... 214 4.1 ASSESSMENT OF POINT SOURCES ...... 214 4.2 CONTROL MEASURES ...... 216

5.0 OVERVIEW OF MANAGEMENT MEASURES FOR NONPOINT SOURCES .. 219 5.1 SUMMARY OF POTENTIAL SOURCES ...... 219 5.2 MANAGEMENT MEASURES FOR WASTEWATER COLLECTION SYSTEMS ...... 228 5.3 MANAGEMENT MEASURES FOR SEPTIC SYSTEMS ...... 235 5.4 MANAGEMENT MEASURES FOR TRANSIENT WASTE ...... 237 5.5 MANAGEMENT MEASURES FOR ANIMAL SOURCES ...... 237 5.6 ASSESSMENT OF STRUCTURAL BMPS FOR URBAN RUNOFF ...... 242 5.7 ASSESSMENT OF NON-STRUCTURAL BMPS FOR URBAN RUNOFF ...... 278 5.8 MISCELLANEOUS SAN ANTONIO RIVER BMPS ...... 280

6.0 SHORT-TERM AND LONG-TERM MANAGEMENT MEASURES ...... 284 6.1 MANAGEMENT MEASURES FOR POINT SOURCES ...... 284 6.2 MANAGEMENT MEASURES FOR NONPOINT SOURCES ...... 289 6.3 NINE ELEMENT SUMMARY TABLE ...... 301 6.4 SUMMARY TIMETABLE FOR IMPLEMENTATION ...... 314

7.0 REFERENCES ...... 316

APPENDIX A – COMMENT SUMMARY TABLE ...... 321

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1-1: TMDL Implementation Plan Study Area ...... 5 Figure 1-2: Densely Urbanized Portion of Study Area ...... 6 Figure 1-3: USAR Bacteria Loads above Loop 410 (Urbanized Area) ...... 10 Figure 1-4: USAR Bacteria Loads below Loop 410 (Rural Area) ...... 10 Figure 1-5: Salado Creek Bacteria Loads ...... 11 Figure 2-1: Historical E. coli Geometric Means for Salado Creek ...... 17 Figure 2-2: Historical E. coli Geometric Means for USAR above Loop 410...... 20 Figure 2-3: Historical E. coli Geometric Means for USAR below Loop 410 ...... 21 Figure 2-4: Stormwater TPDES Permit Sampling Stations ...... 22 Figure 2-5: Stormwater Fecal Coliform Sampling Stations, 2000-2005 ...... 23 Figure 2-6a: September 2008 Synoptic Survey of Salado Creek and Walzem Creek ...... 41 Figure 2-6b: September 2008 Synoptic Survey of Salado Creek and Walzem Creek...... 42 Figure 2-7: September 2008 Synoptic Survey of USAR above Loop 410 ...... 43 Figure 2-8: September 2008 Synoptic Survey of USAR below Loop 410 ...... 44 Figure 2-9a: October 2008 Intensive Survey of Salado Creek and Walzem Creek...... 47 Figure 2-9b: October 2008 Intensive Survey of Salado Creek and Walzem Creek ...... 48 Figure 2-10: October 2008 Intensive Survey of USAR above Loop 410 ...... 49 Figure 2-11: October 2008 Intensive Survey of Olmos Creek ...... 50 Figure 2-12: October 2008 Intensive Survey of USAR below Loop 410 ...... 51 Figure 2-13a: November 2008 Synoptic Survey of Salado Creek and Walzem Creek ...... 56 Figure 2-13b: November 2008 Synoptic Survey of Salado Creek and Walzem Creek ...... 57 Figure 2-14: November 2008 Synoptic Survey of USAR above Loop 410 ...... 58 Figure 2-15: November 2008 Synoptic Survey of USAR below Loop 410 ...... 59 Figure 2-16a: December 2008 Synoptic Survey of Salado Creek and Walzem Creek ...... 62 Figure 2-16b: December 2008 Synoptic Survey of Salado Creek and Walzem Creek ...... 63 Figure 2-17: December 2008 Synoptic Survey of USAR above Loop 410 ...... 64 Figure 2-18: December 2008 Synoptic Survey of USAR below Loop 410 ...... 65 Figure 2-19a: January 2009 Synoptic Survey of Salado Creek and Walzem Creek ...... 68 Figure 2-19b: January 2009 Synoptic Survey of Salado Creek and Walzem Creek ...... 69 Figure 2-20: January 2009 Synoptic Survey of USAR above Loop 410 ...... 70 Figure 2-21: January 2009 Synoptic Survey of USAR below Loop 410 ...... 71 Figure 2-22a: February 2009 Synoptic Survey of Salado Creek and Walzem Creek ...... 74 Figure 2-22b: February 2009 Synoptic Survey of Salado Creek and Walzem Creek ...... 75 Figure 2-23: February 2009 Synoptic Survey of USAR above Loop 410 ...... 76 Figure 2-24: February 2009 Synoptic Survey of USAR below Loop 410 ...... 77 Figure 2-25a: March 2009 Synoptic Survey of Salado Creek and Walzem Creek ...... 80 Figure 2-25b: March 2009 Synoptic Survey of Salado Creek and Walzem Creek ...... 81 Figure 2-26: March 2009 Synoptic Survey of USAR above Loop 410 ...... 82 Figure 2-27: March 2009 Synoptic Survey of USAR below Loop 410 ...... 83 Figure 2-28a: April 2009 Intensive Survey of Salado Creek and Walzem Creek ...... 86 Figure 2-28b: April 2009 Intensive Survey of Salado Creek and Walzem Creek ...... 87 Figure 2-29a: April 2009 Intensive Survey of USAR above Loop 410 ...... 88 Figure 2-29b: April 2009 Intensive Survey of USAR above Loop 410 ...... 89

iii

Figure 2-29c: April 2009 Intensive Survey of USAR above Loop 410 ...... 90 Figure 2-30a: April 2009 Intensive Survey of LSAR below Loop 410 ...... 91 Figure 2-30b: April 2009 Intensive Survey of LSAR below Loop 410 ...... 92 Figure 2-31a: May 2009 Synoptic Survey of Salado Creek and Walzem Creek ...... 97 Figure 2-31b: May 2009 Synoptic Survey of Salado Creek and Walzem Creek ...... 98 Figure 2-32: May 2009 Synoptic Survey of USAR above Loop 410 ...... 99 Figure 2-33: May 2009 Synoptic Survey of USAR below Loop 410...... 100 Figure 2-34a: June 2009 Synoptic Survey of Salado Creek and Walzem Creek ...... 103 Figure 2-34b: June 2009 Synoptic Survey of Salado Creek and Walzem Creek ...... 104 Figure 2-35: June 2009 Synoptic Survey of USAR above Loop 410 ...... 105 Figure 2-36: June 2009 Synoptic Survey of USAR below Loop 410...... 106 Figure 2-37a: July 2009 Synoptic Survey of Salado Creek and Walzem Creek ...... 109 Figure 2-37b: July 2009 Synoptic Survey of Salado Creek and Walzem Creek ...... 110 Figure 2-38: July 2009 Synoptic Survey of USAR above Loop 410 ...... 111 Figure 2-39: July 2009 Synoptic Survey of USAR below Loop 410 ...... 112 Figure 2-40a: August 2009 Synoptic Survey of Salado Creek and Walzem Creek ...... 115 Figure 2-40b: August 2009 Synoptic Survey of Salado Creek and Walzem Creek ...... 116 Figure 2-41: August 2009 Synoptic Survey of USAR above Loop 410...... 117 Figure 2-42: August 2009 Synoptic Survey of USAR below Loop 410 ...... 118 Figure 2-43: September 8, 2009 Synoptic Survey of USAR above Loop 410 ...... 121 Figure 2-44: September 8, 2009 Synoptic Survey of USAR below Loop 410 ...... 122 Figure 2-45: September 21, 2009 Synoptic Survey of USAR above Loop 410 ...... 124 Figure 2-46: September 21, 2009 Synoptic Survey of USAR below Loop 410 ...... 125 Figure 2-47a: October 2009 Synoptic Survey of Salado Creek and Walzem Creek ...... 127 Figure 2-47b: October 2009 Synoptic Survey of Salado Creek and Walzem Creek ...... 128 Figure 2-48: October 2009 Synoptic Survey of USAR above Loop 410 ...... 129 Figure 2-49: October 2009 Synoptic Survey of USAR below Loop 410 ...... 130 Figure 2-50a: November 2009 Synoptic Survey of Salado Creek and Walzem Creek ...... 133 Figure 2-50b: November 2009 Synoptic Survey of Salado Creek and Walzem Creek ...... 134 Figure 2-51: November 2009 Synoptic Survey of USAR above Loop 410 ...... 135 Figure 2-52: November 2009 Synoptic Survey of USAR below Loop 410 ...... 136 Figure 2-53a: December 2009 Synoptic Survey of Salado Creek and Walzem Creek ...... 139 Figure 2-53b: December 2009 Synoptic Survey of Salado Creek and Walzem Creek ...... 140 Figure 2-54: December 2009 Synoptic Survey of USAR above Loop 410 ...... 141 Figure 2-55: December 2009 Synoptic Survey of USAR below Loop 410 ...... 142 Figure 2-56: E. coli Loading Analysis Schematic, September 2008 Survey ...... 152 Figure 2-57: E. coli Loading Analysis Schematic, October 2008 Survey ...... 154 Figure 2-58: E. coli Loading Analysis Schematic, November 2008 Survey ...... 158 Figure 2-59: E. coli Loading Analysis Schematic, December 2008 Survey ...... 160 Figure 2-60: E.coli Loading Analysis Schematic, January 2009 Survey ...... 162 Figure 2-61: E. coli Loading Analysis Schematic, February 2009 Survey ...... 164 Figure 2-62: E. coli Loading Analysis Schematic, March 2009 Survey ...... 166 Figure 2-63: E. coli Loading Analysis Schematic, April 2009 Survey ...... 168 Figure 2-64: E. coli Loading Analysis Schematic, May 2009 Survey...... 172 Figure 2-65: E. coli Loading Analysis Schematic, June 2009 Survey...... 174

Figure 2-66: E. coli Loading Analysis Schematic, July 2009 Survey ...... 176 Figure 2-67: E. coli Loading Analysis Schematic, August 2009 Survey ...... 178 Figure 2-68: E. coli Loading Analysis Schematic, September 8, 2009 Survey ...... 180 Figure 2-69: E. coli Loading Analysis Schematic, September 21, 2009 Survey ...... 182 Figure 2-70: E. coli Loading Analysis Schematic, October 2009 Survey ...... 184 Figure 2-71: E. coli Loading Analysis Schematic, November 2009 Survey ...... 186 Figure 2-72: E. coli Loading Analysis Schematic, December 2009 Survey ...... 188 Figure 3-1: Salado Creek Urban Subbasins and Drainage Network ...... 207 Figure 3-2: Salado Creek Watershed ...... 208 Figure 3-3: Salado Creek Land Cover ...... 210 Figure 5-1: Wastewater Collection Systems ...... 222 Figure 5-2: SAWS Overflow Summary ...... 227 Figure 5-3: Bird Feeding at Woodlawn Lake, San Antonio ...... 238 Figure 5-4: Pooper Scooper Dispenser and Sign ...... 240 Figure 5-5: Pearsall Dog Park, San Antonio ...... 241 Figure 5-6: Typical Infiltration Trench (CASQA, 2004)...... 247 Figure 5-7: Infiltration Trench Diagram (EPA, 1999c) ...... 248 Figure 5-8: Typical Infiltration Basin (CASQA, 2004) ...... 249 Figure 5-9: Infiltration Basin Diagram (Schueler, 1987) ...... 250 Figure 5-10: Typical Wet Pond (CASQA, 2004) ...... 251 Figure 5-11: Wet Pond Diagram (EPA, 1999g) ...... 252 Figure 5-12: Typical Stormwater Wetland (CASQA, 2004) ...... 253 Figure 5-13: Types of Stormwater Wetlands (EPA, 1999f) ...... 254 Figure 5-14: Typical Extended Detention Basin (CASQA, 2004) ...... 255 Figure 5-15: Extended Detention Basin Diagram (VA DCR, 1999) ...... 256 Figure 5-16: Typical Swale (CASQA, 2004) ...... 258 Figure 5-17: Typical Bioretention Basin (CASQA, 2004) ...... 259 Figure 5-18: Bioretention Diagram (EPA, 199a) ...... 260 Figure 5-19: Austin Sand Filter (CASQA, 2004) ...... 261 Figure 5-20: Diagram of Austin Sand Filter (EPA, 1999e) ...... 262 Figure 5-21: Diagram of Delaware Sand Filter (EPA, 1999e) ...... 262 Figure 5-22: Typical Water Quality Inlet (CASQA, 2004) ...... 263 Figure 5-23: Bacterra Water Quality Inlet (Courtesy of Americast Corporation) ...... 264 Figure 6-1: Major Design & Construction Activity ...... 298

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1-1: Required Point Source Fecal Coliform Wasteload Reductions (10^9 cfu/year) ...... 12 Table 1-2: Required Nonpoint Source Fecal Coliform Load Reductions (10^9 cfu/year) ...... 12 Table 2-1: Historical E. coli Sampling of Salado Creek, 2000-2007 ...... 16 Table 2-2: Historical E. coli Sampling of Upper San Antonio River, 2000-2007 ...... 19 Table 2-3: Sampling Survey Rainfall Data ...... 39 Table 2-4: September 2008 Synoptic Survey Data ...... 45 Table 2-5: October 2008 Intensive Survey Data...... 52 Table 2-6: November 2008 Synoptic Survey Data ...... 60 Table 2-7: December 2008 Synoptic Survey Data ...... 66 Table 2-8: January 2009 Synoptic Survey Data ...... 72 Table 2-9: February 2009 Synoptic Survey Data ...... 78 Table 2-10: March 2009 Synoptic Survey Date ...... 84 Table 2-11: April 2009 Intensive Survey Data ...... 93 Table 2-12: May 2009 Synoptic Survey Data...... 101 Table 2-13: June 2009 Synoptic Survey Data...... 107 Table 2-14: July 2009 Synoptic Survey Data ...... 113 Table 2-15: August 2009 Synoptic Survey Data ...... 119 Table 2-16: September 8, 2009 Synoptic Survey Data ...... 123 Table 2-17: September 21, 2009 Synoptic Survey Data ...... 126 Table 2-18: October 2009 Synoptic Survey Data ...... 131 Table 2-19: November 2009 Synoptic Survey...... 137 Table 2-20: December 2009 Synoptic Survey Data ...... 143 Table 2-21: E. coli Loading Analysis, September 2008 Survey ...... 153 Table 2-22: E. coli Loading Analysis, October 2008 Survey ...... 155 Table 2-23: E. coli Loading Analysis, November 2008 Survey ...... 159 Table 2-24: E. coli Loading Analysis, December 2008 Survey ...... 161 Table 2-25: E. coli Loading Analysis, January 2009 Survey ...... 163 Table 2-26: E. coli Loading Analysis, February 2009 Survey ...... 165 Table 2-27: E. coli Loading Analysis, March 2009 ...... 167 Table 2-28: E. coli Loading Analysis, April 2009 ...... 169 Table 2-29: E. coli Loading Analysis, May 2009 ...... 173 Table 2-30: E. coli Loading Analysis, June 2009 ...... 175 Table 2-31: E. coli Loading Analysis, July 2009...... 177 Table 2-32: E. coli Loading Analysis, August 2009 ...... 179 Table 2-33: E. coli Loading Analysis, September 8, 2009 ...... 181 Table 2-34: E. coli Loading Analysis, September 21, 2009 ...... 183 Table 2-35: E. coli Loading Analysis, October 2009 ...... 185 Table 2-36: E. coli Loading Analysis, November 2009 ...... 187 Table 2-37: E. coli Loading Analysis, December 2009 ...... 189 Table 2-38: Salado Creek E. coli Concentration Summary ...... 193 Table 2-39: Salado Creek Reaches with Observed Substantial Bacteria Load Increases ...... 194 Table 2-40: San Pedro Creek E. coli Concentration Summary ...... 196

Table 2-41: San Pedro Creek Reaches with Observed Substantial Bacteria Load Increases .... 196 Table 2-42: USAR above Loop 410 E. coli Concentration Summary ...... 199 Table 2-43: USAR above Loop 410 Reaches with Observed Substantial Bacteria Load Increases ...... 200 Table 2-44: USAR below Loop 410 E. coli Concentration Summary ...... 203 Table 2-45: USAR below Loop 410 Reaches with Observed Substantial Bacteria Load Increases ...... 204 Table 3-1: Land Use Classification Summary ...... 211 Table 3-2: Land Use by Subbasin, above Loop 410 North...... 212 Table 3-3: Land Use by Subbasin, below Loop 410 North ...... 213 Table 4-1: Point Sources ...... 214 Table 5-1: Structural Stormwater BMP Types ...... 246 Table 5-2: Summary Structural Stormwater BMPs ...... 270 Table 5-3: Cost Estimates for Infiltration Trench BMP ...... 271 Table 5-4: Cost Estimates for Infiltration Basin BMP...... 272 Table 5-5: Cost Estimates for Wet Pond BMP ...... 273 Table 5-6: Cost Estimates for Constructed Wetland BMP ...... 274 Table 5-7: Cost Estimates for Bioretention BMP ...... 275 Table 5-8: Cost Estimates for Austin Sand Filter BMP ...... 276 Table 5-9: Cost Estimates for Washington, D.C./Delaware Sand Filter BMP ...... 276 Table 5-10: Non-Structural Stormwater BMPs for Urban Runoff ...... 278 Table 6-2: Major Design/Construction Activity Summary ...... 299 Table 6-3: Nine Key Elements of Proposed Management Measures ...... 303 Table 6-4: Summary Timetable ...... 315

vii

1.0 INTRODUCTION

A portion of the Upper San Antonio River, Segment 1911, has been identified by the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) as impaired due to bacteria levels that exceed the state criteria for contact recreation. Also identified as impaired due to bacteria are Salado Creek, Segment 1910, a tributary of the Upper San Antonio River, and Walzem Creek, Segment 1910A, a tributary of Salado Creek. The objective of this report is to identify and assess potential sources of bacteria, and to evaluate best management practices (BMPs) that can be used to control those sources.

The urban environment surrounding the Upper San Antonio River has many potential sources of bacteria. The ultimate source of these bacteria is fecal matter originating from warm blooded animals (wildlife, pets, livestock, and humans). Bacteria from these sources can reach the San Antonio River through numerous potential pathways, including:

• Direct deposition into a waterbody (i.e. birds, including egrets and ducks, bats, native mammalian populations) • Deposition onto the land surface which is available for subsequent washoff (i.e. dogs) • Leaking wastewater infrastructure (human) • Improperly treated municipal discharges (human)

Segment 1911 also includes a substantial amount of nonurban watershed. Bacteria sources and pathways in the rural environment can include:

• Direct deposition into a waterbody (i.e. birds, wildlife, livestock) • Depostion onto the land surface which is available for subsequent washoff (i.e. wildlife, livestock) • Leaking wastewater infrastructure, centralized and septics (human) • Improperly treated municipal discharges (human)

The San Antonio River Authority (SARA) has been involved in the predecessor studies that have been funded by TCEQ to address the bacteria impairment. Compliance with the contact recreation criteria for E. coli is a goal of the SARA. SARA is engaged in various initiatives, such as the Mission Reach Restoration Project and the Nature Based Park Plan, that will require that bacteria levels be managed.

1.1 PROJECT DEVELOPMENT

Section 303(d) of the Federal Clean Water Act and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulation 40 CFR 130.7 require states to identify waterbodies that do not meet, or are not expected to meet, applicable water quality standards. The compilation of subject waterbodies is known as the 303(d) list. Each state must assign priorities to waterbodies on the list, in order to schedule development of total maximum daily loads (TMDL). The TMDL is an allocation of

1 point and nonpoint source pollutant loadings that will enable the waterbody to meet water quality standards.

The TCEQ is responsible for the assessment of water quality data to evaluate compliance with State water quality standards. Pursuant to the Clean Water Act, one of the areas of TCEQ responsibility is the development of the 303(d) list for Texas and subsequent development of TMDLs. The Upper San Antonio River, Segment 1911, Salado Creek, Segment 1910, and Walzem Creek, Segment 1910A, were first included on the Texas 303(d) List in 2002 (TCEQ, 2002). The segments were listed for nonsupport of contact recreation use due to elevated levels of bacterial indicators for pathogens.

The TCEQ, with assistance from James Miertschin & Associates, Inc. (JMA), completed a TMDL study of the San Antonio area segments in 2006. The TMDL study assessed the magnitude of existing in-stream bacteria loads and quantified the loading reductions required to achieve compliance with the water quality standards for contact recreation, based upon mathematical modeling of water quality (JMA, 2006). The TCEQ prepared a formal TMDL report for the study area, and that TMDL was officially adopted by TCEQ in July 2007 (TCEQ, 2007). Adoption of the TMDL by the TCEQ represents an update to the state’s Water Quality Management Plan and will thus serve as the basis for permitting decisions in the watershed.

Now that the TMDL for bacteria impairments in the study area has been adopted by the TCEQ, the next step in the process is to determine how the required loading reductions will be achieved. This information regarding sources, loadings, and reductions will be contained in an Implementation Plan that will be prepared by the TCEQ. It is the desire of the TCEQ that this process be stakeholder driven. Therefore, the current project was formulated to provide the technical information necessary to support development of the Implementation Plan. The San Antonio River Authority (SARA) is the lead agency under contract with the TCEQ for the development of the plan.

The current project will build upon the work that was previously performed for development of a Watershed Protection Plan (WPP) for the Upper San Antonio River watershed above Loop 410 South (JMA, 2006). The Watershed Protection Plan (WPP) was a study of pollutant sources and a plan of action consisting of control measures to control those sources, and it was intended to serve as a template for control measures that may be incorporated in the subsequent TMDL Implementation Plan.

The TMDL Implementation Plan that will be prepared by the TCEQ may incorporate some or all of the action items of the WPP. This current project to support development of the Implementation Plan covers a larger area than the WPP. The intent is that this will remain a stakeholder-driven process, with local entities and individuals providing input during development of the Implementation Plan. Without this process, TCEQ would conceivably set out to develop an Implementation Plan based upon the agency’s perceptions of the problem and possible solutions, rather than benefit from local control and guidance.

Once TCEQ develops its ultimate Implementation Plan for the impaired segments, future activities will consist of deployment of control measures, monitoring to determine the success or

failure of the control measures, possible revisions to modeling work, and periodic updates to the plan.

1.2 PROJECT BACKGROUND

1.2.1 Upper San Antonio River Basin

The study area for the development of an Implementation Plan consists of the watershed of the Upper San Antonio River (TCEQ Segment #1911), from its headwaters downstream to Falls City. This study area encompasses all of San Antonio’s downtown and suburban areas. The Upper San Antonio River, located in Bexar and Wilson Counties, is approximately 85 miles long, with a total watershed area of 753 square miles. Salado Creek, located in Bexar County, is approximately 45 miles long, with a drainage area of 223 square miles. Walzem Creek, which is a subwatershed within the Salado Creek watershed, is roughly 3.1 miles long, with a drainage area of 2.8 square miles. The river’s watershed and major tributaries are shown in Figure 1-1.

The San Antonio River essentially begins under another name – Olmos Creek, which has its headwaters north of Loop 1604. Just south of Olmos Dam, the San Antonio Springs discharge at rates of 0 to 100 cfs, depending upon the level of the Edwards Aquifer. At this point, the creek becomes known as the San Antonio River. From here, the river flows through downtown San Antonio and the River Walk. South of downtown, the river is joined by San Pedro Creek and its tributaries Alazan Creek, Apache Creek, and Martinez Creek. These tributaries have a drainage area of 45 square miles (29,000 acres), and represent a significant portion of the overall watershed. San Pedro Creek is fed by the San Pedro Springs which discharge at rates from 0 to 17 cfs, depending upon the level of the Edwards Aquifer.

Below the confluence with San Pedro Creek, the topography becomes relatively flat. Drainage in the southeast portion of the San Antonio urban area is defined primarily by a series of storm sewers and channels. The new Espada Dam impounds Davis Lake just downstream of Loop 13. Six-Mile Creek (also known as Piedras Creek in its lower reach) is a highly channelized tributary that joins the river midway between Loop 13 and Loop 410. Between Olmos Dam and Loop 410, the river covers approximately 14 miles. Salado Creek is a major tributary on the eastern portion of the urban area, and its confluence with the river is downstream of Loop 410. Walzem Creek is a small waterway that is a tributary to Salado Creek in the middle portion of its watershed. The Medina River is a major tributary to the Upper San Antonio River, with its confluence upstream of IH 37. South of San Antonio, the river continues to flow to Falls City, with FM 791 being the lower end of the designated study segment. The length of the reach between Loop 410 and FM 791 is about 66 miles.

The upper portion of the San Antonio River has been modified to suit the needs of the urban environment. Several sections of the river have been straightened and lined with concrete or rock. Numerous small dams and gates control the flow of the river at various locations. These manmade impoundments typically experience low flows during the summer months. Perhaps the most significant enhancement is the San Antonio River tunnel, which is a three mile long, 24- foot diameter conveyance structure that allows storm flows to bypass downtown. There is also a tunnel of shorter length that provides stormwater relief for San Pedro Creek. Many of these

3 features are shown in Figure 1-2, which highlights the highly urbanized downtown portion of the river.

Springs and rainfall runoff are not the only sources of flow in the San Antonio River. The San Antonio Water System (SAWS) has the ability to discharge reclaimed water (treated wastewater) into the river at various locations, as shown on Figure 1-2. These discharges effectively conserve water from the Edwards Aquifer and are useful for keeping a minimum base flow moving through the river at all times. Therefore, these discharges are typically only active when natural stream flows are minimal (i.e. when San Antonio Springs are not discharging due to low aquifer level). In addition to the reclaimed water outfalls, SAWS has direct discharge outfalls at its major treatment plants, the Dos Rios Water Recycling Facility, Salado Creek Water Recycling Facility (now no longer discharging), Medio Creek Water Recycling Facility, and the Leon Creek Water Recycling Facility.

The upper portion of the river also receives regular flow from the San Antonio Zoo. This flow is pumped from the Edwards Aquifer at a relatively constant rate (averaging 3.8 cfs, 1700 gpm), and flows through a number of Zoo exhibits before discharging through an open channel to the San Antonio River.

Figure 1-1: TMDL Implementation Plan Study Area

Figure 1-2: Densely Urbanized Portion of Study Area

1.2.2 Water Quality Criteria for Bacteria

According to Texas water quality standards for contact recreation waters developed by the TCEQ, the geometric mean of samples should not exceed 126 cfu/100 mL E. coli, or 200 cfu/100 mL fecal coliform. In addition, grab samples should not exceed 394 cfu/100 mL E. coli or 400 cfu/100 mL fecal coliform. Also, according to TCEQ guidance documents, if less than 25% of samples exceed the grab sample criterion, then the water body is typically not classified as impaired (unless the geometric mean criterion is exceeded).

It is standard convention to report bacteria levels in terms of a bacterial count per 100 milliliters of water. The bacterial count is often referred to in a number of different ways, including the number of organisms (org/100 mL), or the number of colonies (col/100 mL), or the number of colony forming units (cfu/100 mL). These different nomenclatures all represent the same thing, which is the number of colony-forming bacteria identified during a laboratory test. This report will use “cfu/100 mL” as the standard nomenclature.

In 2010, TCEQ has adopted certain revisions to the water quality standards for bacteria (the revisions must still be approved by EPA). The primary contact recreation use criteria remains unchanged as described above. But TCEQ has created two additional potential contact recreational use categories: secondary contact 1 and 2, along with noncontact recreation. Secondary contact recreation 1 is intended to cover water recreation activities with limited incidental body contact that does not involve a significant risk of water ingestion. Secondary contact recreation 1 has an E. coli geometric mean criterion of 630 cfu/100 mL. The category of secondary contact recreation 2 applies to water recreation activities with limited incidental body contact that does not involve a significant risk of water ingestion, but that occurs less frequently than recreation category 1 due to physical characteristics of the waterbody or limited public access. An E. coli geometric mean of 1,030 cfu/100 mL is applied to this category 2. The noncontact recreation category has an E. coli geometric mean of 2,060 cfu/100 mL.

A recreational use attainability analysis (RUAA) must be performed to determine what level of recreation is actually occurring. The RUAA includes sampling, site reconnaissance, stream surveys, photographic record, and determination of historical recreational uses.

1.2.3 Assessment of Bacteria Impairment

Section 303(d) of the Federal Clean Water Act and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Regulation 40 CFR 130.7 require states to identify waterbodies that do not meet, or are not expected to meet applicable water quality standards. This compilation of subject waterbodies is known as the 303(d) List. Each state must assign priorities to waterbodies on the list in order to schedule development of TMDLs. The TMDL is an allocation of point and nonpoint source pollutant loadings that will enable the waterbody to meet water quality standards.

In 2000, the Upper San Antonio River (Segment 1911), Salado Creek (Segment 1910), and Walzem Creek (Segment 1910A) were added to the state’s 303(d) List due to nonsupport of contact recreation resulting from elevated levels of bacterial indicators for pathogens. Freshwater bacterial indicators for pathogens include fecal coliform and Escherichia coli (E.

coli). These coliform bacteria are associated with the fecal matter of all warm-blooded animals. E. coli has recently become the preferred indicator for estimating the level of pathogens, but fecal coliform can be used as an alternate indicator while additional data on E. coli are being collected. (Fecal coliform was selected as the key modeling parameter in work associated with the TMDL and WPP, but final TMDL allocations were assessed with respect to E. coli. Fecal coliform measurements were converted to E. coli using a ratio of 0.63 E. coli per fecal coliform, the ratio of the TCEQ criterion for E. coli and fecal coliform, which is typical of observed data.)

1.3 REVIEW OF TMDL RESULTS

The TCEQ has completed the TMDL development for the Upper San Antonio River. This work has included data collection, analysis, supplemental sampling, mathematical modeling of water quality, load allocations, and report preparation (JMA, 2006a). TCEQ prepared a document entitled “Three Total Maximum Daily Loads for Bacteria in the San Antonio Area” (TCEQ, 2007), and this TMDL was adopted by the TCEQ in July 2007 and approved by EPA in September 2007. TCEQ has recently indicated interest in inclusion of Westside San Antonio creeks in the TMDL.

1.3.1 Source Identification

The TMDL identified several existing point and nonpoint sources for indicator bacteria. Point sources are inputs of bacteria that can be attributed to a specific facility or a specific geographic location. Nonpoint sources include diffuse bacteria inputs that have the potential to occur over a large geographic area.

Point sources are typically regulated by a discharge permit, but this is not always the case. There are several permitted municipal effluent outfalls located in the study area. However, all of these point sources utilize disinfection to ensure that bacteria concentrations consistently meet state criteria. Other permitted discharges, such as industrial outfalls, may also exist in the study area, but are not considered potential sources because of the low likelihood of containing pathogens. One non-permitted point source was identified as the San Antonio Zoo, a significant contributor of indicator bacteria, and it has been determined to be the most significant point source affecting baseline water quality.

Stormwater runoff, which conveys bacteria from the land surface to the receiving stream, is a major source of bacterial loading in the San Antonio River and its tributaries. Traditionally, stormwater runoff has been considered a nonpoint source. However, as a result of new EPA guidelines, when stormwater is regulated by a municipal separate storm sewer system (MS4) permit, the stormwater is considered a point source for the purposes of TMDL development. As a major municipality, San Antonio is required to have an MS4 permit, and thus all runoff-related bacteria loads in the urban area of the City of San Antonio are considered to be point sources. The reclassification of stormwater as a point source can result in some difficulty when explaining the ultimate source of the bacteria. For example, if a duck deposits fecal material directly into a stream it is considered a nonpoint source, but if the same duck deposits fecal material on the land surface covered by an MS4 permit (which is then available for rainfall washoff), it is considered

a point source. TCEQ has recently begun to use the terminology “regulated” versus “nonregulated” in place of point and nonpoint labels.

Direct nonpoint sources are those sources that have the potential to enter the river system at all times, not associated with rainfall runoff. Potential direct sources for indicator bacteria include sources such as wastewater infrastructure, direct animal defecation, and septic systems.

1.3.2 Linkage between Sources and Receiving Waters

Establishing a link between in-stream water quality and the pollutant sources is a critical component of the TMDL process. This relationship allows for the evaluation of management options that will achieve the desired water quality goals. A variety of techniques are available for creating this link, ranging from qualitative assumptions based on scientific principles to sophisticated mathematical modeling. In the development of the TMDL for the Upper San Antonio River, the relationships were defined through computer simulation models. Monitored flow and water quality data were used to calibrate the relationships used in these models.

The bacterial loads associated with the model calibration can be readily examined in terms of load originating from the land use categories and point sources embodied in the analysis. The simulated loads for the urbanized Upper San Antonio River portion of the watershed are compared graphically in Figure 1-3, based upon the original modeling work (JMA, 2006). The loads presented are the total annual average fecal coliform loads that enter the impaired stream under existing conditions. The loads do not account for decay that occurs as the bacteria travel downstream.

Similarly, the fecal coliform loads for the lower, rural portion of the Upper San Antonio River watershed are shown in Figure 1-4. Figure 1-5 shows the fecal coliform loadings for the Salado Creek watershed.

Springs Direct Source 0.04% Effluent Outfall 2.5% 6.4% Septic 0.06% Rangeland 0.25%

Comm/Indust 17.2%

Residential 73.6%

Figure 1-3: USAR Bacteria Loads above Loop 410 (Urbanized Area)

Septic 0.02% Residential Direct Source 8.9% 3.8%

Comm/Indust 13.9%

Salado Creek =31.82% Rangeland Medina River 15.11% =26.42%

Tributaries Effluent Outfall 58.24% 0.1%

Figure 1-4: USAR Bacteria Loads below Loop 410 (Rural Area)

Effluent Outfall Direct Source 0.0002% Rangeland 2.44% 3.64% Septic 0.009%

Comm/Indust 44.87% Residential 49.04%

Figure 1-5: Salado Creek Bacteria Loads

Loads from residential, commercial/industrial, and rangeland sources are the result of washoff during rainfall events. The remaining four source categories discharge continuously, independent of climatic conditions. Although the loads from these latter four categories appear relatively small, they have a disproportionately large effect on water quality in the river, because they are active when there is less flow available for dilution.

For the urbanized reaches, it is apparent that the largest presumed source of fecal coliform bacteria is washoff from residential areas. This is attributable to the fact that residential is the largest land use category in terms of acreage, and it is the recipient of bacterial deposition from pets and wildlife. The next largest contribution is estimated to be commercial/industrial, which also receives deposition from pets and wildlife, but at a presumably lower rate. The third largest source is shown to be effluent outfalls, and this source category is dominated by loads from the San Antonio Zoo.

1.3.3 Required Load Reductions

The TMDL modeling exercise led to the development of bacterial load allocations for the Upper San Antonio River, Salado Creek, and Walzem Creek. Allocations were determined based on the reductions in existing loads (Figure 1-3) required to bring the river into compliance with state criteria for bacteria. Table 1-1 and Table 1-2 summarize the existing loads, required reductions, and loading allocations for bacteria sources within the San Antonio study area, based upon the original TMDL modeling work. The TMDL was conducted based upon fecal coliform bacteria concentrations and loadings, while more recent work has focused upon E. coli, since TCEQ has made E. coli the primary indicator bacteria. Loadings and allocations developed in terms of

fecal coliform are typically converted to E. coli by a factor of 0.63 (E. coli = fecal coliform x 0.63).

Table 1-1: Required Point Source Fecal Coliform Wasteload Reductions (10^9 cfu/year) Segment Point Source Existing Load Reduction WLA (10^9 cfu/yr) % (10^9 cfu/yr)

Salado Creek San Antonio MS4 4,317,117 60% 1,726,847 SAWS Reclaimed 4 7 0 7 Totals 4,317,125 1,726,854

Walzem Creek San Antonio MS4 121,038 60% 48,415

Upper San Antonio River San Antonio MS4 9,031,950 30% 6,322,365 San Antonio Zoo 622,000 99.9% 622 SAWS Salado WRC 2,760 0 2,760 SAWS Reclaimed 2 64 0 64 SAWS Reclaimed 3 7 0 7 Floresville WWTP 7 0 7 Totals 9,656,788 6,325,825

Table 1-2: Required Nonpoint Source Fecal Coliform Load Reductions (10^9 cfu/year) Segment Nonpoint Source Existing Load Reduction LA (10^9 cfu/yr) % (10^9 cfu/yr)

Salado Creek Direct Sources 107,899 90% 10,790 Septic Systems 416 0 416 Totals 108,315 11,206

Walzem Creek Direct Source 1,242 90% 124 Septic Systems 3 0 3 Totals 1,245 127

Upper San Antonio River Washoff (outside MS4) 1,607,615 0% 1,607,615 Direct Sources 424,465 50% 212,233 Septic Systems 6,107 0 6,107 Salado Creek 1,539,700 60% 622,640 Medina River 1,278,200 0 1,278,200 Springs 3,894 0 3,894 Totals 4,859,982 3,730,689

It should be noted that the reductions shown in Table 1-1 and Table 1-2 are not the only combination of reductions that could be used to achieve compliance with state criteria. A similar scenario, but with 70% direct source reduction and 0% storm water reduction, was also shown to achieve compliance within the WPP study area (JMA, 2006). The combination of proposed

12 reductions was determined based on best professional judgment, considering which reductions are most likely to be feasible and effective. Based on this fact, and the uncertainties inherent in the modeling process, it is possible that some other similar combination of loading reductions might also lead to compliance with water quality criteria.

1.4 STAKEHOLDER INVOLVMENT

Stakeholders have played an important role in the development of the Upper San Antonio River TMDL, Watershed Protection Plan (WPP), and Implementation Plan, and include a range of people, from technical staff at water agencies to businesspeople to nontechnical citizens. Collectively, their ideas, guidance and feedback are resulting in a workable plan that will benefit the San Antonio River and everyone concerned about its health. The stakeholder groups, their roles, and input are:

. Stakeholder: Bexar Regional Watershed Management (BRWM) partners – Group includes representatives from the San Antonio River Authority (SARA), City of San Antonio (COSA), Bexar County and suburban cities within Bexar County. The members came together in 2003 under an inter-local agreement to address flooding and water quality issues in a unified, regional approach. Role: This was the overall group responsible for implementation activities.

. Stakeholder: BRWM Water Quality Focus Group – This sub-group of BRWM is composed of water quality, storm water infrastructure and public works experts from the major water agencies in the study area, including input from the Edwards Aquifer Authority and San Antonio Water System. Role: Served as primary leaders, represented all the major stakeholders.

. Stakeholder: San Antonio River Oversight Committee (SAROC) – A 22-person citizen committee that was appointed in 1998 to guide the planning and implementation of the San Antonio River Improvements Project (SARIP). The multi-million dollar SARIP is designed to restore and rejuvenate 13 miles of the River, including areas within the WPP. Role: Oversight of activities that occur in the SARIP area.

. Stakeholder: Watershed Improvement Advisory Committee (WIAC) – This 15- member citizen participation group is one of three bodies that guide the BRWM program. Members are appointed so that each watershed in Bexar County is represented. Role: BRWM oversight

. Stakeholder: Committee of Seven (C-7) – Another body that oversees the BRWM program, the C-7 includes two representatives from the San Antonio City Council, two from the Bexar County Commissioners Court, two from the SARA Board of Directors and one elected official representing suburban cities. Role: BRWM oversight

. Stakeholder: BRWM Management Committee – Third guiding body of BRWM; members include the City of San Antonio’s Director of Public Works, Bexar County’s Executive Director of Infrastructure Services, SARA’s General Manager and one representative from participating suburban cities. Role: BRWM oversight

. Stakeholder: San Antonio Zoo – Identified as a contributor to the bacterial load in the Upper San Antonio River by the WPP. Role: WPP guidance.

. Stakeholder: Citizens from the project area – This included citizens in the Bexar County area who either 1) Previously expressed interest in water quality issues and were on SARA’s existing mailing list database or 2) Learned of the WPP through public outreach efforts (see below). The group was diverse, with people of various ages, backgrounds and professions. Role: WPP guidance.

. Stakeholder: Various organizations and governmental agencies – This group included interested parties such as the Mitchell Lake Wetlands Society, Texas Parks & Wildlife Dept., Texas Dept. of Transportation, engineering firms and public interest groups. Role: WPP guidance.

2.0 WATER QUALITY DATA REVIEW

This section of the report discusses the various types of bacteria data available for the Upper San Antonio River. Historical data have been routinely collected at several locations along the river. These data have been used to assess overall river compliance and to help determine locations of key concern. Historical data are also available for the San Antonio Zoo outfall and at selected outfalls of the storm drain system. A summary of the historical data is presented in Section 2.1. In addition to the historical data, additional sampling is being performed as part of this Implementation Plan project. The Implementation Plan sampling will provide better definition of bacteria “hot spots” and can be used to assess long-term trends in bacteria concentrations. Section 2.2 provides a discussion of the recent Implementation Plan sampling results.

2.1 HISTORICAL SAMPLING

2.1.1 Salado Creek (Segment 1910)

Salado Creek flows through the eastern portion of the San Antonio urban area and joins with the San Antonio River downstream of Loop 410. A summary of the historical E. coli data for Salado Creek and its tributaries is shown in Table 2-1. Stations are listed from upstream to downstream, with tributary stations highlighted in yellow. The table presents the number of samples collected under baseflow and elevated (peaking or receding) flow conditions. Geometric means were calculated for each station and flow condition, so long as there was a minimum of five samples available. The tabulated data indicate that E. coli concentrations were generally higher under elevated flow conditions than under baseflow conditions.

The spatial distribution of historical E. coli levels is presented in Figure 2-1. At each station, two geometric means are presented. The first geometric mean was determined from samples collected under baseflow conditions, while the second geometric mean includes all samples, regardless of flow condition. Most of the mainstem stations on Salado Creek exhibit baseflow E. coli concentrations below 126 cfu/100 mL. Higher baseflow concentrations can be found in the upper portion of the segment: the station at Austin Hwy (Sta. 12876) shows a baseflow E. coli concentration of 398 cfu/100 mL, the station at Rittiman (Sta. 12874) shows 137 cfu/100 mL, and the station at Rigsby (Sta. 12868) shows 147 cfu/100 mL as geometric mean values. The tributary Walzem Creek (Segment 1910A) displays a baseflow geometric mean value of 132 cfu/100 mL at Holbrook (Sta. 12698) just above its confluence with Salado Creek. The geometric means determined from all samples (regardless of flow condition) are typically above 126 cfu/100 mL.

Table 2-1: Historical E. coli Sampling of Salado Creek, 2000-2007 Sampling Period # of Samples Collected Geometric Mean (cfu/100mL) % Exceedances Station Description End Elevated All Elevated >126 >394 Begin Date Total Baseflow Baseflow Date Flow* Samples Flow* cfu/100mL cfu/100mL 12878 SALADO CREEK AT LOS PATIOS 15-Jun-04 15-Jun-04 1 0 1 - - - 100% 100% 12877 SALADO CREEK AT NE LOOP 410 8-Feb-99 5-Aug-03 21 11 10 267 33 2,627 57% 48% 12701 BEITEL CREEK AT RIVER RANCH CAMP 4-Jun-03 5-Aug-03 8 3 5 929 - 12,358 63% 63% 15643 SALADO CR UPSTREAM OF SH 368 7-Jan-97 18-Dec-97 58 33 25 225 129 471 62% 24% 12876 SALADO CREEK AT AUSTIN HWY 8-Feb-99 5-Aug-03 19 10 9 1,943 398 11,294 95% 74% 12875 SALADO CREEK AT EISENHAUER RD 7-Jan-97 28-Jun-04 64 37 27 138 68 361 48% 20% 12698 WALZEM CREEK AT HOLBROOK RD 7-Jan-97 5-Aug-03 77 42 35 348 132 1,109 77% 45% 12874 SALADO CREEK AT RITTIMAN RD 3-Oct-00 13-Nov-07 39 26 13 241 137 744 54% 28% 15642 SALADO CREEK DWNST WOODBURN RD 7-Jan-97 5-Aug-03 65 40 25 190 117 415 51% 25% 12872 SALADO CREEK AT WW WHITE RD 7-Jan-97 7-Jan-03 73 45 28 111 56 329 34% 15% 12871 SALADO CREEK AT IH 35 7-Jan-97 5-Aug-03 71 41 30 154 50 716 37% 21% 15644 SALADO CREEK AT PLETZ PARK 7-Jan-97 8-Feb-99 59 35 24 143 71 394 44% 20% 12870 SALADO CREEK AT GEMBLER RD 28-Jan-98 13-Nov-07 59 42 17 149 87 554 41% 22% 15645 SALADO CREEK AT COMMERCE ST 7-Jan-97 5-Aug-03 74 41 33 228 96 662 54% 23% 15646 SALADO CREEK AT MLK PARK 7-Jan-97 28-Sep-98 99 59 40 220 109 619 62% 31% 12692 SALADO CREEK TRIB IN J ST PARK 4-Jun-03 5-Aug-03 8 4 4 1,851 -- 88% 50% 12868 SALADO CREEK AT RIGSBY AVE 7-Jan-97 28-Jun-04 82 46 36 307 147 784 65% 40% 15647 SALADO CREEK AT E SOUTHCROSS 7-Jan-97 18-Dec-97 58 34 24 159 94 334 55% 16% 12864 SALADO CREEK AT LOOP 13 7-Jan-97 20-Aug-07 91 51 40 242 110 661 62% 25% 12690 ROSILLO CREEK AT W W WHITE RD 8-Feb-99 5-Aug-03 13 9 4 329 156 - 69% 54% 12862 SALADO CREEK AT GOLIAD ROAD 7-Jan-97 28-Jul-05 150 96 54 139 66 513 37% 18% 12861 SALADO CREEK AT SOUTHTON RD 12-Jan-04 13-Nov-07 36 23 13 122 45 715 39% 22% *Elevated flow conditions determined based on USGS gage at Loop 13 (#08178800) = Tributary to Salado Creek

Figure 2-1: Historical E. coli Geometric Means for Salado Creek

2.1.2 Upper San Antonio River (Segment 1911

Table 2-2 provides a summary of historical E. coli data for the Upper San Antonio River, as available from the TCEQ’s surface water quality monitoring database. The stations are listed from upstream to downstream, with tributary stations highlighted in yellow. The table presents the number of samples collected under baseflow and elevated (peaking or receding) flow conditions. Geometric means were calculated for each station and flow condition, so long as there were a minimum of five samples available. As shown, bacteria levels were generally higher under elevated flow conditions than under baseflow conditions.

The spatial distribution of historical E. coli levels is presented in Figures 2-2 and 2-3, for the upper and lower portions of the watershed, respectively. At each station, two geometric means are presented. The first geometric mean was determined from samples collected under baseflow conditions, while the second geometric mean includes all samples, regardless of flow condition. As shown, most stations above Loop 410 (Figure 2-2) exceed the geometric mean criterion (126 cfu/100 mL) under baseflow conditions. In the lower, more rural portion of the watershed (Figure 2-3), no stations exceed the geometric mean criterion under baseflow conditions. However, the geometric means determined from all samples (regardless of flow condition) are typically above 126 cfu/100 mL throughout the entire watershed.

Stations 18803 and 15722 are located at outfalls from the San Antonio Zoo. These outfalls release flow from an internal waterway within the Zoo. The source of flow in the internal waterway is a well and pump-house connected to the Edwards Aquifer. Station 18803 is the primary outfall for the Zoo, and it conveys the majority of discharged flow. Station 15722 is the secondary outfall, and has a negligible flow under dry weather conditions. The baseflow E. coli levels in the discharge from the Zoo (Station 18803) are higher than at any other location in the USAR watershed. The WPP for the Upper San Antonio River (JMA, 2006) provides additional discussion of Zoo sampling results.

The major tributaries in the western portion of the watershed urban area include San Pedro Creek, which joins with the San Antonio River downstream of the downtown area near Probandt Street. Other small streams flow into San Pedro Creek, including Apache, Alazan, and Martinez. These streams exhibit geometric mean E. coli concentrations that exceed 126 cfu/100 mL at several locations under baseflow conditions, and at all locations when including all flow conditions. For example, San Pedro Creek at Alamo (Sta. 12708) shows a baseflow geometric mean of 645 cfu/100 mL and a geometric mean of 1527 cfu/100 mL for E. coli under all flow conditions.

Table 2-2: Historical E. coli Sampling of Upper San Antonio River, 2000-2007 Sampling Period # of Samples Collected Geometric Mean (cfu/100mL) % Exceedances

Station Description End Elevated Elevated >126 >394 Begin Date Total Baseflow All Samples Baseflow Date Flow* Flow* cfu/100mL cfu/100mL

12912 SAN ANTONIO R AT HILDEBRAND AV 11-Oct-99 23-Jul-07 67 47 20 452 299 1,191 78% 52% 18859 SAN ANTONIO RIVER WITTE MUSEUM 14-Nov-07 14-Nov-07 1 1 0 - - - 100% 0% 18803 SAN ANTONIO ZOO OUTFALL NO 2 17-Nov-05 26-Jun-07 62 45 17 11 8 24 15% 11% 15722 CANAL AT S ANTONIO ZOO EXIT 17-Nov-05 26-Jun-07 63 41 22 7,751 7927 7,433 100% 100% 12908 SAN ANTONIO R. AT WOODLAWN AVE 24-Sep-01 23-Jul-07 54 38 16 543 350 1,538 91% 69% 14219 UPPER SAN ANTONIO AT JONES AVE 26-Feb-03 19-Aug-03 7 7 0 698 698 - 100% 57% 18865 SAN ANTONIO RIVER AT LEXINGTON 19-Sep-06 23-Jul-07 6 2 4 8,864 - - 100% 100% 12904 SAN ANTONIO RIVER AT ALAMO ST 9-Feb-98 23-Jul-07 79 55 24 437 232 1,869 81% 44% 14256 SAN ANTONIO R AT MITCHELL ST 27-Jan-98 23-Jul-07 116 87 29 222 139 918 64% 30% 18814 APACHE CREEK AT W COMMERCE ST 5-Sep-06 5-Sep-06 5 4 1 321 - - 100% 20% 12712 APACHE CREEK AT 24TH ST 5-Jan-06 26-Jun-07 56 39 17 243 120 1,235 52% 32% 15707 APACHE CREEK AT SAN LUIS ST 19-Feb-97 26-Jun-07 62 37 25 890 311 4,225 87% 60% 18735 APACHE CREEK AT BRAZOS STREET 5-Jan-06 26-Jun-07 57 37 20 468 210 2,052 68% 54% 18813 WOODLAWN LAKE AT TOBIN DR 5-Sep-06 5-Sep-06 5 0 5 105,923 - 105,923 100% 100% 12718 WOODLAWN LAKE AT BOAT DOCK 5-Jan-06 26-Jun-07 56 37 19 251 118 1,086 59% 38% 12716 ALAZAN CREEK AT WAVERLY ST 5-Jan-06 26-Jun-07 61 37 24 461 175 2,048 72% 49% 18737 ALAZAN CREEK AT MARTIN STREET 5-Jan-06 26-Jun-07 56 37 19 366 175 1,529 68% 52% 12715 ALAZAN CREEK AT TAMPICO RD 5-Jan-06 26-Jun-07 56 37 19 286 123 1,488 66% 36% 12708 SAN PEDRO CREEK AT ALAMO ST 3-Jan-06 26-Jun-07 57 34 23 1,527 645 5,464 88% 67% 12707 SAN PEDRO CREEK AT FURNISH ST 15-Jul-03 19-Aug-03 2 2 0 - - - 100% 100% 18736 SAN PEDRO CREEK AT PROBANDT ST 3-Jan-06 26-Jun-07 56 35 21 259 98 1,311 64% 39% 17066 SAN ANTONIO RIVER AT MISSION R 3-Oct-00 6-Aug-07 58 39 19 310 145 1,478 76% 34% 15308 SAN ANTONIO RIVER ABOVE AGE 26-Feb-03 19-Aug-03 10 8 2 247 232 - 50% 40% 12897 SAN ANTONIO RIVER AT IH 410 16-Nov-99 29-Aug-07 115 82 33 177 66 2,052 47% 27% 12894 SAN ANTONIO R AT BLUE WING RD 9-Feb-98 6-Aug-07 59 44 15 143 62 1,686 44% 25% 16731 SAN ANTONIO R UPSTM OF MEDINA 27-Jan-98 14-Aug-07 54 46 8 93 74 351 26% 15% 12889 SAN ANTONIO RIVER AT IH 37 11-Oct-99 23-Jul-07 43 35 8 138 85 1,174 40% 28% 12886 SAN ANTONIO RIVER AT LOOP 1604 9-Apr-03 15-Nov-07 55 43 12 124 66 1,164 40% 15% 12884 SAN ANTONIO RIVER AT LABATT RD 21-Jan-04 3-Aug-04 8 6 2 151 74 - 50% 13% 12883 SAN ANTONIO R AT DIETZFIELD RD 16-Nov-99 6-Aug-07 65 52 13 137 72 1,787 35% 22% 12882 SAN ANTONIO RIVER AT FM 536 21-Jan-04 24-Aug-05 20 15 5 205 95 2,052 50% 25% 12881 SAN ANTONIO RIVER AT SH 97 19-Sep-05 29-Aug-07 73 53 20 234 107 1,878 51% 33% 12880 SAN ANTONIO RIVER AT FM 541 26-Feb-03 8-Aug-07 54 41 13 171 102 878 46% 22% 12879 SAN ANTONIO RIVER AT FM 791 28-Jan-98 29-Aug-07 162 124 38 103 59 648 33% 15% *For station 17066 and above, elevated flow conditions determined based on USGS gage at Mitchell St. (#08178050) For stations 15308 through 16731, elevated flow conditions determined based on USGS gage at Loop 410 South (#08178565) For stations 12881 through 12889, elevated flow conditions determined based on USGS gage near Elmendorf (#08181800) For stations 12879 through 12880, elevated flow conditions determined based on USGS gage near Falls City (#08183500) = Tributary to Upper San Antonio Rv.

Figure 2-2: Historical E. coli Geometric Means for USAR above Loop 410

Figure 2-3: Historical E. coli Geometric Means for USAR below Loop 410

2.1.3 Urban Stormwater Sampling

The City of San Antonio (Department of Public Works), along with the Texas Department of Transportation, District 15 (TxDOT), and the San Antonio Water System (SAWS) are authorized as co-permittees for stormwater point discharges to surface waters of the State of Texas in the San Antonio area under Texas Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (TPDES) permit No. 04284 (TXS001901), issued Dec 22, 1995. The permit was issued to expire five years from the date of issuance following the requirements of 30 TAC § 305.71. Application for renewal of this permit was made, and the permit was issued on September 28, 2007 for another five years. The permit requires continuing stormwater monitoring and reporting.

Through an inter-local agreement with the City and TxDOT, SAWS assumed the water quality monitoring responsibilities of the permit. The stormwater permit requires at least one quarterly grab sample from each of seven representative outfalls in the San Antonio Area. Locations for these outfalls are displayed in Figure 2-4, and are summarized below:

• Outfall 001: San Pedro Rd @ Olmos Park; • Outfall 002: So. Flores Rd @ Drainage Channel; • Outfall 003: Alderete Park @ Zarzamora Creek; • Outfall 004: Bandera Rd @ Zarzamora Creek; • Outfall 005: Bitters Rd @ Salado Creek; • Outfall 006: Business Park @ Tributary to Rosillo Creek; and, • Outfall 007: Ingram Rd @ Leon Creek

Figure 2-4: Stormwater TPDES Permit Sampling Stations

Numerous stormwater samples have been analyzed for fecal coliform, beginning in 2000. E. coli has not been included as a test constituent. A summary of this available data for fecal coliform is presented in Figure 2-5 below. This figure shows the annual average stormwater fecal coliform concentrations for seven monitoring locations throughout San Antonio. As demonstrated by this figure, concentrations typically vary between 10,000 and 100,000 cfu/ 100mL within each of the seven outfalls and from year to year.

Fecal Coliform Summary Annual Averages

1,000,000 100,000 10,000 1,000 100 10 1 FY00 FY01 FY02 FY03 FY04 FY05 Outfall#1 Outfall#2 Outfall#3 Outfall#4 Outfall#5 Outfall#6 Outfall#7

Figure 2-5: Stormwater Fecal Coliform Sampling Stations, 2000-2005

2.2 IMPLEMENTATION SAMPLING PLAN

As a component of implementation plan development, monitoring was undertaken to provide additional water quality data for characterizing E. coli bacteria loads in the impaired reaches. Ideally, detailed monitoring activities will be used to locate and characterize specific sources of bacteria within the watershed. The monitoring will also be used to assess in-stream bacteria levels before, during, and following the implementation of control measures. These detailed monitoring activities will continue during the project term; the scope of potential long-term monitoring programs will be determined at a future date. Five major sampling activities were included in the scope of additional monitoring, as described below.

Routine Synoptic Sampling

Synoptic sampling surveys were designed to explore the spatial and temporal variation in bacteria levels. The surveys were to include approximately 44 sites in the USAR watershed, and 26 sites in the Salado Creek watershed. The surveys included nearly all of the historical E. coli monitoring sites. In addition, several new sites were proposed on large tributaries.

Synoptic sampling surveys were to be performed monthly, except for months when a spatially intensive survey of the subject reach was performed. These surveys were expected to be important for determining changes in bacteria levels over time, and ultimately will be the primary method to verify the effectiveness of control measures. The surveys were expected to help to determine the general locations of bacteria sources. The historical database has already accomplished this to some degree for the main stem, but data is lacking for the major tributaries. This sampling plan will provide the data necessary to characterize tributary loads.

In addition to E. coli sampling, temperature, conductivity, dissolved oxygen, and pH data were to be collected at each location. These data can be useful for analyzing bacteria kinetics, and for helping to determine flow sources.

Spatially Intensive Surveys of USAR above Loop 410

A spatially intensive survey was designed to be performed under non-storm water conditions along the main stem of the Upper San Antonio River between Olmos Dam and Loop 410 South. The length of this reach is about 14 miles. Samples were to be collected at all synoptic sampling sites, and at approximately 1-mile intervals between synoptic sites. Additional samples were to be collected from all flowing tributaries and outfalls. The survey was to be conducted by foot or boat, as required, so that the entire route could be examined for outfalls. An estimated 30 samples were to be collected during each survey.

These surveys were intended to help ensure that all potential sources along the main stem of the river are accounted for. Because the surveys were to be conducted by foot and by boat, they have the potential to identify bacteria sources which were previously inaccessible or unknown. The surveys were also expected to provide a detailed longitudinal profile of bacteria concentrations which should be useful for analysis and modeling.

In addition to E. coli sampling, temperature, conductivity, dissolved oxygen, and pH data were to be collected at each location. These data may be useful for analyzing bacteria kinetics, and for helping to determine flow sources. Flow measurements, or estimates, were to be taken at all tributaries and outfalls.

Spatially Intensive Surveys of USAR below Loop 410

A spatially intensive survey was designed to be performed under non-storm water conditions along the main stem of the Upper San Antonio River between Loop 410 South and FM 791 (Station 12871). The length of this reach is about 66 miles. Samples were to be collected at all synoptic sampling sites, and at approximately 3-mile intervals between synoptic sites. Additional samples were to be collected from all flowing tributaries and other potential sources. The survey was to be conducted by boat, so that the entire route could be examined for tributaries and other potential bacteria sources. An estimated 45 samples were to be collected during each survey.

These surveys were expected to help ensure that all potential sources along the main stem of the river are accounted for. Because the surveys were to be conducted by boat, they have the

potential to identify bacteria sources which were previously inaccessible or unknown. The surveys were also expected to provide a detailed longitudinal profile of bacteria concentrations which should be useful for analysis and modeling.

Spatially Intensive Surveys of San Pedro Creek and Tributaries

A spatially intensive survey was designed to be performed along San Pedro Creek and its tributaries under non-storm water conditions. The upper bounds of the survey were defined as follows:

• Apache Creek at Elmendorf Lake • Alazan Creek at Woodlawn Lake • Martinez Creek at Hildebrand Ave. • San Pedro Creek at San Pedro Springs

The total length of the reaches in this survey area is about 14 miles. Samples were to be collected at all synoptic sampling sites, and at approximately 1-mile intervals between synoptic sites. Additional samples were to be collected from all flowing tributaries and outfalls. The survey was to be conducted by foot or boat, as required, so that the entire route could be examined for outfalls. An estimated 30 samples were to be collected during each survey.

These surveys were expected to help ensure that all potential sources along the main stem of the river are accounted for. Because the surveys were to be conducted by foot and by boat, they have the potential to identify bacteria sources which were previously inaccessible or unknown. The surveys were also expected to provide a detailed longitudinal profile of bacteria concentrations which should be useful for analysis and modeling.

Spatially Intensive Surveys of Salado and Walzem Creeks

A spatially intensive survey was designed to be performed along Salado and Walzem Creeks under non-storm water conditions. This survey included 27 miles of Salado Creek from Loop 410 North to the confluence with Rosillo Creek. Walzem Creek added an additional 3.5 miles of survey route, though much of this creek is usually dry. Samples were to be collected at all synoptic sampling sites, and at approximately 1-mile intervals between synoptic sites. Additional samples were to be collected from all flowing tributaries and outfalls. The survey

was to be conducted by foot or boat, as required, so that the entire route could be examined for outfalls. An estimated 45 samples were to be collected during each survey.

2.3 RESULTS OF ADDITIONAL MONITORING

Routine synoptic surveys have been conducted monthly as part of the implementation plan development, beginning in September 2008. Results through December 2009 are included in this report. (A full data report covering sampling through August 2010 has been prepared as a separate document, see JMA, 2010). Intensive surveys were completed in October 2008 and July 2009, and are described herein. All of the figures and tables are positioned at the end of this section, in chronological order, for ease of use. These sampling surveys were intended to be conducted under baseflow conditions in the streams, and this objective was accomplished for the most part. Both 2008 and 2009 were years characteristic of drought conditions. On some surveys, there may have been scattered rainfall in some locations in the watershed. A description of daily rainfall recorded on survey days and days antecedent to each survey is provided in Table 2-3. Data for two National Weather Service rainfall stations is presented, namely, the San Antonio International Airport and Stinson Field. These rainfall data provide some indication of whether or not significant rainfall may have fallen in the watershed of the various streams, however, rainfall is usually not uniform over the watershed and there are often scattered thunderstorms. Based upon the sampling results and the rainfall data, there is a possibility that rainfall-induced runoff influenced sampling results for the synoptic surveys of September 2009 and November 2009.

2.3.1 Salado Creek and Tributaries

Synoptic survey bacteria counts for Salado Creek and Walzem Creek are shown in Figures 2-6a and 2-6b for the September 2008 survey. Detailed sampling results are presented in Table 2-4. Most of the stations on Salado displayed E. coli counts below 126 cfu/100 mL. A few mainstem stations interspersed along the reach showed higher concentrations, specifically those located at Austin Highway, Rittiman, IH 35, Gembler, and Loop 13. Walzem Creek just above its confluence with Salado had a concentration of 540 cfu/100 mL. Two other tributary stations showed elevated counts. Sta. 12693 on Menger Creek showed 770 cfu/100 mL, and Sta. 12692 on the J Street tributary had 290 cfu/100 mL.

The October 2008 survey on Salado and Walzem Creeks was an intensive sampling survey, with additional spatial coverage compared to the routine synoptic surveys. Results are displayed in

Figures 2-9a and 2-9b and Table 2-5. In the upper half of the Salado segment, E. coli concentrations in excess of 126 cfu/100 mL were observed at several mainstem stations, including Eisenhaur, Walzem, Rittiman, and IH 35. Walzem Creek showed a high concentration well above the confluence with Salado, up to 990 cfu/100 mL. An outfall above Austin Hwy showed a high count of 830 cfu/100 mL. In the lower reach of Salado Creek, most of the observed concentrations were below 126 cfu/100 mL. Two small tributary stations showed high concentrations, with one up to >24,000 cfu/100 mL (Sta. S70, unnamed tributary at Dollarhide Rd). A station on a small tributary near the midpoint of Rosillo Creek (Sta. S93) showed a concentration of 610 cfu/100 mL.

For the November 2008 synoptic sampling survey on Salado and Walzem Creeks, results are displayed in Figures 2-13a and 2-13b. A corresponding table of results is provided in Table 2-6. Almost all of the stations on the mainstem of Salado showed E. coli concentrations below 126 cfu/100 mL. The exception was an observed 1100 cfu/100 mL at Loop 13, Sta. 12864. Higher concentrations were observed on Walzem Creek at Holbrook, with 290 cfu/100 mL, immediately above the confluence with Salado. Menger Creek showed a concentration of of 20,000 cfu/100 mL. Rosillo Creek just above the confluence with Salado Creek, Sta. 12689, had a concentration of 420 cfu/100 mL.

December 2008 synoptic sampling survey results for Salado and Walzem Creeks are shown in Figures 2-16a and 2-16b and Table 2-7. Along the upper half of the Salado segment, concentrations of E. coli were below 126 cfu/100 mL with the exception of the station at Austin Highway, with a value of 210 cfu/100 mL. Along the lower half of the segment, relatively high concentrations were observed at Commerce, MLK Park, Rigsby, and Loop 13, with the highest mainstem concentration of 4900 cfu/100 mL at St. 15645, Commerce. The unnamed tributary in J Street Park showed a high concentration of 14000 cfu/100 mL, and Menger Creek had 19000 cfu/ 100 mL. Walzem Creek had a concentration of 1700 cfu/100 mL just above the confluence with Salado.

The January 2009 synoptic sampling survey results for Salado and Walzem Creeks are shown in Figures 2-19a and 2-19b and Table 2-8. In the upper half of the Salado segment, concentrations of E. coli were usually below 126 cfu/100 mL, except for the station at Austin Highway with a value of 160 cfu/100 mL and the station at WW White (Sta. 12872) with a value of 200 cfu/100 mL. Along the lower half of the segment, a concentration greater than 126 cfu/100 mL was observed at Loop 13. With respect to tributaries, Bietel Creek near the confluence with Salado Creek showed a concentration of 310 cfu/100 mL. Walzem Creek had a concentration of 24,000 cfu/100 mL below Diamondhead. Rosillo Creek above the confluence with Salado Creek had a concentration of 210 cfu/100 mL.

A synoptic survey was conducted in February 2009 and results are shown in Figure 2-22a, Figure 2-22b, and Table 2-9. A couple of stations showed E. coli concentrations greater than 126 cfu/100 mL in the upper reach. The station at Rittiman showed 280 cfu/100 mL and the station near Holbrook showed 150 cfu/100 mL. In the lower reach, the station at Loop 13 showed a concentration of 140 cfu/100 mL. Beitel Creek above its confluence with Salado displayed a concentration of 1,800 cfu/100 mL, and Menger Creek had 17,000 cfu/100 mL. On Rosillo

Creek, a station at Sinclair Road had 450 cfu/100 mL and a lower station above the confluence with Salado Creek showed 280 cfu/100 mL.

Results for the March 2009 synoptic sampling event are shown in Figure 2-25a, Figure 2-25b, and Table 2-10. In the upper half of Salado, concentrations were generally below 126 cfu/100 mL, except for the reach near Austin Highway. The station at Austin Highway showed a concentration of 200 cfu/100 mL and station 12875 at Eisenhauer had 150 cfu/100 mL. On the lower half, E. coli concentrations exceeded 126 cfu/100 mL at stations at MLK Park, Southcross, and Loop 13, with the highest value of 500 cfu/100 mL observed at Loop 13. Beitel Creek near the confluence with Salado showed a concentration of 260 cfu/100 mL. Walzem Creek had 2,111 cfu/100 mL at the station near Diamondhead. The tributary in J Street Park had 190 cfu/100 mL. Rosillo Creek near the confluence with Salado Creek showed a concentration of 410 cfu/100 mL.

The April 2009 survey on Salado and Walzem Creeks was an intensive sampling survey with additional spatial coverage. Results are displayed in Figures 2-28a and 2-28b and Table 2-11. In the upper half of the Salado segment, E. coli concentrations in excess of 126 cfu/100 mL were observed at several mainstem stations, including Austin Highway, Eisenhauer, Rittiman, Holbrook, WW White, Pletz Park and near Gembler, with the highest concentration of 1,800 cfu/100 mL observed at Rittiman. In the lower half, similar exceedances were observed at Commerce, MLK Park, Rigsby, and Loop 13, with the highest concentration of >24,000 cfu/100 mL at MLK Park Sta. 15646. Tributaries also showed some high concentrations. Beitel Creek showed a concentration of 220 cfu/100 mL near the confluence with Salado Creek, and Walzem Creek showed 1300 cfu/100 mL at Sta. 12698 near the confluence with Salado and 490 cfu/100 mL near Diamondhead. Menger Creek showed concentrations of 1,800 cfu/100 mL near the confluence with Salado and a concentration of 9,300 was observed at a storm drain in the upper reaches of the creek. The J Street Park tributary showed 20,000 cfu/100 mL and an unnamed branch near I10 showed 3,300 cfu/100 mL A few high concentrations were observed in Commanche Park near the springs.

Results for the May 2009 synoptic survey on Salado and Walzem Creeks are shown in Figure 2- 31a, Figure 2-31b, and Table 2-12. In the upper half of the segment, the highest concentration observed was 1,500 cfu/100 mL at Austin Highway. Other mainstem stations with concentrations in excess of 126 cfu/100 mL included Rittiman and WW White. In the lower half of the segment, concentrations exceeded 126 cfu/100 mL at Commerce, MLK Park, and Loop 13, with the highest value of 3,100 cfu/100 mL at Loop 13. Beitel Creek showed a concentration of 190 cfu/100 mL near the confluence with Salado. Walzem Creek showed 590 cfu/100 mL near Diamondhead and 130 cfu/100 mL near the confluence with Salado. The Menger Creek tributary had a concentration of 180 cfu/100 mL, and the tributary in J Street Park showed 590 cfu/100 mL.

Data from the June 2009 synoptic survey on Salado and Walzem Creeks are displayed in Figure 2-34a and 2-34b, along with Table 2-13. Several stations in the upper half of the segment showed concentrations of E. coli above 126 cfu/100 mL, including Austin Highway, Eisenhauer, and Rittiman, with a highest value of 1,300 cfu/100 mL observed at Austin Highway. In the lower reach, Rigsby, Southcross, and Loop 13 had concentrations above 126 cfu/100 mL, with

the highest value 910 cfu/100 mL at Loop 13. Tributaries showed some elevated concentrations, including Beitel Creek near the confluence with Salado, Walzem Creek near its confluence and at Diamondhead, Menger Creek, J Street Park tributary, and Rosillo Creek at Sinclair. The highest tributary value was observed at Sta. 20359 on Walzem Creek at Diamondhead.

The July 2009 synoptic survey results are shown in Figures 2-37a and 2-37b and Table 2-14. In the upper half of Salado Creek, E. coli concentrations exceeded 126 cfu/100 mL at several stations, including Austin Highway, Rittiman, Holbrook, IH35, and Gembler, with the highest concentration of 990 cfu/100 mL encountered at IH35. One station on the lower reach showed an exceedance, with 350 cfu/100 mL observed at Sta. 15647 at Southcross. Beitel Creek displayed a concentration of 230 cfu/100 mL near its confluence with Salado Creek, and Walzem Creek showed 4,100 cfu/100 mL near Diamondhead. A concentration of 200 cfu/100 mL was observed at the J Street Park tributary.

Results for the August 2009 synoptic survey on Salado and Walzem Creeks are displayed in Figure 2-40a and Figure 2-40b, along with Table 2-15. In the upper half of Salado Creek, the highest concentration of E. coli observed was 2,500 cfu/100 mL at Rittiman, but concentrations exceeded 126 cfu/100 mL at Austin Highway, Holbrook, and IH35. The only exceedance in the lower half was observed at the station at Commerce. Walzem Creek was the only tributary that showed a high concentration of E. coli, with 510 cfu/100 mL measured at the Diamondhead station.

A September 2009 synoptic survey was not completed on Salado and Walzem Creeks due to persistent rainfall.

Results for the October 2009 synoptic survey on Salado and Walzem Creeks are shown in Figures 2-47a and 2-47b and Table 2-18. Most of the sampling stations in the upper half of the Salado segment showed concentrations in excess of 126 cfu/100 mL, including Loop 410 N, Austin Highway, Eisenhauer, Rittiman, Holbrook, IH35, and Pletz Park. The highest mainstem value in the upper reach was 330 cfu/100 mL at Sta. 15642 near Holbrook. Station exceeding 126 cfu/100 mL in the lower reach included Southcross and Loop 13, with the highest reading of 420 cfu/100 mL recorded at Loop 13. Beitel Creek showed a concentration of 350 cfu/100 mL near the confluence with Salado Creek. Walzem Creek had 5,500 cfu/100 mL at Diamondhead. Menger Creek and the J Street park tributary each showed 130 cfu/100 mL. Rosillo Creek had two high values in its upper reaches, with 400 cfu/100 mL at Sinclair and 440 cfu/100 mL at IH10.

November 2009 synoptic survey results for Salado and Walzem Creeks are shown in Figure 2- 50a, Figure 2-50b, and Table 2-19. Most of the stations in the upper half of the segment displayed concentrations in excess of 1,000 cfu/100 mL, and this was possibly due to the influence of runoff. The highest concentration observed was 3,000 cfu/100 mL at Pletz Park. In the lower half of the segment, concentrations were lower than those observed in the upper half, with the highest concentration observed at 240 cfu/100 mL at Rigsby. Beitel Creek showed very high concentrations of E. coli, with 12,000 cfu/100 mL near the confluence with Salado. Walzem Creek showed 340 cfu/100 mL at Diamondhead. Menger Creek displayed 910 cfu/100

mL. The J Street Park tributary had 630 cfu/100 mL. Rosillo Creek showed 500 cfu/100 mL at Sinclair.

Results for the December 2009 synoptic survey on Salado and Walzem Creeks are shown in Figure 2-53a, Figure 2-53b, and Table 2-20. In the upper half of the segment, two stations showed concentrations of E. coli above 126 cfu/100 mL: Austin Highway and Holbrook. The highest E. coli concentration observed was 240 cfu/100 mL at Austin Highway. The lower half of the segment had two stations with concentrations in excess of 126 cfu/100 mL: Southcross and Loop 13. The highest value was 240 cfu/100 mL at Loop 13. Beitel Creek showed a concentration of 250 cfu/100 mL near the confluence with Salado Creek. Rosillo Creek had 1,500 cfu/100 mL at Sinclair.

2.3.2 San Pedro Creek and Tributaries

September 2008 Synoptic survey bacteria counts for San Pedro Creek and its tributaries Apache, Alazan, and Martinez Creeks are presented in Figure 2-7 and Table 2-4. These streams are tributaries to the Upper San Antonio River (Segment 1911). All of the stations displayed high E. coli counts. On San Pedro Creek, measurements included 2900 cfu/100 mL at Probandt (St. 18736), 4,600 cfu/100 mL at IH 35 (Sta. 20119), and 3900 cfu/100 mL at Croft Trace (Sta. 20117). Apache Creek at Brazos (Sta. 18735) showed a count of 1300 cfu/100 mL. Alazan Creek showed 1600 cfu/100 mL at Tampico (Sta. 12715), and Martinez Creek showed 440 cfu/100 mL at Ruiz Street (Sta. 12751).

The October 2008 intensive sampling survey provided much increased spatial coverage of the watercourses. Results are shown in Figure 2-10 and Table 2-5. On San Pedro Creek, E. coli concentrations were high at IH 35 with 1200 cfu/100 mL and at Croft Trace with 490 cfu/100 mL. In addition, several storm drains/outfall pipes contributing to the creek showed high bacteria counts, up to 9800 cfu/100 mL at outfall S2. Apache Creek showed a relatively high E. coli count at Brazos, and a high concentration of 1200 cfu/100 mL was observed in a contributing tributary upstream (S38). On Alazan Creek, several storm drains/outfall pipes showed high bacteria counts, with a high of >24000 cfu/100 mL at outfall S29. A single sampling station (S35) on Martinez Creek showed E. coli below 126 cfu/100 mL.

For the November 2008 synoptic sampling survey on San Pedro Creek and its tributaries, results are displayed in Figure 2-14. A corresponding table of results is provided in Table 2-6. Stations on the mainstem of San Pedro showed E. coli concentrations below 126 cfu/100 mL, with an exception of 190 cfu/100 mL at Croft Trace. Apache Creek at Brazos had a concentration of 160 cfu/100 mL, and the single station on Alazan and single station on Martinez showed concentrations below 126 cfu/100 mL.

The December 2008 synoptic sampling results are shown in Figure 2-17 and Table 2-7. San Pedro Creek had two mainstem stations with high concentrations of E. coli, IH 35 showed 13000 cfu/100 mL and Croft Trace showed 430 cfu/100 mL. The single sampling stations on Apache, Alazan, and Martinez Creeks showed results less than 126 cfu/100 mL.

Results for the January 2009 synoptic sampling survey on San Pedro Creek are provided in Figure 2-20 and Table 2-8. Stations on San Pedro, Apache, Martinez, and Alazan Creeks 30

showed E. coli concentrations below 126 cfu/100 mL. Only the station on San Pedro Creek at Croft Trace showed an exceedance, with a value of 190 cfu/100 mL.

The February 2009 synoptic sampling results for San Pedro Creek and its tributaries are shown in Figure 2-23 and Table 2-9. San Pedro Creek at Croft Trace showed an E. coli concentration of 2,000 cfu/100 mL, but concentrations were below 126 cfu/100 mL in the lower reach. Apache Creek showed 290 cfu/100 mL and Alazan Creek showed 190 cfu/100 mL.

San Pedro Creek results for the March 2009 synoptic sampling survey are shown in Figure 2-26 and Table 2-10. San Pedro Creek at Croft Trace showed an E. coli concentration of 800 cfu/100 mL, and a concentration of 590 cfu/100 mL was observed near the confluence with the San Antonio River. Alazan Creek showed a concentration of 670 cfu/100 mL. Other stations were below 126 cfu/100 mL.

An intensive sampling survey with increased spatial coverage was conducted in April 2009. Results are shown in Figure 2-29 and Table 2-11. On San Pedro Creek, E. coli concentrations were high at Croft Trace, IH35, and near the confluence with the San Antonio River, with the highest value 380 cfu/100 mL at IH35. Several storm drains/outfall pipes contributing to the creek showed high bacteria counts, up to 3,400 cfu/100 mL at outfall S135, a storm drain near Mitchell. Apache Creek showed an E. coli count of 150 cfu/100 mL at Brazos, and a high concentration of 1,900 cfu/100 mL was observed about one mile upstream (S161). Several storm drains/outfall pipes showed high bacteria counts along Apache Creek, with a high of 24,000 cfu/100 mL at outfall S183. Along Alazan Creek, several storm drains/outfall pipes showed high bacteria counts, with a high of >24,000 cfu/100 mL observed at 3 locations. An outfall on Martinez Creek showed an E. coli concentration of >24,000 cfu/100 mL, but concentrations in the mainstem were below 126 cfu/100 mL.

Results for the May 2009 synoptic sampling survey are shown in Figure 2-32 and Table 2-12. San Pedro Creek had an E. coli concentration of 180 cfu/100 mL near the confluence with the San Antonio River, and a concentration of 400 cfu/100 mL at Croft Trace upstream. The station on Apache Creek at Brazos showed 310 cfu/100 mL. The station at Tampico on Alazan Creek had a concentration of 450 cfu/100 mL. The station on Martinez Creek showed a concentration less than 126 cfu/100 mL

The June 2009 synoptic sampling results are displayed in Figure 2-35 and Table 2-13. All of the stations on San Pedro and its tributaries showed concentrations of E. coli above 126 cfu/100 mL. On San Pedro Creek, the highest observed concentration was 4,600 cfu/100 mL at Croft Trace. Apache Creek showed 250 cfu/100 mL at Brazos Street, and Alazan Creek had 370 cfu/100 mL at Tampico. A concentration of 1,700 cfu/100 mL was detected on Martinez Creek at Ruiz Street.

July 2009 synoptic sampling data is presented in Figure 2-38 and Table 2-14. San Pedro Creek showed an E. coli concentration of 460 cfu/100 mL near its confluence with the San Antonio River. Apache Creek had 2,600 cfu/100 mL at Brazos Street. The concentration in Alazan Creek was below 126 cfu/100 mL. A concentration of 2,400 cfu/100 mL was measured at Ruiz Street on Martinez Creek.

Results for the August 2009 synoptic sampling survey on San Pedro Creek are shown in Figure 2-41 and Table 2-15. The highest E. coli concentration on San Pedro Creek was 590 cfu/100 mL near the confluence with the San Antonio River. On Apache Creek, 1,700 cfu/100 mL was observed at Brazos Street, and 910 cfu/100 mL was detected on Alazan Creek at Tampico. The station on Martinez Creek showed less than 126 cfu/100 mL.

The September 8, 2009 synoptic sampling survey results are presented in Figure 2-43 and Table 2-16. San Pedro Creek near the confluence with the San Antonio River showed an E. coli concentration of 220 cfu/100 mL, and 3,900 cfu/100 mL was observed at IH35. Apache Creek at Brazos Street had 370 cfu/100 mL and Alazan Creek had 640 cfu/100 mL at Tampico Street. Martinez Creek at Ruiz Street showed 150 cfu/100 mL.

The September 21, 2009 synoptic sampling survey results are shown in Figure 2-45 and Table 2- 17. This was a second sampling event for September that was initiated since the earlier event was terminated prematurely due to rainfall. San Pedro Creek showed an E. coli concentration of 450 cfu/100 mL near the confluence with the San Antonio River, and a concentration of 1,200 cfu/100 mL at Croft Trace. A concentration of 600 cfu/100 mL was observed at Brazos Street on Apache Creek, and Alazan Creek showed 370 cfu/100 mL at Tampico. Martinez Creek showed a concentration below 126 cfu/100 mL at Ruiz Street.

Results for the October 2009 synoptic sampling survey are shown in Figure 2-48 and Table 2-18. San Pedro Creek showed 220 cfu/100 mL near the confluence with the San Antonio River, 510 cfu/100 mL at IH35, and 620 cfu/100 mL at Croft Trace. An E. coli concentration of 660 cfu/100 mL was measured on Apache Creek and 530 cfu/100 mL was measured on Alazan Creek. The station at Ruiz Street on Martinez Creek had a concentration less that 126 cfu/100 mL.

Results for the synoptic survey of November 2009 are shown in Figure 2-51 and Table 2-19 for San Pedro Creek and its tributaries. All stations on San Pedro, Apache, Alazan, and Martinez Creeks showed E. coli concentrations greater than 2,000 cfu/100 mL. San Pedro Creek near its confluence with the San Antonio River and Alazan Creek each showed concentrations > 24,000 cfu/100 mL. Widespread high bacteria counts throughout the upper San Antonio River area suggest that these data were influenced by stormwater runoff. There were scattered showers in the early morning hours that were apparently sufficient to generate runoff.

The E. coli results for the synoptic survey of December 2009 are shown in Figure 2-54 and Table 2-20. San Pedro Creek showed a concentration of 450 cfu/100 mL near its confluence with the San Antonio River, 290 cfu/100 mL at IH35, and 220 cfu/100 mL at Croft Trace. A concentration of 16,000 cfu/100 mL was measured at Brazos Street on Apache Creek, and Martinez Creek showed 2,600 cfu/100 mL at Ruiz Street.

2.3.3 Upper San Antonio River above Loop 410

The Upper San Antonio River above Loop 410 encompasses the headwaters and most of the urbanized City of San Antonio area. This area represents roughly the upper half of Segment 1911. 32

Synoptic survey bacteria counts for the Upper San Antonio River above Loop 410 are shown in Figure 2-7 for the September 2008 survey. Detailed sampling results are presented in Table 2-4. Most of the stations above and in the downtown area displayed E. coli counts above 126 cfu/100 mL, including stations at Olmos Park, Hildebrandt, Woodlawn, Lexington, Houston, and Arsenal Street. The discharge from the Zoo (Sta. 15722) contained an E. coli concentration of 8700 cfu/100 mL. The Zoo’s influence was apparent at the Woodlawn station (Sta. 12908) with a concentration of 2500 cfu/100 mL. Concentrations were high at Lexington at 550 cfu/100 mL (Sta. 18865), below the point where water from the San Antonio tunnel is being pumped back into the dewatered river reach. The station on the river loop (Sta. 20122) showed 660 cfu/100 mL. A concentration of 200 cfu/100 mL was observed at Lone Star (Sta. 14220). Farther downstream at Mission (Sta. 17066), an E. coli count of 1000 cfu/100 mL was measured. This station is located downstream of the tributary San Pedro Creek, which exhibited a count of 2900 cfu/100 mL. A high concentration of 8700 cfu/100 mL was measured on Six Mile Creek (Sta. 12705), a tributary that joins the mainstem just upstream of Loop 410.

The October 2008 intensive survey provided much increased spatial detail in the sampling effort. Measured E. coli results are shown in Figure 2-10 and Figure 2-11, and results are also presented in Table 2-5. Above Olmos Park, several outfalls were sampled that showed high counts, with the highest being 24000 cfu/100 mL at outfall S15. There was not continuous flow from this uppermost area to the mainstem of the San Antonio River at the time of sampling. A high E. coli concentration was detected at the Zoo outfall, with a count of 17,000 cfu/100 mL. The mainstem at Woodlawn was high at 1000 cfu/100 mL. High concentrations were observed at Lexington (340 cfu/100 mL) and on Station 20118 at Houston St. (1600 cfu/100 mL). There were a couple of storm drains/outfalls sampled in the upper watershed area that showed high E. coli concentrations, with the highest being 5800 cfu/100 mL in Mill Race tributary near Brackenridge Park. The river loop station showed an E. coli count of 810 cfu/100 mL. Downstream stations in the remainder of the downtown area showed concentrations below 126 cfu/100 mL. Concepcion Creek, a small tributary below San Pedro Creek, showed an E. coli count of 490 cfu/100 mL. At Loop 410 (Sta. 12897), an E. coli concentration of 170 cfu/100 mL was observed.

For the November 2008 synoptic survey on the Upper San Antonio, results are displayed in Figure 2-14 and Table 2-6. On the upper portion of the mainstem, the Zoo was discharging at a concentration of 5500 cfu/100 mL. Downstream at Woodlawn, the E. coli concentration was 280 cfu/100 mL. Concentrations were elevated at Houston Street with 640 cfu/100 mL and in the river loop with 1100 cfu/100 mL. Stations at Arsenal Street (Sta. 12905) and Alamo Street (Sta. 12904) showed counts in excess of 126 cfu/100 mL, but downstream stations through the downtown area were below that value.

The December 2008 synoptic sampling results are shown in Figure 2-17 and Table 2-7. The E. coli concentration measured at the Zoo outfall was 2900 cfu/100 mL. At Woodlawn, the concentration was 410 cfu/100 mL. Lexington showed 260 cfu/100 mL and Houston showed 660 cfu/100 mL. The river loop station had an E. coli concentration of 420 cfu/100 mL. The concentration at Arsenal was at 340 cfu/100 mL, and all stations downstream of this point were at concentrations below 126 cfu/100 mL.

Results for the January 2009 synoptic sampling survey for the Upper San Antonio River above Loop 410 are shown in Figure 2-20 and Table 2-8. Most of the stations in the upper reach showed E. coli concentrations lower than 126 cfu/100 mL. Upstream of the zoo, the E. coli concentration was measured at 2,100 cfu/100 ml at Hildebrandt (Sta. 12912). The primary zoo outfall showed a concentration of 5,500 cfu/100 mL, and a concentration of 340 cfu/100 mL was observed at the next station downstream at Woodlawn Ave. A concentration of 250 cfu/100 mL was measured at Houston Street, and 310 cfu/100 mL was observed at the station on the River Loop. The San Antonio River at Padre showed a concentration of 240 cfu/100 mL.

Data collected during the February 2009 synoptic sampling event are shown in Figure 2-23 and Table 2-9. Most of the stations on the upper reach showed E. coli concentrations greater than 126 cfu/100 mL. Upstream of the zoo, a concentration of 240 cfu/100 mL was measured at Hildebrandt. The primary zoo outfall showed a concentration of 2,300 cfu/100 mL. At Woodlawn, downstream from the zoo, the concentration was 280 cfu/100 mL. Concentrations were elevated in the mid-segment, with 660 cfu/100 mL at Houston Street, 1,100 cfu/100 mL in the River Loop, 440 cfu/100 mL at Arsenal, and 410 cfu/100 mL at Alamo Street. In the lower portion, E. coli concentrations were typically greater than 126 but less than 394 cfu/100 mL. The Six Mile Creek tributary showed a concentration of 390 cfu/100 mL at the Roosevelt Avenue station.

Results from the March 2009 synoptic sampling event on the Upper San Antonio River above Loop 410 are shown in Figure 2-26 and Table 2-10. Many of the sampling stations had E. coli concentrations in excess of 126 cfu/100 mL. At the Hildebrandt station, the E. coli was measured at 390 cfu/100 mL. The zoo discharge showed 6,100 cfu/100 mL. The pumped outflow from the tunnel showed 5,800 cfu/100 mL. A concentration of 1,800 cfu/100 mL was measured at Houston Street, and 410 cfu/100 mL was detected at Arsenal Street. Mainstem stations below that location were at less than 126 cfu/100 mL.

An April 2009 intensive survey provided increased spatial detail in the sampling effort. Results are shown in Figures 2-29a, 2-29b, and 2-29c and in Table 2-11. A few outfalls and tributaries in the upper Olmos Creek basin showed high concentrations of E. coli, with 900 cfu/100 mL at Sta. S201, 430 cfu/100 mL at S206, and 570 cfu at S205. Upstream from the zoo, the mainstem station at Hildebrandt showed 290 cfu/100 mL. The discharge from the zoo showed an E. coli concentration of 5,100 cfu/100 mL. Tributary drainage channels in Brackenridge Park showed high concentrations at a few locations, with readings of greater than 24,000 cfu/100 mL at stations S186, S184, and S183. The station in the River Loop showed a concentration of 2000 cfu/100 mL. Stations on the mainstem below downtown were at concentrations of less than 126 cfu/100 mL. Concepcion Creek showed a concentration of 500 cfu/100 mL. Six Mile Creek at Roosevelt had 330 cfu/100 mL and a station farther downstream showed 160 cfu/100 mL.

The May 2009 synoptic survey results are shown in Figure 2-32 and Table 2-12. Observed E. coli concentrations in the upper portion were generally above 126 cfu/100 mL. The San Antonio River at Hildebrandt showed 1,100 cfu/100 mL. The primary zoo discharge contained 12,000 cfu/100 mL. At Lexington, a concentration of 1,200 cfu/100 mL was measured, and 530 cfu/100 mL was measured at Houston Street. The River Loop station showed 5,800 cfu/100 mL. Farther

downstream, concentrations were often above 126 cfu/100 mL at the mainstem stations. The tributary Six Mile Creek showed 490 cfu/100 mL at Roosevelt.

Results for the June 2009 synoptic survey are shown in Figure 2-35 and Table 2-13. Mainstem concentrations were commonly greater than 126 cfu/100 mL. At Hildebrandt Avenue, a concentration of 570 cfu/100 mL was observed. The primary zoo outfall showed 12,000 cfu/100 mL. An E. coli concentration of 1,600 cfu/100 mL was measured at Houston Street, and 1,100 cfu/100 mL was detected in the River Loop. Farther downstream at Arsenal the concentration was 520 cfu/100 mL. A few more readings on the mainstem were above 126 cfu/100 mL. A concentration of 990 cfu/100 mL was found in Six Mile Creek.

Results for the Upper San Antonio River synoptic survey of July 2009 are shown in Figure 2-38 and Table 2-14. Most of the stations showed E. coli concentrations greater than 126 cfu/100 mL. The San Antonio River at Hildebrand showed a concentration of 350 cfu/100 mL. The primary zoo outfall had a concentration of 13,000 cfu/100 mL. Mainstem concentrations at Jones Avenue (Sta. 14219) and Houston Street were 510 and 550 cfu/100 mL, respectively. A concentration of 3,400 cfu/100 mL was measured in the River Loop. Concentrations continued to be above 126 cfu/100 ml down to Lone Star Boulevard. A concentration of 1,100 cfu/100 mL was measured at the Loop 410 low water crossing.

In Figure 2-41 and Table 2-15 are shown the results of the August 2009 synoptic survey. The San Antonio River at Hildebrandt showed an E. coli concentration of 340 cfu/100 mL. The primary zoo outfall had a concentration of 13,000 cfu/100 mL. A concentration of 410 cfu/100 mL was measured at Woodlawn. At Houston Street, 460 cfu/100 mL was detected, and the River Loop station showed 880 cfu/100 mL. Farther downstream in the mainstem, concentrations were above 126 cfu/100 mL at Arsenal, Mitchell, and Mission Road. A concentration of 2,100 cfu/100 mL was measured in Six Mile Creek.

Results for the September 8, 2009 synoptic sampling event are shown in Figure 2-43 and Table 2-16. The San Antonio River at Hildebrandt showed an E. coli concentration of 11,000 cfu/100 mL. The primary zoo outfall showed 14,000 cfu/100 mL, and the secondary zoo outfall showed 12,000 cfu/100 mL. A concentration of 390 cfu/100 mL was detected at Woodlawn. At Houston Street, 640 cfu/100 mL was measured, and the River Loop station showed 1,900 cfu/100 mL. At Arsenal Street, 550 cfu/100 mL was observed, and 420 cfu/100 mL was measured at Alamo. The tributary Six Mile Creek showed 11,000 cfu/100 mL at Roosevelt.

A second synoptic survey was initiated in September due to rainfall that terminated the first event. Results for the September 21, 2009 synoptic survey are shown in Figure 2-45 and Table 2-17. Most concentrations of E. coli were greater than 126 cfu/100 mL. Upstream of the zoo at Hildebrandt, a concentration of 160 cfu/100 mL was measured. The primary zoo outfall showed 13,000 cfu/100 mL. A concentration of 490 cfu/100 mL was detected at Woodlawn. At Houston Street, 640 cfu/100 mL was measured, and the River Loop showed 6,500 cfu/100 mL. A concentration of 830 cfu/100 mL was measured at Arsenal, and 500 cfu/100 mL was found at Alamo. A few additional mainstem stations showed concentrations greater than 126 cfu/100 mL. Six Mile Creek showed 220 cfu/100 mL at Roosevelt.

Results for the October 2009 synoptic survey are shown in Figure 2-48 and Table 2-18. Most of the E. coli concentrations recorded were well above 126 cfu/100 mL. In Olmos Creek, a concentration greater than 24,000 cfu/100 mL was measured. The San Antonio River at Hildebrandt showed 250 cfu/100 mL. The primary zoo outfall showed 980 cfu/100 mL and the secondary outfall showed 2,100 cfu/100 mL. A concentration of 1,400 cfu/100 mL was observed at Woodlawn. At Lexington, 620 cfu/100 mL was measured, and 1,300 cfu/100 mL was detected at Houston Street. The River Loop station showed 1,300 cfu/100 mL. Concentrations remained high downstream. At Arsenal, a concentration of 1,200 cfu/100 mL was measured, and concentrations remained high all the way to Loop 410, where 340 cfu/100 mL was detected.

Results for the November 2009 synoptic sampling survey are shown in Figure 2-51 and Table 2- 19. All sampling stations on the Upper San Antonio River above Loop 410 showed E. coli concentrations greater than 994 cfu/100 mL. At Hildebrand, the concentration was 11,000 cfu/100 mL. The primary zoo outfall was measured at 16,000 cfu/100 mL. Concentrations remained high downstream, for example, 24,000 cfu/100 mL measured at Alamo. Widespread high bacteria counts throughout the upper San Antonio River area suggest that these data were influenced by stormwater runoff. There were scattered showers in the early morning hours that were apparently sufficient to generate runoff.

The December 2009 synoptic sampling survey results are shown in Figure 2-54 and Table 2-20. The San Antonio River at Hildebrandt showed 340 cfu/100 mL. The primary zoo outfall showed 13,000 cfu/100 mL. An E. coli concentration of 700 cfu/100 mL was detected at Woodlawn Avenue. At Houston Street, a concentration of 680 cfu/100 mL was observed, and the River Loop stations showed 750 cfu/100 mL. Concentrations remained above 126 cfu/100 mL at all sampling stations down to Loop 410. The tributary Six Mile Creek showed 500 cfu/100 mL at Roosevelt.

2.3.4 Upper San Antonio River below Loop 410

This reach represents the lower half of Segment 1911. In the upper portion, it includes the confluence with Salado Creek, which drains a large portion of the eastern part of San Antonio. It includes the Medina River, which drains a large relatively rural area on the west side of San Antonio. Synoptic survey bacteria counts for the reach of the Upper San Antonio River below Loop 410 are shown in Figure 2-8 for the September 2008 survey. Detailed sampling results are presented in Table 2-4. Most of the stations in the reach below Loop 410 displayed E. coli counts below 126 cfu/100 mL. A concentration of 330 cfu/100 mL was observed on Seguin Branch (Sta. 20352), upstream of SH 97. A high concentration of 1500 cfu/100 mL was measured on Picosa Creek (Sta. 20350), a tributary that joins the mainstem below SH 97.

The October 2008 intensive survey provided much increased spatial detail in the sampling effort. Measured E. coli results are shown in Figure 2-12 and results are also presented in Table 2-5. Most of the stations in the reach below Loop 410 showed E. coli counts below 126 cfu/100 mL. There were, however, a few reaches with higher concentrations. A station downstream of Labatt (S51) showed a concentration of 310 cfu/100 mL. A reach that encompassed the station at FM 541 showed higher concentrations, with the highest 200 cfu/100 mL measured at FM 541 (Sta. 36

12880). There were a few outfalls and tributaries sampled that showed high concentrations. A spring downstream of IH 37 (S56) showed 1100 cfu/100 mL. The tributary Picosa Creek near SH 97 showed 1100 cfu/100 mL.

The November 2008 synoptic survey results are shown in Figure 2-15 and in Table 2-6. All of the mainstem stations in the reach below Loop 410 showed E. coli counts below 126 cfu/100 mL. Observed E. coli concentrations were slightly higher in the Medina River (Sta. 12811) and Calaveras Creek (Sta. 20357). The highest concentration observed was 500 cfu/100 mL on Picosa Creek.

The results for the December 2008 synoptic survey are displayed in Figure 2-18. Results are also shown in Table 2-7. Most of the measured values on the mainstem were below 126 cfu/100 mL. Higher concentrations were observed on the mainstem at Sta. 16731 just above the Medina River confluence, at Dietzfield Rd (Sta. 12883), SH 97 (Sta. 12881), and FM 541 (Sta. 12880). The highest concentrations were measured in two tributaries in the lower end. An E. coli concentration of 9300 cfu/100 mL was measured in Picosa Creek, and a concentration of 69000 cfu/100 mL was measured in Pajarito Creek.

Results for the January 2009 synoptic survey for the Upper San Antonio River below Loop 410 are shown in Figure 2-21 and Table 2-8. Most of the stations in the reach below Loop 410 showed E. coli counts below 126 cfu/100 mL. A few stations showed higher values. The station on the mainstem at SH 97 showed 170 cfu/100 mL. A few tributaries showed higher values. The Medina River at FM 1937 had a concentration of 130 cfu/100 mL. A concentration of 140 cfu/100 mL was measured on Calavaras Creek and 580 cfu/100 mL was detected on Picosa Creek.

February 2009 synoptic survey results are shown in Figure 2-24 and Table 2-9. Most of the mainstem stations on the San Antonio River in the reach below Loop 410 showed E. coli concentrations below 126 cfu/100 mL. Exceptions included the station upstream of the Medina River confluence with 170 cfu/100 mL, the station at SH 97 with 240 cfu/100 mL, and the station at FM 541 with 340 cfu/100 mL. Tributaries with higher values included the Medina River with 140 cfu/100 mL, Calavaras Creek with 270 cfu/100 mL, and Picosa Creek with 3,700 cfu/100 mL.

Results for the March 2009 synoptic survey on the Upper San Antonio River below Loop 410 are shown in Figure 2-27 and Table 2-10. All of the mainstem sampling stations showed E. coli concentrations less than 126 cfu/100 mL. Calavaras Creek showed 240 cfu/100 mL and a concentration of 1,100 cfu/100 mL was measured in Picosa Creek.

The April 2009 intensive survey provided increased spatial detail in the sampling effort. Measured E. coli results are shown in Figure 2-30a and 2-30b and results are also presented in Table 2-11. Most of the stations in the reach below Loop 410 showed E. coli counts below 126 cfu/100 mL. There was one mainstem station with higher concentrations. Station S101, located downstream of Labatt Road, had a concentration of 250 cfu/100 mL. Calavaras Creek showed 200 cfu/100 mL

Results for the May 2009 synoptic survey are shown in Figure 2-33 and Table 2-12. All of the mainstem stations showed E. coli concentrations below 126 cfu/100 mL. Calavaras Creek showed 200 cfu/100 mL. Seguin Branch had an E. coli concentration of 1,300 cfu/100 mL.

June 2009 synoptic survey results for the Upper San Antonio River reach below Loop 410 are displayed in Figure 2-36 and Table 2-13. All of the mainstem stations showed E. coli concentrations less than 126 cfu/100 mL. Most tributaries were not flowing.

The July 2009 synoptic survey results are shown in Figure 2-39 and Table 2-14. Most of the mainstem E. coli concentrations were less than 126 cfu/100 mL. The San Antonio River upstream of the confluence with the Medina River had a concentration of 240 cfu/100 mL. At Loop 1604 (Sta. 12886), the concentration was 170 cfu/100 mL. A concentration of 310 cfu/100 mL was detected at Labatt Road (Sta. 12884), and 130 cfu/100 mL was measured at SH 97. The Medina River stations showed a concentration of 140 cfu/100 mL.

Results for the August 2009 synoptic survey are displayed in Figure 2-42 and Table 2-15. Most of the stations in the lower reach showed E. coli concentrations less than 126 cfu/100 mL. There was one reach downstream of the Medina confluence that had higher concentrations, with readings of 230 cfu/100 mL at Loop 1604, 140 cfu/100 mL at CR 125 (Sta. 20355), and 190 cfu/100 mL at FM 3444 (Sta. 12885).

No synoptic survey was completed on the lower reach in September 2009 due to persistent rain conditions in the upper watershed. Two stations in the lower reach were sampled on September 8, 2009 and September 21, 2009 prior to the trips being aborted. Results for those two stations are shown in Figure 2-44 and 2-46, along with Tables 2-16 and 2-17. These E. coli measurements were below 126 cfu/100 mL.

October 2009 synoptic sampling results are presented in Figure 2-49 and Table 2-18. Mainstem stations were below 126 cfu/100 mL, with the exception of Blue Wing Road (Sta. 12894) with 250 cfu/100 mL and Labatt Road with 140 cfu/100 mL. The Medina River showed 150 cfu/100 mL at FM 1937.

Results for the November 2009 synoptic sampling event are shown in Figure 2-52 and Table 2- 19. Mainstem stations generally showed E. coli concentrations above 126 cfu/100 mL. A concentration of 11,000 cfu/100 mL was shown at Blue Wing Road, 4,700 cfu/100 mL upstream of the Medina River confluence, 640 cfu/100 mL at IH37, 1,700 cfu/100 mL at Loop 1604, and 1,400 cfu/100 mL at CR 125. Concentrations were lower, but still in excess of 126 cfu/100 mL, at FM 3444, Labatt, CR 117, FM 536, and SH 97. Results on this survey may have been influenced by runoff conditions.

Results for the December 2009 synoptic survey are shown in Figure 2-55 and Table 2-20. All of the mainstem stations on the lower portion of the San Antonio River had E. coli concentrations less than 126 cfu/100 mL, with the exception of the station at CR 125 which showed a concentration of 170 cfu/100 mL. The Medina River at FM 1937 had a concentration of 130 cfu/100 mL.

Table 2-3: Sampling Survey Rainfall Data Survey Precip (in) Sampling Dates Month Type Day Airport Stinson Salado Ck. San Pedro Ck. abv. Lp 410 blw. Lp 410 13 0 0 14 0 0 15 0 0 x x x Sept. 2008 Synoptic 16 0 0 x 17 0 0 x 18 0 0.02 x 18 0 0 19 0 0 20 0 0 x x 21 0 0 x x x 22 0 0 x x 23 0.3 0 Oct. 2008 Intensive 24 0 0 25 0 0 26 0 0 27 0 0 x 28 0 0.24 x 29 0 0 x x x x 15 0 0 16 0 0 17 0 0 x x x Nov. 2008 Synoptic 18 0 0 x 19 0 0 x 20 0 0 x 6 0 0 7 0 0 Dec. 2008 Synoptic 8 0 0 x x x 9 0.1 0 x x 10 0.1 0 x 10 0 0.01 11 0 0 12 0 0 x x x Jan. 2009 Synoptic 13 0 0 x 14 0 0 x 15 0 0 x 15 0 0 16 0 0 Feb. 2009 Synoptic 17 0.1 0.03 x x x 18 0 0 x x 19 0 0 x 28 0 0 1 0 0 2 0 0 x x x Mar. 2009 Synoptic 3 0 0 x 4 0 0 x 5 0 0 x

Table 2-3: Sampling Survey Rainfall Data (Cont.) Survey Precip (in) Sampling Dates Month Type Day Airport Stinson Salado Ck. San Pedro Ck. abv. Lp 410 blw. Lp 410 3 0 0 4 0 0 5 0 0 6 0 0 x x 7 0 0 x x 8 0 0 x x 9 0 0 x x x Apr. 2009 Intensive 10 0 0 11 0 0 12 0.2 0.15 13 0 0 x 14 0 0 x x 15 0 0 x 16 0.1 0.06 x x 2 0 0 3 0 0 4 0 0 x x x May 2009 Synoptic 5 0 0 x x 6 0 0 x 7 0 0 x 30 0 0 31 0 0 Jun. 2009 Synoptic 1 0 0 x x x 2 0 0 x x 3 0.4 0.03 x 11 0 0 12 0 0 Jul. 2009 Synoptic 13 0 0 x x x 14 0 0 x x 15 0 0 x 8 0 0 9 0 0 Aug. 2009 Synoptic 10 0 0 x x x 11 0 0 x x 12 0 1.24 x 6 0 0.01 7 0 0 8 0.2 0.01 x x x Sept. 2009 Synoptic 19 0 0 20 0 0 21 0 0 x x x 17 0 0 18 0 0 Oct. 2009 Synoptic 19 0 0 x x x 20 0 0 x x 21 0.9 0.28 x 14 0 0 15 0 0 Nov. 2009 Synoptic 16 0.1 0.59 x x x 17 0 0 x x 18 0 0 x 12 0.1 0.03 13 0 0 Dec. 2009 Synoptic 14 0 0.02 x x x 15 0 0 x x 16 0 0.07 x

Figure 2-6a: September 2008 Synoptic Survey of Salado Creek and Walzem Creek

Figure 2-6b: September 2008 Synoptic Survey of Salado Creek and Walzem Creek

Figure 2-7: September 2008 Synoptic Survey of USAR above Loop 410

Figure 2-8: September 2008 Synoptic Survey of USAR below Loop 410

Table 2-4: September 2008 Synoptic Survey Data Sampling Flow Flow Station ID Location E. Coli Conductivity DO pH Temp Date Measured Estimated (cfu/100 ml) (cfs) (cfs) (umho/cm) (mg/l) (°C) Salado Creek 12877 Salado Cr Upstrm of Loop 410 09/17/2008 66 0 - 293 5.4 7.9 21.9 20358 Beitel Cr at Thousand Oaks 09/17/2008 20 0 - 472 4 7.6 20.4 12876 Salado Cr at Austin Hw y 09/17/2008 340 0.07 - 605 6.7 7.7 21.1 12875 Salado Cr at Eisenhauer 09/17/2008 45 - 0.3 564 8.9 7.9 20.8 20359 Walzem Cr Dw nstrm of Diamondhead 09/17/2008 44 - 0.0493 653 12.2 8.1 21.2 12698 Walzem Cr at Holbrook 09/17/2008 540 0.1 - 715 19.3 8.6 24.8 12874 Salado Cr at Rittiman 09/17/2008 140 0.9 - 539 10.2 7.8 22.2 15642 Salado Cr off Holbrook 09/17/2008 54 - - 809 9.8 7.9 24.7 12872 Salado Cr at WW White 09/17/2008 82 2.5 - 727 7.6 7.5 23.2 12871 Salado Cr at IH 35 09/18/2008 180 3 - 763 6.4 7.7 22.9 15644 Salado Cr at Pletz Park 09/18/2008 68 - 2.4 766 6.3 7.7 22.8 12870 Salado Cr at Gembler 09/18/2008 290 - 3.3 775 6.7 7.7 22.9 12693 Menger Cr Upstrm of Coliseum 09/18/2008 770 - 0.03 1080 15.1 7.7 25.2 15645 Salado Cr Upstrm from Commerce 09/18/2008 32 - 1.4 769 7.2 7.7 23.5 15646 Salado Cr at MLK Park 09/18/2008 100 4 - 769 4.1 7.6 23.9 12692 Trib in J St Park 09/18/2008 290 0.01 - 1250 8.6 7.8 22.7 12868 Salado Cr at Rigsby 09/18/2008 70 - 4.9 766 5.1 7.6 24.1 15647 Salado Cr Dw nStrm of E Southcross 09/18/2008 56 - 1.1 827 9.4 7.9 22.9 12864 Salado Cr at Loop 13 09/18/2008 260 3.8 - 837 7.4 7.9 22.1 12700 Rosillo Cr at IH 10 09/18/2008 16 - 0.2 617 9.5 7.8 24.6 12699 Rosillo Cr at Sinclair 09/18/2008 560 - 0.002 672 2.5 7.2 22.4 12689 Rosillo Cr 09/18/2008 120 0.03 - 603 8.2 8.1 22.7 12862 Salado Cr at Old Corpus Christi Hw y 09/18/2008 24 4.3 - 840 11 8.2 23.9 12861 Salado Cr at Southon 09/18/2008 16 - 4.3 849 10.8 8.1 24.5 San Pedro Creek 20117 San Pedro Cr at Croft Trace 09/15/2008 3900 0.4 - 551 7.4 7.7 23.2 20119 San Pedro Cr Upstrm of Alazan Cr 09/15/2008 4600 5.1 - 577 8.5 8.1 23.1 12751 Martinez Cr at Ruiz 09/15/2008 440 0.6 - 1140 5.7 7.9 23.7 12715 Alazan Cr at Tampico 09/15/2008 1600 2.9 - 644 7.3 8.1 22.2 18735 Apache Cr at Brazos 09/15/2008 1300 2.7 - 401 6.5 7.9 22.2 18736 San Pedro Cr at Probandt 09/15/2008 2900 14 - 609 9.4 8.2 22.8 USAR above Loop 410 15086 SAR Dw nstrm of Olmos Dam 09/15/2008 480 0.9 - 649 4.5 7.8 25.3 12912 SAR at E. Hildebrand 09/15/2008 330 12 - 515 6.5 7.5 24 18803 Zoo Outfall No 2 09/15/2008 1 - 0.3 526 4.2 7.5 23.3 15722 Zoo Outfall No 1 09/15/2008 8700 2.2 - 506 7 7.6 23.5 12908 SAR at Woodlaw n 09/15/2008 2500 19 - 621 6.5 7.8 24.6 18865 SAR Upstrm of Lexington 09/15/2008 550 - 15 601 7.2 7.8 26.4 20118 SAR at Houston 09/15/2008 690 - 17 639 7.4 8 25 20122 SAR Loop 09/15/2008 660 - 3.6 753 6.1 7.8 25.1 12905 SAR at Arsenal 09/15/2008 340 - 18 726 7.3 8 24.9 12904 SAR at Alamo 09/15/2008 93 9.6 - 682 12.4 8.4 26.8 20361 SAR Tunnel Upstrm on Lone Star 09/15/2008 110 - 13 601 7.9 8.1 26 14220 SAR at Lone Star 09/15/2008 200 23 - 646 9.2 8.3 26 14256 SAR at W Mitchell 09/15/2008 56 23 - 628 11.2 8.2 26.1 17066 SAR at Mission 09/15/2008 1000 33 - 663 9.3 8.3 23.8 12899 SAR at Padre 09/15/2008 45 - 11 634 9.8 8.5 27.1 12705 Six Mile Cr at Roosevelt 09/15/2008 8700 0 - 590 11.2 9.1 22.5 12897 SAR at Lp 410 09/15/2008 74 29 - 625 11.1 8.5 26.8

Table 2-6: September 2008 Synoptic Survey Data (Cont.) Sampling Flow Flow Station ID Location E. Coli Conductivity DO pH Temp Date Measured Estimated (cfu/100 ml) (cfs) (cfs) (umho/cm) (mg/l) (°C) USAR below Loop 410 12894 SAR at Blue Wing 09/15/2008 35 - 32 650 8.3 8 26.5 16731 SAR Upstrm of the Medina R. 09/16/2008 45 43 - 685 7.1 8.1 25 12811 Medina River at FM 1937 09/16/2008 110 - 82 879 6.8 8.1 24.6 12889 SAR at IH 37 09/15/2008 34 - 215 934 7.9 7.9 28.1 12886 SAR at Lp 1604 09/16/2008 26 161 - 941 7.3 8.1 25.3 20355 SA R at CR 125 09/16/2008 56 - 161 928 7.4 8.1 24.5 20357 Calavaras Cr at Wilson CR 09/16/2008 27 0.2 - 653 6.2 7.7 21.2 12885 SAR at FM 3444 09/16/2008 43 - 156 925 7.3 8.1 24.7 12884 SAR at Labatt 09/16/2008 20 - 149 947 7.2 8.1 24.8 12883 SAR at Dietzfield 09/16/2008 19 - 235 957 7 8 25.9 20352 Seguin Branch at Business Lp 181 09/16/2008 330 0 - 234 2.5 7.4 22.4 12882 SAR at FM 536 09/16/2008 33 - 227 936 7.5 8 25.6 12881 SAR at SH 97 09/16/2008 52 224 - 952 7.4 8 26.1 20351 Pajarito Cr at Business Lp 181 09/16/2008 - 0 - - --- 20350 Picosa Cr at SH 97 09/16/2008 1500 0 - 970 2 7.2 22.4 12880 SAR at FM 541 09/16/2008 49 - 218 1000 7.8 8.1 25.8 12879 SAR at FM 791 09/16/2008 19 311 - 1030 7 8.1 26.2

Figure 2-9a: October 2008 Intensive Survey of Salado Creek and Walzem Creek

Figure 2-9b: October 2008 Intensive Survey of Salado Creek and Walzem Creek

Figure 2-10: October 2008 Intensive Survey of USAR above Loop 410

Figure 2-11: October 2008 Intensive Survey of Olmos Creek

Figure 2-12: October 2008 Intensive Survey of USAR below Loop 410

Table 2-5: October 2008 Intensive Survey Data Sampling Flow Flow Station ID Location E. Coli Conductivity DO pH Temp Date Measured Estimated (cfu/100 ml) (cfs) (cfs) (umho/cm) (mg/l) (°C) Salado Creek 12877 Salado Ck Upstrm of IH 410 and Lp 410 10/28/2008 55 0 - 370 6.8 7.9 14.6

20358 Beitel Ck at Thousand Oaks 10/28/2008 19 0 - 474 6.1 7.8 13.1

S74 2 mi dwnstrm Salado Ck at Los Patios 10/28/2008 830 0 - 675 6.9 7.4 13

S92 Salado Ck Trib. at Austin Hwy 10/29/2008 21 - 0 690 11.2 7.7 16.8

12876 Salado Ck at SH 368 10/28/2008 29 - 0.2 610 7.8 7.6 14.8

12875 Salado Ck at Eisenhauer 10/28/2008 140 - 0.2 556 6.5 7.8 14.6

20359 Walzem Ck Dwnstrm Diamondhead 10/28/2008 990 - 0.0284 774 14.4 8.3 17.8

12698 Walzem Ck at Holbrook 10/28/2008 210 - 0.018 700 17.4 8.5 25.1

12874 Salado Ck at Rittiman 10/28/2008 190 - 0.0239 542 12.8 7.9 17.1

15642 Salado Ck Dwnstrm of Woodburn 10/28/2008 110 - 0.8 859 8.9 7.8 19.7

S75 Salado Ck at x-ing by Golf Course 10/28/2008 83 - 0.7 810 7.4 7.7 19.1

S76 Salado Ck dwnstrm of Fort Sam School 10/28/2008 40 - 1.6 808 7.6 7.7 18.8

12872 Salado Ck at Ft Sam Army Base 10/28/2008 41 - 1.2 809 9.3 7.9 17.9

12871 Salado Ck at IH 35 10/29/2008 250 - 1 820 10 8 16.2

15644 Salado Ck at Pletz Park 10/29/2008 100 - 0.2 790 8.6 7.8 17.3

12870 Salado Ck at Gembler 10/29/2008 64 - 0.2 830 8.9 7.8 17.2

12693 Menger Ck Upstrm of Coliseum 10/29/2008 66 - 0.01 890 19.7 9.1 24.7

15645 Salado Ck Upstrm from Commerce 10/29/2008 61 - 1.3 878 9.2 7.8 16.6

15646 Salado Ck at MLK Park 10/29/2008 82 - 1.2 880 5.4 7.7 17.1

S91 Salado Ck at Rice 10/29/2008 98 - 2.6 900 7.6 7.9 14.5

12692 Trib of Salado Ck in J St Park 10/29/2008 77 - 0.0266 830 8.9 7.9 14.3

S90 Salado Ck above J street Trib. 10/29/2008 86 - 2.6 890 5.5 7.7 16.5

12868 Salado Ck at Rigsby 10/29/2008 77 - 1.9 890 5.7 7.8 15.8

S86 Salado Ck at Roland 10/29/2008 7 0 - 600 6.4 7.6 11

S73 Salado Ck at Southside Lions Park 10/28/2008 110 - 6.5 950 8 8.1 17.2

S89 Salado Ck dwnstrm of Spring 10/29/2008 190 - 2 930 7.4 7.8 15.8

S88 Spring at Comanche Park 10/29/2008 110 - 0.0829 1100 8.6 7.8 18.4

S87 Roland Salado Ck E. Branch 10/29/2008 160 - 1.2 970 7.4 7.9 15.1

S72 Salado Ck at Treehouse 10/28/2008 240 - 2.5 950 9.7 8 16.6

15647 Salado Ck DwnStrm of E Southcross 10/28/2008 58 - 3.7 960 9.3 8.2 15.1

S70 Salado Ck Trib at Dollarhide 10/28/2008 > 24000 - 0.018 3250 9.8 7.8 22.5

S69 Trib of Salado Ck at Pecan Golf Course 10/28/2008 43 - 0 1370 7.7 7.6 13.8

S71 Storm Drain at Bob Billa 10/28/2008 < 1 - 0.024 530 8.6 7.9 22.8

12864 Salado Ck at Loop 13 10/28/2008 410 6.3 - 960 9 8.2 14.6

S68 Trib of Salado Ck at Emary Oak 10/28/2008 540 - < 0.01 3400 8.7 7.8 11.8

S67 Trib to Salado Ck Goliad 10/28/2008 410 - 0.016 2020 11 8.2 10.2

S93 Trib to Rosillo Ck. 10/29/2008 510 - 0.2 1110 9.9 7.6 17.9

12689 Rosillo Ck upstrm of Salado Ck confl. 10/28/2008 81 - 0 960 8.9 8.2 10.9

12862 Salado Ck at Goliad Rd 10/28/2008 91 - 0.3 960 9.8 8.1 14.4

12861 Salado Ck at Southon 10/28/2008 86 - 1.7 1040 10.1 8 16.8 S40 Salado Ck Trib 10/22/2008 49 - 6.2 950 9.2 7.8 21.5

Table 2-5: October 2008 Synoptic Survey Data (Cont.) Sampling Flow Flow Station ID Location E. Coli Conductivity DO pH Temp Date Measured Estimated (cfu/100 ml) (cfs) (cfs) (umho/cm) (mg/l) (°C) San Pedro Creek S78 San Pedro Ck at W. Myrtle 10/29/2008 96 - 3.6 550 7 7.7 23.6 20117 San Pedro Ck at Croft Trace 10/29/2008 490 - 1.3 548 7.8 7.8 21.1 S77 San Pedro Ck upstream of Travis 10/29/2008 640 - 0.4 558 8.6 8.3 15.8 20119 San Pedro Ck Upstrm of Alazan Ck confl. 10/20/2008 1200 3 - 561 10.3 8 24.8 S35 Martinez Ck at Leal 10/21/2008 41 0.06 - 821 15 7.8 24.2 S34 Alazan Ck dwnstrm of Martinez Ck 10/21/2008 20 0.055 - 791 11.3 7.9 23.5 S33 Storm Drn - Alazan Ck at Martin E. Bank 10/21/2008 1900 - < 0.01 690 15.1 8.8 24 S32 Storm Drn - Alazan Ck at Travis W. Bank 10/21/2008 530 - 0.01 550 8.4 7.7 26.9 S31 Seep - Alazan Ck at Commerce St. W. Bank 10/21/2008 370 - 0.05 380 7.9 8.1 25.1 S30 Alazan Ck at Buena Vista 10/21/2008 30 0.2 - 735 8.7 7.8 20.5 S29 Storm Drn Alazan Ck at Buena Vista W. Bank 10/21/2008 > 24000 - < 0.01 1230 3.5 8 19.4 S28 Storm Drn Alazan Ck E. Bank upstrm of Tampico 10/21/2008 4200 - 0.2 1090 10.2 7.6 22.1 S37 Storm Drn - Apache Ck at 19th St E. Bank 10/21/2008 120 0.1 - 660 9.2 8 22.9 S38 Trib upstrm of San Luis W. Bank at Apache Ck 10/21/2008 1200 0.091 - 440 17.7 8.7 27.1 S36 Storm Drn - Apache Ck at Hemelton - W. Bank 10/21/2008 < 1 - 0.2 518 7.4 7.2 25.9 18735 Apache Ck at Brazos 10/21/2008 150 0.6 - 742 14.2 7.8 24.4 S27 Storm Drn SW corner of Cevallas and IH35 10/21/2008 4900 - < 0.01 1680 2 7.4 20.6 S26 Storm Drn W. Bank of S.P. Ck Adj. to Apache Rd. 10/21/2008 410 - < 0.01 7780 2.2 7.4 15.9 S7 GW Seep at S. Pacific RR along W. Bank of San Pedro 10/20/2008 72 - 0.0104 1200 6.5 7.3 25.8 S6 GW Seep Upstrm I35 W. Bank of San Pedro Ck 10/20/2008 150 - 0.037 1190 3.3 6.9 24.9 S5 Storm Drn between IH35 N and S Lanes San Pedro Ck 10/20/2008 520 - < 0.01 1190 8.1 7.7 24.3 S3 Spring San Pedro Ck E. Bank Dwnstrm of Nogalitos 10/20/2008 120 - 0.013 1090 7.1 7 26.1 S4 Storm Drn E. Bank of San Pedro Ck Forest-Halstead 10/20/2008 2000 - 0.006 704 8.1 8 25.1 S25 San Pedro Ck upstrm of Flores 10/21/2008 290 3.5 - 670 6.8 7.8 20.8 S1 Storm Drn #1 S.P. Ck Dwnstrm of Mitchell E. Bank 10/20/2008 50 - 0.2 894 8.2 7.9 23 S2 Storm Drn #2 S.P. Ck Dwnstrm of Mitchell E. Bank 10/20/2008 9800 - 0.01197 1080 8.3 7.5 21.8 18736 San Pedro Ck at Probandt 10/20/2008 120 4.3 - 625 6.7 7.9 20

Table 2-5: October 2008 Synoptic Survey Data (Cont.) Sampling Flow Flow Station ID Location E. Coli Conductivity DO pH Temp Date Measured Estimated (cfu/100 ml) (cfs) (cfs) (umho/cm) (mg/l) (°C) USAR above Loop 410 S10 Storm Discharge Trib to Olmos Ck 10/20/2008 < 1 - 0.033 572 7.9 7.8 23.7 S11 Storm Discharge Trib to Olmos Ck 10/20/2008 < 1 - < 0.01 615 5.7 7.3 21.8 S12 Storm Discharge Trib of Olmos Ck 10/20/2008 640 - < 0.01 1300 8.2 8 20.1 S13 Storm Discharge Trib of Olmos Ck 10/20/2008 < 1 - 0.1 547 8.4 8.2 23.6 S14 Storm Discharge Trib of Olmos Ck 10/20/2008 31 - < 0.01 564 8.2 8.1 24.8 S15 Storm Discharge Trib of Olmos Ck 10/20/2008 24000 - < 0.01 4250 5.9 6.8 22.3 S9 W. Skipper at Linda Trib to Olmos Ck 10/20/2008 900 - 0.1 732 10 8.3 16.1 S8 E. Skipper at Linda Trib to Olmos Ck 10/20/2008 2100 - 0.3 807 9 8.1 15.8 S18 Olmos Ck at Blanco 10/20/2008 93 - 0.2 548 11.2 8.4 29.5 S17 Olmos Ck at San Pedro 10/20/2008 30 - 1.5 643 18.3 8.2 25.4 S16 Olmos Ck at McCullough 10/20/2008 42 - 1 657 4.2 7.6 20.7 12912 SAR at E. Hildebrand 10/20/2008 - 0 - - ---

18803 San Antonio Zoo Outfall No 2 10/20/2008 < 1 - 0.1 540 4.8 7.3 23.7 15722 San Antonio Zoo Outfall No 1 10/20/2008 17000 2.7 - 502 7.2 7.5 23.8 S19 SAR btwn Hildebrand and Woodlawn - Horse Xing 10/20/2008 2000 - 13 845 8 7.7 25.5 12908 SAR at Woodlawn 10/20/2008 1000 12 - 832 7.4 7.7 24 S20 Channel at Mill Race Trib of SAR 10/21/2008 5800 - 0.02 752 6.3 8.1 17.1 18865 SAR Upstrm of Lexington 10/21/2008 340 - 15 879 7.1 7.8 24.5 S21 Storm Drn at Martin St. 10/21/2008 7 - < 0.01 1620 8.7 9.2 22.2 S22 Storm Drn in wall between Travis and Pecan 10/21/2008 910 - < 0.01 55 8.8 7.2 19.7 20118 SAR at Houston 10/21/2008 1600 - 7.4 892 7.2 7.8 23.5 20122 SAR Loop 10/21/2008 810 - 4 1000 6.9 7.7 22.8 12905 SAR at Arsenal 10/21/2008 6 - 11 929 8.9 8 23.1 12904 SAR at Alamo 10/21/2008 5 11 - 908 10 8.3 23.5 S24 Storm Drn discharge above SAR tunnel 10/21/2008 < 1 - 0.2 512 8.1 8.2 26.6 20361 SAR Tunnel Discharge Upstrm of Lone Star 10/21/2008 8 - 2 899 8.9 8.3 22.6 S23 Storm Discharge upstrm of Lonestar 10/21/2008 < 1 - 0.5 655 9.2 8.3 24.3 14220 SAR at Lone Star 10/21/2008 13 13 - 903 9.2 8.2 23.4 14256 SAR at W Mitchell 10/21/2008 26 13 - 867 10.5 8.1 24.8 S79 Concepcion Ck upstrm SAR confl. 10/29/2008 490 - 0.4 1020 14.5 8.1 19.5 S80 SAR near end of Hafer 10/29/2008 63 - 91 814 12.4 8.4 18.4 17066 SAR at 2nd x-ing of Mission 10/29/2008 55 - 17 821 10.7 8.4 17.5 S82 SAR dwnstrm Southcross 10/29/2008 56 - 16 827 12.2 8.5 17.7 S83 SAR at Northern end of Padre 10/29/2008 38 - 16 828 12.4 8.4 17.3 12899 SAR at Low Water x-ing for Padre 10/29/2008 73 - 6 800 14.6 8.8 19.6 12705 Six Mile Ck at Roosevelt 10/29/2008 79 - 0.086 676 12.3 9 22.9 12897 SAR at Loop 410 10/22/2008 170 31 - 770 7.4 8.2 22.3

Table 2-5: October 2008 Synoptic Survey Data (Cont.) Sampling Flow Flow Station ID Location E. Coli Conductivity DO pH Temp Date Measured Estimated (cfu/100 ml) (cfs) (cfs) (umho/cm) (mg/l) (°C) USAR below Loop 410 S39 SAR between Loop 410 and Bllue Wing 10/22/2008 140 27 - 740 7.1 8.2 22.7 12894 SAR at Blue Wing 10/22/2008 52 - 34 800 10.6 7.5 23.1 S42 SAR between Blue Wing and IH37 10/22/2008 25 27 - 840 10 8.4 23.6 12811 Medina River at FM 1937 10/29/2008 100 - 64 998 9.6 7.7 19.5 S43 Medina River confl. 10/22/2008 25 - 167 1030 8.3 8.2 27.1 12889 SAR at IH 37 10/23/2008 59 - 214 1030 8.5 8.1 24.6 S56 SAR Spring between 3 and 6 mile sample 10/23/2008 1100 - 0.08 1960 10.7 8.3 16.2 S55 SAR between IH37 and 1604 10/23/2008 65 203 - 1020 7.9 8.2 24.2 S57 Spring dwnstream of CPS Weir E. bk 10/23/2008 220 - < 0.01 1900 10.1 8.3 15.7 S58 Sample Site 6 miles SAR 10/23/2008 43 - 166 1000 8.4 8.2 23.6 12886 SAR at 1604 10/22/2008 44 210 - 962 7.8 8.1 24.6 S44 SAR between 1604 and CR 125 10/22/2008 77 - 205 972 7.6 8.1 24.6 S45 Between 1604 and CR 125 10/22/2008 120 - 207 990 8 8.1 24.7 S46 Spring - SAR between 1604 - CR 125 E. Bank 10/22/2008 22 - 0.02 861 6.9 7.1 23.4 20355 SAR at CR 125 10/22/2008 140 - 183 989 7.8 7.9 24.9 S47 Discharge - SAR dwnstrm of CR 125 E. Bank 10/22/2008 290 - < 0.01 730 8.5 8 24.6 S48 SAR between CR 125 - 775 10/22/2008 61 - 166 972 8 7.9 25 S84 Calaveras Ck at loop 1604 10/29/2008 67 - 0.2 1650 12.5 8.3 12.9 S85 Calaveras Ck at US 181 10/29/2008 570 - 0.092 1770 10.4 8.2 16 20357 Calavaras Ck at CR 125 10/29/2008 180 - 0.9 501 8.5 7.5 17.1 S49 Calaveras Ck approx upstream of SAR confl. 10/22/2008 180 - 0.6 470 8.8 7.8 23.3 12885 SAR at FM 3444 near Calaveras 10/22/2008 34 - 158 959 8 8 25.3 12884 SAR at Labatt 10/23/2008 48 - 210 993 7.4 8.1 23.3 S50 Spring - SAR below Labatt 10/23/2008 190 - 0.0149 993 8.5 7.9 21.7 S51 SAR below cattle access pt between Labatt and site 0 10/23/2008 310 - 199 1000 8.1 7.3 23.2 S52 Spring #2 W. Bk between Labatt and site 0-SAR 10/23/2008 32 - 0.0267 1160 6 7.5 22.5 12883 SAR at Dietzfield 10/23/2008 90 - 173 1010 7.5 8.1 23.1 S53 Seep No. 3 between site 0 and 536 on SAR 10/23/2008 2500 - 0.002 2240 9.2 7.9 21.5 S54 SAR between site 0 and 536 10/23/2008 88 - 158 995 7.6 8.1 22.9 20352 Seguin Branch at Business Lp 181 10/29/2008 - 0 - - ---

12882 SAR at FM 536 10/23/2008 86 - 207 988 7.6 8.1 22.4 12881 SAR at SH 97 10/27/2008 110 209 - 810 8.6 8.2 21.7 S63 Sample 3 mi between 97 and 541 10/27/2008 27 - 192 1020 8.3 8.1 21.2 20350 Picosa Ck at SH 97 10/29/2008 1100 0 - 1630 1.3 7.2 15.6 S64 Hwy 97 and FM 541 Site Sample mi 6 10/27/2008 84 - 189 1030 8.8 8.2 21.3 S65 Sample mi 9 between Hwy 97-FM 541 10/27/2008 56 - 195 1060 8.9 8.1 21.6 S66 Hwy 97 and FM 541 Site #4 12 mi mark 10/27/2008 140 - 200 1070 8.9 8.2 21.3 12880 SAR at FM 541 10/27/2008 200 - 198 1060 8.2 8.1 21.2 S59 3 mi dwnstrm of FM 541 10/27/2008 150 - 188 1060 8.7 8.1 21.2 S60 6 mi dwnstrm of FM 541 10/27/2008 140 - 188 1070 8.6 8.1 21.3 S61 9 midwnstrm of FM 541 10/27/2008 130 - 194 1090 8.5 8.1 21.5 S62 12 mi dwnstrm of FM 541 10/27/2008 100 - 200 1100 8.3 8.1 21 12879 SAR at FM 791 10/27/2008 48 230 - 1100 8.2 8.1 21.3

Figure 2-13a: November 2008 Synoptic Survey of Salado Creek and Walzem Creek

Figure 2-13b: November 2008 Synoptic Survey of Salado Creek and Walzem Creek

Figure 2-14: November 2008 Synoptic Survey of USAR above Loop 410

Figure 2-15: November 2008 Synoptic Survey of USAR below Loop 410

Table 2-6: November 2008 Synoptic Survey Data Sampling Flow Flow Station ID Location E. Coli Conductivity DO pH Temp Date Measured Estimated (cfu/100 ml) (cfs) (cfs) (umho/cm) (mg/l) (°C) Salado Creek 12877 Salado Cr Upstrm of Loop 410 11/19/2008 8 0 - 431 7.4 7.9 12 12876 Salado Cr at Austin Hw y 11/19/2008 30 < 0.01 - 657 6.5 7.8 13.7 12875 Salado Cr at Eisenhauer 11/19/2008 2 - < 0.01 616 6 7.9 11.5 20359 Walzem Cr Dw nstrm of Diamondhead 11/19/2008 46 - < 0.01 786 13.7 8.4 15.5 12698 Walzem Cr at Holbrook 11/19/2008 290 0.0563 - 874 17.4 8.2 17.1 12874 Salado Cr at Rittiman 11/19/2008 52 < 0.01 - 558 10.3 7.9 14.4 15642 Salado Cr off Holbrook 11/19/2008 44 0.7 - 878 9.3 8 18.5 12872 Salado Cr at WW White 11/19/2008 32 2.1 - 815 8.4 7.6 15.2 12871 Salado Cr at IH 35 11/20/2008 79 2.2 - 830 7.5 8.2 14.2 15644 Salado Cr at Pletz Park 11/20/2008 93 - 0.3 840 7.9 8.1 13.9 12870 Salado Cr at Gembler 11/20/2008 40 - 0.3 850 8.3 7.9 15 12693 Menger Cr Upstrm of Coliseum 11/20/2008 20000 < 0.01 - 877 22.9 8.3 15.5 15645 Salado Cr Upstrm from Commerce 11/20/2008 19 - 0.4 878 8.3 7.8 14.7 15646 Salado Cr at MLK Park 11/20/2008 27 2.8 - 900 3.5 7.8 14.4 12692 Trib in J St Park 11/20/2008 46 < 0.01 - 1290 9.8 7.8 14 12868 Salado Cr at Rigsby 11/20/2008 58 - 7.7 890 5.2 7.8 15.2 15647 Salado Cr Dw nStrm of E Southcross 11/20/2008 20 - 0.7 959 9.9 8 14.3 12864 Salado Cr at Loop 13 11/20/2008 1100 - 0.5 980 7.1 7.9 13.3 12700 Rosillo Cr at IH 10 11/20/2008 6 - 0.9 563 8.8 7.8 14 12689 Rosillo Cr 11/20/2008 420 < 0.01 - 1040 3.7 7.7 13 12862 Salado Cr at Old Corpus Christi Hw y 11/20/2008 40 2.2 - 1000 13.8 8.1 15.7 12861 Salado Cr at Southon 11/20/2008 20 - 2 1060 8.5 8 15.2 San Pedro Creek 20117 San Pedro Cr at Croft Trace 11/17/2008 190 1.2 - 546 7.9 7.8 20.6 20119 San Pedro Cr Upstrm of Alazan Cr 11/17/2008 45 3.8 - 600 9.9 8.2 18.5 12751 Martinez Cr at Ruiz 11/17/2008 18 0.0672 - 780 8.9 8.4 11.3 12715 Alazan Cr at Tampico 11/17/2008 70 0.3 - 748 9.1 8.3 11.5 18735 Apache Cr at Brazos 11/17/2008 160 0.3 - 930 7.2 8 11.4 18736 San Pedro Cr at Probandt 11/17/2008 26 3.4 - 616 15 8.3 15.6 USAR above Loop 410 12912 SAR at E. Hildebrand 11/17/2008 140 0 - 512 5.4 7.7 18 18803 Zoo Outfall No 2 11/17/2008 < 1 - 0.1 521 4.8 7.5 20.6 15722 Zoo Outfall No 1 11/17/2008 5500 2 - 498 7.6 7.8 20.9 12908 SAR at Woodlaw n 11/17/2008 280 9.8 - 909 6.4 7.8 18.6 20360 SAR Tunnel Inlet 11/17/2008 - 0 - - ---

18865 SAR Upstrm of Lexington 11/17/2008 91 - 15 893 8.1 7.9 22.2 20118 SAR at Houston 11/17/2008 640 - 24 891 8.4 7.9 18.8 20122 SAR Loop 11/17/2008 1100 - 11 972 8.3 7.8 16.6 12905 SAR at Arsenal 11/17/2008 320 - 0 929 9.1 8 16.7 12904 SAR at Alamo 11/17/2008 160 10 - 925 10.9 8 17.9 14220 SAR at Lone Star 11/17/2008 53 10 - 911 10.5 7.9 17.5 14256 SAR at W Mitchell 11/17/2008 11 12 - 889 12.1 8.1 19.8 17066 SAR at Mission 11/17/2008 62 11 - 810 12.2 8.3 16.4 12899 SAR at Padre 11/17/2008 26 - 3.3 780 15.3 8.6 17.6 12705 Six Mile Cr at Roosevelt 11/17/2008 15 - 0.1 350 12.4 8.8 21.5 12897 SAR at Lp 410 11/17/2008 23 27 - 780 15.9 8.7 16.7

Table 2-6: November 2008 Synoptic Survey Data (Cont.) Sampling Flow Flow Station ID Location E. Coli Conductivity DO pH Temp Date Measured Estimated (cfu/100 ml) (cfs) (cfs) (umho/cm) (mg/l) (°C) USAR below Loop 410 12894 SAR at Blue Wing 11/17/2008 21 - 36 830 12.8 8.3 14.6 16731 SAR Upstrm of the Medina R. 11/18/2008 37 21 - 927 9.8 8.1 13.8 12811 Medina River at FM 1937 11/18/2008 130 - 42 978 8.4 8 17.1 12889 SAR at IH 37 11/17/2008 15 - 192 1020 9.3 8 20.9 12886 SAR at Lp 1604 11/18/2008 52 235 - 1030 8.6 8.1 18.7 20355 SA R at CR 125 11/18/2008 65 - 234 1050 8.8 8.1 18 20357 Calavaras Cr at Wilson CR 11/18/2008 140 < 0.01 - 477 8.4 7.5 11.1 12885 SAR at FM 3444 11/18/2008 50 - 222 1060 9 8.1 17.9 12884 SAR at Labatt 11/18/2008 23 - 220 1060 8.9 8 17.9 12883 SAR at Dietzfield 11/18/2008 40 - 198 1070 9 8.1 17.2 20352 Seguin Branch at Business Lp 181 11/18/2008 - 0 - - ---

12882 SAR at FM 536 11/18/2008 73 - 200 1080 9.4 8.1 17 12881 SAR at SH 97 11/18/2008 75 198 - 1080 9.4 8.1 17 20350 Picosa Cr at SH 97 11/18/2008 500 0 - 1650 1.7 7.3 11.8 12880 SAR at FM 541 11/18/2008 100 - 198 1100 10.1 8.1 16.3 12879 SAR at FM 791 11/18/2008 39 252 - 1120 9.3 8 17

Figure 2-16a: December 2008 Synoptic Survey of Salado Creek and Walzem Creek

Figure 2-16b: December 2008 Synoptic Survey of Salado Creek and Walzem Creek

Figure 2-17: December 2008 Synoptic Survey of USAR above Loop 410

Figure 2-18: December 2008 Synoptic Survey of USAR below Loop 410

Table 2-7: December 2008 Synoptic Survey Data Sampling Flow Flow Station ID Location E. Coli Conductivity DO pH Temp Date Measured Estimated (cfu/100 ml) (cfs) (cfs) (umho/cm) (mg/l) (°C) Salado Creek 12877 Salado Cr Upstrm of Loop 410 12/09/2008 13 0 - 464 8.4 8 15.3 20358 Beitel Cr at Thousand Oaks 12/09/2008 - 0 - - --- 12876 Salado Cr at Austin Hwy 12/09/2008 210 < 0.01 - 699 6.1 7.6 17.5 12875 Salado Cr at Eisenhauer 12/09/2008 64 - 0.5 671 7.3 7.8 13.1 INTEN Discharge pipe at Walzem Ck at Judiran 12/09/2008 9 - - 1120 8.1 7.4 25.1 20359 Walzem Cr Dwnstrm of Diamondhead 12/09/2008 22 - 0.04 786 12.2 8.3 18.4 INTEN Reclaimed Water discharge at Rittiman Rd 12/09/2008 7 - 2.3 1100 6.8 6.9 22.3 12874 Salado Cr at Rittiman 12/09/2008 88 < 0.01 - 589 8 7.7 19.4 15642 Salado Cr off Holbrook 12/09/2008 68 1.6 - 929 9.2 7.9 22.3 12872 Salado Cr at WW White 12/09/2008 27 2.9 - 868 8.5 7.7 18.2 12871 Salado Cr at IH 35 12/09/2008 110 2.6 - 866 10.6 7.9 16.5 15644 Salado Cr at Pletz Park 12/09/2008 110 - 2.6 866 9.3 7.8 16.9 12870 Salado Cr at Gembler 12/09/2008 91 - 3.3 862 10.9 7.9 16.3 12693 Menger Cr Upstrm of Coliseum 12/10/2008 19000 - 2.2 340 9.3 7.6 8 15645 Salado Cr Upstrm from Commerce 12/10/2008 4900 - 6.3 726 8.3 7.7 11 15646 Salado Cr at MLK Park 12/10/2008 170 6.5 - 900 7.7 7.9 12 12692 Trib in J St Park 12/10/2008 14000 0.1 - 946 10.2 7.9 10.5 12868 Salado Cr at Rigsby 12/10/2008 210 - 15 910 7 7.6 10.9 15647 Salado Cr DwnStrm of E Southcross 12/10/2008 49 - 3.1 960 8.6 7.8 11.9 12864 Salado Cr at Loop 13 12/10/2008 130 12 - 970 7.7 7.9 12.1 12700 Rosillo Cr at IH 10 12/10/2008 16 - 0.7 570 10.3 8 10.9 12689 Rosillo Cr 12/10/2008 55 0.1 - 1220 7 7.8 10.9 12862 Salado Cr at Old Corpus Christi Hwy 12/10/2008 73 5.2 - 1010 12.1 8.1 11.8 12861 Salado Cr at Southon 12/10/2008 96 - 5.3 1090 10.4 7.9 12.5 San Pedro Creek 20117 San Pedro Cr at Croft Trace 12/08/2008 190 1.2 - 546 7.9 7.8 20.6 20119 San Pedro Cr Upstrm of Alazan Cr 12/08/2008 45 3.8 - 600 9.9 8.2 18.5 12751 Martinez Cr at Ruiz 12/08/2008 18 0.0672 - 780 8.9 8.4 11.3 12715 Alazan Cr at Tampico 12/08/2008 70 0.3 - 748 9.1 8.3 11.5 18735 Apache Cr at Brazos 12/08/2008 160 0.3 - 930 7.2 8 11.4 18736 San Pedro Cr at Probandt 12/08/2008 26 3.4 - 616 15 8.3 15.6 USAR above Loop 410 12912 SAR at E. Hildebrand 12/08/2008 330 0 - 521 6 7.5 21.8 18803 Zoo Outfall No 2 12/08/2008 < 1 - 0.1 532 4.5 7.21 21 15722 Zoo Outfall No 1 12/08/2008 2900 2 - 506 7.2 7.6 21.9 12908 SAR at Woodlawn 12/08/2008 410 13 - 872 6.2 7.6 19.8 20360 SAR Tunnel Inlet 12/09/2008 -- 0 - - --- INTEN SAR Bypass at Brooklyn 12/08/2008 23 - 15 890 8.9 8 19.6 18865 SAR Upstrm of Lexington 12/08/2008 260 - 15 872 9.8 8 19.4 20118 SAR at Houston 12/08/2008 660 - 35 875 9.2 7.8 17.6 20122 SAR Loop 12/08/2008 420 - 1.5 941 8.5 7.7 15.9 12905 SAR at Arsenal 12/08/2008 340 - 5.3 905 9.4 7.9 15.6 12904 SAR at Alamo 12/08/2008 86 11 - 894 12.2 8.3 15.1 14220 SAR at Lone Star 12/08/2008 73 15 - 891 11 8.2 16 14256 SAR at W Mitchell 12/08/2008 21 14 - 872 12.4 8.2 17.8 17066 SAR at Mission 12/08/2008 55 17 - 840 11.6 8.4 16.4 12899 SAR at Padre 12/08/2008 24 - 2.4 822 13.5 8.9 13.8 12705 Six Mile Cr at Roosevelt 12/08/2008 250 - 0.06 630 10.8 8.5 18.4 12897 SAR at Lp 410 12/08/2008 58 34 -- 830 13.3 8.9 14.2

Table 2-7: December 2008 Synoptic Survey Data (Cont.) Sampling Flow Flow Station ID Location E. Coli Conductivity DO pH Temp Date Measured Estimated (cfu/100 ml) (cfs) (cfs) (umho/cm) (mg/l) (°C) USAR below Loop 410 12894 SAR at Blue Wing 12/08/2008 18 - 43 900 12.1 8.5 13.2 16731 SAR Upstrm of the Medina R. 12/09/2008 150 24 - 950 10.7 8.4 14.4 12811 Medina River at FM 1937 12/09/2008 96 - 60 980 7.9 8 19.6 12889 SAR at IH 37 12/08/2008 47 - 210 1020 10 8.2 18.7 12886 SAR at Lp 1604 12/09/2008 96 248 - 1030 8.6 8 20.9 20355 SA R at CR 125 12/09/2008 62 - 245 1050 8.9 8.1 20.3 20357 Calavaras Cr at Wilson CR 12/09/2008 130 1.3 - 481 7.1 7.6 16.9 12885 SAR at FM 3444 12/09/2008 55 - 239 1070 8.7 7.9 20 12884 SAR at Labatt 12/09/2008 110 - 238 1060 8.8 7.9 19.6 12883 SAR at Dietzfield 12/09/2008 200 - 213 1070 8.9 7.9 19.3 20352 Seguin Branch at Business Lp 181 12/09/2008 20 0 - 3000 4.9 6.9 18.7 12882 SAR at FM 536 12/09/2008 68 - 213 1070 9.3 7.8 18.9 12881 SAR at SH 97 12/09/2008 160 213 - 1090 9.3 7.8 18.8 20351 Pajarito Cr at Business Lp 181 12/09/2008 69000 0 - 3680 4 7.1 24.2 20350 Picosa Cr at SH 97 12/09/2008 9300 0 - 1390 1 6.8 16.4 12880 SAR at FM 541 12/09/2008 160 - 215 1110 9.7 7.9 18.4 12879 SAR at FM 791 12/09/2008 66 263 - 1130 10 7.8 17

Figure 2-19a: January 2009 Synoptic Survey of Salado Creek and Walzem Creek

Figure 2-19b: January 2009 Synoptic Survey of Salado Creek and Walzem Creek

Figure 2-20: January 2009 Synoptic Survey of USAR above Loop 410

Figure 2-21: January 2009 Synoptic Survey of USAR below Loop 410

Table 2-8: January 2009 Synoptic Survey Data Sampling Flow Flow Station ID Location E. Coli Conductivity DO pH Temp Date Measured Estimated (cfu/100 ml) (cfs) (cfs) (umho/cm) (mg/l) (°C) Salado Creek 12877 Salado Cr Upstrm of Loop 410 01/14/2009 14 0 - 476 8.9 7.6 7.7 20358 Beitel Cr at Thousand Oaks 01/14/2009 ------12701 Beitel Cr at Low Water Crossing 01/14/2009 310 0 - 820 6.5 7.5 10.1 12876 Salado Cr at Austin Hw y 01/14/2009 160 0.1 - - --- 12875 Salado Cr at Eisenhauer 01/14/2009 14 - 0.4 - --- 20356 Walzem Cr at Lanark 01/14/2009 ------20359 Walzem Cr Dw nstrm of Diamondhead 01/14/2009 24000 - 0.0149 914 14.0 8.0 9.7 12698 Walzem Cr at Holbrook 01/14/2009 49 0.0563 - 970 17.3 8.1 9.4 12874 Salado Cr at Rittiman 01/14/2009 61 0.3 - 571 10.3 7.6 10.6 15642 Salado Cr off Holbrook 01/14/2009 31 2.4 - 888 13.6 8.1 16.5 12872 Salado Cr at WW White 01/14/2009 200 2.7 - 850 13.7 8.2 13.1 12871 Salado Cr at IH 35 01/14/2009 25 3.4 - 806 14.3 8.1 11.4 15644 Salado Cr at Pletz Park 01/14/2009 19 - 3.4 795 15.9 8.3 12.0 12870 Salado Cr at Gembler 01/14/2009 48 - 2.6 791 12.5 8.1 13.9 12693 Menger Cr Upstrm of Coliseum 01/15/2009 43 - 0.0737 890 9.3 8.0 7.7 15645 Salado Cr Upstrm from Commerce 01/15/2009 21 - 2.6 870 9.6 8.1 10.3 15646 Salado Cr at MLK Park 01/15/2009 31 3.6 - 878 9.6 8.0 11.2 12692 Trib in J St Park 01/15/2009 59 0.2 - 960 13.2 8.2 9.6 12868 Salado Cr at Rigsby 01/15/2009 11 - 15 820 9.8 8.4 10.4 15647 Salado Cr Dw nStrm of E Southcross 01/15/2009 67 - 8.6 849 11.6 8.4 9.7 12864 Salado Cr at Loop 13 01/15/2009 150 5.2 - - --- 12700 Rosillo Cr at IH 10 01/15/2009 7 - 0.4 600 12.2 8.3 9.3 12699 Rosillo Cr at Sinclair 01/15/2009 32 - 0.1 730 7.9 8.1 9.0 12689 Rosillo Cr 01/15/2009 210 0.3 - 1140 12.4 8.3 8.6 12862 Salado Cr at Old Corpus Christi Hw y 01/15/2009 31 6.8 - 880 15.9 8.6 10.7 12861 Salado Cr at Southon 01/15/2009 43 - 7.1 950 12.9 8.4 10.4 San Pedro Creek 20117 San Pedro Cr at Croft Trace 01/12/2009 190 0.4 - 549 6.3 7.8 18.1 20119 San Pedro Cr Upstrm of Alazan Cr 01/12/2009 53 4.7 - 583 9.2 8.1 16.8 12751 Martinez Cr at Ruiz 01/12/2009 15 0.1 - 530 9.1 8.4 8.9 12715 Alazan Cr at Tampico 01/12/2009 61 0.4 - 590 10.4 8.3 6.7 18735 Apache Cr at Brazos 01/12/2009 100 0.6 - 795 8.2 7.9 8.5 18736 San Pedro Cr at Probandt 01/12/2009 79 6.1 - 600 14.0 8.4 12.9 USAR above Loop 410 12912 SAR at E. Hildebrand 01/12/2009 2100 0 - 498 6.8 7.8 20.6 18803 Zoo Outfall No 2 01/12/2009 58 - 0.072 498 3.8 7.7 15.1 15722 Zoo Outfall No 1 01/12/2009 5500 2.5 - 494 7.4 7.8 20.3 12908 SAR at Woodlaw n 01/12/2009 340 18 - 822 7.1 7.9 17.6 20360 SAR Tunnel Inlet 01/12/2009 ------14219 SAR at W Jones 01/12/2009 ------18865 SAR Upstrm of Lexington 01/12/2009 100 - 15 786 10.4 8.2 18.9 20118 SAR at Houston 01/12/2009 250 - 4.7 808 10.0 8.2 17.3 20122 SAR Loop 01/12/2009 310 - 0.7 989 7.8 7.8 16.4 12905 SAR at Arsenal 01/12/2009 110 - 7.4 822 9.9 8.3 15.2 12904 SAR at Alamo 01/12/2009 59 12 - 806 10.4 8.1 15.9 20361 SAR Tunnel Upstrm on Lone Star 01/12/2009 63 - 6 794 11.3 8.4 14.7 14220 SAR at Lone Star 01/12/2009 46 18 - 788 11.3 8.5 15.9 14256 SAR at W Mitchell 01/12/2009 21 - 18 774 12.1 8.4 15.6 17066 SAR at Mission 01/12/2009 40 25 - 722 11.9 8.3 13.3 12899 SAR at Padre 01/12/2009 240 - 3.2 660 11.5 8.4 14.1 12705 Six Mile Cr at Roosevelt 01/12/2009 14 - 0.0832 560 13.4 8.7 15.6 12897 SAR at Lp 410 01/12/2009 38 22 - 650 15.8 8.6 13.1

Table 2-8: January 2009 Synoptic Survey Data (Cont.) Sampling Flow Flow Station ID Location E. Coli Conductivity DO pH Temp Date Measured Estimated (cfu/100 ml) (cfs) (cfs) (umho/cm) (mg/l) (°C) USAR below Loop 410 12894 SAR at Blue Wing 01/12/2009 80 - 27 740 11.0 8.2 12.6 16731 SAR Upstrm of the Medina R. 01/13/2009 120 33 - 850 11.7 8.1 12.0 12811 Medina River at FM 1937 01/13/2009 130 - 95 970 9.5 8.0 14.7 12889 SAR at IH 37 01/12/2009 43 - 221 980 10.3 8.1 17.1 12886 SAR at Lp 1604 01/13/2009 64 239 - 1010 9.7 8.1 15.5 20355 SA R at CR 125 01/13/2009 66 - 239 1030 9.8 8.1 15.1 20357 Calavaras Cr at Wilson CR 01/13/2009 140 1.1 - 555 11.2 7.7 9.3 12885 SAR at FM 3444 01/13/2009 49 - 239 1060 9.8 8.0 14.6 12884 SAR at Labatt 01/13/2009 49 - 243 1060 9.8 8.0 14.6 12883 SAR at Dietzfield 01/13/2009 100 - 221 1080 9.8 8.0 14.6 12882 SAR at FM 536 01/13/2009 91 - 218 1060 10.1 8.1 14.2 12881 SAR at SH 97 01/13/2009 170 218 - 1090 9.9 8.1 14.3 20351 Pajarito Cr at Business Lp 181 01/13/2009 ------20350 Picosa Cr at SH 97 01/13/2009 580 0 - 2030 1.2 7.4 9.1 12880 SAR at FM 541 01/13/2009 79 - 218 1090 10.7 8.1 13.6 12879 SAR at FM 791 01/13/2009 70 259 - 1100 10.1 8.1 13.9

Figure 2-22a: February 2009 Synoptic Survey of Salado Creek and Walzem Creek

Figure 2-22b: February 2009 Synoptic Survey of Salado Creek and Walzem Creek

Figure 2-23: February 2009 Synoptic Survey of USAR above Loop 410

Figure 2-24: February 2009 Synoptic Survey of USAR below Loop 410

Table 2-9: February 2009 Synoptic Survey Data Sampling Flow Flow Station ID Location E. Coli Conductivity DO pH Temp Date Measured Estimated (cfu/100 ml) (cfs) (cfs) (umho/cm) (mg/l) (°C) Salado Creek 12877 Salado Cr Upstrm of Loop 410 02/19/2009 68 0 - 477 7.0 7.9 15.3 20358 Beitel Cr at Thousand Oaks 02/19/2009 19 0 - 530 7.6 7.7 12.7 12701 Beitel Cr at Low Water Crossing 02/19/2009 1800 0 - 411 3.0 7.5 15.6 12876 Salado Cr at Austin Hw y 02/19/2009 100 0.0344 - 548 4.7 7.5 14.2 12875 Salado Cr at Eisenhauer 02/19/2009 100 - 0.1 557 8.0 7.7 15.2 20356 Walzem Cr at Lanark 02/19/2009 ------20359 Walzem Cr Dw nstrm of Diamondhead 02/19/2009 35 0 0.016 781 17.3 8.4 15.8 12698 Walzem Cr at Holbrook 02/19/2009 92 < 0.01 - 900 18.9 8.4 16.0 12874 Salado Cr at Rittiman 02/19/2009 280 0.5 - 566 6.5 7.6 15.9 15642 Salado Cr off Holbrook 02/19/2009 150 1.4 - 927 10.6 7.9 19.2 12872 Salado Cr at WW White 02/19/2009 98 2.1 - - --- 12871 Salado Cr at IH 35 02/19/2009 63 2.3 - - --- 15644 Salado Cr at Pletz Park 02/19/2009 72 - 2.3 651 9.1 7.8 18.2 12870 Salado Cr at Gembler 02/19/2009 100 - 2.8 644 14.1 8.3 18.4 12693 Menger Cr Upstrm of Coliseum 02/19/2009 17000 - 0.04197 920 4.6 7.9 10.9 15645 Salado Cr Upstrm from Commerce 02/19/2009 71 - 2.3 701 6.8 7.9 15.3 15646 Salado Cr at MLK Park 02/19/2009 48 3.8 - 810 6.1 7.9 15.5 12692 Trib in J St Park 02/19/2009 180 0.029 - 947 6.1 7.8 14.8 12868 Salado Cr at Rigsby 02/19/2009 55 - 15 790 6.4 8.0 15.5 15647 Salado Cr Dw nStrm of E Southcross 02/19/2009 88 - 6 862 8.1 8.1 15.6 12864 Salado Cr at Loop 13 02/19/2009 140 3.8 - 860 8.4 8.2 15.6 12700 Rosillo Cr at IH 10 02/19/2009 1 - 0.04012 640 7.5 8.1 15.3 12699 Rosillo Cr at Sinclair 02/19/2009 450 - 0.0672 710 4.5 7.8 15.3 12689 Rosillo Cr 02/19/2009 280 0.3 - 1190 9.8 8.1 15.1 12862 Salado Cr at Old Corpus Christi Hw y 02/19/2009 29 5.8 - 842 12.2 8.3 17.2 12861 Salado Cr at Southon 02/19/2009 18 - 6.1 910 10.2 8.2 16.6 San Pedro Creek 20117 San Pedro Cr at Croft Trace 02/17/2009 2000 0.7 - 560 5.6 7.6 21.4 20119 San Pedro Cr Upstrm of Alazan Cr 02/17/2009 74 3.5 - 576 8.3 8.1 18.8 12751 Martinez Cr at Ruiz 02/17/2009 80 0.1 - 460 6.6 7.9 14.8 12715 Alazan Cr at Tampico 02/17/2009 190 0.3 - 620 8.7 8.2 14.4 18735 Apache Cr at Brazos 02/17/2009 290 0.7 - 842 6.1 7.6 14.6 18736 San Pedro Cr at Probandt 02/17/2009 93 5.2 - 630 11.2 8.2 16.7 USAR above Loop 410 12912 SAR at E. Hildebrand 02/18/2009 240 0 - 1120 6.5 7.5 20.0 18803 Zoo Outfall No 2 02/18/2009 190 - 0.03 535 2.6 7.3 20.2 15722 Zoo Outfall No 1 02/18/2009 2300 2.5 - 505 6.7 7.6 23.1 12908 SAR at Woodlaw n 02/18/2009 280 8.2 - 891 6.6 7.5 20.8 20360 SAR Tunnel Inlet 02/18/2009 ------14219 SAR at W Jones 02/18/2009 ------18865 SAR Upstrm of Lexington 02/18/2009 170 15 - 696 9.8 7.6 19.3 20118 SAR at Houston 02/18/2009 660 - 2.4 700 8.1 7.5 18.7 20122 SAR Loop 02/18/2009 1100 - 1.9 793 8.0 7.6 18.3 12905 SAR at Arsenal 02/18/2009 440 - 5.1 777 9.4 7.8 18.1 12904 SAR at Alamo 02/18/2009 410 12 - 747 10.8 7.8 18.5 20361 SAR Tunnel Upstrm on Lone Star 02/18/2009 130 - 2 749 10.5 8.1 18.2 14220 SAR at Lone Star 02/18/2009 84 8.6 - 745 13.1 8.2 18.5 14256 SAR at W Mitchell 02/18/2009 55 - 8.6 713 9.7 7.6 19.2 17066 SAR at Mission 02/17/2009 220 20 - 664 10.5 8.1 16.7 12899 SAR at Padre 02/17/2009 170 - 4.2 710 11.9 8.4 15.8 12705 Six Mile Cr at Roosevelt 02/17/2009 390 - 0.3 470 15.4 9.4 17.8 12897 SAR at Lp 410 02/17/2009 170 16 - 710 11.3 8.2 16.0

Table 2-9: February 2009 Synoptic Survey Data (Cont.) Sampling Flow Flow Station ID Location E. Coli Conductivity DO pH Temp Date Measured Estimated (cfu/100 ml) (cfs) (cfs) (umho/cm) (mg/l) (°C) USAR below Loop 410 12894 SAR at Blue Wing 02/17/2009 79 - 20 800 9.1 8.0 15.9 16731 SAR Upstrm of the Medina R. 02/18/2009 170 25 - 870 9.0 8.0 16.7 12811 Medina River at FM 1937 02/18/2009 140 - 82 1000 8.1 7.9 20.2 12889 SAR at IH 37 02/17/2009 42 - 137 1020 9.1 8.0 20.0 12886 SAR at Lp 1604 02/18/2009 56 180 - 1040 8.9 7.9 20.7 20355 SA R at CR 125 02/18/2009 72 - 180 1040 8.8 7.9 20.1 20357 Calavaras Cr at Wilson CR 02/18/2009 270 0.6 - 540 9.2 8.0 18.6 12885 SAR at FM 3444 02/18/2009 46 - 173 1020 8.8 7.9 20.1 12884 SAR at Labatt 02/18/2009 72 - 170 1030 8.9 7.9 19.3 12883 SAR at Dietzfield 02/18/2009 99 - 154 1040 8.9 7.9 19.2 20352 Seguin Branch at Business Lp 181 02/18/2009 660 0 - 3670 5.7 7.2 17.5 12882 SAR at FM 536 02/18/2009 91 - 151 1050 9.0 7.9 19.2 12881 SAR at SH 97 02/18/2009 240 150 - 1060 9.2 7.9 19.3 20351 Pajarito Cr at Business Lp 181 02/18/2009 66 0 - 2290 8.7 7.5 17.9 20350 Picosa Cr at SH 97 02/18/2009 3700 0 - 2330 0.9 7.6 18.4 12880 SAR at FM 541 02/18/2009 340 - 148 1100 9.4 8.0 19.1 12879 SAR at FM 791 02/18/2009 70 174 - 1160 9.2 7.9 19.0

Figure 2-25a: March 2009 Synoptic Survey of Salado Creek and Walzem Creek

Figure 2-25b: March 2009 Synoptic Survey of Salado Creek and Walzem Creek

Figure 2-26: March 2009 Synoptic Survey of USAR above Loop 410

Figure 2-27: March 2009 Synoptic Survey of USAR below Loop 410

Table 2-10: March 2009 Synoptic Survey Date Sampling Flow Flow Station ID Location E. Coli Conductivity DO pH Temp Date Measured Estimated (cfu/100 ml) (cfs) (cfs) (umho/cm) (mg/l) (°C) Salado Creek 12877 Salado Cr Upstrm of Loop 410 03/05/2009 35 0.00 - 462 6.9 8.0 16.5 20358 Beitel Cr at Thousand Oaks 03/05/2009 1 0.00 - 550 9.9 8.1 14.2 12701 Beitel Cr at Low Water Crossing 03/05/2009 260 0.00 - 500 4.2 7.7 17.9 12876 Salado Cr at Austin Hw y 03/05/2009 200 0.06 - 615 5.9 7.7 17.0 12875 Salado Cr at Eisenhauer 03/05/2009 150 - 0.30 552 10.7 8.1 18.0 20359 Walzem Cr Dw nstrm of Diamondhead 03/05/2009 2100 - 0.02 654 16.7 8.8 20.7 12698 Walzem Cr at Holbrook 03/05/2009 71 0.02 - 833 18.7 8.5 22.9 12874 Salado Cr at Rittiman 03/05/2009 120 0.30 - - --- 15642 Salado Cr off Holbrook 03/05/2009 87 1.30 - 951 14.0 8.3 22.4 12872 Salado Cr at WW White 03/05/2009 44 2.70 - - --- 12871 Salado Cr at IH 35 03/05/2009 20 2.10 - 852 14.1 8.4 20.6 15644 Salado Cr at Pletz Park 03/05/2009 56 - 2.10 855 13.0 8.3 20.2 12870 Salado Cr at Gembler 03/05/2009 74 - 2.10 840 14.4 8.5 20.4 12693 Menger Cr Upstrm of Coliseum 03/05/2009 120 - 0.02 950 4.8 7.8 16.7 15645 Salado Cr Upstrm from Commerce 03/05/2009 86 - 2.40 - --- 15646 Salado Cr at MLK Park 03/05/2009 160 2.80 - 844 10.2 7.9 17.2 12692 Trib in J St Park 03/05/2009 190 0.07 - 570 7.4 7.8 18.3 12868 Salado Cr at Rigsby 03/05/2009 49 - 2.60 770 8.8 7.9 17.8 15647 Salado Cr Dw nStrm of E Southcross 03/05/2009 190 - 6.50 885 8.3 7.8 17.7 12864 Salado Cr at Loop 13 03/05/2009 500 3.40 - 850 8.7 7.9 17.4 12700 Rosillo Cr at IH 10 03/05/2009 1 - 0.30 610 9.6 8.0 18.0 12699 Rosillo Cr at Sinclair 03/05/2009 80 - 0.08 749 3.7 7.5 18.2 12689 Rosillo Cr 03/05/2009 410 0.10 - 1020 9.3 7.5 18.5 12862 Salado Cr at Old Corpus Christi Hw y 03/05/2009 41 4.60 - 889 14.3 8.1 19.4 12861 Salado Cr at Southon 03/05/2009 28 - 4.70 945 9.7 7.9 18.6 San Pedro Creek 20117 San Pedro Cr at Croft Trace 03/02/2009 800 1.50 - 545 6.6 7.7 19.4 20119 San Pedro Cr Upstrm of Alazan Cr 03/02/2009 120 3.20 - 632 10.8 8.2 16.1 12751 Martinez Cr at Ruiz 03/02/2009 22 0.07 - 847 7.3 7.9 11.0 12715 Alazan Cr at Tampico 03/02/2009 670 0.10 - 766 8.2 8.0 10.7 18735 Apache Cr at Brazos 03/02/2009 73 0.40 - 812 5.3 7.5 10.9 18736 San Pedro Cr at Probandt 03/02/2009 590 3.60 - 674 12.5 8.3 14.6 USAR above Loop 410 12912 SAR at E. Hildebrand 03/03/2009 390 0.00 - 1150 9.2 8.2 15.6 18803 Zoo Outfall No 2 03/03/2009 340 - 0.05 510 2.3 7.9 17.1 15722 Zoo Outfall No 1 03/03/2009 6100 2.30 - 513 6.7 7.7 21.3 12908 SAR at Woodlaw n 03/03/2009 140 11.00 - 970 6.4 7.9 18.4 20360 SAR Tunnel Inlet 03/03/2009 5800 0.00 - 930 9.2 8.0 16.4 18865 SAR Upstrm of Lexington 03/03/2009 68 15.00 - 890 9.0 7.8 19.6 20118 SAR at Houston 03/03/2009 1800 - 15.00 916 9.3 7.9 18.2 20122 SAR Loop 03/03/2009 240 - 5.10 947 8.4 7.7 16.6 12905 SAR at Arsenal 03/03/2009 410 - 7.50 911 9.6 7.8 16.5 12904 SAR at Alamo 03/03/2009 31 15.00 - 869 9.9 7.9 17.7 20361 SAR Tunnel Upstrm on Lone Star 03/03/2009 15 - 2.00 870 9.9 8.1 17.0 14220 SAR at Lone Star 03/03/2009 10 9.80 - 870 11.6 8.0 17.6 14256 SAR at W Mitchell 03/03/2009 4 8.10 - 862 10.4 7.9 19.0 17066 SAR at Mission 03/02/2009 44 13.00 - 810 11.9 8.3 15.0 12899 SAR at Padre 03/02/2009 120 - 0.40 704 18.6 9.0 16.2 12897 SAR at Lp 410 03/02/2009 22 16.00 - 733 14.5 8.7 15.6 12705 Six Mile Cr at Roosevelt 03/02/2009 14 - 0.10 640 14.0 9.3 20.3

Table 2-10: March 2009 Synoptic Survey Date (Cont.) Sampling Flow Flow Station ID Location E. Coli Conductivity DO pH Temp Date Measured Estimated (cfu/100 ml) (cfs) (cfs) (umho/cm) (mg/l) (°C) USAR below Loop 410 12894 SAR at Blue Wing 03/02/2009 9 - 19.00 811 12.2 8.5 15.7 16731 SAR Upstrm of the Medina R. 03/04/2009 96 19.00 - 890 9.2 8.2 16.0 12811 Medina River at FM 1937 03/04/2009 110 - 85.00 1030 7.7 8.0 18.7 12889 SAR at IH 37 03/02/2009 45 - 146.00 1060 9.5 8.1 19.5 12886 SAR at Lp 1604 03/04/2009 77 130.00 - 1080 8.4 8.0 19.1 20355 SA R at CR 125 03/04/2009 39 - 130.00 1090 8.5 8.1 18.9 20357 Calavaras Cr at Wilson CR 03/04/2009 240 0.90 - 770 10.3 7.9 14.7 12885 SAR at FM 3444 03/04/2009 40 - 127.00 1060 8.7 8.1 18.9 12884 SAR at Labatt 03/04/2009 60 - 125.00 1060 9.1 8.1 18.6 12883 SAR at Dietzfield 03/04/2009 44 - 134.00 1090 8.8 8.1 18.6 20352 Seguin Branch at Business Lp 181 03/04/2009 100 0.00 - 3700 5.4 7.4 16.2 12882 SAR at FM 536 03/04/2009 68 - 126.00 1090 9.1 8.1 18.8 12881 SAR at SH 97 03/04/2009 81 130.00 - 1110 9.2 8.1 18.6 20350 Picosa Cr at SH 97 03/04/2009 1100 0.00 - 2460 0.9 7.8 16.4 12880 SAR at FM 541 03/04/2009 62 - 119.00 1150 10.2 8.2 18.9 12879 SAR at FM 791 03/04/2009 25 167.00 - 1220 10.4 8.2 19.5

Figure 2-28a: April 2009 Intensive Survey of Salado Creek and Walzem Creek

Figure 2-28b: April 2009 Intensive Survey of Salado Creek and Walzem Creek

Figure 2-29a: April 2009 Intensive Survey of USAR above Loop 410

Figure 2-29b: April 2009 Intensive Survey of USAR above Loop 410

Figure 2-29c: April 2009 Intensive Survey of USAR above Loop 410

Figure 2-30a: April 2009 Intensive Survey of LSAR below Loop 410

Figure 2-30b: April 2009 Intensive Survey of LSAR below Loop 410

Table 2-11: April 2009 Intensive Survey Data Sampling Flow Flow Station ID Location E. Coli Conductivity DO pH Temp Date Measured Estimated (cfu/100 ml) (cfs) (cfs) (umho/cm) (mg/l) (°C) Salado Creek 12877 Salado Ck Upstrm of IH 410/Loop 410 04/09/2009 24 0 -- 330 7.6 7.9 19.0 S203 Salado Ck 1 mi. below Los Patios 04/09/2009 46 0 -- 766 4.4 7.3 19.0 12701 Beitel Ck at Low Water Crossing 04/09/2009 220 0 -- 594 3.5 7.7 19.4 S202 Salado Ck abv Austin Hw y 04/09/2009 33 -- < 0.01 675 7.8 7.0 19.7 S200 Unamed trib abv Austin Hw y 04/09/2009 26 -- < 0.01 642 4.0 7.3 18.0 12876 Salado Ck at Austin Hw y 04/09/2009 130 0.0488 -- 617 11.7 7.8 22.8 12875 Salado Ck at Eisenhauer 04/13/2009 190 -- 0.0818 577 9.4 8.0 17.6 20359 Walzem Ck Dw nstrm Diamondhead 04/13/2009 490 -- 0.038 269 11.7 8.7 18.2 S197 Pipe Walzem Ck at Juivan 04/13/2009 49 -- 0.0611 1090 6.9 7.4 22.0 12698 Walzem Ck at Holbrook 04/13/2009 1300 0.0342 -- 797 18.7 8.6 24.6 12874 Salado Ck at Rittiman 04/13/2009 1800 < 0.01 -- 531 3.8 7.9 18.2 S194 Salado Ck Reuse 04/13/2009 2 -- 2.4 1170 8.3 7.7 25.1 15642 Salado Ck off Holbrook 04/13/2009 190 1.4 -- 979 8.3 8.0 21.6 S192 Salado Ck off Holbrook 04/13/2009 150 -- 2.6 864 7.6 7.9 21.2 S191 Salado Ck 2 miles below at Holbrook 04/13/2009 79 -- 1.6 882 8.7 8.1 21.4 12872 Salado Ck at WW White 04/13/2009 130 1.5 -- 901 8.1 8.0 20.6 12871 Salado Ck at IH 35 04/13/2009 41 2 -- 877 10.9 8.2 20.8 15644 Salado Ck at Pletz Park 04/13/2009 220 -- 2 856 8.8 8.1 21.2 12870 Salado Ck at Gembler 04/13/2009 17 -- 1.5 802 9.5 8.2 20.8 S169 Storm Drain at Menger Ck upstrm of ATT Pkw y 04/09/2009 9300 -- < 0.01 1990 6.0 7.5 21.2 12693 Menger Ck Upstrm of Coliseum 04/09/2009 1 < 0.01 1080 22.3 9.4 33.1 S168 Menger Ck upstrm to Salado Ck Confl. 04/13/2009 1800 -- 0.1 1130 6.8 7.4 18.3 S167 Salado Ck Dw nstrm of Menger Ck Confl. 04/13/2009 470 -- 5.9 840 5.9 7.8 18.5 S166 Salado Ck 1 mile below Gembler 04/13/2009 580 -- 1.4 822 7.4 8.0 20.1 15645 Salado Ck Upstrm from Commerce 04/13/2009 280 -- 3.1 830 7.2 7.9 18.1 15646 Salado Ck Upstrm of MLK Park 04/13/2009 > 24000 5.1 -- 712 4.3 7.7 18.7 S149 Unamed Tributary to Salado Ck at Amanda 04/13/2009 3300 -- 0.1 550 14.7 8.7 26.5 12692 Unamed Tributary of Salado Ck in J St Park 04/13/2009 20000 0.1 -- 450 6.2 7.9 18.9 12868 Salado Ck at Rigsby 04/13/2009 630 -- 3.8 770 7.0 7.7 18.8 S133 Salado Ck at Roland 04/13/2009 27 0 -- 770 2.3 7.4 18.9 S140 Salado Ck upstrm of Spring at Commanche Park 04/13/2009 330 -- 7 770 7.3 7.7 18.8 S139 Salado Ck Spring in Commanche Park 04/13/2009 220 -- 8.5 771 6.9 7.8 18.9 S137 Salado Ck dw nstrm of Springs in Commanche Park 04/13/2009 220 -- 6.4 790 7.0 7.8 19.1 S138 Salado Ck Spring at Commanche Park 04/13/2009 82 -- 0.083 1100 8.4 7.7 22.5 S132 Salado Ck at Roland Ave No. 1 East 04/13/2009 91 -- 9.3 810 7.9 7.7 19.5 S124 Salado Ck at Springview 04/13/2009 72 -- 9.6 790 7.5 7.7 19.4 15647 Salado Ck Dw nStrm of E Southcross 04/13/2009 53 -- 14 797 10.4 8.0 20.5 12864 Salado Ck at Loop 13 04/13/2009 280 7.1 -- 870 8.4 7.8 19.2 12700 Rosillo Ck at IH 10 04/16/2009 3 -- 0.021 601 9.6 7.9 20.2 12862 Salado Ck at Goliad 04/16/2009 69 1.9 -- 846 6.6 7.9 19.5 12861 Salado Ck at Southon 04/16/2009 11 -- 1.9 916 9.1 8.0 20.5 S112 Salado Ck 60 yds abv SAR Confl. 04/14/2009 53 -- 1.9 966 7.6 7.9 19.9

Table 2-11: April 2009 Synoptic Survey Data (Cont.) Sampling Flow Flow Station ID Location E. Coli Conductivity DO pH Temp Date Measured Estimated (cfu/100 ml) (cfs) (cfs) (umho/cm) (mg/l) (°C) San Pedro Creek S193 Martinez Ck dow nstrm of IH-10 04/08/2009 110 -- 1.5 572 14.4 8.5 14.1 S190 Storm drain 1 at Martinez Ck upstrm of Hildebrand 04/08/2009 < 1 -- 0.0179 571 7.3 7.9 21.2 S188 Drainage at Martinez Ck upstrm of IH-10 04/08/2009 38 -- 0.2 1080 9.4 7.8 14.5 S187 Martinez Ck dw nstrm of IH-10 bridge 04/07/2009 19 -- 0.5 760 17.1 8.9 18.1 S182 Storm Drain at Martinez Ck at Woodlaw n 04/07/2009 < 1 -- < 0.01 600 7.6 7.9 12.2 S179 Storm Drain at Martinez Ck at Sabinas 04/07/2009 71 -- 0.01 1330 10.3 8.5 16.8 S178 Martinez Ck one mile upstrm from Ruiz 04/07/2009 23 0.0972 -- 731 12.1 8.2 15.6 S175 Storm Drain at Martinez Ck at Poplar 04/07/2009 > 24000 -- < 0.01 1540 16.8 8.6 13.1 12751 Martinez Ck at Ruiz 04/07/2009 68 0.1 -- 670 11.0 8.4 14.2 S173 Martinez Ck upstrm of Alazan Ck Confl. 04/07/2009 64 -- 0.2 665 10.5 8.2 15.8 S181 Alazan Ck at Waverly 04/07/2009 6 -- 0.1 310 9.7 8.3 11.9 S180 Storm Drain Alazan Ck at Waverly 04/07/2009 6 -- 0.02 540 8.7 8.2 20.2 S176 Storm Drain Alazan Ck at Poplar 04/07/2009 > 24000 -- < 0.01 1850 1.8 7.6 13.1 S174 Storm Drain Alazan Ck at Delgado 04/07/2009 > 24000 -- < 0.01 1910 14.8 8.6 16.3 S172 Alazan Ck one mile Dw nstrm of Waverly 04/07/2009 74 0.0243 -- 478 8.0 8.0 11.7 S170 Alazan Ck at Martin 04/07/2009 19 < 0.01 -- 600 16.6 8.5 18.2 S165 Storm Drain Alazan Ck at Buena Vista 04/07/2009 10000 -- < 0.01 1450 2.8 7.5 12.4 S160 Storm drain at Alazan Ck dow nstrm from guadalupe 04/08/2009 > 24000 -- < 0.01 1090 5.8 7.8 18.7 S159 Storm drain at Alazan at upstrm of Tampico 04/08/2009 13000 -- 0.011 1980 12.3 8.1 15.5 12715 Alazan Ck at Tampico 04/08/2009 61 0.1 -- 724 9.0 8.2 17.4 S164 Storm Drain at Apache Ck below Elmendorf Dam 04/09/2009 < 1 -- 0.5 640 8.5 8.3 19.7 S163 Storm Drain at Apache Ck at El Paso 04/09/2009 24000 -- < 0.01 630 7.0 8.4 18.3 S161 Apache Ck one mile upstrm from Brazos 04/09/2009 1900 -- 0.3 567 11.9 8.4 19.1 S156 Storm drain 2 at Apache Ck at the end of Potosi 04/08/2009 < 1 -- < 0.01 1320 8.3 6.5 22.9 S153 Storm drain 1 at Apache Ck at the end of Potosi 04/08/2009 < 1 -- < 0.01 1280 8.4 6.7 23.9 S155 Storm drain at Apache Ck upstream of Zarzamora 04/08/2009 10 -- 0.055 1130 6.7 6.6 23.6 S157 Storm drain at Apache dow nstrm of Zarzamora 04/08/2009 450 -- < 0.01 1150 7.3 6.7 24.5 S158 Storm drain at Apache Ck upstream of Navidad 04/08/2009 650 -- < 0.01 968 15.7 8.2 26.1 S154 Storm drain 2 at Trinity 04/08/2009 16000 -- 0.079 1450 8.8 7.7 18.6 S151 Storm drain 1 at Trinity 04/08/2009 < 1 -- 0.01 1180 6.1 6.7 24.6 S150 Storm drain 1 at Apache Ck dow nstrm of Trinity 04/08/2009 2000 -- 0.0274 1410 13.1 8.0 18.8 S152 Storm drain 2 at Apache Ck dow nstrm of Trinity 04/08/2009 < 1 -- 0.01 1350 7.3 6.8 21.3 18735 Apache Ck at Brazos 04/08/2009 150 0.6 ------S177 San Pedro Springs 04/06/2009 6 < 0.01 -- 505 7.5 7.7 23.3 20117 San Pedro Ck at Croft Trace 04/06/2009 340 0.9 ------S162 San Pedro Ck 3 miles upstrm of Probandt 04/06/2009 1900 -- 1.5 570 10.6 8.4 17.6 20119 San Pedro Ck Upstrm of Confluence w ith Alazan Ck 04/06/2009 380 6.9 ------S148 Storm Drain San Pedro Ck upstrm IH-10 bridge 04/06/2009 < 1 -- 0.2 600 7.4 7.5 22.5 S147 Storm Drain 2 at San Pedro Ck at IH-10 04/06/2009 110 -- 0.1 1440 9.2 8.0 16.3 S146 Storm Drain 1 at San Pedro Ck at IH-10 04/06/2009 1200 -- < 0.01 950 3.7 8.1 13.5 S145 Storm Drain at San Pedro Ck dnstrm of IH-10 04/06/2009 620 -- 0.061 1060 11.4 8.1 14.4 S144 Storm Drain at San Pedro Ck at Halstead 04/06/2009 10 -- < 0.01 766 8.8 8.2 19.5 S143 San Pedro Ck one mile upstrm of Probandt 04/06/2009 67 -- 4.1 600 14.2 8.4 15.1 S141 Seep at San Pedro Ck at Klein 04/06/2009 14 -- 0.024 1610 7.0 7.3 20.5 S135 Storm drain 1 San Pedro Ck dnstrm of Mitchell 04/06/2009 3400 -- 0.2 1060 9.0 7.8 18.7 S136 Storm drain 2 San Pedro Ck dnstrm of Mitchell 04/06/2009 48 -- 0.75 880 10.1 8.1 19.2 18736 San Pedro Ck at Probandt 04/06/2009 180 6.6 -- 630 11.4 8.2 13.7 S134 San Pedro Ck upstream from confluence to SAR 04/06/2009 160 -- 3.8 630 8.4 7.9 13.1

Table 2-11: April 2009 Synoptic Survey Data (Cont.) Sampling Flow Flow Station ID Location E. Coli Conductivity DO pH Temp Date Measured Estimated (cfu/100 ml) (cfs) (cfs) (umho/cm) (mg/l) (°C) SAR above Loop 410 S206 SAR dow nstream of Halm Blvd 04/06/2009 430 -- 0.096 1200 14.7 7.9 10.9 S205 Storm Drain at E. Rector 04/06/2009 570 -- 0.055 756 10.8 8.4 14.3 S204 Storm Drain E. Rector 5 ft. below 04/06/2009 < 1 -- 0.074 552 8.8 8.2 21.6 S201 Linda at W. Skipper 04/06/2009 900 -- 0.3 928 17.1 8.8 12.1 S199 Olmos Ck at Blanco 04/06/2009 54 -- 0.0737 484 17.2 8.7 15.4 S196 Olmos Ck at San Pedro 04/06/2009 67 -- 0.5 902 15.2 7.8 12.7 S198 Olmos Ck at McCullough 04/06/2009 150 -- 2.9 657 2.1 7.5 16.8 S195 Olmos Ck at end of Canyon 04/06/2009 280 0.0662 -- 660 8.0 8.1 12.6 12912 SAR at E. Hildebrand 04/06/2009 290 0 -- 1150 10.3 8.2 17.6 18803 San Antonio Zoo Outfall No 2 04/06/2009 180 -- 0.054 500 4.0 7.5 18.9 15722 San Antonio Zoo Outfall No 1 04/06/2009 5100 0.8 -- 495 7.2 7.8 21.8 S189 SAR near Horse Xing 04/07/2009 450 -- 2.5 898 8.5 7.8 20.4 S186 Channel 0.25 mi upstrm Mulberry 04/07/2009 > 24000 -- 0.063 769 6.8 7.7 14.1 S184 4 in. pipe drain in box culvert 04/07/2009 > 24000 -- < 0.01 1190 7.2 7.4 20.6 S183 Box culvert 100 yds dw nstrm of Mulberry 04/07/2009 > 24000 -- < 0.01 1240 8.7 7.7 14.6 12908 SAR at Woodlaw n 04/07/2009 75 4.8 -- 981 7.6 7.7 18.6 18865 SAR Upstrm of Lexington St Bridge 04/07/2009 86 15 ------S171 Pipe at Lexington 04/07/2009 39 5 -- 945 10.0 7.9 21.5 20118 SAR at Houston 04/07/2009 210 -- 7.6 - --- 20122 SAR Loop 04/07/2009 2000 -- 1.5 968 8.3 7.6 18.1 12905 SAR at Arsenal 04/07/2009 37 -- 7.6 940 11.4 8.2 19.3 12904 SAR at Alamo 04/08/2009 51 2.8 932 0.0 8.1 17.4 S142 Box culvert across from SAR Tunnel Outlet 04/08/2009 120 -- 0.2 905 0.0 8.4 15.4 14220 SAR at Lone Star 04/08/2009 8 6.6 -- 904 0.0 7.9 19.3 14256 SAR at W Mitchell 04/08/2009 20 7.8 -- 898 0.0 7.9 19.1 S131 Concrete Spg Opng on Concepcion Ck abv W. Malone 04/08/2009 93 -- 1 1060 0.0 6.8 24.0 S130 Concrete Spg Opng on Concepcion Ck at W. Malone 04/08/2009 140 -- 1 1050 0.0 6.8 24.1 S129 Storm drain on Concepcion Ck blw Bishop 04/08/2009 1 -- 0.2 1058 0.0 7.0 22.9 S128 Storm drain Concepcion Ck at Flores 04/08/2009 19 -- 0.0315 1170 0.0 7.4 21.6 S127 4 in. drain on lft bank on Concepcion 100 yd above Probandt 04/08/2009 < 1 -- < 0.01 635 0.0 7.0 22.4 S126 Concepcion Ck 180 yds abv SAR Confl. 04/08/2009 500 -- 0.4 998 0.0 7.9 21.9 S125 SAR near end of E. Hafer 04/08/2009 6 -- 14 782 0.0 9.2 24.1 17066 SAR at 2nd Crossing of Mission 04/08/2009 3 -- 8.8 819 0.0 8.9 21.9 S123 SAR 750 blw Southcross 04/08/2009 9 -- 9.2 795 0.0 9.2 24.7 S122 SAR adjacent to Padre Pk 04/08/2009 30 -- 0.2 866 0.0 8.6 21.8 S120 SAR dw nstrm loop 13 04/08/2009 6 -- 0.2 747 4.8 9.1 21.5 12899 SAR at Padre 04/08/2009 < 1 -- 0.2 656 0.0 9.2 24.3 S119 SAR at Ashley 04/09/2009 23 -- 8 784 7.2 8.7 18.8 S116 SAR upstrm of loop 410 04/09/2009 47 -- 10 773 8.3 8.5 18.9 12897 SAR at IH 410 04/09/2009 65 16 -- 778 7.1 8.4 18.6 S121 6 mile Ck head w aters Wagner 04/09/2009 10 -- < 0.01 740 13.3 7.8 28.3 S118 6 mile Ck one mile upstrm of Roosevelt 04/09/2009 2 -- 0.3 520 12.4 10.7 32.7 12705 Six Mile Ck at Roosevelt 04/09/2009 330 0.6 600 13.9 9.2 25.1 S117 6 mile Ck at Ashley 04/09/2009 160 0 -- 716 11.5 8.2 22.2

Table 2-11: April 2009 Synoptic Survey Data (Cont.) Sampling Flow Flow Station ID Location E. Coli Conductivity DO pH Temp Date Measured Estimated (cfu/100 ml) (cfs) (cfs) (umho/cm) (mg/l) (°C) SAR below Loop 410 S115 Spring 200 yds blw at Lp 410 on rt bank 04/14/2009 < 1 -- < 0.01 522 8.2 7.7 20.1 S114 Spring 300 yds blw Lp 410 04/14/2009 9 -- 0.016 728 9.7 8.1 19.9 S113 SAR 3 mi. blw SAR at Lp 410 04/14/2009 76 -- 13 746 7.7 8.2 19.3 12894 SAR at Blue Wing 04/14/2009 19 -- 20 864 10.4 8.3 22.1 S111 SAR 3 mi. blw SAR at Blue Wing 04/14/2009 23 -- 17 - --- 16731 SAR Upstrm of the Medina River Confluence 04/14/2009 42 -- 15 863 11.1 8.5 23.7 12811 Medina River at FM 1937 04/16/2009 41 -- 56 1060 7.1 7.9 22.9 12889 SAR at IH 37 04/14/2009 30 -- 165 1080 8.0 8.0 22.8 S109 SAR 3 miles dw nstrm of IH-37 04/14/2009 60 -- 278 1080 8.4 7.9 23.1 S108 Spring at SAR 4 miles dw nstrm of IH-37 04/14/2009 450 -- 0.0288 1950 9.6 8.2 19.6 S110 Spring at SAR 5 miles dw nstrm of IH-37 04/14/2009 1700 -- 0.0837 2700 9.0 8.0 20.9 S107 Spring at SAR 6 miles dw nstrm of IH-37 04/14/2009 17 -- 127 1060 9.1 8.0 24.3 12886 Dw nstrm of Lp 1604 04/14/2009 37 119 -- 1040 8.8 8.0 24.7 S105 3 mi blw SAR at Lp 1604 04/15/2009 55 -- 146 1090 8.0 8.1 22.7 20355 Upper SAR at CR 125 04/15/2009 44 140 1090 8.1 8.1 23.3 S104 3 mi blw SAR at CR 125 04/15/2009 34 -- 122 1090 8.4 8.0 23.9 S106 Calaveras Ck abv Confl. w ith SAR 04/15/2009 200 -- 0.6 759 8.8 8.0 24.3 12885 SAR at FM 3444 04/15/2009 19 -- 113 1080 8.3 8.0 24.1 12884 SAR at Labatt 04/15/2009 43 -- 148 1050 7.7 8.0 22.3 S103 Spring SAR dw nstrm Labatt 04/15/2009 45 -- < 0.01 760 6.4 7.5 22.4 12883 SAR at Dietzfield 04/15/2009 42 -- 145 1050 8.1 8.0 22.5 S102 Spring at SAR 6.5 miles dw nstrm Labatt 04/15/2009 52 -- < 0.01 2660 5.3 6.9 23.8 S101 SAR 6 miles dw nstrm of Labatt 04/15/2009 250 -- 139 1050 8.6 8.0 23.2 12882 SAR at FM 536 04/15/2009 100 -- 142 1050 8.7 8.0 23.7 20350 Picosa Ck at SH 97 04/16/2009 26 0 -- 2400 2.9 8.0 19.1 12881 SAR at SH 97 04/16/2009 100 139 -- 1060 7.6 8.0 22.6 S100 SAR 3 mi. below HWY 97 04/16/2009 96 -- 137 1070 7.8 8.0 22.4 S99 SAR 6 mi. below HWY 97 04/16/2009 86 -- 133 1070 7.8 8.1 22.4 S98 SAR 9 mi. dw nstrm of HWY 97 04/16/2009 47 -- 130 1080 8.0 8.1 22.4 S97 SAR 12 mi. dw nstrm of HWY 97 04/16/2009 78 -- 133 1080 8.1 8.1 22.3 12880 SAR at FM 541 04/16/2009 70 -- 133 1080 8.1 8.1 22.3 S96 3 mi. blw SAR at FM 541 04/16/2009 72 -- 133 - --- S95 6 mi. blw SAR at FM 541 04/16/2009 82 -- 131 - --- S94 9 mi. blw SAR at FM 541 04/16/2009 42 -- 134 - --- S207 12 mi. blw SAR at FM 541 04/16/2009 45 -- 133 - --- 12879 SAR at FM 791 04/16/2009 13 128 ------

Figure 2-31a: May 2009 Synoptic Survey of Salado Creek and Walzem Creek

Figure 2-31b: May 2009 Synoptic Survey of Salado Creek and Walzem Creek

Figure 2-32: May 2009 Synoptic Survey of USAR above Loop 410

Figure 2-33: May 2009 Synoptic Survey of USAR below Loop 410

100

Table 2-12: May 2009 Synoptic Survey Data Sampling Flow Flow Station ID Location E. Coli Conductivity DO pH Temp Date Measured Estimated (cfu/100 ml) (cfs) (cfs) (umho/cm) (mg/l) (°C) Salado Creek 12877 Salado Cr Upstrm of Loop 410 05/06/2009 29 0 - 280 4.3 8.3 24.5 12701 Beitel Cr at Low Water Crossing 05/06/2009 190 0 - 440 6.0 8.1 24.6 12876 Salado Cr at Austin Hw y 05/06/2009 1500 0.2 - 580 4.0 7.7 23.6 12875 Salado Cr at Eisenhauer 05/06/2009 71 - 0.2 - --- 20359 Walzem Cr Dw nstrm of Diamondhead 05/06/2009 590 - < 0.01 700 18.3 8.7 24.2 12698 Walzem Cr at Holbrook 05/06/2009 130 0.0193 - 780 17.7 8.5 27.0 12874 Salado Cr at Rittiman 05/06/2009 150 < 0.01 - - --- 15642 Salado Cr off Holbrook 05/06/2009 120 0.4 - 1040 5.8 7.8 25.5 12872 Salado Cr at WW White 05/06/2009 140 1.4 - 830 6.8 7.8 25.4 12871 Salado Cr at IH 35 05/06/2009 120 1.6 - 667 7.6 7.8 25.8 15644 Salado Cr at Pletz Park 05/06/2009 100 - 1.6 628 6.2 7.7 26.0 12870 Salado Cr at Gembler 05/06/2009 39 - 1.8 610 7.6 7.9 26.6 12693 Menger Cr Upstrm of Coliseum 05/07/2009 180 - 0.01215 1230 2.6 7.1 25.9 15645 Salado Cr Upstrm from Commerce 05/07/2009 150 - 1.6 690 3.9 7.7 25.8 15646 Salado Cr at MLK Park 05/07/2009 330 1.9 - 730 6.0 7.9 25.8 12692 Trib in J St Park 05/07/2009 590 0.0587 - 1000 3.2 7.6 26.1 12868 Salado Cr at Rigsby 05/07/2009 53 - < 0.01 520 5.6 7.8 26.0 15647 Salado Cr Dw nStrm of E Southcross 05/07/2009 110 - 3.4 730 4.4 7.8 25.5 12864 Salado Cr at Loop 13 05/07/2009 3100 1.7 - 682 2.7 7.7 25.6 12700 Rosillo Cr at IH 10 05/07/2009 24 - 0.2 450 8.1 8.0 26.7 12862 Salado Cr at Old Corpus Christi Hw y 05/07/2009 48 2.5 - 630 7.9 7.9 26.2 12861 Salado Cr at Southon 05/07/2009 15 - 2.5 640 7.4 7.9 27.1 San Pedro Creek 20117 San Pedro Cr at Croft Trace 05/04/2009 400 0.0933 - 566 6.9 7.9 22.0 20119 San Pedro Cr Upstrm of Alazan Cr 05/04/2009 96 1.7 - 585 8.7 8.1 20.7 12751 Martinez Cr at Ruiz 05/04/2009 99 0.1 - 500 3.6 8.2 22.5 12715 Alazan Cr at Tampico 05/04/2009 450 0.3 - 510 5.0 8.3 21.4 18735 Apache Cr at Brazos 05/04/2009 310 0.3 - 807 5.9 7.9 20.0 18736 San Pedro Cr at Probandt 05/04/2009 180 3.4 - 640 15.3 8.6 22.3 USAR above Loop 410 12912 SAR at E. Hildebrand 05/05/2009 1100 0 - 1050 5.5 7.8 24.3 18803 Zoo Outfall No 2 05/05/2009 2300 - 0.1 500 3.2 7.6 23.9 15722 Zoo Outfall No 1 05/05/2009 12000 3.2 - 500 5.6 7.6 23.9 12908 SAR at Woodlaw n 05/05/2009 210 7.7 - 982 4.8 7.7 24.7 18865 SAR Upstrm of Lexington 05/05/2009 1200 15 - 910 7.8 7.9 24.3 20118 SAR at Houston 05/05/2009 530 - 11 780 6.5 7.8 24.1 20122 SAR Loop 05/05/2009 5800 - 6 870 6.2 7.7 24.1 12905 SAR at Arsenal 05/05/2009 130 - 2.4 650 11.3 8.3 25.2 12904 SAR at Alamo 05/05/2009 170 3 - 650 9.2 8.0 25.0 14220 SAR at Lone Star 05/05/2009 130 5.7 - 658 6.4 7.7 24.7 14256 SAR at W Mitchell 05/05/2009 62 7.5 - 640 7.8 7.9 24.4 17066 SAR at Mission 05/04/2009 170 21 - 632 8.9 8.2 22.3 12899 SAR at Padre 05/04/2009 62 - 3.1 720 9.4 8.6 25.1 12897 SAR at Lp 410 05/04/2009 99 12 - 740 9.7 8.3 24.5 12705 Six Mile Cr at Roosevelt 05/04/2009 490 - 0.4 540 13.1 9.1 23.0

101

Table 2-12: May 2009 Synoptic Survey Data (Cont.) Sampling Flow Flow Station ID Location E. Coli Conductivity DO pH Temp Date Measured Estimated (cfu/100 ml) (cfs) (cfs) (umho/cm) (mg/l) (°C) USAR below Loop 410 12894 SAR at Blue Wing 05/04/2009 72 - 14 682 7.1 8.1 25.7 16731 SAR Upstrm of the Medina R. 05/05/2009 50 20 - 717 7.0 7.9 25.7 12811 Medina River at FM 1937 05/05/2009 68 - 54 978 6.8 7.9 25.7 12889 SAR at IH 37 05/04/2009 57 - 102 985 7.8 8.0 26.3 12886 SAR at Lp 1604 05/05/2009 68 120 - 998 7.5 8.0 25.9 20355 SA R at CR 125 05/05/2009 46 - 120 1030 7.3 8.0 26.2 20357 Calavaras Cr at Wilson CR 05/05/2009 200 0.4 - 569 5.8 7.7 24.1 12885 SAR at FM 3444 05/05/2009 53 - 114 1030 7.5 8.0 26.5 12884 SAR at Labatt 05/05/2009 - - 110 1040 7.2 7.9 26.7 12883 SAR at Dietzfield 05/05/2009 34 - 108 1050 7.1 7.9 26.9 20352 Seguin Branch at Business Lp 181 05/05/2009 1300 0 - 2080 4.5 7.3 25.0 12882 SAR at FM 536 05/05/2009 66 - 105 1040 7.3 7.9 27.1 12881 SAR at SH 97 05/05/2009 70 103 - 1050 7.6 8.0 27.5 20350 Picosa Cr at SH 97 05/05/2009 32 0 - 740 5.4 7.5 25.9 12879 SAR at FM 791 05/05/2009 40 115 - 1120 7.4 8.0 29.0

102

Figure 2-34a: June 2009 Synoptic Survey of Salado Creek and Walzem Creek

103

Figure 2-34b: June 2009 Synoptic Survey of Salado Creek and Walzem Creek

104

Figure 2-35: June 2009 Synoptic Survey of USAR above Loop 410

105

Figure 2-36: June 2009 Synoptic Survey of USAR below Loop 410

106

Table 2-13: June 2009 Synoptic Survey Data Sampling Flow Flow Station ID Location E. Coli Conductivity DO pH Temp Date Measured Estimated (cfu/100 ml) (cfs) (cfs) (umho/cm) (mg/l) (°C) Salado Creek 12877 Salado Cr Upstrm of Loop 410 06/02/2009 120 0 - 220 6.0 8.7 25.4 12701 Beitel Cr at Low Water Crossing 06/02/2009 230 0 - 440 2.1 7.7 25.4 12876 Salado Cr at Austin Hw y 06/02/2009 1300 0.2 - 499 4.9 7.8 24.8 12875 Salado Cr at Eisenhauer 06/02/2009 250 - 0.2 - --- 20359 Walzem Cr Dw nstrm of Diamondhead 06/02/2009 2600 - 0.07984 720 15.6 8.5 24.6 12698 Walzem Cr at Holbrook 06/02/2009 1600 0.0385 - 740 17.5 8.6 27.6 12874 Salado Cr at Rittiman 06/02/2009 290 < 0.01 - - --- 15642 Salado Cr off Holbrook 06/02/2009 93 0.3 - 1070 5.6 7.8 25.9 12872 Salado Cr at WW White 06/02/2009 56 1.5 - 762 7.7 7.8 26.3 12871 Salado Cr at IH 35 06/02/2009 50 2 - 500 8.2 7.9 26.9 15644 Salado Cr at Pletz Park 06/02/2009 63 - 2 480 4.6 7.7 26.3 12870 Salado Cr at Gembler 06/02/2009 88 - 2.2 460 6.5 7.8 27.1 12693 Menger Cr Upstrm of Coliseum 06/03/2009 1500 - 0.044352 1010 6.4 7.6 22.2 15645 Salado Cr Upstrm from Commerce 06/03/2009 98 - 1.7 471 4.7 7.7 25.3 15646 Salado Cr at MLK Park 06/03/2009 68 1.8 - 443 4.1 7.6 26.2 12692 Trib in J St Park 06/03/2009 560 0.0344 - 754 3.1 7.5 25.5 12868 Salado Cr at Rigsby 06/03/2009 160 - 1.9 373 4.1 7.6 26.2 15647 Salado Cr Dw nStrm of E Southcross 06/03/2009 170 - 3.2 608 5.7 7.9 25.1 12864 Salado Cr at Loop 13 06/03/2009 910 2.3 - 564 3.8 7.7 25.6 12700 Rosillo Cr at IH 10 06/03/2009 1 - 0.04896 418 7.6 7.8 27.4 12699 Rosillo Cr at Sinclair 06/03/2009 470 - 0.1 416 2.5 7.4 25.3 12689 Rosillo Cr 06/03/2009 48 0.0418 - 430 7.4 8.1 26.5 12862 Salado Cr at Old Corpus Christi Hw y 06/03/2009 15 2.7 - 492 8.8 8.1 26.7 12861 Salado Cr at Southon 06/03/2009 32 - 2.7 487 6.9 7.8 27.5 San Pedro Creek 20117 San Pedro Cr at Croft Trace 06/01/2009 4600 1.1 - 560 7.0 7.9 23.4 20119 San Pedro Cr Upstrm of Alazan Cr 06/01/2009 140 1.4 - 540 10.9 8.4 24.1 12751 Martinez Cr at Ruiz 06/01/2009 1700 0.0677 - 481 2.6 8.2 25.0 12715 Alazan Cr at Tampico 06/01/2009 370 0.1 - 441 3.7 8.1 24.4 18735 Apache Cr at Brazos 06/01/2009 250 0.7 - 760 4.3 8.2 22.9 18736 San Pedro Cr at Probandt 06/01/2009 180 2.7 - 558 16.3 8.7 26.7 USAR above Loop 410 12912 SAR at E. Hildebrand 06/01/2009 570 0 - 918 7.0 7.9 25.2 18803 Zoo Outfall No 2 06/01/2009 1000 - 0.2 503 3.8 7.4 23.8 15722 Zoo Outfall No 1 06/01/2009 12000 0.6 - 507 5.8 7.5 23.8 12908 SAR at Woodlaw n 06/01/2009 200 6.2 - 963 4.7 7.6 26.3 14219 SAR at W Jones 06/01/2009 75 6.6 715 7.6 7.9 26.2 20360 SAR Tunnel Inlet 06/01/2009 130 38 - 729 7.2 7.8 26.0 18865 SAR Upstrm of Lexington 06/01/2009 340 - 4 729 7.9 7.9 26.6 20118 SAR at Houston 06/01/2009 1600 - 5.4 728 7.1 7.8 26.8 20122 SAR Loop 06/01/2009 1100 - 2.1 813 5.5 7.5 25.9 12905 SAR at Arsenal 06/01/2009 520 - 7.9 692 8.1 7.9 27.6 12904 SAR at Alamo 06/01/2009 190 19 - 674 8.8 8.0 26.9 20361 SAR Tunnel Upstrm on Lone Star 06/01/2009 190 - 1 638 8.6 8.2 27.4 14220 SAR at Lone Star 06/01/2009 140 7.1 - 648 10.4 8.4 28.3 14256 SAR at W Mitchell 06/01/2009 43 10 - 666 9.4 8.3 28.8 17066 SAR at Mission 06/01/2009 370 14 - 640 9.2 8.2 25.2 12899 SAR at Padre 06/01/2009 80 0 - 440 4.3 8.8 27.1 12897 SAR at Lp 410 06/01/2009 79 5.1 - 540 10.9 8.5 27.9 12705 Six Mile Cr at Roosevelt 06/01/2009 990 - 0.4 560 10.7 9.1 30.4

107

Table 2-13: June 2009 Synoptic Survey Data (Cont.) Sampling Flow Flow Station ID Location E. Coli Conductivity DO pH Temp Date Measured Estimated (cfu/100 ml) (cfs) (cfs) (umho/cm) (mg/l) (°C) USAR below Loop 410 12894 SAR at Blue Wing 06/01/2009 64 - 8.2 500 6.8 8.2 28.7 16731 SAR Upstrm of the Medina R. 06/02/2009 78 16 - 591 6.4 8.0 27.3 12811 Medina River at FM 1937 06/02/2009 84 - 56 943 6.6 8.0 26.9 12889 SAR at IH 37 06/01/2009 73 - 209 966 8.1 8.0 28.5 12886 SAR at Lp 1604 06/02/2009 91 233 - 997 7.0 8.0 27.3 20355 SA R at CR 125 06/02/2009 62 - 231 1000 7.0 8.1 27.9 20357 Calavaras Cr at Wilson CR 06/02/2009 56 0.5 - 643 5.5 7.5 24.6 12885 SAR at FM 3444 06/02/2009 47 - 226 1030 6.7 8.0 28.4 12884 SAR at Labatt 06/02/2009 58 - 223 1040 6.7 8.0 28.0 12883 SAR at Dietzfield 06/02/2009 52 - 192 1030 6.6 7.9 28.5 12882 SAR at FM 536 06/02/2009 120 195 1020 6.8 8.0 28.5 12881 SAR at SH 97 06/02/2009 96 191 - 1040 6.8 7.9 28.6 20350 Picosa Cr at SH 97 06/02/2009 68 0 - 1240 1.0 7.0 24.0 12879 SAR at FM 791 06/02/2009 36 230 - 1030 6.9 8.0 30.6

108

Figure 2-37a: July 2009 Synoptic Survey of Salado Creek and Walzem Creek

109

Figure 2-37b: July 2009 Synoptic Survey of Salado Creek and Walzem Creek

110

Figure 2-38: July 2009 Synoptic Survey of USAR above Loop 410

111

Figure 2-39: July 2009 Synoptic Survey of USAR below Loop 410

112

Table 2-14: July 2009 Synoptic Survey Data Sampling Flow Flow Station ID Location E. Coli Conductivity DO pH Temp Date Measured Estimated (cfu/100 ml) (cfs) (cfs) (umho/cm) (mg/l) (°C) Salado Creek 12877 Salado Cr Upstrm of Loop 410 07/14/2009 21 0 - - --- 12701 Beitel Cr at Low Water Crossing 07/14/2009 230 0 - 390 1.8 7.5 28.1 12876 Salado Cr at Austin Hw y 07/14/2009 370 < 0.01 - - --- 12875 Salado Cr at Eisenhauer 07/14/2009 21 0 - 400 3.2 7.6 27.6 20359 Walzem Cr Dw nstrm of Diamondhead 07/14/2009 4100 - < 0.01 630 14.8 8.6 25.7 12698 Walzem Cr at Holbrook 07/14/2009 51 0.0344 - 740 14.9 9.4 30.8 12874 Salado Cr at Rittiman 07/14/2009 490 0.0256 - 490 1.9 7.5 27.5 15642 Salado Cr off Holbrook 07/14/2009 290 0.9 - 1090 4.4 7.7 28.2 12872 Salado Cr at WW White 07/14/2009 69 1.1 - 530 7.4 7.7 28.9 12871 Salado Cr at IH 35 07/14/2009 990 1.7 - 578 8.5 7.9 30.1 15644 Salado Cr at Pletz Park 07/14/2009 110 - 1.7 687 9.3 7.9 29.9 12870 Salado Cr at Gembler 07/14/2009 140 - 1.6 820 8.4 8.1 30.4 12693 Menger Cr Upstrm of Coliseum 07/15/2009 9 - < 0.01 1380 1.9 7.1 26.3 15645 Salado Cr Upstrm from Commerce 07/15/2009 110 - 1.4 1030 3.5 7.6 28.2 15646 Salado Cr at MLK Park 07/15/2009 13 1.6 - 908 5.7 7.8 29.2 12692 Trib in J St Park 07/15/2009 200 0.0416 770 3.4 7.5 27.8 12868 Salado Cr at Rigsby 07/15/2009 10 - < 0.01 730 5.7 7.8 28.5 15647 Salado Cr Dw nStrm of E Southcross 07/15/2009 350 0 - 820 2.1 7.5 26.8 12864 Salado Cr at Loop 13 07/15/2009 120 0.04 730 3.6 7.6 27.6 12700 Rosillo Cr at IH 10 07/15/2009 8 0 - 500 1.1 7.2 27.1 12862 Salado Cr at Old Corpus Christi Hw y 07/15/2009 22 0 - 830 7.2 7.7 29.1 12861 Salado Cr at Southon 07/15/2009 11 - 0.1 1010 9.1 7.7 29.6 San Pedro Creek 20119 San Pedro Cr Upstrm of Alazan Cr 07/13/2009 240 0.1 - 1050 10.1 8.5 27.7 12751 Martinez Cr at Ruiz 07/13/2009 2400 0.089 - 970 1.5 7.5 28.0 12715 Alazan Cr at Tampico 07/13/2009 100 0.0623 - 1020 4.9 8.1 27.3 18735 Apache Cr at Brazos 07/13/2009 2600 0.4 - 710 2.4 7.8 26.0 18736 San Pedro Cr at Probandt 07/13/2009 460 0.7 - 778 14.7 8.5 29.1 USAR above Loop 410 12912 SAR at E. Hildebrand 07/13/2009 350 0 - 1100 7.6 8.2 28.0 18803 Zoo Outfall No 2 07/13/2009 1200 - 0.2 520 4.5 7.5 24.6 15722 Zoo Outfall No 1 07/13/2009 13000 2.2 - 519 6.1 7.6 24.9 12908 SAR at Woodlaw n 07/13/2009 380 7.3 - 999 4.9 7.8 29.0 20360 SAR Tunnel Inlet 07/13/2009 45 49 - 949 8.0 8.5 29.7 14219 SAR at W Jones 07/13/2009 510 - 47 946 8.8 8.4 29.2 18865 SAR Upstrm of Lexington 07/13/2009 150 - 24 947 8.1 8.3 29.0 20118 SAR at Houston 07/13/2009 550 - 8.1 951 7.3 8.3 28.9 20122 SAR Loop 07/13/2009 3400 - 1.4 1030 5.8 7.9 28.6 12905 SAR at Arsenal 07/13/2009 150 - 13 947 9.9 8.6 30.0 12904 SAR at Alamo 07/13/2009 180 50 - 939 8.7 8.6 29.9 14220 SAR at Lone Star 07/13/2009 310 - 15 935 10.0 8.4 30.2 14256 SAR at W Mitchell 07/13/2009 110 9.7 - 929 9.3 8.5 30.5 17066 SAR at Mission 07/13/2009 320 11 - 940 8.5 8.4 28.4 12899 SAR at Padre 07/13/2009 1 0 - 710 6.7 9.2 30.1 12897 SAR at Lp 410 07/13/2009 1100 17 - 800 8.4 8.1 31.1

113

Table 2-14: July 2009 Synoptic Survey Data (Cont.) Sampling Flow Flow Station ID Location E. Coli Conductivity DO pH Temp Date Measured Estimated (cfu/100 ml) (cfs) (cfs) (umho/cm) (mg/l) (°C) USAR below Loop 410 12894 SAR at Blue Wing 07/13/2009 21 - 18 726 9.4 8.4 32.4 16731 SAR Upstrm of the Medina R. 07/14/2009 240 4 - 730 3.7 7.8 29.7 12811 Medina River at FM 1937 07/14/2009 140 - 49 927 7.0 8.1 29.3 12889 SAR at IH 37 07/13/2009 110 - 96 1000 7.7 8.0 31.9 12886 SAR at Lp 1604 07/14/2009 170 170 - 987 7.4 8.1 29.4 20355 SA R at CR 125 07/14/2009 110 - 170 1000 7.4 8.1 30.3 20357 Calavaras Cr at Wilson CR 07/14/2009 61 0.5 385 7.0 8.1 27.0 12885 SAR at FM 3444 07/14/2009 110 - 168 1020 7.2 8.1 30.8 12884 SAR at Labatt 07/14/2009 310 - 168 1040 7.2 8.1 30.9 12883 SAR at Dietzfield 07/14/2009 86 - 119 1040 7.1 8.0 30.9 12882 SAR at FM 536 07/14/2009 62 - 116 1050 7.5 8.1 31.3 12881 SAR at SH 97 07/14/2009 130 123 - 1070 7.8 8.1 31.3 20350 Picosa Cr at SH 97 07/14/2009 17 0 - 1560 0.7 7.3 27.0 12879 SAR at FM 791 07/14/2009 2 81 - 1070 7.8 8.2 32.7

114

Figure 2-40a: August 2009 Synoptic Survey of Salado Creek and Walzem Creek

115

Figure 2-40b: August 2009 Synoptic Survey of Salado Creek and Walzem Creek

116

Figure 2-41: August 2009 Synoptic Survey of USAR above Loop 410

117

Figure 2-42: August 2009 Synoptic Survey of USAR below Loop 410

118

Table 2-15: August 2009 Synoptic Survey Data Sampling Flow Flow Station ID Location E. Coli Conductivity DO pH Temp Date Measured Estimated (cfu/100 ml) (cfs) (cfs) (umho/cm) (mg/l) (°C) Salado Creek 12877 Salado Cr Upstrm of Loop 410 08/11/2009 99 0 - 418 5.1 8.0 27.4 20358 Beitel Cr at Thousand Oaks 08/11/2009 > 0 ------12701 Beitel Cr at Low Water Crossing 08/11/2009 110 0 - 550 2.8 7.7 28.2 12876 Salado Cr at Austin Hw y 08/11/2009 150 0 - 590 2.9 7.5 26.9 12875 Salado Cr at Eisenhauer 08/11/2009 > 0 0 - - --- 20356 Walzem Cr at Lanark 08/11/2009 > 0 ------20359 Walzem Cr Dw nstrm of Diamondhead 08/11/2009 510 - < 0.01 611 13.8 8.6 26.5 12698 Walzem Cr at Holbrook 08/11/2009 9 - < 0.01 1830 10.4 8.5 29.9 12874 Salado Cr at Rittiman 08/11/2009 2500 0 - 876 3.0 7.8 27.0 15642 Salado Cr off Holbrook 08/11/2009 280 < 0.01 - 1100 4.5 7.7 28.7 12872 Salado Cr at WW White 08/11/2009 72 1.8 - 932 6.9 7.7 28.0 12871 Salado Cr at IH 35 08/11/2009 420 0.4 - 920 6.5 7.5 28.4 15644 Salado Cr at Pletz Park 08/11/2009 41 - 0.4 900 5.6 7.8 28.4 12870 Salado Cr at Gembler 08/11/2009 86 - 0.5 850 9.3 8.0 29.7 12693 Menger Cr Upstrm of Coliseum 08/12/2009 110 - 0.1 858 2.5 7.7 26.1 15645 Salado Cr Upstrm from Commerce 08/12/2009 200 - 0.8 906 3.9 7.7 28.3 15646 Salado Cr at MLK Park 08/12/2009 71 0.4 - 981 4.7 8.1 29.0 12692 Trib in J St Park 08/12/2009 120 0.01 - 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 12868 Salado Cr at Rigsby 08/12/2009 13 - < 0.01 796 5.2 7.8 28.7 15647 Salado Cr Dw nStrm of E Southcross 08/12/2009 28 - 0.3 909 5.4 7.8 29.9 12864 Salado Cr at Loop 13 08/12/2009 32 0 - 847 2.8 7.5 27.8 12700 Rosillo Cr at IH 10 08/12/2009 > 0 0 - - --- 12699 Rosillo Cr at Sinclair 08/12/2009 > 0 ------12689 Rosillo Cr 08/12/2009 > 0 ------12862 Salado Cr at Old Corpus Christi Hw y 08/12/2009 > 0 0 - - --- 12861 Salado Cr at Southon 08/12/2009 26 - 0.01 1710 6.2 7.4 29.4 San Pedro Creek 20117 San Pedro Cr at Croft Trace 08/10/2009 0 ------20119 San Pedro Cr Upstrm of Alazan Cr 08/10/2009 47 0.0986 - 1120 7.4 7.6 27.1 12751 Martinez Cr at Ruiz 08/10/2009 16 0 - 880 4.7 7.7 26.1 12715 Alazan Cr at Tampico 08/10/2009 910 0.2 - 789 2.9 7.6 27.3 18735 Apache Cr at Brazos 08/10/2009 1700 0.3 - 680 2.2 7.4 26.4 18736 San Pedro Cr at Probandt 08/10/2009 590 0.7 - 820 14.3 8.1 28.5 USAR above Loop 410 15086 SAR Dw nstrm of Olmos Dam 08/10/2009 > 0 ------12912 SAR at E. Hildebrand 08/10/2009 340 0 - 1120 5.6 8.2 27.9 18803 Zoo Outfall No 2 08/10/2009 1500 - 0.05 539 4.5 7.6 25.6 15722 Zoo Outfall No 1 08/10/2009 13000 1.2 - 536 6.0 7.5 24.8 12908 SAR at Woodlaw n 08/10/2009 410 6.7 - 1010 4.5 7.6 28.7 20360 SAR Tunnel Inlet 08/10/2009 6 50 - 1000 7.7 8.2 29.4 14219 SAR at W Jones 08/10/2009 16 - 4.5 989 9.3 8.2 29.3 18865 SAR Upstrm of Lexington 08/10/2009 51 - 22 1000 8.6 8.1 28.9 20118 SAR at Houston 08/10/2009 460 - 16 1000 7.9 8.0 28.9 20122 SAR Loop 08/10/2009 880 - 1.4 1080 5.3 7.5 28.4 12905 SAR at Arsenal 08/10/2009 180 - 8 994 10.4 8.4 29.9 12904 SAR at Alamo 08/10/2009 73 43 - 1010 8.3 7.8 29.4 20361 SAR Tunnel Upstrm on Lone Star 08/10/2009 18 - 20 1000 9.1 7.9 30.2 14220 SAR at Lone Star 08/10/2009 26 - 31 990 11.4 7.7 30.1 14256 SAR at W Mitchell 08/10/2009 190 8.6 - 1010 9.4 7.8 30.2 17066 SAR at Mission 08/10/2009 260 17 - 1000 7.7 7.7 27.8 12899 SAR at Padre 08/10/2009 28 0 - 832 4.3 8.6 28.8 12897 SAR at Lp 410 08/10/2009 55 7.2 - 940 11.5 8.0 30.0 12705 Six Mile Cr at Roosevelt 08/10/2009 2100 - 0.03 1240 12.2 9.1 32.8

119

Table 2-15: August 2009 Synoptic Survey Data (Cont.) Sampling Flow Flow Station ID Location E. Coli Conductivity DO pH Temp Date Measured Estimated (cfu/100 ml) (cfs) (cfs) (umho/cm) (mg/l) (°C) USAR below Loop 410 12894 SAR at Blue Wing 08/10/2009 47 - 7.2 850 10.0 8.2 30.3 16731 SAR Upstrm of the Medina R. 08/11/2009 57 2.6 - 941 4.9 7.9 29.3 12811 Medina River at FM 1937 08/11/2009 89 - 43 954 5.7 8.0 29.4 12889 SAR at IH 37 08/10/2009 110 - 96 1050 7.5 7.8 30.9 12886 SAR at Lp 1604 08/11/2009 230 101 - 1030 6.6 8.0 29.2 20355 SA R at CR 125 08/11/2009 140 - 100 1020 6.4 8.0 29.9 20357 Calavaras Cr at Wilson CR 08/11/2009 64 0.0651 - 302 6.4 7.8 27.3 12885 SAR at FM 3444 08/11/2009 190 - 96 1060 6.9 8.0 30.6 12884 SAR at Labatt 08/11/2009 70 - 94 1020 6.6 8.0 30.0 20354 Unamed Trib of Upper SAR at FM 3444 and 08/11/2009 > 0 ------FM 775 12883 SAR at Dietzfield 08/11/2009 34 - 113 - --- 20353 Kicaster Cr at Business Lp 181 08/11/2009 > 0 ------20352 Seguin Branch at Business Lp 181 08/11/2009 > 0 0 - - --- 12882 SAR at FM 536 08/11/2009 64 - 109 - --- 12881 SAR at SH 97 08/11/2009 59 104 - 1060 7.1 7.9 31.0 20351 Pajarito Cr at Business Lp 181 08/11/2009 > 0 ------20350 Picosa Cr at SH 97 08/11/2009 120 0 - 1770 1.0 7.1 27.4 12880 SAR at FM 541 08/11/2009 > 0 ------12879 SAR at FM 791 08/11/2009 70 78 - 1140 6.8 8.0 32.5

120

Figure 2-43: September 8, 2009 Synoptic Survey of USAR above Loop 410

121

Figure 2-44: September 8, 2009 Synoptic Survey of USAR below Loop 410

122

Table 2-16: September 8, 2009 Synoptic Survey Data Sampling Flow Flow Station ID Location E. Coli Conductivity DO pH Temp Date Measured Estimated (cfu/100 ml) (cfs) (cfs) (umho/cm) (mg/l) (°C) San Pedro Creek 20117 San Pedro Cr at Croft Trace 09/08/2009 0 ------20119 San Pedro Cr Upstrm of Alazan Cr 09/08/2009 3900 8.9 - 993 5.7 7.8 26.8 12751 Martinez Cr at Ruiz 09/08/2009 150 0 - 380 1.4 7.7 27.8 12715 Alazan Cr at Tampico 09/08/2009 640 0.7 - 470 4.1 7.8 25.4 18735 Apache Cr at Brazos 09/08/2009 370 0.5 - 498 2.7 7.5 25.2 18736 San Pedro Cr at Probandt 09/08/2009 220 2.1 - 540 12.6 8.2 26.9 USAR above Loop 410 15086 SAR Dw nstrm of Olmos Dam 09/08/2009 0 ------12912 SAR at E. Hildebrand 09/08/2009 11000 0 - 490 2.7 8 26.1 18803 Zoo Outfall No 2 09/08/2009 12000 - 1.6 554 3.7 7.7 24.6 15722 Zoo Outfall No 1 09/08/2009 14000 1.2 - 530 5.8 7.9 24.4 12908 SAR at Woodlaw n 09/08/2009 390 7.4 - 883 4.3 8 27.5 20360 SAR Tunnel Inlet 09/08/2009 100 56 - 922 7.9 8.4 27.8 14219 SAR at W Jones 09/08/2009 70 - 25 910 7.8 8.4 27.6 18865 SAR Upstrm of Lexington 09/08/2009 69 - 33 - --- 20118 SAR at Houston 09/08/2009 640 - 34 - --- 20122 SAR Loop 09/08/2009 1900 - 1.8 1020 5.5 8 27.2 12905 SAR at Arsenal 09/08/2009 550 - 24 926 9.4 8.5 28.3 12904 SAR at Alamo 09/08/2009 420 43 - 939 8.2 8.4 28.2 20361 SAR Tunnel Upstrm on Lone Star 09/08/2009 0 ------14220 SAR at Lone Star 09/08/2009 340 - 16 952 9 8.2 28.9 14256 SAR at W Mitchell 09/08/2009 88 9.1 - 960 8.4 8 28.8 17066 SAR at Mission 09/08/2009 83 13 - 884 8.6 8 27.2 12899 SAR at Padre 09/08/2009 61 0 - 847 8.8 8.7 28.4 12897 SAR at Lp 410 09/08/2009 120 9 - 810 9.6 8 29.3 12705 Six Mile Cr at Roosevelt 09/08/2009 11000 - 0.2 653 12.5 9.2 31.6 USAR below Loop 410 12894 SAR at Blue Wing 09/08/2009 62 - 11 810 9.5 8.3 29.4 12889 SAR at IH 37 09/08/2009 41 - 103 1030 7.7 7.9 30.2

123

Figure 2-45: September 21, 2009 Synoptic Survey of USAR above Loop 410

124

Figure 2-46: September 21, 2009 Synoptic Survey of USAR below Loop 410

125

Table 2-17: September 21, 2009 Synoptic Survey Data Sampling Flow Flow Station ID Location E. Coli Conductivity DO pH Temp Date Measured Estimated (cfu/100 ml) (cfs) (cfs) (umho/cm) (mg/l) (°C) San Pedro Creek 20117 San Pedro Cr at Croft Trace 09/21/2009 1200 - 0.2 1020 4.7 7.7 24.9 20119 San Pedro Cr Upstrm of Alazan Cr 09/21/2009 19 0.4 - 481 8.8 7.7 25.4 12751 Martinez Cr at Ruiz 09/21/2009 100 0 - 490 2.1 7.9 26.3 12715 Alazan Cr at Tampico 09/21/2009 370 0.2 - 590 4.0 7.9 25.9 18735 Apache Cr at Brazos 09/21/2009 600 0.6 - 687 3.1 7.6 25.2 18736 San Pedro Cr at Probandt 09/21/2009 450 1.2 - 620 11.4 7.9 26.3 USAR above Loop 410 15086 SAR Dw nstrm of Olmos Dam 09/21/2009 0 ------12912 SAR at E. Hildebrand 09/21/2009 160 0 - 881 7.3 7.9 25.8 18803 Zoo Outfall No 2 09/21/2009 2100 - 0.1 521 3.7 7.4 24.6 15722 Zoo Outfall No 1 09/21/2009 13000 1.4 - 517 6.1 7.5 24.4 12908 SAR at Woodlaw n 09/21/2009 490 9.7 - 961 4.0 9.6 27.2 20360 SAR Tunnel Inlet 09/21/2009 100 49 - 656 8.0 8.0 26.4 14219 SAR at W Jones 09/21/2009 78 - 30 593 8.8 7.9 29.9 18865 SAR Upstrm of Lexington 09/21/2009 320 - 22 609 8.2 7.9 25.9 20118 SAR at Houston 09/21/2009 640 - 2.7 618 8.1 7.9 26 20122 SAR Loop 09/21/2009 6500 - 1.4 713 6.5 7.6 26.2 12905 SAR at Arsenal 09/21/2009 830 - 5.3 630 8.8 8.1 26.7 12904 SAR at Alamo 09/21/2009 500 51 - 602 8.4 8.1 26.8 20361 SAR Tunnel Upstrm on Lone Star 09/21/2009 > 0 ------14220 SAR at Lone Star 09/21/2009 140 - 16 592 9.0 8.0 27.3 14256 SAR at W Mitchell 09/21/2009 140 9.9 - 611 9.1 8.1 28.0 17066 SAR at Mission 09/21/2009 190 14 - 621 9.5 8 26.7 12899 SAR at Padre 09/21/2009 71 0 - 300 7.3 8.3 28.2 12897 SAR at Lp 410 09/21/2009 140 6.1 - 520 12.3 8.1 29.0 12705 Six Mile Cr at Roosevelt 09/21/2009 220 - 0.3 683 11.1 8.7 31.5 USAR below Loop 410 12894 SAR at Blue Wing 09/21/2009 71 - 7.4 510 5.7 7.3 28.4 12889 SAR at IH 37 09/21/2009 100 - 106 1000 7.2 7.7 29.5

126

Figure 2-47a: October 2009 Synoptic Survey of Salado Creek and Walzem Creek

127

Figure 2-47b: October 2009 Synoptic Survey of Salado Creek and Walzem Creek

128

Figure 2-48: October 2009 Synoptic Survey of USAR above Loop 410

129

Figure 2-49: October 2009 Synoptic Survey of USAR below Loop 410

130

Table 2-18: October 2009 Synoptic Survey Data Sampling Flow Flow Station ID Location E. Coli Conductivity DO pH Temp Date Measured Estimated (cfu/100 ml) (cfs) (cfs) (umho/cm) (mg/l) (°C) Salado Creek 12877 Salado Cr Upstrm of Loop 410 10/20/2009 170 - 0.09765 640 10.6 8.0 19.6 20358 Beitel Cr at Thousand Oaks 10/20/2009 0 0 - - --- 12701 Beitel Cr at Low Water Crossing 10/20/2009 350 0 - 580 6.7 7.7 20.6 12876 Salado Cr at Austin Hw y 10/20/2009 180 0.5 - - --- 12875 Salado Cr at Eisenhauer 10/20/2009 210 - 0.2 - --- 20359 Walzem Cr Dw nstrm of Diamondhead 10/20/2009 5500 - 0.0156 740 11.6 8.4 19.4 12698 Walzem Cr at Holbrook 10/20/2009 56 0.0407 - 930 14.0 8.0 20.3 12874 Salado Cr at Rittiman 10/20/2009 170 0.0672 - 730 6.8 7.5 20.1 15642 Salado Cr off Holbrook 10/20/2009 330 < 0.01 - 750 6.6 7.5 20.2 12872 Salado Cr at WW White 10/20/2009 60 3 - 767 7.3 7.4 21.2 12871 Salado Cr at IH 35 10/20/2009 210 3.6 - 800 7.9 7.6 22.0 15644 Salado Cr at Pletz Park 10/20/2009 220 - 3.6 820 6.5 7.4 21.8 12870 Salado Cr at Gembler 10/20/2009 25 - 3.3 800 6.9 7.5 21.8 12693 Menger Cr Upstrm of Coliseum 10/21/2009 130 - 0.3 1030 4.1 7.1 21.4 15645 Salado Cr Upstrm from Commerce 10/21/2009 84 - 3.8 820 5.5 7.4 21.5 15646 Salado Cr at MLK Park 10/21/2009 88 5.3 - 766 4.5 7.3 21.5 12692 Trib in J St Park 10/21/2009 130 0.0871 - 882 6.4 7.5 21.6 12868 Salado Cr at Rigsby 10/21/2009 57 - 4.2 706 5.2 7.5 21.2 15647 Salado Cr Dw nStrm of E Southcross 10/21/2009 190 - 7 800 7.0 7.7 21.0 12864 Salado Cr at Loop 13 10/21/2009 420 4.4 - 819 6.6 7.7 21.2 12700 Rosillo Cr at IH 10 10/21/2009 440 - 0.3 694 6.9 7.7 22.1 12699 Rosillo Cr at Sinclair 10/21/2009 400 - 0.1 543 3.8 7.4 21.9 12689 Rosillo Cr 10/21/2009 99 0.2 - 710 7.0 7.7 21.2 12862 Salado Cr at Old Corpus Christi Hw y 10/21/2009 52 7 - 858 8.7 7.9 21.5 12861 Salado Cr at Southon 10/21/2009 44 - 7.2 837 8.8 7.9 21.5 San Pedro Creek 20117 San Pedro Cr at Croft Trace 10/19/2009 620 - 0.1 600 6.4 7.7 21.9 20119 San Pedro Cr Upstrm of Alazan Cr 10/19/2009 510 3.3 - 575 7.7 7.9 19.8 12751 Martinez Cr at Ruiz 10/19/2009 91 0.0762 - 470 5.1 8.1 19.3 12715 Alazan Cr at Tampico 10/19/2009 530 0.6 - 510 6.8 8.0 19.7 18735 Apache Cr at Brazos 10/19/2009 660 0.3 - 714 5.2 7.7 17.4 18736 San Pedro Cr at Probandt 10/19/2009 220 5.3 - 610 12.5 8.3 19.6 USAR above Loop 410 15086 SAR Dw nstrm of Olmos Dam 10/19/2009 > 24000 0 - 915 1.1 7.5 19.0 12912 SAR at E. Hildebrand 10/19/2009 250 0 - 825 7.5 7.8 18.7 18803 Zoo Outfall No 2 10/19/2009 2100 - 0.2 534 4.8 7.4 21.8 15722 Zoo Outfall No 1 10/19/2009 980 0.7 - 530 6.7 7.5 22.4 12908 SAR at Woodlaw n 10/19/2009 1400 8.7 - 957 6.1 7.6 22.6 20360 SAR Tunnel Inlet 10/19/2009 170 44 - 584 8.0 7.6 22.2 14219 SAR at W Jones 10/19/2009 190 - 18 619 8.3 7.6 22.3 18865 SAR Upstrm of Lexington 10/19/2009 620 - 17 641 9.0 7.7 22.1 20118 SAR at Houston 10/19/2009 1300 - 16 655 8.8 7.7 22.1 20122 SAR Loop 10/19/2009 1300 - 2.1 762 7.5 7.5 21.4 12905 SAR at Arsenal 10/19/2009 1200 - 10 631 9.4 7.9 22.4 12904 SAR at Alamo 10/19/2009 510 39 - 619 9.4 7.8 22.2 20361 SAR Tunnel Upstrm on Lone Star 10/19/2009 670 0 - 650 9.2 8.2 23.1 14220 SAR at Lone Star 10/19/2009 640 - 17 640 12.8 8.0 24.8 14256 SAR at W Mitchell 10/19/2009 440 12 - 630 9.8 8.1 23.1 17066 SAR at Mission 10/19/2009 540 17 - 634 9.5 8.2 20.2 12899 SAR at Padre 10/19/2009 540 - 4.2 530 10.4 8.4 21.6 12897 SAR at Lp 410 10/19/2009 340 6.1 - 540 13.7 8.6 21.6 12705 Six Mile Cr at Roosevelt 10/19/2009 53 - 0.07055 610 10.7 8.9 21.3

131

Table 2-18: October 2009 Synoptic Survey Data (Cont.) Sampling Flow Flow Station ID Location E. Coli Conductivity DO pH Temp Date Measured Estimated (cfu/100 ml) (cfs) (cfs) (umho/cm) (mg/l) (°C) USAR below Loop 410 12894 SAR at Blue Wing 10/19/2009 250 - 21 620 8.8 8.1 21.6 16731 SAR Upstrm of the Medina R. 10/20/2009 71 30 - 684 8.6 7.9 21.2 12811 Medina River at FM 1937 10/20/2009 150 - 76 901 7.7 7.9 22.5 12889 SAR at IH 37 10/19/2009 82 - 268 910 8.2 8.1 24.4 12886 SAR at Lp 1604 10/20/2009 59 233 - 964 8.0 8.0 23.4 20355 SA R at CR 125 10/20/2009 100 - 232 954 7.9 7.9 23.3 20357 Calavaras Cr at Wilson CR 10/20/2009 120 0.3 - 1010 6.8 7.4 19.4 12885 SAR at FM 3444 10/20/2009 100 - 221 959 7.8 7.9 23.6 12884 SAR at Labatt 10/20/2009 140 - 218 976 7.8 7.5 23.6 12883 SAR at Dietzfield 10/20/2009 110 - 255 984 7.8 7.6 23.5 12882 SAR at FM 536 10/20/2009 61 - 256 948 7.8 7.6 23.5 12881 SAR at SH 97 10/20/2009 70 253 - 932 8.0 7.7 23.5 20350 Picosa Cr at SH 97 10/20/2009 25 0 - 802 2.3 6.9 20.0 12879 SAR at FM 791 10/20/2009 59 286 - 950 7.7 7.8 23.2

132

Figure 2-50a: November 2009 Synoptic Survey of Salado Creek and Walzem Creek

133

Figure 2-50b: November 2009 Synoptic Survey of Salado Creek and Walzem Creek

134

Figure 2-51: November 2009 Synoptic Survey of USAR above Loop 410

135

Figure 2-52: November 2009 Synoptic Survey of USAR below Loop 410

136

Table 2-19: November 2009 Synoptic Survey Sampling Flow Flow Station ID Location E. Coli Conductivity DO pH Temp Date Measured Estimated (cfu/100 ml) (cfs) (cfs) (umho/cm) (mg/l) (°C) Salado Creek 12877 Salado Cr Upstrm of Loop 410 11/17/2009 180 - 0.098496 480 7.8 8.0 17.0 20358 Beitel Cr at Thousand Oaks 11/17/2009 13,000 - 1.1 340 5.3 8.0 15.7 12701 Beitel Cr at Low Water Crossing 11/17/2009 12,000 0 - 480 6.9 8.0 15.5 12876 Salado Cr at Austin Hw y 11/17/2009 1,400 1.6 - - --- 12875 Salado Cr at Eisenhauer 11/17/2009 1,500 - 2.2 - --- 20356 Walzem Cr at Lanark 11/17/2009 > 0 0 - - --- 20359 Walzem Cr Dw nstrm of Diamondhead 11/17/2009 340 - 0.2 740 15.2 8.4 17.8 12698 Walzem Cr at Holbrook 11/17/2009 100 0.0899 - 890 15.9 8.3 21.6 12874 Salado Cr at Rittiman 11/17/2009 1,600 2.3 - 549 9.2 7.6 16.7 15642 Salado Cr off Holbrook 11/17/2009 2,800 2.1 - 540 9.6 8.0 15.7 12872 Salado Cr at WW White 11/17/2009 2,000 3.2 - 443 6.6 7.7 17.8 12871 Salado Cr at IH 35 11/17/2009 2,200 5.5 - 550 7.4 7.8 18.0 15644 Salado Cr at Pletz Park 11/17/2009 3,000 - 5.5 610 6.5 7.7 17.9 12870 Salado Cr at Gembler 11/17/2009 140 - 6.4 714 8.0 7.7 18.5 12693 Menger Cr Upstrm of Coliseum 11/18/2009 910 - 0.1 797 11.0 7.3 9.6 15645 Salado Cr Upstrm from Commerce 11/18/2009 180 - 5.3 778 6.9 7.8 15.8 15646 Salado Cr at MLK Park 11/18/2009 140 - - 717 3.9 7.8 16.9 12692 Trib in J St Park 11/18/2009 630 0.0815 - 622 7.5 7.8 12.9 12868 Salado Cr at Rigsby 11/18/2009 240 - 5.4 652 4.7 7.8 16.8 15647 Salado Cr Dw nStrm of E Southcross 11/18/2009 170 - 11 632 7.9 7.8 14.8 12864 Salado Cr at Loop 13 11/18/2009 99 8.4 - 627 7.8 7.9 14.2 12700 Rosillo Cr at IH 10 11/18/2009 160 - 0.9 572 8.5 8.0 14.2 12699 Rosillo Cr at Sinclair 11/18/2009 500 - 0.6 613 7.0 7.8 15.2 12689 Rosillo Cr 11/18/2009 120 2.5 - 859 9.8 7.9 13.9 12862 Salado Cr at Old Corpus Christi Hw y 11/18/2009 78 12 - 580 9.8 7.9 15.2 12861 Salado Cr at Southon 11/18/2009 100 - 14 619 11.2 7.7 15.8 San Pedro Creek 20117 San Pedro Cr at Croft Trace 11/16/2009 2,900 - 1.7 560 7.5 7.9 20.9 20119 San Pedro Cr Upstrm of Alazan Cr 11/16/2009 6,500 5.2 - 560 8.3 8.2 19.5 12751 Martinez Cr at Ruiz 11/16/2009 20,000 7.9 - 391 7.4 8.4 18.2 12715 Alazan Cr at Tampico 11/16/2009 > 24,000 19 - 459 7.0 8.2 18.6 18735 Apache Cr at Brazos 11/16/2009 10,000 9.6 - 300 9.8 9.0 17.4 18736 San Pedro Cr at Probandt 11/16/2009 > 24,000 37 - 495 9.0 8.3 18.8 USAR above Loop 410 15086 SAR Dw nstrm of Olmos Dam 11/16/2009 8,900 32 - 651 7.9 7.5 18.8 12912 SAR at E. Hildebrand 11/16/2009 11,000 27 - 658 7.7 7.7 18.6 18803 Zoo Outfall No 2 11/16/2009 24,000 - 0.2 484 3.7 7.4 20.6 15722 Zoo Outfall No 1 11/16/2009 16,000 2.6 - 495 7.1 7.6 22.0 12908 SAR at Woodlaw n 11/16/2009 4,900 35 - 989 6.4 7.7 23.1 20360 SAR Tunnel Inlet 11/16/2009 2,500 - 41 887 7.5 7.8 21.5 14219 SAR at W Jones 11/16/2009 3,900 - 56 753 8.1 7.9 21.3 18865 SAR Upstrm of Lexington 11/16/2009 3,300 - 56 729 8.8 7.9 21.3 20118 SAR at Houston 11/16/2009 4,900 - 5.4 737 8.3 8.0 21.0 20122 SAR Loop 11/16/2009 5,500 - < 0.01 917 6.9 7.7 20.7 12905 SAR at Arsenal 11/16/2009 1,200 - 11 743 9.4 8.1 21.1 12904 SAR at Alamo 11/16/2009 24,000 49 - 642 8.9 8.1 21.1 14220 SAR at Lone Star 11/16/2009 2,200 - 12 722 10.1 8.1 21.0 14256 SAR at W Mitchell 11/16/2009 4,600 38 - 721 9.9 8.2 21.5 17066 SAR at Mission 11/16/2009 > 24,000 65 - 510 9.5 8.3 19.2 12899 SAR at Padre 11/16/2009 > 24,000 - 70 500 9.4 8.4 20.0 12897 SAR at Lp 410 11/16/2009 20,000 84 - 550 9.6 8.4 20.3 12705 Six Mile Cr at Roosevelt 11/16/2009 8,200 - 9.6 240 12.3 9.3 22.0

137

Table 2-19: November 2009 Synoptic Survey Data (Cont.) Sampling Flow Flow Station ID Location E. Coli Conductivity DO pH Temp Date Measured Estimated (cfu/100 ml) (cfs) (cfs) (umho/cm) (mg/l) (°C) USAR below Loop 410 12894 SAR at Blue Wing 11/16/2009 11,000 - 99 600 8.8 8.3 19.6 16731 SAR Upstrm of the Medina R. 11/17/2009 4,700 79 - 630 9.1 8.0 17.2 12811 Medina River at FM 1937 11/17/2009 190 - 102 965 8.0 7.8 18.4 12889 SAR at IH 37 11/16/2009 640 - 409 830 9.4 8.3 22.4 12886 SAR at Lp 1604 11/17/2009 1,700 305 - 911 8.2 8.0 18.9 20355 SA R at CR 125 11/17/2009 1,400 - 343 845 8.1 8.0 19.1 20357 Calavaras Cr at Wilson CR 11/17/2009 44 0.5 - 757 6.6 7.4 13.1 12885 SAR at FM 3444 11/17/2009 130 - 338 826 8.5 8.2 18.8 12884 SAR at Labatt 11/17/2009 170 - 336 1000 8.1 8.1 20.2 12883 SAR at Dietzfield 11/17/2009 160 - 401 1020 8.1 8.0 20.4 20352 Seguin Branch at Business Lp 181 11/17/2009 > 0 0 - - --- 12882 SAR at FM 536 11/17/2009 260 - 403 1020 8.3 7.9 20.0 12881 SAR at SH 97 11/17/2009 260 407 - 999 8.3 7.9 19.9 20350 Picosa Cr at SH 97 11/17/2009 53 0 - 1180 3.8 7.2 14.0 12879 SAR at FM 791 11/17/2009 51 237 - 1060 8.3 8.0 19.5

138

Figure 2-53a: December 2009 Synoptic Survey of Salado Creek and Walzem Creek

139

Figure 2-53b: December 2009 Synoptic Survey of Salado Creek and Walzem Creek

140

Figure 2-54: December 2009 Synoptic Survey of USAR above Loop 410

141

Figure 2-55: December 2009 Synoptic Survey of USAR below Loop 410

142

Table 2-20: December 2009 Synoptic Survey Data Sampling Flow Flow Station ID Location E. Coli Conductivity DO pH Temp Date Measure Estimated (cfu/100 ml) (cfs) (cfs) (umho/cm) (mg/l) (°C) Salado Creek 12877 Salado Cr Upstrm of Loop 410 12/15/2009 59 0 - 330 7.5 7.6 12.5 20358 Beitel Cr at Thousand Oaks 12/15/2009 18 - 1 750 8.1 7.6 12.1 12701 Beitel Cr at Low Water Crossing 12/15/2009 250 0 - 530 6.7 7.4 12.0 12876 Salado Cr at Austin Hw y 12/15/2009 240 0.7 - - --- 12875 Salado Cr at Eisenhauer 12/15/2009 86 - < 0.01 - --- 20356 Walzem Cr at Lanark 12/15/2009 0 ------20359 Walzem Cr Dw nstrm of Diamondhead 12/15/2009 120 - 0.06114 800 14.8 8.2 14.5 12698 Walzem Cr at Holbrook 12/15/2009 35 0.03 - 818 21.7 8.7 14.9 12874 Salado Cr at Rittiman 12/15/2009 66 1.5 - 630 10.8 7.8 15.6 15642 Salado Cr off Holbrook 12/15/2009 140 1.3 - 638 8.9 7.7 15.9 12872 Salado Cr at WW White 12/15/2009 31 2.7 - 690 8.2 7.6 16.1 12871 Salado Cr at IH 35 12/15/2009 23 4.2 - 758 10.1 7.6 15.1 15644 Salado Cr at Pletz Park 12/15/2009 62 - 4.2 801 9.3 7.5 14.5 12870 Salado Cr at Gembler 12/15/2009 25 - 0.8 800 10.9 7.7 14.3 12693 Menger Cr Upstrm of Coliseum 12/16/2009 84 - 0.4 881 11.9 6.7 7.8 15645 Salado Cr Upstrm from Commerce 12/16/2009 29 - 5.5 886 8.2 7.6 12.0 15646 Salado Cr at MLK Park 12/16/2009 73 5.8 - 844 6.0 7.5 12.3 12692 Trib in J St Park 12/16/2009 17 < 0.01 - 951 9.1 7.6 10.9 12868 Salado Cr at Rigsby 12/16/2009 55 - 6.7 755 7.3 7.7 12.1 15647 Salado Cr Dw nStrm of E Southcross 12/16/2009 180 - 20 814 9.8 7.9 11.9 12864 Salado Cr at Loop 13 12/16/2009 240 7.4 - 830 9.3 7.8 11.5 12700 Rosillo Cr at IH 10 12/16/2009 6 - 1.8 605 8.8 7.7 10.5 12699 Rosillo Cr at Sinclair 12/16/2009 1500 - 0.7 485 7.4 7.5 10.0 12689 Rosillo Cr 12/16/2009 25 0.4 - 1200 10.7 8.0 10.6 12862 Salado Cr at Old Corpus Christi Hw y 12/16/2009 9 8.7 - 869 11.0 8.0 11.8 12861 Salado Cr at Southon 12/16/2009 41 - 9.1 890 11.6 8.1 11.9 San Pedro Creek Creek 20117 San Pedro Cr at Croft Trace 12/14/2009 220 - 1.5 550 7.4 7.6 21.9 20119 San Pedro Cr Upstrm of Alazan Cr 12/14/2009 290 3.9 - 600 8.5 8.0 18.7 12751 Martinez Cr at Ruiz 12/14/2009 2600 0.3 - 775 8.2 7.7 13.9 12715 Alazan Cr at Tampico 12/14/2009 100 1.3 - 581 8.3 7.7 14.0 18735 Apache Cr at Brazos 12/14/2009 16000 2.3 - 510 7.8 7.7 14.4 18736 San Pedro Cr at Probandt 12/14/2009 450 9.8 - 580 9.6 7.9 16.8 USAR above Loop 410 15086 SAR Dw nstrm of Olmos Dam 12/14/2009 9 0.077 - 878 5.8 7.4 9.5 12912 SAR at E. Hildebrand 12/14/2009 340 3 - 533 6.2 7.4 22.5 18803 Zoo Outfall No 2 12/14/2009 610 - 0.1 521 5.3 7.6 20.8 15722 Zoo Outfall No 1 12/14/2009 13000 1.3 - 520 7.1 7.8 21.8 12908 SAR at Woodlaw n 12/14/2009 700 3 - 814 6.0 7.6 20.3 20360 SAR Tunnel Inlet 12/14/2009 160 15 - 805 7.3 7.7 19.5 14219 SAR at W Jones 12/14/2009 290 - 16 814 8.4 7.8 18.8 18865 SAR Upstrm of Lexington 12/14/2009 190 - 31 784 9.3 7.8 17.9 20118 SAR at Houston 12/14/2009 680 - 8 753 8.7 7.8 16.6 20122 SAR Loop 12/14/2009 750 - 0.7 775 8.5 7.6 16.4 12905 SAR at Arsenal 12/14/2009 150 - 5 663 10.0 7.9 15.2 12904 SAR at Alamo 12/14/2009 390 18 - 705 10.7 8.0 14.7 20361 SAR Tunnel Upstrm on Lone Star 12/14/2009 30 - 5 340 8.4 7.7 14.8 14220 SAR at Lone Star 12/14/2009 100 - 23 545 9.7 7.9 14.7 17066 SAR at Mission 12/14/2009 250 28 - 700 10.3 8.1 15.1 12899 SAR at Padre 12/14/2009 160 - 16 695 10.6 8.2 14.7 12897 SAR at Lp 410 12/14/2009 310 10 - 680 14.4 8.3 14.3 12705 Six Mile Cr at Roosevelt 12/14/2009 500 - 0.5 680 13.7 8.6 15.5

143

Table 2-20: December 2009 Synoptic Survey Data (Cont.) Sampling Flow Flow Station ID Location E. Coli Conductivity DO pH Temp Date Measure Estimated (cfu/100 ml) (cfs) (cfs) (umho/cm) (mg/l) (°C) USAR below Loop 410 12894 SAR at Blue Wing 12/14/2009 58 - 19 750 10.5 8.1 13.8 16731 SAR Upstrm of the Medina R. 12/15/2009 51 54 - 770 10.1 7.9 13.4 12811 Medina River at FM 1937 12/15/2009 130 - 120 911 8.8 7.7 16.8 12889 SAR at IH 37 12/14/2009 55 - 210 930 9.4 7.9 18.2 12886 SAR at Lp 1604 12/15/2009 96 330 - 969 8.9 7.8 17.6 20355 SA R at CR 125 12/15/2009 170 - 330 971 8.8 8.0 17.8 20357 Calavaras Cr at Wilson CR 12/15/2009 68 0.9 - 915 6.4 7.2 14.4 12885 SAR at FM 3444 12/15/2009 72 - 313 954 9.1 8.0 16.7 12884 SAR at Labatt 12/15/2009 69 - 307 980 8.6 8.0 16.9 12883 SAR at Dietzfield 12/15/2009 23 - 187 982 8.9 7.9 16.6 12882 SAR at FM 536 12/15/2009 54 - 198 962 9.2 8.0 15.9 12881 SAR at SH 97 12/15/2009 70 191 - 995 9.3 7.9 16.1 20350 Picosa Cr at SH 97 12/15/2009 8 0 - 1540 6.0 7.4 11.8 12879 SAR at FM 791 12/15/2009 66 230 - 1070 9.6 7.8 15.0

144

2.4 ANALYSIS BASED UPON LOADINGS

The preceding section described the measured E coli concentrations obtained in the spatially intensive sampling exercises. This is a straightforward approach to recognize specific concentrations that are noticeably high, compared to either concentrations at other stations or to applicable criteria. A complementary approach for data evaluation involves determination of the bacteria loadings associated with the concentration measurements. This is accomplished by multiplication of the concentration by the streamflow rate to calculate a loading, here expressed in terms of organisms per day. This approach can be informative to assess the relative importance of some of the raw concentration data. This is prudent, because a very high bacteria concentration may be accompanied by a very small flow rate, in which case it may represent only a relatively small load to the receiving stream. Conversely, a moderate bacteria concentration accompanied by a large flow rate could represent a major load to the receiving stream. This is not to suggest that a relatively small source should not be addressed. It is postulated that the analysis of relative bacteria loads will support the possible location of contributing sources.

The sampling surveys for September 2008 through December 2009 were analyzed for loadings. A loading schematic of the streams was prepared for each sampling date. Figure 2-56 displays the bacteria loadings for the September 2008 survey. It shows the data for both Salado Creek and the Upper San Antonio River, including most of the key sampling locations. Similar presentations for October 2008 through December 2009 surveys are shown in Figure 2-57 through Figure 2-72. Loadings for each survey are also presented in Tables 2-20 through 2-36. Discussions are provided below, broken out into the same geographic areas used for the discussion of concentrations. For ease of reference, the corresponding figures and tables are located at the end of this section.

2.4.1 Salado Creek and Tributaries

The loadings for September 2008 are shown in Figure 2-56 and Table 2-21. The analysis indicates that Walzem Creek delivers a relatively small load. Downstream of Walzem, the loadings conveyed by the stream increase. A fairly substantial source of bacteria loading is indicated between the stations at WW White and IH 35, and between Pletz Park and Gembler. Farther downstream, a fairly large source of bacteria is indicated between Commerce and MLK, and between Rigsby and Loop 13. Overall, tributary loadings from Walzem, Menger, J Street, and Rosillo Creeks do not appear to be having a substantial effect downstream.

Calculated loadings for October 2008 are displayed in Figure 2-57 and Table 2-22. It appears that a relatively small load is delivered by Walzem Creek near the upper end of the segment. A source of bacteria loading is indicated in the reach between Rittiman and IH 35, with the largest increase observed between WW White and IH 35. The instream bacteria loading increases substantially between Rigsby and Loop 13. Within this reach, a small unnamed tributary (S70) contributes flow, and its load was substantial, as shown in Table 2-20.

The load analysis for Salado Creek for November 2008 is shown in Figure 2-58 and Table 2-23. Walzem Creek contained a relatively small bacteria load on that date. The bacteria load increases noticeably between Rittiman and IH 35, with the largest increase between WW White

145

and IH 35. On this survey, Menger Creek was delivering a relatively large bacteria load. A substantial increase in instream load is observed between MLK Park and Loop 13.

Loadings calculated for the December 2008 sampling survey are shown in Figure 2-59 and Table 2-24. The bacteria load increases noticeably between WW White and IH 35. A very large input load is indicated from Menger Creek on this survey, and its effects are observed downstream. A relatively large load is also delivered by the J Street Park tributary upstream of Rigsby.

Loads for the January 2009 survey are shown in Figure 2-60 and Table 2-25. The bacteria load increased substantially between Rittiman and WW White, then farther downstream between Rigsby and Loop 13.

The February 2009 loading schematic is depicted in Figure 2-61 and Table 2-26. The bacteria load in Salado Creek increased between Eisenhauer and WW White. Walzem Creek did not convey a large loading. Loading increases were also observed between Pletz Park and Gembler and between MLK Park and Rigsby. The tributary Menger Creek was delivering a large bacteria load.

March 2009 loads are shown in Figure 2-62 and Table 2-27. The loading appeared to increase between Rittiman and WW White, between IH 35 and MLK Park, and between Rigsby and Loop 13. The later stretch showed the largest loading increase.

The loading results for April 2009 are displayed in Figure 2-63 and Table 2-28. A relatively large bacteria load was delivered by Walzem Creek at the time of sampling. Several reaches appeared to show increases in loading, including reaches between Rittiman and WW White, IH 35 and Pletz Park, Gembler and MLK Park, with the largest increase indicated upstream of MLK Park. The unnamed tributary in J Street Park was also delivering a large loading of bacteria.

May 2009 loading results for Salado Creek are shown in Figure 2-64 and Table 2-29. The bacteria load measured at Austin Hwy was relatively large. The load increased between Rittiman and WW White, between Gembler and MLK Park, and between Rigsby and Loop 13.

Salado Creek loadings for June 2009 are depicted in Figure 2-65 and Table 2-30. The loading was relatively large at Austin Highway, and a relatively large loading was also delivered by Walzem Creek. A fairly large increase was noted between Pletz Park and Gembler. A relatively large loading increase was observed between MLK Park and Rigsby, and particularly between Rigsby and Loop 13.

The July 2009 loading analysis is shown in Figure 2-66 and Table 2-31. A large increase in bacteria loading is indicated between Rittiman and IH 35, with the largest portion between WW White and IH 35. Farther downstream, a substantial increase was observed between Rigsby and Loop 13.

Bacteria loads for August 2009 are displayed in Figure 2-67 and Table 2-32. The bacteria load increased in the reach between Rittiman and WW White. An increase was also observed between Pletz Park and Commerce.

146

No synoptic survey was completed on Salado Creek during September 2009, due to persistent rainfall in the area.

Results for the October 2009 survey are shown in Figure 2-70 and Table 2-35. An increase in bacteria load was observed between Rittiman and IH 35. Farther downstream, an increase was noted between Gembler and MLK Park, and between Rigsby and Loop 13.

November 2009 loadings for Salado Creek are shown in Figure 2-71 and Table 2-36. A relatively large load was present at Austin Highway, and the load increased up to Eisenhauer. Increases were also observed between Rittiman and Pletz Park and between Commerce and Rigsby. Runoff may have influenced these results.

The results for December 2009 are shown in Figure 2-72 and Table 2-37. A relatively large load was present at Austin Highway, and an increase in load was observed between Eisenhauer and Rittiman. Farther downstream, increases were observed between Commerce and MLK Park and between Rigsby and Loop 13.

2.4.2 San Pedro Creek and Tributaries

The September 2008 survey on San Pedro and tributaries (Figure 2-56 and Table 2-21) showed a substantial bacteria load being delivered to the Upper San Antonio River. Much of this load appeared to be localized in the area near Probandt – IH 35, but noticeable loads were also being delivered by the upper reach of San Pedro Creek and its tributaries Alazan and Apache Creeks.

The October survey is shown in Figure 2-57. Calculated bacteria loads were not as high as in the previous survey, but they were relatively high. On San Pedro Creek, a large portion of the load appeared to be originating from the upper end near Croft Trace. There were numerous outfalls and drains sampled in the watershed during the detailed October survey. As reported in Table 2- 22, several of these drains delivered significantly high bacteria loadings to San Pedro, Alazan, and Apache Creeks.

Loads for the November survey are shown in Figure 2-58 and Table 2-23. The bacteria load delivered by San Pedro Creek appeared to be relatively low on this survey. The portion of San Pedro near Croft Trace showed noticeably higher loading.

San Pedro Creek was delivering a relatively high bacteria load at the time of the December 2008 survey (Figure 2-59 and Table 2-24). A large portion of the load appeared to originate from the reach near Croft Trace.

Loads for the January 2009 survey are shown in Figure 2-60 and Table 2-25. The bacteria load delivered by San Pedro Creek was relatively high. The portion of San Pedro Creek near Croft Trace showed a fairly high loading, as did Apache Creek.

The February 2009 loading delivered by San Pedro Creek was relatively large, as shown in Figure 2-61 and Table 2-26. A large loading was measured in the upper portion of the stream near Croft Trace.

147

A relatively large bacteria load was delivered by San Pedro Creek during the March 2009 survey, as shown in Figure 2-62 and Table 2-27. The reach near Croft Trace showed a substantial load.

Loadings for the April 2009 survey are shown in Figure 2-63 and Table 2-28. A substantial loading was delivered by San Pedro Creek.

San Pedro Creek loadings for May 2009 are displayed in Figure 2-64 and Table 2-29. The loading delivered by San Pedro Creek was substantial.

The June 2009 bacteria loadings are shown in Figure 2-65 and Table 2-23. A relatively large loading was delivered by San Pedro Creek.

July 2009 loading results are displayed in Figure 2-66 and Table 2-31 for San Pedro Creek. The loading delivered by San Pedro Creek was significant, but lower than the load present in the mainstem of the San Antonio River.

Bacteria loads for August 2009 are shown in Figure 2-67 and Table 2-32. A relatively large load was delivered by San Pedro Creek, and it appeared to be similar to the loading observed in Apache Creek.

Two sampling events were conducted on San Pedro Creek in September 2009. Loadings on the September 8, 2009 survey are shown in Figure 2-68 and Table 2-33. A relatively large loading was observed on San Pedro Creek. A large load was also observed on the survey of September 21, 2009, which results are shown for in Figure 2-69 and Table 2-34.

Results for October 2009 are shown in Figure 2-70 and Table 2-35. Loads in San Pedro Creek were relatively large.

November 2009 bacteria loading results are shown in Figure 2-71 and Table 2-36. A substantial loading was delivered by San Pedro Creek, and much of the load appeared to originate from Alazan and Apache Creeks. Results for this survey may have been influenced by runoff.

The December 2009 results are shown in Figure 2-72 and Table 2-37. A relatively large loading was delivered by San Pedro Creek. A large contribution was noted in Apache Creek.

2.4.3 Upper San Antonio River above Loop 410

On the September 2008 sampling survey (Figure 2-56 and Table 2-21), the loading analysis confirmed that the Zoo was the source of a substantial bacteria loading to the Upper San Antonio River. The loading generally decreased in magnitude with distance downstream. An increase in Woodlawn and Houston Street, between Arsenal and Alamo, and between Mission and Loop 410.

Bacteria loads for August 2009 are shown in Figure 2-67 and Table 2-32. A substantial bacteria load was delivered by the primary zoo outfall. An increase in load in the mainstem was observed between Woodlawn and Houston Street.

148

Results for September 8, 2009 are shown in Figure 2-68 and Table 2-33. The zoo was contributing a substantial bacteria load. An increase in loading was observed between Woodlawn and Houston. The September 21, 2009 survey, displayed in Figure 2-69 and Table 2- 34, also shows a large load originating from the primary zoo outfall. In the mainstem, a load increase was observed between Houston and Alamo Street.

Results for October 2009 are shown in Figure 2-70 and Table 2-35. As usual, the zoo loading was substantial. An increase in loading was observed between the zoo and Houston Street, between Arsenal and Alamo, and between Mitchell and Mission.

November 2009 bacteria loading results are shown in Figure 2-71 and Table 2-36. A large load was delivered by the primary zoo outfall and loads were substantial throughout the upper reach. A large increase was observed between Lone Star and Mission, with much of the load delivered by San Pedro Creek. Runoff may have influenced these sampling results.

The December 2009 results are shown in Figure 2-72 and Table 2-37. A large load was delivered by the zoo. An increase in loading was observed between Woodlawn and Houston and between Arsenal and Alamo.

2.4.4 Upper San Antonio River below Loop 410

The September 2008 survey results were converted to bacteria loadings, as shown in Figure 2-56 and Table 2-21. In the lower segment of the San Antonio River, a substantial loading is introduced by the Medina River. An increase in instream loading is shown farther downstream, between Dietzfield and SH 97.

Loading results for October 2009 are shown in Figure 2-57 and Table 2-22. The Medina River is a source of substantial bacteria loading. A substantial increase in bacteria loading is evident between Labatt and FM 541 in the lowermost portion of the reach.

The November 2008 loading results are shown in Figure 2-58 and Table 2-23. As before, the Medina River is a substantial source of bacteria loading. A significant increase in loading is evident between Labatt and FM 541.

The December 2008 analysis is displayed in Figure 2-59 and Table 2-24. The Medina River is a large contributor of bacteria loading on this survey. A significant increase in bacteria loading is indicated between IH 37 and Loop 1604, between FM 3444 and Dietzfield, and finally, between FM 536 and SH 97.

Loading results for the January 2009 survey are shown in Figure 2-60 and Table 2-25. The loading in the mainstem increased between Loop 410 and the confluence with the Medina River. The Medina River delivered a large bacteria load to the mainstem. Downstream of the confluence with the Medina, loading increases were observed between IH 37 and Loop 1604, between Labatt Road and Dietzfield, and between FM 536 and SH 97.

149

The February 2009 bacteria loading results are shown in Figure 2-61 and Table 2-26. The bacteria load increased between Blue Wing and the Medina River confluence. The Medina delivered a large loading. Loading increases were also noticeable between IH 37 and Loop 1604, between FM 3444 and Dietzfield, and between FM 536 and FM 541.

Results for March 2009 are shown in Figure 2-62 and Table 2-27. The bacteria loading was observed to increase between Blue Wing and the confluence with the Medina River, and the Medina River delivered a substantial loading. Farther downstream, the loading increased between Dietzfield and SH 97.

April 2009 bacteria loading results for the San Antonio River below Loop 410 are shown in Figure 2-63 and Table 2-28. A large source of loading was the Medina River, and additional increased load was indicated between the Medina confluence and IH 37. Substantial load increases were observed between FM 3444 and Labatt and between Dietzfield and FM 536.

The May 2009 loading analysis is depicted in Figure 2-64 and Table 2-29. A substantial loading was delivered by the Medina River, and an increase load in the mainstem was observed between IH 37 and Loop 1604. Farther downstream, a substantial load increase was noted between Dietzfield and FM 536.

Results for the San Antonio River below Loop 410 for June 2009 are shown in Figure 2-65 and Table 2-30. The loading increased between Blue Wing and IH 37, and a large portion of that increase originated from the Medina River. Farther downstream, an increase in bacteria load was noted between Dietzfield and SH 97.

July 2009 loading results are displayed in Figure 2-66 and Table 2-31. A large increase in bacteria loading was indicated between the confluence with the Medina and Loop 1604, with a substantial contribution from the Medina River. The reach between FM 3444 and Labatt also showed a substantial increase in loading.

Bacteria loadings for August 2009 are shown in Figure 2-68 and table 2-32. The loading in the mainstem increased between the confluence with the Medina River and Loop 1604. A substantial loading was contributed by the Medina. An increase in load was also observed between Dietzfield and FM 536.

Only a few isolated data points were available for the attempted September 2009 surveys and no conclusions can be drawn.

Results for the October 2009 survey are shown in Figure 2-70 and Table 2-35. An increase in load was observed between Loop 410 and Blue Wing and between the Medina confluence and IH 37. A substantial load was contributed by the Medina River. Farther downstream, an increase was noted between FM 3444 and Labatt.

Results for November 2009 are shown in Figure 2-71 and Table 2-36. In the downstream reach, a loading increase was observed between IH 37 and Loop 1604, but loads throughout were

150

higher than normal. There is a possibility that runoff may have influenced some of these sampling results.

The December 2009 results are shown in Figure 2-72 and Table 2-37. A substantial load was delivered by the Medina River. An increase in loading was noted between IH 37 and Loop 1604, and farther downstream between Dietzfield and FM 791.

151

12912 12876 97 0.58 468 SAR at E. Hildebrand Salado Cr at Austin Hwy

15722 12908 12875 1161 0.33 Zoo Outfall No SAR at Woodlawn Salado Cr at Eisenhauer 1 Sept. 2008 18865 202 E. coli 109 cfu/day SAR Upstrm of Lexington 1.3

20118 12698 287 SAR at Houston 58 Walzem Cr at Holbrook

12905 20122 12874 150 3.1 SAR at Arsenal SAR Loop Salado Cr at Rittiman 12904 12872 22 5.0 SAR at Alamo Salado Cr at WW White 14220 12871 112 13 SAR at Lone Star Salado Cr at IH 35

31 14256 4.0 15644 SAR at W Mitchell Salado Cr at Pletz Park 38 574 993 12870 23 Salado Cr at Gembler 20117 20119 18736 17066 807 San Pedro San Pedro San Pedro Cr SAR at Mission 0.56 Cr at Croft Cr Upstrm at Probandt Trace of Alazan 12693 0.0 Menger Cr

12705 12897 15645 52 1.1 Six Mile Cr at SAR at Lp 410 Salado Cr Upstrm from Commerce Roosevelt 86 9.8 15646 Salado Cr at MLK Park 18735 12715 12894 113 27 Apache Cr Alazan Cr at SAR at Blue Wing 0.07 at Brazos Tampico 47 16731 12692 SAR Upstrm of the Trib in J St 6.5 221 Medina R. Park

12751 12811 155 12889 8.4 12868 Martinez Medina River SAR at IH 37 Salado Cr at Rigsby Cr at Ruiz 12886 12864 119 24 SAR at Lp 1604 Salado Cr at Loop 13

20355 268 SAR at CR 125 0.09

12885 12689 218 SAR at FM 3444 Rosillo Cr

12884 12861 106 1.7 SAR at Labatt Salado Cr at Southon

104 12883 SAR at Dietzfield 12882 187 SAR at FM 536 12881 301 SAR at SH 97

12880 Key: 317 SAR at FM 541 Bacteria source indicated 12879 135 SAR at FM 791

Figure 2-56: E. coli Loading Analysis Schematic, September 2008 Survey

152

Table 2-21: E. coli Loading Analysis, September 2008 Survey Sampling Flow Flow Station ID Location E. Coli Load Date Measured Estimated (cfu/100 ml) (cfs) (cfs) (cfu/day) Segment 1911 15086 SAR 550 m Dwnstrm of Olmos Dam 09/15/2008 480 0.9 - 1.06E+10 12912 SAR at E. Hildebrand 09/15/2008 330 12 - 9.68E+10 18803 Zoo Outfall No 2 09/15/2008 1 - 0.3 7.34E+06 15722 Zoo Outfall No 1 09/15/2008 8700 2.2 - 4.68E+11 12908 SAR at Woodlawn 09/15/2008 2500 19 - 1.16E+12 18865 SAR Upstrm of Lexington 09/15/2008 550 - 15 2.02E+11 20118 SAR at Houston 09/15/2008 690 - 17 2.87E+11 20122 SAR Loop 09/15/2008 660 - 3.6 5.81E+10 12905 SAR at Arsenal 09/15/2008 340 - 18 1.50E+11 12904 SAR at Alamo 09/15/2008 93 9.6 - 2.18E+10 20361 SAR Tunnel Upstrm on Lone Star 09/15/2008 110 - 13 3.50E+10 14220 SAR at Lone Star 09/15/2008 200 23 - 1.12E+11 14256 SAR at W Mitchell 09/15/2008 56 23 - 3.15E+10 20117 San Pedro Cr at Croft Trace 09/15/2008 3900 0.4 - 3.81E+10 20119 San Pedro Cr Upstrm of Alazan Cr 09/15/2008 4600 5.1 - 5.74E+11 12751 Martinez Cr at Ruiz 09/15/2008 440 0.6 - 6.46E+09 12715 Alazan Cr at Tampico 09/15/2008 1600 2.9 - 1.13E+11 18735 Apache Cr at Brazos 09/15/2008 1300 2.7 - 8.58E+10 18736 San Pedro Cr at Probandt 09/15/2008 2900 14 - 9.93E+11 17066 SAR at Mission 09/15/2008 1000 33 - 8.07E+11 12899 SAR at Padre 09/15/2008 45 - 11 1.21E+10 12897 SAR at Lp 410 09/15/2008 74 29 - 5.25E+10 12705 Six Mile Cr at Roosevelt 09/15/2008 8700 0 - 0.00E+00 12894 SAR at Blue Wing 09/15/2008 35 - 32 2.74E+10 16731 SAR Upstrm of the Medina R. 09/16/2008 45 43 - 4.73E+10 12811 Medina River at FM 1937 09/16/2008 110 - 82 2.21E+11 12889 SAR at IH 37 09/15/2008 34 - 187 1.55E+11 12886 SAR at Lp 1604 09/16/2008 26 187 - 1.19E+11 20355 SAR at CR 125 09/16/2008 56 - 196 2.68E+11 20357 Calavaras Cr at CR 125 09/16/2008 27 0.2 - 1.32E+08 12885 SAR at FM 3444 09/16/2008 43 - 207 2.18E+11 12884 SAR at Labatt 09/16/2008 20 - 217 1.06E+11 12883 SAR at Dietzfield 09/16/2008 19 - 223 1.04E+11 20352 Seguin Branch at Business Lp 181 09/16/2008 330 0 - 0.00E+00 12882 SAR at FM 536 09/16/2008 33 - 232 1.87E+11 12881 SAR at SH 97 09/16/2008 52 237 - 3.01E+11 20351 Pajarito Cr at Business Lp 181 09/16/2008 - 0 - - 20350 Picosa Cr at SH 97 09/16/2008 1500 0 - 0.00E+00 12880 SAR at FM 541 09/16/2008 49 - 265 3.17E+11 12879 SAR at FM 791 09/16/2008 19 291 - 1.35E+11 Segment 1910 12877 Salado Cr Upstrm of Loop 410 09/17/2008 66 0 - 0.00E+00 20358 Beitel Cr at Thousand Oaks 09/17/2008 20 0 - 0.00E+00 12876 Salado Cr at Austin Hwy 09/17/2008 340 0.07 - 5.82E+08 12875 Salado Cr at Eisenhauer 09/17/2008 45 - 0.3 3.30E+08 12874 Salado Cr at Rittiman 09/17/2008 140 0.9 - 3.08E+09 15642 Salado Cr off Holbrook 09/17/2008 54 - - - 12872 Salado Cr at WW White 09/17/2008 82 2.5 - 5.01E+09 12871 Salado Cr at IH 35 09/18/2008 180 3 - 1.32E+10 15644 Salado Cr at Pletz Park 09/18/2008 68 - 2.4 3.99E+09 12870 Salado Cr at Gembler 09/18/2008 290 - 3.3 2.34E+10 12693 Menger Cr Upstrm of Coliseum 09/18/2008 770 - 0.03 5.65E+08 15645 Salado Cr Upstrm from Commerce 09/18/2008 32 - 1.4 1.10E+09 15646 Salado Cr at MLK Park 09/18/2008 100 4 - 9.78E+09 12692 Trib in J St Park 09/18/2008 290 0.01 - 7.09E+07 12868 Salado Cr at Rigsby 09/18/2008 70 - 4.9 8.39E+09 15647 Salado Cr DwnStrm of E Southcross 09/18/2008 56 - 1.1 1.51E+09 12864 Salado Cr at Loop 13 09/18/2008 260 3.8 - 2.42E+10 12700 Rosillo Cr at IH 10 09/18/2008 16 - 0.2 7.82E+07 12699 Rosillo Cr at Sinclair 09/18/2008 560 - 0.002 2.74E+07 12689 Rosillo Cr 09/18/2008 120 0.03 - 8.80E+07 12862 Salado Cr at Old Corpus Christi Hwy 09/18/2008 24 4.3 - 2.52E+09 12861 Salado Cr at Southon 09/18/2008 16 - 4.3 1.68E+09 Segment 1910A 20359 Walzem Cr Dwnstrm of Diamondhead 09/17/2008 44 - 0.0493 5.30E+07 12698 Walzem Cr at Holbrook 09/17/2008 540 0.1 - 1.32E+09

153

12912 12876 - 0.14 1122 SAR at E. Hildebrand Salado Cr at Austin Hwy

15722 12908 12875 293 0.68 Zoo Outfall No SAR at Woodlawn Salado Cr at Eisenhauer 1 Oct. 2008 18865 125 E. coli 109 cfu/day SAR Upstrm of Lexington 0.09

20118 12698 290 SAR at Houston 79 Walzem Cr at Holbrook

12905 20122 12874 1.6 0.11 SAR at Arsenal SAR Loop Salado Cr at Rittiman 12904 12872 1.3 1.2 SAR at Alamo Salado Cr at WW White

14220 12871 4.1 6.1 SAR at Lone Star Salado Cr at IH 35

8.3 14256 0.49 15644 SAR at W Mitchell Salado Cr at Pletz Park 16 88 13 12870 0.31 Salado Cr at Gembler 20117 20119 18736 17066 23 San Pedro San Pedro San Pedro Cr SAR at Mission 0.02 Cr at Croft Cr Upstrm at Probandt Trace of Alazan Cr 12693 0.17 Menger Cr

12705 12897 15645 129 1.9 Six Mile Cr at SAR at Lp 410 Salado Cr Upstrm from Commerce Roosevelt 2.2 2.4 15646 Salado Cr at MLK Park 18735 12715 12894 - 43 Apache Cr Alazan Cr at SAR at Blue Wing 0.05 at Brazos Tampico - 16731 12692 SAR Upstrm of the Trib in J St - 156 Medina R. Park

12751 12811 325 12889 3.6 12868 Martinez Cr Medina River SAR at IH 37 Salado Cr at Rigsby at Ruiz 12886 12864 242 63 SAR at Lp 1604 Salado Cr at Loop 13

20355 763 SAR at CR 125 0.0

12885 12689 183 SAR at FM 3444 Rosillo Cr

12884 12861 255 3.6 SAR at Labatt Salado Cr at Southon

475 12883 SAR at Dietzfield 12882 448 SAR at FM 536

12881 570 SAR at SH 97

12880 Key: 1061 SAR at FM 541 Bacteria source indicated 12879 261 SAR at FM 791

Figure 2-57: E. coli Loading Analysis Schematic, October 2008 Survey

154

Table 2-22: E. coli Loading Analysis, October 2008 Survey Sampling Flow Flow Station ID Location E. Coli Load Date Measured Estimated (cfu/100 ml) (cfs) (cfs) (cfu/day) Segment 1911 S10 Storm Discharge Trib to Olmos Ck 10/20/2008 < 1 - 0.033 8.07E+05 S11 Storm Discharge Trib to Olmos Ck 10/20/2008 < 1 - < 0.01 2.45E+05 S12 Storm Discharge Trib of Olmos Ck 10/20/2008 640 - < 0.01 1.56E+08 S13 Storm Discharge Trib of Olmos Ck 10/20/2008 < 1 - 0.1 2.45E+06 S14 Storm Discharge Trib of Olmos Ck 10/20/2008 31 - < 0.01 7.58E+06 S15 Storm Discharge Trib of Olmos Ck 10/20/2008 24000 - < 0.01 5.87E+09 S9 W. Skipper at Linda Trib to Olmos Ck 10/20/2008 900 - 0.1 2.20E+09 S8 E. Skipper at Linda Trib to Olmos Ck 10/20/2008 2100 - 0.3 1.54E+10 S18 Olmos Ck at Blanco Rd 10/20/2008 93 - 0.2 4.55E+08 S17 Olmos Ck at San Pedro 10/20/2008 30 - 1.5 1.10E+09 S16 Olmos Ck at McCullough 10/20/2008 42 - 1 1.03E+09 12912 SAR at E. Hildebrand 10/20/2008 - 0 - - 18803 Zoo Outfall No 2 10/20/2008 < 1 - 0.1 2.45E+06 15722 Zoo Outfall No 1 10/20/2008 17000 2.7 - 1.12E+12 S19 SAR btwn Hildebrand and Woodlawn - Horse Xing 10/20/2008 2000 - 13 6.36E+11 12908 SAR at Woodlawn 10/20/2008 1000 12 - 2.93E+11 S20 Channel at Mill Race Trib of SAR 10/21/2008 5800 - 0.02 2.84E+09 18865 SAR Upstrm of Lexington 10/21/2008 340 - 15 1.25E+11 S21 Storm Drn at Martin St. SAR 10/21/2008 7 - < 0.01 1.71E+06 S22 Storm Drn in wall between Travis and Pecan - SAR 10/21/2008 910 - < 0.01 2.23E+08 20118 SAR at Houston 10/21/2008 1600 - 7.4 2.90E+11 20122 SAR Loop 10/21/2008 810 - 4 7.92E+10 12905 SAR at Arsenal 10/21/2008 6 - 11 1.61E+09 12904 SAR at Alamo 10/21/2008 5 11 - 1.34E+09 S24 Storm Drn discharge above SAR tunnel 10/21/2008 < 1 - 0.2 4.89E+06 20361 SAR Tunnel Upstrm on Lone Star 10/21/2008 8 - 2 3.91E+08 S23 Storm Discharge upstrm of Lonestar - SAR 10/21/2008 < 1 - 0.5 1.22E+07 14220 SAR at Lone Star 10/21/2008 13 13 - 4.13E+09 14256 SAR at W Mitchell 10/21/2008 26 13 - 8.26E+09 S78 San Pedro Ck at W. Myrtle 10/29/2008 96 - 3.6 8.45E+09 20117 San Pedro Cr at Croft Trace 10/29/2008 490 - 1.3 1.56E+10 S77 San Pedro Ck upstream of Travis St. 10/29/2008 640 - 0.4 6.26E+09 20119 San Pedro Cr Upstrm of Alazan Cr 10/20/2008 1200 3 - 8.80E+10 S35 Martinez Ck at Leal 10/21/2008 41 0.06 - 6.01E+07 S34 Alazan Ck of Martinez Ck 10/21/2008 20 0.055 - 2.69E+07 S33 Storm Drn - Alazan Ck at Martin E. Bank 10/21/2008 1900 - < 0.01 4.65E+08 S32 Storm Drn - Alazan Ck at Travis W. Bank 10/21/2008 530 - 0.01 1.30E+08 S31 Seep - Alazan Ck at Commerce St. W. Bank 10/21/2008 370 - 0.05 4.52E+08 S30 Alazan Ck at Buena Vista 10/21/2008 30 0.2 - 1.47E+08 S29 Storm Drn Alazan Ck at Buena Vista W. Bank 10/21/2008 > 24000 - < 0.01 5.87E+09 S28 Storm Drn Alazan Ck E. Bank upstrm of Tampico 10/21/2008 4200 - 0.2 2.05E+10 S37 Storm Drn - Apache Ck at 19th St E. Bank 10/21/2008 120 0.1 - 2.93E+08 S38 Trib upstrm of San Luis W. Bank at Apache Ck 10/21/2008 1200 0.091 - 2.67E+09 S36 Storm Drn - Apache Ck at Hemelton - W. Bank 10/21/2008 < 1 - 0.2 4.89E+06 18735 Apache Cr at Brazos 10/21/2008 150 0.6 - 2.20E+09 S27 Storm Drn SW corner of Cevallas and IH35 10/21/2008 4900 - < 0.01 1.20E+09 S26 Storm Drn W. Bank of S.P. Ck Adj. to Apache Rd. 10/21/2008 410 - < 0.01 1.00E+08 S7 GW Seep at S. Pacific RR along W. Bank of San Pedro 10/20/2008 72 - 0.0104 1.83E+07 S6 GW Seep 40 yrds Upstrm I35 W. Bank of San Pedro Ck 10/20/2008 150 - 0.037 1.36E+08 S5 Storm Drn between IH35 N and S Lanes San Pedro Ck 10/20/2008 520 - < 0.01 1.27E+08 S3 Spring San Pedro Ck E. Bank Dwnstrm of Nogalitos 10/20/2008 120 - 0.013 3.81E+07 S4 Storm Drn E. Bank of San Pedro Ck Forest-Halstead 10/20/2008 2000 - 0.006 2.93E+08 S25 San Pedro Ck upstrm of Flores 10/21/2008 290 3.5 - 2.48E+10 S1 Storm Drn #1 San Pedro Ck Dwnstrm of Mitchell E. Bank 10/20/2008 50 - 0.2 2.45E+08 S2 Storm Drn #2 San Pedro Ck Dwnstrm of Mitchell E. Bank 10/20/2008 9800 - 0.012 2.87E+09

155

Table 2-22: E. coli Loading Analysis, October 2008 Survey (Cont.) Sampling Flow Flow Station ID Location E. Coli Load Date Measured Estimated (cfu/100 ml) (cfs) (cfs) (cfu/day) Segment 1911 18736 San Pedro Cr at Probandt 10/20/2008 120 4.3 - 1.26E+10 S79 Concepcion Ck upstrm SAR confl. 10/29/2008 490 - 0.4 4.79E+09 S80 SAR near end of Hafer Rd. 10/29/2008 63 - 91 1.40E+11 17066 SAR at Mission 10/29/2008 55 - 17 2.29E+10 S82 SAR dwnstrm Southcross 10/29/2008 56 - 16 2.19E+10 S83 SAR at Northern end of Padre Pk. 10/29/2008 38 - 16 1.49E+10 12899 SAR at Padre 10/29/2008 73 - 6 1.07E+10 12897 SAR at Lp 410 10/22/2008 170 31 - 1.29E+11 12705 Six Mile Cr at Roosevelt 10/29/2008 79 - 0.086 1.66E+08 S39 SAR between Loop 410 and Bllue Wing Road 10/22/2008 140 27 - 9.24E+10 12894 SAR at Blue Wing 10/22/2008 52 - 34 4.32E+10 S42 SAR between Blue Wing Road and IH37 10/22/2008 25 27 - 1.65E+10 12811 Medina River at FM 1937 10/29/2008 100 - 64 1.56E+11 S43 Medina River confl. 10/22/2008 25 - 167 1.02E+11 12889 SAR at IH 37 10/23/2008 59 - 225 3.25E+11 S56 SAR Spring between 3 and 6 mile sample 10/23/2008 1100 - 0.08 2.15E+09 S55 SAR between IH37 and 1604 10/23/2008 65 225 - 3.58E+11 S57 Spring dwnstream of CPS Weir E. bk-on SAR 10/23/2008 220 - < 0.01 5.38E+07 S58 Sample Site 6 miles SAR 10/23/2008 43 - 225 2.37E+11 12886 SAR at Lp 1604 10/22/2008 44 225 - 2.42E+11 S44 SAR between 1604 - CR 125 10/22/2008 77 - 224 4.22E+11 S45 Between 1604 and CR 125 10/22/2008 120 - 224 6.57E+11 S46 Spring - SAR between 1604 - CR 125 E. Bank 10/22/2008 22 - 0.02 1.08E+07 20355 SAR at CR 125 10/22/2008 140 - 223 7.63E+11 S47 Discharge - SAR dwnstrm of CR 125 E. Bank 10/22/2008 290 - < 0.01 7.09E+07 S48 SAR between CR 125 - 775 10/22/2008 61 - 221 3.30E+11 S84 Calaveras Ck at loop 1604 10/29/2008 67 - 0.2 3.28E+08 S85 Calaveras Ck at US 181 10/29/2008 570 - 0.092 1.28E+09 20357 Calavaras Cr at CR 125 10/29/2008 180 - 0.9 3.96E+09 S49 Calaveras Ck approx upstream of SAR confl. 10/22/2008 180 - 0.6 2.64E+09 12885 SAR at FM 3444 10/22/2008 34 - 220 1.83E+11 12884 SAR at Labatt 10/23/2008 48 - 217 2.55E+11 S50 Spring - SAR below Labatt Rd. left bank 10/23/2008 190 - 0.0149 6.92E+07 S51 SAR below cattle access pt between Labatt and site 0 10/23/2008 310 - 217 1.64E+12 S52 Spring #2 W. Bk between Labatt and site 0-SAR 10/23/2008 32 - 0.0267 2.09E+07 12883 SAR at Dietzfield 10/23/2008 90 - 216 4.75E+11 S53 Seep No. 3 between site 0 and 536 on SAR 10/23/2008 2500 - 0.002 1.22E+08 S54 SAR between site 0 and 536 10/23/2008 88 - 215 4.63E+11 20352 Seguin Branch at Business Lp 181 10/29/2008 - 0 - - 12882 SAR at FM 536 10/23/2008 86 - 213 4.48E+11 12881 SAR at SH 97 10/27/2008 110 212 - 5.70E+11 S63 Sample 3 mi between 97 and 541 on SAR 10/27/2008 27 - 213 1.41E+11 20350 Picosa Cr at SH 97 10/29/2008 1100 0 - 0.00E+00 S64 Hwy 97 and FM 541 Site Sample mi 6 on SAR 10/27/2008 84 - 214 4.40E+11 S65 Sample mi 9 between Hwy 97-FM 541 on SAR 10/27/2008 56 - 215 2.94E+11 S66 Hwy 97 and FM 541 Site #4 12 mi mark on SAR 10/27/2008 140 - 216 7.39E+11 12880 SAR at FM 541 10/27/2008 200 - 217 1.06E+12 S59 3 mi dwnstrm of FM 541 on SAR 10/27/2008 150 - 218 8.00E+11 S60 6 mi dwnstrm of FM 541 on SAR 10/27/2008 140 - 219 7.50E+11 S61 9 midwnstrm of FM 541 on SAR 10/27/2008 130 - 220 6.99E+11 S62 12 mi dwnstrm of FM 541 on SAR 10/27/2008 100 - 221 5.40E+11 12879 SAR at FM 791 10/27/2008 48 222 - 2.61E+11

156

Table 2-22: E. coli Loading Analysis, October 2008 Survey (Cont.) Sampling Flow Flow Station ID Location E. Coli Load Date Measured Estimated (cfu/100 ml) (cfs) (cfs) (cfu/day) Segment 1910 12877 Salado Cr Upstrm of Loop 410 10/28/2008 55 0 - 0.00E+00 20358 Beitel Cr at Thousand Oaks 10/28/2008 19 0 - 0.00E+00 S74 2 mi dwnstrm Salado Ck at Los Patios 10/28/2008 830 0 - 0.00E+00 S92 Salado Ck Trib. at Austin Hwy W. of bridge 10/29/2008 21 - 0 0.00E+00 12876 Salado Cr at Austin Hwy 10/28/2008 29 - 0.2 1.42E+08 12875 Salado Cr at Eisenhauer 10/28/2008 140 - 0.2 6.85E+08 12874 Salado Cr at Rittiman 10/28/2008 190 - 0.0239 1.11E+08 15642 Salado Cr off Holbrook 10/28/2008 110 - 0.8 2.15E+09 S75 Salado Ck at x-ing by Golf Course 10/28/2008 83 - 0.7 1.42E+09 S76 Salado Ck dwnstrm of Fort Sam School 10/28/2008 40 - 1.6 1.56E+09 12872 Salado Cr at WW White 10/28/2008 41 - 1.2 1.20E+09 12871 Salado Cr at IH 35 10/29/2008 250 - 1 6.11E+09 15644 Salado Cr at Pletz Park 10/29/2008 100 - 0.2 4.89E+08 12870 Salado Cr at Gembler 10/29/2008 64 - 0.2 3.13E+08 12693 Menger Cr Upstrm of Coliseum 10/29/2008 66 - 0.01 1.61E+07 15645 Salado Cr Upstrm from Commerce 10/29/2008 61 - 1.3 1.94E+09 15646 Salado Cr at MLK Park 10/29/2008 82 - 1.2 2.41E+09 S91 Salado Ck at Rice Rd. 10/29/2008 98 - 2.6 6.23E+09 12692 Trib in J St Park 10/29/2008 77 - 0.0266 5.01E+07 S90 Salado Ck above J street Trib. 10/29/2008 86 - 2.6 5.47E+09 12868 Salado Cr at Rigsby 10/29/2008 77 - 1.9 3.58E+09 S86 Salado Ck at Roland W. 10/29/2008 7 0 - 0.00E+00 S73 Salado Ck at Southside Lions Park 10/28/2008 110 - 6.5 1.75E+10 S89 Salado Ck dwnstrm of Spring 10/29/2008 190 - 2 9.29E+09 S88 Spring at Comanche Park 10/29/2008 110 - 0.0829 2.23E+08 S87 Roland Salado Ck E. Branch 10/29/2008 160 - 1.2 4.69E+09 S72 Salado Ck at Treehouse Dr 10/28/2008 240 - 2.5 1.47E+10 15647 Salado Cr DwnStrm of E Southcross 10/28/2008 58 - 3.7 5.25E+09 S70 Salado Ck Trib at Dollarhide St 10/28/2008 > 24000 - 0.018 1.06E+10 S69 Trib of Salado Ck at Pecan Vly Golf Course Confl. 10/28/2008 43 - 0 0.00E+00 S71 Storm Drn trib of Salado Ck at Bob Billa St dead end 10/28/2008 < 1 - 0.024 5.87E+05 12864 Salado Cr at Loop 13 10/28/2008 410 6.3 - 6.32E+10 S68 Trib of Salado Ck at Emary Oak Dr 10/28/2008 540 - < 0.01 1.32E+08 S67 Trib to Salado Ck Goliad Rd 10/28/2008 410 - 0.016 1.60E+08 S93 Trib to Rosillo Ck. 10/29/2008 510 - 0.2 2.49E+09 12689 Rosillo Cr 10/28/2008 81 - 0 0.00E+00 12862 Salado Cr at Old Corpus Christi Hwy 10/28/2008 91 - 0.3 6.68E+08 12861 Salado Cr at Southon 10/28/2008 86 - 1.7 3.57E+09 S40 Salado Ck Trib 10/22/2008 49 - 6.2 7.43E+09 Segment 1910A 20359 Walzem Cr Dwnstrm of Diamondhead 10/28/2008 990 - 0.0284 6.87E+08 12698 Walzem Cr at Holbrook 10/28/2008 210 - 0.018 9.24E+07

157

12912 12876 0 0.01 269.0 SAR at E. Hildebrand Salado Cr at Austin Hwy

15722 12908 12875 67 0.00 Zoo Outfall No SAR at Woodlawn Salado Cr at Eisenhauer 1 Nov. 2008 18865 33 E. coli 109 cfu/day SAR Upstrm of Lexington 0.40

20118 12698 235 SAR at Houston 81 Walzem Cr at Holbrook

12905 20122 12874 78.2 0.01 SAR at Arsenal SAR Loop Salado Cr at Rittiman 12904 12872 39 1.6 SAR at Alamo Salado Cr at WW White

14220 12871 13 4.2 SAR at Lone Star Salado Cr at IH 35

3.2 14256 0.68 15644 SAR at W Mitchell Salado Cr at Pletz Park 5.6 4.2 2.2 12870 0.29 Salado Cr at Gembler 20117 20119 18736 17066 17 San Pedro San Pedro San Pedro Cr SAR at Mission 4.9 Cr at Croft Cr Upstrm at Probandt Trace of Alazan Cr 12693 0.04 Menger Cr

12705 12897 15645 15 0.2 Six Mile Cr at SAR at Lp 410 Salado Cr Upstrm from Commerce Roosevelt 1.2 1.8 15646 Salado Cr at MLK Park 18735 12715 12894 0.51 18 Apache Cr Alazan Cr at SAR at Blue Wing 0.01 at Brazos Tampico 19 16731 12692 SAR Upstrm of the Trib in J St 0.03 134 Medina R. Park

12751 12811 80 12889 11 12868 Martinez Cr Medina River SAR at IH 37 Salado Cr at Rigsby at Ruiz 12886 12864 278 159 SAR at Lp 1604 Salado Cr at Loop 13

20355 350 SAR at CR 125 0.1

12885 12689 270 SAR at FM 3444 Rosillo Cr

12884 12861 125 1.0 SAR at Labatt Salado Cr at Southon

218 12883 SAR at Dietzfield 12882 400 SAR at FM 536

12881 413 SAR at SH 97

12880 Key: 575 SAR at FM 541 Bacteria source indicated 12879 233 SAR at FM 791

Figure 2-58: E. coli Loading Analysis Schematic, November 2008 Survey

158

Table 2-23: E. coli Loading Analysis, November 2008 Survey Sampling Flow Flow Station ID Location E. Coli Load Date Measured Estimated (cfu/100 ml) (cfs) (cfs) (cfu/day) Segment 1911 12912 SAR at E. Hildebrand 11/17/2008 140 0 - 0.00E+00 18803 Zoo Outfall No 2 11/17/2008 < 1 - 0.1 2.45E+06 15722 Zoo Outfall No 1 11/17/2008 5500 2 - 2.69E+11 12908 SAR at Woodlawn 11/17/2008 280 9.8 - 6.71E+10 20360 SAR Tunnel Inlet 11/17/2008 - 0 - - 18865 SAR Upstrm of Lexington 11/17/2008 91 - 15 3.34E+10 20118 SAR at Houston 11/17/2008 640 - 15 2.35E+11 20122 SAR Loop 11/17/2008 1100 - 3 8.07E+10 12905 SAR at Arsenal 11/17/2008 320 - 10 7.82E+10 12904 SAR at Alamo 11/17/2008 160 10 - 3.91E+10 14220 SAR at Lone Star 11/17/2008 53 10 - 1.30E+10 14256 SAR at W Mitchell 11/17/2008 11 12 - 3.23E+09 20117 San Pedro Cr at Croft Trace 11/17/2008 190 1.2 - 5.57E+09 20119 San Pedro Cr Upstrm of Alazan Cr 11/17/2008 45 3.8 - 4.18E+09 12751 Martinez Cr at Ruiz 11/17/2008 18 0.0672 - 2.96E+07 12715 Alazan Cr at Tampico 11/17/2008 70 0.3 - 5.13E+08 18735 Apache Cr at Brazos 11/17/2008 160 0.3 - 1.17E+09 18736 San Pedro Cr at Probandt 11/17/2008 26 3.4 - 2.16E+09 17066 SAR at Mission 11/17/2008 62 11 - 1.67E+10 12899 SAR at Padre 11/17/2008 26 - 3.3 2.10E+09 12897 SAR at Lp 410 11/17/2008 23 27 - 1.52E+10 12705 Six Mile Cr at Roosevelt 11/17/2008 15 - 0.1 3.67E+07 12894 SAR at Blue Wing 11/17/2008 21 - 36 1.85E+10 16731 SAR Upstrm of the Medina R. 11/18/2008 37 21 - 1.90E+10 12811 Medina River at FM 1937 11/18/2008 130 - 42 1.34E+11 12889 SAR at IH 37 11/17/2008 15 - 219 8.03E+10 12886 SAR at Lp 1604 11/18/2008 52 219 - 2.78E+11 20355 SAR at CR 125 11/18/2008 65 - 220 3.50E+11 20357 Calavaras Cr at CR 125 11/18/2008 140 < 0.01 - 3.42E+07 12885 SAR at FM 3444 11/18/2008 50 - 221 2.70E+11 12884 SAR at Labatt 11/18/2008 23 - 223 1.25E+11 12883 SAR at Dietzfield 11/18/2008 40 - 223 2.18E+11 20352 Seguin Branch at Business Lp 181 11/18/2008 - 0 - - 12882 SAR at FM 536 11/18/2008 73 - 224 4.00E+11 12881 SAR at SH 97 11/18/2008 75 225 - 4.13E+11 20350 Picosa Cr at SH 97 11/18/2008 500 0 - 0.00E+00 12880 SAR at FM 541 11/18/2008 100 - 235 5.75E+11 12879 SAR at FM 791 11/18/2008 39 244 - 2.33E+11 Segment 1910 12877 Salado Cr Upstrm of Loop 410 11/19/2008 8 0 - 0.00E+00 20358 Beitel Cr at Thousand Oaks 11/19/2008 - 0 - - 12876 Salado Cr at Austin Hwy 11/19/2008 30 < 0.01 - 7.34E+06 12875 Salado Cr at Eisenhauer 11/19/2008 2 - < 0.01 4.89E+05 12874 Salado Cr at Rittiman 11/19/2008 52 < 0.01 - 1.27E+07 15642 Salado Cr off Holbrook 11/19/2008 44 0.7 - 7.53E+08 12872 Salado Cr at WW White 11/19/2008 32 2.1 - 1.64E+09 12871 Salado Cr at IH 35 11/20/2008 79 2.2 - 4.25E+09 15644 Salado Cr at Pletz Park 11/20/2008 93 - 0.3 6.82E+08 12870 Salado Cr at Gembler 11/20/2008 40 - 0.3 2.93E+08 12693 Menger Cr Upstrm of Coliseum 11/20/2008 20000 < 0.01 - 4.89E+09 15645 Salado Cr Upstrm from Commerce 11/20/2008 19 - 0.4 1.86E+08 15646 Salado Cr at MLK Park 11/20/2008 27 2.8 - 1.85E+09 12692 Trib in J St Park 11/20/2008 46 < 0.01 - 1.12E+07 12868 Salado Cr at Rigsby 11/20/2008 58 - 7.7 1.09E+10 15647 Salado Cr DwnStrm of E Southcross 11/20/2008 20 - 0.7 3.42E+08 12864 Salado Cr at Loop 13 11/20/2008 1100 - 5.9 1.59E+11 12700 Rosillo Cr at IH 10 11/20/2008 6 - 0.9 1.32E+08 12689 Rosillo Cr 11/20/2008 420 < 0.01 - 1.03E+08 12862 Salado Cr at Old Corpus Christi Hwy 11/20/2008 40 2.2 - 2.15E+09 12861 Salado Cr at Southon 11/20/2008 20 - 2 9.78E+08 Segment 1910A 20359 Walzem Cr Dwnstrm of Diamondhead 11/19/2008 46 - < 0.01 1.12E+07 12698 Walzem Cr at Holbrook 11/19/2008 290 0.0563 - 3.99E+08

159

12912 12876 0 0.05 142 SAR at E. Hildebrand Salado Cr at Austin Hwy

15722 12908 12875 130 0.78 Zoo Outfall No SAR at Woodlawn Salado Cr at Eisenhauer 1 Dec. 2008 18865 95 E. coli 109 cfu/day SAR Upstrm of Lexington 0.42

20118 12698 242 SAR at Houston 15 Walzem Cr at Holbrook

12905 20122 12874 91 0.02 SAR at Arsenal SAR Loop Salado Cr at Rittiman 12904 12872 23 1.9 SAR at Alamo Salado Cr at WW White

14220 12871 27 7.0 SAR at Lone Star Salado Cr at IH 35

7.2 14256 7.0 15644 SAR at W Mitchell Salado Cr at Pletz Park 14 1430 17 12870 7.3 Salado Cr at Gembler 20117 20119 18736 17066 23 San Pedro San Pedro San Pedro Cr SAR at Mission 1022 Cr at Croft Cr Upstrm at Probandt Trace of Alazan Cr 12693 0.37 Menger Cr

12705 12897 15645 48 755 Six Mile Cr at SAR at Lp 410 Salado Cr Upstrm from Commerce Roosevelt 1.0 27 15646 Salado Cr at MLK Park 18735 12715 12894 0.67 19 Apache Cr Alazan Cr at SAR at Blue Wing 34 at Brazos Tampico 88 16731 12692 SAR Upstrm of the Trib in J St 0.04 141 Medina R. Park

12751 12811 247 12889 41 12868 Martinez Cr Medina River SAR at IH 37 Salado Cr at Rigsby at Ruiz 12886 12864 505 38 SAR at Lp 1604 Salado Cr at Loop 13

20355 332 SAR at CR 125 0.13

12885 12689 301 SAR at FM 3444 Rosillo Cr

12884 12861 613 12 SAR at Labatt Salado Cr at Southon

1130 12883 SAR at Dietzfield 12882 391 SAR at FM 536

12881 927 SAR at SH 97

12880 Key: 1017 SAR at FM 541 Bacteria source indicated 12879 453 SAR at FM 791

Figure 2-59: E. coli Loading Analysis Schematic, December 2008 Survey

160

Table 2-24: E. coli Loading Analysis, December 2008 Survey Sampling Flow Flow Station ID Location E. Coli Load Date Measured Estimated (cfu/100 ml) (cfs) (cfs) (cfu/day) Segment 1911 12912 SAR at E. Hildebrand 12/08/2008 330 0 - 0.00E+00 18803 Zoo Outfall No 2 12/08/2008 < 1 - 0.1 2.45E+06 15722 Zoo Outfall No 1 12/08/2008 2900 2 - 1.42E+11 12908 SAR at Woodlawn 12/08/2008 410 13 - 1.30E+11 20360 SAR Tunnel Inlet 12/09/2008 - 0 -- INTEN SAR Bypass at Brooklyn 12/08/2008 23 - 15 8.44E+09 18865 SAR Upstrm of Lexington 12/08/2008 260 - 15 9.54E+10 20118 SAR at Houston 12/08/2008 660 - 15 2.42E+11 20122 SAR Loop 12/08/2008 420 - 1.5 1.54E+10 12905 SAR at Arsenal 12/08/2008 340 - 11 9.14E+10 12904 SAR at Alamo 12/08/2008 86 11 - 2.31E+10 14220 SAR at Lone Star 12/08/2008 73 15 - 2.68E+10 14256 SAR at W Mitchell 12/08/2008 21 14 - 7.19E+09 20117 San Pedro Cr at Croft Trace 12/08/2008 430 1.3 - 1.37E+10 20119 San Pedro Cr Upstrm of Alazan Cr 12/08/2008 13000 4.5 - 1.43E+12 12751 Martinez Cr at Ruiz 12/08/2008 23 0.067 - 3.75E+07 12715 Alazan Cr at Tampico 12/08/2008 91 0.3 - 6.68E+08 18735 Apache Cr at Brazos 12/08/2008 99 0.4 - 9.68E+08 18736 San Pedro Cr at Probandt 12/08/2008 120 5.9 - 1.73E+10 17066 SAR at Mission 12/08/2008 55 17 - 2.29E+10 12899 SAR at Padre 12/08/2008 24 - 2.4 1.41E+09 12897 SAR at Lp 410 12/08/2008 58 34 - 4.82E+10 12705 Six Mile Cr at Roosevelt 12/08/2008 250 - 0.06 3.67E+08 12894 SAR at Blue Wing 12/08/2008 18 - 43 1.89E+10 16731 SAR Upstrm of the Medina R. 12/09/2008 150 24 - 8.80E+10 12811 Medina River at FM 1937 12/09/2008 96 - 60 1.41E+11 12889 SAR at IH 37 12/08/2008 47 - 215 2.47E+11 12886 SAR at Lp 1604 12/09/2008 96 215 - 5.05E+11 20355 SAR at CR 125 12/09/2008 62 - 219 3.32E+11 20357 Calavaras Cr at CR 125 12/09/2008 130 1.3 - 4.13E+09 12885 SAR at FM 3444 12/09/2008 55 - 224 3.01E+11 12884 SAR at Labatt 12/09/2008 110 - 228 6.13E+11 12883 SAR at Dietzfield 12/09/2008 200 - 231 1.13E+12 20352 Seguin Branch at Business Lp 181 12/09/2008 20 0 - 0.00E+00 12882 SAR at FM 536 12/09/2008 68 - 235 3.91E+11 12881 SAR at SH 97 12/09/2008 160 237 - 9.27E+11 20351 Pajarito Cr at Business Lp 181 12/09/2008 69000 0 - 0.00E+00 20350 Picosa Cr at SH 97 12/09/2008 9300 0 - 0.00E+00 12880 SAR at FM 541 12/09/2008 160 - 260 1.02E+12 12879 SAR at FM 791 12/09/2008 66 281 - 4.53E+11 Segment 1910 12877 Salado Cr Upstrm of Loop 410 12/09/2008 13 0 - 0.00E+00 20358 Beitel Cr at Thousand Oaks 12/09/2008 - 0 -- 12876 Salado Cr at Austin Hwy 12/09/2008 210 < 0.01 - 5.13E+07 12875 Salado Cr at Eisenhauer 12/09/2008 64 - 0.5 7.82E+08 INTEN Reclaimed Water discharge at Rittiman Rd 12/09/2008 7 - 2.3 3.94E+08 12874 Salado Cr at Rittiman 12/09/2008 88 < 0.01 - 2.15E+07 15642 Salado Cr off Holbrook 12/09/2008 68 1.6 - 2.66E+09 12872 Salado Cr at WW White 12/09/2008 27 2.9 - 1.91E+09 12871 Salado Cr at IH 35 12/09/2008 110 2.6 - 6.99E+09 15644 Salado Cr at Pletz Park 12/09/2008 110 - 2.6 6.99E+09 12870 Salado Cr at Gembler 12/09/2008 91 - 3.3 7.34E+09 12693 Menger Cr Upstrm of Coliseum 12/10/2008 19000 - 2.2 1.02E+12 15645 Salado Cr Upstrm from Commerce 12/10/2008 4900 - 6.3 7.55E+11 15646 Salado Cr at MLK Park 12/10/2008 170 6.5 - 2.70E+10 12692 Trib in J St Park 12/10/2008 14000 0.1 - 3.42E+10 12868 Salado Cr at Rigsby 12/10/2008 210 - 8 4.11E+10 15647 Salado Cr DwnStrm of E Southcross 12/10/2008 49 - 3.1 3.71E+09 12864 Salado Cr at Loop 13 12/10/2008 130 12 - 3.81E+10 12700 Rosillo Cr at IH 10 12/10/2008 16 - 0.7 2.74E+08 12689 Rosillo Cr 12/10/2008 55 0.1 - 1.34E+08 12862 Salado Cr at Old Corpus Christi Hwy 12/10/2008 73 5.2 - 9.28E+09 12861 Salado Cr at Southon 12/10/2008 96 - 5.3 1.24E+10 Segment 1910A INTEN Discharge pipe at Walzem Ck at Judiran 12/09/2008 9 - -- 20359 Walzem Cr Dwnstrm of Diamondhead 12/09/2008 22 - 0.04 2.15E+07 12698 Walzem Cr at Holbrook 12/09/2008 1700 < 0.01 - 4.16E+08

161

12912 12876 0 0.39 336 SAR at E. Hildebrand Salado Cr at Austin Hwy

15722 12908 12875 150 0.14 Zoo Outfall No SAR at Woodlawn Salado Cr at Eisenhauer 1 Jan. 2009 18865 37 E. coli 109 cfu/day SAR Upstrm of Lexington 0.07

20118 12698 29 SAR at Houston 5.3 Walzem Cr at Holbrook

12905 20122 12874 20 0.45 SAR at Arsenal SAR Loop Salado Cr at Rittiman 12904 12872 17 13 SAR at Alamo Salado Cr at WW White

14220 12871 20 2.1 SAR at Lone Star Salado Cr at IH 35

9.2 14256 1.6 15644 SAR at W Mitchell Salado Cr at Pletz Park 1.9 6.1 12 12870 3.1 Salado Cr at Gembler 20117 20119 18736 17066 24 San Pedro San Pedro San Pedro Cr SAR at Mission 0.08 Cr at Croft Cr Upstrm at Probandt Trace of Alazan Cr 12693 0.03 Menger Cr

12705 12897 15645 20 1.3 Six Mile Cr at SAR at Lp 410 Salado Cr Upstrm from Commerce Roosevelt 1.5 2.7 15646 Salado Cr at MLK Park 18735 12715 12894 0.60 53 Apache Cr Alazan Cr at SAR at Blue Wing 0.29 at Brazos Tampico 97 16731 12692 SAR Upstrm of the Trib in J St 0.04 302 Medina R. Park

12751 12811 238 12889 1.3 12868 Martinez Cr Medina River SAR at IH 37 Salado Cr at Rigsby at Ruiz 12886 12864 354 19 SAR at Lp 1604 Salado Cr at Loop 13

20355 368 SAR at CR 125 1.5

12885 12689 277 SAR at FM 3444 Rosillo Cr

12884 12861 280 7.5 SAR at Labatt Salado Cr at Southon

575 12883 SAR at Dietzfield 12882 530 SAR at FM 536

12881 993 SAR at SH 97

12880 Key: 477 SAR at FM 541 Bacteria source indicated 12879 436 SAR at FM 791

Figure 2-60: E.coli Loading Analysis Schematic, January 2009 Survey

162

Table 2-25: E. coli Loading Analysis, January 2009 Survey Sampling Station ID Location E. Coli Flow Measured Flow Estimated Load Date (cfu/100 ml) (cfs) (cfs) (cfu/day) Segment 1911 12912 SAR at E. Hildebrand 01/12/2009 2100 0 - 0.00E+00 18803 Zoo Outfall No 2 01/12/2009 58 - 0.072 1.02E+08 15722 Zoo Outfall No 1 01/12/2009 5500 2.5 - 3.36E+11 12908 SAR at Woodlawn 01/12/2009 340 18 - 1.50E+11 18865 SAR Upstrm of Lexington 01/12/2009 100 - 15 3.67E+10 20118 SAR at Houston 01/12/2009 250 - 4.7 2.87E+10 20122 SAR Loop 01/12/2009 310 - 0.7 5.31E+09 12905 SAR at Arsenal 01/12/2009 110 - 7.4 1.99E+10 12904 SAR at Alamo 01/12/2009 59 12 - 1.73E+10 20361 SAR Tunnel Upstrm on Lone Star 01/12/2009 63 - 6 9.24E+09 14220 SAR at Lone Star 01/12/2009 46 18 - 2.02E+10 14256 SAR at W Mitchell 01/12/2009 21 - 18 9.24E+09 20117 San Pedro Cr at Croft Trace 01/12/2009 190 0.4 - 1.86E+09 20119 San Pedro Cr Upstrm of Alazan Cr 01/12/2009 53 4.7 - 6.09E+09 12751 Martinez Cr at Ruiz 01/12/2009 15 0.1 - 3.67E+07 12715 Alazan Cr at Tampico 01/12/2009 61 0.4 - 5.97E+08 18735 Apache Cr at Brazos 01/12/2009 100 0.6 - 1.47E+09 18736 San Pedro Cr at Probandt 01/12/2009 79 6.1 - 1.18E+10 17066 SAR at Mission 01/12/2009 40 25 - 2.45E+10 12899 SAR at Padre 01/12/2009 240 - 3.2 1.88E+10 12897 SAR at Lp 410 01/12/2009 38 22 - 2.04E+10 12705 Six Mile Cr at Roosevelt 01/12/2009 14 - 0.0832 2.85E+07 12894 SAR at Blue Wing 01/12/2009 80 - 27 5.28E+10 16731 SAR Upstrm of the Medina R. 01/13/2009 120 33 - 9.68E+10 12811 Medina River at FM 1937 01/13/2009 130 - 95 3.02E+11 12889 SAR at IH 37 01/12/2009 43 - 226 2.38E+11 12886 SAR at Lp 1604 01/13/2009 64 226 - 3.54E+11 20355 SAR at CR 125 01/13/2009 66 - 228 3.68E+11 20357 Calavaras Cr at CR 125 01/13/2009 140 1.1 - 3.77E+09 12885 SAR at FM 3444 01/13/2009 49 - 231 2.77E+11 12884 SAR at Labatt 01/13/2009 49 - 234 2.80E+11 12883 SAR at Dietzfield 01/13/2009 100 - 235 5.75E+11 12882 SAR at FM 536 01/13/2009 91 - 238 5.30E+11 12881 SAR at SH 97 01/13/2009 170 239 - 9.93E+11 20350 Picosa Cr at SH 97 01/13/2009 580 0 - 0.00E+00 12880 SAR at FM 541 01/13/2009 79 - 247 4.77E+11 12879 SAR at FM 791 01/13/2009 70 255 - 4.36E+11 Segment 1910 12877 Salado Cr Upstrm of Loop 410 01/14/2009 14 0 - 0.00E+00 12701 Beitel Cr at Low Water Crossing 01/14/2009 310 0 - 0.00E+00 12876 Salado Cr at Austin Hwy 01/14/2009 160 0.1 - 3.91E+08 12875 Salado Cr at Eisenhauer 01/14/2009 14 - 0.4 1.37E+08 12874 Salado Cr at Rittiman 01/14/2009 61 0.3 - 4.47E+08 15642 Salado Cr off Holbrook 01/14/2009 31 2.4 - 1.82E+09 12872 Salado Cr at WW White 01/14/2009 200 2.7 - 1.32E+10 12871 Salado Cr at IH 35 01/14/2009 25 3.4 - 2.08E+09 15644 Salado Cr at Pletz Park 01/14/2009 19 - 3.4 1.58E+09 12870 Salado Cr at Gembler 01/14/2009 48 - 2.6 3.05E+09 12693 Menger Cr Upstrm of Coliseum 01/15/2009 43 - 0.0737 7.75E+07 15645 Salado Cr Upstrm from Commerce 01/15/2009 21 - 2.6 1.34E+09 15646 Salado Cr at MLK Park 01/15/2009 31 3.6 - 2.73E+09 12692 Trib in J St Park 01/15/2009 59 0.2 - 2.89E+08 12868 Salado Cr at Rigsby 01/15/2009 11 - 5 1.34E+09 15647 Salado Cr DwnStrm of E Southcross 01/15/2009 67 - 8.6 1.41E+10 12864 Salado Cr at Loop 13 01/15/2009 150 5.2 - 1.91E+10 12700 Rosillo Cr at IH 10 01/15/2009 7 - 0.4 6.85E+07 12699 Rosillo Cr at Sinclair 01/15/2009 32 - 0.1 7.82E+07 12689 Rosillo Cr 01/15/2009 210 0.3 - 1.54E+09 12862 Salado Cr at Old Corpus Christi Hwy 01/15/2009 31 6.8 - 5.15E+09 12861 Salado Cr at Southon 01/15/2009 43 - 7.1 7.46E+09 Segment 1910A 20359 Walzem Cr Dwnstrm of Diamondhead 01/14/2009 24000 - 0.0149 8.74E+09 12698 Walzem Cr at Holbrook 01/14/2009 49 0.0563 - 6.75E+07

163

12912 12876 0 0.08 141 SAR at E. Hildebrand Salado Cr at Austin Hwy

15722 12908 12875 56 0.24 Zoo Outfall No SAR at Woodlawn Salado Cr at Eisenhauer 1 Feb. 2009 18865 62 E. coli 109 cfu/day SAR Upstrm of Lexington 0.02

20118 12698 39 SAR at Houston 51 Walzem Cr at Holbrook

12905 20122 12874 55 3.4 SAR at Arsenal SAR Loop Salado Cr at Rittiman 12904 12872 120 5.0 SAR at Alamo Salado Cr at WW White

14220 12871 18 3.5 SAR at Lone Star Salado Cr at IH 35

12 14256 4.0 15644 SAR at W Mitchell Salado Cr at Pletz Park 34 6.3 12 6.8 12870 Salado Cr at Gembler 20117 20119 18736 17066 108 San Pedro San Pedro San Pedro Cr SAR at Mission 17 Cr at Croft Cr Upstrm at Probandt Trace of Alazan Cr 12693 2.9 Menger Cr

12705 12897 15645 67 4.0 Six Mile Cr at SAR at Lp 410 Salado Cr Upstrm from Commerce Roosevelt 5.0 4.5 15646 Salado Cr at MLK Park 18735 12715 12894 1.4 39 Apache Cr Alazan Cr at SAR at Blue Wing 0.13 at Brazos Tampico 104 16731 12692 SAR Upstrm of the Trib in J St 0.20 281 Medina R. Park

12751 12811 165 12889 5 12868 Martinez Cr Medina River SAR at IH 37 Salado Cr at Rigsby at Ruiz 12886 12864 219 13 SAR at Lp 1604 Salado Cr at Loop 13

20355 287 SAR at CR 125 2.1

12885 12689 186 SAR at FM 3444 Rosillo Cr

12884 12861 294 2.7 SAR at Labatt Salado Cr at Southon

407 12883 SAR at Dietzfield 12882 378 SAR at FM 536

12881 1003 SAR at SH 97

12880 Key: 1413 SAR at FM 541 Bacteria source indicated 12879 291 SAR at FM 791

Figure 2-61: E. coli Loading Analysis Schematic, February 2009 Survey

164

Table 2-26: E. coli Loading Analysis, February 2009 Survey Station ID Location Sampling Date E. Coli Flow Flow Estimated Load Md (cfu/100 ml) (cfs) (cfs) (cfu/day) Segment 1911 12912 SAR at E. Hildebrand 02/18/2009 240 0 - 0.00E+00 18803 Zoo Outfall No 2 02/18/2009 190 - 0.03 1.39E+08 15722 Zoo Outfall No 1 02/18/2009 2300 2.5 - 1.41E+11 12908 SAR at Woodlawn 02/18/2009 280 8.2 - 5.61E+10 18865 SAR Upstrm of Lexington 02/18/2009 170 15 - 6.24E+10 20118 SAR at Houston 02/18/2009 660 - 2.4 3.87E+10 20122 SAR Loop 02/18/2009 1100 - 1.9 5.11E+10 12905 SAR at Arsenal 02/18/2009 440 - 5.1 5.49E+10 12904 SAR at Alamo 02/18/2009 410 12 - 1.20E+11 20361 SAR Tunnel Upstrm on Lone Star 02/18/2009 130 - 2 6.36E+09 14220 SAR at Lone Star 02/18/2009 84 8.6 - 1.77E+10 14256 SAR at W Mitchell 02/18/2009 55 - 8.6 1.16E+10 20117 San Pedro Cr at Croft Trace 02/17/2009 2000 0.7 - 3.42E+10 20119 San Pedro Cr Upstrm of Alazan Cr 02/17/2009 74 3.5 - 6.33E+09 12751 Martinez Cr at Ruiz 02/17/2009 80 0.1 - 1.96E+08 12715 Alazan Cr at Tampico 02/17/2009 190 0.3 - 1.39E+09 18735 Apache Cr at Brazos 02/17/2009 290 0.7 - 4.96E+09 18736 San Pedro Cr at Probandt 02/17/2009 93 5.2 - 1.18E+10 17066 SAR at Mission 02/17/2009 220 20 - 1.08E+11 12899 SAR at Padre 02/17/2009 170 - 4.2 1.75E+10 12897 SAR at Lp 410 02/17/2009 170 16 - 6.65E+10 12705 Six Mile Cr at Roosevelt 02/17/2009 390 - 0.3 2.86E+09 12894 SAR at Blue Wing 02/17/2009 79 - 20 3.86E+10 16731 SAR Upstrm of the Medina R. 02/18/2009 170 25 - 1.04E+11 12811 Medina River at FM 1937 02/18/2009 140 - 82 2.81E+11 12889 SAR at IH 37 02/17/2009 42 - 161 1.65E+11 12886 SAR at Lp 1604 02/18/2009 56 160 - 2.19E+11 20355 SAR at CR 125 02/18/2009 72 - 163 2.87E+11 20357 Calavaras Cr at CR 125 02/18/2009 270 0.6 - 3.96E+09 12885 SAR at FM 3444 02/18/2009 46 - 165 1.86E+11 12884 SAR at Labatt 02/18/2009 72 - 167 2.94E+11 12883 SAR at Dietzfield 02/18/2009 99 - 168 4.07E+11 20352 Seguin Branch at Business Lp 181 02/18/2009 660 0 - 0.00E+00 12882 SAR at FM 536 02/18/2009 91 - 170 3.78E+11 12881 SAR at SH 97 02/18/2009 240 171 - 1.00E+12 20351 Pajarito Cr at Business Lp 181 02/18/2009 66 0 - 0.00E+00 20350 Picosa Cr at SH 97 02/18/2009 3700 0 - 0.00E+00 12880 SAR at FM 541 02/18/2009 340 - 170 1.41E+12 12879 SAR at FM 791 02/18/2009 70 170 - 2.91E+11 Segment 1910 12877 Salado Cr Upstrm of Loop 410 02/19/2009 68 0 - 0.00E+00 20358 Beitel Cr at Thousand Oaks 02/19/2009 19 0 - 0.00E+00 12701 Beitel Cr at Low Water Crossing 02/19/2009 1800 0 - 0.00E+00 12876 Salado Cr at Austin Hwy 02/19/2009 100 0.0344 - 8.41E+07 12875 Salado Cr at Eisenhauer 02/19/2009 100 - 0.1 2.45E+08 12874 Salado Cr at Rittiman 02/19/2009 280 0.5 - 3.42E+09 15642 Salado Cr off Holbrook 02/19/2009 150 1.4 - 5.13E+09 12872 Salado Cr at WW White 02/19/2009 98 2.1 - 5.03E+09 12871 Salado Cr at IH 35 02/19/2009 63 2.3 - 3.54E+09 15644 Salado Cr at Pletz Park 02/19/2009 72 - 2.3 4.05E+09 12870 Salado Cr at Gembler 02/19/2009 100 - 2.8 6.85E+09 12693 Menger Cr Upstrm of Coliseum 02/19/2009 17000 - 0.04197 1.74E+10 15645 Salado Cr Upstrm from Commerce 02/19/2009 71 - 2.3 3.99E+09 15646 Salado Cr at MLK Park 02/19/2009 48 3.8 - 4.46E+09 12692 Trib in J St Park 02/19/2009 180 0.029 - 1.28E+08 12868 Salado Cr at Rigsby 02/19/2009 55 - 3.8 5.11E+09 15647 Salado Cr DwnStrm of E Southcross 02/19/2009 88 - 6 1.29E+10 12864 Salado Cr at Loop 13 02/19/2009 140 3.8 - 1.30E+10 12700 Rosillo Cr at IH 10 02/19/2009 1 - 0.04012 9.81E+05 12699 Rosillo Cr at Sinclair 02/19/2009 450 - 0.0672 7.39E+08 12689 Rosillo Cr 02/19/2009 280 0.3 - 2.05E+09 12862 Salado Cr at Old Corpus Christi Hwy 02/19/2009 29 5.8 - 4.11E+09 12861 Salado Cr at Southon 02/19/2009 18 - 6.1 2.68E+09 Segment 1910A 20359 Walzem Cr Dwnstrm of Diamondhead 02/19/2009 35 0 0.016 0.00E+00 12698 Walzem Cr at Holbrook 02/19/2009 92 < 0.01 - 2.25E+07

165

12912 12876 0 0.30 343 SAR at E. Hildebrand Salado Cr at Austin Hwy

15722 12908 12875 38 1.1 Zoo Outfall No SAR at Woodlawn Salado Cr at Eisenhauer 1 Mar. 2009 18865 25 E. coli 109 cfu/day SAR Upstrm of Lexington 0.04

20118 12698 660 SAR at Houston 30 Walzem Cr at Holbrook

12905 20122 12874 150 0.88 SAR at Arsenal SAR Loop Salado Cr at Rittiman 12904 12872 11 2.9 SAR at Alamo Salado Cr at WW White

14220 12871 2.4 1.0 SAR at Lone Star Salado Cr at IH 35

0.79 14256 2.9 15644 SAR at W Mitchell Salado Cr at Pletz Park 29 9.4 52 12870 3.8 Salado Cr at Gembler 20117 20119 18736 17066 14 San Pedro San Pedro San Pedro Cr SAR at Mission 0.1 Cr at Croft Cr Upstrm at Probandt Trace of Alazan Cr 12693 0.03 Menger Cr

12705 12897 15645 8.6 5.0 Six Mile Cr at SAR at Lp 410 Salado Cr Upstrm from Commerce Roosevelt 0.7 11 15646 Salado Cr at MLK Park 18735 12715 12894 1.6 4.2 Apache Cr Alazan Cr at SAR at Blue Wing 0.34 at Brazos Tampico 45 16731 12692 SAR Upstrm of the Trib in J St 0.04 229 Medina R. Park

12751 12811 124 12889 3.1 12868 Martinez Cr Medina River SAR at IH 37 Salado Cr at Rigsby at Ruiz 12886 12864 213 42 SAR at Lp 1604 Salado Cr at Loop 13

20355 113 SAR at CR 125 1.0

12885 12689 122 SAR at FM 3444 Rosillo Cr

12884 12861 191 3.2 SAR at Labatt Salado Cr at Southon

144 12883 SAR at Dietzfield 12882 231 SAR at FM 536

12881 281 SAR at SH 97

12880 Key: 235 SAR at FM 541 Bacteria source indicated 12879 101 SAR at FM 791

Figure 2-62: E. coli Loading Analysis Schematic, March 2009 Survey

166

Table 2-27: E. coli Loading Analysis, March 2009 Sampling Station ID Location E. Coli Flow Measured Flow Estimated Load Date (cfu/100 ml) (cfs) (cfs) (cfu/day) Segment 1911 12912 SAR at E. Hildebrand 03/03/2009 390 0.00 - 0.00E+00 18803 Zoo Outfall No 2 03/03/2009 340 - 0.05 4.49E+08 15722 Zoo Outfall No 1 03/03/2009 6100 2.3 - 3.43E+11 12908 SAR at Woodlawn 03/03/2009 140 11 - 3.77E+10 20360 SAR Tunnel Inlet 03/03/2009 5800 0.00 - 0.00E+00 18865 SAR Upstrm of Lexington 03/03/2009 68 15 - 2.49E+10 20118 SAR at Houston 03/03/2009 1800 - 15 6.60E+11 20122 SAR Loop 03/03/2009 240 - 5.10 2.99E+10 12905 SAR at Arsenal 03/03/2009 410 - 15 1.50E+11 12904 SAR at Alamo 03/03/2009 31 15 - 1.14E+10 20361 SAR Tunnel Upstrm on Lone Star 03/03/2009 15 - 2 7.34E+08 14220 SAR at Lone Star 03/03/2009 10 9.80 - 2.40E+09 14256 SAR at W Mitchell 03/03/2009 4 8.10 - 7.92E+08 20117 San Pedro Cr at Croft Trace 03/02/2009 800 1.50 - 2.93E+10 20119 San Pedro Cr Upstrm of Alazan Cr 03/02/2009 120 3.20 - 9.39E+09 12751 Martinez Cr at Ruiz 03/02/2009 22 0.07 - 3.74E+07 12715 Alazan Cr at Tampico 03/02/2009 670 0.10 - 1.64E+09 18735 Apache Cr at Brazos 03/02/2009 73 0.40 - 7.14E+08 18736 San Pedro Cr at Probandt 03/02/2009 590 3.60 - 5.19E+10 17066 SAR at Mission 03/02/2009 44 13 - 1.40E+10 12899 SAR at Padre 03/02/2009 120 - 0.40 1.17E+09 12897 SAR at Lp 410 03/02/2009 22 16 - 8.61E+09 12705 Six Mile Cr at Roosevelt 03/02/2009 14 - 0.10 3.42E+07 12894 SAR at Blue Wing 03/02/2009 9 - 19 4.18E+09 16731 SAR Upstrm of the Medina R. 03/04/2009 96 19 - 4.46E+10 12811 Medina River at FM 1937 03/04/2009 110 - 85 2.29E+11 12889 SAR at IH 37 03/02/2009 45 - 113 1.24E+11 12886 SAR at Lp 1604 03/04/2009 77 113 - 2.13E+11 20355 SAR at CR 125 03/04/2009 39 - 118 1.13E+11 20357 Calavaras Cr at CR 125 03/04/2009 240 0.90 - 5.28E+09 12885 SAR at FM 3444 03/04/2009 40 - 125 1.22E+11 12884 SAR at Labatt 03/04/2009 60 - 130 1.91E+11 12883 SAR at Dietzfield 03/04/2009 44 - 134 1.44E+11 20352 Seguin Branch at Business Lp 181 03/04/2009 100 0 - 0.00E+00 12882 SAR at FM 536 03/04/2009 68 - 139 2.31E+11 12881 SAR at SH 97 03/04/2009 81 142 - 2.81E+11 20350 Picosa Cr at SH 97 03/04/2009 1100 0 - 0.00E+00 12880 SAR at FM 541 03/04/2009 62 - 155 2.35E+11 12879 SAR at FM 791 03/04/2009 25 166 - 1.01E+11 Segment 1910 12877 Salado Cr Upstrm of Loop 410 03/05/2009 35 0.00 - 0.00E+00 20358 Beitel Cr at Thousand Oaks 03/05/2009 1 0.00 - 0.00E+00 12701 Beitel Cr at Low Water Crossing 03/05/2009 260 0.00 - 0.00E+00 12876 Salado Cr at Austin Hwy 03/05/2009 200 0.06 - 2.98E+08 12875 Salado Cr at Eisenhauer 03/05/2009 150 - 0.30 1.10E+09 12874 Salado Cr at Rittiman 03/05/2009 120 0.30 - 8.80E+08 15642 Salado Cr off Holbrook 03/05/2009 87 1.30 - 2.77E+09 12872 Salado Cr at WW White 03/05/2009 44 2.70 - 2.90E+09 12871 Salado Cr at IH 35 03/05/2009 20 2.10 - 1.03E+09 15644 Salado Cr at Pletz Park 03/05/2009 56 - 2.10 2.88E+09 12870 Salado Cr at Gembler 03/05/2009 74 - 2.10 3.80E+09 12693 Menger Cr Upstrm of Coliseum 03/05/2009 120 - 0.02 7.05E+07 15645 Salado Cr Upstrm from Commerce 03/05/2009 86 - 2.40 5.05E+09 15646 Salado Cr at MLK Park 03/05/2009 160 2.80 - 1.10E+10 12692 Trib in J St Park 03/05/2009 190 0.07 - 3.39E+08 12868 Salado Cr at Rigsby 03/05/2009 49 - 2.60 3.12E+09 15647 Salado Cr DwnStrm of E Southcross 03/05/2009 190 - 6.50 3.02E+10 12864 Salado Cr at Loop 13 03/05/2009 500 3.40 - 4.16E+10 12700 Rosillo Cr at IH 10 03/05/2009 1 - 0.30 7.34E+06 12699 Rosillo Cr at Sinclair 03/05/2009 80 - 0.08 1.54E+08 12689 Rosillo Cr 03/05/2009 410 0.10 - 1.00E+09 12862 Salado Cr at Old Corpus Christi Hwy 03/05/2009 41 4.60 - 4.61E+09 12861 Salado Cr at Southon 03/05/2009 28 - 4.70 3.22E+09 Segment 1910A 20359 Walzem Cr Dwnstrm of Diamondhead 03/05/2009 2100 - 0.02 9.45E+08 12698 Walzem Cr at Holbrook 03/05/2009 71 0.02 - 3.68E+07

167

12912 12876 0 0.16 100 SAR at E. Hildebrand Salado Cr at Austin Hwy

15722 12908 12875 8.8 0.38 Zoo Outfall No SAR at Woodlawn Salado Cr at Eisenhauer 1 Apr. 2009 18865 32 E. coli 109 cfu/day SAR Upstrm of Lexington 1.1

20118 12698 39 SAR at Houston 73 Walzem Cr at Holbrook

12905 20122 12874 6.9 0.44 SAR at Arsenal SAR Loop Salado Cr at Rittiman 12904 12872 3.5 4.8 SAR at Alamo Salado Cr at WW White

14220 12871 1.3 2.0 SAR at Lone Star Salado Cr at IH 35

3.8 14256 11 15644 SAR at W Mitchell Salado Cr at Pletz Park 7.5 64 29 12870 0.62 Salado Cr at Gembler 20117 20119 18736 17066 0.65 San Pedro San Pedro San Pedro Cr SAR at Mission 0.0 Cr at Croft Cr Upstrm at Probandt Trace of Alazan Cr 12693 4.8 Menger Cr

12705 12897 15645 25 21 Six Mile Cr at SAR at Lp 410 Salado Cr Upstrm from Commerce Roosevelt 2.2 2993 15646 Salado Cr at MLK Park 18735 12715 12894 0.15 9.3 Apache Cr Alazan Cr at SAR at Blue Wing 49 at Brazos Tampico 15 16731 12692 SAR Upstrm of the Trib in J St 0.17 56 Medina R. Park

12751 12811 110 12889 59 12868 Martinez Cr Medina River SAR at IH 37 Salado Cr at Rigsby at Ruiz 12886 12864 136 49 SAR at Lp 1604 Salado Cr at Loop 13

20355 161 SAR at CR 125 -

12885 12689 69 SAR at FM 3444 Rosillo Cr

12884 12861 156 0.5 SAR at Labatt Salado Cr at Southon

152 12883 SAR at Dietzfield 12882 359 SAR at FM 536

12881 359 SAR at SH 97

12880 Key: 238 SAR at FM 541 Bacteria source indicated 12879 42 SAR at FM 791

Figure 2-63: E. coli Loading Analysis Schematic, April 2009 Survey

168

Table 2-28: E. coli Loading Analysis, April 2009 Sampling Flow Flow Station ID Location E. Coli Load Date Measured Estimated (cfu/100 ml) (cfs) (cfs) (cfu/day) Segment 1911 S206 Approx. 150 ft. downstream of Halm Blvd 04/06/2009 430 - 0.096 1.01E+09 S205 Storm Drain at E. Rector 04/06/2009 570 - 0.055 7.67E+08 S204 Storm Drain E. Rector 5 ft. below 04/06/2009 < 1 - 0.074 1.81E+06 S201 Linda at W. Skipper 04/06/2009 900 - 0.3 6.60E+09 S199 Olmos Ck at Blanco 04/06/2009 54 - 0.0737 9.73E+07 S196 Olmos Ck at San Pedro 04/06/2009 67 - 0.5 8.19E+08 S198 Olmos Ck at McCullough 04/06/2009 150 - 2.9 1.06E+10 S195 Olmos Ck at end of Canyon Dr. 04/06/2009 280 0.0662 - 4.53E+08 12912 SAR at E. Hildebrand Ave 04/06/2009 290 0 - 0.00E+00 18803 San Antonio Zoo Outfall NO 2 04/06/2009 180 - 0.054 2.38E+08 15722 San Antonio Zoo Outfall NO 1 04/06/2009 5100 0.8 - 9.98E+10 S189 SAR near Horse Xing 04/07/2009 450 - 2.5 2.75E+10 S186 Channel 0.25 mi upstrm Mulberry Ave. 04/07/2009 > 24000 - 0.063 3.70E+10 S184 4 in. pipe drain in box culvert 04/07/2009 > 24000 - < 0.01 5.87E+09 S183 Box culvert 100 yds dwnstrm of Mulberry 04/07/2009 > 24000 - < 0.01 5.87E+09 12908 SAR at Woodlawn Ave 04/07/2009 75 4.8 - 8.80E+09 18865 SAR 57 m Upstrm of Lexington St Bridge 04/07/2009 86 15 - 3.15E+10 S171 Pipe at Lexington 04/07/2009 39 5 - 4.77E+09 20118 SAR at Houston St 04/07/2009 210 - 7.6 3.90E+10 20122 SAR Loop 111 m Dwnstrm of Market St 04/07/2009 2000 - 1.5 7.34E+10 12905 SAR at Arsenal St 04/07/2009 37 - 7.6 6.88E+09 12904 SAR at Alamo St 04/08/2009 51 2.8 - 3.49E+09 S142 Box culvert across from SAR Tunnel Outlet 04/08/2009 120 - 0.2 5.87E+08 14220 SAR at Lone Star Blvd 04/08/2009 8 6.6 - 1.29E+09 14256 SAR at W Mitchell St 04/08/2009 20 7.8 - 3.81E+09 S193 Martinez Ck downstrm of IH-10 04/08/2009 110 - 1.5 4.03E+09 S190 Storm drain 1 at Martinez Ck upstrm of Hildebrand 04/08/2009 < 1 - 0.0179 4.38E+05 S188 Drainage at Martinez Ck upstrm of IH-10 04/08/2009 38 - 0.2 1.86E+08 S187 Martinez Ck immed. dwnstrm of IH-10 bridge 04/07/2009 19 - 0.5 2.32E+08 S182 Storm Drain at Martinez Ck at Woodlawn 04/07/2009 < 1 - < 0.01 2.45E+05 S179 Storm Drain at Martinez Ck at Sabinas St. 04/07/2009 71 - 0.01 1.74E+07 S178 Martinez Ck one mile upstrm from Ruiz 04/07/2009 23 0.0972 - 5.47E+07 S175 Storm Drain at Martinez Ck at Poplar St. 04/07/2009 > 24000 - < 0.01 5.87E+09 12751 Martinez Ck at Ruiz St 04/07/2009 68 0.1 - 1.66E+08 S173 Martinez Ck upstrm of Alazan Ck Confl. 04/07/2009 64 - 0.2 3.13E+08 S181 Alazan Ck at Waverly 04/07/2009 6 - 0.1 1.47E+07 S180 Storm Drain Alazan Ck at Waverly 04/07/2009 6 - 0.02 2.93E+06 S176 Storm Drain Alazan Ck at Poplar 04/07/2009 > 24000 - < 0.01 5.87E+09 S174 Storm Drain Alazan Ck at Delgado St. under bridge 04/07/2009 > 24000 - < 0.01 5.87E+09 S172 Alazan Ck one mile Dwnstrm of Waverly 04/07/2009 74 0.0243 - 4.40E+07 S170 Alazan Ck at Martin St. 04/07/2009 19 < 0.01 - 4.65E+06 S165 Storm Drain Alazan Ck at Buena Vista 04/07/2009 10000 - < 0.01 2.45E+09 S160 Storm drain at Alazan Ck downstrm from guadalupe 04/08/2009 > 24000 - < 0.01 5.87E+09 S159 Storm drain at Alazan at upstrm of Tampico St. 04/08/2009 13000 - 0.011 3.50E+09 12715 Alazan Ck at Tampico St 04/08/2009 61 0.1 - 1.49E+08 S164 Storm Drain at Apache Ck below Elmendorf Dam 04/09/2009 < 1 - 0.5 1.22E+07 S163 Storm Drain at Apache Ck at El Paso and Picoso 04/09/2009 24000 - < 0.01 5.87E+09 S161 Apache Ck one mile upstrm from Brazos St. 04/09/2009 1900 - 0.3 1.39E+10 S156 Storm drain 2 at Apache Ck at the end of Potosi St. 04/08/2009 < 1 - < 0.01 2.45E+05 S153 Storm drain 1 at Apache Ck at the end of Potosi St. 04/08/2009 < 1 - < 0.01 2.45E+05 S155 Storm drain at Apache Ck upstream of Zarzamora 04/08/2009 10 - 0.055 1.34E+07 S157 Storm drain at Apache downstrm of Zarzamora 04/08/2009 450 - < 0.01 1.10E+08 S158 Storm drain at Apache Ck upstream of Navidad 04/08/2009 650 - < 0.01 1.59E+08 S154 Storm drain 2 at Trinity 04/08/2009 16000 - 0.079 3.09E+10 S151 Storm drain 1 at Trinity 04/08/2009 < 1 - 0.01 2.45E+05 S150 Storm drain 1 at Apache Ck downstrm of Trinity 04/08/2009 2000 - 0.0274 1.34E+09 S152 Storm drain 2 at Apache Ck downstrm of Trinity 04/08/2009 < 1 - 0.01 2.45E+05 18735 Apache Ck at Brazos St 04/08/2009 150 0.6 - 2.20E+09 S177 San Pedro Springs 04/06/2009 6 < 0.01 - 1.47E+06 20117 San Pedro Ck at Croft Trace St 04/06/2009 340 0.9 - 7.48E+09 S162 San Pedro Ck 3 miles upstrm of Probandt St. 04/06/2009 1900 - 1.5 6.97E+10 20119 San Pedro Ck Upstrm of Confluence with Alazan Ck 04/06/2009 380 6.9 - 6.41E+10 S148 Storm Drain San Pedro Ck upstrm IH-10 bridge 04/06/2009 < 1 - 0.2 4.89E+06

169

Table 2-28: E. coli Loading Analysis, April 2009 (Cont.) Sampling Flow Flow Station ID Location E. Coli Load Date Measured Estimated (cfu/100 ml) (cfs) (cfs) (cfu/day) Segment 1911 S147 Storm Drain 2 at San Pedro Ck at IH-10 04/06/2009 110 - 0.1 2.69E+08 S146 Storm Drain 1 at San Pedro Ck at IH-10 04/06/2009 1200 - < 0.01 2.93E+08 S145 Storm Drain at San Pedro Ck imm. dnstrm of IH-10 04/06/2009 620 - 0.061 9.25E+08 S144 Storm Drain at San Pedro Ck at Halstead Rd. 04/06/2009 10 - < 0.01 2.45E+06 S143 San Pedro Ck one mile upstrm of Probandt 04/06/2009 67 - 4.1 6.72E+09 S141 Seep at San Pedro Ck at Klein St. 04/06/2009 14 - 0.024 8.22E+06 S135 Storm drain 1 San Pedro Ck dnstrm of Mitchell St. 04/06/2009 3400 - 0.2 1.66E+10 S136 Storm drain 2 San Pedro Ck dnstrm of Mitchell St. 04/06/2009 48 - 0.75 8.80E+08 18736 San Pedro Ck at Probandt St 04/06/2009 180 6.6 - 2.90E+10 S134 San Pedro Ck upstream from confluence to SAR 04/06/2009 160 - 3.8 1.49E+10 Concrete Spg Opng on Concepcion Ck 50 yd abv W. S131 04/08/2009 93 - 1 2.27E+09 Malone S130 Concrete Spg Opng on Concepcion Ck at W. Malone 04/08/2009 140 - 1 3.42E+09 S129 Storm drain on Concepcion Ck blw Bishop 04/08/2009 1 - 0.2 4.89E+06 S128 Storm drain Concepcion Ck at Flores under road 04/08/2009 19 - 0.0315 1.46E+07 4 in. drain on lft bank on Concepcion 100 yd above S127 04/08/2009 < 1 - < 0.01 2.45E+05 Probandt S126 Concepcion Ck 180 yds abv SAR Confl. 04/08/2009 500 - 0.4 4.89E+09 S125 SAR near end of E. Hafer Ave 04/08/2009 6 - 14 2.05E+09 17066 SAR at 2nd Crossing of Mission Rd 04/08/2009 3 - 8.8 6.46E+08 S123 SAR 750 blw Southcross 04/08/2009 9 - 9.2 2.02E+09 S122 SAR adjacent to Padre Pk 04/08/2009 30 - 0.2 1.47E+08 S120 SAR dwnstrm loop 13 04/08/2009 6 - 0.2 2.93E+07 12899 SAR at Low Water Crossing for Padre Rd 04/08/2009 < 1 - 0.2 4.89E+06 S119 SAR at Ashley Rd. 04/09/2009 23 - 8 4.50E+09 S116 SAR 644 ft. upstrm of loop 410 bridge 04/09/2009 47 - 10 1.15E+10 SAR at IH 410 Low Water Crossing Camino 12897 04/09/2009 65 16 - 2.54E+10 Coahuilatechan S121 6 mile Ck head waters Wagner St. 04/09/2009 10 - < 0.01 2.45E+06 S118 6 mile Ck one mile upstrm of Roosevelt 04/09/2009 2 - 0.3 1.47E+07 12705 Six Mile Ck at Roosevelt Ave 04/09/2009 330 - 0.6 4.84E+09 S117 6 mile Ck at Ashley Rd. 04/09/2009 160 0 - 0.00E+00 Spring 200 yds blw low water crossing at Lp 410 on rt S115 04/14/2009 < 1 - < 0.01 2.45E+05 bank S114 Spring 300 yds blw Lp 410 low water xing 04/14/2009 9 - 0.016 3.52E+06 S113 SAR 3 mi. blw SAR at Lp 410 04/14/2009 76 - 13 2.42E+10 12894 SAR at Blue Wing Rd 04/14/2009 19 - 20 9.29E+09 S111 SAR 3 mi. blw SAR at Blue Wing Rd. 04/14/2009 23 - 17 9.56E+09 SAR Approx 835 M Upstrm of the Medina River 16731 04/14/2009 42 - 15 1.54E+10 Confluence 12811 Medina River at FM 1937 04/16/2009 41 - 56 5.61E+10 12889 SAR at IH 37 04/14/2009 30 - 150 1.10E+11 S109 SAR 3 miles dwnstrm of IH-37 04/14/2009 60 - 150 2.20E+11 S108 Spring at SAR 4 miles dwnstrm of IH-37 04/14/2009 450 - 0.0288 3.17E+08 S110 Spring at SAR 5 miles dwnstrm of IH-37 04/14/2009 1700 - 0.0837 3.48E+09 S107 Spring at SAR 6 miles dwnstrm of IH-37 04/14/2009 17 - 0.01 4.16E+06 12886 Dwnstrm of Lp 1604 W of Elmendorf 04/14/2009 37 150 - 1.36E+11 S105 3 mi blw SAR at Lp 1604 04/15/2009 55 - 150 2.02E+11 20355 Upper SAR at Wilson Cr 125 04/15/2009 44 - 150 1.61E+11 S104 3 mi blw SAR at CR 125 04/15/2009 34 - 150 1.25E+11 S106 Calaveras Ck 50 ft abv Confl. with SAR 04/15/2009 200 - 0.6 2.93E+09 12885 SAR at FM 3444 04/15/2009 19 - 149 6.92E+10 12884 SAR at Labatt Rd Bridge 04/15/2009 43 - 148 1.56E+11 S103 Spring SAR Immed. dwnstrm Labatt Rd. Bridge 04/15/2009 45 - < 0.01 1.10E+07 12883 SAR at Dietzfield Rd CR117 04/15/2009 42 - 148 1.52E+11 S102 Spring at SAR 6.5 miles dwnstrm Labatt Rd. 04/15/2009 52 - < 0.01 1.27E+07 S101 SAR 6 miles dwnstrm of Labatt Rd. 04/15/2009 250 - 147 8.99E+11 12882 SAR at FM 536 04/15/2009 100 - 147 3.59E+11 20350 Picosa Ck at SH 97 04/16/2009 26 0 - 0.00E+00 12881 SAR at SH 97 04/16/2009 100 147 - 3.59E+11 S100 SAR 3 mi. below HWY 97 04/16/2009 96 - 145 3.40E+11 S99 SAR 6 mi. below HWY 97 04/16/2009 86 - 143 3.01E+11 S98 SAR 9 mi. dwnstrm of HWY 97 04/16/2009 47 - 141 1.62E+11 S97 SAR 12 mi. dwnstrm of HWY 97 04/16/2009 78 - 139 2.65E+11 12880 SAR at FM 541 04/16/2009 70 - 139 2.38E+11 S96 3 mi. blw SAR at FM 541 04/16/2009 72 - 137 2.41E+11 S95 6 mi. blw SAR at FM 541 04/16/2009 82 - 135 2.71E+11 S94 9 mi. blw SAR at FM 541 04/16/2009 42 - 133 1.37E+11 S207 12 mi. blw SAR at FM 541 04/16/2009 45 - 131 1.44E+11 12879 SAR at FM 791 04/16/2009 13 131 - 4.16E+10

170

Table 2-28: E. coli Loading Analysis, April 2009 (Cont.) Sampling Flow Flow Station ID Location E. Coli Load Date Measured Estimated (cfu/100 ml) (cfs) (cfs) (cfu/day) Segment 1910 12877 Salado Ck 350 M Upstrm of IH 410/Loop 410 04/09/2009 24 0 - 0.00E+00 S203 Salado Ck 1 mi. below Los Patios 04/09/2009 46 0 - 0.00E+00 12701 Beitel Ck at Low Water Crossing 04/09/2009 220 0 - 0.00E+00 S202 Salado Ck 1000 ft. abv Austin Hwy 04/09/2009 33 - < 0.01 8.07E+06 S200 Unamed trib abv Austin Hwy 04/09/2009 26 - < 0.01 6.36E+06 12876 Salado Ck at Austin Hwy SH 368 04/09/2009 130 0.0488 - 1.55E+08 12875 Salado Ck at Eisenhauer Rd 04/13/2009 190 - 0.0818 3.80E+08 12874 Salado Ck at Rittiman Rd 04/13/2009 1800 < 0.01 - 4.40E+08 S194 Salado Ck Reuse 04/13/2009 2 - 2.4 1.17E+08 15642 Salado Ck off Holbrook Rd 04/13/2009 190 1.4 - 6.50E+09 Salado Ck appr. 1.6 mile dwnstrm of Salado Ck off S192 04/13/2009 150 - 2.6 9.54E+09 Holbrook R S191 Salado Ck 2 miles below Salado Ck at Holbrook 04/13/2009 79 - 1.6 3.09E+09 12872 Salado Ck at WW White Rd 04/13/2009 130 1.5 - 4.77E+09 12871 Salado Ck at IH 35 04/13/2009 41 2 - 2.00E+09 15644 Salado Ck at NE Corner of Pletz Park 04/13/2009 220 - 2 1.08E+10 12870 Salado Ck at Gembler Rd 04/13/2009 17 - 1.5 6.24E+08 S169 Storm Drain at Menger Ck upstrm of ATT Pkwy 04/09/2009 9300 - < 0.01 2.27E+09 12693 Menger Ck Immediatly Upstrm of Coliseum 04/09/2009 1 - < 0.01 2.45E+05 S168 Menger Ck upstrm to Salado Ck Confl. 04/13/2009 1800 - 0.1 4.40E+09 S167 Salado Ck Dwnstrm of Menger Ck Confl. 04/13/2009 470 - 5.9 6.78E+10 S166 Salado Ck 1 mile below Gembler 04/13/2009 580 - 1.4 1.99E+10 15645 Salado Ck Immediately Upstrm from Commerce St 04/13/2009 280 - 3.1 2.12E+10 Salado Ck Upstrm of Low Water Crossing in MLK 15646 04/13/2009 > 24000 5.1 - 2.99E+12 Park S149 Unamed Tributary to Salado Ck at Amanda St. 04/13/2009 3300 - 0.1 8.07E+09 12692 Unamed Tributary of Salado Ck in J St Park 04/13/2009 20000 0.1 - 4.89E+10 12868 Salado Ck at Rigsby Ave US 87 04/13/2009 630 - 3.8 5.85E+10 S133 Salado Ck at Roland Ave No. 2 04/13/2009 27 0 - 0.00E+00 S140 Salado Ck upstrm of Spring at Commanche Park 04/13/2009 330 - 7 5.65E+10 S139 Salado Ck at Salado Ck Spring in Commanche Park 04/13/2009 220 - 8.5 4.57E+10 Salado Ck dwnstrm of Salado Springs in Commanche S137 04/13/2009 220 - 6.4 3.44E+10 Park S138 Salado Ck Spring at Commanche Park 04/13/2009 82 - 0.083 1.66E+08 S132 Salado Ck at Roland Ave No. 1 East 04/13/2009 91 - 9.3 2.07E+10 S124 Salado Ck at Springview St 04/13/2009 72 - 9.6 1.69E+10 15647 Salado Ck Immed DwnStrm of E Southcross Blvd 04/13/2009 53 - 14 1.81E+10 12864 Salado Ck at Loop 13 04/13/2009 280 7.1 - 4.86E+10 12700 Rosillo Ck at IH 10 04/16/2009 3 - 0.021 1.54E+06 12862 Salado Ck at Goliad Rd Old Corpus Christi Hwy 04/16/2009 69 1.9 - 3.21E+09 12861 Salado Ck at Southon Rd 04/16/2009 11 - 1.9 5.11E+08 S112 Salado Ck 60 yds abv SAR Confl. 04/14/2009 53 - 1.9 2.46E+09 Segment 1910A 20359 Walzem Ck Dwnstrm of Intersection of Diamondhead 04/13/2009 490 - 0.038 4.55E+08 Dr S197 Pipe Walzem Ck at Juivan 04/13/2009 49 - 0.0611 7.32E+07 12698 Walzem Ck at Holbrook Rd 04/13/2009 1300 0.0342 - 1.09E+09

171

12912 12876 0 7.3 939 SAR at E. Hildebrand Salado Cr at Austin Hwy

15722 12908 12875 40 0.35 Zoo Outfall No SAR at Woodlawn Salado Cr at Eisenhauer 1 May 2009 18865 440 E. coli 109 cfu/day SAR Upstrm of Lexington 0.06

20118 12698 143 SAR at Houston 425 Walzem Cr at Holbrook

12905 20122 12874 7.6 0.04 SAR at Arsenal SAR Loop Salado Cr at Rittiman 12904 12872 12 4.8 SAR at Alamo Salado Cr at WW White

14220 12871 18 4.7 SAR at Lone Star Salado Cr at IH 35

11 14256 3.9 15644 SAR at W Mitchell Salado Cr at Pletz Park 0.91 4.0 15 12870 1.7 Salado Cr at Gembler 20117 20119 18736 17066 87 San Pedro San Pedro San Pedro Cr SAR at Mission 0.05 Cr at Croft Cr Upstrm at Probandt Trace of Alazan Cr 12693 4.8 Menger Cr

12705 12897 15645 29 5.9 Six Mile Cr at SAR at Lp 410 Salado Cr Upstrm from Commerce Roosevelt 2.3 15 15646 Salado Cr at MLK Park 18735 12715 12894 3.3 25 Apache Cr Alazan Cr at SAR at Blue Wing 0.85 at Brazos Tampico 24 16731 12692 SAR Upstrm of the Trib in J St 0.24 90 Medina R. Park

12751 12811 146 12889 2.46 12868 Martinez Cr Medina River SAR at IH 37 Salado Cr at Rigsby at Ruiz 12886 12864 175 129 SAR at Lp 1604 Salado Cr at Loop 13

20355 124 SAR at CR 125 0.0

12885 12689 149 SAR at FM 3444 Rosillo Cr

12884 12861 - 0.92 SAR at Labatt Salado Cr at Southon

102 12883 SAR at Dietzfield 12882 205 SAR at FM 536

12881 223 SAR at SH 97

12880 Key: - SAR at FM 541 Bacteria source indicated 12879 115 SAR at FM 791

Figure 2-64: E. coli Loading Analysis Schematic, May 2009 Survey

172

Table 2-29: E. coli Loading Analysis, May 2009 Flow Flow Station ID Location Sampling Date E. Coli Load Measured Estimated (cfu/100 ml) (cfs) (cfs) (cfu/day) Segment 1911 15086 SAR 550 m Dwnstrm of Olmos Dam 05/05/2009 - - - - 12912 SAR at E. Hildebrand 05/05/2009 1100 0 - 0.00E+00 18803 Zoo Outfall No 2 05/05/2009 2300 - 0.1 5.62E+09 15722 Zoo Outfall No 1 05/05/2009 12000 3.2 - 9.39E+11 12908 SAR at Woodlawn 05/05/2009 210 7.7 - 3.95E+10 18865 SAR Upstrm of Lexington 05/05/2009 1200 15 - 4.40E+11 20118 SAR at Houston 05/05/2009 530 - 11 1.43E+11 20122 SAR Loop 05/05/2009 5800 - 3 4.25E+11 12905 SAR at Arsenal 05/05/2009 130 - 2.4 7.63E+09 12904 SAR at Alamo 05/05/2009 170 3 - 1.25E+10 20361 SAR Tunnel Upstrm on Lone Star 05/05/2009 - - - - 14220 SAR at Lone Star 05/05/2009 130 5.7 - 1.81E+10 14256 SAR at W Mitchell 05/05/2009 62 7.5 - 1.14E+10 20117 San Pedro Cr at Croft Trace 05/04/2009 400 0.0933 - 9.13E+08 20119 San Pedro Cr Upstrm of Alazan Cr 05/04/2009 96 1.7 - 3.99E+09 12751 Martinez Cr at Ruiz 05/04/2009 99 0.1 - 2.42E+08 12715 Alazan Cr at Tampico 05/04/2009 450 0.3 - 3.30E+09 18735 Apache Cr at Brazos 05/04/2009 310 0.3 - 2.27E+09 18736 San Pedro Cr at Probandt 05/04/2009 180 3.4 - 1.50E+10 17066 SAR at Mission 05/04/2009 170 21 - 8.73E+10 12899 SAR at Padre 05/04/2009 62 - 3.1 4.70E+09 12897 SAR at Lp 410 05/04/2009 99 12 - 2.90E+10 12705 Six Mile Cr at Roosevelt 05/04/2009 490 - 0.4 4.79E+09 12894 SAR at Blue Wing 05/04/2009 72 - 14 2.46E+10 16731 SAR Upstrm of the Medina R. 05/05/2009 50 20 - 2.45E+10 12811 Medina River at FM 1937 05/05/2009 68 - 54 8.98E+10 12889 SAR at IH 37 05/04/2009 57 - 105 1.46E+11 12886 SAR at Lp 1604 05/05/2009 68 105 - 1.75E+11 20355 SAR at CR 125 05/05/2009 46 - 110 1.24E+11 20357 Calavaras Cr at CR 125 05/05/2009 200 0.4 - 1.96E+09 12885 SAR at FM 3444 05/05/2009 53 - 115 1.49E+11 12884 SAR at Labatt 05/05/2009 - - 120 - 12883 SAR at Dietzfield 05/05/2009 34 - 123 1.02E+11 20352 Seguin Branch at Business Lp 181 05/05/2009 1300 0 - 0.00E+00 12882 SAR at FM 536 05/05/2009 66 - 127 2.05E+11 12881 SAR at SH 97 05/05/2009 70 130 - 2.23E+11 20351 Pajarito Cr at Business Lp 181 05/05/2009 - 0 - - 20350 Picosa Cr at SH 97 05/05/2009 32 0 - 0.00E+00 12879 SAR at FM 791 05/05/2009 40 118 - 1.15E+11 Segment 1910 12877 Salado Cr Upstrm of Loop 410 05/06/2009 29 0 - 0.00E+00 20358 Beitel Cr at Thousand Oaks 05/06/2009 - 0 - - 12701 Beitel Cr at Low Water Crossing 05/06/2009 190 0 - 0.00E+00 12876 Salado Cr at Austin Hwy 05/06/2009 1500 0.2 - 7.34E+09 12875 Salado Cr at Eisenhauer 05/06/2009 71 - 0.2 3.47E+08 12874 Salado Cr at Rittiman 05/06/2009 150 < 0.01 - 3.67E+07 15642 Salado Cr off Holbrook 05/06/2009 120 0.4 - 1.17E+09 12872 Salado Cr at WW White 05/06/2009 140 1.4 - 4.79E+09 12871 Salado Cr at IH 35 05/06/2009 120 1.6 - 4.69E+09 15644 Salado Cr at Pletz Park 05/06/2009 100 - 1.6 3.91E+09 12870 Salado Cr at Gembler 05/06/2009 39 - 1.8 1.72E+09 12693 Menger Cr Upstrm of Coliseum 05/07/2009 180 - 0.01215 5.35E+07 15645 Salado Cr Upstrm from Commerce 05/07/2009 150 - 1.6 5.87E+09 15646 Salado Cr at MLK Park 05/07/2009 330 1.9 - 1.53E+10 12692 Trib in J St Park 05/07/2009 590 0.0587 - 8.47E+08 12868 Salado Cr at Rigsby 05/07/2009 53 - 1.9 2.46E+09 15647 Salado Cr DwnStrm of E Southcross 05/07/2009 110 - 3.4 9.14E+09 12864 Salado Cr at Loop 13 05/07/2009 3100 1.7 - 1.29E+11 12700 Rosillo Cr at IH 10 05/07/2009 24 - 0.2 1.17E+08 12699 Rosillo Cr at Sinclair 05/07/2009 - 0 - - 12689 Rosillo Cr 05/07/2009 - 0 - - 12862 Salado Cr at Old Corpus Christi Hwy 05/07/2009 48 2.5 - 2.93E+09 12861 Salado Cr at Southon 05/07/2009 15 - 2.5 9.17E+08 Segment 1910A 20359 Walzem Cr Dwnstrm of Diamondhead 05/06/2009 590 - < 0.01 1.44E+08 12698 Walzem Cr at Holbrook 05/06/2009 130 0.0193 - 6.13E+07

173

12912 12876 0 6.4 176 SAR at E. Hildebrand Salado Cr at Austin Hwy

15722 12908 12875 30 1.2 Zoo Outfall No SAR at Woodlawn Salado Cr at Eisenhauer 1 Jun. 2009 18865 33 E. coli 109 cfu/day SAR Upstrm of Lexington 1.5

20118 12698 211 SAR at Houston 56 Walzem Cr at Holbrook

12905 20122 12874 100 0.07 SAR at Arsenal SAR Loop Salado Cr at Rittiman 12904 12872 88 2.1 SAR at Alamo Salado Cr at WW White

14220 12871 24 2.4 SAR at Lone Star Salado Cr at IH 35

11 14256 3.1 15644 SAR at W Mitchell Salado Cr at Pletz Park 124 4.8 12 12870 4.7 Salado Cr at Gembler 20117 20119 18736 17066 127 San Pedro San Pedro San Pedro Cr SAR at Mission 1.6 Cr at Croft Cr Upstrm at Probandt Trace of Alazan Cr 12693 9.7 Menger Cr

12705 12897 15645 9.9 4.1 Six Mile Cr at SAR at Lp 410 Salado Cr Upstrm from Commerce Roosevelt 4.3 3.0 15646 Salado Cr at MLK Park 18735 12715 12894 0.90 13 Apache Cr Alazan Cr at SAR at Blue Wing 0.47 at Brazos Tampico 31 16731 12692 SAR Upstrm of the Trib in J St 2.8 115 Medina R. Park

12751 12811 359 12889 7.4 12868 Martinez Cr Medina River SAR at IH 37 Salado Cr at Rigsby at Ruiz 12886 12864 447 51 SAR at Lp 1604 Salado Cr at Loop 13

20355 321 SAR at CR 125 0.0

12885 12689 259 SAR at FM 3444 Rosillo Cr

12884 12861 335 2.1 SAR at Labatt Salado Cr at Southon

309 12883 SAR at Dietzfield 12882 742 SAR at FM 536

12881 610 SAR at SH 97

12880 Key: - SAR at FM 541 Bacteria source indicated 12879 197 SAR at FM 791

Figure 2-65: E. coli Loading Analysis Schematic, June 2009 Survey

174

Table 2-30: E. coli Loading Analysis, June 2009 Sampling Station ID Location E. Coli Flow Measured Flow Estimated Load Date (cfu/100 ml) (cfs) (cfs) (cfu/day) Segment 1911 12912 SAR at E. Hildebrand 06/01/2009 570 0 - 0.00E+00 18803 Zoo Outfall No 2 06/01/2009 1000 - 0.2 4.89E+09 15722 Zoo Outfall No 1 06/01/2009 12000 0.6 - 1.76E+11 12908 SAR at Woodlawn 06/01/2009 200 6.2 - 3.03E+10 14219 SAR at W Jones 06/01/2009 75 - 6.6 1.21E+10 20360 SAR Tunnel Inlet 06/01/2009 130 38 - 1.21E+11 18865 SAR Upstrm of Lexington 06/01/2009 340 - 4 3.33E+10 20118 SAR at Houston 06/01/2009 1600 - 5.4 2.11E+11 20122 SAR Loop 06/01/2009 1100 - 2.1 5.65E+10 12905 SAR at Arsenal 06/01/2009 520 - 7.9 1.00E+11 12904 SAR at Alamo 06/01/2009 190 19 - 8.83E+10 20361 SAR Tunnel Upstrm on Lone Star 06/01/2009 190 - 1 4.65E+09 14220 SAR at Lone Star 06/01/2009 140 7.1 - 2.43E+10 14256 SAR at W Mitchell 06/01/2009 43 10 - 1.05E+10 20117 San Pedro Cr at Croft Trace 06/01/2009 4600 1.1 - 1.24E+11 20119 San Pedro Cr Upstrm of Alazan Cr 06/01/2009 140 1.4 - 4.79E+09 12751 Martinez Cr at Ruiz 06/01/2009 1700 0.0677 - 2.81E+09 12715 Alazan Cr at Tampico 06/01/2009 370 0.1 - 9.05E+08 18735 Apache Cr at Brazos 06/01/2009 250 0.7 - 4.28E+09 18736 San Pedro Cr at Probandt 06/01/2009 180 2.7 - 1.19E+10 17066 SAR at Mission 06/01/2009 370 14 - 1.27E+11 12899 SAR at Padre 06/01/2009 80 0 - 0.00E+00 12897 SAR at Lp 410 06/01/2009 79 5.1 - 9.85E+09 12705 Six Mile Cr at Roosevelt 06/01/2009 990 - 0.4 9.68E+09 12894 SAR at Blue Wing 06/01/2009 64 - 8.2 1.28E+10 16731 SAR Upstrm of the Medina R. 06/02/2009 78 16 - 3.05E+10 12811 Medina River at FM 1937 06/02/2009 84 - 56 1.15E+11 12889 SAR at IH 37 06/01/2009 73 - 201 3.59E+11 12886 SAR at Lp 1604 06/02/2009 91 201 - 4.47E+11 20355 SAR at CR 125 06/02/2009 62 - 212 3.21E+11 20357 Calavaras Cr at CR 125 06/02/2009 56 0.5 - 6.85E+08 12885 SAR at FM 3444 06/02/2009 47 - 225 2.59E+11 12884 SAR at Labatt 06/02/2009 58 - 236 3.35E+11 12883 SAR at Dietzfield 06/02/2009 52 - 243 3.09E+11 12882 SAR at FM 536 06/02/2009 120 - 253 7.42E+11 12881 SAR at SH 97 06/02/2009 96 260 - 6.10E+11 20350 Picosa Cr at SH 97 06/02/2009 68 0 - 0.00E+00 12880 SAR at FM 541 06/02/2009 - - - - 12879 SAR at FM 791 06/02/2009 36 224 - 1.97E+11 Segment 1910 12877 Salado Cr Upstrm of Loop 410 06/02/2009 120 0 - 0.00E+00 12701 Beitel Cr at Low Water Crossing 06/02/2009 230 0 - 0.00E+00 12876 Salado Cr at Austin Hwy 06/02/2009 1300 0.2 - 6.36E+09 12875 Salado Cr at Eisenhauer 06/02/2009 250 - 0.2 1.22E+09 12874 Salado Cr at Rittiman 06/02/2009 290 < 0.01 - 7.09E+07 15642 Salado Cr off Holbrook 06/02/2009 93 0.3 - 6.82E+08 12872 Salado Cr at WW White 06/02/2009 56 1.5 - 2.05E+09 12871 Salado Cr at IH 35 06/02/2009 50 2 - 2.45E+09 15644 Salado Cr at Pletz Park 06/02/2009 63 - 2 3.08E+09 12870 Salado Cr at Gembler 06/02/2009 88 - 2.2 4.73E+09 12693 Menger Cr Upstrm of Coliseum 06/03/2009 1500 - 0.044352 1.63E+09 15645 Salado Cr Upstrm from Commerce 06/03/2009 98 - 1.7 4.07E+09 15646 Salado Cr at MLK Park 06/03/2009 68 1.8 - 2.99E+09 12692 Trib in J St Park 06/03/2009 560 0.0344 - 4.71E+08 12868 Salado Cr at Rigsby 06/03/2009 160 - 1.9 7.43E+09 15647 Salado Cr DwnStrm of E Southcross 06/03/2009 170 - 3.2 1.33E+10 12864 Salado Cr at Loop 13 06/03/2009 910 2.3 - 5.12E+10 12700 Rosillo Cr at IH 10 06/03/2009 1 - 0.04896 1.20E+06 12699 Rosillo Cr at Sinclair 06/03/2009 470 - 0.1 1.15E+09 12689 Rosillo Cr 06/03/2009 48 0.0418 - 4.91E+07 12862 Salado Cr at Old Corpus Christi Hwy 06/03/2009 15 2.7 - 9.90E+08 12861 Salado Cr at Southon 06/03/2009 32 - 2.7 2.11E+09 Segment 1910A 20359 Walzem Cr Dwnstrm of Diamondhead 06/02/2009 2600 - 0.07984 5.08E+09 12698 Walzem Cr at Holbrook 06/02/2009 1600 0.0385 - 1.51E+09

175

12912 12876 0 0.09 699 SAR at E. Hildebrand Salado Cr at Austin Hwy

15722 12908 12875 68 0.0 Zoo Outfall No SAR at Woodlawn Salado Cr at Eisenhauer 1 Jul. 2009 18865 88 E. coli 109 cfu/day SAR Upstrm of Lexington 0.04

20118 12698 109 SAR at Houston 116 Walzem Cr at Holbrook

12905 20122 12874 48 0.31 SAR at Arsenal SAR Loop Salado Cr at Rittiman 12904 12872 220 1.9 SAR at Alamo Salado Cr at WW White

14220 12871 114 41 SAR at Lone Star Salado Cr at IH 35

26 14256 4.6 15644 SAR at W Mitchell Salado Cr at Pletz Park - 0.59 7.9 12870 5.5 Salado Cr at Gembler 20117 20119 18736 17066 86 San Pedro San Pedro San Pedro Cr SAR at Mission 0.0 Cr at Croft Cr Upstrm at Probandt Trace of Alazan Cr 12693 - Menger Cr

12705 12897 15645 457 3.8 Six Mile Cr at SAR at Lp 410 Salado Cr Upstrm from Commerce Roosevelt 25 0.51 15646 Salado Cr at MLK Park 18735 12715 12894 0.15 9.2 Apache Cr Alazan Cr at SAR at Blue Wing 0.20 at Brazos Tampico 23 16731 12692 SAR Upstrm of the Trib in J St 5.2 168 Medina R. Park

12751 12811 401 12889 0.0 12868 Martinez Cr Medina River SAR at IH 37 Salado Cr at Rigsby at Ruiz 12886 12864 619 0.12 SAR at Lp 1604 Salado Cr at Loop 13

20355 403 SAR at CR 125 -

12885 12689 409 SAR at FM 3444 Rosillo Cr

12884 12861 1167 0.03 SAR at Labatt Salado Cr at Southon

328 12883 SAR at Dietzfield 12882 238 SAR at FM 536

12881 381 SAR at SH 97

12880 Key: - SAR at FM 541 Bacteria source indicated 12879 4.3 SAR at FM 791

Figure 2-66: E. coli Loading Analysis Schematic, July 2009 Survey

176

Table 2-31: E. coli Loading Analysis, July 2009 Sampling Station ID Location E. Coli Flow Measured Flow Estimated Load Date (cfu/100 ml) (cfs) (cfs) (cfu/day) Segment 1911 12912 SAR at E. Hildebrand 07/13/2009 350 0 - 0.00E+00 18803 Zoo Outfall No 2 07/13/2009 1200 - 0.2 5.87E+09 15722 Zoo Outfall No 1 07/13/2009 13000 2.2 - 6.99E+11 12908 SAR at Woodlawn 07/13/2009 380 7.3 - 6.78E+10 20360 SAR Tunnel Inlet 07/13/2009 45 49 - 5.39E+10 14219 SAR at W Jones 07/13/2009 510 - 47 5.86E+11 18865 SAR Upstrm of Lexington 07/13/2009 150 - 24 8.80E+10 20118 SAR at Houston 07/13/2009 550 - 8.1 1.09E+11 20122 SAR Loop 07/13/2009 3400 - 1.4 1.16E+11 12905 SAR at Arsenal 07/13/2009 150 - 13 4.77E+10 12904 SAR at Alamo 07/13/2009 180 50 - 2.20E+11 14220 SAR at Lone Star 07/13/2009 310 - 15 1.14E+11 14256 SAR at W Mitchell 07/13/2009 110 9.7 - 2.61E+10 20119 San Pedro Cr Upstrm of Alazan Cr 07/13/2009 240 0.1 - 5.87E+08 12751 Martinez Cr at Ruiz 07/13/2009 2400 0.089 - 5.22E+09 12715 Alazan Cr at Tampico 07/13/2009 100 0.0623 - 1.52E+08 18735 Apache Cr at Brazos 07/13/2009 2600 0.4 - 2.54E+10 18736 San Pedro Cr at Probandt 07/13/2009 460 0.7 - 7.87E+09 17066 SAR at Mission 07/13/2009 320 11 - 8.61E+10 12899 SAR at Padre 07/13/2009 1 0 - 0.00E+00 12897 SAR at Lp 410 07/13/2009 1100 17 - 4.57E+11 12894 SAR at Blue Wing 07/13/2009 21 - 18 9.24E+09 16731 SAR Upstrm of the Medina R. 07/14/2009 240 4 - 2.35E+10 12811 Medina River at FM 1937 07/14/2009 140 - 49 1.68E+11 12889 SAR at IH 37 07/13/2009 110 - 149 4.01E+11 12886 SAR at Lp 1604 07/14/2009 170 149 - 6.19E+11 20355 SAR at CR 125 07/14/2009 110 - 150 4.03E+11 20357 Calavaras Cr at CR 125 07/14/2009 61 0.5 - 7.46E+08 12885 SAR at FM 3444 07/14/2009 110 - 152 4.09E+11 12884 SAR at Labatt 07/14/2009 310 - 154 1.17E+12 12883 SAR at Dietzfield 07/14/2009 86 - 156 3.28E+11 12882 SAR at FM 536 07/14/2009 62 - 157 2.38E+11 12881 SAR at SH 97 07/14/2009 130 120 - 3.81E+11 20350 Picosa Cr at SH 97 07/14/2009 17 0 - 0.00E+00 12879 SAR at FM 791 07/14/2009 2 87 - 4.25E+09 Segment 1910 12877 Salado Cr Upstrm of Loop 410 07/14/2009 21 0 - 0.00E+00 12701 Beitel Cr at Low Water Crossing 07/14/2009 230 0 - 0.00E+00 12876 Salado Cr at Austin Hwy 07/14/2009 370 < 0.01 - 9.05E+07 12875 Salado Cr at Eisenhauer 07/14/2009 21 0 - 0.00E+00 12874 Salado Cr at Rittiman 07/14/2009 490 0.0256 - 3.07E+08 15642 Salado Cr off Holbrook 07/14/2009 290 0.9 - 6.38E+09 12872 Salado Cr at WW White 07/14/2009 69 1.1 - 1.86E+09 12871 Salado Cr at IH 35 07/14/2009 990 1.7 - 4.12E+10 15644 Salado Cr at Pletz Park 07/14/2009 110 - 1.7 4.57E+09 12870 Salado Cr at Gembler 07/14/2009 140 - 1.6 5.48E+09 12693 Menger Cr Upstrm of Coliseum 07/15/2009 9 - < 0.01 2.20E+06 15645 Salado Cr Upstrm from Commerce 07/15/2009 110 - 1.4 3.77E+09 15646 Salado Cr at MLK Park 07/15/2009 13 1.6 - 5.09E+08 12692 Trib in J St Park 07/15/2009 200 0.0416 - 2.03E+08 12868 Salado Cr at Rigsby 07/15/2009 10 - < 0.01 2.45E+06 15647 Salado Cr DwnStrm of E Southcross 07/15/2009 350 0 - 0.00E+00 12864 Salado Cr at Loop 13 07/15/2009 120 0.04 - 1.17E+08 12700 Rosillo Cr at IH 10 07/15/2009 8 0 - 0.00E+00 12862 Salado Cr at Old Corpus Christi Hwy 07/15/2009 22 0 - 0.00E+00 12861 Salado Cr at Southon 07/15/2009 11 - 0.1 2.69E+07 Segment 1910A 20359 Walzem Cr Dwnstrm of Diamondhead 07/14/2009 4100 - < 0.01 1.00E+09 12698 Walzem Cr at Holbrook 07/14/2009 51 0.0344 - 4.29E+07

177

12912 12876 0 0.0 381 SAR at E. Hildebrand Salado Cr at Austin Hwy

15722 12908 12875 67 0.0 Zoo Outfall No SAR at Woodlawn Salado Cr at Eisenhauer 1 Aug. 2009 18865 27 E. coli 109 cfu/day SAR Upstrm of Lexington 0.002

20118 12698 180 SAR at Houston 30 Walzem Cr at Holbrook

12905 20122 12874 35 0.0 SAR at Arsenal SAR Loop Salado Cr at Rittiman 12904 12872 77 3.2 SAR at Alamo Salado Cr at WW White

14220 12871 20 4.1 SAR at Lone Star Salado Cr at IH 35

40 14256 0.40 15644 SAR at W Mitchell Salado Cr at Pletz Park - 0.11 10 12870 1.1 Salado Cr at Gembler 20117 20119 18736 17066 108 San Pedro San Pedro San Pedro Cr SAR at Mission 0.27 Cr at Croft Cr Upstrm at Probandt Trace of Alazan Cr 12693 1.5 Menger Cr

12705 12897 15645 9.7 3.9 Six Mile Cr at SAR at Lp 410 Salado Cr Upstrm from Commerce Roosevelt 12 0.69 15646 Salado Cr at MLK Park 18735 12715 12894 4.5 8.3 Apache Cr Alazan Cr at SAR at Blue Wing 0.03 at Brazos Tampico 3.6 16731 12692 SAR Upstrm of the Trib in J St 0.0 94 Medina R. Park

12751 12811 234 12889 0.003 12868 Martinez Cr Medina River SAR at IH 37 Salado Cr at Rigsby at Ruiz 12886 12864 489 0.4 SAR at Lp 1604 Salado Cr at Loop 13

20355 315 SAR at CR 125 0.0

12885 12689 455 SAR at FM 3444 Rosillo Cr

12884 12861 176 0.01 SAR at Labatt Salado Cr at Southon

89 12883 SAR at Dietzfield 12882 175 SAR at FM 536

12881 166 SAR at SH 97

12880 Key: - SAR at FM 541 Bacteria source indicated 12879 149 SAR at FM 791

Figure 2-67: E. coli Loading Analysis Schematic, August 2009 Survey

178

Table 2-32: E. coli Loading Analysis, August 2009 Sampling Station ID Location E. Coli Flow Measured Flow Estimated Load Date (cfu/100 ml) (cfs) (cfs) (cfu/day) Segment 1911 15086 SAR 550 m Dwnstrm of Olmos Dam 08/10/2009 > 0 - - - 12912 SAR at E. Hildebrand 08/10/2009 340 0 - 0.00E+00 18803 Zoo Outfall No 2 08/10/2009 1500 - 0.05 1.83E+09 15722 Zoo Outfall No 1 08/10/2009 13000 1.2 - 3.81E+11 12908 SAR at Woodlawn 08/10/2009 410 6.7 - 6.72E+10 20360 SAR Tunnel Inlet 08/10/2009 6 50 - 7.34E+09 14219 SAR at W Jones 08/10/2009 16 - 4.5 1.76E+09 18865 SAR Upstrm of Lexington 08/10/2009 51 - 22 2.74E+10 20118 SAR at Houston 08/10/2009 460 - 16 1.80E+11 20122 SAR Loop 08/10/2009 880 - 1.4 3.01E+10 12905 SAR at Arsenal 08/10/2009 180 - 8 3.52E+10 12904 SAR at Alamo 08/10/2009 73 43 - 7.68E+10 20361 SAR Tunnel Upstrm on Lone Star 08/10/2009 18 - 20 8.80E+09 14220 SAR at Lone Star 08/10/2009 26 - 31 1.97E+10 14256 SAR at W Mitchell 08/10/2009 190 8.6 - 4.00E+10 20117 San Pedro Cr at Croft Trace 08/10/2009 0 - - - 20119 San Pedro Cr Upstrm of Alazan Cr 08/10/2009 47 0.0986 - 1.13E+08 12751 Martinez Cr at Ruiz 08/10/2009 16 0 - 0.00E+00 12715 Alazan Cr at Tampico 08/10/2009 910 0.2 - 4.45E+09 18735 Apache Cr at Brazos 08/10/2009 1700 0.3 - 1.25E+10 18736 San Pedro Cr at Probandt 08/10/2009 590 0.7 - 1.01E+10 17066 SAR at Mission 08/10/2009 260 17 - 1.08E+11 12899 SAR at Padre 08/10/2009 28 0 - 0.00E+00 12897 SAR at Lp 410 08/10/2009 55 7.2 - 9.68E+09 12705 Six Mile Cr at Roosevelt 08/10/2009 2100 - 0.03 1.54E+09 12894 SAR at Blue Wing 08/10/2009 47 - 7.2 8.27E+09 16731 SAR Upstrm of the Medina R. 08/11/2009 57 2.6 - 3.62E+09 12811 Medina River at FM 1937 08/11/2009 89 - 43 9.36E+10 12889 SAR at IH 37 08/10/2009 110 - 87 2.34E+11 12886 SAR at Lp 1604 08/11/2009 230 87 - 4.89E+11 20355 SAR at CR 125 08/11/2009 140 - 92 3.15E+11 20357 Calavaras Cr at CR 125 08/11/2009 64 0.0651 - 1.02E+08 12885 SAR at FM 3444 08/11/2009 190 - 98 4.55E+11 12884 SAR at Labatt 08/11/2009 70 - 103 1.76E+11 20354 Unamed Trib of Upper SAR at FM 3444 and FM 775 08/11/2009 > 0 - - - 12883 SAR at Dietzfield 08/11/2009 34 - 107 8.90E+10 20353 Kicaster Cr at Business Lp 181 08/11/2009 > 0 - - - 20352 Seguin Branch at Business Lp 181 08/11/2009 > 0 0 - 0.00E+00 12882 SAR at FM 536 08/11/2009 64 - 112 1.75E+11 12881 SAR at SH 97 08/11/2009 59 115 - 1.66E+11 20351 Pajarito Cr at Business Lp 181 08/11/2009 > 0 - - - 20350 Picosa Cr at SH 97 08/11/2009 120 0 - 0.00E+00 12880 SAR at FM 541 08/11/2009 > 0 - - - 12879 SAR at FM 791 08/11/2009 70 87 - 1.49E+11 Segment 1910 12877 Salado Cr Upstrm of Loop 410 08/11/2009 99 0 - 0.00E+00 20358 Beitel Cr at Thousand Oaks 08/11/2009 > 0 - - - 12701 Beitel Cr at Low Water Crossing 08/11/2009 110 0 - 0.00E+00 12876 Salado Cr at Austin Hwy 08/11/2009 150 0 - 0.00E+00 12875 Salado Cr at Eisenhauer 08/11/2009 > 0 0 - 0.00E+00 12874 Salado Cr at Rittiman 08/11/2009 2500 0 - 0.00E+00 15642 Salado Cr off Holbrook 08/11/2009 280 < 0.01 - 6.85E+07 12872 Salado Cr at WW White 08/11/2009 72 1.8 - 3.17E+09 12871 Salado Cr at IH 35 08/11/2009 420 0.4 - 4.11E+09 15644 Salado Cr at Pletz Park 08/11/2009 41 - 0.4 4.01E+08 12870 Salado Cr at Gembler 08/11/2009 86 - 0.5 1.05E+09 12693 Menger Cr Upstrm of Coliseum 08/12/2009 110 - 0.1 2.69E+08 15645 Salado Cr Upstrm from Commerce 08/12/2009 200 - 0.8 3.91E+09 15646 Salado Cr at MLK Park 08/12/2009 71 0.4 - 6.94E+08 12692 Trib in J St Park 08/12/2009 120 0.01 - 2.93E+07 12868 Salado Cr at Rigsby 08/12/2009 13 - < 0.01 3.18E+06 15647 Salado Cr DwnStrm of E Southcross 08/12/2009 28 - 0.3 2.05E+08 12864 Salado Cr at Loop 13 08/12/2009 32 0.52 - 4.07E+08 12700 Rosillo Cr at IH 10 08/12/2009 > 0 0 - 0.00E+00 12699 Rosillo Cr at Sinclair 08/12/2009 > 0 - - - 12689 Rosillo Cr 08/12/2009 > 0 - - - 12862 Salado Cr at Old Corpus Christi Hwy 08/12/2009 > 0 0 - 0.00E+00 12861 Salado Cr at Southon 08/12/2009 26 - 0.01 6.36E+06 Segment 1910A 20356 Walzem Cr at Lanark 08/11/2009 > 0 - - - 20359 Walzem Cr Dwnstrm of Diamondhead 08/11/2009 510 - < 0.01 1.25E+08 12698 Walzem Cr at Holbrook 08/11/2009 9 - < 0.01 2.20E+06

179

12912 12876 0 - 411 SAR at E. Hildebrand Salado Cr at Austin Hwy

15722 12908 12875 71 - Zoo Outfall No SAR at Woodlawn Salado Cr at Eisenhauer 1 September 8, 2009 18865 56 E. coli 109 cfu/day SAR Upstrm of Lexington -

20118 12698 532 SAR at Houston 84 Walzem Cr at Holbrook

12905 20122 12874 323 - SAR at Arsenal SAR Loop Salado Cr at Rittiman 12904 12872 442 - SAR at Alamo Salado Cr at WW White

14220 12871 133 - SAR at Lone Star Salado Cr at IH 35

20 14256 - 15644 SAR at W Mitchell Salado Cr at Pletz Park - 849 11 12870 - Salado Cr at Gembler 20117 20119 18736 17066 26 San Pedro San Pedro San Pedro Cr SAR at Mission - Cr at Croft Cr Upstrm at Probandt Trace of Alazan Cr 12693 54 Menger Cr

12705 12897 15645 26 - Six Mile Cr at SAR at Lp 410 Salado Cr Upstrm from Commerce Roosevelt 4.5 - 15646 Salado Cr at MLK Park 18735 12715 12894 11 17 Apache Cr Alazan Cr at SAR at Blue Wing - at Brazos Tampico - 16731 12692 SAR Upstrm of the Trib in J St Park 0.0 - Medina R.

12751 12811 104 12889 - 12868 Martinez Cr Medina River SAR at IH 37 Salado Cr at Rigsby at Ruiz 12886 12864 - - SAR at Lp 1604 Salado Cr at Loop 13

20355 - SAR at CR 125 -

12885 12689 - SAR at FM 3444 Rosillo Cr

12884 12861 - - SAR at Labatt Salado Cr at Southon

- 12883 SAR at Dietzfield 12882 - SAR at FM 536

12881 - SAR at SH 97

12880 Key: - SAR at FM 541 Bacteria source indicated 12879 - SAR at FM 791

Figure 2-68: E. coli Loading Analysis Schematic, September 8, 2009 Survey

180

Table 2-33: E. coli Loading Analysis, September 8, 2009 Sampling Station ID Location E. Coli Flow Measured Flow Estimated Load Temp Date (cfu/100 ml) (cfs) (cfs) (cfu/day) (C°) Segment 1911 15086 SAR 550 m Dw nstrm of Olmos Dam 09/08/2009 0 - - - - 12912 SAR at E. Hildebrand 09/08/2009 11000 0 - 0.00E+00 26.1 18803 Zoo Outfall No 2 09/08/2009 12000 - 1.6 4.69E+11 24.6 15722 Zoo Outfall No 1 09/08/2009 14000 1.2 - 4.11E+11 24.4 12908 SAR at Woodlaw n 09/08/2009 390 7.4 - 7.06E+10 27.5 20360 SAR Tunnel Inlet 09/08/2009 100 56 - 1.37E+11 27.8 14219 SAR at W Jones 09/08/2009 70 - 25 4.28E+10 27.6 18865 SAR Upstrm of Lexington 09/08/2009 69 - 33 5.57E+10 27.6 20118 SAR at Houston 09/08/2009 640 - 34 5.32E+11 27.5 20122 SAR Loop 09/08/2009 1900 - 1.8 8.36E+10 27.2 12905 SAR at Arsenal 09/08/2009 550 - 24 3.23E+11 28.3 12904 SAR at Alamo 09/08/2009 420 43 - 4.42E+11 28.2 20361 SAR Tunnel Upstrm on Lone Star 09/08/2009 0 - - - - 14220 SAR at Lone Star 09/08/2009 340 - 16 1.33E+11 28.9 14256 SAR at W Mitchell 09/08/2009 88 9.1 - 1.96E+10 28.8 20117 San Pedro Cr at Croft Trace 09/08/2009 0 - - - - 20119 San Pedro Cr Upstrm of Alazan Cr 09/08/2009 3900 8.9 - 8.49E+11 26.8 12751 Martinez Cr at Ruiz 09/08/2009 150 0 - 0.00E+00 27.8 12715 Alazan Cr at Tampico 09/08/2009 640 0.7 - 1.10E+10 25.4 18735 Apache Cr at Brazos 09/08/2009 370 0.5 - 4.52E+09 25.2 18736 San Pedro Cr at Probandt 09/08/2009 220 2.1 - 1.13E+10 26.9 17066 SAR at Mission 09/08/2009 83 13 - 2.64E+10 27.2 12899 SAR at Padre 09/08/2009 61 0 - 0.00E+00 28.4 12897 SAR at Lp 410 09/08/2009 120 9 - 2.64E+10 29.3 12705 Six Mile Cr at Roosevelt 09/08/2009 11000 - 0.2 5.38E+10 31.6 12894 SAR at Blue Wing 09/08/2009 62 - 11 1.67E+10 29.4 12889 SAR at IH 37 09/08/2009 41 - 104 1.04E+11 30.2

181

12912 12876 0 - 445 SAR at E. Hildebrand Salado Cr at Austin Hwy

15722 12908 12875 116 - Zoo Outfall No SAR at Woodlawn Salado Cr at Eisenhauer 1 September 21, 2009 18865 172 E. coli 109 cfu/day SAR Upstrm of Lexington -

20118 12698 42 SAR at Houston 223 Walzem Cr at Holbrook

12905 20122 12874 108 - SAR at Arsenal SAR Loop Salado Cr at Rittiman 12904 12872 624 - SAR at Alamo Salado Cr at WW White

14220 12871 55 - SAR at Lone Star Salado Cr at IH 35

34 14256 - 15644 SAR at W Mitchell Salado Cr at Pletz Park 5.9 0.19 13 12870 - Salado Cr at Gembler 20117 20119 18736 17066 65 San Pedro San Pedro San Pedro Cr SAR at Mission - Cr at Croft Cr Upstrm at Probandt Trace of Alazan Cr 12693 1.6 Menger Cr

12705 12897 15645 21 - Six Mile Cr at SAR at Lp 410 Salado Cr Upstrm from Commerce Roosevelt 8.8 - 15646 Salado Cr at MLK Park 18735 12715 12894 1.8 13 Apache Cr Alazan Cr at SAR at Blue Wing - at Brazos Tampico - 16731 12692 SAR Upstrm of the Trib in J St Park 0.0 - Medina R.

12751 12811 279 12889 - 12868 Martinez Cr Medina River SAR at IH 37 Salado Cr at Rigsby at Ruiz 12886 12864 - - SAR at Lp 1604 Salado Cr at Loop 13

20355 - SAR at CR 125 -

12885 12689 - SAR at FM 3444 Rosillo Cr

12884 12861 - - SAR at Labatt Salado Cr at Southon

- 12883 SAR at Dietzfield 12882 - SAR at FM 536

12881 - SAR at SH 97

12880 Key: - SAR at FM 541 Bacteria source indicated 12879 - SAR at FM 791

Figure 2-69: E. coli Loading Analysis Schematic, September 21, 2009 Survey

182

Table 2-34: E. coli Loading Analysis, September 21, 2009 Sampling Station ID Location E. Coli Flow Measured Flow Estimated Load Temp Date (cfu/100 ml) (cfs) (cfs) (cfu/day) (C°) Segment 1911 15086 SAR 550 m Dw nstrm of Olmos Dam 09/21/2009 0 - - - - 12912 SAR at E. Hildebrand 09/21/2009 160 0 - 0.00E+00 25.8 18803 Zoo Outfall No 2 09/21/2009 2100 - 0.1 5.13E+09 24.6 15722 Zoo Outfall No 1 09/21/2009 13000 1.4 - 4.45E+11 24.4 12908 SAR at Woodlaw n 09/21/2009 490 9.7 - 1.16E+11 27.2 20360 SAR Tunnel Inlet 09/21/2009 100 49 - 1.20E+11 26.4 14219 SAR at W Jones 09/21/2009 78 - 30 5.72E+10 29.9 18865 SAR Upstrm of Lexington 09/21/2009 320 - 22 1.72E+11 25.9 20118 SAR at Houston 09/21/2009 640 - 2.7 4.23E+10 26 20122 SAR Loop 09/21/2009 6500 - 1.4 2.23E+11 26.2 12905 SAR at Arsenal 09/21/2009 830 - 5.3 1.08E+11 26.7 12904 SAR at Alamo 09/21/2009 500 51 - 6.24E+11 26.8 20361 SAR Tunnel Upstrm on Lone Star 09/21/2009 > 0 - - - - 14220 SAR at Lone Star 09/21/2009 140 - 16 5.48E+10 27.3 14256 SAR at W Mitchell 09/21/2009 140 9.9 - 3.39E+10 28 20117 San Pedro Cr at Croft Trace 09/21/2009 1200 - 0.2 5.87E+09 24.9 20119 San Pedro Cr Upstrm of Alazan Cr 09/21/2009 19 0.4 - 1.86E+08 25.4 12751 Martinez Cr at Ruiz 09/21/2009 100 0 - 0.00E+00 26.3 12715 Alazan Cr at Tampico 09/21/2009 370 0.2 - 1.81E+09 25.9 18735 Apache Cr at Brazos 09/21/2009 600 0.6 - 8.80E+09 25.2 18736 San Pedro Cr at Probandt 09/21/2009 450 1.2 - 1.32E+10 26.3 17066 SAR at Mission 09/21/2009 190 14 - 6.50E+10 26.7 12899 SAR at Padre 09/21/2009 71 0 - 0.00E+00 28.2 12897 SAR at Lp 410 09/21/2009 140 6.1 - 2.09E+10 29 12705 Six Mile Cr at Roosevelt 09/21/2009 220 - 0.3 1.61E+09 31.5 12894 SAR at Blue Wing 09/21/2009 71 - 7.4 1.28E+10 28.4 12889 SAR at IH 37 09/21/2009 100 - 114 2.79E+11 29.5

183

12912 12876 0 2.2 17 SAR at E. Hildebrand Salado Cr at Austin Hwy

15722 12908 12875 298 1.0 Zoo Outfall No SAR at Woodlawn Salado Cr at Eisenhauer 1 Oct. 2009 18865 258 E. coli 109 cfu/day SAR Upstrm of Lexington 0.06

20118 12698 509 SAR at Houston 67 Walzem Cr at Holbrook

12905 20122 12874 293 0.28 SAR at Arsenal SAR Loop Salado Cr at Rittiman 12904 12872 486 4.4 SAR at Alamo Salado Cr at WW White

14220 12871 266 18 SAR at Lone Star Salado Cr at IH 35

129 14256 19 15644 SAR at W Mitchell Salado Cr at Pletz Park 1.5 41 29 12870 2.0 Salado Cr at Gembler 20117 20119 18736 17066 224 San Pedro San Pedro San Pedro Cr SAR at Mission 1.0 Cr at Croft Cr Upstrm at Probandt Trace of Alazan Cr 12693 0.09 Menger Cr

12705 12897 15645 51 7.8 Six Mile Cr at SAR at Lp 410 Salado Cr Upstrm from Commerce Roosevelt 4.8 11 15646 Salado Cr at MLK Park 18735 12715 12894 7.8 128 Apache Cr Alazan Cr at SAR at Blue Wing 0.28 at Brazos Tampico 52 16731 12692 SAR Upstrm of the Trib in J St 0.2 279 Medina R. Park

12751 12811 443 12889 5.9 12868 Martinez Cr Medina River SAR at IH 37 Salado Cr at Rigsby at Ruiz 12886 12864 319 45 SAR at Lp 1604 Salado Cr at Loop 13

20355 548 SAR at CR 125 0.0

12885 12689 555 SAR at FM 3444 Rosillo Cr

12884 12861 791 7.7 SAR at Labatt Salado Cr at Southon

627 12883 SAR at Dietzfield 12882 351 SAR at FM 536

12881 406 SAR at SH 97

12880 Key: - SAR at FM 541 Bacteria source indicated 12879 316 SAR at FM 791

Figure 2-70: E. coli Loading Analysis Schematic, October 2009 Survey

184

Table 2-35: E. coli Loading Analysis, October 2009 Sampling Flow Station ID Location E. Coli Flow Estimated Load Date Measured (cfu/100 ml) (cfs) (cfs) (cfu/day) Segment 1911 15086 SAR 550 m Dw nstrm of Olmos Dam 10/19/2009 > 24000 0 - 0.00E+00 12912 SAR at E. Hildebrand 10/19/2009 250 0 - 0.00E+00 18803 Zoo Outfall No 2 10/19/2009 2100 - 0.2 1.03E+10 15722 Zoo Outfall No 1 10/19/2009 980 0.7 - 1.68E+10 12908 SAR at Woodlaw n 10/19/2009 1400 8.7 - 2.98E+11 20360 SAR Tunnel Inlet 10/19/2009 170 44 - 1.83E+11 14219 SAR at W Jones 10/19/2009 190 - 18 8.36E+10 18865 SAR Upstrm of Lexington 10/19/2009 620 - 17 2.58E+11 20118 SAR at Houston 10/19/2009 1300 - 16 5.09E+11 20122 SAR Loop 10/19/2009 1300 - 2.1 6.68E+10 12905 SAR at Arsenal 10/19/2009 1200 - 10 2.93E+11 12904 SAR at Alamo 10/19/2009 510 39 - 4.86E+11 20361 SAR Tunnel Upstrm on Lone Star 10/19/2009 670 0 - 0.00E+00 14220 SAR at Lone Star 10/19/2009 640 - 17 2.66E+11 14256 SAR at W Mitchell 10/19/2009 440 12 - 1.29E+11 20117 San Pedro Cr at Croft Trace 10/19/2009 620 - 0.1 1.52E+09 20119 San Pedro Cr Upstrm of Alazan Cr 10/19/2009 510 3.3 - 4.12E+10 12751 Martinez Cr at Ruiz 10/19/2009 91 0.0762 - 1.70E+08 12715 Alazan Cr at Tampico 10/19/2009 530 0.6 - 7.78E+09 18735 Apache Cr at Brazos 10/19/2009 660 0.3 - 4.84E+09 18736 San Pedro Cr at Probandt 10/19/2009 220 5.3 - 2.85E+10 17066 SAR at Mission 10/19/2009 540 17 - 2.24E+11 12899 SAR at Padre 10/19/2009 540 - 4.2 5.55E+10 12897 SAR at Lp 410 10/19/2009 340 6.1 - 5.07E+10 12705 Six Mile Cr at Roosevelt 10/19/2009 53 - 0.07055 9.14E+07 12894 SAR at Blue Wing 10/19/2009 250 - 21 1.28E+11 16731 SAR Upstrm of the Medina R. 10/20/2009 71 30 - 5.21E+10 12811 Medina River at FM 1937 10/20/2009 150 - 76 2.79E+11 12889 SAR at IH 37 10/19/2009 82 - 221 4.43E+11 12886 SAR at Lp 1604 10/20/2009 59 221 - 3.19E+11 20355 SA R at CR 125 10/20/2009 100 - 224 5.48E+11 20357 Calavaras Cr at CR 125 10/20/2009 120 0.3 - 8.80E+08 12885 SAR at FM 3444 10/20/2009 100 - 227 5.55E+11 12884 SAR at Labatt 10/20/2009 140 - 231 7.91E+11 20354 Unamed Trib of Upper SAR at FM 3444 and FM 775 10/20/2009 0 0 - 0.00E+00 12883 SAR at Dietzfield 10/20/2009 110 - 233 6.27E+11 20353 Kicaster Cr at Business Lp 181 10/20/2009 0 - - - 20352 Seguin Branch at Business Lp 181 10/20/2009 0 0 - 0.00E+00 12882 SAR at FM 536 10/20/2009 61 - 235 3.51E+11 12881 SAR at SH 97 10/20/2009 70 237 - 4.06E+11 20351 Pajarito Cr at Business Lp 181 10/20/2009 0 0 - 0.00E+00 20350 Picosa Cr at SH 97 10/20/2009 25 0 - 0.00E+00 12880 SAR at FM 541 10/20/2009 0 - - - 12879 SAR at FM 791 10/20/2009 59 219 - 3.16E+11 Segment 1910 12877 Salado Cr Upstrm of Loop 410 10/20/2009 170 - 0.09765 4.06E+08 20358 Beitel Cr at Thousand Oaks 10/20/2009 0 0 - 0.00E+00 12701 Beitel Cr at Low Water Crossing 10/20/2009 350 0 - 0.00E+00 12876 Salado Cr at Austin Hw y 10/20/2009 180 0.5 - 2.20E+09 12875 Salado Cr at Eisenhauer 10/20/2009 210 - 0.2 1.03E+09 12874 Salado Cr at Rittiman 10/20/2009 170 0.0672 - 2.79E+08 15642 Salado Cr off Holbrook 10/20/2009 330 < 0.01 - 8.07E+07 12872 Salado Cr at WW White 10/20/2009 60 3 - 4.40E+09 12871 Salado Cr at IH 35 10/20/2009 210 3.6 - 1.85E+10 15644 Salado Cr at Pletz Park 10/20/2009 220 - 3.6 1.94E+10 12870 Salado Cr at Gembler 10/20/2009 25 - 3.3 2.02E+09 12693 Menger Cr Upstrm of Coliseum 10/21/2009 130 - 0.3 9.54E+08 15645 Salado Cr Upstrm from Commerce 10/21/2009 84 - 3.8 7.80E+09 15646 Salado Cr at MLK Park 10/21/2009 88 5.3 - 1.14E+10 12692 Trib in J St Park 10/21/2009 130 0.0871 - 2.77E+08 12868 Salado Cr at Rigsby 10/21/2009 57 - 4.2 5.85E+09 15647 Salado Cr Dw nStrm of E Southcross 10/21/2009 190 - 7 3.25E+10 12864 Salado Cr at Loop 13 10/21/2009 420 4.4 - 4.52E+10 12700 Rosillo Cr at IH 10 10/21/2009 440 - 0.3 3.23E+09 12699 Rosillo Cr at Sinclair 10/21/2009 400 - 0.1 9.78E+08 12689 Rosillo Cr 10/21/2009 99 0.2 - 4.84E+08 12862 Salado Cr at Old Corpus Christi Hw y 10/21/2009 52 7 - 8.90E+09 12861 Salado Cr at Southon 10/21/2009 44 - 7.2 7.75E+09 Segment 1910A 20356 Walzem Cr at Lanark 10/20/2009 0 - - - 20359 Walzem Cr Dw nstrm of Diamondhead 10/20/2009 5500 - 0.0156 2.10E+09 12698 Walzem Cr at Holbrook 10/20/2009 56 0.0407 - 5.57E+07

185

12912 12876 7,262 55 1,017 SAR at E. Hildebrand Salado Cr at Austin Hwy

15722 12908 12875 4,193 81 Zoo Outfall No SAR at Woodlawn Salado Cr at Eisenhauer 1 Nov. 2009 18865 4,519 E. coli 109 cfu/day SAR Upstrm of Lexington 0.22

20118 12698 647 SAR at Houston 403 Walzem Cr at Holbrook

12905 20122 12874 323 90 SAR at Arsenal SAR Loop Salado Cr at Rittiman 12904 12872 28,755 156 SAR at Alamo Salado Cr at WW White

14220 12871 646 296 SAR at Lone Star Salado Cr at IH 35

4,274 14256 403 15644 SAR at W Mitchell Salado Cr at Pletz Park 121 826 21,713 12870 22 Salado Cr at Gembler 20117 20119 18736 17066 38,144 San Pedro San Pedro San Pedro Cr SAR at Mission 2.2 Cr at Croft Cr Upstrm at Probandt Trace of Alazan Cr 12693 1925 Menger Cr

12705 12897 15645 41,078 23 Six Mile Cr at SAR at Lp 410 Salado Cr Upstrm from Commerce Roosevelt 2,347 - 15646 Salado Cr at MLK Park 18735 12715 12894 11,150 26,627 Apache Cr Alazan Cr at SAR at Blue Wing 1.3 at Brazos Tampico 9,079 16731 12692 SAR Upstrm of the Trib in J St 3,863 474 Medina R. Park

12751 12811 5,148 12889 32 12868 Martinez Cr Medina River SAR at IH 37 Salado Cr at Rigsby at Ruiz 12886 12864 13,676 20 SAR at Lp 1604 Salado Cr at Loop 13

20355 11,468 SAR at CR 125 0.0

12885 12689 1,090 SAR at FM 3444 Rosillo Cr

12884 12861 1,459 34 SAR at Labatt Salado Cr at Southon

1,389 12883 SAR at Dietzfield 12882 2,295 SAR at FM 536

12881 2,320 SAR at SH 97

12880 Key: - SAR at FM 541 Bacteria source indicated 12879 345 SAR at FM 791

Figure 2-71: E. coli Loading Analysis Schematic, November 2009 Survey

186

Table 2-36: E. coli Loading Analysis, November 2009 Sampling Station ID Location E. Coli Flow Measured Flow Estimated Load Date (cfu/100 ml) (cfs) (cfs) (cfu/day) Segment 1911 15086 SAR 550 m Dw nstrm of Olmos Dam 11/16/2009 8,900 32 - 6.96E+12 12912 SAR at E. Hildebrand 11/16/2009 11,000 27 - 7.26E+12 18803 Zoo Outfall No 2 11/16/2009 24,000 - 0.2 1.17E+11 15722 Zoo Outfall No 1 11/16/2009 16,000 2.6 - 1.02E+12 12908 SAR at Woodlaw n 11/16/2009 4,900 35 - 4.19E+12 20360 SAR Tunnel Inlet 11/16/2009 2,500 - 41 2.51E+12 14219 SAR at W Jones 11/16/2009 3,900 - 56 5.34E+12 18865 SAR Upstrm of Lexington 11/16/2009 3,300 - 56 4.52E+12 20118 SAR at Houston 11/16/2009 4,900 - 5.4 6.47E+11 20122 SAR Loop 11/16/2009 5,500 - 3 4.03E+11 12905 SAR at Arsenal 11/16/2009 1,200 - 11 3.23E+11 12904 SAR at Alamo 11/16/2009 24,000 49 - 2.88E+13 20361 SAR Tunnel Upstrm on Lone Star 11/16/2009 0 - - - 14220 SAR at Lone Star 11/16/2009 2,200 - 12 6.46E+11 14256 SAR at W Mitchell 11/16/2009 4,600 38 - 4.27E+12 20117 San Pedro Cr at Croft Trace 11/16/2009 2,900 - 1.7 1.21E+11 20119 San Pedro Cr Upstrm of Alazan Cr 11/16/2009 6,500 5.2 - 8.26E+11 12751 Martinez Cr at Ruiz 11/16/2009 20,000 7.9 - 3.86E+12 12715 Alazan Cr at Tampico 11/16/2009 > 24,000 19 - 1.11E+13 18735 Apache Cr at Brazos 11/16/2009 10,000 9.6 - 2.35E+12 18736 San Pedro Cr at Probandt 11/16/2009 > 24,000 37 - 2.17E+13 17066 SAR at Mission 11/16/2009 > 24,000 65 - 3.81E+13 12899 SAR at Padre 11/16/2009 > 24,000 - 70 4.11E+13 12897 SAR at Lp 410 11/16/2009 20,000 84 - 4.11E+13 12705 Six Mile Cr at Roosevelt 11/16/2009 8,200 - 9.6 1.92E+12 12894 SAR at Blue Wing 11/16/2009 11,000 - 99 2.66E+13 16731 SAR Upstrm of the Medina R. 11/17/2009 4,700 79 - 9.08E+12 12811 Medina River at FM 1937 11/17/2009 190 - 102 4.74E+11 12889 SAR at IH 37 11/16/2009 640 - 329 5.15E+12 12886 SAR at Lp 1604 11/17/2009 1,700 329 - 1.37E+13 20355 SA R at CR 125 11/17/2009 1,400 - 335 1.15E+13 20357 Calavaras Cr at CR 125 11/17/2009 44 0.5 - 5.38E+08 12885 SAR at FM 3444 11/17/2009 130 - 343 1.09E+12 12884 SAR at Labatt 11/17/2009 170 - 351 1.46E+12 20354 Unamed Trib of Upper SAR at FM 3444 and FM 775 11/17/2009 > 0 0 - 0.00E+00 12883 SAR at Dietzfield 11/17/2009 160 - 355 1.39E+12 20353 Kicaster Cr at Business Lp 181 11/17/2009 > 0 - - - 20352 Seguin Branch at Business Lp 181 11/17/2009 > 0 0 - 0.00E+00 12882 SAR at FM 536 11/17/2009 260 - 361 2.29E+12 12881 SAR at SH 97 11/17/2009 260 365 - 2.32E+12 20351 Pajarito Cr at Business Lp 181 11/17/2009 > 0 - - - 20350 Picosa Cr at SH 97 11/17/2009 53 0 - 0.00E+00 12879 SAR at FM 791 11/17/2009 51 277 - 3.45E+11 Segment 1910 12877 Salado Cr Upstrm of Loop 410 11/17/2009 180 - 0.098496 4.34E+08 20358 Beitel Cr at Thousand Oaks 11/17/2009 13,000 - 1.1 3.50E+11 12701 Beitel Cr at Low Water Crossing 11/17/2009 12,000 0 - 0.00E+00 12876 Salado Cr at Austin Hw y 11/17/2009 1,400 1.6 - 5.48E+10 12875 Salado Cr at Eisenhauer 11/17/2009 1,500 - 2.2 8.07E+10 12874 Salado Cr at Rittiman 11/17/2009 1,600 2.3 - 9.00E+10 15642 Salado Cr off Holbrook 11/17/2009 2,800 2.1 - 1.44E+11 12872 Salado Cr at WW White 11/17/2009 2,000 3.2 - 1.56E+11 12871 Salado Cr at IH 35 11/17/2009 2,200 5.5 - 2.96E+11 15644 Salado Cr at Pletz Park 11/17/2009 3,000 - 5.5 4.03E+11 12870 Salado Cr at Gembler 11/17/2009 140 - 6.4 2.19E+10 12693 Menger Cr Upstrm of Coliseum 11/18/2009 910 - 0.1 2.23E+09 15645 Salado Cr Upstrm from Commerce 11/18/2009 180 - 5.3 2.33E+10 15646 Salado Cr at MLK Park 11/18/2009 140 - - - 12692 Trib in J St Park 11/18/2009 630 0.0815 - 1.26E+09 12868 Salado Cr at Rigsby 11/18/2009 240 - 5.4 3.17E+10 15647 Salado Cr Dw nStrm of E Southcross 11/18/2009 170 - 11 4.57E+10 12864 Salado Cr at Loop 13 11/18/2009 99 8.4 - 2.03E+10 12700 Rosillo Cr at IH 10 11/18/2009 160 - 0.9 3.52E+09 12699 Rosillo Cr at Sinclair 11/18/2009 500 - 0.6 7.34E+09 12689 Rosillo Cr 11/18/2009 120 2.5 - 7.34E+09 12862 Salado Cr at Old Corpus Christi Hw y 11/18/2009 78 12 - 2.29E+10 12861 Salado Cr at Southon 11/18/2009 100 - 14 3.42E+10 Segment 1910A 20356 Walzem Cr at Lanark 11/17/2009 > 0 0 - 0.00E+00 20359 Walzem Cr Dw nstrm of Diamondhead 11/17/2009 340 - 0.2 1.66E+09 12698 Walzem Cr at Holbrook 11/17/2009 100 0.0899 - 2.20E+08

187

12912 12876 25 4.1 413 SAR at E. Hildebrand Salado Cr at Austin Hwy

15722 12908 12875 51 0.02 Zoo Outfall SAR at Woodlawn Salado Cr at Eisenhauer No 1 Dec. 2009 18865 144 E. coli 109 cfu/day SAR Upstrm of Lexington 0.03

20118 12698 133 SAR at Houston 55.0 Walzem Cr at Holbrook

12905 20122 12874 18 2.4 SAR at Arsenal SAR Loop Salado Cr at Rittiman 12904 12872 172 2.0 SAR at Alamo Salado Cr at WW White

14220 12871 56 2.4 SAR at Lone Star Salado Cr at IH 35

- 14256 6.4 15644 SAR at W Mitchell Salado Cr at Pletz Park 8.1 28 108 12870 0.49 Salado Cr at Gembler 20117 20119 18736 17066 171 San Pedro San Pedro San Pedro Cr SAR at Mission 0.82 Cr at Croft Cr Upstrm at Probandt Trace of Alazan Cr 12693 6.1 Menger Cr

12705 12897 15645 76 3.9 Six Mile Cr at SAR at Lp 410 Salado Cr Upstrm from Commerce Roosevelt 900 10 15646 Salado Cr at MLK Park 18735 12715 12894 3.2 27 Apache Cr Alazan Cr at SAR at Blue Wing 0.004 at Brazos Tampico 67 16731 12692 SAR Upstrm of the Trib in J St 19 381 Medina R. Park

12751 12811 410 12889 9.0 12868 Martinez Cr Medina River SAR at IH 37 Salado Cr at Rigsby at Ruiz 12886 12864 716 43 SAR at Lp 1604 Salado Cr at Loop 13

20355 1214 SAR at CR 125 0.0

12885 12689 486 SAR at FM 3444 Rosillo Cr

12884 12861 442 9.1 SAR at Labatt Salado Cr at Southon

142 12883 SAR at Dietzfield 12882 318 SAR at FM 536

12881 399 SAR at SH 97

12880 Key: - SAR at FM 541 Bacteria source indicated 12879 365 SAR at FM 791

Figure 2-72: E. coli Loading Analysis Schematic, December 2009 Survey

188

Table 2-37: E. coli Loading Analysis, December 2009 Sampling Flow Station ID Location E. Coli Flow Estimated Load Date Measured (cfu/100 ml) (cfs) (cfs) (cfu/day) Segment 1911 15086 SAR 550 m Dw nstrm of Olmos Dam 12/14/2009 9 0.0774 - 1.70E+07 12912 SAR at E. Hildebrand 12/14/2009 340 3 - 2.49E+10 18803 Zoo Outfall No 2 12/14/2009 610 - 0.1 1.49E+09 15722 Zoo Outfall No 1 12/14/2009 13000 1.3 - 4.13E+11 12908 SAR at Woodlaw n 12/14/2009 700 3 - 5.13E+10 20360 SAR Tunnel Inlet 12/14/2009 160 15 - 5.87E+10 14219 SAR at W Jones 12/14/2009 290 - 16 1.13E+11 18865 SAR Upstrm of Lexington 12/14/2009 190 - 31 1.44E+11 20118 SAR at Houston 12/14/2009 680 - 8 1.33E+11 20122 SAR Loop 12/14/2009 750 - 3 5.50E+10 12905 SAR at Arsenal 12/14/2009 150 - 5 1.83E+10 12904 SAR at Alamo 12/14/2009 390 18 - 1.72E+11 20361 SAR Tunnel Upstrm on Lone Star 12/14/2009 30 - 5 3.67E+09 14220 SAR at Lone Star 12/14/2009 100 - 23 5.62E+10 14256 SAR at W Mitchell 12/14/2009 0 - - - 20117 San Pedro Cr at Croft Trace 12/14/2009 220 - 1.5 8.07E+09 20119 San Pedro Cr Upstrm of Alazan Cr 12/14/2009 290 3.9 - 2.77E+10 12751 Martinez Cr at Ruiz 12/14/2009 2600 0.3 - 1.91E+10 12715 Alazan Cr at Tampico 12/14/2009 100 1.3 - 3.18E+09 18735 Apache Cr at Brazos 12/14/2009 16000 2.3 - 9.00E+11 18736 San Pedro Cr at Probandt 12/14/2009 450 9.8 - 1.08E+11 17066 SAR at Mission 12/14/2009 250 28 - 1.71E+11 12899 SAR at Padre 12/14/2009 160 - 16 6.26E+10 12897 SAR at Lp 410 12/14/2009 310 10 - 7.58E+10 12705 Six Mile Cr at Roosevelt 12/14/2009 500 - 0.5 6.11E+09 12894 SAR at Blue Wing 12/14/2009 58 - 19 2.69E+10 16731 SAR Upstrm of the Medina R. 12/15/2009 51 54 - 6.73E+10 12811 Medina River at FM 1937 12/15/2009 130 - 120 3.81E+11 12889 SAR at IH 37 12/14/2009 55 - 305 4.10E+11 12886 SAR at Lp 1604 12/15/2009 96 305 - 7.16E+11 20355 SA R at CR 125 12/15/2009 170 - 292 1.21E+12 20357 Calavaras Cr at CR 125 12/15/2009 68 0.9 - 1.50E+09 12885 SAR at FM 3444 12/15/2009 72 - 276 4.86E+11 12884 SAR at Labatt 12/15/2009 69 - 262 4.42E+11 20354 Unamed Trib of Upper SAR at FM 3444 and FM 775 12/15/2009 0 0 - 0.00E+00 12883 SAR at Dietzfield 12/15/2009 23 - 253 1.42E+11 20353 Kicaster Cr at Business Lp 181 12/15/2009 0 - - - 20352 Seguin Branch at Business Lp 181 12/15/2009 0 0 - 0.00E+00 12882 SAR at FM 536 12/15/2009 54 - 241 3.18E+11 12881 SAR at SH 97 12/15/2009 70 233 - 3.99E+11 20351 Pajarito Cr at Business Lp 181 12/15/2009 0 0 - 0.00E+00 20350 Picosa Cr at SH 97 12/15/2009 8 0 - 0.00E+00 12879 SAR at FM 791 12/15/2009 66 226 - 3.65E+11 Segment 1910 12877 Salado Cr Upstrm of Loop 410 12/15/2009 59 0 - 0.00E+00 20358 Beitel Cr at Thousand Oaks 12/15/2009 18 - 1 4.40E+08 12701 Beitel Cr at Low Water Crossing 12/15/2009 250 0 - 0.00E+00 12876 Salado Cr at Austin Hw y 12/15/2009 240 0.7 - 4.11E+09 12875 Salado Cr at Eisenhauer 12/15/2009 86 - < 0.01 2.10E+07 12874 Salado Cr at Rittiman 12/15/2009 66 1.5 - 2.42E+09 15642 Salado Cr off Holbrook 12/15/2009 140 1.3 - 4.45E+09 12872 Salado Cr at WW White 12/15/2009 31 2.7 - 2.05E+09 12871 Salado Cr at IH 35 12/15/2009 23 4.2 - 2.36E+09 15644 Salado Cr at Pletz Park 12/15/2009 62 - 4.2 6.37E+09 12870 Salado Cr at Gembler 12/15/2009 25 - 0.8 4.89E+08 12693 Menger Cr Upstrm of Coliseum 12/16/2009 84 - 0.4 8.22E+08 15645 Salado Cr Upstrm from Commerce 12/16/2009 29 - 5.5 3.90E+09 15646 Salado Cr at MLK Park 12/16/2009 73 5.8 - 1.04E+10 12692 Trib in J St Park 12/16/2009 17 < 0.01 - 4.16E+06 12868 Salado Cr at Rigsby 12/16/2009 55 - 6.7 9.01E+09 15647 Salado Cr Dw nStrm of E Southcross 12/16/2009 180 - 20 8.80E+10 12864 Salado Cr at Loop 13 12/16/2009 240 7.4 - 4.34E+10 12700 Rosillo Cr at IH 10 12/16/2009 6 - 1.8 2.64E+08 12699 Rosillo Cr at Sinclair 12/16/2009 1500 - 0.7 2.57E+10 12689 Rosillo Cr 12/16/2009 25 0.4 - 2.45E+08 12862 Salado Cr at Old Corpus Christi Hw y 12/16/2009 9 8.7 - 1.91E+09 12861 Salado Cr at Southon 12/16/2009 41 - 9.1 9.12E+09 Segment 1910A 20356 Walzem Cr at Lanark 12/15/2009 0 - - - 20359 Walzem Cr Dw nstrm of Diamondhead 12/15/2009 120 - 0.06114 1.79E+08 12698 Walzem Cr at Holbrook 12/15/2009 35 0.0297 - 2.54E+07

189

2.5 INFERENCES REGARDING BACTERIA SOURCES

The additional sampling data compiled to date as part of this study was examined for inferences regarding potential sources of bacteria. These are preliminary assessments, but they can provide guidance with respect to likely sources.

Potential Sources

This project has invested in frequent synoptic sampling surveys that are designed to provide information regarding potential sources of bacteria. The sampling results were evaluated month by month, and specific locations with relatively high bacteria concentrations were identified. In some cases, observed concentrations that were inordinately high prompted site-specific investigations by SAWS. Some of these site-specific investigations revealed leakage or releases from wastewater infrastructure, while others revealed no ready explanation for observed bacteria concentrations.

The sampling results were also analyzed with respect to associated bacteria loadings. The loadings were calculated on the basis of the observed streamflow and grab sample bacteria concentration at the point of sampling. This analysis provides additional insight regarding the magnitude of contributing bacteria sources. One finding of interest is the determination of increases in loading within certain reaches of the stream. The magnitude of the increase may provide an indication of the potential source. The analysis of loading is not infallible: often there is uncertainty associated with streamflow measurements or estimates, and these factors have an effect on the calculated loading.

For example, consider the loading analysis provided for the station at Loop 13 on Salado Creek. On the September 2008 synoptic sampling survey, the observed E. coli concentration was 260 cfu/100 mL and the streamflow was 3.8 cfs. From these data, a bacteria loading of 24.2 x 109 cfu/day was calculated. Upstream at the Rigsby sampling station, a loading of 8.4 x 109 cfu/day was calculated. Therefore, the bacteria loading increased 15.8 x 109 cfu/day between the two sampling locations. The question is then, what are the potential sources that could have contributed this magnitude of loading increase.

The synoptic surveys were conducted under baseflow conditions. Therefore, bacteria sources that are associated with delivery via stormwater runoff could not be expected to be contributing to the observed concentrations and loadings at the time of the sampling events. This leaves two principal potential sources: animals and wastewater infrastructure.

To effect any substantial bacteria loading, the potential animal sources would most likely be limited to waterfowl directly present on the watercourse. In certain locations, waterfowl are present and their load contribution is substantial. It can be assumed that a “duck equivalent” bacteria loading (JMA, 2006b) is approximately 2 x 109 cfu/day (the reported range is variable, and the actual loading per duck could be higher or lower). With this assumption, the observed bacteria loading increase at Loop 13 described above (15.8 x 109 cfu/day) could conceivably be explained by the presence of 8 waterfowl in the immediate reach, or as few as 4 waterfowl if the loading rate per duck was greater. In most reaches of the study area, large numbers of waterfowl

190

are not routinely observed. However, it is conceivable that 4 to 8 waterfowl could be present at any point in time in the reach of Salado Creek between Rigsby and Loop 13. (A recent field examination of this reach revealed a count of 8 waterfowl.)

The only other potential source that could likely contribute the observed magnitude of bacteria loading increase would be releases or leakage from wastewater infrastructure. The E. coli bacteria concentration of raw wastewater would be variable, depending upon the amount of dilution water present in the conveyance pipelines, but it can be expected to be in the range of 106 to 1012 cfu/100 mL (JMA, 2006b). This is a concentrated potential source of bacteria, and a relatively small volume of wastewater at a high strength can account for a substantial loading. For this reason, the observed bacteria loading increase at Loop 13 described above (15.8 x 109 cfu/day) could conceivably be explained by leakage from wastewater infrastructure. In this specific example, one might argue that there could have been some combination of wildlife and leakage from infrastructure. In other specific examples, the calculated loading increases are much greater, and in these cases, the most likely contributing source is releases or leakage from wastewater infrastructure. For example, on Salado Creek between Rigsby and Loop 13, the observed increase in bacteria loading on the May 2009 synoptic survey was approximately 130 x 109 cfu/day. An increase of this magnitude is probably more likely associated with wastewater than with waterfowl.

The preceding discussion would be applicable to any number of reaches along Salado Creek and the Upper San Antonio River that have been shown to have observed increases in bacteria loading during the synoptic sampling surveys conducted during this study. In addition to the observed loading increases in specific reaches, there were documented pockets or locations of high concentration of E. coli, often on smaller tributaries. For example, Menger Creek is a small tributary of Salado Creek, and on the December 2008 sampling survey, an E. coli concentration of 19,000 cfu/100 mL was measured and a bacteria loading of 1022x109 cfu/day was estimated. In this example, the creek does not appear to be a hospitable refuge for waterfowl, which suggests that leakage from sewage infrastructure may have been the contributing source of bacteria.

Another example of a location with observed high loadings is the River Loop station near Market Street. In the River Loop, flow is usually relatively low but high concentrations of E. coli are frequently encountered. The River Loop is drained annually and has been thoroughly inspected by City and SAWS staff for illicit connections or outfalls. The most likely source of bacteria contribution for the River Loop is waterfowl. The waterfowl are attracted to this relatively unnatural habitat because it is sheltered and food is liberally offered by visitors. The observed bacteria loadings of 10 - 60x109 cfu/day can be conveniently explained by the duck loading rates described above.

2.5.1 Salado Creek and Tributaries

The sampling surveys described in the preceding section were assessed to determine if there were locations with consistently high E. coli concentrations. A summary of locations with values greater than 126 cfu/100 mL is provided in Table 2-38, with a month-by-month presentation of the data.

191

With respect to the historical database of E. coli measurements (see Table 2-1), the locations on the mainstem with the highest mean concentration values included Austin Hwy, Rittiman, Commerce, Rigsby, and Loop 13. The tributaries with high mean values included Walzem, J St Park, Rosillo, and Beitel Creek. As shown in Table 2-38, the results from the recent monitoring program show frequently high bacteria concentrations at almost all of the sampling stations. Stations with the routinely highest concentrations include Austin Hwy, Holbrook, Rittiman, and Loop 13, as well as tributaries Walzem Creek, Menger Creek, and the unnamed tributary in J Street Park.

The evaluation of bacteria loadings described in Sec 2.4 provided additional insight regarding potential source areas. The reaches with observed substantial increases in bacteria loading are summarized in Table 2-39. In over half of the surveys, increased loadings were demonstrated in reaches between Rittiman and WW White and between Rigsby and Loop 13. Reaches between WW White and IH35 and Commerce and MLK Park also showed frequent increases in loading. Menger Creek was determined to often be delivering a substantial bacteria load, and the tributary in J St Park had a relatively large loading on one occasion. An unnamed tributary at Dollarhide Rd was sampled once, and it showed a large bacteria load.

The data appear to indicate that there are fairly consistent sources of E. coli contributing to Salado Creek and its tributaries. Possible sources include animals and sewage infrastructure leaks. There are horse stables located adjacent to the creek, just upstream of the Austin Hwy crossing, and this potential source should be investigated. Much of the creek riparian zone is wooded and vegetated, and wildlife, particularly birds and small mammals, are probably abundant. The widespread residential areas also house numerous pets. These animal sources can deliver fecal material to the stream via direct deposition and via washoff during storm events. It should be noted that the synoptic surveys were conducted under baseflow conditions, so washoff was not an active process at the time of sampling. In addition to animal sources, it is possible that leaks from sewage infrastructure are contributing loadings to the stream. This possibility is suggested by the high concentrations of E. coli that were often measured in the smaller tributaries, including Walzem, Menger, J Street, and Rosillo. For example, on the December 2008 survey, a bacteria loading of 1022x109 cfu/day was estimated in Menger Creek, which is a very substantial loading. Increases in bacteria loadings were observed in specific reaches, particularly reaches between Rittiman and WW White and between Rigsby and Loop 13. In the reach between Rigsby and Loop 13, for example, the estimated increases in bacteria loading documented during the surveys was typically on the order of 5 – 30x109 cfu/day, with some loads as high as 130x109 cfu/day. Potential contributors to loading increases of this magnitude would include waterfowl and infrastructure, with infrastructure more likely as a potential source for the highest values.

192

Table 2-38: Salado Creek E. coli Concentration Summary E. coli (cfu/100 ml) Station Station Description Sep-08 Oct-08 Nov-08 Dec-08 Jan-09 Feb-09 Mar-09 Apr-09 May-09 Jun-09 Jul-09 Aug-09 Oct-09 Nov-09 Dec-09 12877 Salado Cr Upstrm of Loop 410 66 55 8 13 14 68 35 24 29 120 21 99 170 180 59 20358 Beitel Cr at Thousand Oaks 20 19 - - - 19 1 - - - - - 0 13,000 18 12701 Beitel Ck at Low Water Crossing - - - - 310 1,800 260 220 - 230 230 - 350 12,000 250 12876 Salado Cr at Austin Hwy 340 29 30 210 160 100 200 130 1,500 1,300 370 150 180 1,400 240 12875 Salado Cr at Eisenhauer 45 140 2 64 14 100 150 190 71 250 21 - 210 1,500 86 20359 Walzem Cr Dwnstrm of Diamondhead 44 990 46 22 24,000 35 2,100 - 590 2,600 4,100 - 12698 Walzem Cr at Holbrook 540 210 290 1,700 49 92 71 - 130 1,600 51 - 12874 Salado Cr at Rittiman 140 190 52 88 61 280 120 1,800 150 290 490 2,500 170 1,600 66 15642 Salado Cr off Holbrook 54 110 44 68 31 150 87 190 120 93 290 280 330 2,800 140 12872 Salado Cr at WW White 82 41 32 27 200 98 44 130 140 56 69 72 60 2,000 31 12871 Salado Cr at IH 35 180 250 79 110 25 63 20 41 120 50 990 420 210 2,200 23 15644 Salado Cr at Pletz Park 68 100 93 110 19 72 56 220 100 63 110 41 220 3,000 62 12870 Salado Cr at Gembler 290 64 40 91 48 100 74 17 39 88 140 86 25 140 25 12693 Menger Cr Upstrm of Coliseum 770 66 20,000 19,000 43 17,000 120 1 180 1,500 9 110 130 910 84 15645 Salado Cr Upstrm from Commerce 32 61 19 4,900 21 71 86 280 150 98 110 200 84 180 29 15646 Salado Cr at MLK Park 100 82 27 170 31 48 160 > 24,000 330 68 13 71 88 140 73 12692 Trib in J St Park 290 77 46 14,000 59 180 190 20,000 590 560 200 120 130 630 17 12868 Salado Cr at Rigsby 70 77 58 210 11 55 49 630 53 160 10 13 57 240 55 15647 Salado Cr DwnStrm of E Southcross 56 58 20 49 67 88 190 53 110 170 350 28 190 170 180 12864 Salado Cr at Loop 13 260 410 1,100 130 150 140 500 280 3,100 910 120 32 420 99 240 12689 Rosillo Cr 120 81 420 55 210 280 410 - - 48 - - 99 120 25 12862 Salado Cr at Old Corpus Christi Hwy 24 91 40 73 31 29 41 69 48 15 22 - 52 78 9 12861 Salado Cr at Southon 16 86 20 96 43 18 28 11 15 32 11 26 44 100 41 Note: Yellow=Conc.>126 cfu/100mL, Red=Conc.>394 cfu/100mL

193

Table 2-39: Salado Creek Reaches with Observed Substantial Bacteria Load Increases

Sep-08 Oct-08 Nov-08 Dec-08 Jan-09 Feb-09 Mar-09 Apr-09 May-09 Jun-09 Jul-09 Aug-09 Sep-09 Oct-09 Nov-09 Dec-09 Austin Hwy - Eisenhauer ND Eisenhauer - Rittiman x ND x Rittiman - WW White x x x x x x x x x x ND x x WW White - IH35 x x x x x ND x x IH35 - Pletz x x ND x x x Pletz - Gembler x x x ND Gembler - Commerce x x x ND Commerce - MLK x x x x ND x x MLK - Rigsby x x ND x Rigsby - Loop 13 x x x x x x x x ND x Loop 13 - Southton ND Beitel Cr ND Walzem Cr x x ND x Menger Cr x x x ND J Street Trib x x ND x Rosillo Cr ND

194

2.5.2 San Pedro Creek and Tributaries

The sampling surveys described in the preceding section were assessed to determine if there were locations with consistently high E. coli concentrations. A summary of locations with values greater than 126 cfu/100 mL is provided in Table 2-40 for San Pedro Creek, Alazan Creek, Apache Creek, and Martinez Creek.

With respect to the historical database of E. coli measurements (see Table 2-2), the locations on the mainstem of San Pedro Creek with the highest mean values included Probandt and Alamo Streets. On Apache Creek, several locations showed high historical values, including Brazos, San Luis, 24th, and Commerce. On Alazan Creek, historical values have been high at Waverly, Martin, and Tampico. There is essentially no historical data available for Martinez Creek. The results for the recent monitoring surveys show high bacteria concentrations at all of the sampling stations. Stations with the highest observed concentrations include San Pedro Creek at Croft Trace, upstream of the confluence with Alazan Creek, and at Probandt. Alazan Creek showed high E. coli concentrations at Tampico Street, and Apache Creek showed high bacteria at Brazos Street. Martinez Creek at Ruiz Street also reported high values.

The evaluation of bacteria loadings provided additional insight regarding potential source areas. Table 2-41 shows a summary of reaches with high loads. The loading delivered by San Pedro Creek was relatively high as a general conclusion. The upper reach of San Pedro, near Croft Trace, consistently showed a relatively high bacteria load. Significant loads were also detected in Alazan and Apache Creeks. The detailed survey of outfalls and storm drains conducted in October revealed several locations with substantial bacteria contributions.

The data appear to indicate that there are fairly consistent sources of E. coli contributing to San Pedro Creek and its tributaries. Potential sources include animals, transients, and sewage leaks. Much of the creek riparian zone is grassed, and wildlife, particularly birds and small mammals, are probably abundant. The widespread residential areas also house numerous pets. These animal sources can deliver fecal material to the stream via direct deposition and via washoff during storm events. It should be noted that the synoptic surveys were conducted under baseflow conditions, so washoff was not an active process at the time of sampling. There was observed a consistent population of transients with encampments under several bridges along the streams. This transient population probably does not have regular access to sanitary restroom facilities, and is a possible contributor of fecal material to the streams. It is possible that leaks from sewage infrastructure are contributing loadings to the stream. This conclusion is supported by the high concentrations of E. coli that were often measured in the tributaries, and in particular by the high concentrations measured in various drainage outfalls contributing to the tributaries. Much of this sampling was conducted under extended dry conditions in the watershed, and the small volumes of flow emanating from many of the outfalls could be the result of leaking infrastructure. The bacteria loading analysis indicated that some of the outfalls and drains delivered significant loadings, as well as having high concentrations. SAWS investigated, located, and repaired several sewage infrastructure problems as the sampling results were made available to them.

195

Table 2-40: San Pedro Creek E. coli Concentration Summary E. coli (cfu/100 ml) Station Station Description Sep-08 Oct-08 Nov-08 Dec-08 Jan-09 Feb-09 Mar-09 Apr-09 May-09 Jun-09 Jul-09 Aug-09 Sep-09 Oct-09 Nov-09 Dec-09 20117 San Pedro Cr at Croft Trace 3,900 490 190 430 190 2,000 800 340 400 4,600 - 0 0 620 2,900 220 20119 San Pedro Cr Upstrm of Alazan Cr 4,600 1,200 45 13,000 53 74 120 380 96 140 240 47 3,900 510 6,500 290 12751 Martinez Ck at Ruiz St 440 - 18 23 15 80 22 68 99 1,700 2,400 16 150 91 20,000 2,600 12715 Alazan Ck at Tampico St 1,600 - 70 91 61 190 670 61 450 370 100 910 640 530 > 24,000 100 18735 Apache Ck at Brazos St 1,300 150 160 99 100 290 73 150 310 250 2,600 1,700 370 660 10,000 16,000 18736 San Pedro Cr at Probandt 2,900 120 26 120 79 93 590 180 180 180 460 590 220 220 > 24,000 450 Note: Yellow=Conc.>126 cfu/100mL, Red=Conc.>394 cfu/100mL

Table 2-41: San Pedro Creek Reaches with Observed Substantial Bacteria Load Increases

Sep-08 Oct-08 Nov-08 Dec-08 Jan-09 Feb-09 Mar-09 Apr-09 May-09 Jun-09 Jul-09 Aug-09 Sep-09 Oct-09 Nov-09 Dec-09 SPC, Croft Trace - IH 35 x x x x x x x x x x x x x x SPC, IH35 - Probandt x x x x x x x x x x x x Apache Cr at Brazos x x x x x x Martinez Cr at Ruiz x Alazan Cr at Tampico x x x x

196

2.5.3 Upper San Antonio River above Loop 410

The sampling surveys described in the preceding section were assessed to determine if there were locations with consistently high E. coli concentrations or locations with exceptionally high concentrations. A summary of locations with values greater than 126 cfu/100 mL is shown in Table 2-42 for the Upper San Antonio River above Loop 410.

With respect to the historical database of E. coli measurements (see Table 2-2), the locations on the mainstem of the Upper San Antonio River with the highest mean values included various stations in the reach downstream from the Zoo, and farther downstream at Alamo and Mitchell. Tributaries or outfalls with high mean values included the Zoo, the River Loop, and San Pedro Creek. Recent monitoring results show frequent high bacteria concentrations at many locations. Stations with the highest observed concentrations include the San Antonio River at Hildebrandt, Woodlawn, Lexington, Houston, River Loop, Arsenal, and Alamo. The primary zoo outfall showed consistently high concentrations of E. coli, which had been previously documented in earlier work (JMA, 2007). The tributary Six Mile Creek showed frequent high concentrations, and concentrations in San Pedro Creek were discussed previously.

A summary of bacterial loading increases is provided in Table 2-43. The bacteria loading analysis confirmed the magnitude of the Zoo source, showing that it dominated loadings for the uppermost reach of the San Antonio River. As described in more detail in previous studies (JMA, 2007), the zoo source includes both caged zoo animals and wildlife that inhabits the zoo grounds but are not caged, such as egrets and various waterfowl. There was often an increase in loading between Lexington and Houston Streets, and the load was frequently high in the River Loop. The loading delivered by San Pedro Creek was usually significant. On many of the surveys, there was an observed increase in bacteria loading between Mitchell and Mission and between Mission and Loop 410.

The data appear to indicate that there are fairly consistent sources of E. coli contributing to the Upper San Antonio River and its tributaries. The single largest, most consistent known source is the Zoo discharge, and this has been well documented in the TMDL (JMA, 2006) and the WPP (JMA, 2007). The effects of this Zoo source are evident for much of the upper reach. For much of the sampling period, the main channel of the river was drained for construction of improvements between the tunnel entrance near Jones Street and Lexington Street. The water in the channel was diverted to the tunnel, then was pumped back into the river channel just upstream of the Lexington bridge. This water pumped back from the tunnel may have been a significant source of bacteria at some of the stations on the upper reach. Other potential sources that may affect bacteria concentrations in the reach are animals and sewage leaks. A meat packing company is located near the southern portion of downtown, and cattle are trucked in and penned at the facility, creating some potential for waste to contribute to the stream. Much of the river’s riparian zone is wooded and vegetated, particularly in the uppermost reaches, providing ample habitat for wildlife. Extensive residential areas house numerous pets. These animal sources can deliver fecal material to the river via direct deposition and via washoff during storm events. Washoff was not an active process during these baseflow surveys, however. The River Loop station showed typically high bacteria concentrations. The most likely source contributing to these high concentrations is waterfowl present in the reach.

197

It is also possible that leaks from sewage infrastructure are contributing loadings to the river at specific locations. This conclusion is supported by pockets of high concentration that were often measured at various locations along the mainstem and at locations in the tributaries. Reaches between Mitchell and Mission and between Mission and Loop 410 showed regular increases in bacteria loading on the order of 10 - 30x109 cfu/day. Potential contributors would be waterfowl and infrastructure leaks. The largest observed loading increase of almost 400x109 cfu/day observed in July 2009 between Mission and Loop 410 may be larger than can be reasonably explained by waterfowl influence.

198

Table 2-42: USAR above Loop 410 E. coli Concentration Summary E. coli (cfu/100 ml) Station Station Description Sep-08 Oct-08 Nov-08 Dec-08 Jan-09 Feb-09 Mar-09 Apr-09 May-09 Jun-09 Jul-09 Aug-09 Sep-09 Oct-09 Nov-09 Dec-09 15086 SAR 550 m Dwnstrm of Olmos Dam 480 ------> 0 0 > 24,000 8,900 9 12912 SAR at E. Hildebrand 330 - 140 330 2,100 240 390 290 1,100 570 350 340 11,000 250 11,000 340 18803 Zoo Outfall No 2 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 58 190 340 180 2,300 1,000 1,200 1,500 12,000 2,100 24,000 610 15722 Zoo Outfall No 1 8,700 17,000 5,500 2,900 5,500 2,300 6,100 5,100 12,000 12,000 13,000 13,000 14,000 980 16,000 13,000 12908 SAR at Woodlawn 2,500 1,000 280 410 340 280 140 75 210 200 380 410 390 1,400 4,900 700 20360 SAR Tunnel Inlet ------5,800 - - 130 45 6 100 170 2,500 160 14219 SAR at W Jones ------75 510 16 70 190 3,900 290 18865 SAR Upstrm of Lexington 550 340 91 260 100 170 68 86 1,200 340 150 51 69 620 3,300 190 20118 SAR at Houston 690 1,600 640 660 250 660 1,800 210 530 1,600 550 460 640 1,300 4,900 680 20122 SAR Loop 660 810 1,100 420 310 1,100 240 2,000 5,800 1,100 3,400 880 1,900 1,300 5,500 750 12905 SAR at Arsenal 340 6 320 340 110 440 410 37 130 520 150 180 550 1,200 1,200 150 12904 SAR at Alamo 93 5 160 86 59 410 31 51 170 190 180 73 420 510 24,000 390 20361 SAR Tunnel Upstrm on Lone Star 110 8 - - 63 130 15 - - 190 - 18 0 670 0 30 14220 SAR at Lone Star 200 13 53 73 46 84 10 8 130 140 310 26 340 640 2,200 100 14256 SAR at W Mitchell 56 26 11 21 21 55 4 20 62 43 110 190 88 440 4,600 0 17066 SAR at Mission 1,000 55 62 55 40 220 44 3 170 370 320 260 83 540 > 24,000 250 12899 SAR at Padre 45 73 26 24 240 170 120 < 1 62 80 1 28 61 540 > 24,000 160 12705 Six Mile Cr at Roosevelt 8,700 79 15 250 14 390 14 330 490 990 - 2,100 11,000 53 8,200 500 12897 SAR at Lp 410 74 170 23 58 38 170 22 65 99 79 1,100 55 120 340 20,000 310 Note: Yellow=Conc.>126 cfu/100mL, Red=Conc.>394 cfu/100mL

199

Table 2-43: USAR above Loop 410 Reaches with Observed Substantial Bacteria Load Increases

Sep-08 Oct-08 Nov-08 Dec-08 Jan-09 Feb-09 Mar-09 Apr-09 May-09 Jun-09 Jul-09 Aug-09 Sep-09 Oct-09 Nov-09 Dec-09 Hildebrandt - Woodlawn x x Woodlawn - Lexington x x x Lexington - Houston x x x x x x x x x Houston - Aresenal x River Loop x x x x x x x x x Arsenal - Alamo x x x x x Alamo - Lone Star x Lone Star - Mitchell x Mitchell - Mission x x x x x x x Mission - Loop 410 x x x x x Six Mile Creek x

200

2.5.4 Upper San Antonio River below Loop 410

With respect to the historical database of E. coli measurements (see Table 2-2), the locations on the mainstem of the Upper San Antonio River below Loop 410 with the highest mean values included stations at Blue Wing, IH 37, FM 536, SH 97, and FM 541. The results for the recent monitoring surveys show elevated E. coli concentrations occasionally at several stations, most notably at SH 97. The Medina River showed concentrations above 126 cfu/100 mL on roughly half of the surveys. Other tributaries with high concentrations included Calaveras Creek, Seguin Branch, and Picosa Creek, though tributary data was limited.

Table 2-45 shows a summary of reaches with increases in bacteria load. The analysis of bacteria loading revealed that the Medina River is a large contributor of bacteria to the lower reach. The E. coli concentrations in the Medina were often above 126 cfu/100 mL and the streamflow was relatively large, resulting in substantial loadings. An increase in instream bacteria loading was frequently observed in the lowermost reach of the San Antonio, typically between the Medina and IH37, IH37 and Loop 1604, Loop 1604 and CR125, Dietzfield and FM536, and FM537 and SH97.

The data appear to indicate that there are sources of E. coli contributing to the lower portion of the Upper San Antonio River. For the most part, stations are usually in compliance with stream criteria. Since the watershed south of San Antonio is largely rural, there are numerous opportunities for fecal contributions from animal sources, both wildlife and livestock. These animal sources can deliver fecal material to the river via direct deposition and via washoff during storm events. Washoff was not an active process during these baseflow surveys, however. The potential bacteria loading from livestock under baseflow conditions has not been quantified. However, SARA field crews have documented the location of numerous cattle access points along the lower reaches of the river. It is expected that the frequency and duration of use of these access points by livestock is highly variable, therefore, it would be difficult to confirm effects of potential loadings by instream sampling. It is possible that on any given day, significant numbers of livestock occupy one or more access points along the lower reach. Though there is no confirmation data, this could conceivably explain the moving reaches of observed bacteria loading increases described above. At this time, waste deposition from livestock would be considered as a likely source of bacteria.

A potential source of localized bacteria loadings could be sewage leaks from some of the smaller municipal collection systems along the segment, but there is no data that directly indicates this. Two tributaries had noteworthy concentrations. Picosa Creek in the lower portion of the watershed consistently showed high concentrations of E. coli, with a maximum of 9300 cfu/100 mL. An investigation by SARA staff indicated the presence of a dairy operation upstream of the sampling location, and this potential source should be examined in more detail. One sample was collected from Pajarito Creek, and it showed a high concentration of 69000 cfu/100 mL. The

201

source is unknown at present. On the basis of bacteria loadings, the Medina River was a consistent source of substantial loadings as described above. There was also evidence of a source of bacteria loading in the lowermost portion of the reach, which varied in specific location between Loop 1604 and FM 541. The source of this substantial loading is unknown, but it would appear to be attributable to wildlife and possibly livestock.

202

Table 2-44: USAR below Loop 410 E. coli Concentration Summary E. coli (cfu/100 ml) Station Station Description Sep-08 Oct-08 Nov-08 Dec-08 Jan-09 Feb-09 Mar-09 Apr-09 May-09 Jun-09 Jul-09 Aug-09 Sep-09 Oct-09 Nov-09 Dec-09 12894 SAR at Blue Wing 35 52 21 18 80 79 9 19 72 64 21 47 62 250 11,000 58 16731 SAR Upstrm of the Medina R. 45 - 37 150 120 170 96 42 50 78 240 57 - 71 4,700 51 12811 Medina River at FM 1937 110 100 130 96 130 140 110 41 68 84 140 89 - 150 190 130 12889 SAR at IH 37 34 59 15 47 43 42 45 30 57 73 110 110 41 82 640 55 12886 SAR at Lp 1604 26 44 52 96 64 56 77 37 68 91 170 230 - 59 1,700 96 20355 SAR at CR 125 56 140 65 62 66 72 39 44 46 62 110 140 - 100 1,400 170 20357 Calavaras Cr at CR 125 27 180 140 130 140 270 240 - 200 56 61 64 - 120 44 68 12885 SAR at FM 3444 43 34 50 55 49 46 40 19 53 47 110 190 - 100 130 72 12884 SAR at Labatt 20 48 23 110 49 72 60 43 - 58 310 70 - 140 170 69

20354 Unamed Trib of USAR at FM 3444 and FM 775 ------> 0 - 0 > 0 0 12883 SAR at Dietzfield 19 90 40 200 100 99 44 42 34 52 86 34 - 110 160 23 20353 Kicaster Cr at Business Lp 181 ------> 0 - 0 > 0 0 20352 Seguin Branch at Business Lp 181 330 - - 20 - 660 100 - 1,300 - - > 0 - 0 > 0 0 12882 SAR at FM 536 33 86 73 68 91 91 68 100 66 120 62 64 - 61 260 54 12881 SAR at SH 97 52 110 75 160 170 240 81 100 70 96 130 59 - 70 260 70 20351 Pajarito Cr at Business Lp 181 - - - 69,000 - 66 - - - - - > 0 - 0 > 0 0 20350 Picosa Cr at SH 97 1,500 1,100 500 9,300 580 3,700 1,100 26 32 68 17 120 - 25 53 8 12880 SAR at FM 541 49 200 100 160 79 340 62 - - - - > 0 - 0 - - 12879 SAR at FM 791 19 48 39 66 70 70 25 - 40 36 2 70 - 59 51 66 Note: Yellow=Conc.>126 cfu/100mL, Red=Conc.>394 cfu/100mL

203

Table 2-45: USAR below Loop 410 Reaches with Observed Substantial Bacteria Load Increases

Sep-08 Oct-08 Nov-08 Dec-08 Jan-09 Feb-09 Mar-09 Apr-09 May-09 Jun-09 Jul-09 Aug-09 Sep-09 Oct-09 Nov-09 Dec-09 Loop 410 - Blue Wing x x Blue Wing - Medina Confl x x x x x Medina Confl - IH37 x x x x x x x x IH37 - Loop 1604 x x x x x x x x x Loop 1604 - CR125 x x x x x x x CR125- FM3444 x x FM3444 - Labatt x x x x x x Labatt - Dietzfield x x x x x Dietzfield - FM536 x x x x x x x x x FM536 - SH97 x x x x x x x x SH97 - FM541 x x x x x FM541 - FM791 Medina River xxxxxxxxxxxx x x Calavaras Cr Seguin Br Pajarito Cr Picosa Cr

204

3.0 WATER QUALITY MODEL

3.1 MODEL BACKGROUND

The watershed water quality model HSPF (Hydrologic Simulation Program - Fortran) was applied to the Upper San Antonio River and its tributaries for development of a Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) for bacteria. HSPF is a widely used model that is supported by the US EPA, and it has been applied for simulation of a variety of constituents in waterbodies for more than 30 years. The model can account for both continuously discharging point source loadings and nonpoint source loadings attributable to washoff via precipitation and runoff in the watershed. HSPF includes simulation of the receiving stream, as it routes flow and water quality mass loadings downstream. A detailed description of the model setup is included in the Upper San Antonio River TMDL modeling report (JMA, 2006).

In the application of HSPF to Segment 1911 of the Upper San Antonio River for the TMDL, multiple subwatersheds were delineated, land use classifications were assigned, and stream channel characteristics were estimated. The model was calibrated for streamflow and fecal coliform simulation based upon historical flow and bacteria data available at several key monitoring locations. The calibrated model was used to determine bacterial loading allocations for point source and nonpoint source contributions to the Upper San Antonio River. A separate HSPF model was set up in a similar manner for simulation of bacteria in Salado Creek, Segment 1910, and its tributary Walzem Creek, Segment 1910A. Results from the simulation for fecal coliform were converted to provide allocations in terms of E. coli (TCEQ, 2007) for Segments 1910, 1910A, and 1911.

The model for the upper reach of the San Antonio River (above Loop 410) was modified as part of the WPP development process. The model enhancements were included in the final modeling activities completed pursuant to the TMDL. The major enhancements made to the model for the upper reach are summarized as follows:

• San Antonio stormwater data were compiled and employed to adjust key bacterial wash off loading parameters • Subbasin boundaries (delineations) were modified to reflect the networks of storm sewers and man-made channels that have altered natural drainage patterns • The watershed that defined San Pedro Creek was split into two, so that concentrations in the creek could be more accurately simulated • Newer and more accurate land use data were used to refine land use statistics for subbasins. • Model hydraulics within the study area were revised, and the San Antonio River Tunnel was included.

205

3.2 SALADO CREEK MODEL ENHANCEMENTS

As part of the support for development of the Implementation Plan, updates are being made to the HSPF model for Salado Creek. These updates are similar in nature to the improvements made for the Upper San Antonio River model during the WPP project (as described in the previous section). The major enhancements to the Salado Creek model are summarized below:

• Subbasin boundaries (delineations) were modified to reflect the networks of storm sewers and man-made channels that have altered natural drainage patterns • Additional subwatersheds were delineated for Walzem Creek and Rosillo Creek to provide better resolution of bacteria concentrations. • Subwatersheds and reaches were renumbered • Newer and more accurate land cover data were used to refine land use statistics for subbasins • Modeling input and output were converted to E. coli • The model was recalibrated with additional flow and bacteria data

The purpose of the HSPF model is to evaluate watershed management practices required to achieve bacteria loading reductions and bring the river into compliance with state criteria. This application may be required throughout the development of the Implementation Plan.

3.2.1 Watershed Boundary Adjustments

The original model utilized watershed boundaries delineated from a digital elevation model (DEM). While this provided acceptable results for a regional water quality model, it did not allow for detailed analysis within the study area. To improve this delineation, additional data were acquired from the City of San Antonio (COSA) showing the details of the City’s storm drainage system. Figure 3-1 presents the revised subbasin boundaries for the lower, more urban portion of Salado Creek.

The COSA data include storm sewers, and earthen and concrete drainage channels, represented collectively in Figure 3-1 as the “storm drainage system”. A dataset of storm sewer inlets (not shown) was also provided. In the relatively flat and urban southern portions of the study area, these man-made drainage pathways often proved more important for subbasin delineation than the indistinctive digital elevation data. However, in areas where the storm sewer data were incomplete, aerial imagery and DEM data were used in conjunction with best professional judgment to augment the drainage data.

Watershed boundaries were also adjusted to align better with monitoring points, control structures, and stream confluences. Several additional subwatersheds were delineated to provide more spatial detail for key areas, such as Walzem Creek. This allows for more detailed modeling results and improved model calibration within the study area. Figure 3-2 presents the subbasin delineation for the entire Salado Creek watershed.

206

Figure 3-1: Salado Creek Urban Subbasins and Drainage Network

207

Figure 3-2: Salado Creek Watershed

208

3.2.2 Revised Land Use Data

The National Land Cover Database 2001 (NLCD 2001) was utilized for the improvements to the Salado Creek model. This dataset, which became available in 2006, represents the most recent data available from the USGS. For the San Antonio area, the dataset includes 15 different types of land cover, as illustrated in Figure 3-3. For the purposes of the present project, various land cover classes were consolidated into specified modeling land use categories, as shown in Table 3-1. These consolidated land use categories were generally similar to the categories that were utilized in the previous TMDL modeling effort (JMA, 2006).

Table 3-1 also includes the percent effective impervious cover values used in the modeling analysis. These values do not exactly match the impervious cover values found in NLCD literature. The model uses “effective” impervious cover for hydrologic simulation. Impervious areas that flow downgrade onto pervious areas, via sheet flow, are not considered fully effective. So, it is not unusual for the effective impervious cover to be somewhat lower than the published impervious cover estimate.

The Salado Creek watershed is highly urbanized within its core area, with less dense development in the upper and lower portions. Tables 3-2 and 3-3 present a summary of land use by subbasin, for above and below Loop 410 North, respectively. Above Loop 410N, the largest land use category is forest, which covers nearly 48% of this area. The second largest land use is residential, which represents the suburbs of the greater San Antonio area. Below Loop 410N, residential areas (pervious and impervious) account for about 48% of the land use, making it the largest land use. Forest, which includes the woody riparian areas along Salado Creek, is the second largest land use category below Loop 410N.

The San Antonio River Authority did have access to other recently completed land use datasets. A Composite Land use data set was developed specifically for hydrologic modeling applications (PBS&J, 2006), and this data set was used for previous improvements to the modeling enhancements for the San Antonio River urban core. This Composite land use data set was a synthesis of information from the City of San Antonio 2005 Zoning coverage, Bexar County 2004 Parcel coverage, USGS 1992 Land Cover Dataset, and USGS National Hydrography Dataset. This dataset was not used for the Salado Creek modeling enhancements due to the necessity to conduct detailed site by site review. Another recent land use data set was also prepared for hydrologic modeling (Halff, 2007). This dataset, developed primarily from City zoning maps, was reviewed and determined to contain some unusual decisions regarding land use and impervious cover, which made it inappropriate for the purposes of this project.

209

Figure 3-3: Salado Creek Land Cover

210

Table 3-1: Land Use Classification Summary NLCD 2001 NLCD 2001 HSPF Percent Effective Land Cover ID Land Cover Type Land Use Type Impervious Cover 11 Open Water n/a n/a 1/2 Open Space 0% 21 Developed Open Space 1/2 Residential 0% 22 Developed Low Intensity Residential 5% 23 Developed Medium Intensity Residential 20% 24 Developed High Intensity Comm/Industrial 60% 31 Barren Land Open Space 0% 41 Deciduous Forest Forest 0% 42 Evergreen Forest Forest 0% 43 Mixed Forest Forest 0% 1/2 Forest 0% 52 Shrub/Scrub 1/2 Rangeland 0% 71 Grassland/Herbaceous Rangeland 0% 1/2 Cropland 0% 81 Pasture/Hay 1/2 Rangeland 0% 82 Cultivated Crops Cropland 0% 90 Woody Wetlands Forest 0% 95 Herbaceous Wetlands Forest 0%

211

Table 3-2: Land Use by Subbasin, above Loop 410 North Comm/Ind. Residential Open Subbasins Forest Rangeland Cropland Total Perv. Imperv. Perv. Imperv. Space 10 0 0 351 5 267 4,950 1,732 0 7,306 20 5 7 261 12 150 3,122 627 0 4,182 21 0 0 66 1 45 2,951 537 0 3,600 30 6 9 762 85 174 3,102 152 0 4,290 40 104 156 1,561 161 360 528 56 0 2,925 50 253 379 1,575 123 647 298 115 5 3,395 51 0 0 120 3 76 2,727 529 0 3,455 52 0 0 26 0 26 1,281 143 0 1,475 53 1 2 348 17 146 1,526 165 0 2,205 54 1 1 754 51 201 646 75 0 1,729 55 0 0 286 29 53 304 63 0 735 56 3 5 245 19 72 96 11 0 451 57 16 23 786 73 168 156 50 0 1,272 58 20 30 429 35 162 200 63 0 939 59 26 39 1,270 164 149 419 91 0 2,159 61 6 10 940 55 421 232 48 0 1,712 70 58 86 683 50 224 129 90 19 1,339 71 7 10 244 16 128 2,686 295 0 3,386 72 0 0 191 7 123 4,345 618 0 5,285 73 5 7 120 15 206 1,248 445 0 2,047 74 0 0 67 6 100 1,160 418 0 1,752 75 5 7 613 82 193 764 390 0 2,054 76 13 19 721 60 168 634 176 0 1,790 77 5 7 398 37 80 845 98 0 1,469 78 0 0 272 32 46 483 127 0 961 79 3 4 206 23 39 180 31 0 485 81 5 7 2,045 89 946 3,064 683 0 6,839 82 4 5 456 28 144 640 233 0 1,510 83 19 28 706 78 255 823 479 0 2,387 84 3 5 178 14 50 110 12 0 374 85 16 23 1,085 134 173 416 119 0 1,967 86 155 232 2,129 159 734 316 117 0 3,843 87 18 26 1,377 157 166 339 54 0 2,137 90 8 12 208 12 97 83 5 0 425 91 142 212 2,333 250 655 505 328 0 4,425 Total 902 1,353 23,813 2,082 7,646 41,309 9,175 24 86,304 Percent 1.0% 1.6% 27.6% 2.4% 8.9% 47.9% 10.6% 0.0% 100.0%

212

Table 3-3: Land Use by Subbasin, below Loop 410 North Comm/Ind. Residential Open Subbasins Forest Rangeland Cropland Total Perv. Imperv. Perv. Imperv. Space 100 41 62 310 33 64 116 10 0 636 101 378 567 1,381 119 359 104 72 0 2,981 102 202 303 3,290 341 655 365 316 0 5,473 103 237 355 1,758 167 421 395 129 0 3,462 110 46 70 389 31 92 18 3 0 648 111 14 20 530 39 153 46 30 0 832 120 38 56 354 33 63 80 13 0 637 121 108 162 996 81 142 28 24 0 1,541 122 1 2 228 20 20 9 1 0 281 130 68 103 1,554 76 671 447 75 0 2,994 140 38 57 374 35 138 155 29 0 826 150 200 299 930 99 223 284 67 0 2,102 160 64 96 170 16 85 27 8 0 466 170 14 21 45 5 20 4 1 0 110 171 148 222 1,217 126 237 15 15 0 1,980 180 53 79 692 49 192 247 16 0 1,328 190 56 84 1,112 90 295 112 28 0 1,777 200 65 98 1,838 109 587 900 238 30 3,866 210 2 2 148 9 37 198 17 11 422 220 31 47 755 56 199 749 276 83 2,197 230 3 4 100 7 40 134 104 30 421 240 15 22 211 11 109 919 417 136 1,839 241 392 589 3,047 280 642 1,219 995 0 7,164 242 206 309 1,970 154 733 1,625 1,617 851 7,466 243 52 79 1,373 88 504 1,194 722 291 4,304 Total 2,473 3,709 24,770 2,075 6,680 9,390 5,223 1,431 55,752 Percent 4.4% 6.7% 44.4% 3.7% 12.0% 16.8% 9.4% 2.6% 100.0%

213

4.0 POINT SOURCES AND CONTROL MEASURES

4.1 ASSESSMENT OF POINT SOURCES

4.1.1 Treatment Facilities

Point sources, such as municipal wastewater treatment plants, can contribute fecal bacteria loads to surface water streams through effluent discharges. These point sources are permitted through the Texas Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (TPDES) program that is managed by the TCEQ. An inventory of permitted point sources located in the watershed of the Upper San Antonio River is provided in Table 4-1, in upstream to downstream order. The municipal wastewater treatment facilities have the potential to contribute bacteria. Other permitted discharges in the study area have a very low likelihood that they would discharge fecal bacteria. Such sources might include industrial wastewater dischargers, quarries, or facilities that operate with no-discharge permits.

Table 4-1: Point Sources Point Source Description Location NPDES Type Comments Upper San Antonio River VH Braunig Von Rosenberg Power Plant Streich Rd near Lake Victor Braunig TX0063690 Industrial Kelly Air Force Base Kelly Air Force Base TX0116114 Federal SAWS Salado Water Recycling Center near Blue Wing Road, below Loop 410 TX0052647 Municipal Not Discharging San Antonio Zoo Breckenridge Park, near Tuleta Drive - SAWS Reclaimed Water Outfall #2 Breckenridge Park, near Tuleta Drive TX0052647 Municipal SAWS Reclaimed Water Outfall #3 Josephine St. near tunnel entrance TX0052647 Municipal SAWS Reclaimed Water Outfall #5 Convention Center at Hemishpere Plaze TX0052647 Municipal Floresville WWTF Floresville, near FM 536 TX0056227 Municipal Irrigation Salado Creek SAWS Reclaimed Water Outfall #4 James Park, near Rittiman Road TX0052647 Municipal Capital Cement Plant Nacogdoches Rd and Wurzbach Pkwy TX0030040 Industrial W.B. Tuttle Power Plant Perrin-Beitel Rd near Wurzbach Pkwy TX0002682 Industrial Medina River Leon Creek Power Plant Quintana Rd near I-35 TX0063703 Industrial Applewhite WWTF Applewhite Rd, near Loop 1604 TX0127736 Industrial Camp Stanley Ralph Fair Rd and I-10 TX0064505 Federal Leon Creek Water Recycling Center Mauerman Rd near Lake Mitchell TX0052639 Municipal Bexar Metropolitan Corp. Moreno St near I-35 TX0125083 Industrial Bandera WWTF Bandera near Hwy 16 TX0022390 Municipal Dos Rios Water Recycling Center on Medina Rv, near confluence with SAR TX0077801 Municipal Medio Creek Water Recycling Center Adams Hills Dr, near US Hwy 90 TX0055689 Municipal La Costa WWTF La Costa on FM 584 TX0107743 Municipal Somerset WWTF Payne Rd south of Loop 1604 TX0074331 Municipal Brigdewood WWTF Dominion Country Club near I-10 TX0090603 Municipal Becker WWTF Talley Rd, west of Loop 1604 TX0127191 Municipal Calveras Creek Spruce Power Plant On Calveras Lake TX0063681 Industrial East Central WWTF Sulphur Springs Rd and Stuart St TX0074799 Municipal Walter Edwin WWTF US Hwy 181 and Loop 1604 TX0103802 Municipal Marcelinas Creek Falls City WWTF Falls City, near US Hwy 181 TX0054771 Municipal

214

Permitted point sources that process wastewater which may contain pathogens associated with fecal matter are typically required to provide disinfection for effluent that is discharged. Chlorination or some other form of disinfection is normally utilized within a mechanical wastewater treatment plant to achieve reduction of pathogens. Depending upon the type of treatment plant, a disinfected effluent may be required to monitor for fecal coliform bacteria, E. coli bacteria, or for concentration of total residual chlorine in the effluent. Because of disinfection, the bacteria loads released by the point source wastewater treatment plants are expected to be small.

For the Salado Creek watershed, there are no point sources that have a high potential for discharging bacteria. There is one discharge of reclaimed municipal effluent in the upper portion of the study segment that is sporadic in frequency and quantity. Records for the San Antonio Water System (SAWS) outfall no. 4 in James Park were obtained for the simulation period. Releases from this distribution system of reclaimed water are supposed to maintain a chlorine disinfectant residual, and the bacteria concentrations would be expected to be relatively low.

There are several point sources in the Upper San Antonio River watershed. However, most of these point sources are permitted, and are required to achieve disinfection prior to discharge. There are three reclaimed municipal effluent outfalls located in the upper portion of the watershed. Activation of these outfalls has been relatively recent and records for these outfalls were obtained from SAWS. Near the southern portion of the City of San Antonio, there are municipal wastewater treatment plants, but none discharge directly into the San Antonio River. The larger municipal facilities all discharge into the watershed of the Medina River, which is a tributary of the San Antonio River. The SAWS Dos Rios Wastewater Treatment Plant has been in operation for a number of years, and it discharges into the Medina very near the confluence with the San Antonio River. The SAWS Salado Wastewater Treatment Plant is permitted but is no longer continuously discharging, although it was in operation during much of the historical data collection period. Records for these municipal outfalls were obtained from SAWS. In the lower portion of the study segment, the Floresville Wastewater Treatment Plant discharges treated municipal effluent. Records for this outfall were obtained from the TCEQ. The Falls City treatment facility irrigates with most of its treated wastewater effluent, but effluent can be discharged. Records are available from the TCEQ.

There is one unpermitted facility in the Upper San Antonio River watershed that discharges substantial concentrations of fecal bacteria. The San Antonio Zoo is not a typical point source, and it could arguably be classified as a nonpoint source as well. The Zoo has an interior waterway that passes through numerous animal exhibits, fed by groundwater from the Edwards Aquifer. The internal waterway accepts bacterial loads from dense animal populations. The “nonpoint” sources are animal wastes that may be directly deposited into the waterway, or indirectly received when runoff reaches the waterway from animal pens during wash-down or storm events. The degree of loading can vary throughout the year as environmental conditions change and as wild birds, such as egrets, migrate in and out of the park. However, this entire bacteria load enters the river through two discrete outfalls, both of which discharge directly to the San Antonio River, which is why the Zoo can also be classified as a point source. The discharge flow rate was characterized using data reported to the Edwards Aquifer Authority on

215

an annual basis. Bacteria concentrations in the discharge were characterized using available grab sampling data from several sources, including recent sampling provided by SAWS and SARA.

4.1.2 MS4 Stormwater

Most of the urbanized area in the greater San Antonio metropolitan area is covered by an MS4 permit issued by the TCEQ. According to EPA guidelines, stormwater regulated by an MS4 permit is considered a point source for TMDL allocation purposes, rather than the more traditional label of nonpoint source for any type of stormwater runoff. As explained in Section 2.1.3, the City of San Antonio (Department of Public Works), TxDOT District 15, and SAWS are co-permittees under TPDES permit no. 04284, which was renewed on September 28, 2007 for a five-year term. The MS4 permit describes numerous tasks and activities that are required of the permittees. For example, a comprehensive stormwater management program (SWMP) and Annual Report are required from each permittee. Details on the tasks and activities are presented in the next section.

The MS4 stormwater loadings are substantial in the urbanized portion of the San Antonio watershed. As described previously in Table 1-1, the estimated bacteria loading from MS4 runoff in the Upper San Antonio watershed was 9x1015 cfu/year, along with 4x1015 cfu/year in the Salado Creek watershed. By their nature, these bacteria loads are not continuous, but instead are associated with the rainfall-driven runoff events throughout the year.

4.2 CONTROL MEASURES

4.2.1 Treatment Facilities

Point sources in the watershed generally have control measures in place for control of bacteria in discharges. As discussed above, wastewater treatment plants are required to have disinfection processes in place to reduce or eliminate bacteria. At the present time, the exception is the San Antonio Zoo, which has no treatment facility. The Zoo discharges have been examined and considered in detail in past reports (JMA, 2006; JMA, 2007).

The San Antonio Zoo is located within Brackenridge Park, near the intersection of the McAllister Freeway (US 281) and Hildebrand Avenue. The Zoo is a nonprofit 501(c)(3) organization, with a land lease from the City of San Antonio. According to Zoo literature, the Zoo’s 56 acres accommodate over 3,500 animals as regular residents, and 850,000 human visitors each year. In addition, there exists a large population of birds that occupy the tree canopy surrounding the Zoo. Particularly noticeable is a large, undocumented, population of egrets that nests in and around the Zoo during summer months. The Zoo’s internal waterway, supplied by pumpage from the Edwards Aquifer, and teeming with tilapia and other life, is one of the Zoo’s many attractions. It is this internal waterway and its drainage area that have been identified as a major source of bacteria loading to the San Antonio River. The Zoo’s waterway discharge typically contains bacteria levels 1 to 2 orders of magnitude higher than the state’s criteria for contact recreation.

Several treatment options for disinfection of the flow leaving the San Antonio Zoo were examined in the WPP (JMA, 2007). The most feasible concept considered was disinfection of 216

the dry weather flow of approximately 3 MGD. Under runoff conditions, flows become much greater, and water quality deteriorates so that detention, settling, and possibly filtration will be required prior to disinfection, necessitating substantial additional costs. Furthermore, under heavy runoff conditions, significant flow also leaves the Zoo via the secondary outfall. If runoff flows are to be treated, then all flow must be routed to the primary outfall or additional treatment units would be required at the secondary outfall. Therefore, treatment of storm flows was not recommended.

The evaluation of treatment alternatives concluded that disinfection with UV is the preferred option, although disinfection with ozone has merits similar to UV (JMA, 2007). The City of San Antonio has moved forward with planning for the treatment facility, but construction has not yet commenced.

4.2.2 MS4 Stormwater

The MS4 stormwater permit described in the preceding section includes components that address control measures for stormwater. The SWMP is a cooperative effort between the City of San Antonio, SAWS and TxDOT District 15 that identifies the programs and corresponding responsibly entity in managing the MS4. The Storm Water Fee in monthly utility bills funds the SWMP.

The MS4 permit requires two monitoring programs, Instream Monitoring and the Illicit Connection Program, which are both coordinated by SAWS. The Instream Monitoring collects samples during qualified rain events at seven locations, as described in Sec. 2.1.3. Instream monitoring data is recorded in a Discharge Monitoring Report (DMR). The Annual Report submitted to TCEQ includes this DMR along with other Wet Weather Monitoring Program data. The Illicit Connection Program consists of dry weather monitoring of approximately 425 outfalls (36” and larger) discharging into the MS4. The monitoring includes complaint investigation, open channel visual surveys, and responding to sanitary sewer overflows. Investigations and sampling are also conducted during the annual draining of the downtown River Loop, as some MS4 outfalls are typically underwater. Additional details on monitoring are provided in the next section.

SAWS is also the responsible party for the Overflow Elimination Program targeting sanitary sewer overflows (SSOs). The purpose of the program is to addresses inflow and wet weather infiltration, assess system condition, and recommend rehabilitation. SAWS has installed inline flow monitors to determine extraneous flow conditions and evaluate sewer hydraulic performance. The next section provides additional information on BMPs.

The TCEQ has issued rules that address stormwater generated by development over the Edwards Aquifer Recharge Zone. In the San Antonio area, the Edwards Aquifer Water Quality Protection Program is managed by SAWS. Water Pollution Abatement Plans are submitted to SAWS for review before development is allowed in the Edwards Aquifer Recharge Zone (EARZ). Impervious cover limits and stormwater runoff treatment are control measures specified in the protection plan.

217

The City of San Antonio Department of Public Works is responsible for the Storm Sewer (MS4) Maintenance. A Capital Improvements Program (CIP) addresses new system installation, existing system repairs and typical daily maintenance. At the time of the most recent SWMP, the department was approximately 78% complete of a $318.5 million infrastructure improvement program. Most of these projects involved enlarging existing open channel and closed storm sewers. Maintenance of the storm sewers is performed on an as need basis except for vegetation control and post storm services.

The Street Sweeping Program described in the SWMP is also the responsibility of the City of San Antonio Department of Public Works. Residential streets are swept semi-annually and main arterial/collectors are swept quarterly. As numerous events are held along the downtown Riverwalk area, approximately 28 miles of downtown streets are swept nightly (seven days per week).

TxDOT is responsible for the quality of storm water runoff to the MS4 associated with transportation activities. A Storm Water Advisory Team (SWAT) coordinates and reviews TxDOT stormwater management. TxDOT has pursued extensive research with the University of Texas to specifically study highway runoff and control measure effectiveness. Storm water pollution prevention plans are developed prior to permitted construction activities. TxDOT stormwater maintenance includes vegetation management, erosion control, and disposal practices.

General control measures, both structural and nonstructural, that are applicable to MS4 runoff are described in detail in the following section of this document under the category of nonpoint source controls, their traditional categorization.

218

5.0 OVERVIEW OF MANAGEMENT MEASURES FOR NONPOINT SOURCES

The following sections describe the potential nonpoint sources of bacteria loadings in the Upper San Antonio River watershed and summarize the possible management measures for addressing them. The watershed includes the urbanized areas of the City of San Antonio, as well as more rural areas downstream. In this section, runoff sources are generally referred to as nonpoint sources. This is the appropriate classification based on the conventional understanding of pollutant sources. However, as discussed in Section 1.3.1 and 4.1.2, permitted runoff sources are considered point sources for the purposes of TMDL calculation. Nonetheless, regardless of which label they are assigned, the control measures for stormwater loadings are applicable.

A range of management measures is described in this chapter and their effectiveness in addressing bacteria contributions is summarized. The various pollution control measures are often referred to as Best Management Practices, or BMPs. Where available, performance data are also provided to give an indication of how effective the BMPs might be at reducing bacteria levels in the watershed. Based on their effectiveness, selected management measures are recommended for implementation or further evaluation in the Upper San Antonio River watershed.

5.1 SUMMARY OF POTENTIAL SOURCES

A variety of nonpoint sources may contribute bacteria to streams in the study area. These can be categorized broadly as arising from either animal or human sources and being manifest as urban runoff, direct animal deposition, failing septic systems, or leaking wastewater infrastructure. These sources are “potential” with respect to the frequency, duration, and magnitude of their contributions, but they are all probable or likely to occur. Contributions from these sources are described below.

5.1.1 Urban Runoff

General urban runoff, with its myriad of potential contributions from human, pet, and wildlife sources, would be expected to be one of the largest sources of bacteria in the Upper San Antonio River watershed in terms of the total number of bacteria released. This expectation would reflect the fact that a significant portion of the watershed is highly urbanized with a complex of residential and commercial land use types. The watershed of the San Antonio River includes the intensely developed San Antonio core (downtown) area.

Runoff occurs in response to precipitation that falls on the land surface. This runoff of incident rainfall then washes pollutants from the land surfaces and conveys them to receiving streams. In a highly urbanized area, the presence of a large amount of impervious cover results in increased runoff quantities and velocities and enhanced ability to scour pollutants from the land surface.

The TMDL modeling confirms that urban runoff is the major source of bacterial loadings in the watershed area. These runoff bacteria loads are not continuous, since they occur only when precipitation events produce runoff. Therefore on most days of the year, there is no bacteria

219

loading due to urban runoff. Other sources must then be responsible for the contribution of bacteria under dry weather conditions.

5.1.2 Nonurban Runoff

Much of the San Antonio River watershed is rural in nature, featuring extensive rangeland, cropland, and forested areas. These rural watersheds contain potentially large sources of bacteria associated with wildlife and livestock.

Runoff occurs in response to precipitation that falls on the land surface. This runoff of incident rainfall then washes pollutants from the land surfaces and conveys them to receiving streams. In a rural area, the presence of wildlife and livestock provides fecal material on the land surface that is available for subsequent washoff during runoff events. In addition, animals may also deposit fecal material directly to the stream channel. There are locations along the lower segment of the San Antonio River where cattle have access to the channel for watering, for example.

The rural areas also include smaller cities and towns, which either have centralized wastewater collection and treatment or are served by onsite septic systems. These are potential sources of bacteria of human origin.

5.1.3 Direct Animal Deposition

Pets and wildlife can deposit fecal contamination directly into the tributaries and main stem of the Upper San Antonio River. This is a nonpoint source, since the location is variable and not confined to an outfall. This phenomenon was incorporated in the TMDL model as the category of “direct nonpoint source” contributions. There exist no actual data or measurements that can be used to quantify the direct source contribution. It would be expected to be highly variable in any specific location, depending upon animal visitation. However, certain locales could represent relatively continuous sources, such as avian nesting areas in the riparian tree canopy or cattle watering areas. Direct deposition to the stream should not be confused with deposition to the land surface. Deposition to the land surface for subsequent wash off is considered a runoff source (or “indirect” source), as described in the previous sections.

5.1.4 Septic Systems

Private residential sewage treatment systems (septic systems) typically consist of one or more septic tanks and a drainage or distribution field. Household waste flows into the septic tank where solids settle out. The liquid portion of the waste then flows to the distribution system which usually consists of perforated pipes buried in a soil or gravel bed. Effluent in the bed may move vertically to groundwater, laterally to surface water, or upward to the ground surface. As it moves, the majority of the liquid portion is consumed by evapotranspiration of vegetation planted on top of the distribution field or adjacent to it. Properly designed, installed, and maintained septic systems would be expected to contribute virtually no bacteria to surface waters. The principal removal mechanism for the bacteria would be die-off as the liquid moves through the soil. Various studies have attempted to quantify the transport and delivery of bacteria in effluent from septic systems. For example, it has been reported that less than 0.01%

220

of fecal coliform originating in the household waste moves farther than 6.5 feet downgradient from the drainfield (Weiskel, 1996).

A septic system failure can occur via two mechanisms. First, drainfield failures, broken pipes, or overloading could result in uncontrolled, direct discharges to the streams. Such failures would not be expected to be common in the study watershed, but they could occur in reaches with older homes located near a watercourse. As a second mechanism, and overloaded drainfield could experience surfacing of effluent, and the pollutants would then be available for surface accumulation and subsequent wash off under runoff conditions.

There are approximately 32,700 registered on-site sewage facilities (OSSFs), or septic systems, in Bexar County. Shavano Park, Hill Country Village and Hollywood Park regulate their own septic systems within the Upper San Antonio River watershed.

The City of Shavano Park is located along Salado Creek in northern San Antonio. Shavano Park includes over 2,000 residents and 685 registered septic systems. Most of the septic systems are located on one acre lots or larger.

Hollywood Park is located in northern San Antonio near the junction of Loop 1604 and U.S. Highway 281. Hollywood Park has includes 1200 registered septic systems on lots typically less than one acre. Approximately fifty of the OSSFs are aerobic systems.

The City of Hill Country Village is located in northern San Antonio, directly south of Hollywood Park. Hill Country Village includes approximately 360 residences which are all served by septic systems.

5.1.5 Wastewater Collection Systems

There are numerous centralized wastewater collection systems in the watershed of the Upper San Antonio River (see Figure 5-1). In the immediate San Antonio urban area, the San Antonio Water System (SAWS) and ten other local wastewater utility entities (Alamo Heights, Balcones Heights, Castle Hills, Ft. Sam Houston, Leon Valley, Olmos Park, Terrell Hills, Windcrest, Kirby, and Camp Bullis), have miles of buried pipes in a centralized sanitary sewer collection system. SAWS provides either retail or wholesale service to these satellite entities. With retail service, SAWS owns and maintains the collection system within the municipal boundaries. With wholesale service, SAWS receives the wastewater from the city and provides subsequent transport and treatment services. Retail customers are Castle Hills and Terrell Hills. The other satellite systems are wholesale customers. Outside of the immediate San Antonio urban area, other centralized collection systems exist, including Floresville, and Falls City. These sanitary sewer collection systems receive wastes from residences and commercial establishments in their service areas and convey the waste to treatment plants. Most of the collection systems convey wastewater via gravity flow along a network of pipes and manholes. Some wastewater is pumped through lift stations, and conveyed via force mains.

221

Figure 5-1: Wastewater Collection Systems

222

Every major metropolitan area in Texas has challenges and problems with their sanitary sewer collection system. Houston, Dallas, El Paso, and San Antonio have all received Administrative Orders from the US EPA to address specific problems with the collection systems (EPA, 2008). Problems invariably occur with aging systems. Pipes can develop cracks or leaks, grease and other foreign material can cause blockages, shifting soil can cause pipe joints to be misaligned, corrosive gases can attack and deteriorate pipe materials, and over time, increasing connections and number of users can render the carrying capacity of some pipes to be inadequate.

Fort Sam Houston occupies approximately 3,000 acres in east-central San Antonio and the wastewater collection system includes 880 manholes and 1 lift station. The system contributes approximately 1.02 MGD during dry weather periods and is comprised of approximately 232,000 linear feet of 6-21” gravity sewer line. In two locations, buried sewer mains cross Salado Creek. Most of the gravity lines were constructed with vitrified clay or concrete pipe and are at least 75 years old (Bohannan Huston, 1985). In 2007 the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) began a Comprehensive Infrastructure Study that included the centralized wastewater collection system (Pipeline Analysis, LLC, 2007). The Sanitary Sewer Evaluation Survey included manhole assessment, flow monitoring, lift station evaluation, smoke testing, television inspection and dye testing. Monitoring results revealed that the existing system contains dry weather flows without experiencing surcharges but that several areas exceed 50% of the pipe capacity under peak flow conditions. Flow rates increased during observed wet weather events, indicating structural defects with manholes or pipelines. Inflow and infiltration effects could not be statistically ranked or quantified due to drought conditions during the monitoring extent that yielded only one significant rainfall event and unusually dry antecedent soil conditions. The lift station was found to be in overall good condition with minor improper operation configurations. The most critical deficiency was noted as the frequent surcharging at the manhole immediately downstream of the lift station discharge main. The manhole is noted to have insufficient exit pipe capacity and experiences frequent surcharging and possible overflows during lift station operation. The Fort Sam Houston system has several outfalls that discharge into the SAWS collection system. Monitoring at two of the SAWS mains indicated that they were operating at greater than 50% of dry weather capacity which could potentially affect the ability of Fort Sam Houston to discharge under wet weather conditions.

Alamo Heights is an incorporated city in north San Antonio. The Alamo Heights wastewater collection system includes no lift stations, 5-6 creek crossings, approximately 33 miles of pipe and serves over 2700 connections. Maintenance on the system is coordinated with the overall Alamo Heights Capital Improvements Project (CIP). In 2009, TV camera inspection and line clearing (flushing/de-rooting) was conducted for approximately two-thirds of the system. Additional maintenance is conducted as needed. One overflow occurred in 2008 but was not documented.

The City of Olmos Park is a municipality located immediately north of the headwaters of the San Antonio River. The City has a wastewater collection system with an estimated 12 miles of pipe. The system is entirely gravity and there are no lift stations or creek crossings. Between 2002 and 2004, the city rehabilitated approximately 95% of collection lines with a inner pipe sleeve relining. The collection system is maintained by the City of Olmos Park and discharges into the

223

SAWS system. No formal maintenance program exists; repairs are handled case by case as they arrive. One overflow occurred in 2007 and was reported to the TCEQ.

The City of Castle Hills is situated in north San Antonio. Limited data is available on this system, but it has been in place since the 1950’s. SAWS took over service and maintenance of the Castle Hills system in February 2009. No overflow data was available. Repairs were recently completed for two segments of the collection system according to the City spokesman.

Leon Valley is a municipality located in northwest San Antonio. The Leon Valley wastewater collection system includes 37 miles of mains and laterals, no lift stations, one creek crossing (Huebner Creek), and presently serves approximately 3,000 users. Much of the collection system is located outside of the watershed of the uppermost San Antonio River. The City of Leon Valley currently budgets $200,000 annually for video inspection and sewer maintenance. The entire collection system has been inspected within the previous 10-13 years and a program of rehabilitation has been established to systematically repair or replace areas of concern. No overflow data or reports are available.

The City of Terrell Hills is located in northeast San Antonio. No information was available on the size of the collection system or its components. There are no reports of overflows. SAWS took over maintenance and service of the collection system in 2008.

The City of Balcones Heights is an incorporated city surrounded by San Antonio. The Balcones Heights collection system includes no lift stations and serves a 0.62 square mile area before discharging into the SAWS system. No creek or river crossings occur, although one sewer main runs parallel along Woodlawn Creek. The City of Balcones Heights owns and maintains the collection system mains and laterals. Maintenance is currently conducted as needed and examined corresponding with street repair. A Capital Improvement Program is presently in development and should address future routine maintenance.

The City of Windcrest is located in northeast San Antonio, within the watershed of Salado Creek. The City has approximately 28 miles of collection system mains that it owns and maintains. There are no lift stations in the gravity flow system. Wastewater is discharged into the SAWS collection system at three outfalls.

The City of Kirby operates a wastewater collection system within the Salado Creek watershed. Wastewater is discharged into the SAWS collection system.

Camp Bullis is a US Army installation located in the far northern portion of the Salado Creek watershed. The base covers 28,000 acres and is used mainly for training exercises. There are approximately 43,000 linear feet of wastewater mains, along with six lift stations.

Shavano Park, Hollywood Park, and Hill Country Village are small municipalities that are served primarily by septic systems, but they also have some wastewater collection mains. Data on these small systems is not readily available.

224

In the Upper San Antonio River Basin study area, the most extensive sanitary collection system is operated and maintained by SAWS. The size of this system (which is not all located within the Upper San Antonio River or Salado Creek study areas) is noteworthy: • Approximately 5,000 miles of wastewater mains • 165 lift stations • Total average flow of roughly 100 MGD on dry days • Total average flow of up to 300 MGD on wet days

Because SAWS has the largest system in the study area, much more information and data are available, including assessments and reports on specific areas. Analogous to geographic watersheds, the SAWS collection system has been delineated into four “sewersheds”: the Central Basin, Eastern Basin, Western Basin, and Far West Basin. Each sewershed collection system has been analyzed and evaluated in roughly the past 10 years. These studies generally considered the main lines within the collection system, and included inspections of selected manholes and pipes, flow metering, wastewater system modeling, and descriptions of proposed improvements and costs. Generally, the studies examine a small portion of the collection system and then extrapolate findings to the entire system. The studies documented problems within the collection system, and provided the basis for design of infrastructure improvements. For the present study, details from the assessments of the Central and Eastern sewersheds will be discussed, since these two largely comprise the watershed of the Upper San Antonio River.

In the Central sewershed, an assessment of flow conditions, capacities, and improvements was prepared (PBS&J, 2004). That study included a summary of an earlier sanitary sewer evaluation and survey (SSES) that indicated that a significant portion of the collection system was in poor or critical condition (AGT, 1998). The 1998 SSES results found 2,199 manholes with some type of defect, 5,812 pipe sections with defects, and additional defects observed during smoke testing. Age of the system was a predominant concern, with approximately 27% of the system older than 50 years, and some areas dating back more than 100 years. More than half of the system has been constructed since 1980. Flow monitoring conducted in conjunction with the assessment indicated a significant amount of surcharging that could potentially result in overflows. Problems included exceedance of design life, corrosive internal conditions, lateral displacement or settlement, and proximity to watercourses that are actively eroding. Computer modeling of the collection system (12-inch pipes and larger) was conducted to verify performance and predict future performance. The hydraulic model is typically constructed to be conservative, to provide the basis for design of infrastructure improvements with sufficient capacity to transport design storm flow events. Modeling of dry weather flows indicated 404 surcharged pipes and some overflow with 2002 population levels, and more problems with 2022 population levels. Simulation of wet weather design flows showed 2549 surcharged pipes and overflows at 2002 populations, increasing at 2022 population. By definition, a surcharged pipe in the model output simply means that the hydraulic grade line is above the crown of the pipe but below the manhole rim, which translates to only a potential problem with overflows and does not signal that overflows will actually occur. Actual documented overflows are much less frequent, as described later in this section.

In the Eastern sewershed, many of the major collection lines were graded as being in poor or critical structural condition (PBS&J, 2006). Problems were cited due to age of pipelines,

225

corrosive conditions, lateral displacement or settlement, and proximity to watercourses. A total of 180 manholes (less than 0.7% of the total in the sewershed) were inspected as part of the study, but half of those inspected were observed to have defects requiring rehabilitation (GSWW, 2006). Ten siphons were inspected, and many had nonfunctional flow control gates. Observed defects included heavy deterioration of the manhole and siphon structures, surcharging of pipelines, debris deposition, and deterioration of pipelines. Computer modeling of dry weather flows indicated 212 surcharged pipelines at the 2005 population, and more surcharged lines and overflows at 2030 population. Wet weather modeling indicated overflows and 1036 surcharged lines at 2005 population figures and severe capacity deficiencies. As mentioned previously, the projection that a line is surcharged indicates only a potential for overflow. The modeling was conservative, designed to provide a sufficient capacity in future improvements.

The scope and estimated cost of improvements to the sanitary sewer collection system that was developed in the sewershed studies is substantial. For the Western sewershed (CDM, 2002), collection system improvements were estimated at $242 million. For the Central sewershed, costs were estimated at $372 million, and Eastern sewershed improvements were estimated at $558 million (PBS&J, 2006). Again, it should be recognized that the cost estimates were extrapolations based on examination of a small portion of the watershed. SAWS has embarked on significant capital improvements to upgrade the collection system, as described in the following section.

Since 1992, SAWS has received four Administrative Orders from the US EPA regarding overflows from the sanitary sewer system. Administrative Orders were issued in 1992, 1994, 1996, and 1997. Each Administrative Order specified certain actions that were to be taken to address specific problems or issues. For example, the Administrative Order received in 1997 called for rehabilitation of the Western sewershed, flow monitoring and an infiltration and inflow study for the Central sewershed, and flow monitoring and an infiltration and inflow study for the Eastern sewershed. The specific problems and locations that have been documented historically do not need to be detailed in the present analysis. A summary of the overflows reported by SAWS during the period 2004 - 2008 is shown in Figure 5-2, which includes events inside and outside of the watershed of the study area. Note that this type of detailed data is not available for the smaller, satellite wastewater utility operations in the study area.

226

Figure 5-2: SAWS Overflow Summary

In response to the Administrative Orders and the completed sewershed studies, SAWS has been engaged in aggressive improvements to the sanitary sewer system. Ongoing Capital Improvements Projects have addressed a number of collection system problems, and these will be described in more detail in the section on control measures. SAWS also has in place a significant operation and maintenance program, that will also be described in more detail in a subsequent section.

All of the sanitary sewer collection systems that are located in the watershed represent a potential source of bacterial contribution in the Upper San Antonio River Basin study area. The concentration of indicator bacteria in raw sewage is high, with data from the SAWS system indicating E. coli counts on the order of 2 x 1012 cfu/100 mL. The potential pathways for release of bacteria include the following: • Exfiltration from pipes and lift stations via cracks, corroded pipe surfaces, or misaligned joints • Overflows from lift stations • Overflows or bypasses from siphons • Overflows from manholes under surcharged pipe conditions

227

These potential problems can occur under dry weather flow conditions, and they can occur at a variety of locations if temporary blockages by debris are formed. The same problems can be exacerbated under wet weather flow conditions. While the City of San Antonio’s NPDES Storm Water Annual Reports (City of San Antonio, 2002 through 2004) provides minimum estimates of sanitary sewer overflows, there is no set of data or measurements that precisely quantifies leakage from the City’s sanitary collection system.

The types of problems described in the preceding paragraphs can be expected to be present in all of the centralized systems located within the watershed of the Upper San Antonio River. Urban systems for Fort Sam Houston, Balcones Heights, Leon Valley, Alamo Heights, Castle Hills, Terrell Hills, Wincrest, Kirby, Camp Bullis, and Olmos Park have a relative paucity of data and past engineering assessments, compared to the SAWS system, but they have fundamental similarities. Systems for small rural communities, such as Floresville and Falls City, may not be as extensive as the urban systems, but they can be expected to have the same types of problems and they have the ability to impact water quality in the San Antonio River in their immediate areas.

5.1.6 Homeless/Transient Population

Another potential source of human waste in the study area could be untreated waste from transients or the homeless population. These individuals do not always have access to centralized plumbing and restroom facilities. They may deposit waste directly into or in close proximity to the study area’s waterways. This is a plausible source, since many of the bridges along the various stream channels may provide temporary or semi-permanent shelter. Field sampling crews in the present study did encounter a number of transients at bridge crossings, particularly along San Pedro, Apache, Alazan, and Martinez Creeks. There exist no actual measurements of this potential source of bacteria.

5.1.7 Garbage Dumps

There exist known or suspected garbage dumping sites adjacent to the study area watercourses. Numerous sites can be identified in a database compiled by the Alamo Area Council of Governments (AACOG). Studies in other portions of the United States have identified landfill leachate as a potential source of bacteria. There have been no studies of this potential source in the San Antonio area.

5.2 MANAGEMENT MEASURES FOR WASTEWATER COLLECTION SYSTEMS

Central wastewater systems throughout the watershed are subject to problems, and this section discusses appropriate control measures. The large SAWS collection system has the most information available regarding control measures and practices. The information available for the smaller systems is limited. Smaller systems often do not have the high level of maintenance and operations that the larger systems enjoy. In that respect, more frequent problems might be expected, albeit the problems may be of a smaller scale.

228

5.2.1 Rehabilitation, Replacement, and Maintenance of City Sewers

The scope of wastewater collection system maintenance can be highly variable among system owners and operators. The following types of activities have been recommended in the literature for a comprehensive sewer maintenance program (CASQA, 2004):

• Clean sewer lines on a regular basis to remove grease, grit, and other debris that may lead to sewer backups. • Establish routine maintenance program. Cleaning should be conducted at an established minimum frequency and more frequently for problem areas such as restaurants that are identified • Cleaning activities may require removal of tree roots and other identified obstructions. • During routine maintenance and inspection note the condition of sanitary sewer structures and identify areas that need repair or maintenance. Items to note may include the following: o Cracked/deteriorating pipes o Leaking joints/seals at manhole o Frequent line plugs o Line generally flows at or near capacity o Suspected infiltration or exfiltration. • Prioritize repairs based on the nature and severity of the problem. Immediate clearing of blockage or repair is required where an overflow is currently occurring or for urgent problems that may cause an imminent overflow (e.g. pump station failures, sewer line ruptures, sewer line blockages). These repairs may be temporary until scheduled or capital improvements can be completed. • Review previous sewer maintenance records to help identify “hot spots” or areas with frequent maintenance problems and locations of potential system failure.

The following information was obtained for the existing maintenance and rehabilitation programs for the various wastewater utilities in the study area.

Fort Sam Houston • Maintenance conducted as needed • Sanitary Sewer Evaluation Survey occurred in 2007

City of Alamo Heights • Maintenance conducted as needed • Coordinated with overall City Capital Improvements Program • TV camera inspection and line cleaning occurred for approximately two-thirds of system in 2009

City of Olmos Park • Maintenance conducted as needed • Approximately 95% of system rehabilitated with inner pipe lining in 2002-2004

229

City of Balcones Heights • Maintenance conducted as needed • Sewers typically examined corresponding with street repair • Capital Improvement Program currently in development

City of Castle Hills • Maintenance conducted by SAWS • Two line segments recently repaired (Lemon Wood; Wisteria-Castle Ln)

City of Terrell Hills • Maintenance conducted by SAWS

City of Leon Valley • Currently budgets $200,000 annually for line inspection and maintenance • Entire system TV camera inspected within previous 10-13 years

City of Windcrest • No information

City of Kirby • No information

Camp Bullis • No information

SAWS • Larger system, greater resources, well defined program (see below)

SAWS has instituted BMPs for the management and operation of its collection system that more than encompass the items described at the beginning of this section. SAWS made a commitment to implement an aggressive, long-term investment strategy to modernize equipment, expand in- house resources, increase productivity, and become more proactive in the planning, operation, maintenance, and renewal of the wastewater collection system. Eighteen specific BMPs included in the SAWS program are briefly described below:

BMP 1: Sanitary Sewer Overflow (SSO) Emergency Response

SAWS has in place emergency response procedures and spill reporting procedures. The agency is staffed, trained, and equipped to respond quickly to SSOs. Detection of leaks or failures at lift stations has improved with the use of SCADA remote sensing monitoring and alarms.

BMP 2: Pretreatment Program

SAWS has administers and enforces a pretreatment program that is primarily directed at control of grease, which is a leading cause of SSOs. Limits are placed on the amount of grease that can

230

be discharged into the collection system, and grease traps are required for appropriate users. SAWS staff routinely inspects the grease traps and compliance history of significant users.

BMP 3: Odor/Corrosion Control Program

SAWS has implemented an odor/corrosion control program to combat pipe corrosion attributable to formation of hydrogen sulfide and sulfuric acid within the collection pipes. The program includes addition of ferrous sulfate, a chemical that binds up the hydrogen sulfide and prevents formation of sulfuric acid. The ferrous sulfate is injected at strategic points in the collection system.

BMP 4: Maintenance Program

SAWS has a program in place to clean large diameter and small diameter mains. In-house staff members have been equipped to clean the small diameter mains, and larger contractors are usually assigned the task of cleaning the large diameter mains. In 2005, for example, a contractor removed 285 tons of debris from 8.5 miles of large diameter mains.

BMP 5: Inspection Program

Earlier inspection of system pipelines has been conducted with video cameras and smoke detection equipment. More recently, SAWS operates equipment to conduct internal TV inspections of small diameter mains. The TV camera is used to assess the structural condition of specific segments of the mains. The results of the TV inspections may guide strategies for repair, rehabilitation, and illicit connections

SAWS has implemented a Field Screen Point Program. In this program, staff routinely collect samples at designated storm drain outfalls in order to obtain information that might indicate the presence of raw wastewater and illicit connections. Currently, 419 field screen point outfalls (36-inch diameter pipes and larger) are inspected annually and field tested. The data is maintained in a database and photos of all sites are stored in a GIS database.

SAWS has also implemented specific investigative and evaluation procedures in response to the bacteria sampling conducted as part of the current Implementation Plan development project. In those locations where SARA sampling showed relatively high E. coli concentrations, SAWS staff investigated storm drain outfalls and local sanitary sewer infrastructure in the vicinity of the sampling locations. The bacteria sampling data has been evaluated monthly to prioritize site investigations. SAWS staff generally researched mapping of lines, researched any indication of sanitary sewer overflows, and conducted visual/physical inspection of each site, which included ammonia sampling, interior inspection of manholes for evidence of surcharging due to flow restrictions, and if necessary, cleaning and conducting an internal CCTV inspection of the main segment. Where needed, work orders were issued for corrective actions.

231

BMP 6: Risk Management

SAWS has adopted and applied a risk-based asset management strategy for large diameter wastewater collection mains. A key element is internal TV inspections to determine useful life, in an effort to schedule renewal or replacement near the end of useful life, rather than in an emergency situation.

BMP 7: Lift Station Assessments

Lift stations are assessed for physical conditions, capacity, and regulatory compliance. Construction contracts for repairs and improvements are generated from the assessments.

BMP 8: Edwards Aquifer Recharge Zone

The northernmost portions of the collection system are located in the Edwards Aquifer Recharge Zone (EARZ), and TCEQ rules require specific activities in that area. Testing and inspection is required at a five-year frequency. From 1997 to 2005, SAWS identified and corrected 2182 defects by virtue of this inspection program. Additionally, larger diameter lines were cleaned and inspected, with substantial repairs.

BMP 9: Information Management Practices

SAWS has a computerized maintenance management system to store information that defines and characterizes the wastewater infrastructure assets, and chronicle operation, maintenance, and repair activities. This is a necessity for effective planning that involves a myriad of departments, personnel, and resources. Mapping of the system has been converted to a geographic information system (GIS) platform.

BMP 10: Decision Tree Model

SAWS has adopted and applied a risk-based asset management strategy for the large diameter wastewater collection mains. Several vulnerability factors have been defined to assess risk and consequences of main failure. SAWS has developed a Decision Tree Model (DTM) with the capability to retrieve the pertinent attribute information from various databases. The model is used to quantify the risks associated with various main segments. This risk assessment then assists in assignment of priorities for inspection and renewal projects.

BMP 11: Asset Management Strategy for Small Mains

SAWS has developed a GIS based mapping of small diameter mains. Records of high maintenance mains or results of television inspection can be used for assignment of maintenance and renewal activities.

232

BMP 12: Capacity Master Plan Program

SAWS maintains a hydraulic model of the wastewater collection system. This model can be used to assess capacity of system components for handling baseflow and wet weather events. Master plans have been developed for each of the system’s sewersheds to indicate needed capacity improvements. Current and future capacity conditions can be evaluated with this analytical framework.

BMP 13: Capital Improvements Program

New infrastructure must be continually designed and constructed. SAWS has developed and continues to improve its own design, construction, and material standards. To the extent possible, major infrastructure work is coordinated with street maintenance or construction projects.

BMP 14: Sewer Laterals

Property owners are responsible for the sewer laterals that connect their properties to the centralized wastewater collection system. SAWS encourages customers to call if a blockage is experienced. A SAWS crew will determine if the nearest main line is causing the problem. If not, the property owner must contact a plumber for repairs. If the plumber ultimately determines that a blockage has formed beyond the property line but before the main, SAWS will correct the problem and reimburse the property owner for the plumber’s inspection costs. The City has in place a “Laterals to People” program to assist homeowners that cannot otherwise afford repairs, and SAWS crews will correct the problem in those cases.

BMP 15: Recycled Water Program

SAWS has a recycled water system for reuse of highly treated wastewater effluent for beneficial purposes. Recycled water is released to the San Antonio River and to Salado Creek to augment base flows. This enhances water quality that may suffer from low flow, stagnant conditions. Recycled water is also used for irrigation of golf course, parks, and cemeteries in the City. Application of recycled water for these uses decreases the amount of pumpage from the Edwards Aquifer, thereby protecting natural spring flows that are the source of much of the area’s stream flow.

BMP 16: Waste Hauler Program

SAWS has relocated the disposal station for liquid waste haulers to the Dos Rios Water Recycling Center. This relieves the earlier practice of discharge of this waste further up in the collection system, which eliminates the introduction of the associated solids, rags, and debris into the collection system. Proper operation of this disposal station helps assure that potential impacts on the collection system are minimized.

233

BMP 17: Partnership for Public Health

SAWS partnered with several agencies to provide wastewater utility service to an area that had been served by failing septic systems and cesspools. The Espada area is located south of Stinson Field, bounded by Loop 410, Roosevelt Avenue, Ashley Road, and the San Antonio River. Improvements for this area were completed in 2007. This type of project reduces the potential contributions from malfunctioning septic systems in the area.

BMP 18: San Antonio Zoological Society Activities

SAWS dedicated efforts to assist the San Antonio Zoo in identifying BMPs and resolve issues pertaining to water quality. Improvements were completed in 2004 to reroute waste streams from specific areas into the sanitary sewer collection system. This waste had previously been released directly to the San Antonio River.

Additional details regarding these BMPs can be found in the WPP for the Upper San Antonio River watershed (JMA, 2006).

5.2.2 Rehabilitation, Replacement, and Maintenance of Private Sewer Laterals

It is widely accepted in the wastewater industry that private sewer laterals contribute significantly to infiltration and inflow (I&I) entering a wastewater system. Consequently, it can be inferred that I&I from these laterals contribute to sanitary sewer overflows (SSOs) during wet weather events and also that they may be a source of exfiltration in many areas. There is no data available that indicates whether or not these laterals are making a substantial contribution to I&I in the wastewater utilities in the San Antonio watershed.

The City of San Antonio has adopted a BMP for newly constructed sewer laterals on private property that is based on the International Plumbing Code, but this does not apply to existing sewer laterals. The current City Code of Ordinances (City of San Antonio, 2006) does make property owners responsible for the maintenance and repair of the sewer laterals within their private property, with the threat of a fine or termination of water service for non-compliance. SAWS, in conjunction with the City of San Antonio, initiated a sewer lateral program (“Laterals to People”) in 1999 to assist qualified low-income residential customers who require repair of their private sewer laterals. However, this program deals with a limited number of customers on a case by case basis.

There are options available that local entities could employ to address private sewer laterals. Options could include new ordinances, inspection programs, repair mandates, and perhaps low- interest financing for repairs. The need for any such steps should be assessed in the future by the local utilities.

5.2.3 Construction and Rehabilitation Capital Improvements Projects

SAWS routinely has in progress significant construction projects to upgrade specific portions of the sanitary sewer collection system. For the purposes of the present analysis, the projects could be categorized into projects in the preceding 10 years, current projects, and future scheduled

234

projects. Details for the smaller wastewater collection systems in the study area are not readily available, but construction projects are scheduled to deal with problems or capacity issues that develop.

5.3 MANAGEMENT MEASURES FOR SEPTIC SYSTEMS

Septic systems can act as sources of nutrients and pathogens for reasons related to inadequate design, inappropriate installation, neglectful operation, or exhausted lifetime. Many system failures can be attributed to hydraulic overloading. Also, the regular inspection and maintenance that help keep the systems operating effectively is often not performed. It is recommended that all aspects of permitting, planning, construction, operation, and maintenance should be conducted in accordance with Title 30 Texas Administrative Code, Chapter 285.

Where development using septic systems has already occurred, state and local governments have a relatively limited ability to reduce pollutant loadings from them. However, a number of nonstructural BMPs can be implemented. An onsite wastewater management program can reduce water quality degradation and save local governments and homeowners time and money. A variety of agencies can take on management of existing septic systems; wastewater management utilities or districts are the leading decentralized agencies. A range of measures that can be taken or initiated by such entities is described below.

5.3.1 Public Education

Many of the problems involved with improper use of septic systems can be attributed to a lack of user knowledge concerning the operation and maintenance of the system. Making educational materials available to homeowners and providing training courses for septic system installers and inspectors can reduce the incidence of pollution from these systems. Education is most effective when used as part of a BMP system which involves other source reduction practices such as the use of low-volume plumbing fixtures, as well as mitigative BMPs such as upgrading and maintenance.

5.3.2 Inspection and Maintenance

Regular system inspections are useful for monitoring system performance and, while homeowners can be provided with educational materials and can monitor their own systems, inspection programs can also be developed by local governments. A lower cost, though less reliable, alternative is for local governments to distribute reminders to septic system owners to let them know when inspection and/or maintenance is due for their systems (e.g., a reminder on a tax statement). Utilities or other agencies can sometimes be utilized at reduced expense to implement a program like this. At a minimum, requirements should be established for inspection during change of property ownership.

Septic tanks need to be pumped to remove accumulated biosolids approximately every 3 to 5 years, though this required frequency may vary based on the size of the tank, the number of users in the home, and whether or not a garbage disposal is being used. Failure to remove biosolids periodically will likely result in reduced tank settling capacity and eventual overloading of the soil absorption system, which is more expensive to remedy.

235

Septic tank maintenance can be required by using contracts, operating permits, and local ordinances and/or utility management. Local governments can issue renewable operating permits that require users either to have a contract with an authorized inspection/maintenance professional or to demonstrate that inspection and maintenance procedures have been performed on a periodic basis. Permit fees can be assessed to cover the program costs. Inspection and maintenance are more effective when used as parts of a BMP system which involves source reduction through use of low-volume plumbing fixtures.

For the City of San Antonio, inspection and certification of septic systems are performed by the San Antonio Metropolitan Health District. Outside the City limits, Bexar County and other municipalities have respective enforcement jurisdictions.

5.3.3 Upgrade or Replacement of Failing Systems

Replacement of aging or inadequate systems and the repair of failing ones is an important component of an onsite wastewater management program. Typical repairs include fitting the septic system with new inflows and outlets, creating a new drainfield, or the use of other alternative technologies. Complete replacement of the system may be required in the event that the original one is inadequate, incorrectly constructed or installed, or if the system deficiencies cannot be addressed by other corrective measures. If the systems are sufficiently close to an existing sewer system, connection to that system may also be an alternative.

Local governments and other programs can facilitate these remedial measures through the provision of technical assistance to septic system owners, a recommended list of licensed installers, a complaint response system, and financial assistance to low income households for performing the necessary repairs.

Several alternative technologies are available for the upgrade or replacement of failing septic systems. These include leaching chambers, drip distribution, low pressure dosing, and surface irrigation. Upgrade or replacement is more effective when used as part of a BMP system which involves source reduction through elimination of garbage disposals and use of low-volume plumbing fixtures.

5.3.4 Chemical Additive Restrictions

Organic solvents are advertised for cleaning septic systems and also sometimes as substitutes for sludge pumping. However, there is limited evidence that these cleaning agents effectively achieve the intended functions, though they can inhibit microbial activity in the system and consequently result in increased discharge of pollutants. Additionally, the solvent chemicals themselves can potentially contaminate receiving waters and some common cleaner constituents are listed with USEPA as priority pollutants. Therefore, restrictions on the use of these additives can prevent the worsening of poor system function.

236

5.3.5 Connect Customer to Sewer System

In some cases, it may be more cost-effective and practical to address an area served by failing septic systems by connecting that area to a nearby sewer system, if there is one in the vicinity. This is what has recently been accomplished by the Espada Unsewered Area Project, which connected 117 homes in the Espada community of San Antonio, north of Loop 410-South between the San Antonio River and Roosevelt Avenue and south of Ashley Road. This project cost $3.2 million and was completed in 2007. As well as addressing what has been classified by the Metropolitan Health District as a serious health risk, the project has also removed a potential source of bacteria in the watershed. SAWS has estimated that another 14 neighborhoods in its service area lack sewer connections. However, most of these are newer neighborhoods with functioning septic systems that do not pose the same level of risk to public health or water quality (Needham, 2005).

5.4 MANAGEMENT MEASURES FOR TRANSIENT WASTE

A population of homeless/transients is common in urban areas. The transient population is often encamped under street bridges and other similar areas that provide some amount of shelter from the elements. Several encampments were observed at locations in the San Antonio urban area. There is evidence that this transient population is effecting bacteria concentrations in some of the smaller watercourses in the study area. A control measure for this potential source of bacteria would be an increased effort for provision of sanitary restroom facilities at strategic locations throughout the City. Currently, there are few, if any, public restroom and/or shower facilities within the City, except for those that are located near various public places, such as the Breckenridge Park. A new Haven for Hope Campus is located adjacent to the Central Business District, on the west side. This facility may alleviate some of the transient problem. It may be prudent to place signage in known gathering spots to direct the transient population to this or other facilities.

5.5 MANAGEMENT MEASURES FOR ANIMAL SOURCES

BMPs to reduce bacteria contributions from animal deposition are primarily non-structural. These BMPs are separated into three basic types, based on the source of direct animal deposition: wildlife, domestic pets, and livestock. Possible BMPs to reduce contributions from wildlife and domestic pets are all non-structural BMPs and, as is typical of programmatic control methods, there is no real data available to indicate how effective they might be.

5.5.1 Wild and Feral Animals

Experience suggests that wild and feral animals are not typically a major source of bacteria unless they are present in unusually large numbers, often as a result of human influences, such as feeding. Figure 5-3 shows humans attracting a large number of waterfowl by feeding them. The control of animal populations can be a challenging proposition, but there are several methods that can be considered depending upon the species and the location.

Vegetation in the watershed can be managed to minimize the attractiveness of the habitat to wildlife. Available techniques include turf maintenance and planting of agricultural species that

237

do not provide food for migrating birds and other species. Modifying the habitat around waterbodies can also help to minimize the attractiveness of the areas to waterfowl. The City of San Antonio, in cooperation with the Texas Department of Transportation, is currently investigating a program of habitat modification to address a possible source of bacteria along the San Antonio River: bats. If implemented, this program will involve filling in void spaces beneath the bridges along the river to eliminate potential roosting sites for bats.

Another simple form of habitat modification is to pass an ordinance prohibiting the feeding of birds in park areas close to waterbodies. While such a measure would not keep all birds away, it might reduce the number present and give them a reason to go elsewhere. If an ordinance cannot be passed, a program of public education could be attempted to encourage the public not to feed wildlife in the vicinity of waterbodies.

Wildlife harassment techniques, such as noise cannons, screamers, and banger shells, are commonly used at airports to move wildlife away from runways and flight paths and deter them from taking up permanent residence in the area. However, these noise-making devices are generally not suitable for urbanized areas where they may cause as much disturbance to the local population as to the wildlife. Another technique that has been used at both airports and landfills for controlling nuisance avian fauna is the use of one or more Falconers. These individuals could routinely fly a bird of prey in the vicinity of known nesting areas during peak nesting periods in order to deter birds from besting and roosting in those locations.

Figure 5-3: Bird Feeding at Woodlawn Lake, San Antonio

Animal trapping, culling, or nest removal can also be performed, though this may only be practical on a limited scale. Such practices are often only used when other management options prove unsuccessful. Depending upon the species of animal, these practices may also require state and/or federal permits.

238

5.5.2 Domestic Pets

Pet waste deposited on the yard, sidewalk, or gutter, can easily end up in the storm drain, and eventually enter into local waterways. Many people do not realize the harm that the careless disposal of pet wastes may have on water quality. However, despite their apparent inconsequence, pet wastes can be major source of bacteria and other pollutants to urban streams.

Local Ordinances

Local ordinances can be used to require that pet owners pick up after their pets and then dispose of the pet waste correctly. The City already has such an ordinance in place. Section 5-24 of the San Antonio City code (City of San Antonio, 2006) requires that “an animal owner or keeper shall not walk his/her animals without a leash restraint, and shall not guide or take animals onto the yards or driveways of property not owned, leased or occupied by the animal owner for the purpose of allowing the animal to defecate, but shall keep his/her animal in the public right-of- way, and shall carry a container and scooper for the sanitary removal of his/her animal's fecal matter from the public sidewalk and public right-of-way adjacent to any property with a structure or other improvements thereon.”

With regard to disposal of the waste, the ordinance states that “animal owners shall collect and dispose of animal waste by flushing it down a commode, by burial at least six (6) inches below the surface of the ground, or by placing it in a disposable container, sealing the container, and disposing of it as household garbage.” Violation of this ordinance is considered to be a health and safety related misdemeanor crime, and is punishable by a fine of up to $2,000. Clearly, to be fully effective such ordinances must be enforced.

While most localities have some form of pet waste ordinance, many put little effort into enforcement (EPA, 2004). Enforcement and public outreach (see below) are vital elements that complement the rules outlined in the ordinance.

Pooper Scooper Program

“Pooper scooper” programs use a combination of public outreach and provision of pet waste pick-up materials to encourage owners to pick up after their pets. This kind of pet waste reduction program can result in less bacteria from domestic pets finding its way into the City’s waterways. Multiple vendors supply pet waste pick-up products. Currently, the City Parks and Recreation Department (PRD) uses Mutt Mitts.

Mutt Mitts (http://www.pickupmitts.com/muttmitt/) are double-ply, degradable, mitten-like plastic bags that can be used to pick up pet waste. As well as the mitts, the manufacturer also sells dispensers that can be pole- or wall-mounted in public places, along with signs encouraging pet owners to use them to pick up after their pets. Mutt Mitt dispensers were first installed by the PRD in McAllister Park in 2002 using funds from a TCEQ grant. At the time of the WPP, the PRD had installed dispensers at about 25 of the 120 public parks. More are likely to be added, though there is no fixed schedule for the expansion of this program. It would probably be most

239

effective to add new stations at parks located along creeks and lakes, where the risk of bacteria reaching waterways is highest. Figure 5-4 displays a Mutt Mitt dispenser and sign.

The capital cost for each Mutt Mitt dispenser is approximately $60, with optional accompanying waste cans costing $160 each, and signs costing $30 each. While signs in parks can have a higher cost than other printed outreach materials, they can last for many years and can also be more effective as they act as on-site reminders to dog owners to clean up after their pets.

There is additional labor cost for installation of these items, which is performed by PRD staff. PRD maintenance personnel replenish dispensers as part of their regular duties while they are emptying trash cans around the City parks. Refill cases of Mutt Mitts, each containing 800 bags, cost approximately $56 per case. The City expects to use over 150 cases during fiscal year 2006, at a total cost of over $8,400.

Figure 5-4: Pooper Scooper Dispenser and Sign

Dog Parks

Dog parks provide enclosed areas where owners can let their pets run off-leash and typically include signage reminding the owners to remove waste. In addition to providing a public amenity, these dog parks also help to transfer the conscientious behavior of responsible pet owners who pick up after their pets to less conscientious owners, which helps to establish a social norm (EPA, 2004). These parks can be designed to further mitigate stormwater impacts. For example, using vegetated buffers, pooper scooper stations, and siting away from drainage- ways, streams, and steep slopes will help to minimize impacts.

There is currently one dog park in San Antonio. It was opened in June 2004 and is located in Pearsall Park (http://www.sanantonio.gov/sapar/dogpark.asp). The park is one and half acres in size and is the only park in the City where dogs are allowed to be off-leash. A second dog park is currently being constructed in McAllister Park. This dog park is two acres in size, has cost

240

approximately $80,000, and is scheduled to open in the fall of 2006. A photo of the dog park in shown in Figure 5-5.

Figure 5-5: Pearsall Dog Park, San Antonio

Public Education

In conjunction with the above programs, public education and outreach can be used to increase public awareness of the issue. While passing local ordinances and setting up pooper scooper programs provide the opportunity for people to be “good citizens,” public education campaigns help to inform pet owners about the importance of cleaning up after their pets. Many communities implement pet waste management programs by posting signs in parks or other pet- frequented areas, by mass mailings, and by broadcasting public service announcements. Some develop brochures that instruct pet owners about the proper disposal of pet waste or that describe the problems associated with pet waste and how to properly dispose of it.

Sign posting is one of the most common outreach strategies. Signs can designate areas where dog walking is prohibited, where waste must be recovered, or where dogs can roam freely. Many communities post neighborhood signs that ask pet owners to “Curb Your Dog.” The rationale behind this request is that dogs walked along the curb are more likely to defecate on the road, where the waste can be captured by street sweeping. However, waste deposited in the road is also more likely to be washed down storm drains so this tactic has limited usefulness.

241

5.5.3 Livestock

Fecal material produced by livestock can enter surface waters through several pathways: washoff of waste deposited on the land surface, washoff of concentrated waste from land application sites, direct deposition of waste material in the stream, and potential discharges from animal confinement areas or waste handling systems. In the San Antonio River watershed, the majority of livestock populations consist of grazing animals rather than animals in confined feeding operations.

For grazing livestock, waste material is deposited directly on the ground surface. Potential control measures would generally consist of maintenance of adequate grass cover that would serve to reduce runoff velocities and provide some treatment of runoff waters. It would also stand to reason that maintenance of reasonable livestock density would regulate the amount of waste that could accumulate on the land surface.

It is not unusual for grazing livestock to have access to flowing stream channels for watering purposes. Where these sites are available, livestock have the opportunity to defecate directly into the stream, which can introduce very high loads of bacteria. In some areas, streamside fencing has been proposed as a control measure in order to exclude livestock from having direct stream access. Where this streamside fencing has been applied, it has also been imperative to make sure that livestock have alternate water sources. On certain portions of the San Antonio River, cattle access points have been observed along the mainstem where animals have become trapped by soft sediments and died. These incidents not only introduce bacteria loadings, they also represent an economic loss to the landowner.

There are also a limited number of confined animal feeding operations within the watershed of the San Antonio River. These facilities are characterized by large numbers of animals in a relatively small space. Permits or registrations are generally required for such operations, and these regulations require proper management of waste material. Management of this type of waste typically involves manure collection, holding, and spray irrigation onto grassed fields.

5.6 ASSESSMENT OF STRUCTURAL BMPS FOR URBAN RUNOFF

The origins of structural stormwater BMPs can be traced back to the Clean Water Act (CWA) of 1972 and the establishment of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES). The CWA was amended in 1987 to require permits for stormwater discharges from priority sources. This regulatory initiative is known as Phase I, and applies to industrial dischargers, medium and large municipal separate storm sewer systems (MS4s), and construction sites over five acres in size. The CWA was again amended in 1999 to include small MS4s and construction sites over one acre.

Structural stormwater BMPs exhibit varying efficiencies for removal of suspended solids, nutrients, metals, organic pollutants, trash/floatables, and pathogens. Most state or local stormwater ordinances focus on suspended solids or nutrients as the pollutants of concern. For example, the current (rev. 7/2005) Edwards Aquifer Rules require a reduction of 80% of the increase in annual suspended solids load resulting from the development.

242

Structural BMPs within the Edwards Aquifer Authority jurisdiction are sized differently depending on whether they are flow through type (e.g. swales, filter strips) or capture and treat type (e.g. ponds, wetlands). For flow through BMPs, a rainfall intensity of 1.1 in/hr must be treated. Capture and treat BMPs rely on a water quality volume to achieve the required 80% reduction in annual TSS load. The water quality volume is dependent on the amount of existing and proposed impervious cover within the drainage area and the TSS removal efficiency of the selected BMP.

The first part of this section addresses the general treatment factors and processes that affect bacteria removal in structural stormwater BMPs. The following sections (5.6.2-5.6.19) describe a range of commonly used BMPs and provide information on their reported bacteria removal efficiencies. Some suggestions on how to modify BMP design for improved bacteria treatment are presented in Section 5.6.20. Section 5.6.21 provides a summary of the recommended BMP types and cost estimates. Finally, Section 5.6.22, provides a brief discussion of the issues involved in identifying sites for BMP construction.

5.6.1 Bacteria Treatment Factors and Processes

There are six generally accepted treatment techniques that may be used to reduce bacterial concentrations in water: sunlight (ultraviolet [UV] light), sedimentation, sand filtration, soil filtration, chemical addition, and growth inhibition. These processes are expanded on further below to explain the differences between stormwater BMPs with regard to bacteria treatment. The information below is based primarily on an article by the Center for Watershed Protection (CWP, 2000).

With respect to bacteria “die-off,” most research focuses on the removal of bacteria from the water column. In sedimentation and filtration systems, bacteria and viruses leave the water column and concentrate in the removed sediments. Since this environment is often warm, dark, moist, and rich in organic material, many bacteria can survive and even multiply under these conditions. For this reason, if settled sediments are resuspended by subsequent turbulent stormwater flows, some bacteria can reappear in the water column. Some studies have shown that as actual bacteria “die-off” occurs, it results in the disappearance of approximately 90 percent of bacteria present within two to five days.

UV Light

Bacteria are killed when they are exposed to UV light and, consequently, exposure to sunlight is one way to induce die-off. However, maximum effect requires clear water so the turbidity found in urban runoff can interfere with the success of this method. UV lamps have been used extensively in wastewater and drinking water treatment, and there has been some end-of-pipe usage for combined sewers and stormwater. However, in these initial cases, considerable stormwater treatment is needed to remove solids before the UV treatment is effective.

Sedimentation

Another mechanism that can be utilized to remove bacteria from stormwater is sedimentation. Bacteria by themselves will not settle out of stormwater in large numbers. This is due to their 243

small size and resulting low Stokes’ settling velocity. However, large numbers of bacteria partition to the suspended particles found in stormwater. A 2005 study conducted at the University of North Carolina – Chapel Hill concluded that bacterial indicator organisms (fecal coliform, E. coli, enterococci) consistently were associated with settleable particles. During dry weather, the authors reported that 20 to 35% of the indicator organisms were associated with these particles. During stormflows, these numbers rose to 30 to 55% of particle associated indicator organisms (Characklis et al, 2005). This is very important given that most stormwater BMPs are primarily sized to remove suspended particulate matter. Additionally, sedimentation is a well understood process which can be easily controlled with proper hydraulic design. BMPs can be designed to achieve optimal settling conditions with no active operation. This can be a key to implementation since a municipality is unlikely to have the manpower available to operate stormwater BMPs that require constant oversight.

Sand Filtration

Sand filtration is commonly used as a drinking water treatment method, though typically following chemical pretreatment and sedimentation steps. Under these conditions, bacteria removal rates of greater than 95 percent can be achieved in a properly operated treatment plant, but these drop to about 60 percent without prior chemical pretreatment. Sand filtration is also commonly used in the later stages of wastewater treatment plants (post secondary clarification). Various hydraulic loading rates and media sizes are employed, depending on the chosen method of treatment.

Sand filtration has been adapted to treat stormwater runoff, but stormwater sand filters differ from those used to treat drinking water. The primary differences are that drinking water sand filters employ several layers of differing types and gradations of filter media, they are designed to permit daily “backwashing” to restore permeability and minimize microbial breakthrough in the filter media, and they typically follow a chemical pretreatment step that removes larger solids prior to filtration. Stormwater sand filters lack these characteristics, and this means that individual bacterial cells, which are only a few microns in size, may not be fully strained out by passing through sand grains that are much larger in size (45 to 55 microns). Build-up of a surface layer of strained material could enhance removal of bacteria.

Soil Filtration

Bacteria can also be treated effectively by filtering water through the soil profile, similar to a septic tank system. Soil filtration is comparable to sand filtration, but can achieve higher bacteria removal rates as the organic matter and clay content in most soils increases the potential for bacteria adsorption. When properly located, installed and maintained, septic systems can achieve virtually complete bacteria removal over a distance of 50 to 300 feet (though not necessarily complete removal of much smaller enteric viruses). Several stormwater BMPs employ some degree of soil filtration to aid in pollutant removal. Examples include infiltration practices and bioretention facilities that divert runoff through the soil. To a lesser degree, grass swales allow for some soil filtration if a portion of the runoff infiltrates through the bottom of the channel.

244

Chemical Addition

Bacteria can be rapidly killed using chemical disinfection. The most common approach is to use chlorine or chlorine-related compounds, which generally need to be added in precise quantities to achieve the desired results without undesirable side-effects (too little of the chemical will not kill the bacteria but too much may produce harmful chlorine residuals). While precise dosing is possible at drinking water or wastewater treatment plants, it is much harder to manage when flow and turbidity are extremely inconsistent, as is typically the case with stormwater flows. For these reasons, chemical disinfection of stormwater has typically been largely restricted to combined sewer overflow treatment facilities.

Dr. Raymond Kurz of the Southwest Florida Water Management District completed a detailed study in 1998 which investigated the effectiveness of alum (Al2SO4) addition on indicator species in urban stormwater. He conducted pilot scale tests with actual urban runoff from two stormwater culverts in the Tampa area. The alum concentrations examined were 10 mg/L and 600 mg/L. Two log removal of fecal coliforms was reported (Kurz, 1998). Unfortunately, alum is acid forming and carful metering is required to ensure water quality standards for pH are maintained. The capital and manpower costs associated with any type of active chemical addition are prohibitive for any large scale retrofits to occur.

5.6.2 Types of Structural Stormwater BMPs

As mentioned earlier, there are many structural BMPs available for stormwater treatment, and while most of these are not designed specifically for bacteria removal, their treatment processes can achieve this function. Many BMPs are designed with multiple goals in mind. These goals include, but are not limited to: water quality improvement, groundwater recharge, downstream channel protection, hazardous material trapping, wildlife habitat enhancement, and flood control. As a general rule, stormwater BMPs designed for water quality improvement usually target suspended solids or total phosphorous as their pollutant of concern. Table 5-1 summarizes the major structural stormwater BMPs available.

The most recent available study that has compared the relative performance of BMPs is a Water Environment Research Foundation (WERF)-sponsored evaluation conducted by Lampe et al. (2005), which used the International BMP Database (www.BMPDatabase.org) as its primary source of data. This database is a repository of data from numerous national BMP performance studies and has been historically supported by EPA and by the American Society of Civil Engineers. There is substantial information in the database concerning retention ponds (wet ponds), less so for extended detention basins (dry ponds) and vegetated swales, and essentially no data for bioretention systems, infiltration devices, and porous pavement (Lampe et al., 2005).

245

Table 5-1: Structural Stormwater BMP Types Non-Proprietary Vendor-Supplied Systems Infiltration Trench Manufactured Wetland Infiltration Basin Media Filter Wet Pond Wet Vault Constructed Wetland Vortex Separator Extended Detention Basin Drain Inserts Vegetated Swale/Filter Strip Antimicrobial Filters Bioretention System Sand Filter Water Quality Inlet Screens, Nets, and Trash Racks Multiple Systems Porous Pavement/Pavers

Data regarding bacteria reduction in these BMPs is more limited. Much of the data employed in studies of BMP performance with regard to coliform removal is derived using grab samples collected during the storm events (Strecker et al., 2004). The difficulty of collecting such samples throughout a storm event, coupled with the strict analytical holding time requirements for biological samples, are likely the primary reasons why there is so little stormwater BMP performance data available concerning bacteria. The following sections summarize the details of each type of BMP and also provide what is known regarding the performance of the BMP with regard to bacteria removal.

5.6.3 Infiltration Trench

An infiltration trench is a long, narrow, rock-filled trench with no outlet that receives stormwater runoff. Runoff is stored in the void space between the stones and exfiltrates through the bottom and into the soil matrix. Infiltration trenches perform well for removal of fine sediment and associated pollutants and bacteria removal is accomplished primarily by the process of soil filtration. These BMPs capture and treat small amounts of runoff but do not control peak wet weather flows. Infiltration trenches may be used in conjunction with other BMPs, such as detention ponds, to provide both water quality and peak flow control. Pretreatment using buffer strips, swales, or detention basins is important for limiting amounts of sediment entering the trench which can clog and render the trench ineffective. Infiltration trenches also lend themselves to a decentralized approach to stormwater management which is currently being promulgated by many jurisdictions as a better alternative to one large BMP per drainage area. A typical infiltration trench and diagram are shown respectively in Figure 5-6 and Figure 5-7.

246

Figure 5-6: Typical Infiltration Trench (CASQA, 2004)

Infiltration trenches are most widely used in warmer, less arid regions of the US (EPA, 1999c). Based on a comparison with the performance of septic systems, with which infiltration systems share similar processes, bacteria removal should be excellent (Lampe et al., 2005). EPA compared the performance of infiltration trenches to rapid infiltration systems that are used in wastewater treatment and, based on this, they are typically expected to achieve a coliform bacteria removal efficiency of 90 percent (EPA, 1999c).

The use of infiltration trenches may be limited by a number of factors, including native soils, climate, and the location of the groundwater table. Site characteristics such as excessive drainage area slopes, fined-grained soil types, and proximate location of the water table and bedrock may preclude the use of infiltration trenches. Generally, infiltration trenches are not suitable for areas with relatively impermeable soils containing clay and silt (should not exceed 30 percent clay or combined 40 percent clay and silt) or in areas with fill. A number of jurisdictions require in situ percolation testing in order to ensure a minimum of 0.50 in/hr infiltration rate. As with any infiltration BMP, the potential for groundwater contamination must be considered, especially if the local groundwater is used for drinking water or agriculture. The infiltration trench is not suitable for sites that use or store chemical or hazardous materials unless those materials are prevented from entering the trench. Infiltration devices, including infiltration trenches, are not permitted in the Edwards Aquifer Recharge Zone (Barrett, 2005).

247

Figure 5-7: Infiltration Trench Diagram (EPA, 1999c)

The principal maintenance objective for infiltration trenches is to prevent clogging, which if allowed may lead to the failure of the trench. A thorough inspection of the trench should be conducted at least annually. This inspection should involve monitoring of the observation well to ensure that the trench is draining as designed. If inspection finds that the trench is partially or completely clogged, then the BMP would need to be restored to its design condition. It may not be possible to regain the predevelopment infiltration rate, so in many cases failed infiltration trenches must be retrofitted into other BMPs to restore functionality. If vegetated buffer strips are used with the infiltration trench for pretreatment, these also need to be inspected regularly.

5.6.4 Infiltration Basin

An infiltration basin is a shallow impoundment that is designed to infiltrate stormwater. Infiltration basins use the natural filtering ability of the soil to remove pollutants in stormwater runoff. Infiltration facilities store runoff until it gradually exfiltrates through the soil and eventually into the water table. This practice has high pollutant removal efficiency and can also help recharge groundwater, thus helping to maintain low flows in stream systems. Infiltration basins can be challenging to apply on many sites, however, because of soils requirements. In addition, some studies have shown relatively high failure rates compared with other management practices, though it is possible that basins in these studies may have been poorly sited with regard to soil type. Figure 5-8 displays a typical infiltration basin, while a diagram of a typical infiltration basin is shown in Figure 5-9.

248

Figure 5-8: Typical Infiltration Basin (CASQA, 2004)

The effectiveness of infiltration basins is a function of the fraction of stormwater infiltrated; i.e., the amount of stormwater that bypasses the system due to overflow during large events determines effectiveness (FHWA, 2004). Removal rates have been estimated between 75 percent and 90 percent for infiltration basins designed to capture between half an inch and two inches of runoff, respectively (FHWA, 2004). In a 2005 field study of an infiltration basin receiving urban runoff, the mean fecal coliform removal efficiency was reported to be 96%. This includes sampling and analysis of seven rainfall/runoff events. Influent concentrations were highly variable and ranged from 26 cfu/100mL to 300,000 cfu/100mL. Effluent concentrations were consistently below 6,000 cfu/100mL (Birch, Fazeli and Mathhai, 2005). Bacteria removal is accomplished primarily by the process of soil filtration.

Infiltration basins should only be installed where there is sufficient surface area and soil infiltration capacity. For this reason, infiltration trenches are generally more applicable than infiltration basins in very urbanized settings. However, infiltration basins can be employed where large redevelopments are planned if the soils are found to be freely draining or along roadways where there is sufficient right-of-way area available.

As with infiltration trenches, native soils, climate, and the location of the groundwater table are siting criteria for infiltration basins. Excessive drainage area slopes, fined-grained soil types, and proximate location of the water table and bedrock may prevent the use of infiltration basins. Generally, infiltration basins are not suitable for areas with relatively impermeable soils containing clay and silt (should not exceed 30 percent clay or combined 40 percent clay and silt) or in areas with fill. Infiltration devices, including infiltration trenches, are not permitted in the Edwards Aquifer Recharge Zone (Barrett, 2005).

249

Figure 5-9: Infiltration Basin Diagram (Schueler, 1987)

Sediment forebays, grassed swales or other pretreatment measures must be installed upstream of infiltration basins to reduce the likelihood of clogging. Regular maintenance is critical for infiltration basins and includes inspections to confirm proper drainage, vegetation management, and erosion. Infiltration basins have a high failure rate if they are improperly maintained. Accumulated sediment needs to be removed when the accumulation exceeds 10 percent of the basin volume and any erosion needs to be revegetated immediately after it occurs. At a minimum, trash and debris should also be removed from the basin annually.

5.6.5 Wet Pond

Wet ponds (a.k.a. stormwater ponds, retention ponds, wet extended detention ponds) are constructed basins that have a permanent pool of water throughout the year (or at least throughout the wet season) and differ from constructed wetlands primarily in having a greater average depth. Ponds treat incoming stormwater runoff by settling and biological uptake. The primary removal mechanism is settling as stormwater runoff resides in this pool, but pollutant uptake, particularly of nutrients, also occurs to some degree through biological activity in the pond. Wet ponds are among the most widely used stormwater practices. Most wet ponds are constructed to provide both water quality enhancement as well as flood control. While there are several different versions of the wet pond design, the most common modification is the extended detention wet pond, where storage is provided above the permanent pool in order to detain stormwater runoff and promote settling. A typical Wet Pond and diagram are shown respectively in Figures 5-10 and 5-11

250

Figure 5-10: Typical Wet Pond (CASQA, 2004)

The data characterizing the bacteria removal efficiencies associated with wet ponds are highly variable. This variability can be attributed to a number of factors including, but not limited to pond geometry, waterfowl populations, drainage area land use, type and coverage of aquatic vegetation, hydraulic retention times, and local pet populations. In a study of a California wet pond receiving highway runoff, researchers reported bacterial removals of 99%. However, paired statistical analysis did not reveal statistical significance of these removals (CalTrans, 2004). In a multi-year study of three wet ponds receiving residential, commercial, and golf course runoff in Wilmington, NC, the study authors reported significant removals of fecal coliforms in two of the three ponds (Mallin et al, 2002). The pond receiving golf course runoff showed no significant removal of bacteria. The bacteria removal mechanisms used in wet ponds include sedimentation, predation, and, to varying degrees, exposure to sunlight.

Wet ponds are best suited to larger drainage areas or areas where a permanent pool may be maintained by interception of the local water table. In more arid climates, like that of San Antonio, a secondary source of water (well, yard hydrant) may be required in order to maintain the vegetation in the pond through the hot, dry summer months. An impervious liner is usually required if the soils are freely draining or if groundwater is shallower than six feet. An impervious liner is always required in the Edwards Aquifer Recharge Zone (Barrett, 2005). Wet ponds may be designed as on-line or off-line, though off-line is preferred due to the reduced likelihood of causing backwater induced flooding or embankment failures. Wet ponds may be sited to function as an aesthetic amenity in addition to their stormwater management features. However, in ultra urban areas the permanent pool of a wet pond can become a significant safety hazard. Usually fencing is placed to keep children and pets away from the deep water areas. A 251

major drawback to wet ponds is the large amount of continuous open space required for their construction.

Figure 5-11: Wet Pond Diagram (EPA, 1999g)

Routine maintenance of a wet pond includes mowing of the embankment and buffer areas, and inspection for erosion and nuisance problems (e.g., burrowing animals, weeds, odors). Trash and debris should be removed routinely to maintain the aesthetic appearance of the pond and to prevent clogging of the outlet structure. The embankment and emergency spillway should also be regularly inspected for structural integrity, particularly following major storm events. Typically, maintenance includes repairs to the spillway, embankment, and the inlet and outlet structures, removal of sediment, and control of algal growth, insects, and odors.

5.6.6 Constructed Wetland

Constructed wetlands are basins that have a permanent pool of water throughout the year (or at least throughout the wet season) and differ from wet ponds primarily in being shallower and having greater vegetation coverage. A constructed wetland in shown in Figure 5-12

Constructed wetlands have been used for over 30 years as a means of domestic and commercial wastewater treatement (Axler et al, 2001). Wetlands are among the most effective stormwater practices in terms of pollutant removal and they offer good aesthetic value. As stormwater runoff flows through the wetland, pollutant removal is achieved through settling and biological

252

uptake within the wetland. Flow through the root systems allows the vegetation to remove nutrients and dissolved pollutants from the stormwater.

Figure 5-12: Typical Stormwater Wetland (CASQA, 2004)

In general, wetlands remove pollutants as effectively as conventional pond systems, with bacteria removal rates being estimated at 76 percent (EPA, 1999f). In general, removal of fecal indicators from wastewater by constructed wetlands is well documented and percent removal for fecal streptococci and coliforms typically exceeded 80 percent and 90 percent, respectively (Struck,et al., 2005). The major bacteria removal mechanism used in wetlands is sedimentation. However, there is evidence to support that there is a significant soil filtration component of the removals observed in constructed wetlands (C.A. Arias et al, 2003). UV exposure is less well documented as a removal mechanism. However, N. R. Khatiwada and C. Polprasert cited UV light attenuation as a major factor in determining the kinetics of fecal coliform removal in constructed wetlands (Khatiwada and Polprasert, 1999). A stormwater wetland provides a relatively large water surface area, which if unobstructed by vegetation, can provide substantial UV exposure.

There are four basic types of stormwater wetlands: shallow marsh, extended detention wetland, pond/wetland system, and pocket wetland. These four types of stormwater wetlands are displayed in Figure 5-13. These wetlands store runoff in a shallow, vegetated basin. The shallow marsh design requires the most land area, as well as sufficient base flow to maintain the water depth. An extended detention wetland is a modified shallow marsh design that has been adapted to store additional water above the normal pool elevation. As well as providing treatment, the extended detention wetland can attenuate flows and act as a flood control measure.

253

The pond/wetland system has two separate cells – a wet pond and a shallow wetland. The wet pond removes sediments and reduces runoff velocities before the flows enter the wetland. Pocket wetlands are an alternative for smaller development situations and are generally excavated down to the groundwater table to maintain adequate water levels. Constructed wetlands built in arid climates should not be supported exclusively by stormwater runoff and a secondary source of water (well, yard hydrant) may be required. The vegetation in the wetlands is key in providing water quality enhancement, and thus cannot be allowed to succumb to drought. If not properly maintained, wetland revegetation can become an expensive maintenance issue.

Figure 5-13: Types of Stormwater Wetlands (EPA, 1999f)

Similar to wet ponds, stormwater wetlands are widely applicable and may be used for a large range of drainage areas, land use types, and storm frequencies and sizes. Their applicability is somewhat restricted in densely urbanized areas due to available right-of-way constraints and potential for promotion of disease vectors and nuisance species. Wetlands may be designed as on-line or off-line, though off-line is preferred; and they can also be sited at locations along established drainage ways with consistent base flow. Wetlands typically require a larger area than wet ponds (4-6 percent of the contributing drainage area) because their average depth is less.

254

Maintenance activities for stormwater wetlands include inspections for burrows, outlet structure integrity, and sediment and litter accumulation; removal of trash and debris; mowing and maintenance of vegetation; and sediment removal from the forebay. Maintenance is particularly important over the initial period while the wetland is becoming established. Regular maintenance activities may also involve the harvesting of wetland plants. Wetlands should be inspected after major storms and checked for bank stability, erosion, flow channelization, and sediment accumulation.

5.6.7 Extended Detention Basin

In many areas of the country, state and local criteria have required management of the two and 10-year storms to predevelopment flow levels. Detention basins have traditionally been the most inexpensive and easily designed solutions to comply with these flood control criteria. Detention basins (a.k.a. dry ponds, dry extended detention ponds, detention ponds, extended detention ponds) can also be used for water quality control when designed to detain the stormwater runoff for some extended period (e.g., 48 hours) to allow particles and associated pollutants to settle. Unlike wet ponds, these facilities do not have a large permanent pool. A typical detention basin is shown in Figure 5-14, and a detention basin diagram is displayed in Figure 5-15.

Figure 5-14: Typical Extended Detention Basin (CASQA, 2004)

Bacteria removal data for extended detention basins (from the International BMP Database) are very limited but they suggest that bacteria concentrations in the treated runoff are similar or slightly higher in the discharge than in the untreated runoff (Lampe et al., 2005). A study published in 1987 by the USGS provided detailed analysis for a sand filter and extended detention basin in the Austin, Texas area. The sand filter received shopping center runoff while the extended detention basin received runoff from medium density residential and transportation land uses. The study was carried out over a two year period, and a total of 17 storm events were sampled. Many of the storms were sampled throughout their hydrograph to generate composite results. The data from this study indicate that a net increase of 49% in fecal coliform density

255

occurred through the extended detention basin. A slight (1%) reduction in fecal streptococci occurred. Reductions in both constituents were observed after treatment by the sand filter (Welborn and Veenhuis, 1987). Dr. Michael Barrett reported increases in fecal coliform densities for both concrete lined and unlined extended detention basins in the CalTrans BMP Pilot Retrofit Report. Concrete lined basins fared better than unlined basins, but still increased fecal coliform densities by 12% (CalTrans, 2004). These conclusions are likely the result of limited data. From a technical standpoint, some bacteria removal would be expected through the settling and natural die-off that occurs while the stormwater is detained in the basin. The major bacteria removal mechanism used in extended detention basins is sedimentation, though there is also some soil filtration and there may also be some contribution from exposure to sunlight.

Extended detention basins are widely applicable BMPs and can be used in areas with almost all soils and geology, though liners may be required in areas with rapidly percolating soils. However, if reduction of bacteria is the stormwater treatment objective, the effectiveness of these basins has not been demonstrated. It would perhaps be more appropriate for extended detention to be used as a pretreatment device in a treatment train that includes bioretention, sand filtration or some other more effective technology.

Routine maintenance for extended detention basins primarily involves vegetation management and trash and debris removal. Vegetation needs to be trimmed and mowing should be performed at least annually to avoid the development of woody vegetation. Accumulated sediment should be removed and the pond should be regraded every 10 years or if the accumulation exceeds 10 percent of the basin volume. At a minimum, trash and debris should also be removed from the basin and around the outlet structure before and after the wet season.

Figure 5-15: Extended Detention Basin Diagram (VA DCR, 1999)

256

5.6.8 Vegetated Swales/Filter Strips

Vegetated swales are broad, shallow channels with vegetation covering the side slopes and bottom that collect and convey runoff slowly to downstream discharge points. Swales can be natural or manmade and are designed to treat runoff by filtration through the vegetation in the channel, filtration through a subsoil matrix, and/or infiltration into the underlying soils. They trap particulate pollutants, promote infiltration, and reduce the flow velocity of stormwater runoff. Vegetated swales can serve as part of a stormwater drainage system and can replace curbs, gutters, and storm sewer systems.

Vegetated filter strips (vegetated buffer strips, filter strips, and grassed filters) are vegetated surfaces that are designed to treat sheet flow from adjacent impervious surfaces. Filter strips function by slowing runoff velocities and allowing sediment and other pollutants to settle and by providing some infiltration into underlying soils. Filter strips were originally used as an agricultural treatment practice and have more recently evolved into an urban practice. With proper design and maintenance, they can provide relatively effective pollutant removal for sediment and, in addition, they are typically viewed by the public as landscaped amenities rather than stormwater infrastructure. Consequently, there is little resistance to their use.

Data from the International BMP Database suggest that concentrations of bacteria tend to increase in swales (Lampe et al., 2005); an observation that has also been noted in other studies (CASQA, 2004). Michael Barrett of the University of Texas at Austin has completed numerous studies on the effectiveness of vegetated filter strips and swales. In the study of vegetated roadside swales in Central Texas the research team found negative removal efficiencies at both study locations. The bacteria loadings were increased by factors ranging from 1.4 to 3.8 (Barrett et al, 1997). In a 2005 study of roadside vegetated filter strips in the Austin and College Station areas, significant increases in bacterial concentrations and loadings were also reported. The average edge of pavement concentration of fecal coliforms was 6310 cfu/100ml, and the average concentration after treatment with four meters of filter strip was 47,858 cfu/100ml. A variety of factors may have contributed to the apparent ineffectiveness of vegetated filter strips or swales in removing pathogens. These include direct deposition of fecal matter on the strips by animals, presence of roadkill and the fact that there is limited opportunity for the removal mechanisms discussed in the preceding chapters to occur. The major bacteria removal mechanisms expected to be present in swales and buffer strips are sedimentation and soil filtration. Vegetated swales and filter strips should only be considered a pretreatment BMP for bacteria removal. An example of a constructed swale is shown in Figure 5-16.

257

Figure 5-16: Typical Swale (CASQA, 2004)

Swales and filter strips should be sited on gently sloping areas where shallow flow conditions are achievable. Steep slopes increase flow velocity, which decrease detention time and may adversely affect efficiency. Many jurisdictions require that the velocity in vegetated swales be designed at or below 1 ft/sec for the water quality event flow. This low velocity promotes settling and avoids resuspension of settled particles. Check dams may also be installed to promote sedimentation. Maintenance for swales and filter strips primarily involves inspection for erosion, vegetation damage, and sediment and debris accumulation. Grass height does not appear to have a major impact on performance so mowing is typically only required once or twice per year for aesthetic reasons. Trash and debris should be regularly removed from the BMPs and accumulated sediment should be removed if it begins to build up above 3 inches in any spot or if it covers the vegetation. Standing water may also develop as a result of sediment accumulation or invasive vegetation build-up and this should be controlled to prevent the breeding of insects.

5.6.9 Bioretention System

Bioretention is a newer stormwater treatment technology that has been gaining popularity in recent years. The bioretention BMP functions as a soil and plant-based filtration device that removes pollutants through a variety of physical, biological, and chemical treatment processes. These facilities normally consist of a grass buffer strip, sand bed, ponding area, organic layer or mulch layer, planting soil, and plants. The runoff’s velocity is reduced by passing over or through buffer strip and subsequently distributed evenly along a ponding area. The ponded volume slowly percolates through the sand/soil media which is typically over two feet deep. An underdrain may be provided at the bottom of the media in order to ensure that the system drains

258

properly between rainfall events. If native soils allow for infiltration, bioretention facilities may be constructed without an underdrain which enables infiltration of the entire treated volume.

Bioretention systems are typically used to treat the runoff from impervious areas located in commercial, residential, and industrial areas and they are well suited to installation in parking lot islands, intermediate areas in office parks and apartment complexes, and median strips. These areas can be designed to have runoff flow directly into the bioretention area or to convey the flow via a curb and gutter system. Because of their suitability to ultra urban environments, they are a common choice for BMP retrofits. They also lend themselves to decentralized stormwater management which is sometimes favored in urban settings.

The removal of bacteria by bioretention systems has been reported to be very good by a few recent studies. A study that modeled the processes found in a bioretention system determined that removal of fecal coliform would be in the range of 55 to 99 percent, with an average removal of 88 percent (Rusciano & Obropta, 2005), which appears to support these expectations. Another study conducted at an existing bioretention cell that receives parking lot runoff reported statistically significant removals of indicator organisms. The removal efficiency of the facility was reported to be 70% (Hunt et al, 2008). The major bacteria removal mechanisms used by biofiltration systems are sedimentation and soil filtration. Figure 5-17 shows a bioretention basin in a residential complex.

Figure 5-17: Typical Bioretention Basin (CASQA, 2004)

The bioretention system should be configured according to site constraints (e.g., soil types, existing vegetation, utility locations, drainage). Soils with high clay content (greater than 25 percent) or that are unstable may make installation of bioretention facilities without

259

underdrains infeasible. Also, sites with slopes greater than 20 percent are not suitable. The preferred soil types for these systems are sandy loam, loamy sand, or loams. These soil types provide the necessary infiltration rates and also are good planting soils for the bioretention area vegetation. Vegetation should be selected based on maintenance requirements and aesthetics, and care should be taken to prevent nearby invasive species from entering the system. A typical bioretention system is suitable for serving a drainage area of between 0.25 and 1 acres. Larger drainage areas would require multiple systems. A typical bioretention diagram is displayed in Figure 5-18.

Figure 5-18: Bioretention Diagram (EPA, 199a)

Recommended maintenance for bioretention systems includes routine inspection and repair and/or replacement of system components, which typically involves similar maintenance measures that are required for normal landscaped areas. Trees and shrubs in the system should be inspected twice per year, and any dead or diseased vegetation should be removed. Pruning and weeding may also be required to maintain the appearance of the area, as might replacement of mulch. Any areas of standing water should be addressed to discourage the attraction of insect vectors. Other than maintenance of vegetation, removal of debris and accumulated sediment should be the major maintenance required.

260

5.6.10 Sand Filter

Stormwater sand filters are usually two-chambered devices, including a pretreatment settling basin and a sand filter bed. As stormwater flows into the first chamber, large particles settle out, and then finer particles and other pollutants are removed as stormwater flows through the sand in the second chamber. There are a number of design variations including the Austin sand filter (example and diagram shown in Figures 5-19 and 5-20), Delaware sand filter (shown in Figure 5-21), and Washington, D.C. sand filter.

Figure 5-19: Austin Sand Filter (CASQA, 2004)

Sand filters are generally considered able to achieve high removal efficiencies for fecal coliform bacteria and typical removal efficiency has been reported to be between 60 and 75 percent (City of San Diego, 2004). The EPA Storm Water Technology Fact Sheet (1999e) confirms this, reporting a typical bacteria removal of 76 percent for sand filters. However, some studies have found that efficiency could be as low as 22 percent under some conditions (City of San Diego, 2004). A 1987 study completed by the USGS in Austin, TX demonstrated that sand filters are effective in removing bacteria from shopping center, transportation, and residential runoff. Based on 22 storm events over a 2 year period, the sand filter exhibited a removal efficiency of just over 80 percent for both fecal coliform and fecal streptococci (Welborn and Veenhuis, 1987). Five Austin sand filters were studied by CalTrans to determine their ability to treat park- and-ride runoff. A removal efficiency of 65% was reported based on grab samples obtained from all five facilities over study period (Barrett, 2003). The major bacteria removal mechanisms used by sand filters are sedimentation and sand filtration.

261

Figure 5-20: Diagram of Austin Sand Filter (EPA, 1999e)

Figure 5-21: Diagram of Delaware Sand Filter (EPA, 1999e)

Sand filters are typically preferred to infiltration BMPs in areas where groundwater contamination might be of concern or where the water table is high. However, if the water table is within six feet of finished site grade, a sand filter will not be able to be used due to the driving head limitations discussed below. In relation to other BMPs sand filters take up little space and they can be used on highly developed sites with steep slopes. They can also be used in arid areas where wet ponds or wetlands would be unlikely to maintain the necessary permanent pool.

The Delaware or Washington, D.C. type sand filters are both installed underground and, consequently, are typically used in highly impervious areas where available land is limited (e.g., parking lots, loading docks, service stations, garages, and storage areas). Austin sand filters are more commonly used for larger drainage areas. They are installed at grade and can treat runoff

262

from any urban land use. Most sand filters require a considerable amount of head to achieve the necessary flow through the system so they are not well suited to very flat terrain.

Sand filters are best used on relatively small sites (less than 25 acres for surface sand filters and less then 2 acres for underground filters) and, while they have been used on larger sites, these systems have been prone to clogging. All filter designs need to provide access to the filter to allow for inspection and maintenance. Sand filters should be inspected after every storm event to ensure that they are working as designed. Sand filters typically begin to experience clogging problems within 3 to 5 years. Accumulated trash and debris should be removed from the filter at least twice a year to maintain its operation. Corrective maintenance of the filtration chamber involves removal of the clogged upper layers of sand and gravel. Sand filter systems may also require the occasional removal of vegetative growth.

5.6.11 Water Quality Inlet

Water Quality Inlets (WQIs), also commonly called trapping catch basins, oil/grit separators, or oil/water separators, consist of one or more chambers that promote sedimentation of coarse materials and separation of free oil (as opposed to emulsified or dissolved oil) from stormwater. Some WQIs also contain screens to help retain larger or floating debris, and many of the newer designs also include a coalescing unit that helps promote oil/water separation. A typical WQI (as shown in Figure 5-22) consists of a sedimentation chamber, an oil separation chamber, and a discharge chamber.

Figure 5-22: Typical Water Quality Inlet (CASQA, 2004)

These devices are appropriate for capturing hydrocarbon spills, but provide very marginal sediment removal and are not very effective for treatment of stormwater runoff. Oil/water separators (OWSs) typically capture only the first portion of runoff for treatment and are generally used for pretreatment before discharging to other BMPs. There is no available data concerning the bacterial removal efficiency of OWSs but, based on the pollutant removal 263

mechanisms they use, there is little reason to expect that they would be highly effective in this role. For this reason, additional details on the OWSs are not provided in this section.

In recent years, many companies have made significant strides in improving the functionality of water quality inlets for removal of target constituents. The Bacterra product shown in Figure 5- 23 claims 94-99% reductions in fecal coliforms. This system incorporates bioretention technology into a small footprint design that can be applied to ultra urban settings. The Bacterra unit contains a proprietary media blend that limits bacterial regrowth and permits relatively high flow rates to be treated. As of the publication of this report, independent verification of the removals or peak flow rates treated have not been completed (Americast, personal communication).

Figure 5-23: Bacterra Water Quality Inlet (Courtesy of Americast Corporation)

5.6.12 Screens, Nets, and Trash Racks

A range of BMPs, collectively known as gross solids removal devices (GSRDs) can be installed at stormwater drain outlet structures to capture floatables and other gross debris that are carried by runoff. There is no data available concerning bacteria removal efficiency for these various devices though, while these BMPs can be very effective at capturing and controlling gross solids and floatables, it is highly unlikely based on their treatment mechanisms that they would be effective for bacteria removal. For this reason, additional details on GSRDs are not provided here.

The City of San Antonio has recently installed a number of actuating gates at its downtown drain inlets. These gates remain closed during dry weather, preventing floatables and gross solids

264

from entering the storm drain system, but are set to open during wet weather to allow runoff into the storm drains. These gates augment the street sweeping program operated by the City by helping to keep floatables and gross solids where they can be removed by the street sweepers. However, it is unclear whether these devices have a direct effect on keeping bacteria out of the stormwater drains.

5.6.13 Multiple Systems

A multiple BMP system employs several stormwater BMPs in series to enhance the treatment of the runoff. They are also known as a stormwater treatment trains and consist of a sequence of BMPs, and possibly natural features, each of which are designated to treat a different aspect of runoff, maximizing pollutant removal and stormwater infiltration. For example, a multiple system could include a combination of vegetated filter strips with swales, infiltration basins, and pond systems.

By combining these structural treatment mechanisms in series rather than using a single method of treatment, the levels and reliability of pollutant runoff can be improved. Employing BMPs in series makes it possible to use a BMP that might be the most effective for some pollutants but that might not achieve the desired level of treatment for some others because another level of treatment will take place further downstream. The effective life of a BMP can also be increased by combining it with a device for pretreatment, such as a buffer strip or swale, to remove suspended particulates prior to treatment in a downstream unit. Many BMPs are commonly designed with some form of pretreatment for gross solids and debris. Sequencing of BMPs can also reduce the potential for re-suspension of deposited sediments by reducing flow energy levels or by providing longer paths for flow runoff.

Bacteria removal performance for a multiple system would be dependent upon the components of that system, though it is important to note that placing BMPs in series will not necessarily result in cumulative performance (CASQA, 2004). This is because the removal mechanisms of the second BMP may be redundant to the first BMP. However, the efficient combination of BMPs can optimize the overall system performance as the effluent from the first treatment system should be of more consistent quality, which allows subsequent BMPs to be designed for optimum performance (CASQA, 2004).

Siting and maintenance for these multiple systems would depend upon the BMPs used in the treatment train. The possibility of combined and therefore more complex maintenance requirements, along with the larger land area required for the various treatment systems, are the major disadvantages of using a multiple system.

5.6.14 Manufactured Wetland

A manufactured wetland is a proprietary stormwater BMP that is quite similar in function to public domain constructed wetlands. Currently, one company manufactures this type of system, which consists of a uniform module approximately 9½ feet in diameter and 4 feet high that contains a series of sedimentation chambers and vegetated treatment units. Unlike most constructed wetland systems, this BMP conveys the stormwater directly into the subsurface of the wetland and through the root zone of the vegetation. Pollutants are removed through

265

filtration, adsorption, and biochemical reactions (EPA, 1999d). The design volume for the site determines how many of the standardized modules are required for stormwater treatment.

With regard to system performance, while there are few data available, the manufacturer reports a bacteria removal efficiency of 97 percent based on a 1998 pilot study (EPA, 1999d). However, no independent assessments of performance have been conducted. The major bacteria removal mechanism used by manufactured wetlands is sedimentation.

These treatment systems are likely not suitable for drainage areas greater than an acre because of the number of units that would be required for larger sites, though this is not stated by the manufacturer. However, for small areas, this type of modular system may be a good option. Maintenance for this system is relatively low and involves seasonal harvesting of vegetation and regular removal of floatables and debris from the pretreatment unit.

5.6.15 Media filter

Proprietary stormwater media filters are typically dual-chambered and consist of a pretreatment settling basin and a filter bed filled with sand or other absorptive filtering media (similar to a traditional sand filter). As stormwater flows into the first chamber, the large particles settle out, and then smaller particles and other pollutants are removed as the water flows through the media in the next chamber.

There are three major manufacturers of proprietary stormwater filter systems. Two are similar in that they use cartridges of a standard size. The cartridges are placed in vaults – the number of cartridges required is a function of the design flow rate. The water enters the vault, flows horizontally into the cartridge to a centerwell, and then downward to an underdrain system. The third proprietary product is a flatbed filter, similar in appearance to a sand filter.

None of the manufacturers of these systems have presented data on bacteria removal, though the City of San Diego (2004) reported a general 47 percent bacteria removal for media filters. Most of these systems function at higher flow rates and have larger media than are used in standard sand filters and, consequently, may not achieve the same level of treatment performance (CASQA, 2004). The major bacteria removal mechanisms employed by media filters would be sand filtration or filtration via the selected media being used.

There are no unique siting criteria for this type of system. Maintenance requirements are dependent on the proprietary product being used, though they are expected to be similar to sand filters.

5.6.16 Wet Vault

A wet vault is an underground structure designed to provide both temporary and permanent storage for runoff from a storm event. Wet vaults have a permanent pool of water that dissipates energy and improves the settling of particulate pollutants. The vault may also have a constricted outlet that causes a temporary rise in the water level during each storm (i.e., extended detention). This volume typically drains within 12 hours to 2 days after the end of the storm. Wet vaults are

266

typically in-line, end-of-pipe BMPs. There are three primary types of wet vault that are marketed by various vendors.

Wet vaults are primarily designed to remove coarse sediments from runoff and, consequently, are not expected to provide efficient bacteria removal (CASQA, 2004). No data are available concerning bacteria removal efficiency for wet vaults. If bacteria removal occurred, the major mechanism employed by wet vaults would likely be sedimentation.

Maintenance for wet vaults involves the removal of accumulated sediments and debris. This is typically accomplished at least annually using a vacuum truck.

5.6.17 Vortex Separator

Vortex separators (aka swirl concentrators, hydrodynamic separators) are flow-through, gravity separator structures that are similar to wet vaults. The major difference is that the vortex separator is round and uses the circular flow of the water to enhance the settling of suspended sediments and attached pollutants. These BMPs can be installed as either on-line or off-line treatment units. Vortex separators were first designed for treating combined sewer overflows but the technology has now been adapted for stormwater treatment by several manufacturers.

Though vortex separators do remove solids, they are principally designed to remove floatables and gritty materials. Consequently, they may have difficulty removing the finer solids typically found in runoff. Pollutants that adhere to fine particulates or are dissolved will not be significantly removed by the unit (EPA, 1999b). Bacteria removal data is extremely limited for these systems, though one study indicated that one system might achieve between 50 and 88 percent removal of fecal coliform (Neary, 2004). Some examples were found of case studies where a vortex separator was used as a primary treatment step before a wetland or a UV treatment unit. None of the four major vortex separator vendors make any claims regarding bacteria removal. The major bacteria removal mechanism employed by vortex separators would be sedimentation.

There are no unique siting criteria required for vortex separators. The size of drainage area that could be served is only limited by the capacity of the largest available unit. As with wet vaults, maintenance usually involves the removal of accumulated sediments and debris, which is typically accomplished annually using a vacuum truck.

5.6.18 Drain Inserts

Drain inserts are manufactured filters or fabric that can be placed in a drop inlet to remove sediment and debris. There are a multitude of inserts available, though they usually are one of three broad types: boxes, socks or trays. Box inserts are plastic or wire mesh structures into which a “bag” is placed. The bag is usually made of polypropylene and takes the form of the box. Sock inserts consist of a fabric, also typically made of polypropylene, that can be attached to a frame or the grate of the inlet. Socks are designed for vertical (drop) inlets. Tray inserts consist of one or more trays or mesh grates that may hold different types of media. Filtration media vary by manufacturer and include polypropylene, porous polymer, treated cellulose, and activated carbon. Some manufacturers treat the filter media with anti-microbial agents to

267

enhance the bacteria removals of their filters. An independent study of 10 drain inserts concluded that the filters that were treated with anti-microbial agents were no more effective in removing bacteria from stormwater. The authors indicated that larger contact times were required to activate the anti-microbial effects of these filters. Overall this study reported that an average removal of 50% of the bacteria from the treated influent is expected from the 10 drain inserts tested (Hipp et al, 2006).

The results of the above noted study are encouraging because of the ease of installation of these drain inserts. They are relatively inexpensive, and are a good option for retrofitting a highly built-out watershed. Maintenance requirements involve inspection of the inserts to ensure that they remain correctly installed and that they have not become blocked by floatables or other debris.

5.6.19 Anti-Microbial Filters

Recently, some manufacturers of proprietary BMPs have begun to target bacteria removal through the use of antimicrobial filters. The appeal of these filters is that they have a small footprint when compared to conventional BMPs, and they lack the complex operational requirements of treatment plant-type disinfection methods. The filters are created by the permanent bonding of an antimicrobial chemical agent to the surface of a polymer media. The antimicrobial agent disrupts the cell membrane of bacteria that it contacts causing the bacteria to be destroyed. The polymer media is typically inserted into the tops of catch basins, packed into pipes, or otherwise arranged so that the flow of stormwater is completely contacted with the media.

The use of these antimicrobial devices is still in its infancy, and there is no consensus regarding optimum media design, required contact time, and expected removal rates. A few case studies have been performed using catch basin inserts and packed pipes. Most of these studies resulted in 70-100% bacteria removal, but using unrealistically low flow rates. Only one study has been performed using large storm-driven flows. This study, performed in New Hampshire, used a 9 foot deep stormwater vault fitted with antimicrobial filters. Fifteen storms were sampled with runoff volumes ranging from 0.1 to 2.7 million gallons. During these events, flow rates often exceeded 5,000 gpm. Removal rates ranged from negligible to 85 percent with an average rate of about 50 percent (Nolan, 2004).

5.6.20 Improved Bacteria Removal by Design

There is limited guidance available on recommended methods to design or select stormwater practices for greater bacteria removal. However, several design enhancements are provided in the following paragraphs that might enhance the performance of current stormwater BMPs (Center for Watershed Protection, 2000).

Steps could be taken to create high light conditions in the water column of stormwater ponds or wetlands to promote greater exposure of bacteria to sunlight and, therefore, improved removal. For example, storage could be provided in a series of separate and shallow cells. The last cells should have lower turbidity and would consequently permit greater UV light penetration.

268

However, one drawback to this approach is that this may also increase algal growth in the pond or wetland.

Additional retention or detention time (e.g., two to five days) could be provided in stormwater basins to promote greater settling and die-off. This can be accomplished through larger basins and modified outlet structures. Typical bacteria kinetics used in water quality modeling suggest that bacteria disappear from the water column at a rate of at least 50% per day. It is important to keep in mind, however, that the average residence time for a basin can be much less than the draw-down time for the design storm. For example, if a basin is designed to release the design storm over a 24-hour period, then the average detention time of the design storm will be closer to half of a day. Also, for dry basins, storms which are smaller than the design storm will have markedly lower detention times.

Inlet and outlet structures of stormwater ponds could be designed to prevent bacteria-laden bottom sediments from being resuspended and exported. Reducing turbulence in ponds is essential for extended detention basins that do not have a “pool barrier” to trap and retain bottom sediments. Resuspension of settled materials also may be prevented by increasing the depth of the permanent pool and sediment forebay. Regular removal of deposited sediments from the forebay and permanent pool will also help in preventing resuspension of settled bacteria.

Turf and landscaping around basins with permanent pools should be managed to discourage the creation of resident geese and waterfowl populations that might become an internal bacterial source. Waterfowl may be deterred by placing obstructions (vegetation or fences) that will obstruct their vision, obstruct their movement between land and water, and obstruct their flight path for takeoff.

Infiltration practices can play a role in reducing bacteria yields to surface waters where soil conditions permit. Optimal soil infiltration rates range from 0.5 to 2.0 inches per hour. Even when infiltration is not feasible at a site, designers should attempt to achieve as much soil filtration as possible by using filter strips, rooftop disconnection, and open channels.

If filtering practices are used, finer-grained media should be used in the filter bed (e.g., 15 microns), or at least a finer-grained layer at mid-depth in the filter profile. The typical “concrete- grade” sand used in most sand filters may be too coarse-grained to prevent bacteria breakthrough. However, the disadvantage of using finer-grained media would be that it might lead to more chronic clogging of the filter bed. The bacteria removal efficiency of sand filters is also likely to be improved by extending the process for pretreatment and/or filtration for 40 hours or more. This is most easily achieved by extending the detention time in the sedimentation chamber used for pretreatment.

Trapped sediments can be removed at a greater frequency to reduce the likelihood of bacteria being resuspended. In addition, “dry” pretreatment chambers may be more desirable since bacteria-laden sediment would be subject to both sunlight and desiccation. In general, where practical, basins should be oriented to provide maximum solar exposure.

269

5.6.21 Recommended Structural BMPs

A summary of the reviewed structural BMPs for treating urban runoff is provided in Table 5-2. For each BMP, an estimated bacteria removal efficiency has been determined. Any BMP from Table 5-2 with an expected removal rate of greater than 50% was considered to be acceptable for further potential implementation. Based on this criterion, the structural BMPs most suitable for possible further consideration are:

• Infiltration trenches • Infiltration basins • Wet ponds • Constructed wetlands • Bioretention systems • Sand filters • Manufactured wetland (proprietary system)

In addition, drain inserts and microbial filters may also be acceptable, though additional research should be performed to confirm their potential efficacy. This research could take the form of a pilot project sponsored by local stakeholders.

Table 5-2: Summary Structural Stormwater BMPs Non-Proprietary Est. Bacteria Vendor-Supplied Systems Est. Bacteria Removal Removal

Infiltration Trench 96% Manufactured Wetland 97% 4

Infiltration Basin 96% Media Filter 47%

Wet Pond 70% Wet Vault < 50% 2

Constructed Wetland 85% Vortex Separator < 50% 2

Extended Detention Basin 0% 1 Drain Inserts 50% 4

Vegetated Swale/Filter Strip 0% 1 Antimicrobial Filters 50% 4

Bioretention System 70% Notes: 1. Some literature suggests a net increase in bacteria Sand Filter 70% levels. 2. Little or no data, but unlikely to achieve good bacteria removal based on treatment mechanisms used. 2 Water Quality Inlet < 50% 3. Dependent upon combination of BMPs used. 4. Based on limited literature/manufacturer information. Screens, Nets, and Trash Racks < 50% 2 Pilot project recommended prior to large-scale implementation. Multiple Systems Varies 3

The following sections provide a summary of the key advantages and disadvantages of the recommended structural BMPs. If available, cost estimates are also provided. 270

Infiltration Trench

Advantages: • Provides virtually 100% reduction for captured load. • As an underground BMP, trenches are unobtrusive and have little impact of site aesthetics.

Limitations: • Have a high failure rate if soil and subsurface conditions are not suitable. • Pretreatment should be provided to prevent overloading of sediment. • May not be appropriate for industrial sites or locations where spills may occur. • If infiltration rates exceed 2.4 inches/hour, then runoff should be fully treated prior to infiltration to protect groundwater quality. (Risk of groundwater contamination in very coarse soils.) • Not permitted in the Edwards Aquifer Recharge Zone • Not suitable on fill sites or steep slopes. • Upstream drainage area must be completely stabilized before construction. • Difficult to restore functioning of infiltration trenches once clogged.

Table 5-3: Cost Estimates for Infiltration Trench BMP System Size Capital Surface Area Volume Cost Cost (ft. sq.) (cu. ft.) $/cu.ft.

0.08 Acre System, approximately 4 ft $55,194 3,400 4,760 $11.60 deep

0.31 Acre System, approximately 4 ft $148,361 13,400 18,760 $7.91 deep

0.61 Acre System, approximately 4 ft $243,036 26,700 37,380 $6.50 deep

In general, annual maintenance costs for infiltration trenches typically range from between 5% and 20% of the construction cost of the BMP, depending upon BMP complexity. More realistic values are probably closer to the 20-percent range, to ensure long-term functionality of the practice (CASQA, 2003).

271

Infiltration Basin

Advantages: • Provides virtually 100% reduction for captured load. • Fairly simple design

Table 5-4: Cost Estimates for Infiltration Basin BMP System Size Capital Surface Area Volume Cost Cost (ft. sq.) (cu. ft.) $/cu.ft.

1¾ Surface Acre Basin approx. 2 ft $286,173 76,230 152,460 $1.88 deep

3½ Surface Acre Basin approx. 2 ft $561,234 152,460 304,920 $1.84 deep

35 Surface Acre Basin, approx. 2 ft $4,782,864 1,524,600 3,049,200 $1.57 deep

Annual maintenance costs for infiltration basins are estimated at 5 to 10% of construction costs (CASQA, 2003).

272

Wet Pond

Advantages: • May provide greater than 90% bacteria removal (based on some case studies) if properly designed. • Generally perceived to have positive aesthetic value. • Wet ponds could be constructed by retrofitting existing ponds used for flood control.

Limitations: • Some concern about safety when constructed where there is public access. • May need base flow or supplemental water if water level is to be maintained. • Waterfowl may need to be deterred in order to prevent them from becoming an internal source of bacteria.

Table 5-5: Cost Estimates for Wet Pond BMP System Size Capital Surface Area Volume Cost Cost (ft. sq.) (cu. ft.) $/cu.ft.

½ Surface Acre Pond, approximately $166,963 21,780 87,120 $1.92 7 ft deep (5' of water plus freeboard)

1 Surface Acre Pond, approximately $292,643 43,560 174,240 $1.68 7 ft deep (5' of water plus freeboard)

10 Surface Acre Pond, approximately $1,721,196 435,600 1,742,400 $0.99 7 ft deep (5' of water plus freeboard)

For wet ponds, the annual cost of routine maintenance has typically been estimated at about 3% to 5% of the construction cost (CASQA, 2003).

273

Constructed Wetland

Advantages: • Expected to provide greater than 90% bacteria removal if properly designed. • Generally perceived to have positive aesthetic value.

Limitations: • Some concern about safety when constructed where there is public access. • Mosquito and midge breeding may occur in wetlands. • Need for base flow or supplemental water if water level is to be maintained. • Require a relatively large footprint. • Waterfowl may need to be deterred in order to prevent them from becoming an internal source of bacteria.

Table 5-6: Cost Estimates for Constructed Wetland BMP System Size Capital Surface Area Volume Cost Cost (ft. sq.) (cu. ft.) $/cu.ft.

½ Surface Acre Wetland, $184,563 21,780 87,120 $2.12 approximately 7 ft deep (1' of water plus storm freeboard)

1 Surface Acre Wetland, $323,093 43,560 174,240 $1.85 approximately 7 ft deep (1' of water plus storm freeboard)

10 Surface Acre Wetland, $1,960,446 435,600 1,742,400 $1.13 approximately 7 ft deep (1' of water plus storm freeboard)

For constructed wetlands, annual O&M costs have been estimated to be similar to those for wet ponds: about 3% to 5% of the construction cost (CASQA, 2003). However, if the wetland vegetation required involved maintenance, these costs would be expected to be higher.

274

Bioretention

Advantages: • Provides good aesthetic value, and can be worked into most landscaping plans. • Bioretention facilities are often suitable for retrofit applications

Limitations: • May clog if not properly designed, particularly if the BMP receives runoff with high sediment loads. • Bioretention is not a suitable BMP for areas with high water tables (water table needs to be well below the invert of soil media). • May require regular landscaping maintenance.

Table 5-7: Cost Estimates for Bioretention BMP System Size Capital Surface Area Volume Cost Cost (ft. sq.) (cu. ft.) $/cu.ft.

¼ Surface Acre System, $50,321 10,900 21,800 $2.31 approximately 2 ft deep

0.9 Surface Acre System, $166,919 39,200 78,400 $2.13 approximately 2 ft deep

1.8 Surface Acre System, $293,551 78,400 156,800 $1.87 approximately 2 ft deep

The annual O&M costs for a bioretention facility will correspond to the costs for maintaining the typical landscaping required for a site. In addition to the normal landscaping fees, O&M costs will include soil testing and may also include costs for a sand bed and planting soil (CASQA, 2003).

275

Sand Filters

Advantages: • Relatively small footprint. • Does not require maintenance of aquatic plants.

Limitations: • Generally require more hydraulic head to operate properly (minimum 4-6 feet). • Filters in residential areas can present aesthetic and safety problems if constructed with vertical concrete walls. • Generally more expensive than other BMP types, especially if constructed with concrete walls. • May require regular sediment removal from filter bed.

Table 5-8: Cost Estimates for Austin Sand Filter BMP System Size Capital Surface Area Volume Cost Cost (ft. sq.) (cu. ft.) $/cu.ft.

~20,000 cu ft System, approximately $119,555 4,000 20,000 $5.98 5 ft deep

~80,000 cu ft System, approximately $336,426 16,000 80,000 $4.21 5 ft deep

~160,000 cu ft System, $632,755 32,000 160,000 $3.95 approximately 5 ft deep

Table 5-9: Cost Estimates for Washington, D.C./Delaware Sand Filter BMP System Size Capital Surface Area Volume Cost Cost (ft. sq.) (cu. ft.) $/cu.ft.

~20,000 cu ft System, approximately $180,824 3,333 20,000 $9.04 6 ft deep

~80,000 cu ft System, approximately $491,077 13,333 80,000 $6.14 6 ft deep

~160,000 cu ft System, $776,796 26,667 160,000 $4.85 approximately 6 ft deep

Annual O&M costs for maintaining sand filter systems average about 5% of the initial construction cost of the BMP (CASQA, 2003).

276

Manufactured Wetlands

Advantages: • Can reportedly achieve bacteria removal rates of greater than 90%. • Unlike standard constructed wetlands, there is no standing water in the manufactured wetland between storms (after emptying with each storm). This minimizes but does not entirely eliminate the opportunity for mosquito breeding. • Can be incorporated into the landscaping of the development. • The gravel substrate can be augmented with media that is specifically effective at removing dissolved pollutants, increasing further the performance of the system. • Vegetation is more easily harvested in comparison to a wet pond or standard constructed wetland.

Limitations: • Not likely suitable for drainage areas greater than an acre due to the number of units that is required for larger sites. • May attract invasive wetland species. • May require irrigation during the dry season. • Where many units are required, the pattern of circular plastic covers of the center wells may not be appealing. • Pilot testing would certainly need to be conducted prior to the consideration of proprietary BMPs for widespread use in the Upper San Antonio River watershed. In particular, the hydraulic characteristics and pollutant removal rates of individual designs will have to be determined by field verification.

Antimicrobial Filters or Drain Inserts

Advantages: • Have a small footprint and are simple to operate compared to conventional BMPs. • Could be used in combination with other BMPs to enhance bacteria removal.

Limitations: • Use of these devices is in its infancy and there is no consensus regarding optimum media design, required contact time, and expected removal rates. • Pilot testing would certainly need to be conducted prior to the consideration of proprietary BMPs for widespread use in the Upper San Antonio River watershed. In particular, the hydraulic characteristics and pollutant removal rates of individual designs will have to be determined by field verification.

277

5.6.22 Structural BMP Site Selection

The previous sections have been concerned primarily with quantifying the ability of each device to remove indicator species from influent stormwater. Brief discussions of site considerations and maintenance were also provided. A key factor that has not been discussed is the ability of any combination of stakeholders to implement these BMPs into new construction or to retrofit them into existing construction. A variety of factors would prevent management of the entire water quality volume of a watershed. These include, but are not limited to: limited public right- of-way, lack of or failing condition of existing drainage infrastructure, zoning/existing and proposed land uses, high cost of land acquisition, existing topography and slopes, community outcry, wetlands and floodplains etc. A watershed manager must work within this framework to carefully choose sites which are good candidates for stormwater retrofits or for regional stormwater treatment facilities. In recent years, geographic information systems (GIS) technology has been used to augment field investigation to quickly and efficiently identify sites that are suitable for stormwater retrofits.

5.7 ASSESSMENT OF NON-STRUCTURAL BMPS FOR URBAN RUNOFF

Non-structural BMPs include institutional and educational practices whose goal is the modification of behaviors and/or work practices with the aim of reducing the amount of pollutants entering storm drains and receiving waters. These are largely common sense measures such as limiting public and animal access to sensitive riparian areas, public education on the role of storm drains, erosion control, vegetative buffers, street sweeping, animal waste management, and pet waste (“poop-scoop”) programs. Quantitative data are very limited concerning the effectiveness of these programs, though some of these non-structural measures have been shown to reduce receiving water bacteria levels in rural and agricultural settings (Perdek et al., 2003).

The non-structural BMPs that address leaking sewers, failing septic systems, transients, and direct animal deposition have already been addressed earlier in this chapter. This section describes the remaining non-structural BMPs currently being implemented within the City of San Antonio that might reduce bacteria loadings in the watershed. These remaining programs are summarized in Table 5-10. Other than the existing City programs described in this section, and the BMPs discussed in Sections 5.2 through 5.5, there were no additional non-structural BMPs identified that are available to reduces bacteria loadings in the watershed.

Table 5-10: Non-Structural Stormwater BMPs for Urban Runoff

Program Responsible Agency Street Sweeping COSA Public Works Department, Alamo Heights, Castle Hills, etc. Stormwater System Maintenance COSA Public Works Department, Alamo Heights, Castle Hills, etc. River Maintenance COSA Public Works Department

278

5.7.1 Street Sweeping

The Public Works Department is primarily responsible for implementing the City’s street sweeping program to clean the City streets and remove the potentially floatable debris that accumulates in the curb lines. Removal of this material prevents floatable material from entering the drainage systems which could potentially cause blockages in the channels that could lead to flooding of area residences. Regenerative air sweepers are used versus broom sweepers to remove pollutants from the road surfaces. Regenerative air samplers are mid-range sweepers on the continuum of available technology. Literature has reported that these sweepers are able to remove 20% of the load of fecal coliform present on the swept surface. However, this does not accurately represent the ability of street sweeping to reduce fecal coliform loads within a watershed because of a multitude of factors including presence of parked cars which prevent effective sweeping, timing of sweeping between rain events, and overall sweeping frequency (Zarriello et al, 2002).

Street sweeping occurs at varying frequencies across the City, depending upon the location and nature of the street. Streets in the Central Business District are cleaned most frequently (approximately 363 times per year), with arterial roads being cleaned at least four times per year, and residential streets being cleaned at least twice per year. Street cleaning also occurs following special events held by the City, such as Fiesta, New Year’s Eve celebrations, Alamo Bowl, and other City-sponsored events.

A 1993 study identified streets and parking lots as significant potential sources or carriers for bacteria and other pollutants (EPA, 2004). Bacteria have an affinity for attaching themselves to fine sediments and can form biofilms on gutters, both of which can be swept away by street sweepers, particularly if the street sweepers used are efficient at removing fine particles, as are the Regenerative air sweepers used by the City. A research study completed by the USGS in 2002 suggests that fecal coliform load reductions associated with street sweeping are highly variable depending on frequency and technology implemented. Reported fecal coliform load reductions were 4.3% with daily sweeping. If sweeping were reduced to twice monthly, the load reduction was reduced to 1.9%. (Zarriello et al, 2002).

The Street Cleaning Section also works cooperatively with the City’s Park and Recreation and Public Works Departments to keep the Mission Trails Hike & Bike Trails swept and free of litter, trash or debris. This maintenance includes the upkeep of the street surface of the Mission Parkway. The section is also involved with the Neighborhood Action Department Management Program, which performs additional sweeps of residential areas to help with trash removal.

5.7.2 Stormwater System Maintenance

The Public Works Department is also responsible for insuring that the City’s stormwater facilities are operating correctly. They use remote cameras to visually inspect underground drainage systems and they also carry out minor concrete channel maintenance, storm drain inlet repairs, box culvert and concrete pipe replacement, as well as performing the maintenance of storm water lift stations and hazardous material traps.

279

The Public Works Department inspects the underground storm sewer system (estimated to be approximately 500 miles of pipe) to identify any illicit connections and to document damage including collapsed pipes requiring replacement. About 20 percent of the existing system is inspected each year, and this program also provides inspections on newly constructed infrastructure to ensure compliance with plans and specifications. The subsequent repair or replacement of concrete infrastructure such as concrete drainage channel aprons and wing walls, box culverts, and concrete drainage channels is required to keep the municipal separate storm sewer system operating as designed and at maximum capacity. Subsurface collapsed storm sewer pipes are identified and replaced on an as-needed basis - approximately 1,300 linear feet of pipes are replaced annually. Drainage inlet and hazardous material trap cleaning is conducted to keep them free and clear of debris and floatable material. Several of the City’s street sweepers have been equipped with vacuum hoses so they can help support this activity.

It is not clear the extent to which this program might help to reduce bacteria in the watershed though, at minimum, the identification of illicit stormwater sewer connections and perhaps catch basin cleaning should both contribute to this goal.

5.7.3 River Maintenance

The Public Works Department is responsible for the maintenance of designed channels, natural waterways, and lakes in the City. All improved drainage channels are inspected on a regular basis and re-grading, de-silting, and debris removal projects are scheduled and conducted on a priority basis. Channel de-silting helps with reducing the TSS contributed to local waterways, as well as aiding with the conveyance of stormwater by maintaining the design characteristics and conveyance capacity of the channels. De-silting of the lakes similarly maintains the stormwater capacity of area lakes and ponds that receive surface run-off. Seven area lakes and ponds receive de-silting operations: Woodlawn Lake, Davis Lake, Elmendorf Lake, Southside Lions Park, Miller’s Pond, San Antonio River, and Friesenhahn Pond.

The Public Works Department also conducts regular re-grading, restoration, and reshaping of earthen channels for de-silting and erosion repair maintenance, which also maintains their design characteristics and conveyance capacity. These activities can also involve removal or re- establishment of vegetation, as necessary. Natural creek maintenance is also a part of this program and involves removal of debris and floatables from the City’s creeks. This effort is supplemented by a community program (the Storm Water Community Service/Restitution program) that involves public participation in creek clean-up. This section is also responsible for the removal of un-permitted fill in the floodplain for compliance with the City’s Development Code and to maintain the integrity of the Flood Insurance Program.

Again, it is not clear the extent to which this program might help to reduce bacteria in the watershed though the lake desilting helps to maintain their capacity, which should enhance any sedimentation functions that they perform.

5.8 MISCELLANEOUS SAN ANTONIO RIVER BMPS

A goal of SARA is to maintain sufficient water quality to support primary contact recreation throughout the watershed. Various projects, efforts, programs, and BMPs have been

280

implemented by SARA to support this goal. Recreational use of the Mission Reach, lower reaches of the San Antonio River, and its tributaries are a high priority for SARA and are part of the SARA Nature Based Parks Plan. In order to maintain this goal, concentrations of bacteria must be managed.

There are a series of impoundments along the San Antonio River throughout the downtown area that experience low flows during the summer months. Some of the elevated bacterial counts in the river may be exacerbated by these seasonal low flows and the resulting absence of dilution. SAWS is already using reclaimed water to augment the base flows in the San Antonio River and is also investigating the possibility of diverting air conditioner condensate into the river to further enhance flows.

Another program worthy of mention is the San Antonio River Improvements Project, which is a $140 million city, county and federal investment in a four-mile segment of the river from Hildebrand to Lexington called the Museum Reach, and a nine-mile segment from South Alamo Street to Mission Espada called the Historic Mission Reach. The aim of the River Improvements Project is to provide stable, maintainable flood control while environmentally restoring sections of the river to their natural meanders, in addition to adding amenities and recreational opportunities along 13 miles of the river.

It is currently anticipated that the City of San Antonio will contribute approximately $37 million over the 10 years of the project and that Bexar County will contribute approximately $53 million. Local funding is derived from the City's capital improvements fund and the County's flood tax. Additionally, project leaders are seeking partnerships with the private sector to fund enhancements to amenities along the river. Total federal contribution over the life of the project could exceed $30 million.

The objective of the River Improvements Project is to provide stable, maintainable flood control while reclaiming the river's natural meanders and appearance along the Historic Mission Reach. This will be accomplished through the use of fluvial geomorphology. Project designers plan to re-create the contoured path of the river wherever possible, restore the gradually descending slopes of the riverbanks, and remove the concrete rubble lining the river channel. At several points along the Historic Mission Reach, stacked pieces of limestone will be used to create small dams, or weirs, in order to prevent erosion of the river bottom.

In the Museum Reach of the project, the river flows through a narrow channel with sloping banks covered by thick vegetation. The channel averages 80 feet in width and is bordered largely by private properties that contain commercial and light industrial businesses which do not currently utilize the riverbank space. From Highway 281 North to Hildebrand, the Museum Reach has a more natural setting as it flows through Brackenridge Park.

In these areas north of downtown, the River Improvements Project will create designated wildlife habitat areas, and the river bottom will be lined with natural cobblestones to create a healthier environment for fish and other aquatic organisms. The project will help restore native fish communities including Guadalupe bass, blue gill, channel catfish, sunfish and shad.

281

The River Improvements Project will also reintroduce native trees, grasses and plant life along the river's edge including pecan, redbud and wild olive trees, buttonbush shrubs, Texas bluebonnets and scarlet sage among others. The preservation and planting of native plants including seed and fruit producing species‚ such as oak, pecan and walnut‚ will encourage wildlife to forage within these areas along the river. The planting of native understory species will also provide stratification along the river, which is essential to attracting species that would not use the area if only overstory canopy plant species were present.

The extent to which the River Improvements Project might help to reduce bacteria in the watershed is not quantifiable. However, the addition of wetlands areas to certain stormwater outfalls may help to treat runoff entering the river to some degree. Additionally, some sedimentation might be effected by the small dams and weirs constructed along the river as part of the project.

The San Antonio River Walk Implementation Project is aimed at reducing levels of bacteria in the downtown historic River Walk area through collaborative public workshops. A seven- member committee consisting of representatives of the City of San Antonio, Bexar County, SAWS, SARA, Paseo del Rio Association, Downtown Alliance/Centro San Antonio and Downtown Residents Association has identified human behaviors that contribute to high bacteria levels in the River Walk watershed. The committee will evaluate solutions and develop BMPs to reduce bacteria levels and enhance water quality. BMPs will include measures such as development of of an education outreach campaign and the recapture of wash water from sidewalk cleaning by Centro San Antonio. The program seeks to partner with and educate river residents and merchants on water quality issues and to enlist their support to educate patrons and tourists.

Legislative responsibilities of SARA include protection of the water resources within the river basin. Since 1981, SARA Environmental Sciences Department personnel have been directed to proactively respond to concerns, incidents, and accidents that have the potential to degrade water quality and aquatic resources within the watershed. SARA has created a position called the Environmental Investigations Coordinator whose job is to proactively respond to and follow up on water quality concerns and incidents, illegal dumping activities in the flood plain, and property encroachment violations.

SARA’s Creek Book promotes environmental stewardship and an appreciation of the San Antonio River and its tributaries. It is a guide for homeowners and property managers that provides information on how to manage property, dispose of waste, recycle, landscape, and conserve in order to improve aquatic ecosystem quality, stability, and sustainability. The Creek Book is distributed by SARA at booth shows, water fairs, and workshops and is publically available via the SARA web site.

As a leader in environmental stewardship, SARA has developed an environmental awareness initiative called the “Watershed Wise” campaign. It is designed to provide education to the community and inform citizens about ways that they can help protect and preserve the environment of the San Antonio River and its tributaries. This new environmental awareness initiative encourages residents to be “Watershed Wise” through a series of messages addressing

282

issues such as general watershed education, prevention of illegal dumping, encouraging recycling and reducing the use of plastic bags, picking up pet waste, proper lawn care and vehicle maintenance techniques. There is a “Be Watershed Wise” poster available for children to learn simple lessons designed to protect watersheds.

283

6.0 SHORT-TERM AND LONG-TERM MANAGEMENT MEASURES

The purpose of an Implementation Plan is to prescribe actions for reducing pollutant loads to an impaired watercourse. These actions can include a variety of programmatic or structural control measures, as discussed in the preceding sections. Control measures are typically implemented over various time frames, since some may be relatively simple while others may require planning, design, and construction. Therefore, control measures will be discussed with respect to short-term and long-term implementation. By definition, short-term control measures will refer to those measures that could be implemented immediately or within the next year or two. Control measures to be implemented after that time frame would be categorized as long-term.

The US EPA has provided guidance for the content of watershed protection plans that is also applicable to the development of an Implementation Plan (EPA, 2005). Of particular interest, a plan should include nine specific elements considered “critical for achieving improvements in water quality”. These elements are summarized below:

a) Identification of causes and sources of impairment, and their estimated loads b) An estimate of the load reductions expected from management measures c) A description of the management measures, and the areas where they will be implemented d) Costs associated with the management measures, and potential funding sources e) Education component for each management measure f) Schedule of implementation for management measure g) Measurable milestones of management measure implementation, other than water quality indicators (element h) h) Water quality indicators to quantify effectiveness of management measure i) Water quality monitoring component to evaluate criteria from element h

The next sections will discuss the management measures (aka BMPs) recommended as part of the Implementation Plan. Section 6.4 summarizes all of the recommended BMPs in a tabular format, emphasizing the nine key elements presented above. Finally, Section 6.5 presents the proposed timetable for BMP deployment.

6.1 MANAGEMENT MEASURES FOR POINT SOURCES

6.1.1 San Antonio Zoo Point Source

The San Antonio Zoo, located in Brackenridge Park, has been identified as a major point source contributor of bacteria in the Upper San Antonio River. The bacteria originate from resident and nonresident animals, principally waterfowl and other birds, that are located along the internal waterway that traverses the Zoo. The internal waterway is fed by a well, withdrawing water from the Edwards Aquifer at a rate of approximately 1700 gpm. There exists one primary and one secondary outfall from the internal waterway to the Upper San Antonio River. Flows from the secondary outfall are generally negligible, except under rainfall runoff conditions.

284

According to the water quality model, disinfection (99.9% bacteria removal) of the Zoo’s discharge will bring most of the Upper San Antonio River into compliance with the state criteria, except under periods of prolonged wet weather. Under periods (months) of prolonged wet weather, bacteria concentrations are heavily influenced by loads from urban runoff, and Zoo controls alone are not sufficient.

Short-Term Control Measures

A minimal number of short-term control measures are recommended for the Zoo. A maintenance plan should be developed for the sumps and interceptors located at the Zoo. The plan would include regular inspections to document that the sumps are functioning properly. It may be necessary to schedule periodic cleaning or vacuuming to remove sediment deposits. The plan could also include measures to encourage dry waste removal for exhibits to the greatest extent possible.

Long-Term Control Measures

The most cost effective BMP for reducing bacteria loads to the Upper San Antonio River would be to disinfect the dry weather flow leaving the San Antonio Zoo. The discharge from the Zoo is the primary cause of impairment from Brackenridge Park through downtown San Antonio. Removal of the bacteria load from the Zoo could be most efficiently achieved through the utilization of disinfection treatment facilities. A previous report (JMA, 2007) recommended an ultraviolet (UV) disinfection process be installed at the Zoo’s primary outfall. The estimated cost to construct the UV facility is about $2,500,000. The Zoo disinfection should be considered a recommended short-term control measure, due to its importance for river water quality. However, since implementation will require time for design and construction, it should be recognized that a time frame of 1-2 years may be involved.

Once the base flow from the Zoo has been controlled, there should be an immediate observable improvement in water quality in the upper reach of the river. With disinfection, concentrations at the Zoo outfall should be reduced to less than 50 cfu/100 mL. Concentrations downstream of the outfall should also decrease substantially. According to the water quality model, concentrations as far downstream as Loop 410 should drop substantially (geometric means drop by about half). However, due to all of the variability associated with bacteria sampling, this can only be validated through long-term sampling.

Treatment of runoff-related flows from the Zoo is not recommended. If treatment is to be required, at a later stage of TMDL implementation, storm flows from the Zoo’s primary waterway would need to be diverted to a large structural BMP or mechanical treatment facilities. However, due to the scarcity of undeveloped land near the Zoo grounds, this could be problematic.

6.1.2 Stormwater Runoff Point Sources

Stormwater regulated under an MS4 permit is considered to be a point source by the EPA, and this is therefore the classification for runoff within the City of San Antonio. There are two basic

285

types of BMPs for stormwater sources: structural and nonstructural. Section 5.0 of this report provides detailed information for both of these BMP types. In general, nonstructural BMPs are relatively inexpensive, but their effectiveness can be variable and difficult to quantify. The objective of most nonstructural BMPs is to prevent the accumulation of fecal material at the land’s surface so that it is not available for washoff during runoff events. Structural BMPs, such as wet ponds and sand filters, are typically much more expensive to implement, but provide relatively reliable reductions in stormwater sources. The objective of structural BMPs is to remove pollutants that accumulate in runoff before that runoff reaches the receiving streams. An estimated 30% reduction in stormwater runoff loads is required to bring the upper reach of the San Antonio River into compliance, based upon TMDL water quality modeling exercises. In addition, the modeling exercises demonstrated that an estimated 60% reduction in stormwater runoff loads would be required within the Salado Creek watershed.

Retrofitting a major portion of the City’s stormwater drainage system with structural BMPs could result in hundreds of millions of dollars in capital improvement costs. Space and availability of suitable locations would be a tremendous constraint for structural BMPs in an already-developed urban area. Therefore, this report recommends that stormwater BMPs be implemented using a phased approach, as a potential long-term control measure. This phased approach is also known as adaptive implementation. Implementation of structural and nonstructural BMPs could also be accomplished by incorporation of Low Impact Development (LID) BMPs in the study area. There is an ongoing effort in San Antonio to develop LID approaches and include them in the City’s Uniform Development Code.

Before structural controls are installed, nonstructural BMPs should be implemented, and their effectiveness should be determined based on long-term water quality monitoring. If success is indicated, implementation of additional items may cease. If success is not realized, additional controls are mandated, until compliance with water quality standards for bacteria is achieved.

Short-Term Control Measures

An estimated 5% reduction in stormwater runoff loads may be achievable through the implementation of nonstructural BMPs. Much of this reduction may be achieved through the management of pet waste. The City of San Antonio already maintains a “Pooper Scooper” program to encourage the removal of pet waste from the land surface. The expansion of this program, and the enforcement of pet control ordinances, may significantly reduce nonpoint source loading. In addition, public education can be used to educate pet owners on the need for proper pet waste management, both at home and in public parks.

Other nonstructural stormwater BMPs should address wild birds, which are believed to be a large source of the stormwater runoff load. However, the complete exclusion of wild birds is unrealistic and undesirable. Instead, limited actions can be taken at key locations to reduce the number of birds present. The City of San Antonio can institute a bird feeding ban at the River Walk and at public parks in riparian areas. This action would be well served by a public awareness program explaining the purpose of the ban. Other bird deterrent practices, such as a falconer program and the removal of bird nesting locations, may also be considered to achieve

286

the desired load reductions. These BMPs will also reduce direct nonpoint source loads, because birds often deposit fecal material directly into the stream.

Another short-term control measure for the general urban runoff category would be the placement of illegal dumping signs along existing riparian zones. For example, there are roughly 70 miles of grassed channel for streams in the San Antonio urban area, and no-dumping signs could discourage illegal activities. It would also be prudent to conduct regular site inspections of the waterways to detect illegal dumping at an early stage, so that the material can be cleaned up.

While structural control measures are not immediately recommended for implementation, a level of preliminary planning should take place. It is recommended that one or two representative watershed sites should be selected and scheduled for structural BMP pilot feasibility assessment projects. This report recommends as candidates the San Pedro Creek, Alazan Creek, and/or Apache Creek watersheds, or virtually any other watershed that could be well defined in terms of drainage patterns and land uses. For the watersheds selected for study, it would be prudent to make sure that the land use categories of residential and commercial/industrial are well represented. The objectives of this feasibility assessment would be to

(1) conduct a detailed inspection of the watershed to locate sites that would be good candidates for structural stormwater BMP construction; (2) determine the extent that the watershed as a whole might be retrofitted with structural stormwater BMPs; (3) prepare a conceptual design of the structural BMPs; and (4) develop an estimated cost for retrofitting the watershed.

These feasibility assessments would reveal the potential constraints and issues that would be involved with local deployment of structural BMPs, and enable better planning for more widespread deployment in other areas of the City. This type of analysis would be well served by formulation in a GIS-based format, to enable demonstration of various layers of control measures and possibly different background views based upon topography or aerial photography.

Following the feasibility assessment projects, BMP pilot projects could be implemented at various locations within the watershed. The pilot projects would entail the following items:

(1) specific siting for structural BMPs, either single BMPs or a suite of BMPs (2) engineering design of BMPs (3) construction of structural BMPs (4) post-construction monitoring of bacteria removals

After completion of the feasibility assessment projects and the pilot projects, a more thorough cost/benefit analysis could be developed that would be applicable to the entire study area.

As an example of a potential pilot project, the City of San Antonio has applied for a 319(h) grant to install and study LID BMPs for the redevelopment of the Mission Drive-In Project. LID and associated nonstructural and green infrastructure approaches to stormwater management are not

287

specifically addressed nor promoted in the City of San Antonio’s Unified Development Code (UDC). The Mission Drive-In Redevelopment site is a 26-acre City-owned planned redevelopment site located south of the downtown area near the San Antonio River. Planned as a town center and civic space, it will include public buildings, agency offices, commercial businesses, residences, and parks. The grant proposal outlines a scope to improve the quality of stormwater runoff through the use of LID BMPs. Various BMPs will be designed and constructed under the project, and monitoring would be conducted to determine the effectiveness of the controls.

Long-Term Control Measures

Following implementation of more immediate short-term controls and following development of feasibility assessment studies and pilot studies, additional nonstructural and structural stormwater BMPs may need to be implemented basin-wide to achieve compliance with water quality criteria. While it is expected that the City of San Antonio will be the primary initiator of stormwater BMPs, surrounding entities in the study area such as SAWS, SARA, Bexar County, Shavano Park, Hill Country Village, Hollywood Park, Alamo Heights, Balcones Heights, Castle Hills, Ft. Sam Houston, Leon Valley, Olmos Park, and Terrell Hills should also review their stormwater and drainage programs.

Nonstructural controls should continue during long-term implementation. One important long- term nonstructural control is public education. Public education programs should strive to provide information to residents of the watershed concerning the implications of their actions and activities on runoff water quality, particularly bacteria loadings.

Structural BMPs may range in scale from large regional wet basins to catch basin inserts for storm sewers. However, it is expected that large basin-type BMPs will be most reliable and effective. As discussed above, it is recommended that these BMPs be implemented in a phased approach. Deployment of structural BMPs in a fully urbanized area is a challenging proposition, since available space if often limited and drainage networks are already established. The most likely scenario for implementation of structural BMPs would be in conjunction with redevelopment or urban renewal projects. As existing structures age, a point is reached where the older structures are often demolished for replacement with new construction. This cycle provides an opportunity for inclusion of structural BMPs, albeit in a very long time frame. It will be necessary for local governments to adopt ordinances or rules to mandate deployment of stormwater BMPs in redevelopment projects. If supporting ordinances are developed in the next couple of years, structural BMP projects will likely start up soon thereafter, say, by 2015. The pace of deployment of BMPs is expected to be slow initially, but as existing structures continue to age, redevelopment opportunities will increase.

The City of San Antonio already maintains a number of structural stormwater BMPs. Elmendorf Lake, for example, eliminates bacteria through natural decay and settling. The City is currently planning to desilt this lake, increasing its treatment capacity.

288

The effectiveness of stormwater BMPs will be determined by future water quality monitoring. Immediate results can be determined for structural BMPs by monitoring bacteria levels in the BMP outfall. However, for the river as a whole, most stormwater source control efforts will not produce immediate results. Incremental load reductions may not be immediately noticeable in the river sampling, since the inherent variability in bacteria sampling may be greater than the effect of individual BMPs. However, as progress continues, long-term monitoring should indicate a gradual decrease in bacteria concentrations.

6.2 MANAGEMENT MEASURES FOR NONPOINT SOURCES

Nonpoint sources include direct sources and unpermitted stormwater sources (also known as “indirect” sources). Direct sources exist in both the urban and rural portions of the study area. Nonpoint stormwater sources include runoff from areas outside of the San Antonio urban area. Stormwater runoff inside the City of San Antonio is regulated under an MS4 permit and was discussed in the previous section.

Direct sources discharge without dependency on stormwater runoff, and have the greatest impact under dry weather (baseflow) conditions. These sources have not been heavily monitored, and the magnitude and location of these sources are still largely unknown. The existing loads and proposed loading reductions for these sources are based on TMDL modeling results, the bacterial output of various animal species (as documented in literature), bacterial source tracking (BST) results, and best professional judgment. Based on information currently available, it is presumed that wildlife and humans are the two primary contributors to the total direct source loading within the urban areas, with the addition of livestock as a contributor in the rural areas.

Direct nonpoint source BMPs can be targeted to areas that exhibit high bacteria concentrations under base flow conditions, based on water quality monitoring data. For example, available bacteria data, supplemented by data collected in conjunction with this Implementation Plan development, has indicated high levels of bacteria in San Pedro Creek at various locations, along with its tributaries of Apache and Alazan Creeks. Therefore, it is likely that a significant bacteria source exists in the vicinity. Additional sampling will be performed to better locate this and other potential direct nonpoint source contributions. In addition, SAWS conducted extensive testing and research into possible collection system sources as a result of the recent sampling data. This investigation identified several collection system problems and immediate repairs were made in some cases as short-term control measures, and additional repairs have been scheduled in certain areas.

According to the TMDL modeling results, only 2.5% of the annual average load is attributable to direct sources (2.6% if septic systems are included in this category, see Figure 1-3). It is quite possible that the modeling analysis has currently underestimated this category of loading. Nonetheless, because of their importance under baseflow conditions, a 50% reduction in direct nonpoint sources is required to bring the stream into compliance.

As with point source BMPs, the effectiveness of direct source BMPs will be determined by future water quality monitoring. For some potential sources, such as a leaking sewer line or a septic system found discharging directly to the river, the effect of control measures could be very

289

noticeable, particularly in the vicinity of the discharge. However, most direct source control efforts will not produce immediate results. Small direct source load reductions may not be immediately noticeable in the sampling, since the inherent variability in bacteria sampling may be greater than the effect of the source control. However, as progress continues, long-term monitoring should indicate a gradual decrease in bacteria concentrations, particularly under low flow conditions.

6.2.1 Direct Nonpoint Sources – Wildlife

Wildlife are presumed to be one of the greatest contributors to direct source loading of bacteria in the urban areas of the watershed. Avian wildlife and bats (which are technically not “avian”) are expected to be the primary sources, because they frequently make streams and riparian areas their primary habitat. It is hoped that somewhere between a 30% and 70% reduction in direct source loading can be realized by controlling wildlife sources.

Short-Term Control Measures

There are several short-term control measures that are recommended to address direct deposition fecal contributions from specific categories of wildlife or specific concentrated wildlife areas. However, there will always be large populations of various animals that cannot be controlled by any feasible measures.

A good deal of uncertainty is associated with the potential wildlife direct deposition reduction. One measure that has already been implemented was removal of a bat colony at the Houston Street bridge. The City of San Antonio installed bat deterrent/exclusion features on the bridge so that the bats do not return after their winter migration. This bridge probably contained the largest population of source animals living directly above the river. However, the bat colony’s population was unknown, despite attempts by park officials to make an estimate. If there were 50,000 bats at the Houston Street bridge, producing bacteria at a rate of 107 org/day, and they resided at the bridge nine months out of the year, then this would equal an annual load of 1.2x1014 org/yr. In this case, removal of the bat colony would be expected to achieve the entire 50% reduction in direct nonpoint sources. However, each of the numbers used in this calculation could easily be off by an order of magnitude (one tenth to ten times the correct value), and so, the actual load reduction will have to be determined during long-term implementation.

Wild birds, such as ducks, geese, egrets, and pigeons are also presumed to be a large source of direct nonpoint source loads. However, the complete exclusion of these animals is probably unrealistic and undesirable. Instead, limited actions can be taken at key locations to reduce the number of birds present. The City of San Antonio can institute a bird feeding ban at the River Walk and at public parks in riparian areas. This action would be well served by a public awareness program explaining the purpose of the ban. Other bird deterrent practices, such as a falconer program and the removal of bird nesting locations, may also be considered to achieve the desired load reductions. Because birds may deposit fecal material on the land’s surface as well as in the river, these BMPs are also expected to reduce stormwater runoff loads.

290

The City of San Antonio operated an animal control center near the San Antonio Zoo, which was believed to be a potentially significant contributor of bacteria loads because of wash-down practices that could result in fecal material reaching the river. These wash-down practices were routine maintenance operations and not the result of rainfall. However, this facility has been moved to a new location in a different watershed, resulting in a potential load reduction.

Long-Term Control Measures

Within the urban areas, the wildlife control measures described in the preceding section would need to be continued as long-term measures. In the rural areas of the San Antonio River watershed, wildlife are abundant. There would appear to be no practical control measures that could be implemented in these areas that would serve to reduce potential bacteria loadings. For example, feral hogs are common in the rural watersheds. Their wallow areas are evident along the San Antonio River and its tributaries. Statewide, control of feral hog populations is a challenging topic. The potential bacteria loading from this specific source has not been quantified.

6.2.2 Direct Nonpoint Sources – Livestock

In the rural portions of the watershed, livestock are likely a substantial contributor of fecal bacteria loadings. To constitute a direct nonpoint source, livestock would have to be able to stand directly in the stream or river and defecate. Livestock also deposit substantial quantities of waste material on the land surface as they graze; however, this source of bacteria could be a potential contributor to a watercourse only with washoff during runoff events and would not constitute a direct source. There have also been observations of livestock that have perished after being trapped in soft sediments; these carcasses are sources of fecal bacteria.

Short-Term Control Measures

One livestock source that does require attention is the potential contributions from confined animal feeding operations. Sampling conducted to date has detected stream bacteria that appear to be related to a dairy operation in the lower portion of the San Antonio River segment. SARA staff will investigate this source and examine potential control measures. Similarly, an inspection or evaluation of other confined animal feeding operations that are located within the watershed should be conducted. The scope of these evaluations would include review of permit or registration (if applicable), review of waste handling protocols and treatment systems, review of waste disposal fields, and physical inspection.

Long-Term Control Measures

The frequency of livestock access points along the lower reach of the Upper San Antonio River was previously discussed in Section 2.5. It is difficult to confirm the magnitude of loading from livestock visitation via instream sampling. Nonetheless, the livestock are a potential source of bacteria.

291

In some parts of the country, control measures have been proposed that are based upon exclusion of livestock from streamside environments. This would typically be accomplished by fencing along the stream riparian corridor. The NRCS has had programs in place to participate in funding of this type of BMP in impaired watersheds. In addition to exclusion fencing, it is sometimes necessary to provide an alternate water source for livestock. A recent study has suggested that fencing is also effective at exclusion of feral hogs from wildlife feeding stations (AgriLife News, 2010). Therefore, fencing may be a viable long-term measure for both livestock and certain wildlife species.

With respect to the Implementation Plan, provision of control measures related to the livestock direct source appears to be a long-term need. Recent sampling data has indicated that bacteria loadings are high in the lower reach, and the cause is not clear at this time. The recommendation at present is to begin a dialogue with landowners and agricultural interests to discuss the possibilities for long-term control measures.

6.2.3 Direct Nonpoint Sources – Human Origin

It is hoped that a 15% (or greater) reduction in direct sources can be realized from targeting human waste sources, primarily in the San Antonio urban area. These sources potentially include wastewater infrastructure, septic systems, and the homeless population. Regarding wastewater infrastructure, SAWS, the primary wastewater service provider in the region, already has an aggressive program in place to reduce the potential for wastewater leakage. SAWS BMPs include sewer inspection, maintenance, emergency response, and rehabilitation. Surrounding wastewater entities in the study area (Alamo Heights, Balcones Heights, Castle Hills, Ft. Sam Houston, Leon Valley, Olmos Park, and Terrell Hills) should institute similar programs if they do not already exist. It is anticipated that all of the wastewater entities will work jointly with SARA and other agencies, if future water quality monitoring identifies specific locations where wastewater infrastructure may be contributing to the bacteria load.

There also exist known or suspected garbage dumping sites in the study watershed. Leachate from the abandoned sites could potentially contribute bacteria to study watercourses. These sites have not yet been investigated.

Short-Term Control Measures

SAWS, which provides wastewater service for most of the San Antonio urban area, has an aggressive program in place to reduce the potential for wastewater leakage. Existing SAWS BMPs include sewer inspection, maintenance, emergency response, and rehabilitation. These BMPs provide a mix of short-term and long-term control measures, depending upon the nature of the problem.

SAWS administers and enforces a pretreatment program that is primarily directed at controlling the discharge of pollutants to protect the treatment works. This includes the control of fats, oil and grease (FOG), which are a leading cause of sanitary sewer overflows. Local limits regulate the amount of FOG that can be discharged into the collection system. City ordinances provide

292

requirements for service of FOG interceptors and traps that are required by City Code for certain users. SAWS staff routinely inspects grease traps and the compliance history of users.

SAWS has implemented an Illicit Discharge Program. In this program, staff routinely collect samples at designated storm drain outfalls in order to obtain information that might indicate the presence of raw wastewater and illicit connections. Currently, 425 field screen point outfalls (36-inch diameter pipes and larger) are inspected annually and field tested. The data is maintained in a database and photos of all sites are stored in a GIS database.

In response to the water quality sampling conducted as part of the earlier WPP project for the Upper San Antonio River (JMA, 2006) and the more recent sampling of the present project, SAWS has been very proactive regarding assessment of potential contributions from leaking collection system infrastructure. In those locations north of Loop 410 South where SARA sampling showed relatively high E. coli concentrations in both the synoptic and intensive surveys, SAWS staff investigated storm drain outfalls and local sanitary sewer infrastructure in the vicinity of the sampling locations. SAWS evaluated the bacteria data monthly to prioritize site investigations. SAWS staff generally researched mapping of lines, researched any indication of sanitary sewer overflows, and conducted visual/physical inspection of each site, which included ammonia sampling, manhole removal and inspection for stoppages, and if necessary, cleaning or televising a subject line segment. Earlier inspection of system pipelines was conducted with video cameras and smoke detection equipment. Investigations at some sites have failed to detect any contributions from infrastructure. At other sites, the investigations have shown that remediation activities are necessary. Remedial actions have included sewer line cleaning, pipe patching, manhole patching, and pipe replacement. A summary inventory of the site-specific investigations is provided in Table 6-1.

SARA has proposed an Adaptive Monitoring Pilot Effort that will continue intensive bacteria sampling at targeted locations. For 2011, the effort will focus on Apache, Martinez, Alazan, and San Pedro Creeks (often referred to as the “Westside Creeks”). Sampling results in the present study have revealed high E. coli concentrations in these creeks. Other urban streams will be targeted for this type of monitoring in later years, following the 2011 effort. SAWS, City of San Antonio, and SARA will continue to review the results of ongoing spatially intensive sampling and SAWS and the City will initiate assessments of specific “hot spots” where bacteria concentrations have been documented to be high. SARA will continue monitoring of the “hot spots”. SARA will prepare a summary report of project activities on an annual basis to document sampling activities and results.

The River Loop is usually drained for cleaning in January of every year, and numerous pipes and outfalls are inventoried. The City of San Antonio is about to commence a project to identify and repair illicit connections (discharges) to the River Walk. Depending upon the number and types of connections identified, this could result in a significant bacteria load reduction.

Another potential source of bacteria loads is the homeless/transient population. To help reduce this potential load, the City of San Antonio should provide restroom facilities and adequate maintenance in areas with concentrated homeless populations. This solution could begin with

293

provision of portable facilities, followed ultimately, perhaps, by permanent facilities. A new Haven for Hope Campus has recently opened that will provide shelter for transients. There are also specific locations that could be improved by cleaning and trash removal, either as general dumping areas or as transient encampments. For example, there is a wooded area near the mouth of Walzem Creek off Holbrook Road that has a large amount of trash and debris, along with evidence of transient occupation. Cleaning and brush removal in this area may lead to more sanitary conditions.

It has recently been determined that there are numerous abandoned garbage dumping sites in the study area located near waterways. These sites should be assessed as potential contributors of bacterial loadings. The assessment could include mapping, definition of proximity to watercourse, inspections for seeps or leachate, and sampling if leachate is observed.

294

Table 6-1: Site Investigation Summary Station Initial Corrective Action Confirmation Activity Issue Identified Long Term Action Planned Location/Number Investigation Performed Sanitary sewer line CIPP 2 sections of 21-in. and 2 11/11/2008 runs above box culvert; sections of 30-in. Contractor Apache Cr. at Brazos visual Cleaned 1,063 ft. Submitted design weep hole & storm scheduled to start week of Nov (18735) inspection, Televised 245 ft. request drain feeding into box 24th: want SAWS to TV sampling culvert upstream ~288k cost estimate ESSC repaired 6 in. CI 11/11/2008 3" gap in 30" sewer line Cleaned & Televised 85 water main; ESSC Martinez Cr. at Ruiz visual allowing leak into Cr., ft.; Identified area of relaying 85 ft. of 8 in. none planned (12751) inspection, leak in potable water I&I PVC WW main, water sampling line detected line repaired Observed siphon box 11/12/2008 leaking; plug repair Staging bypass to Contractor to replace siphon, SAR at Mission visual Construction to replace unsuccessful, built eliminate flows from completed by Feb. 2009, ~2M (17066) inspection, leaking siphon containment dam; 2, 54 in. estimated cost sampling pump/haul daily Cleaned & Televised MRSC repaired 8 in. storm drain; found Storm Drain on 12/8/2008 Broken pipe 41 ft. d/s clay sewer main; infiltration; Cleaned & none planned Buena Vista (S27) sampling of MH 23318 replaced 10 ft with sdr Televised 385 ft. 8 in. 26 sewer main detected stormwater SAR at Alamo 2008 inspected 36 in. Brick main with open joint Temporary repair Planning to rehabilitate 36" (12904) visual inspection sewer main encroaching into WW completed main main Manhole joint leak & San Pedro Cr. At 2008 Planning to rehabilitate brick inspected 30 in siphon. 2 leaks detected leak in siphon pipe Alamo (20119) visual inspection sewer main u/s & d/s of siphon were repaired 11/11/2008 Aalazn Cr. at Cleaned 688 ft.; visual n/a n/a none planned Tampico (12751) Televised 221 ft. inspection, 11/12/2008 San Pedro Cr. u/s of visual n/a n/a n/a none planned Alazan Cr. (20119) inspection, SAR d/s of Olmos 11/13/2008 n/a n/a n/a none planned Dam (15086) visual inspection 11/13/2008 Zoo Outfall No. 1 visual n/a n/a n/a none planned (15722) inspection, 11/13/2008 SAR at Woodlawn visual Televised 250 ft. n/a n/a none planned (12908) inspection, 11/14/2008 SAR u/s of Lexington visual n/a n/a n/a none planned (18865) inspection, SAR at Houston 11/14/2008 n/a n/a n/a none planned (20118) visual inspection

295

Table 6-1: Site Investigation Summary (continued) Station Initial Corrective Action Confirmation Activity Issue Identified Long Term Action Planned Location/Number Investigation Performed 11/14/2008 SAR at Market visual n/a n/a n/a none planned (20122) inspection, 11/20/2008 San Pedro Cr. at visual Televised 450 ft. n/a n/a none planned Croft Trace (20117) inspection, SAR at Arsenal 12/19/2008 n/a n/a n/a none planned (12905) sampling 12/19/2008 SAR at Alamo visual n/a n/a n/a none planned (12904) inspection, SAR at Hildebrand 12/19/2008 n/a n/a n/a none planned (12912) visual inspection

12/19/2008 Rosillo Cr. (12689) n/a n/a n/a none planned visual inspection 12/19/2008 Salado Cr. at L13 visual n/a n/a n/a none planned (12864) inspection,

Long-Term Control Measures

As described in the preceding section, SARA will implement an Adaptive Monitoring Pilot Effort that will continue intensive bacteria sampling in targeted areas. The short-term effort will investigate E. coli concentrations in the Westside creeks (San Pedro, Alazan, Apache, Martinez). In the long term, other urban streams or reaches will be targeted for the monitoring effort. Results showing “hot spots” of high bacteria concentration will be evaluated in conjunction with SAWS and the City of San Antonio in order to potentially detect and remedy illicit connections or infrastructure problems.

SAWS has long-term capital improvement projects planned and scheduled that will address capacity and rehabilitation issues in several areas. Since 1997, SAWS has completed CIP projects resulting in 881,135 LF (166.9 mi) of new sewer mains. The total expenditure for this work is estimated at roughly $500 million. This new construction work does not include the many miles of sewer mains that have been rehabilitated.

SAWS is also engaged in a major initiative regarding lift stations. At the time the WPP report was completed in December 2006, SAWS operated 166 lift stations in the wastewater collection system. Since that time, 86 of the lift stations have been assessed and more assessments are in progress. As a result of the assessments to date, 20 lift stations are currently being rehabilitated and 49 are in the rehabilitation design phase. SAWS is also examining the potential for decommissioning specific lift stations, and 10 have been decommissioned since 2006 in order to convert certain portions of the system to conveyance via gravity flow. Numerous existing lift stations have been supplied with Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition (SCADA) systems, which will enable a central location to monitor operation and performance in real time. Over the

296

long-term, these various activities should greatly reduce the potential for lift stations to contribute bacteria to area watercourses.

Several major linework projects are currently being designed or are under construction. Locations of these projects are shown in Figure 6-1, and a summary is provided in Table 6-2 (a real-time listing of CIP projects is available on the SAWS website at http://www.saws.org/infrastructure/cip/download.shtml). These projects include approximately 60 miles of new sewer mains under design and 20 miles under construction at present. Wastewater collection system infrastructure projects are continually being designed and constructed to renew structural integrity, to sustain operability, and to increase the capacity of the system, i.e., to continually improve system performance. At any given time, the total amount of ongoing construction projects exceeds one hundred million dollars.

297

Figure 6-1: Major Design & Construction Activity

298

Table 6-2: Major Design/Construction Activity Summary Project Scope Status Cost Salado Watershed replace 22,000 ft. of 54 in. to Eastern sewer relief line (E- Under Construction, 48 in. ww mains with 84 in. $24,207,410 03) completion date 2010 and 78 in dia. pipe construct 6,050 ft. of 36 in. to Under Construction, Siphons 8,9, & 10 $8,983,413 84 in. ww mains, 3 siphons completion date 2009 San Pedro Watershed install 12,712 ft. of 8 in. ww main, 292 ft. of 10 in ww Under Construction, LA heights Phase I $3,001,850 main, 2,189 ft. of 12 in. ww completion date 2009 main San Antonio Watershed design/construct interceptor Central watershed sewer relief lines system renewal, possible Under Design $12,000,000 (C-03 to C-07) abandonment of 50,000- 70,000 ft. ww main

Roosevelt Ave. 48" sewer main replace 1,800 ft. of 36 in. and Under Design $5,000,000 rehab 3,300 ft. of 48 in. ww main

rehab 10,000 ft. of 42 in. gravity/siphon, 2,200 ft. of 48 Old Salado Cr. Siphon replacement Under Design $18,000,000 in. ww main, adjust elevation of 900 ft. of 30 in. force main replace and/or rehab two Twin 72" design parallel 72 in. interceptor Under Design $20,000,000 mains Central watershed sewer relief lines replace 27,800 ft. of 33 in. to Under Design $22,000,000 (C-01 & C-02) 36 in. sanitary sewer outfall

Central watershed sewer relief line replace 18,221 ft. of 48 in. and Under Construction, $9,486,069 (C-02) 54 in. ww outfall mains completion date 2010

replace 6,115 ft. of 8 in ww Under Construction, San Fernando sewer main Phase III main, 2,327 ft. of 10 in ww $687,562 completion date 2009 main, 68 ft. of 12 in. ww main

Western relief main Quintana replace and/or rehab 47,520 Under Design $5,000,000 Rd/hwy 90 Seg A/B/C ft. of 54 in. to 66 in. ww mains

replace and rehab 31,370 ft. Under Construction, Lackland Terrace sewer Phase I $6,610,371 of 8 in. and 10 in. ww mains completion date 2009 replace 17,100 ft. of 42 in. ww Under Construction, Western relief project (W-04) main with 60 in. and 66 in. $19,870,212 completion date 2009 pipe replace and/or rehab 2,000 ft. of 60 in. ww main, Probandt Phase II Under Design $2,000,000 plug/abandon 1,400 ft. of 66 in. ww mains Medina River Outfall construct ~25 miles ww main Under Design $150,000,000

299

Septic systems are becoming increasingly rare in the urban portion of the study area, as most homes are now served by wastewater collection systems. Nonetheless, there are still isolated communities relying on relatively old septic facilities inside the city and in rural areas. In addition, septic systems are common among newer developments in the northernmost parts of the study area. Bexar County is generally responsible for the management of these systems, except in some of the smaller incorporated areas, and will continue inspections with an emphasis on locating potential discharges to surface waters. Bexar County should maintain records of failing systems and their repair, and make this information available during the implementation activities. SAWS and COSA are also involved in reducing the potential for septic discharges. They have recently worked together to provide service to the previously unsewered Espada community in San Antonio.

6.2.4 Direct Nonpoint Sources – Miscellaneous

Short-Term Control Measures

SAWS has activated a third reclaimed water outfall, at the Henry B. Gonzales Convention Center on the River Loop. The additional flow increases the assimilative capacity of the river, resulting in an effective direct nonpoint source load reduction. The effect of this discharge should be detectable through long-term monitoring, particularly under base flow conditions, and near the River Walk.

The City of San Antonio has proposed to reduce bacteria concentrations in the urban core by improving management practices downtown and along the River Walk. This effort will include several components including owner/tourist education, improved trash collection and maintenance operations, and improvements in flow circulation and general water quality. Although this effort is not expected to result in large bacteria load reductions for the overall river, it could significantly reduce bacteria concentrations in the River Walk area.

Long-Term Control Measures

No additional miscellaneous measures are proposed at this time.

6.2.5 Stormwater Nonpoint Sources

The stormwater nonpoint source category would include various diffuse sources of pollutants in the watershed. This may include the general populations of wildlife and livestock, along with stormwater runoff that washes contaminants from the land surface in areas outside of the MS4 coverage of the San Antonio urban area.

Wildlife

In the rural areas of the San Antonio River watershed, wildlife are abundant. The wildlife populations deposit fecal material on the land surface. There would appear to be no practical control measures that could be implemented in these areas that would serve to reduce potential bacteria loadings in stormwater runoff. Therefore, there are no short-term or long-term control

300

measures prescribed at this time. As discussed in Section 6.2.1, feral hog populations are a topic of continued interest in the watershed. Fencing has been proposed as a potential exclusion measure to prevent access to waterways. However, some form of lethal control program would probably be necessary to affect populations throughout the watershed.

Livestock

Livestock deposit waste on the land surface while grazing, and this fecal material is available for washoff by stormwater runoff. The greatest concern is associated with washoff from areas with concentrated animal feeding operations. A short-term control measure effort was described previously under the direct source category for specific livestock operations. Depending upon the results of evaluation of the operation, there may be aspects of direct source and/or diffuse source contributions. With respect to general grazing areas, potential control measures could include maintenance of adequate grass cover to prevent erosion and reduce runoff velocities. But at present, these types of actions would fall under the category of potential long-term control measures, and none are recommended at the present.

In the urban portion of the watershed, there are a few sites with horse stables. The handling and disposal of horse manure could constitute a nonpoint source of bacteria. As a short-term control measure, stables should be inspected by City of San Antonio, SAWS, or SARA staff and their potential contributions assessed. Potential long-term control measures applicable to horse stables could include protection of manure storage areas from rainfall or runoff, treatment of any runoff from manure storage areas, or even disposal of manure in a permitted landfill.

Human

The category of human-related nonpoint source would most probably involve potential bacteria contributions from failing septic systems. There exist numerous septic systems in the nonurban areas of the watershed. It is presumed that most operate without problems. However, some systems, usually older in age, may experience problems such as drainfield clogging or failure, with a symptom being the potential surfacing of wastewater. Wastewater ponded at the ground surface could then be available for stormwater washoff. From the standpoint of the watershed as a whole, it is not likely that failing septic systems are a major contributor of bacteria loadings in stormwater runoff. It is recommended that inspection and licensing requirements currently in effect be continued to avoid systems with problems. There are no additional specific short-term or long-term control measures proposed for this potential source at the present time.

6.3 NINE ELEMENT SUMMARY TABLE

TCEQ staff, with guidance from EPA, developed a template called the “Nine Key Elements Table” to provide an effective format for documenting the nine critical elements of an Implementation Plan. The focus of the Nine Key Elements Table is upon control measures that are prescribed to address the impairment. An inventory of control measures, using the desired format, has been prepared for the current study, as shown in Table 6-3. It is expected that this table will serve as a valuable tool during Implementation. In addition, it will be the basis for requesting additional grants to assist in BMP deployment.

301

Table 6-3 includes all of the BMPs that are to be proposed for implementation, as discussed in the preceding sections. The BMPs from these sections are expected to result in new load reductions, because they were not in existence (or were not fully established) at the time of TMDL development. For direct nonpoint sources, the sum of the estimated potential loading reductions for control measures is greater than the required load reduction. This is a reflection of the uncertainty in the estimates, and will allow for adaptive management during implementation.

At the end of Table 6-3 are also included a number of “existing programs”. These BMPs were already established at the time of the TMDL study, and are not expected to result in additional future load reductions. They are included in the table, however, because they continue to play an important role in controlling bacteria levels within the San Antonio River, and because they demonstrate the stakeholders’ proactive approach to protecting water quality in the river.

302

Table 6-3: Nine Key Elements of Proposed Management Measures (a) (b) (c) (d) (e) (f) (g) (h) (i) (j) Estimated Education Causes and Technical and Interim, Potential Management Measures Component for Schedule of Indicators to Sources of Financial Assistance Measurable Monitoring Responsible Load and Targeted Critical Each Measure Implementation Measure Bacterial Needed for Each Milestones for Component Entity Reduction Areas (and Other for Each Measure Progress Impairment Measure Each Measure (org/yr) Education) SAN ANTONIO ZOO POINT SOURCE, Existing E. coli Load = 3.92E+14 org/yr, Required Load Reduction = 3.91E+14 org/yr (99.9%) regular inspections develop ZOO- sump and interceptor to document maintenance plan SHORT TERM sump and maintenance plan and n/a functionality of n/a n/a Zoo for all interceptors completed 2009 interceptor implementation sumps and and sumps interceptors 3.91E+14 $2,500,000 (99.9%) (depending upon reduction in ZOO- none/optional SHORT TERM monitor zoo disinfection of Zoo base disinfection baseflow-related internal exhibits in 2010-2012, Nov. n/a outfall to verify CoSA flow alternative selected, bacteria waterway Brackenridge Park 2011 operational disinfection higher if stormwater concentrations also treated)

303

Table 6-3: Summary Table for Nine Key Elements of Proposed Control Measures (continued 2/11) (a) (b) (c) (d) (e) (f) (g) (h) (i) (j) Estimated Education Causes and Technical and Interim, Potential Management Measures Component for Schedule of Indicators to Sources of Financial Assistance Measurable Monitoring Responsible Load and Targeted Critical Each Measure Implementation Measure Bacterial Needed for Each Milestones for Component Entity Reduction Areas (and Other for Each Measure Progress Impairment Measure Each Measure (org/yr) Education) STORM WATER RUNOFF POINT SOURCES, Existing E. coli Load = 5.55E+15 org/yr, Required Load Reduction = 1.67E+15 org/yr (30%) reduction in bird feeding ban at River signs and exhibits, Fewer birds runoff-related SHORT TERM routine basin Walk and City Parks in $100,000 public awareness observed along bacteria CoSA 2010-2012 monitoring URBAN riparian areas programs riparian areas concentrations RUNOFF- 1.1E+14 basin-wide Avian land (2%) reduction in bird exclusion/deterrent education of deposition runoff-related practices and devices at CoSA Parks staff SHORT TERM Fewer birds roosting routine basin $100,000 bacteria CoSA River Walk and selected by Texas Parks 2010-2012 along riparian areas monitoring concentrations riparian areas and Wildlife basin-wide public awareness already funded, program at reduction in additional funds pet owner increase awareness and Community Link runoff-related could be used to SHORT TERM participation, routine basin enforcement of pet Centers: (Valley bacteria CoSA expand public 2010-2012 number of citations monitoring control ordinance View, South Park, concentrations awareness campaign and complaints McCreless, and basin-wide URBAN and enforcement Las Palmas) RUNOFF- 1.7E+14 Pet land (3%) pet owner deposition signs and exhibits, participation, reduction in expand existing community number of citations runoff-related expand Pooper Scooper program to all City SHORT TERM routine basin education, mitt and complaints; bacteria CoSA programs Parks: 2010-2012 monitoring dispensers and increase in number concentrations $100,000 disposal of mitts used per basin-wide year

signs and exhibits at community SHORT TERM reduction of URBAN funded by Bexar reduction in 1.4E+15 Inspection of new events, workshop 2010-2010 stormwater runoff routine basin RUNOFF- County storm water bacteria Bexar County (25%) constructin sites presentations, LONG TERM from new monitoring General sources fee concentrations website 2012+ construction sites information

304

Table 6-3: Summary Table for Nine Key Elements of Proposed Control Measures (continued 3/11) (a) (b) (c) (d) (e) (f) (g) (h) (i) (j) Estimated Education Causes and Technical and Interim, Potential Management Measures Component for Schedule of Indicators to Sources of Financial Assistance Measurable Monitoring Responsible Load and Targeted Critical Each Measure Implementation Measure Bacterial Needed for Each Milestones for Component Entity Reduction Areas (and Other for Each Measure Progress Impairment Measure Each Measure (org/yr) Education) continued: STORM WATER RUNOFF POINT SOURCES, Existing E. coli Load = 5.55E+15 org/yr, Required Load Reduction = 1.67E+15 org/yr (30%)

Provide illegal dumping regular site signs for existing inspections to verify vegetated swales/filter that refuse CoSA, Bexar strips (70.5 miles of SHORT TERM (including fecal routine basin $10,000 signs n/a County, SAWS, earthen channel on 2010-2012 material) is no monitoring SARA Alazan, Apache, longer being Martinez, Olmos, 6-Mile dumped in buffer Creek, and USAR) areas

complete by 2010, make understanding of SHORT TERM SARA, SAWS, BMP assessment studies $50,000 recommendations n/a n/a feasibility 2010-2015 CoSA for basin-wide deployment

URBAN complete by 2010, 1.4E+15 make RUNOFF- local performance SHORT TERM SARA, SAWS, (25%) BMP pilot studies $100,000 recommendations n/a BMP monitoring General sources data 2010-2015 CoSA for basin-wide deployment

eductation of LID BMPs installed, reductin in runoff Mission Drive-In $849,000 from CWA elected officials, SHORT TERM BMPs monitored, related bacteria monitor BMPs at redevlopment project: CoSA 319(h) grant developers, and 2010-2013 analysis of cost- from the project site LID practices general public benefit, reporting site

New structural monitor BMP education for LONG TERM stormwater BMPs complete pilot reduction in inlets and outfalls contractors and basin-wide (should cover ~50% of $58,000,000 (based projects and make runoff-related during pilot property managers implementation basin area based on on $1.50/cf, and recommendations bacteria project; routine CoSA on BMP begins 2012+; BMPs with 50% overall $20,000/ac) for basin-wide concentrations basin monitoring construction and redevelopment effectiveness) or LID deployment by 2015 basin-wide for basin-wide maintenance opportunities BMPs deployment

305

Table 6-3: Summary Table for Nine Key Elements of Proposed Control Measures (continued 4/11) (a) (b) (c) (d) (e) (f) (g) (h) (i) (j) Estimated Education Causes and Technical and Interim, Potential Management Measures Component for Schedule of Indicators to Sources of Financial Assistance Measurable Monitoring Responsible Load and Targeted Critical Each Measure Implementation Measure Bacterial Needed for Each Milestones for Component Entity Reduction Areas (and Other for Each Measure Progress Impairment Measure Each Measure (org/yr) Education) continued: STORM WATER RUNOFF POINT SOURCES, Existing E. coli Load = 5.55E+15 org/yr, Required Load Reduction = 1.67E+15 org/yr (30%)

educate Elmendorf Lake developers and reduction in Dredging Project: staff currently trained SHORT TERM contractors about cubic yards of bacteria levels routine basin removal of 80,000 c.y. and project funded complete summer CoSA BMPs for sediment removed released from monitoring of silt and sediment from $3,000,000 2011 construction under lake lake TPDES permit

Public Education, educate citizens on LONG TERM CoSA, SAWS, Riverwalk $50,000 need for bacteria media release n/a n/a 2010+ SARA Implementation Plan control

SHORT TERM reduced bacteria River loop area sediment 2010-2012 improved water routine basin Funded n/a concentrations in CoSA removal LONG TERM clarity monitoring river loop 2010+ URBAN 1.4E+15 RUNOFF- (25%) General sources Evaluate restoration of report, technical SHORT TERM identify bacteria reduced bacteria synoptic $150,000 SARA westside creeks data 2010-2012 sources and loads concentrations monitioring

Urban horse stable SHORT TERM reduced bacteria reduced bacteria routine basin SARA, CoSA, unknown n/a assessment 2010-2012 concentrations concentrations monitoring SAWS

interpretive improved water Mission Reach entire Mission Reach signage, outreach restore and enhance SHORT TERM, quality, reduced routine basin ecosystem restoration project budget publications, riparian and aquatic SARA complete by 2013 bacteria monitoring and recreation project $270,000,000 media notices and habitats/features concentrations announcements

306

Table 6-3: Summary Table for Nine Key Elements of Proposed Control Measures (continued 5/11) (a) (b) (c) (d) (e) (f) (g) (h) (i) (j) Estimated Education Causes and Technical and Interim, Potential Management Measures Component for Schedule of Indicators to Sources of Financial Assistance Measurable Monitoring Responsible Load and Targeted Critical Each Measure Implementation Measure Bacterial Needed for Each Milestones for Component Entity Reduction Areas (and Other for Each Measure Progress Impairment Measure Each Measure (org/yr) Education) continued: STORM WATER RUNOFF POINT SOURCES, Existing E. coli Load = 5.55E+15 org/yr, Required Load Reduction = 1.67E+15 org/yr (30%)

Ongoing SHORT identify sources and Environmental SARA employee TERM 2010-2012, possible resolutions address concerns routine basin investigations n/a SARA assigned to this effort LONG TERM to water quality and issues monitoring coordinator 2012+ issues

easy to use guide for home owners, Ongoing SHORT conduct survey- FY 2010 $70,000, FY property TERM 2010-2012, how is Creek monitor results of Creek Book n/a SARA 2011 $20,000 managers, tips on LONG TERM Book changing survey preventing 2012+ behavior pollution provide general URBAN 1.4E+15 watershed Ongoing SHORT public survey- RUNOFF- Watershed wise FY 2010 $230,000, education to TERM 2010-2012, how many people (25%) n/a phone survey SARA General sources campaign FY 2011 $210,000 residents of SA LONG TERM are aware of river basin and 2012+ program tributaries

workshops, educate watershed identification of E. coli reduction, residents, tourists Ongoing project merchant and patron monitor E. coli public survey- SAR River Walk entire project budget and merchants to time line: January behaviors that levels in SAR how many peole RWWA implementation project $320,000 change behaviors 2008 - September contribute to Loop upstream of are aware of and reduce 2010 elevated E. coli La Villita program bacteria levels in levels SAR

307

Table 6-3: Summary Table for Nine Key Elements of Proposed Control Measures (continued 6/11) (a) (b) (c) (d) (e) (f) (g) (h) (i) (j) Estimated Education Causes and Technical and Interim, Potential Management Measures Component for Schedule of Indicators to Sources of Financial Assistance Measurable Monitoring Responsible Load and Targeted Critical Each Measure Implementation Measure Bacterial Needed for Each Milestones for Component Entity Reduction Areas (and Other for Each Measure Progress Impairment Measure Each Measure (org/yr) Education) DIRECT NONPOINT SOURCES, Existing E. coli Load = 1.51E+14 org/yr, Required Load Reduction = 0.76E+14 org/yr (50%) reduction in WILDLIFE- 1.5E+12 relocate facility to another SHORT TERM baseflow-related routine basin Animal pound already funded none n/a CoSA (1%) watershed completed 2009 bacteria monitoring washdown concentrations WILDLIFE- assistance from Texas annual inspections reduction in monitoring at 1.5E+12 bat exclusion/ deterrent SHORT TERM Bat colony in Parks and Wildlife, none to verify exclusion baseflow-related bridge, routine CoSA (1%) practices and devices completed 2008 Houston Street $3,000 of bats from city bacteria basin monitoring

reduction in bird feeding ban at River signs and exhibits, Fewer birds SHORT TERM baseflow-related routine basin Walk and City Parks in $100,000 public awareness observed along CoSA 2010-2012 bacteria monitoring WILDLIFE- riparian areas programs riparian areas 2.3E+13 concentrations Avian direct (15%) deposition bird exclusion/deterrent education of reduction in practices and devices at CoSA Parks staff SHORT TERM Fewer birds roosting baseflow-related routine basin $100,000 CoSA River Walk and selected by Texas Parks 2010-2012 along riparian areas bacteria monitoring riparian areas and Wildlife concentrations reduction in WILDLIFE- 1.5E+12 education of LONG TERM reduce waste baseflow-related routine basin SARA, Feral hog access review unknown (1%) landowners 2012-2015+ depostition bacteria monitoring TSSWCB deposition concentrations education of reduction in SHORT TERM eliminate release of routine basin LIVESTOCK <1% CAFO Review unknown operator and baseflow bacteria SARA 2010-12 waste monitoring owner in Picosa Creek

reduction in 7.6E+12 education of LONG TERM reduce waste baseflow-related routine basin SARA, LIVESTOCK access review unknown (5%) landowners 2012-2015+ depostition bacteria monitoring TSSWCB concentrations

308

Table 6-3: Summary Table for Nine Key Elements of Proposed Control Measures (continued 7/11) (a) (b) (c) (d) (e) (f) (g) (h) (i) (j) Estimated Education Causes and Technical and Interim, Potential Management Measures Component for Schedule of Indicators to Sources of Financial Assistance Measurable Monitoring Load and Targeted Critical Each Measure Implementation Measure Responsible Entity Bacterial Needed for Each Milestones for Component Reduction Areas (and Other for Each Measure Progress Impairment Measure Each Measure (org/yr) Education) continued: DIRECT NONPOINT SOURCES, Existing E. coli Load = 1.51E+14 org/yr, Required Load Reduction = 0.76E+14 org/yr (50%) SARA sampling identification of crews, lab, SARA SHORT TERM "hot spots" for reductions in synoptic and adaptive monitoring funding for FY 2011 ongoing 2011 bacteria n/a bacteria intensive SARA pilot effort $26,366; will LONG TERM concentrations; concentrations monitoring continue in 2012+ annual summary subsequent years report SARA, SAWS, repairs to Alamo Heights, infrastructure infrastructure, Balcones Heights, assessments of "hot SAWS inspection reduction in replacement of Castle Hills, Leon spots"- crews, sampling SHORT TERM baseflow-related synoptic n/a specific pipe Valley, Olmos Park, San Pedro Cr @ Alamo equipment, inspection ongoing 2011 bacteria monitioring segments, Terrell Hills, Fort St., Apache Cr @Brazos equipment concentrations containment if Sam Houston, Kirby, St., etc. needed Wincrest, other small systems number of illicit reduction in identify and repair illicit education and HUMAN already funded, SHORT TERM connections baseflow-related routine basin connections to River training with CoSA ORIGIN- $1,300,000 2009-2010 documented, bacteria monitoring 1.8E+13 Walk TPDES permit wastewater repaired concentrations (12%) collection system LONG TERM CoSA, Alamo research issue Heights, Balcones investigate the level beginning 2012+; reduction in Heights, Castle Hills, to which private number of defective homeowner scope development, baseflow-related routine basin Leon Valley, Olmos private lateral rehab sewer laterals may be connections, education funding, pilot bacteria monitoring Park, Terrell Hills, contributing to number repaired testing, and concentrations Fort Sam Houston, bacteria loadings evaluation to Kirby, Wincrest, follow other small systems

SAWS, Alamo odor/corrosion control Heights, Balcones program: optimize currently part of SAWS continues to reduction in Heights, Castle Hills, existing ferrous sulfate SAWS wastewater implement, other development of baseflow-related routine basin Leon Valley, Olmos none injection program to infrastructure master utilities develop additional plans bacteria monitoring Park, Terrell Hills, preserve structural plan plan concentrations Fort Sam Houston, integrity of mains Kirby, Wincrest, other small systems

309

Table 6-3: Summary Table for Nine Key Elements of Proposed Control Measures (continued 8/11) (a) (b) (c) (d) (e) (f) (g) (h) (i) (j) Estimated Education Causes and Technical and Interim, Potential Management Measures Component for Schedule of Indicators to Sources of Financial Assistance Measurable Monitoring Load and Targeted Critical Each Measure Implementation Measure Responsible Entity Bacterial Needed for Each Milestones for Component Reduction Areas (and Other for Each Measure Progress Impairment Measure Each Measure (org/yr) Education) continued: DIRECT NONPOINT SOURCES, Existing E. coli Load = 1.51E+14 org/yr, Required Load Reduction = 0.76E+14 org/yr (50%)

SAWS, Alamo Heights, Balcones eliminate illegal reduction in Heights, Castle Hills, wastewater main dumping of LONG TERM miles of mains baseflow-related routine basin Leon Valley, Olmos cleaning program: unknown debris in existing and cleaned annually bacteria monitoring Park, Terrell Hills, improve flow capacity manholes, i.e. ongoing 2010+ concentrations Fort Sam Houston, vandalism Kirby, Wincrest, other small systems

SAWS, Alamo Heights, Balcones HUMAN Capital Improvement LONG TERM routine basin Heights, Castle Hills, ORIGIN- miles of mains reduction in 1.8E+13 Program: Exisiting under design or monitoring, Leon Valley, Olmos wastewater $50,000,000 n/a constructed, new bacteria (12%) projects under design or contstruction 2009- synoptic Park, Terrell Hills, collection infrastructure concentrations construction 2014+ monitoring Fort Sam Houston, system Kirby, Wincrest, other small systems

SAWS, Alamo Heights, Balcones reduction in Heights, Castle Hills, Capital improvement LONG TERM miles of mains baseflow-related routine basin Leon Valley, Olmos projects: additional unknown none existing and renewed annually bacteria monitoring Park, Terrell Hills, programs ongoing 2010+ concentrations Fort Sam Houston, Kirby, Wincrest, other small systems

provide restroom reduction in facilities and inspections to verify SHORT TERM baseflow-related routine basin HUMAN maintenance in areas unknown none utilization of CoSA 2009-2011 bacteria monitoring ORIGIN- with significant vagrant facilities provided 2.3E+12 concentrations homeless/ populations (1.5%) vagrant reduction in cleaning, brush control population SHORT TERM baseflow-related routine basin in encampment and unknown none inspections to verify CoSA 2010-2012 bacteria monitoring dumping concentrations

310

Table 6-3: Summary Table for Nine Key Elements of Proposed Control Measures (continued 9/11) (a) (b) (c) (d) (e) (f) (g) (h) (i) (j) Estimated Education Causes and Technical and Interim, Potential Management Measures Component for Schedule of Indicators to Sources of Financial Assistance Measurable Monitoring Load and Targeted Critical Each Measure Implementation Measure Responsible Entity Bacterial Needed for Each Milestones for Component Reduction Areas (and Other for Each Measure Progress Impairment Measure Each Measure (org/yr) Education) continued: DIRECT NONPOINT SOURCES, Existing E. coli Load = 1.51E+14 org/yr, Required Load Reduction = 0.76E+14 org/yr (50%) reduction in Bexar County, Hill Inspection and repair (if number of failures LONG TERM baseflow-related routine basin Country Village, necessary) of near- unknown none located, number 2010-2012 bacteria monitoring Hollywood Park, HUMAN stream septic systems repaired 2.3E+12 concentrations Shavano Park ORIGIN- (1.5%) reduction in septic systems Connection of 117 SHORT TERM number of homes baseflow-related routine basin homes in Espada n/a none SAWS, CoSA completed 2008 connected to sewer bacteria monitoring Community. concentrations effective introduce new 0.65 reduction in basin monitoring MISC- reduction: MGD outfall at HB SHORT TERM baseflow-related inside and already completed none flow records SAWS Low Flows 1.1E+12 Gonzalez Convention completed 2007 bacteria downstream of (0.7%) Center concentrations River Loop provide training part of City plan to stakeholder reduction in basin monitoring to stakeholders owner/tourist awareness improve overall water SHORT TERM participation; visual baseflow-related inside and for proper CoSA and education campaign quality in River Walk, began 2008 improvements in bacteria downstream of cleanup and $320,000 appearance of water concentrations River Loop educate on water

investigate and reduction in basin monitoring not currently funded; technical visual improvements implement measures to SHORT TERM baseflow-related inside and MISC- $12,000-$100,000 assistance in appearance of CoSA improve flow began 2008 bacteria downstream of River Walk/ required required water and flow circulation/water quality concentrations River Loop downtown sources 7.6E+11 specially designed boat reduction in basin monitoring (from improper (0.5%) (Lady Eco) for removing $100,000 received instruction SHORT TERM annual load of baseflow-related inside and waste disposal all floating debris on a from Parks provided by CoSA began 2008 debris removed bacteria downstream of and debris daily basis. (~30,000 Foundation Aquasweep concentrations River Loop accumulation) lb/yr) investigate and Current costs: City- implement measures to $46,000; SAWS grant- education and reduction in basin monitoring improve cleaning and $15,000. More monitor and inspect training for SHORT TERM baseflow-related inside and maintenance operations, funding needed to River Loop clean-up CoSA maintenance completed 2008 bacteria downstream of in order to prevent load purchase additional practices personnel concentrations River Loop from entering River power washing Loop equipment basin monitoring HUMAN reduction in 7.6E+11 assessment of SHORT TERM assess potential inside and CoSA, SAWS, ORIGIN- unknown none baseflow bacteria (0.5%) abandoned landfill sites 2010-2012 contributions downstream of SARA landfills concentrations River Loop 311

Table 6-3: Summary Table for Nine Key Elements of Proposed Control Measures (continued 10/11) (a) (b) (c) (d) (e) (f) (g) (h) (i) (j) Estimated Education Causes and Technical and Interim, Potential Management Measures Component for Schedule of Indicators to Sources of Financial Assistance Measurable Monitoring Responsible Load and Targeted Critical Each Measure Implementation Measure Bacterial Needed for Each Milestones for Component Entity Reduction Areas (and Other for Each Measure Progress Impairment Measure Each Measure (org/yr) Education) EXISTING PROGRAMS, that reduce bacteria and should be continued, but are not recommended for expansion and are not expected to result in new load reductions

citywide street sweeping, existing miles/year of gutter Fecal deposition twice/yr on residential community currently funded by existing and cleaned and collecting in n/a streets, 4/yr on major outreach n/a n/a CoSA storm water fee ongoing tons/year of waste streets streets (11,025 tons/yr programs, removed waste removal) presentations. existing community reduction in TSS, downtown sidewalk outreach program floatables, bacteria, Fecal deposition cleaning (trash, waste, currently funded and which educates the existing and etc. in city storm collecting on n/a and litter). Scrubber staff trained by storm n/a n/a CoSA public on the ongoing drains and River sidewalks cleans over 2.5 million water fee importance of Loop; keep records sqft of sidewalk annually proper waste on sqft cleaned disposal existing and ongoing at the Pooper Scooper program following parks: at city parks with mutt Bluegrass Island, mitt dispensers (28,000 Clover Island, lb/yr based on 112,000 Guenther Mill, URBAN mitts x ~4 oz/mitt) $5600/yr for mitts, programs and HEB, Johnson St RUNOFF- Pet n/a mitts per year n/a n/a CoSA note: this item includes ~$360/yr/dispenser signs bridge, Josephine land deposition existing program, St, King William, recommendations for Mahncke, expansion included under Mesquite, Nueva stormwater source section St, Scates, Sheridan, Wesley, and Woodlawn

312

Table 6-3: Summary Table for Nine Key Elements of Proposed Control Measures (continued 11/11) (a) (b) (c) (d) (e) (f) (g) (h) (i) (j) Estimated Education Causes and Technical and Interim, Potential Management Measures Component for Schedule of Indicators to Sources of Financial Assistance Measurable Monitoring Responsible Load and Targeted Critical Each Measure Implementation Measure Bacterial Needed for Each Milestones for Component Entity Reduction Areas (and Other for Each Measure Progress Impairment Measure Each Measure (org/yr) Education) continued: EXISTING PROGRAMS, that reduce bacteria and should be continued, but are not recommended for expansion and are not expected to result in new load reductions wet well installation to reroute zoo animal Zoo maintenance bacteria from hippo, Zoo animal wastewater that has personnel briefed pheasant, parrot- already completed husbandry n/a historically been released on the sump and installed 2004 raptor, and seal pens n/a n/a SAWS $33,000 wastewater into USAR; and divert it wet well diverted from to SAWS sanitary sewer operation. USAR system reclaimed wastewater outfalls (002 & 003), existing and Low flows n/a currently funded none flow records n/a n/a SAWS operating near ongoing Brackenridge Park

education is being provided on illegal Maintenance: removal of San Antonio dumping into existing and tons of debris n/a debris after storm events currently funded n/a n/a CoSA River Tunnel drainage ways by ongoing removed (150 tons/yr) community outreach

Notes: 1. Avian deposition contributes to both stormwater runoff point sources and direct nonpoint sources. Avian deposition to the land surface is a stormwater runoff point source; avian deposition to the waterway is a direct nonpoint sources. 2. The sum of the potential load reductions (column b) for direct nonpoint sources is greater than the required load reduction (50%). This is intentional, accounting for the uncertainty in the load estimates. Adaptive management is recommended.

313

6.4 SUMMARY TIMETABLE FOR IMPLEMENTATION

Table 6-4 provides a summary timeline for the implementation of the BMPs listed in Table 6-3. As shown, most BMPs are scheduled to be implemented by 2009-2012. Routine bacteria sampling in the San Antonio River and its tributaries will be essential to measuring progress toward compliance with water quality criteria for bacteria. Since many of the load reductions provided in Table 6-3 are only estimates, an adaptive approach should be taken to the implementation of BMPs. Full compliance with bacteria standards may not be achieved until after 2012, depending upon the success of the various BMPs, and depending upon the availability of project funding.

314

Table 6-4: Summary Timetable Year Category Control Measure 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014+ Point Source

Sump/interceptor maintenance plan Zoo Fund, design, construct disinfection facilities Bird feeding ban, deterrents at selected Avian areas Awareness/enforcement of pet control ordinance Pets Expand pooper-scooper program

Provide illegal dumping signs Urban BMP assessment studies Runoff

BMP pilot studies General Sources New structural stormwater BMPs

Elmendorf Lake desilting

Public education Direct Non Point Sources Animal Pound Relcoate facilites Washdown

Wildlife Bat Colony Bat exlusion/deterrent

Bird feeding ban, deterrents at selected Avian areas

Livestock CAFO review

Wastewater CIP projects, past, present and future Collection System provide restrooms in area with significant Homless/Vagrant vagrant populations Human Population cleaning, brush control in encapment Origin

Inspection and repair Septic Systems Connection of homes in Espanada Community introduce 0.65 MGD outfall at HB Low Flows Gonzalez Concention Center

owner/tourist awareness & education

investigate/implement measures to MISC River Walk / Down improve flow circulation/water quality Town Sources boat for removing floating debris

improve cleaning and maintenance operations

315

7.0 REFERENCES

AGT. 1997. Main SSES Report. Prepared for SAWS. Contract 1 to Applied Geographic Technologies, Byrd/Forbes and Associates, and Garcia and Wright, Inc.

Barrett, M.E. 2005. Performance comparison of structural stormwater best management practices. Water Environmental Research. 77(1): 78-86.

Bays, James. N. Palmer. 2003. Treatment Wetlands Remove Fecal Coliform Bacteria from Low- Flow Urban Runoff in Southern California. http://www.coastalconference.org/h20_2004/presentations_2003.htm

Birch, G.F., Matthai, C., Fazeli, M.S., and Suh, J.Y. 2004. Efficiency of a constructed wetland in removing contaminants from stormwater. Wetlands. 24 (2): 459-466.

Caltrans. 2004. BMP Rerofit Pilot Program, Final Report. California Depratment of Transportation Report CTSW-RT-01-050, Sacremento, CA.CASQA. 2004. Stormwater Best Management Practice Handbook: New Development and Redevelopment. California Stormwater Quality Association. www.CaBMPHandbooks.com. September 2004.

CASQA, 2004. Stormwater Best Management Practice Handbook: New Development and Redevelopment. California Stormwater Quality Association. Sept. 2004.

CDM. 2002. San Antonio Water System, Western Watershed Wastewater Collection and Treatment Alternatives Assessment. Nov. 2002

Center for Watershed Protection. 2000. Microbes and Urban Watersheds: Ways to Kill `Em, Article 67, The Practice of Watershed Protection, Editors: Thomas R. Schueler and Heather K. Holland, Center for Watershed Protection, Ellicott City, MD. 2000. Pp. 52- 60.

CGER. 2000. Watershed Management for Potable Water Supply: Assessing the New York City Strategy. Commission on Geosciences, Environment, and Resources. National Research Council. National Academy Press. Washington, D.C.

City of San Antonio. 2006. Code of Ordinances, City of San Antonio, Texas. Codified through Ord. No. 2006-06-08-0700, adopted June 8, 2006. Supplement No. 66, Update 3. Available online at http://www.municode.com/.

City of San Antonio. 2005. NPDES Storm Water Annual Report, Permit No. TXS001901, October 1, 2004 to September 30, 2005.

City of San Antonio. 2004. NPDES Storm Water Annual Report, Permit No. TXS001901, October 1, 2003 to September 30, 2004.

316

City of San Antonio. 2003. NPDES Storm Water Annual Report, Permit No. TXS001901, October 1, 2002 to September 30, 2003.

City of San Antonio. 2002. NPDES Storm Water Annual Report, Permit No. TXS001901, October 1, 2001 to September 30, 2002.

City of San Diego. 2004. Source Water Protection Guidelines for New Development. City of San Diego Website: http://www.sandiego.gov/water/operations/environment/swpg.shtml. PDF Document. January 2004.

Davies, C. M. and. H. J. Bavor. 2000. The fate of stormwater-associated bacteria in constructed wetland and water pollution control pond systems. Journal of Applied Microbiology 89: 249- 360.

Di Giovanni, G.D., E. Casarez. 2006. Final Report: Upper and Lower San Antonio River, Salado Creek, Peach Creek, and Leon River Below Lake Proctor Bacterial Source Tracking Project. El Paso Agricultural Research and Extension Center. Texas A&M University System.

EPA. 1999a. Storm Water Technology Fact Sheet: Bioretention. USEPA, Office of Water, Washington, D.C. EPA 832-F-99-012. September 1999.

EPA. 1999b. Storm Water Technology Fact Sheet: Hydrodynamic Separators. USEPA, Office of Water, Washington, D.C. EPA 832-F-99-017. September 1999.

EPA. 1999c. Storm Water Technology Fact Sheet: Infiltration Trench. USEPA, Office of Water, Washington, D.C. EPA 832-F-99-019. September 1999.

EPA. 1999d. Storm Water Technology Fact Sheet: Modular Treatment Systems. USEPA, Office of Water, Washington, D.C. EPA 832-F-99-044. September 1999.

EPA. 1999e. Storm Water Technology Fact Sheet: Sand Filters. USEPA, Office of Water, Washington, D.C. EPA 832-F-99-007. September 1999.

EPA. 1999f. Storm Water Technology Fact Sheet: Storm Water Wetlands. USEPA, Office of Water, Washington, D.C. EPA 832-F-99-025. September 1999.

EPA. 1999g. Storm Water Technology Fact Sheet: Wet Detention Ponds. USEPA, Office of Water, Washington, D.C. EPA 832-F-99-025. September 1999.

EPA. 2004. EPA’s Nonpoint Source News-Notes, Issue #73, July 2004: Removing Bacteria from Runoff: An Overview of Strategies. EPA Office of Wetlands, Oceans, and Watersheds Website: http://www.epa.gov/owow/info/NewsNotes/issues.htm. PDF Document. August 2004.

EPA. 2005. Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans to Restore and Protect our Waters – Draft. Office of Water, Washington D.C. EPA 841-B-05-005. October 2005.

317

EPA. 2008. Report to Congress on Impacts and Control of CSOs and SSOs. EPA website at www.epa.gov/npdes/sso

Filterra Corporation. 2008. Personal Communication with Glen Payton, Technical Sales Manager December 9, 2008 E-mail..

FHWA. 2004. Stormwater Best Management Practices in an Ultra-Urban Setting: Selection and Monitoring. U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highways Administration, Washington, D.C. Website: http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/ultraurb/index.htm. Last modified June 2004.

GSWW. 2006. San Antonio Water System, Eastern Watershed Assessment, Manhole and Pipeline Visual Inspections.

HEC. 2001. Hydrologic Modeling System: HEC-HMS User’s Manual Version 2.1. Hydrologic Engineering Center (HEC). U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Davis, California.Hipp, J. Aaron, Ogunseitan, O., Lejano, Raul, and C. Scott Smith. 2006. Optimization of Stormwater Filtration at the Urban/Watershed Interface. Environmental Science and Technology, 40: 4794-4801.

Hill, V.R. and M.D. Sobsey. 2001. Removal of Salmonella and Microbial Indicators in Constructed Wetlands Treating Swine Wastewater. Water Science and Technology, 11- 12: 215-222.

Hunt, W. F., J.T. Smith, S.J. Jadlocki, J.M. Hathaway, P.R. Eubanks. 2008. Pollutant Removal and Peak Flow Mitigation by a Bioretention Cell in Urban Charlotte, NC.ASCE Journal of Environmental Engineering, 134(5):403-408.

JMA. 2002. Historical Water Quality Data Assessment, Project Area 2 – Basin Groups D & E Bacteria Impairments. Report to TNRCC TMDL Unit, Strategic Assessment Division, James Miertschin & Associates, Inc., Austin, Texas.

JMA. 2005. Supplemental Monitoring Results, Project Area 2 – Basin Groups D & E Bacteria Impairments, Work Order #4. Report to TCEQ TMDL Unit, James Miertschin & Associates, Inc., Austin, Texas.

JMA. 2006a. Modeling Report for Bacteria TMDL Development: Salado Creek, Segment 1910; Walzem Creek, Segment 1910A; Upper San Antonio River, Segment 1911. Report to TCEQ TMDL Unit. James Miertschin & Associates, Inc., Austin, Texas.

JMA. 2006b. Upper San Antonio River Watershed Protection Plan. Prepared for SARA and Bexar Regional Watershed Management Partnership. Dec 2006.

JMA. 2010. Data Evaluation Report - Development of an Implementation Plan for Bacteria. Prepared for SARA and Bexar Regional Watershed Management Partnership. Sep. 2010.

Kearfott, Pamela, Barrett, Michael, and J.F. Malina. 2005. Stormwater Quality Documentation of Roadside Shoulders Borrow Ditches, CRWR Online Report 05-2: Austin, TX.

318

Khatiwada, N. R., C. Polprasert 1999. Kinetics of Fecal Coliform Removal in Constructed Wetlands. Water Science and Technology 40(3): 109-116.

Lampe, Les, Michael Barrett, etc. 2005. Performance and Whole Life Costs of Best Management Practices and Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems.

Linkous, Blaine , Joshi, T.J., Barrett, Michael, and J.F. Malina. 2005. Characterization of Stormwater Runoff from a Bridge Deck and Approach Highway, Effects on Receiving Water Quality in Austin, Texas, CRWR Online Report 05-13: Austin, Texas.

Mallin, M. A., S. H. Ensign, T. L. Wheeler, D. B. Mayes 2002. Surface Water Quality: Pollutant Removal Efficacy of Three Wet Detention Ponds. Journal of Environmental Quality 31: 654-660.

Neary, Kevin A. 2004. Stormwater Runoff Treatment with Vortechs Structures. Presented at: 2004 Denver Annual Meeting of the Geological Society of America, Denver, Colorado, November 7-10, 2004.

Needham, Jerry. 2005. Plumbed, Grateful for Sewer Service. Article from the San Antonio Express-News, San Antonio. Web posted on www.MySA.com on December 28, 2005.

Nolan, Scott, Steven Jones, & Natalie Landry, 2004. Evaluating the Performance of AbTech Industries Smart Sponge Plus, in Seabrook, New Hampshire. Jackson Estuarine Laboratory, University of New Hampshire. Durham NH. http://www.nhep.unh.edu/resources/pdf/evaluatingthestormwater-des-04.pdf

NRCS. 1986. Technical Release 55: Urban Hydrology for Small Watersheds. Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). U.S. Department of Agriculture.

Perdek, Joyce M., Russell D. Arnone, Mary K. Stinson, & Mary Ellen Tuccillo. 2003. Managing Urban Watershed Pathogen Contamination. USEPA, National Risk Management Research Laboratory, Cincinnati, Ohio. EPA 600-R-03-111. September 2003.

PBS&J, 2004. San Antonio Water System, Central Watershed Wastewater Collection System Assessment. Prepared for SAWS. Dec. 2004.

PBS&J. 2006. San Antonio Water System, Eastern Basin Wastewater Infrastructure Plan. June 2006.

PBS&J. 2006. Existing and Ultimate Condition Data Layers – Final Deliverable. Transmittal letter to Mr. Nefi Garza (San Antonio River Authority). 23 May 2006. PBS&J Project #461052.01.

Rusciano, Gregory M. & Christopher C. Obropta. 2005. Efficiency of Bioretention Systems to Reduce Fecal Coliform Counts in Stormwater. In: Proceedings of the North American Surface Water Quality Conference and Exposition, Orlando, Florida, July 18-25, 2005.

319

Stenstrom, T. A., and A. Carlander. 2001. Occurence and Die-off of Indicator Organisms in the Sediment in Two Constructed Wetlands. Water Science and Technology 44(11-12): 223- 230.

SARA. 2006. Website: San Antonio River Tunnel. (last accessed 2006) San Antonio River Authority. San Antonio, Texas.

SAWS. 2005. Personal communication with Martin Miller, SAWS staff. Dec 8, 2005 E-mail.

SAWS. 2006. Letter to JMA from Mr. Valentin Ruiz Jr., SAWS staff. Oct 20, 2006 E-mail.

Schueler, Thomas. 1987. Controlling Urban Runoff: A Practical Manual for Planning and Designing Urban BMPs. Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments. Washington, D.C.

Stewart Scott, Ltd. Report on Water Balance and Water Treatment Assessment for the Johannesburg Zoo. 2003.

TCEQ. 2002. Texas Water Quality Inventory and 303(d) List. .

TCEQ. 2007. Three Total Maximum Daily Loads for Bacteria in the San Antonio Area. .

TNRCC. 2001. Guidance for Assessing Texas Surface and Finished Drinking Water Quality Data, 2002. Texas Natural Resources and Conservation Commission. Austin, Texas.

Walsh, Patrick M., Barrett, Michael, and J.F. Malina. Use of Vegetative Controls for Treatment of Highway Runoff , CRWR Online Report 97-5: Austin, Texas.

Weiskel, P.A., B.L. Howes, and G.R. Heufelder. 1996. Coliform Contamination of a Coastal Embayment: Sources and

Wellborn, Clarence and Jack Veenhuis. 1987. Effects of Runoff Controls on the Quantity and Quality of Urban Runoff at Two Locations in Austin, Texas. USGS Water Resources Investigations Report 87-4004, Austin Texas.

Zarriello, Phillip, Breault, Robert, and Peter Weiskel. 2002. Potential Effects of Structural Controls and Street Sweeping on Stormwater Loads to the Lower Charles River, Massachusetts. USGS Water Resources Investigations Report 02-4220, Northborough, Massachusetts.

320

APPENDIX A – COMMENT SUMMARY TABLE

321

COMMENTS FOR: BMP ASSESSMENT REPORT UPDATE DEVELOPMENT OF AN IMPLEMENTATION PLAN FOR BACTERIA FOR: SEGMENT 1910 SALADO CREEK, SEGMENT 1910A WALZEM CREEK, SEGMENT 1911 UPPER SAN ANTONIO RIVER

Section; Comment Response Commenter States that the TMDL for the Upper SAR has been completed, however, the Text added. Sec. 1.3; SARA_SL TCEQ has asked SARA to revise the TMDL with the addition of three Westside creeks. Revise to say “Age of the system was a predominant concern, with Text revised. Sec. 5.1.5; SARA_SL approximately 27% of the system older than 50 years(using numbers from SAWS) and some areas dating back more than 100 years.” Typo on “They hydraulic model”, should be “The hydraulic model”. Text revised. Sec. 5.5.5; SARA_SL; SARA_EM

“Fifteen specific BMPs” but there are eighteen listed. Text revised. Sec. 5.2.1; SARA_SL

Under Storm Water Runoff Sources – Urban Runoff, General Sources, states Text added to Sec. 6.1.2 and to Nine Element Table 6-3 Table 6-3, Nine that structural stormwater BMPs “should cover 50% of basin area based on Element Table; BMPs with 50% overall effectiveness”. There is an effort in San Antonio to SARA_SL develop Low Impact Development (LID) BMPs and have them identified in the City UDC. We believe that these practices have the potential to greatly reduce pollutant loading (over a long term) and we should mention this in the report, perhaps in Sec. 6.1.2. Results for Dec 2009 are shown in Fig. 2-72, not Fig. 2-71 Text revised. Sec. 2.4.1; SARA_EM

Should be “By definition,…” Text revised. Sec. 5.1.5; SARA_EM

BMP 13: Capital Improvements Program should be on next line. Text revised Sec. 5.2.1; SARA_EM

322

5.8 Miscellaneous San Introduction to SARA goals and project approaches, small text update (279), Text added Antonio River BMPs, San Antonio River Walk IP description, SARA legislative responsibility, Creek Page 278-280; Book description, Watershed Wise campaign SARA_EM

6.3 Nine Element Please add additional BMPs to nine element table: Mission Reach Ecosystem Text added Summary Table, Page Restoration and Recreation Project, Environmental Investigations Coordinator, 298+, SARA_EM Creek Book, Watershed Wise Campaign, SAR River Walk Implementation Project

6.3 Nine Element 60,000-80,000 cubic yards of silt removed from Elmendorf Lake, $3,000,000, Text revised Summary Table, Page CoSA 301, SARA_EM

Sec. 6.3, Nine Element The “Schedule of Implementation for Each Measure” provided in Table 6-3 is Specific implementation dates have been added where available in Summary Table; presented in more general terms than is desirable for the TMDL I-Plan. Is it Table 6-3. TCEQ_AT possible to update this column and distinguish between the implementation activities for which there is a specific commitment (and the associated timeframe, responsible party, funding, etc.) and those implementation activities which have been identified and perhaps recommended but for which there is no specific commitment or schedule for implementation?

Sec. 6.1.2 Stormwater The recent development of a BMP pilot study to implement Low Impact A discussion of the Mission Drive-In project has been added in Runoff Point Sources, Development (LID) storm water management practices in to the Mission Drive Sec. 6.1.2 and has been inserted in Table 6.3. Page 284; TCEQ_AT Inn redevelopment project does not appear to be represented in the draft report. Should a discussion of this project substitute for the recommended candidate pilot projects presented on page 284? The discussion of the Mission Drive-In project should describe the Mission Drive-In project, the proposed LID practices, the bacterial load reductions estimated to result from the project, and the City’s process for using these results to support considerations of modifying the Universal Land Development Code to include LID practices.

Sec. 6.2.3 Direct The adaptive monitoring pilot effort described on pages 289 and 292 has The pilot effort will continue post-2011, as stated in Sec. 6.2.3. Nonpoint Sources – proven to be an effective coordination mechanism between SARA, the City, The text has been updated to include an annual summary report. Human Origin, Pages and SAWS. Periodic sampling of tributaries, outfalls, and mainstem locations The text has also been updated in Table 6-3. 289, 292; TCEQ_AT has helped locate leaking sanitary sewer infrastructure and helped SAWS target rehabilitation resources to high priority locations. Table 6-3 shows funding for this program in FY 2011. Are there plans to fund this program in subsequent years? Should the report establish a specific mechanism for reporting the results of this program and evaluating its effectiveness?

323

General Comment; River sampling efforts will continue until August 2010. Since the entire The BMPs described in the Nine Key Element Table have been SAWS sampling plan has not been completed and the data derived from the plan has researched and vetted with the stakeholders. The treatment not been evaluated, it is premature for TCEQ to assess proposed BMP removal capabilities of many of the BMPs have been documented. alternatives. The BMP Assessment and Pilot Studies are not completed and The estimated reductions in bacteria contribution represent data derived from these studies has not been evaluated. Since data is not information requested by the TCEQ, and they are based largely available to evaluate the treatment removal capabilities of the BMPs identified upon best professional judgement. in the Report, the “Estimated Potential Load Reduction” presented in the Nine Key Element Tables is based upon speculation. Reference to specific percentage reductions in bacteria contribution should be deleted in the absence of supporting data.

General Comment; TCEQ should consider native wildlife bacteria load contributions as a natural TCEQ desires an accounting of all potential bacteria SAWS phenomenon and these contributions should be removed from any projected E. contributions. Different contributions may be controllable to coli load reductions. varying degrees.

General Comment; SAWS suggests that more detail concerning the status and current activities of Additional information has been provided in Sec. 5.8. SAWS the San Antonio River Walk Implementation Project should be included in the Report. San Antonio River Authority (SARA) can provide the additional information.

Sec. 1.2.2 Water SAWS recommends that this section include narrative that addresses potential Text has been added to Sec. 1.2.2 to discuss revisions to the Water Quality Criteria for recreational use category changes and TCEQ and/or Stakeholder initiation of a Quality Standards. While the implementation of a RUAA is a Bacteria, Page 7; Recreational Use-Attainability Analysis (RUAA). technical possibility, the current IP planning is based upon the SAWS current classification for the recreational uses. TCEQ may The proposed revisions are a result of a review of the Texas Surface Water consider potential future changes to uses when and if they occur. Quality Standards (TSWQS) as required on a triennial basis by §303(c) of the Federal Clean Water Act. The TSWQS were last revised in 2000, and the majority of the 2000 TSWQS were approved by the EPA by 2007. The TSWQS establish in-stream water quality requirements for Texas streams, rivers, lakes, estuaries, and other water bodies. The exceedance of TSWQS recreational bacteria standards are the basis for TMDL standards. The following potential recreational use categories are under consideration: primary contact, secondary contact 1 and 2, and noncontact recreation. SAWS recommends that these new categories be described in the Report so that a reader will understand that an alternative process is available. These potential recreational use categories are a more common sense categorization of actual urban recreation use.

SAWS recommends that the Stakeholders and TCEQ implement a RUAA and a Basic RUAA Survey (which is part of a Comprehensive RUAA) for

324

unclassified and classified rivers and streams. RUAAs are assessments of the physical, chemical, biological, and economic factors affecting attainment of a water body use (40 Code of Federal Regulations § 131.10(g)). This process will result in a more realistic classification of the recreational use of a stream segment.

The City of San Antonio (COSA) Code of Ordinances provides:

Sec. 22-87. - Swimming in San Antonio River prohibited; penalty.

-It shall be unlawful to swim in the San Antonio River within the corporate limits of the City of San Antonio. "Swim" as used herein shall include bathing, wading or any other water contact recreational activity.

-Violation of any of the provisions of this section shall be a misdemeanor offense and shall be punished by a fine of not more than five hundred dollars ($500.00).

Sec. 22-88. - Swimming in city parks and city public property prohibited; penalty.

(a) It shall be unlawful to swim in any body of water, natural or man- made, in any city park or other city public area within the corporate limits of the City of San Antonio, except in designated swimming pools or swimming facilities during operating hours. "Swim" as used herein shall include bathing, wading, or any other water contact recreational activity. "Body of water" as used herein shall include but is not limited to lakes, ponds, creeks, water fountains or any other water feature.

Such ordinance mandated prohibitions should be considered when evaluating the classification of stream segment use.

Sec. 1.3.1 Source The last sentence of the second paragraph provides that: “… the San Antonio The bacteria contributions from the zoo have been well- Identification, Page 8; Zoo, a significant contributor of indicator bacteria.” This clause should be documented. It is the most significant point source, and this SAWS amended to provide: “… the San Antonio Zoo, the single most significant statement has been added to Sec. 1.3.1. Continued monitoring contributor of indicator bacteria.” SAWS recommends that the UV Zoo during the IP will document the benefit of controls on the zoo. treatment system should be operational for a sufficient period of time to permit However, it is likely that additional controls will be needed in the adequate monitoring of downstream sites to evaluate overall E. coli load watershed under wet weather conditions. reduction. The Zoo has been identified as the primary bacteria contributor. It would be prudent to address and monitor the treatment of this source

325

contribution before recommending BMPs in a final IP that may not be necessary to achieve desired reductions.

Sec. 1.3.2 Linkage Figures 1-3, 1-4 and 1-5., These pie charts reference “Effluent Outfall” as a The effluent outfall contributions are documented in the TMDL Between Source and potential bacteria source. The Report does not identify data that supports these development report and are presented here for illustration. Receiving Waters, conclusions. These references should be deleted Pages 9-10; SAWS

Sec. 2.3 Results of End of third paragraph, this section provides: “These rainfall data provide some A sentence has been added to Sec. 2.3 regarding the drought Additional Monitoring, indication of whether or not significant rainfall may have fallen in the conditions in 2008 and 2009 and actual sampling dates have been Page 26; SAWS watershed of the various stream, however, rainfall is usually not uniform over noted in Table 2-3. Since the objective was to sample baseflow the watershed and there are often scattered thunderstorms.” SAWS conditions, the lack of rainfall was a benefit to the work. A recommends that a statement be included indicating that the sampling project sentence has been added alerting that September 2009 and took place during a historic two year drought that has the ability to affect the November 2009 synoptic surveys may have been influenced by utility of the collected data. Also, because the watersheds drain into the overall runoff. Additional mention of this possibility has been placed San Antonio River basin, rainfall in any connected watershed can have an throughout Sec. 2.3 and 2.4. impact throughout the basin. As described later in this document and in Appendix A, rainfall events have a high potential to introduce higher levels of bacteria that were measured during the synoptic and intensive sampling efforts.

Sec. 2.5 Inferences Page 189 (fourth paragraph); 190 (first full paragraph and second paragraph); Leaking sewer infrastructure is discussed in this section as a Regarding Bacteria page 191 (last paragraph); page 194 (last paragraph), page 197, In each of these potential source in some cases and a likely source in others. The Sources, Page 189-197; paragraphs leaking sewer infrastructure is stated as a likely source of the sampling data supports these conclusions, as explained in Sec. 2.5. SAWS bacteria loading that is described in those paragraphs. The data does not There is no data that indicates contributions of bacteria from support these conclusions. As will hereafter be described, the bacteria landfills, packing plants, or equestrian sites under baseflow contribution from known historic landfills, packing plants and conditions. Runoff was not a contributor under the baseflow agricultural/equestrian sites were not investigated. Nor was the contribution of sampling exercises. runoff events considered. Attribution of bacteria contribution to wastewater infrastructure under these circumstances is inappropriate. These references should be deleted.

Sec. 2.5 Inferences Last paragraph, the sample location noted under Austin Highway is adjacent to The paragraph includes mention of the horse stables as a possible Regarding Bacteria horse stables, which constitute a significant source of biological loading. In source of bacteria. However, it is unlikely that the stables were Sources, Page 191; addition, this same location (horse stables) is a confirmed location of a known the source of bacteria that were observed under baseflow sampling SAWS putrescible waste garbage dump site. SAWS recommends that the Report state conditions. There is no data to suggest any contribution from an that these two potential bacteria sources that were not investigated are likely abandoned garbage dump site, but this can be investigated in sources of the bacteria concentration reported. future efforts.

Sec. 2.5.1 Salado Creek Last paragraph, third sentence, a BMP for “horse stables” should be included in Additional discussion of BMPs for horse stables has been added and Tributaries, Page the Report. SAWS suggests the following: to Sec. 6.2.5 for Stormwater Nonpoint Sources. An assessment of 191; SAWS the stables is also added to the Nine Element Table.

326

• Use drainage improvements to protect stored manure from rainfall, surface runoff and flooding. • Use a cover to prevent stored manure and liquid drainage from manure piles (leachate) from entering Salado Creek. • Divert any runoff that does leave the storage site to a grass filter strip.

In the absence of alternatives, manure should be disposed of in a permitted landfill.

Sec. 2.5.1 Salado Creek Many of the sampling locations within this study area correlate with known or This potential source has been added in Sec. 5.1.7. There is no and Tributaries, Page suspected garbage dumping (putrescible waste) sites located immediately data that characterizes potential landfill leachate as a bacteria 191; SAWS adjacent to the water bodies at issue. These waste sites are identified in a source in the study watershed. This potential source should be database compiled by the Alamo Area Council of Governments (AACOG). A investigated further. A discussion has been added in Sec. 6.2.3 for total of sixty-seven (67) known or suspected garbage dumping sites were Direct Nonpoint Sources – Human Origin. Assessment also has identified immediately adjacent to water bodies within the study area. been added as a recommendation in the Nine Element Table. The schedule for finalization of the IP is a TCEQ issue. Numerous studies have identified the continuous risk that biologically active landfill leachate may pose to surface water. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, in connection with the study of such landfills has determined that: “Similar studies at other landfill sites have found high and sustained levels of both bacterial indicators and opportunistic pathogens in leachate more than nine years following landfill closure. Elevated levels of some bacteria at the Tulalip site have been sustained far beyond this period of time.” (Persistence and Antibiotic Immunity of Bacteria from Wetland used as a Medical Waste Landfill, Dean W. Boening, George J. Vasconcelos, EPA.)

The possible bacteria loading contribution by buried garbage dumping sites within the study area has not been investigated. Because these garbage dumping sites pose a potential significant source of biological loading with the San Antonio River Basin, SAWS suggests that additional investigations are required prior to finalization of the IP. By example: “The unnamed tributary in J Street Park” that is referenced in this section: J Street Park, Pletz Park, Gembler, MLK Park, Beitel Creek, Comanche Park, are all known or suspected historic putrescible waste garbage dumping sites.

Sec. 2.5.1 Salado Creek Table 2-38, Prior to publication of the final IP, this table and similar The BMP Update Report will include only data collected through and Tributaries, Page charts/tables should be updated with new data as it becomes available. 2009. Data through 2010 will be contained in a separate report. 192; SAWS Amendments to the conclusions/recommendations that are contained in the The tables in Sec. 2 will not be updated in the present report. The Report may be required as a result of more current data. updated data will be available for TCEQ to review as the IP is prepared.

327

Sec. 2.5.2 San Pedro Reference is made in this section to high mean values near Probandt and Alamo The meat packing plant was considered as a potential contributor, Creek and Tributaries, Streets. This location is adjacent to a meat packing plant. The potential but it was not believed to be a significant contributor under Page 194; SAWS contribution from this source was not investigated. The concentrations baseflow conditions. Potential landfill contributions are now discussed in this section near Alazan Creek do reference the existence the discussed in Sec. 6.2.3. potential contribution from suspected landfills along the creek that were not investigated. Attributing the measured concentrations to a particular source is not warranted until these potential contributing sources have been investigated.

Sec. 2.5.3 Upper San Reference was made in section 2.3.3 to high E. coli from Lone Star in this river There is no indication that a rodent population is contributing Antonio River Above section. That area includes a historic grain mill facility that was known to have bacteria under baseflow conditions. This potential site could be Loop 410, Page 196; a large resident rodent population, which may be a contributing factor for investigated in the future if an inspection revealed potential SAWS bacteria. SAWS suggests that the Report indicate that this potential source problems. exists, but was not investigated.

Sec. 5.1.5 Wastewater There appear to be inconsistencies and omissions when associating utilities The intent of the discussion of other jurisdictions is to include the Collection Systems, from other jurisdictions to the watersheds addressed in the Report, as Salado Creek watershed as part of the Upper San Antonio River Page 220-223; SAWS indicated by the following: watershed.

-Are the Upper and Lower Salado Creek watersheds mentioned in the same Additional wastewater systems have been added to Sec. 5.1.5. context as “Upper San Antonio River Watershed”? The Nine Element Table has been revised to include the smaller responsible entities. -Shavano Park, Hollywood Park and Hill Country Village are mentioned for the existence of septic systems. These municipalities also have some wastewater collection mains. These municipalities should be included in the discussions concerning wastewater collection system BMPs and as responsible entities in the 9 Key Element Table. It has been noted that the entire SAWS system is not located with -Kirby, Windcrest and Camp Bullis should also be included. the Upper San Antonio River and Salado Creek study areas.

-On page 222, the Report should be revised to reflect that only a portion of the 5,000 miles of SAWS mains and a fraction of the 165 lift stations are located in “the Upper San Antonio River Basin study area” (and in the Salado Creek Basin area). The total average flows reported (100 MGD dry and 300 MGD wet days) may include geographic areas not within the basin study area. Similarly, are the 37 miles of mains in Leon Valley in the USAR?

Sec. 5.1.5 Wastewater Fourth sentence, this sentence infers that small mains weren’t generally This sentence has been revised. Collection Systems, considered, which would be an incorrect inference. Page 222; SAWS

328

Sec. 5.1.5 Wastewater Change “Bt” to “By” Revised Collection Systems, Page 224; SAWS

Sec. 5.1.5 Wastewater The first paragraph refers to an earlier study that indicated that a “significant” A note has been added to the introductory paragraph to explain Collection Systems, portion of the collection system was in poor condition. That conclusion is that extrapolation took place. A similar note is added to the Page 224; SAWS erroneous. The earlier study examined a miniscule portion of the total system paragraph with the cost estimates. The report presents (less than 1%). Extrapolating those findings to the entire system is not information contained in sewershed studies that were conducted appropriate. This paragraph also refers to defects in manholes and pipe by professional engineering firms under contract to SAWS. The segments, again in a very small portion of the system. The reference to defects use of such source material is not “conjecture and speculation”. is similarly misleading. The report did not determine that the “defects” caused This material is included in the report to illustrate the nature and sanitary sewer overflows, nor was the severity of the defects characterized scope of problems that may occur with wastewater collection pursuant to any recognized standard. systems in the study area. Most of the detail is derived from studies in the SAWS systems, but the information is intended to (next to last paragraph) – This paragraph reports cost estimates found in reflect potential issues with all wastewater collection systems in earliersystem watershed capacity studies. These cost estimates were based upon the study area. an examination of less than 1% of the system. The gross extrapolation of these estimates to cover the 99% of the system that was not examined is unreasonable and misleading.

References to the age of the infrastructure in this section are also misleading. Less than 1% of the system is 100 years old. More than one-half of the system has been constructed since 1980 and is composed of modern materials that are less susceptible to failure. Without a condition assessment, the age of the infrastructure is meaningless.

It is inappropriate for a report purportedly based upon science to include the references made on page 224 that are based upon conjecture and speculation. These statements concerning SAWS infrastructure should be deleted.

Sec. 5.1.5 Wastewater Figure 5-2 on page 225 is misleading. The chart describes all overflows in It has been noted that reported overflows are inside and outside of Collection Systems, SAWS system, not those within the study area only. The figure should be the study area. Page 225; SAWS deleted.

Sec. 5.1.5 Wastewater Third bullet, Bypass and overflow are not normally attributed to a siphon. Problems with siphons were described in the Eastern sewershed Collection Systems, Unless these references are explained, this bullet point should be deleted. assessment prepared for SAWS. Page 226; SAWS

Sec. 5.2.1 Last paragraph, following “ammonia sampling,” reword the next to last Revised Rehabilitation, sentence to read “interior inspection of manholes for evidence of surcharging

329

Replacement, and due to flow restrictions, and if necessary, cleaning and conducting an internal Maintenance of City CCTV inspection of the main segment(s)”. Sewers, BMP 5, Page 229; SAWS

Sec. 6.1.1 San Antonio SAWS believes that the estimated cost to construct the UV facility is Revised Zoo Point Source, Page substantially in excess of the recited sum of $700,000. Please confirm the 282; SAWS correct amount with COSA.

Sec. 6.2.3 Direct The first paragraph refers to a “hoped for” reduction of 15% by targeting TCEQ requires an estimate of the potential reduction. The stated Nonpoint Sources – human waste sources. The stated percentage is not supported by data on which reductions are largely based upon best professional judgement. Human Origin, Page to base the proposed reduction. Since the potential contribution of known The proposed zoo disinfection represents a reduction separate 289; SAWS historic landfills and industrial and agricultural/equestrian operations was not from the Direct Nonpoint Source reduction. investigated, and the effect of stormwater runoff from significant rain events was not considered, it is difficult to determine the basis for concluding that 15 % of the contribution is attributable to the designated human waste sources, or that there can be a 15 % reduction. The proposed Zoo disinfection process may achieve the stated reduction. SAWS recommends that a percentage reduction not be referenced and that a percentage not be attributed to a particular source in the absence of data supporting such statements.

Change the sentence, starting from the seventh line from the bottom to end with “… not already exist.” and delete “perhaps with guidance from SAWS.". Revised

In order to achieve the desired bacteria reductions, other wastewater This plan would be developed during the IP. infrastructure owners and operators in the study area (Alamo Heights, Balcones

Heights, Castle Hills, Ft. Sam Houston, Leon Valley, Olmos Park, and Terrell Hills) should participate. It is recommended that a plan to actively involve these other entities be developed and be provided to the stakeholders.

SAWS recommends that this section and/or section 2.5 INFERENCES REGARDING BACTERIA SOURCES be expanded to include the draft summary description and table of current status of observations pertaining to SAWS investigative work with the SARA Station sites north of 410 south. This information will remain in Sec. 6.2.3 rather than reorganized SAWS requests that additional narrative be included, as requested hereafter. into an appendix. Also, tables 6.1 and 6.2 (pages 291 & 292) should be deleted and Attachment A substituted in place of those tables.

SAWS requests that the following paragraphs be added to the Report:

330

SAWS administers and enforces a pretreatment program that is primarily Incorporated in Sec. 6.2.3. directed at controlling the discharge of pollutants to protect the treatment works. This includes the control of Fats, Oil and Grease (FOG), which are a leading cause of SSOs. Local Limits regulate the amount of FOG that can be discharged into the collection system. City ordinances provide requirements for service of FOG interceptors and traps that are required by City Code for certain users. SAWS staff routinely inspects grease traps and the compliance history of users. Incorporated in Sec. 6.2.3. SAWS has implemented a Illicit Discharge Program. In this program, staff routinely collect samples at designated storm drain outfalls in order to obtain information that might indicate the presence of raw wastewater and illicit connections. Currently, 425 field screen point outfalls (36-inch diameter pipes and larger) are inspected annually and field tested. The data is maintained in a database and photos of all sites are stored in a GIS database. Portions of this paragraph were incorporated into a revised SAWS has also implemented specific investigative and evaluation procedures in paragraph in Sec. 6.2.3. response to the bacteria sampling conducted as part of the current

Implementation Plan development project. In those selected locations north of 410 south where SARA sampling showed relatively high E. coli concentrations in both the synoptic and intensive sampling, SAWS staff investigated storm drain outfalls and local sanitary sewer infrastructure in the vicinity of the sampling locations. The bacteria sampling data has been evaluated monthly to prioritize site investigations. SAWS staff generally researched mapping of lines, researched any indication of sanitary sewer overflows, and conducted visual/physical inspection of each site, which included ammonia sampling, manhole removal and inspection for stoppages, and if necessary, cleaning or televising a subject line segment. Earlier inspection of system pipelines has been conducted with video cameras and smoke detection equipment. More recently, SAWS operates equipment to conduct internal TV inspections of small diameter mains. The TV camera is used to assess the structural condition of specific segments of the mains. The results of the TV inspections may guide A description of rainfall surrounding sampling survey days was strategies for repair, rehabilitation, and terminating illicit connections. Where presented in Table 2-3 in Sec. 2.3. This table has been expanded needed, work orders were issued for corrective actions. to indicate actual sampling dates for the synoptic and intensive surveys. The majority of the sampling surveys encountered only Appendix A of this Report contains SAWS results of its activities to date. Each baseflow conditions. However, the discussions in Sec. 2.3 SARA Station site north of 410 south has the bacteria level geometric mean reference the possibility that stormwater influenced sampling generated to aid in establishing priority sites to be investigated. Also, each results, for example, in September 2009 and November 2009. The station has been monthly graphed in comparison to the monthly rainfall analysis of grab sampling results from this study versus monthly

331

received in Bexar County. Storm events in and around the impaired river and cumulative rainfall does not tie the sampling results to runoff. stream segments are contributing to the bacteria load measures in these The timing of individual storm events is not taken into waterways. This analysis comparison shows in some cases the significant consideration in that analysis, but it must be to relate any observed loading contribution from terrestrial run-off sources. Further observation of bacteria concentrations to runoff. The fact that some months have the data reveals that a percentage of the high E. coli levels measured at certain higher cumulative rainfall does not mean that baseflow conditions SARA sampling stations directly correlate Rainfall events that have been did not exist at the time of sampling. This analysis is interesting measured. In many cases, the calculated geometric mean is significantly less but the sampling data is covered sufficiently in Sec 2.0. than the average value generated, and in many cases they are now below the recreational standard of 126 CFU/100 mls. The geometric mean is described mathematically as, the nth root of their product, which is the accepted calculation the TCEQ uses for compliance purposes. Also, the calculated geometric mean trend line shows a percentage of the SARA Sampling station E. coli levels being reduced over the time.

Sec. 6.2.3 Direct The last paragraph on page 293 should be changed to provide “Wastewater Text added. Nonpoint Sources – collection system infrastructure projects are continually being designed and Human Origin, Long- constructed to renew structural integrity, to sustain operability, and to increase Term Control Measures the capacity of the system; i.e. to continually improve system performance. At & Major Design and any given time, the total amount of ongoing construction projects exceeds one Construction Activity, hundred million dollars.” Pages 292-295; SAWS

Sec. 6.2.3, Long-Term SAWS recommends deleting Figure 6-1 and Table 6-2 because the information The figure and table will remain in the report since they provide a Control Measures, will be outdated. Instead, refer the reader to SAWS’ real-time listing of CIP reference point for project work. The link to the website will be Pages 294-295; SAWS projects that can be found at SAWS’ internet website: added. http://www.saws.org/infrastructure/cip/download.shtml

Sec. 6.3 Nine Element An odor control plan is currently part of SAWS’ Wastewater Infrastructure Text for Table 6-3 revised. Summary Table, Odor Master Plan, both for preventive and reactive measures. Control Master Plan, Page 303; SAWS

Sec. 6.3 Nine Element Prior to implementing any additional stormwater BMP/management measures Summary Table, that are identified in the Nine Key Element Table, the City of San Antonio will Beginning on page 299; need to approve and dedicate funds to SAWS to conduct the additional

SAWS stormwater related work.

Page 301, SAWS is not involved in the BMP Assessment and Pilot Studies SAWS excluded. currently in the planning progress at Mission Road Drive-in and requests that SAWS be excluded from the listing for this control measure. SAWS has not

participated in any funding for this aspect of the IP Plan.

332

Page 301, Table 6-3, “Elmendorf Lake Desilting Project”. Change the word The dredging project is a BMP with the potential to reduce “Desilting” to “Dredging”. There is a contradiction between this BMP and the bacteria concentrations. It is not readily quantifiable but that does following statement found on page 278, Section 5.7.3, last sentence: “… it is not mean that it should be deleted. not clear the extent to which this (river maintenance) program might help to reduce bacteria in the watershed …” Yet, it is included in the 9 Key Element Table as a BMP for “reduction in bacteria levels released from the lake”. Either this BMP should be deleted or else it should be explained how this BMP will reduce bacteria in the watershed.

Odor/Corrosion Control, Page 303. SAWS has a ferrous sulfate injection program. Other cities need to implement similar programs. Revised text.

Capital improvements projects, page 304, both existing and additional programs. The statement concerning reduction in bacteria (baseflow-related) TCEQ requires estimated removals be included. The stated concentrations is speculation. There is no basis for attribution of the recited percentages are estimates based upon the present understanding of percentage to the indicated source, or that the stated percentage is capable of the system. reduction. Since the potential contribution of known historic landfills and industrial and agricultural/equestrian operations was not investigated, and the effect of stormwater runoff from significant rain events was not considered, it is difficult to determine the basis for concluding that the recited percentages are attributable to the described human waste sources, or that there can be a 12% or other percentage reduction. The proposed Zoo disinfection process may achieve the stated reduction without more, but only monitoring and studies that have not been performed can aid in that determination. SAWS recommends that a percentage reduction not be referenced and that a percentage not be attributed to a particular source in the absence of data supporting these statements.

Page 303 (entry for private laterals) SAWS should be deleted as a responsible entity for the BMP “private lateral rehab”. Pursuant to City ordinances, private Text revised. laterals are owned by and are the responsibility of the landowner (see: Sec. 5.2.2).

The mechanisms that will be employed to involve the numerous other cities in The mechanism is not formulated at the present time. This order to obtain their participation should be described. This comment applies activity will take place during the IP phase. TCEQ has indicated for all control measures where Alamo Heights, Balcones Heights, Castle Hills, that they will take the lead regarding contacts. Leon Valley, Olmos Park, Terrell Hills and Fort Sam Houston are listed.

333

Sec. 6.4 Summary Table 6-4, in the category “Human Origin, Wastewater Collection System”, Text revised. Timetable for reword the control measure to read “CIP projects; past, present and future”. Implementation, Page Then, shade the blocks for the years 2007 and 2008. 309; SAWS

General Comment; Include all Stakeholders’ letter /e-mail comments and responses in an Appendix All comments/responses have been tabulated. SAWS to the report.

General Comment; Can both fecal and E. coli information be standardized? Or clarified in a few Current work is based on E. coli; past work was based on fecal TCEQ_AR places? coliform. A note has been added to Sec. 1.3.3.

General Comment; A paragraph summary of sampling would be helpful- this report includes a lot Sec. 2.5 is essentially the conclusions section. TCEQ_AR of data in detail- a short conclusion summary would be helpful

General Comment; Control measures = TCEQ permits management measures = voluntary The present jargon has been widely used for a number of years. TCEQ_AR The term control measure is used incorrectly The newer terminology can be incorporated into the IP.

Sec. 1.0 Introduction, Small text comments in first paragraph Text revised Page 1; TCEQ_AR

Sec. 1.3.1 Source In reference to MS4, we’ve started to use regulated and non-regulated versus Text revised. Identification, Page 8, point and non-point; commentary not needed TCEQ_AR

Sec. 1.2.2 Water -Suggested rephrasing of impaired definition Text revised. Quality Criteria for Bacteria, Page 7; TCEQ_AR Sec. 1.3.2 Linkage Why fecal coliform and not E. coli? Because from 2006 report? Yes, values were obtained from the 2006 report. between Sources and Receiving Waters, Page 9; TCEQ_AR

Tables 1-1,1-2, Page Is it possible to update these to E. coli? The tables are taken from the 2006 report and are still applicable. 12; TCEQ_AR The percent reductions apply to E. coli as well.

1.4 Stakeholder Small text update Text revised. Involvement, Page 13; TCEQ_AR

334

Table 2-1, Page 16; Breakout by flow? intensity pattern Table 2-1 indicates that elevated flow conditions typically have TCEQ_AR higher E. coli concentrations, compared to baseflow.

Figure 2-4, Page 22; Map needs additional labels Add road labels TCEQ_AR

Sec. 2.2 Timeline questions regarding sampling. Text revisions to clarify time Implementation Sampling Plan, Page 23-24; TCEQ_AR

Sec. 2.5 Inferences Small text, duck equivalent reference question Text clarification. Regarding Bacteria Sources, Page 189-190; TCEQ_AR

Table 2-38,Page 192; Footer comments needed Add to tables TCEQ_AR

Table 2-39,41,43,Page Adjust table titles Revised 193-199; TCEQ_AR

5.2 Control Measures Control Measures means regulated by TCEQ, should read “Management Revised. for Wastewater Measures” Collection Systems, Page 226, 232

5.6 Assessment of what will be done & how? Potential long-term measures. Structural BMPS for Urban Runoff, Pages 240-241, TCEQ_AR

6.3 Nine Element How were estimated potential load reductions calculated? Need to reference Modeling report referenced. Summary Table, Page model 298, 305, TCEQ_AR

335