Table of Contents .edu



Watershed Characterization IN COOPERATION WITH THE TEXAS COMMISSION ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY AND U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY. CWA §319H. CONTRACT NO. 582-13-30060Table of Contents TOC \o "1-3" \h \z \u Acknowledgements PAGEREF _Toc452484329 \h 1Table of Contents PAGEREF _Toc452484330 \h 2List of Acronyms and Abbreviations PAGEREF _Toc452484331 \h 5List of Figures PAGEREF _Toc452484332 \h 14List of Tables PAGEREF _Toc452484333 \h 151.0 San Marcos Watershed Initiative PAGEREF _Toc452484334 \h 161.1 Introduction PAGEREF _Toc452484335 \h 161.2 Purpose PAGEREF _Toc452484336 \h 172.0 Watershed Protection Planning Approaches PAGEREF _Toc452484337 \h 182.1 Nine Elements of a Watershed Protection Plan PAGEREF _Toc452484338 \h 182.2 The Watershed Approach PAGEREF _Toc452484339 \h 182.3 SMWI Stakeholder Group PAGEREF _Toc452484340 \h 192.4 Stakeholder Designated Goals PAGEREF _Toc452484341 \h 202.5 Spring Lake Watershed Characterization Report PAGEREF _Toc452484342 \h 212.5.1 Spring Lake WCR Background PAGEREF _Toc452484343 \h 212.5.2 Spring Lake WCR Findings PAGEREF _Toc452484344 \h 223.0 Watershed Characteristics PAGEREF _Toc452484345 \h 223.1 Physical and Natural Features PAGEREF _Toc452484346 \h 223.2 Habitat PAGEREF _Toc452484347 \h 243.3 Wildlife, Aquatic Life, Endangered Species PAGEREF _Toc452484348 \h 243.4 Climate PAGEREF _Toc452484349 \h 253.5 Hydrology PAGEREF _Toc452484350 \h 263.6 Topography PAGEREF _Toc452484351 \h 273.7 Geology and Soils PAGEREF _Toc452484352 \h 283.7.1 Karst Features PAGEREF _Toc452484353 \h 283.7.2 Springs PAGEREF _Toc452484354 \h 303.7.3 Substrates PAGEREF _Toc452484355 \h 303.7.4 Soils and Siltation PAGEREF _Toc452484356 \h 314.0 Watershed Geography – Land Use PAGEREF _Toc452484357 \h 325.0 Existing Management Efforts and Water Quality Initiatives PAGEREF _Toc452484358 \h 355.1 Watershed Wide Flood Retention PAGEREF _Toc452484359 \h 355.2 Existing Non-Structural Management Measures PAGEREF _Toc452484360 \h 385.3 Partner Activities and Initiatives PAGEREF _Toc452484361 \h 395.3.1 Habitat Conservation Plan PAGEREF _Toc452484362 \h 405.3.2 Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) PAGEREF _Toc452484363 \h 415.3.3 City of San Marcos Activities PAGEREF _Toc452484364 \h 415.3.4 County Activities PAGEREF _Toc452484365 \h 425.3.5 WQPP PAGEREF _Toc452484366 \h 426.0 Watershed Conditions PAGEREF _Toc452484367 \h 436.1 Water Quality Standards PAGEREF _Toc452484368 \h 436.2 305(b) Report, 303(d) List PAGEREF _Toc452484369 \h 446.3 Total Dissolved Solids PAGEREF _Toc452484370 \h 446.3.1 Comparison of TDS and Conductivity Data PAGEREF _Toc452484371 \h 456.3.2 Groundwater and Stormwater Contributions to TDS PAGEREF _Toc452484372 \h 466.4 Permitted Point Sources PAGEREF _Toc452484373 \h 476.4.1 Wastewater Treatment Plant PAGEREF _Toc452484374 \h 476.4.2 A.E. Wood Fish Hatchery PAGEREF _Toc452484375 \h 486.5 Areas of Vulnerability PAGEREF _Toc452484376 \h 496.5.1 Rural Areas PAGEREF _Toc452484377 \h 496.75.2 Urbanized Areas PAGEREF _Toc452484378 \h 507.0 Stakeholder Selected Water Quality Targets PAGEREF _Toc452484379 \h 508.0 Water Quality Monitoring and Modeling PAGEREF _Toc452484380 \h 518.1 Source Water Assessments PAGEREF _Toc452484381 \h 518.2 Water Quality Monitoring Data PAGEREF _Toc452484382 \h 518.3 Stormwater, Baseflow and Contaminant Monitoring PAGEREF _Toc452484383 \h 548.4 Other Constituents of Concern PAGEREF _Toc452484384 \h 549.0 Nonpoint Source Pollution, Modeling Results and Reductions Required PAGEREF _Toc452484385 \h 569.1 Modeling and Analysis PAGEREF _Toc452484386 \h 569.1.1 Model Limitations and Assumptions PAGEREF _Toc452484387 \h 599.2 Cumulative Effects of Pollution PAGEREF _Toc452484388 \h 629.2.1 Model sensitivity PAGEREF _Toc452484389 \h 699.2.2 Model uncertainty PAGEREF _Toc452484390 \h 829.X Future loadings with Management Measures applied PAGEREF _Toc452484391 \h 849.3 Nitrogen at the Subbasin Scale PAGEREF _Toc452484392 \h 889.3.1 Future Land Based Nitrogen Loadings PAGEREF _Toc452484393 \h 889.3.2 Future Instream Nitrogen Concentrations PAGEREF _Toc452484394 \h 899.4 Phosphorus at the Subbasin Scale PAGEREF _Toc452484395 \h 909.4.1 Future Land Based Phosphorus Loadings PAGEREF _Toc452484396 \h 909.4.2 Future Instream Phosphorus Concentrations PAGEREF _Toc452484397 \h 919.5 E. Coli at the Subbasin Scale PAGEREF _Toc452484398 \h 929.5.1 Future Land Based E. Coli Loadings PAGEREF _Toc452484399 \h 949.5.3 Future Instream E. coli Concentrations PAGEREF _Toc452484400 \h 959.6 Oil and Grease at the Subbasin Scale PAGEREF _Toc452484401 \h 969.6.1 Future Land Based Oil and Grease Loadings PAGEREF _Toc452484402 \h 969.7 Total Dissolved Solids (TDS) at the Subbasin Scale PAGEREF _Toc452484403 \h 989.7.1 Future Land Based TDS Loadings PAGEREF _Toc452484404 \h 989.7.2 Future Instream TDS Concentrations PAGEREF _Toc452484405 \h 999.8 Total Suspended Solids (TSS) at the Subbasin Scale PAGEREF _Toc452484406 \h 1009.8.1 Future Land Based TSS Loadings PAGEREF _Toc452484407 \h 1009.8.2 Calculating Instream Concentrations of TSS PAGEREF _Toc452484408 \h 1019.8.2a Secondary Analysis Based on Average Wet Conditions PAGEREF _Toc452484409 \h 1029.8.3 Future Instream TSS Concentrations PAGEREF _Toc452484410 \h 1039.9 Summary of Instream Concentrations and Load Reductions Required PAGEREF _Toc452484411 \h 1059.10 Subbasins Prioritized for BMPs PAGEREF _Toc452484412 \h 1099.10.1 Utilizing Proposed Nutrient Criteria for Central Texas PAGEREF _Toc452484413 \h 11110. Recommendations PAGEREF _Toc452484414 \h 11210.1 Potential BMPs for Implementation PAGEREF _Toc452484415 \h 11210.1.1 Potential Water Quality Retrofits in the City of San Marcos and Texas State University Campus PAGEREF _Toc452484416 \h 11310.1.2 Potential Future BMPs (BMP Adaptive Management Toolbox) PAGEREF _Toc452484417 \h 11510.2 Stakeholder Recommendations and Next Steps PAGEREF _Toc452484418 \h 11611.0 References PAGEREF _Toc452484419 \h 118List of Figures TOC \h \z \c "Figure" Figure 1. San Marcos Watershed Initiative study area PAGEREF _Toc452484420 \h 17Figure 2. Stakeholder group communication structure PAGEREF _Toc452484421 \h 20Figure 3. Stakeholder group structure for SMWI WPP development PAGEREF _Toc452484422 \h 21Figure 4. SMWI project logo PAGEREF _Toc452484423 \h 21Figure 5. Project area within the Guadalupe River Basin PAGEREF _Toc452484424 \h 24Figure 6. Upper San Marcos River and tributaries PAGEREF _Toc452484425 \h 25Figure 7. Study Area precipitation from 1980 - 2010 (TNRIS) PAGEREF _Toc452484426 \h 27Figure 8. Discharge and precipitation data for San Marcos River between January 2009 and May 2013 PAGEREF _Toc452484427 \h 28Figure 9. Topography within the study area PAGEREF _Toc452484428 \h 28Figure 10. The Edwards Aquifer in Central Texas, showing the Contributing, Recharge, and Confined Zones PAGEREF _Toc452484429 \h 29Figure 11. Diagram of surface water recharge to groundwater (courtesy of Topher Sipes) PAGEREF _Toc452484430 \h 30Figure 12. Karstic cave areas which have recharge potential (TWDB) PAGEREF _Toc452484431 \h 30Figure 13. NPS TSS observed at Spring Lake after the Halloween 2013 flood PAGEREF _Toc452484432 \h 32Figure 14. Existing study area land use PAGEREF _Toc452484433 \h 33Figure 15. Existing study area land cover PAGEREF _Toc452484434 \h 34Figure 16. Modeled existing impervious cover PAGEREF _Toc452484435 \h 34Figure 17. Future land use PAGEREF _Toc452484436 \h 35Figure 18. Future land cover PAGEREF _Toc452484437 \h 36Figure 19. Percentages of land use in existing (2013) and full (2035) development scenarios PAGEREF _Toc452484438 \h 36Figure 20. NRCS Flood control structures in Purgatory and Sink Creek watersheds PAGEREF _Toc452484439 \h 37Figure 21. Sink Creek watershed detention ponds PAGEREF _Toc452484440 \h 38Figure 22. Sessom Creek watershed detention ponds PAGEREF _Toc452484441 \h 38Figure 23. Purgatory Creek watershed detention ponds PAGEREF _Toc452484442 \h 39Figure 24. Willow Springs Creek watershed detention ponds PAGEREF _Toc452484443 \h 39Figure 25. Schedule of concurrent water quality protection activities PAGEREF _Toc452484444 \h 41Figure 26. Texas State University MS4 stormwater outfalls PAGEREF _Toc452484445 \h 42Figure 27. Upper San Marcos River segments with impairments (TCEQ, 2012). PAGEREF _Toc452484446 \h 46Figure 28. Comparison of average TDS and conductivity from data collected during this WPP process PAGEREF _Toc452484447 \h 47Figure 29. TDS (Specific conductance converted [SpC]) and discharge from 2010 - 2012 in the Slough Arm of Spring Lake PAGEREF _Toc452484448 \h 48Figure 30. Point sources: A. E. Wood Fish Hatchery and San Marcos Waste Water Treatment Plant PAGEREF _Toc452484449 \h 49Figure 31. Water quality sites used for this analysis PAGEREF _Toc452484450 \h 54Figure 32. San Marcos sediment PAH detections compared to TEC (detection threshold) and the PEC (safety standard) [Courtesy of the EAA HCP 2013 Water Quality Summary Report] PAGEREF _Toc452484451 \h 57Figure 33. HSPF modeled subbasins PAGEREF _Toc452484452 \h 58Figure 34. SMWPP watershed boundaries, existing LULC, stream lines, flood control structures, assessment points (squares) and accumulation points (pentagons). PAGEREF _Toc452484453 \h 59Figure 35. SMWPP study area (without watershed boundaries), existing LULC, stream lines, flood control structures, assessment points (squares) and accumulation points (pentagons) PAGEREF _Toc452484454 \h 60Figure 36. Map of sub-basins with significant future development (bold outlines, 6, 16, 18, 26, 27). Pink areas represent proposed development. PAGEREF _Toc452484455 \h 86Figure 37. Map of sub-basins with significant future development with overlay for Edwards Aquifer zone boundaries. PAGEREF _Toc452484456 \h 86Figure 38. Concentration of TDS in selected developing subwatersheds PAGEREF _Toc452484457 \h 87Figure 38. Concentration of TSS in selected developing subwatersheds PAGEREF _Toc452484458 \h 87Figure 38. Concentration of Total Nitrogen in selected developing subwatersheds PAGEREF _Toc452484459 \h 88Figure 38. Concentration of Total Phosphorus in selected developing subwatersheds PAGEREF _Toc452484460 \h 88Figure 38. Concentration of E. coli in selected developing subwatersheds PAGEREF _Toc452484461 \h 89Figure 39. Annual Nitrogen, Future Development Scenario PAGEREF _Toc452484462 \h 89Figure 40. Annual Phosphorus, Future Development Scenario PAGEREF _Toc452484463 \h 91Figure 41. City of San Marcos monthly monitoring of E. coli (CFU/100mL) from 2009-2013 PAGEREF _Toc452484464 \h 93Figure 42. Annual E. coli, Future Development Scenario from HSPF model and SELECT calculations PAGEREF _Toc452484465 \h 95Figure 43. Current traffic intensity in the watershed PAGEREF _Toc452484466 \h 97Figure 44. Annual Oil and Grease, future development scenario PAGEREF _Toc452484467 \h 98Figure 45. Annual TDS, Future Development Scenario PAGEREF _Toc452484468 \h 99Figure 46. Annual TSS, Future Development Scenario PAGEREF _Toc452484469 \h 101Figure 47. Parameters exceeding targets and/or standards in the 2035 scenario at the subbasin scale PAGEREF _Toc452484470 \h 110Figure 48. Average annual Total Phosphorus as a function of impervious cover PAGEREF _Toc452484471 \h 112List of Tables TOC \h \z \c "Table" Table 1. Existing non-structural management practices PAGEREF _Toc452484472 \h 39Table 2. Upper San Marcos River use designations PAGEREF _Toc452484473 \h 44Table 3. Upper San Marcos River water quality criteria PAGEREF _Toc452484474 \h 44Table 4. Upper San Marcos River Segments (TCEQ, 2012) PAGEREF _Toc452484475 \h 45Table 5. WWTP permitted effluent permits PAGEREF _Toc452484476 \h 49Table 6. A.E. Wood Fish Hatchery permitted effluent standards PAGEREF _Toc452484477 \h 49Table 7. Upper San Marcos River site specific criteria PAGEREF _Toc452484478 \h 52Table 8. List of water quality data and sources used for calibration of simulated results PAGEREF _Toc452484479 \h 54Table 9. Water quality observation data (long-term averages of TCEQ SWQM records) for model boundary conditions and comparison PAGEREF _Toc452484480 \h 62Table 10. Historical discharge data from DMRs (EPA PCS database), A.E. Wood State Fish Hatchery PAGEREF _Toc452484481 \h 62Table 11. Historical discharge data from DMRs (EPA PCS database), City of San Marcos WWTF PAGEREF _Toc452484482 \h 63Table 12. Observations and model predictions, Total Dissolved Solids (TDS) PAGEREF _Toc452484483 \h 65Table 13. Observations and model predictions, Total Suspended Solids (TSS) PAGEREF _Toc452484484 \h 65Table 14. Observations and model predictions, Total Nitrogen (TN) PAGEREF _Toc452484485 \h 66Table 15. Observations and model predictions, Total Phosphorus (TP) PAGEREF _Toc452484486 \h 66Table 16. Observations and model predictions, E. coli bacteria PAGEREF _Toc452484487 \h 67Table 17. Future cumulative instream concentrations at accumulation points and required reductions PAGEREF _Toc452484488 \h 68Table 18. HSPF coefficients used in the sensitivity analysis. PAGEREF _Toc452484489 \h 70Table 19. Fraction change in HSPF coefficient (1.0 = no change from Exist scenario). PAGEREF _Toc452484490 \h 70Table 20. Value of HSPF coefficient, range across all sub-basins. PAGEREF _Toc452484491 \h 70Table 21. Value of HSPF coefficient used in each subbasin, by sensitivity scenario (i.e., run). PAGEREF _Toc452484492 \h 71Table 22. Sensitivity results for HSPF coefficients – value and % change – TDS (mg/L). PAGEREF _Toc452484493 \h 72Table 23. Sensitivity results for HSPF coefficients – value and % change – TSS (mg/L). PAGEREF _Toc452484494 \h 73Table 24. Sensitivity results for HSPF coefficients – value and % change – TN (mg/L). PAGEREF _Toc452484495 \h 74Table 25. Sensitivity results for HSPF coefficients – value and % change – TP (mg/L). PAGEREF _Toc452484496 \h 75Table 26. Sensitivity results for HSPF coefficients – value and % change – E. coli (MPN/100mL). PAGEREF _Toc452484497 \h 76Table 27. Sensitivity results for additional coefficients – value and % change – TDS (mg/L). PAGEREF _Toc452484498 \h 78Table 28. Sensitivity results for additional coefficients – value and % change – TSS (mg/L). PAGEREF _Toc452484499 \h 79Table 29. Sensitivity results for additional coefficients – value and % change – TN (mg/L). PAGEREF _Toc452484500 \h 80Table 30. Sensitivity results for additional coefficients – value and % change – TP (mg/L). PAGEREF _Toc452484501 \h 81Table 31. Sensitivity results for additional coefficients – value and % change – E. coli (MPN/100mL). PAGEREF _Toc452484502 \h 82Table 32. Comparison of average annual flow at San Marcos River at Sewell Park/University Drive, predicted and observed PAGEREF _Toc452484503 \h 83Table 33. Comparison of annual average TDS concentration predictions to available observation data. PAGEREF _Toc452484504 \h 84Table 33. Comparison of annual average TSS concentration predictions to available observation data. PAGEREF _Toc452484505 \h 84Table 33. Comparison of annual average Total Nitrogen concentration predictions to available observation data. PAGEREF _Toc452484506 \h 84Table 33. Comparison of annual average Total Phosphorus concentration predictions to available observation data. PAGEREF _Toc452484507 \h 85Table 33. Comparison of annual average E. coli concentration predictions to available observation data. PAGEREF _Toc452484508 \h 85Table 34. Future land based Nitrogen loads by subbasin PAGEREF _Toc452484509 \h 90Table 35. Future instream Nitrogen concentrations by subbasin PAGEREF _Toc452484510 \h 90Table 36. Future land based Phosphorus loads by subbasin PAGEREF _Toc452484511 \h 92Table 37. Future Instream Phosphorus concentrations by subbasin PAGEREF _Toc452484512 \h 92Table 38. Future land based E. coli loads by subbasin from HSPF model PAGEREF _Toc452484513 \h 95Table 39. Future instream E. coli concentrations by subbasin from HSPF PAGEREF _Toc452484514 \h 96Table 40. Future land based Oil and Grease loads by subbasin PAGEREF _Toc452484515 \h 98Table 41. Future land based Total Dissolved Solids loads by subbasin PAGEREF _Toc452484516 \h 100Table 42. Future instream Total Dissolved Solids concentration by subbasin PAGEREF _Toc452484517 \h 100Table 43. Future Total Suspended Solids loadings by subbasin PAGEREF _Toc452484518 \h 101Table 44. Upper and Lower subbasins for TSS analysis PAGEREF _Toc452484519 \h 104Table 45. Future instream Total Suspended Solids concentrations by subbasin PAGEREF _Toc452484520 \h 105Table 46. Future accumulation point and subbasin instream concentrations and required reductions for E. coli, Nitrogen, Phosphorus and TDS PAGEREF _Toc452484521 \h 107Table 47. Future accumulation point and subbasin instream concentrations and required reductions, TSS mg/l and lb/yr/subbasin PAGEREF _Toc452484522 \h 108Table 48. Pollutant loads by major land use and land cover type PAGEREF _Toc452484523 \h 111Table 49. Comparison of nutrient criteria to typical runoff concentrations PAGEREF _Toc452484524 \h 112Table 50. City Of San Marcos stormwater retrofit BMPs* PAGEREF _Toc452484525 \h 114Table 51. Texas State University stormwater retrofit BMPs* PAGEREF _Toc452484526 \h 115Table 52. Watershed-wide measures that are applicable in all sub-basins PAGEREF _Toc452484527 \h 117The Watershed In 2010, the Upper San Marcos River was cited on TCEQ’s 303(d) list of impaired waterways, for exceeding total dissolved solids (TDS) water quality standards (TCEQ, 2013). TDS is the only pollutant that has been previously recorded as exceeding the Clean Water Act (CWA) Standards but several other pollutants have been identified as a concern. Designated uses in the segment are Contact Recreation, Exceptional Aquatic Life Use, and Aquifer Protection. REF _Ref424648370 Figure 1 below shows the boundaries of the Upper San Marcos Watershed.Figure SEQ Figure \* ARABIC 1. San Marcos Watershed Initiative study areaSpring Lake Watershed Characterization ReportI. Spring Lake WCR BackgroundPlease See Appendix A3 for the complete Spring Lake Watershed Characterization Report.Spring Lake is a unique ecosystem and serves as the headwaters of the Upper San Marcos River. Artesian spring water from the Edwards Aquifer emerges into the lake from hundreds of spring openings, creating one of the most productive spring-fed systems in Texas. Growth in the area is changing land use and land cover (LULC), putting pressure on surface water quality and groundwater resources. Water quality in Spring Lake and the Upper San Marcos River is shown to decline after storm flow events. The purpose of this project was to characterize the Spring Lake watershed, including Sink Creek’s influence; examine NPS through data collection and analysis of nutrients, suspended solids, and bacteria and assess surface and groundwater interaction during typical storm events; gather input and recommendations from a diverse stakeholder group named the Upper San Marcos Coordination Group (USMRCG); and prioritize management measures that may be used to preserve or improve water quality of Spring Lake and the Upper San Marcos River by reducing NPS pollutant loads from future human activities in the watershed.The USMRCG was initiated by the River Systems Institute (RSI) at Texas State University (now the Meadows Center for Water and the Environment) in 2009 to assist community stakeholders, local organizations, and various agency partners who were working collectively to bridge diverse perspectives, interests, and resources to provide input into the development of a watershed characterization and the resulting recommendations for the management of nutrients and other identified nonpoint source pollutants in the watershed. The group was comprised of members from the City of San Marcos, Hays County, Texas State, the San Marcos River Foundation, San Marcos River Rangers, San Marcos Greenbelt Alliance, Edwards Aquifer Research and Data Center, the Guadalupe Blanco River Authority, the United States Geologic Survey, and others. Many stakeholders in the USMRCG are now SMWI Core Committee. Additional stakeholders were added to the USMRCG to reflect SMWI’s broadened geographic and project scopes. II. Spring Lake WCR FindingsContinuous monitoring of field parameters indicated that all the monitored spring openings respond to local storms as well as regional-scale changes in aquifer level and spring discharge. This evidence suggests that the San Marcos Springs and the Edwards Aquifer are vulnerable to NPS and point source contamination from both local and distant (regional) sources.Routine sampling in the San Marcos River and at several discrete spring openings in Spring Lake show that water quality is generally very good under baseflow conditions, with low levels and variability in concentrations of NPS nutrients and contaminants, but that stormwater derived from urban areas in San Marcos rapidly and negatively influence water quality at all pared to surface waters and the Slough Arm, waters from San Marcos Springs show relative temporal stability for all measured parameters. On an annual scale, the largest source of variability, as well as the highest concentrations of measured NPS pollutants, is due to stormwater entering the Spring Lake system. Targeted sampling during storms indicated that local urban runoff, which contributes to high levels of TSS, nutrients, and other contaminants, affects the Slough Arm of Spring Lake for longer periods than in the Spring Arm because sediment and nutrient rich stormwater tends to stagnate in the Slough Arm after storm events.The stakeholder group concluded that management measures associated with land conservation strategies, mitigation of the effects of urban/residential development, and watershed-level mitigation of the effects of sedimentation were the most important to maintain and improve in the watershed. Due to the low level of human development in the Sink Creek – Spring Lake watershed and the high sensitivity of the lake and the Upper river to changes in LULC patterns, the stakeholder group ranked land conservation measures as the most important and most urgent management strategies for the Spring Lake – Sink Creek watershed. The specific management measures that may be used to preserve or improve the water quality of Spring Lake and the Upper San Marcos River depends upon future stakeholder involvement in the decision making-processes.The Spring Lake Watershed Characterization and Management Recommendations Final Report was funded through the Nonpoint Source Protection Program, Clean Water Act and completed in December, 2012. This study and its resulting report was an important precursor to the watershed protection planning efforts in the Upper San Marcos River watershed. 3.0 Watershed Characteristics3.1 Physical and Natural FeaturesThe San Marcos River is spring-fed and receives periodic inputs of rainwater from four major tributaries. The River joins the Blanco River’s flow just outside of the study area and then meets the Guadalupe River in Gonzales, Texas. These combined rivers flow into the San Antonio Bay in the Gulf of Mexico ( REF _Ref385410646 \h Figure 5). The San Marcos River is divided into Upper and lower segments. The Upper San Marcos River segment (Segment 1814) is 4.5 miles long and extends from its headwaters at San Marcos Springs in San Marcos, Texas to its confluence with the Blanco River (Guadalupe-Blanco River Authority [GBRA], 2012). The Upper San Marcos River is a tributary of the Guadalupe River (Edwards Aquifer). The southern San Antonio segment of the Edwards Aquifer underlies San Marcos Springs and the Upper San Marcos River (Hays County Commissioners Court, Edwards Aquifer). The Upper San Marcos River has an average width of 30 feet and the land area within the watershed has an average elevation of 574 feet above sea level (TPWD, 1974). The river is known for its high clarity and relatively constant flow rates and temperatures (Saunders et al., August 2001). It is a very popular source for water recreation activities including: swimming, tubing, boating, canoeing, kayaking, snorkeling, SCUBA diving, and fishing. Due to the river’s high biodiversity and presence of a number of endemic and endangered species, the USFWS designated the San Marcos Springs and Spring Lake as critical habitat.Figure SEQ Figure \* ARABIC 5. Project area within the Guadalupe River BasinSpring Lake forms the headwaters of the Upper San Marcos River and is an ecologically unique spring-fed ecosystem. The lake is a horseshoe-shaped water body with two main regions: the Spring Arm to the North and the Slough Arm to the South. Most of the hydrological inputs to Spring Lake occur from spring openings in the Spring Arm. Sink Creek, the lake’s only significant surface water tributary, discharges into the Slough Arm of the lake (Nowlin and Shwartz, 2012). Spring water that fills the lake comes from the Edwards Aquifer and flows to the surface through approximately 200 springs. This spring system is the second most productive in the state and it is the primary source of flows to the San Marcos River. Flows from these springs are of vital importance to San Marcos and surrounding communities, as well as to the aquatic life in the lake and river. Figure SEQ Figure \* ARABIC 6. Upper San Marcos River and tributaries3.2 Habitat The Upper San Marcos Watershed is part of the Blackland Prairies Ecoregion, which consists of perennial and annual grasses and is dominated by oak, hackberry, pecan, elm and other trees. Vegetation within the watershed is characteristic of much of the Texas Hill Country. Thin topsoils (10-30 cm) and semi-arid conditions lead to relatively sparse vegetation cover. Texas oak (Quercus buckleyi), lacey oak (Quercus laceyi) and ashe juniper (Juniperus ashei), and are the dominant trees in more upland positions in the landscape. In the riparian zone and in the floodplain there are stands of black willow (Salix nigra), bald cypress (Taxodium distichum), sycamore (Platanus occidentalis), and pecan (Carya illinoinensis). Grass communities within the watershed are composed of multiple species, including little bluestem (Schizachyrium scoparium), hairy grama (Bouteloua hirsuta), side oats grama (Bouteloua curtipendula), Texas wintergrass (Stipa leucotricha), white tridens (Tridens muticus), Texas cupgrass (Eriochloa sericea), tall dropseed (Sporobolus asper), and seep muhly (Muhlenbergia reverchonii) (Riskind and Diamond, 1986).3.3 Wildlife, Aquatic Life, Endangered SpeciesDue to the relatively large spring water influence, Spring Lake and the Upper river reaches are characterized by clear water, abundant and productive macrophytes and a relatively large number of endemic and native species. Spring Lake and the Upper sections of the river exhibit nearly constant seasonal flows and water temperatures of around 22oC; this relative environmental constancy has led to a high number of endemic species in the headwaters. However, the potential sensitivity of the headwaters to environmental perturbation, and the limited geographic range of many of the spring-adapted organisms, have led to the designation of a large number of federally- and state-listed taxa in the headwaters of the San Marcos River. The river is home to 56 fish species, including 44 native species, and 8 endangered wildlife species (Saunders et al. 2001). Endangered species include the San Marcos salamander (Eurycea nana), Texas blind salamander (Typhlomolge rathburni), Texas wild rice (Zizania texana), the fountain darter (Etheostoma fonticola), the San Marcos Gambusia (Gambusia georgei), the Comal Springs riffle beetle (Heterelmis comalensis) and Dryopid Beetle (Stygoparnus comalensis), and the Peck’s Cave Amphipod (Stygobromus pecki), all of which are present in the headwaters and within the Edwards Aquifer immediately below Spring Lake, and are listed by US Fish and Wildlife Service as endangered. The Guadalupe roundnose minnow (Dionda nigrotaeniata) and the bigclaw river shrimp (Macrobrachium carcinus) also occur in the headwaters and have been identified by the Texas Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy as species of “high priority” for conservation. These species are sensitive to pollution and rely on suitable flows for survival, including constant, cooler temperatures made possible through springflows into the Upper reaches of the system. Almost all of the concerns with endangered and threatened species come from the aquatic organisms associated with the groundwater, lake, and river. Of the threatened and endangered species, the fountain darter and Texas wild rice have both been used as focus organisms in restoration and mitigation actions in the Edwards Aquifer Recovery Implementation Plan (EARIP). Efforts to manage river flows and optimize the availability of high-quality habitat have been centered on the requirements of these two endangered species (). In particular, preservation of water quality may be critical for recovery of the fountain darter and Texas wild rice because growth and reproduction of both species is affected by temperature (Bonner et al., 1998; Trolley-Jordan and Power, 2007). 3.4 ClimateSan Marcos has a mean annual rainfall of 33.75 inches and water temperatures averaging 22°C (Edwards Aquifer HCP, 2013). REF _Ref384651779 \h \* MERGEFORMAT Figure 7 below depicts precipitation in inches from 1980-2010 throughout Willow Springs, Purgatory, Sessom, and Sink Creeks. Figure SEQ Figure \* ARABIC 7. Study Area precipitation from 1980 - 2010 (TNRIS)The climate in the central Texas region can be categorized as semi-arid. During the period of 1946-2011, the mean annual total precipitation was 945 mm (37.2 inches) and the mean annual air temperature is 20.3°C (68.5 °F) at the City of San Marcos (COSM) [National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Station ID TX417983]. However, temperatures vary greatly between seasons, with long periods of hot, dry weather. The annual gross lake surface evaporation in this region is estimated to be between 1524-1651 mm (60-65 inches) (TWDB, 2007). Historically, this region is prone to drought; however, Central Texas is also known to experience a great deal of inter-annual and decadal variability in climatic conditions, which can affect the availability of water resources and subsequent ground water discharge from the Edwards Aquifer (Cox et al., 2009). 3.5 HydrologyPerennial discharge from the artesian springs in the Edwards Aquifer into Spring Lake is relatively constant. Precipitation in the watershed can greatly impact the flow, making this a dual-system that relies on both surface and groundwater to function. Rainfall in this region can vary greatly in frequency, duration and intensity. The intensity and duration of rain events can have a great impact on discharge ( REF _Ref385411041 \h Figure 8). Figure SEQ Figure \* ARABIC 8. Discharge and precipitation data for San Marcos River between January 2009 and May 20133.6 Topography The Upper San Marcos watershed is located along the edge of the Balcones Escarpment, resulting in varied topography ( REF _Ref385365226 \h \* MERGEFORMAT Figure 9). The highest elevations are located at the western portion of the Purgatory and Sink Creek watersheds. Moving eastward through the watershed, the topography slopes downward, reaching the lowest elevations at the San Marcos River, the ultimate destination for runoff for all of the subbasins. Figure SEQ Figure \* ARABIC 9. Topography within the study area3.7 Geology and Soils3.7.1 Karst FeaturesThe Upper San Marcos River watershed is located upon and along the margin of the Edwards Plateau region of the Texas Hill Country. The topography is hilly with karstic terrain. These karst features serve as recharge areas for the Edwards, Edwards-Trinity, and Trinity Aquifers. The Edwards Aquifer is composed of porous limestone 300-700 feet thick. The Edwards Aquifer is composed of several zones, including the contributing, recharge, transition, and artesian zones ( REF _Ref424590738 \* MERGEFORMAT Figure 10).Figure SEQ Figure \* ARABIC 10. The Edwards Aquifer in Central Texas, showing the Contributing, Recharge, and Confined ZonesThe western portion of the aquifer (the San Antonio segment) forms an approximate 150 mile arc from Brackettville (Kinney County) to Kyle (Hays County). North of the San Antonio segment is a groundwater divide that separates the San Antonio segment from other segments, such as the Barton Springs segment. During drought periods or during low aquifer levels, some groundwater can be exchanged between segments (Hunt et al., 2006). Limestone is porous by nature, allowing water to flow through it. In areas with significant limestone outcrops there will be more recharge or artesian activity, depending on relative elevation. Recharge features such as caves and sinks are vulnerable to pollution and impervious cover, as these are the features where rainwater flows underground and replenishes the aquifer ( REF _Ref385411561 Figure 11, REF _Ref424590982 Figure 12). That water has the potential to resurface in the San Marcos Springs and serve as baseflow to the San Marcos River. Figure SEQ Figure \* ARABIC 11. Diagram of surface water recharge to groundwater (courtesy of Topher Sipes)Figure SEQ Figure \* ARABIC 12. Karstic cave areas which have recharge potential (TWDB)3.7.2 SpringsSpring Lake and San Marcos Springs are located along the Transition/Artesian zone of the aquifer. The springs within the lake are artesian in nature and are a result of confined flow within the aquifer. There are hundreds of spring “openings” in the lake, but the springs generally form “complexes” or groupings in different portions of the lake. These include named springs such as Weismuller Spring, Diversion Spring, Deep Hole, Catfish Hotel, Cabomba, Salt and Pepper, Hotel, and Cream of Wheat. Due to the complex nature of the flows within the karstic aquifer, the precise origin and age of waters emerging from the various springs is not well understood; however, there is information on the general flow paths of water emerging from the springs. The recharge and transition zones lie on and follow the large Balcones Fault Zone (BFZ), which is a complex series of roughly parallel faults forming a zone between the deep artesian zone and the shallower recharge zone (See Appendix A.3 Soils and Karst for more information). 3.7.3 SubstratesThe headwaters of the Upper San Marcos River flow from karstic limestone rock openings in the Edwards Aquifer. The headwaters are dammed at Spring Lake. The lake varies in depth and has a substrate of silt and sand, with occasional rock outcrops. The geomorphology is directly related to the location of spring openings and their velocity. Once in the main stem of the river below the dam, there are a variety of run, backwater, and riffle mesohabitats. The river morphology consists of gravel, sand and cobble substrates. The Upper stream segment from Rio Vista Dam to Spring Lake Dam has the habitat of mostly runs and pools. The Upper stream has primarily sand and small gravel. The morphology was characterized historically as run-type mesohabitats that were fast shallow to moderately deep and slow. However, the implementation of flood control structures, mainly dams, have affected the flow of the river, causing major siltation problems and run habitats with sandy, gravel bottoms, and swift currents. Below Rio Vista Dam the mesohabitats primarily consist of runs with sand, small gravel, silt, and clay (Saunders, 2001).3.7.4 Soils and SiltationFigure SEQ Figure \* ARABIC 13. NPS TSS observed at Spring Lake after the Halloween 2013 flood The majority of the modeled area is composed of Comfort and Bracket series that contain multiple types of soil (Nowlin and Schwartz, 2012). These soils are characterized as permeable, have shallow rooting depths, and are located in areas with undulating hills and steep slopes. Due to the shallow depths and topography, erosion of topsoil is a common issue. Moreover, the hydraulic conveyance of the limestone increases the underlying aquifer’s sensitivity to nonpoint source pollution. When major rain events occur in the tributaries the water changes color drastically as suspended solids are transported downstream as seen in REF _Ref385514383 \h Figure 13 above. This photograph illustrates the demarcation of blue water comprised of spring flow from the San Marcos Springs from the turbid brown water which flows into the Slough Arm of lake from Sink Creek.Texas State University Campus Storm Water Drainage Study and Plan (Bury, 2013) shows that erosion which results in siltation and increased total suspended solids occur in 3 identified drainage areas (Gorge, Matthews St. and the Glade) on the university campus which are located in SMWI Subwatersheds 10 and 23. See the Addendum II. Campus Storm Water Drainage Plan and Study for more information. The Gorge is part of Subwatershed 10 in Sessom Creek Watershed, and Matthews St and the Glade are in Subwatershed 23 in Purgatory Creek Watershed. 4.0 Watershed Geography – Land UseLand use in the entire watershed is dominated by rangeland and undeveloped land. Dense urbanization occurs in the southeastern portion of the watershed ( REF _Ref396206273 \h Figure 14), and is spreading westward along established transportation routes. Much of the urbanized area is residential, but there is also commercial, and a small portion of industrial lands in the southern section of the city. Land cover in the watershed is dominated by forest and grassland, but in the southeastern portion of the watershed which is within city limits, there are dense transportation routes, buildings, parking lots and driveways ( REF _Ref424591626 Figure 15). See Appendix B. Land Use and Land Cover of the Major Tributaries for more details. Impervious cover associated with urban land uses can intensify and exacerbate the contributions of nonpoint source pollution. REF _Ref385413232 Figure 16 below shows that urban land uses/land cover have the highest contribution of impervious cover and are located primarily in the Southeastern portion of the watershed.Figure SEQ Figure \* ARABIC 14. Existing study area land useFigure SEQ Figure \* ARABIC 15. Existing study area land coverFigure SEQ Figure \* ARABIC 16. Modeled existing impervious coverDevelopment in the Upper San Marcos watershed is expected to increase, converting from traditionally low-impact land uses to more intense urban developments (Nowlin and Scwartz, 2012). There are some government ordinances and regulations in place to protect water quality (see Addendum V. Laws and Ordinances), but a review of the effectiveness of these laws is required to understand their role in the success of protecting water quality. Predicted future land cover and land use was developed to allow modeling and estimation of future pollutant loads in the watershed. This future growth scenario was a combination of the preferred scenario and the trend scenario for the year 2035. The preferred scenario was developed during a Comprehensive Master Planning process at the City of San Marcos in 2013. The trend scenario is derived from current growth projected out if it were to continue on its established trajectory (currently platted/permitted development). This full scenario is a combination of these two possibilities. REF _Ref396206273 \h \* MERGEFORMAT Figure 14 above shows the existing watershed land use, while REF _Ref396214406 \h \* MERGEFORMAT Figure 17 below shows the land use of the watershed in full build out scenario. Land use and land cover associated with expected future development are shown in REF _Ref396214698 \h \* MERGEFORMAT Figure 18 and REF _Ref396214698 Figure 18. Residential and commercial land uses are predicted to increase by a combined 5% between 2013 and 2035. Small decreases also are predicted in crop land, undeveloped land and rangeland ( REF _Ref424032363 Figure 19). These land use and land cover changes will be coupled with increases in impervious cover.Figure SEQ Figure \* ARABIC 17. Future land useFigure SEQ Figure \* ARABIC 18. Future land coverFigure SEQ Figure \* ARABIC 19. Percentages of land use in existing (2013) and full (2035) development scenarios5.3 Partner Activities and InitiativesThere are many concurrent activities that impact water quality protection in the watershed. These are described in the following sections and REF _Ref424592519 \* MERGEFORMAT Figure 25 provides a timeline of these activities, many of which overlap. This watershed protection planning endeavor will utilize and account for ongoing and future efforts to protect water quality in the watershed.Figure SEQ Figure \* ARABIC 25. Schedule of concurrent water quality protection activities5.3.1 Habitat Conservation Plan In addition to its critical habitat designation, the City of San Marcos participates in the Edwards Aquifer Habitat Conservation Plan (EAHCP) and Hays County Habitat Conservation Plan (HCHCP) (Saunders et al., 2001; City of San Marcos, 2013). The EAHCP involves several components in San Marcos including: bank stabilization, constructing river access areas, planting native trees and shrubs along the river, and invasive species removal (City of San Marcos, 2013). The HCP will help provide adequate habitat for the endangered golden-cheeked warbler (Dendroica chrysoparia), the black-capped vireo (Vireo atricapilla), and several aquatic species, as well as protect the surrounding areas that drain into the Edwards Aquifer and San Marcos River to help preserve water quality and quantity.5.3.2 Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) As a result of the 2010 census, the City of San Marcos was listed as an urbanized area, meaning that in the University and City are required to have a TCEQ Municipal Separate Storm Sewer (MS4) permit, which is part of the City’s and University’s Storm Water Management Plan. This permit allows training, inspections, and public awareness about the dangers of runoff pollution. More importantly are the elimination of illicit discharge, structural control inspections, and maintenance for stormwater runoff. In addition, it allows Texas State University to monitor more carefully the quality of the Upper San Marcos River (Texas State University, n.d.). The program has developed several educational and water quality management efforts and has identified all of the stormwater outfalls on the Texas State University Campus ( REF _Ref385514263 \h \* MERGEFORMAT Figure 26). Figure SEQ Figure \* ARABIC 26. Texas State University MS4 stormwater outfalls5.3.3 City of San Marcos ActivitiesComprehensive Watershed Master Plan: The City of San Marcos Comprehensive Watershed Master Plan will assess creek and river flooding issues, localized drainage problems, creek and river erosion issues, and incorporate water quality protection measures in the development of a 20-year Drainage Improvements Capital Improvements Program. This effort will also evaluate funding options, consider regional stormwater management program fee-in-lieu opportunities, and provide regulatory input into the ongoing Land Development Code revision process. The plan works in concert with the Guadalupe Blanco River Authority (GBRA) basin-wide floodplain study and the preparation of mitigation alternatives. Due to delays in the GBRA study, an interim Master Plan is anticipated to be complete by the Fall of 2015 with a final plan following the conclusion of the GBRA study. COSM Comprehensive Plan: Vision San Marcos: A River Runs Through Us, a Comprehensive Master Plan, was adopted by the City of San Marcos City Council on April 16, 2013 following over a year of public outreach and involvement. The Plan directs anticipated growth over the next 30 years towards areas determined most suitable for development based on analysis of existing land uses, available infrastructure, environmental factors and significant public input. In addition to directing growth, the Plan uses a framework of Vision, Goals and Objectives to formulate a statement of community values and aspirations with specific measurable objectives set by six stakeholder committees: Economic Development, Environment and Resource Protection, Land Use, Neighborhoods and Housing, Parks, Public Spaces and Facilities, and Transportation. More information about the Plan is available at: Vision San Marcos: A River Runs Through Us.5.3.4 County ActivitiesHays County also has been involved with the preservation of water quality. The county lends support to two other WPPs that fall within its boundaries and has implemented several best management practices to protect water quality. The County coordinates with the Hays Trinity Groundwater Conservation District (HTGCD) and the Lower Colorado River Authority (LCRA) on activities ranging from drought planning to water supply management. 5.3.5 WQPPThe draft Water Quality Protection Plan (WQPP) assesses the City of San Marcos’ and Texas State University’s water quality impacts to the Upper San Marcos River and watershed. The WQPP addresses both surface water and groundwater, as both provide habitat for the endangered species and covers a significant portion of the SMWI WPP’s defined watershed area. The WQPP process included direction and participation by Texas State University and the City of San Marcos (per the HCP), as well as collaboration with the SMWI WPP process. The final WQPP includes recommendations to preserve endangered aquatic species’ habitats outlined in the HCP, water quality protection standards, description and prioritization of protection measures, and the identification of potential retrofit structures for the treatment of existing untreated runoff. The WQPP will include recommendations for potential revisions to the City Land Development Code (LDC) and the Stormwater Technical Manual. A small portion of the scope includes the review of proposed development projects including City of San Marcos Capital Improvement Projects (CIPs). WQPP BMPs will mitigate multiple pollutants and parameters, but uses total suspended sediment and total phosphorus as the parameters for design criteria. Stormwater discharges of phosphorus, especially soluble reactive phosphorus (SRP), can cause significant water quality impairment to receiving waters (Geosyntec, et al., 2010). Particulate phosphorus is also a concern because organic particulate phosphorus can be broken down and eventually converted to orthophosphates by bacteria (Geosyntec, et al., 2010). Thus, Total Phosphorus (TP), which includes both soluble and particulate phases, is recommended as the indicator of nutrient impacts. TSS is also analyzed and considered in WQPP management measures as sediment can adversely affect habitat and water quality clarity. Thus, design for both total phosphorus and total suspended solids in new water quality treatment measures will address most pollutants and their potential impacts. The WQPP will be a living, dynamic plan that will be implemented, adapted and revised in future years as circumstances and funding allow. Management measures outlined in the MS4 permits, the City Comprehensive Plan, and the Texas State University drainage plan will be considered in the implementation of WQPP recommendations. Further, WQPP efforts will be aligned, to the extent possible with WPP activities to ensure that monitoring, education and outreach and BMP implementation are as effective as possible.6.3.1 Comparison of TDS and Conductivity DataSMWI stakeholders addressed concerns and provided input regarding TDS in the Upper San Marcos River, namely that the derivation of the TDS values by converting specific conductivity may provide an inaccurate assessment of Upper San Marcos River water quality. The calcium and carbonate ions from this aquifer may naturally elevate the level of TDS in the water, and if so, the stakeholders would like to investigate if the current standard and conversion are appropriate for this particular water body. WPP activities will include an analysis of TDS constituents to determine the chemical composition. This will provide detailed information about the origins of the dissolved solids and if they are naturally occurring.GBRA and the Meadows Center collected TDS and conductivity measurements to confirm the impairment and recommend a site-specific conversion factor that can be used to more accurately estimate the TDS in this segment of the river (GBRA, 2012). Direct TDS measured in a laboratory and conductivity measurements taken in the field were compared at six sites along the Upper San Marcos River. REF _Ref415480728 \* MERGEFORMAT Figure 28 shows the variation between these methods. TDS measurements were taken at each site and measured in the laboratory, using a standard protocol (Standard Method2540C). Results for all six sites are well below the recommended 400 mg/L (blue bars). A conductivity meter (Standard Method 2510, methods/method_summary/5702/) was used to collect conductivity at each of the six sites and each reading was at least 600 umhos/cm (dark red bars). The conductivity measurements were then converted to TDS using the standard conversion factor of 0.65, and the resulting TDS measurement for each site is higher than direct TDS measurement and is much closer to the 400 mg/L maximum (green bars). Higher TDS conversion results may have skewed the historical average of collected data towards maximum of of 400 mg/L, leading to the listing of an impairment. The relationship between conductivity and TDS in the Upper San Marcos river appears to be closer to 0.55. It is suggested that the factor to convert conductivity to TDS should be studied further, and pending study results, data monitoring protocols should be altered accordingly (Please see Addendum III.5 for additional information).Figure SEQ Figure \* ARABIC 28. Comparison of average TDS and conductivity from data collected during this WPP process6.3.2 Groundwater and Stormwater Contributions to TDSThe San Marcos system has shown an inverse relationship between peak discharge from rain events and TDS, which indicates that rainfall runoff is low in TDS and spring water has higher concentrations of TDS. REF _Ref385520568 \h \* MERGEFORMAT Figure 29 below shows specific conductance data for a site monitored in the Slough Arm of Spring Lake. Discharge at the USGS San Marcos River site is also shown. Note that specific conductance changes are dominated by daily and storm events. Additionally, there is a general increase in specific conductivity during the summer months. This is likely from evaporative effects, which would result in increased concentrations of TDS (reduced total available water). Storm responses are characterized by significant decreases in conductance. Sudden spikes in in discharge are related to runoff associated with storm events, while longer term increases in discharge are attributed to increases in groundwater discharge resulting from increases recharge in the Edwards Aquifer after single storm events or periods of rain (Nowlin and Schwartz, 2012).Figure SEQ Figure \* ARABIC 29. TDS (Specific conductance converted [SpC]) and discharge from 2010 - 2012 in the Slough Arm of Spring Lake6.4 Permitted Point SourcesPoint source pollution is from a discrete, discernable source, such as effluent from a water treatment plant or concentrated animal feeding operation (USEPA, n.d. [b]). Discharge from a point source is permitted by TCEQ and is subject to standards set by section 502 (14) of the federal Clean Water Act. Each permit varies depending on the source; however, the permit holder must routinely monitor the amount and quality of their outflow. There are two point sources along the Upper San Marcos River ( REF _Ref385413429 \h \* MERGEFORMAT Figure 30): the San Marcos Waste Water Treatment Plant (WWTP) and the A.E. Wood State Fish Hatchery. These point sources are respectively located in Subbasins 32 and 33 downstream of Thompson’s Island, and discharge into the main stem of the river between IH-35 and the confluence with the Blanco River, in the Willow Springs Creek subbasin (GBRA, 2012).6.4.1 Wastewater Treatment PlantThe San Marcos WWTP adheres to strict water quality regulations and has been rated superior by the State of Texas. The city receives the majority of its drinking water from surface water managed by Guadalupe Blanco River Authority. The surface water treatment plant that filters and provides drinking water for the city is owned by the City of San Marcos and operated by the GBRA. The wastewater treatment plant is owned by the City of San Marcos and operated by CH2MHill. Odor control improvements were completed in 2006, which reduced the odors emitted from the raw sewage by 99%. The treatment plant routinely monitors the effluent to ensure compliance of the permit standards ( REF _Ref384652860 \h Table 5). Table SEQ Table \* ARABIC 5. WWTP permitted effluent permits ParameterMaximumMonitoredDischarge9.0 MGDDailyTotal Suspended Solids (TSS)5.0 mg/LDailyDissolved Oxygen (DO)5.0 mg/LDailyCarbonaceous Biochemical Oxygen Demand (CBOD)5.0 mg/LDailyAmmonia nitrogen (NH3-N)2.0 mg/LDailyTotal Phosphorous (TP)1.0 mg/LDailyFigure SEQ Figure \* ARABIC 30. Point sources: A. E. Wood Fish Hatchery and San Marcos Waste Water Treatment Plant6.4.2 A.E. Wood Fish HatcheryThe Texas Parks and Wildlife Fish Hatchery currently operates under a general concentrated aquatic animal production permit, TXG130005, granted by TCEQ. This permit requires a daily flow measurement, TSS monitoring once per month, DO monitoring once per week, carbonaceous oxygen demand and ammonia level monitoring once per month. The standards are listed below in REF _Ref425682458 Table 6.ParameterMaximumMonitoredDischarge9 MGDDailyTotal Suspended Solids (TSS)90 mg/LOnce per MonthDissolved Oxygen (DO)5.0 mg/LOnce per Week Carbonaceous Biochemical Oxygen Demand (CBOD)250 lbs/dayOnce per MonthAmmonia (NH3)2.0 mg/LOnce per MonthTable SEQ Table \* ARABIC 6. A.E. Wood Fish Hatchery permitted effluent standardsThe Meadows Center for Water and the Environment obtained discharge data for both point sources from January 1, 2009 to May 30, 2013. The WWTP daily records include measurements of discharge, TSS, ammonia, E. coli, biochemical oxygen demand (BOD), nitrate, turbidity, DO, and total phosphorous. Data for the A. E. Wood Fish Hatchery includes average monthly estimates of discharge and daily amounts of TSS. A point source function was created within HSPF to account for and calibrate the amount and type of inflow from these sources.6.5 Areas of Vulnerability Modeling outputs identifying individual subbasins with water quality exceedances are presented in Section REF _Ref424669607 9.0 Nonpoint Source Pollution, Modeling Results and Reductions Required). Initial findings indicate that while urban development does increase pollution, the best management practices currently in place, coupled with the unique hydrology in the watershed, result, for the most part, in manageable pollutant loads in the main stem of the river. The percentage of urban land, even with the predicted full development is relatively small compared to undeveloped land. Further, the tributaries only provide flow during storm events and travel through primarily open lands. The water is then impounded behind flood control dams. It is likely that these dams allow sediment and pollutants to settle out from the water column and curtail the contribution of these pollutants to downstream reaches of the river. In the more urbanized portion of the watershed, nearly the entirety of the flow is comprised of spring water. At the confluence with the Blanco River, where water quality standards are measured, the river flow is primarily pristine spring water, and any influence of overland flow from tributaries is minimized. However, model outputs show exceedances in water quality standards in many subbasins in the urban portion of the watershed, as can be seen in the in Section 9.0. Management measures will be necessary in these subbasins to protect water quality. The Meadows Center sought input from the SMWI Subcommittees and Core Committee to determine areas of vulnerability in the watershed. Each Subcommittee was first asked to identify concerns and threats to water quality in the watershed based on their area of expertise. They were then asked to rank or prioritize their identified concerns/threats within the watershed to determine the top 5 concerns or threats. These top five lists were then compiled to determine overlapping concerns/threats as seen in tables in Addendum I. Stakeholder Priorities of Concern. Results of the stakeholders perceived watershed vulnerabilities and general findings from water quality modeling efforts are summarized below.6.5.1 Rural AreasA majority of the Upper San Marcos River watershed is largely undeveloped. Small acreage agricultural/ranching lots and low density suburban development are the dominant land uses in the rural, non-urbanized areas of the watershed. Concerns/threats in these areas include pollution contributions from stormwater runoff from domestic and wildlife waste, fertilizers associated with agriculture/ranching operations and residential applications used in subdivisions. Contributing to this are gaps in policy regarding proper maintenance of agricultural lands and riparian areas. Tributaries in the rural portion of the basin only provide flow during storm events and travel through primarily open lands. The water is then impounded behind flood control dams. It is likely that these dams allow sediment and pollutants to settle out from the water column, mitigating pollutants from storm flow in some areas of the watershed. However, some of these pollutants may enter the aquifer and contaminate groundwater supplies that later reemerge as source water in Spring Lake and other spring fed systems. Future development in rural areas may impact karst recharge features, potentially limiting infiltration of stormwater into the aquifer or increasing the infiltration of nonpoint source pollutants into groundwater supplies.6.75.2 Urbanized AreasWhile the subbasins of the Upper San Marcos River are largely rural, the main stem of the river lies within the City of San Marcos. This section of the river (and its riparian areas and subbasins) was identified as the most vulnerable area of the watershed due to its proximity to residential, commercial, and industrial land uses, and transportation corridors, as well as its use for recreation. Stormflows are the primary concern in urban areas as they carry pollution from impervious cover associated with these land uses at increased loadings and velocity. Increased velocity of stormflow from impervious cover contributes to bank erosion. Recreation in the main stem exacerbates the existing effects of urbanization. Tens, if not hundreds of thousands of people recreate in and along the banks of the San Marcos River each year. Recreation brings increased pollution from trash, increased sedimentation, substrate and habitat damage and increased bank erosion. Riparian zones of the main stem and tributaries where vegetation and stream banks are threatened by recreation access are also of concern.10. Recommendations10.1 Potential BMPs for ImplementationPotential BMPs for implementation at the regional level were selected for review based on the parameter of concern, load reduction required and rank from the stakeholder BMP ranking process (which evaluated effectiveness, cost, longevity, and other factors described in the BMP ranking methodology at the beginning of this document). BMP appropriateness also was considered for each land use and land cover category contributing significant overland flow of pollutants. BMPs recommended by the City’s WQPP efforts were given priority and ranked highest by stakeholders, as the measures have been carefully studied and are expected to be implemented within the City’s WQPP effort boundaries. A comprehensive list of BMPs and associated load reductions will be presented in the WPP and a draft list is presented in Appendix M. Demonstration projects and BMPs that can mitigate water quality impairments are listed below in Sections 10.1.1. It is anticipated that many of these retrofits and BMPs will be implemented between 2015 and 2020. Section 10.1.2 summarizes the types and potential locations for BMPs and management activities that will be implemented in the future, as required by adaptive management. 10.1.1 Potential Water Quality Retrofits in the City of San Marcos and Texas State University CampusCity Stormwater Retrofit OpportunitiesTable SEQ Table \* ARABIC 54. City Of San Marcos stormwater retrofit BMPs*Project NameProject IDReceiving WatershedRecommended Water Quality Treatment MeasureWater Quality Protection PlanThe Big Ditch10061SMRBiofiltrationPurgatory Creek Greenspace10143PGYBiofiltrationWastewater Treatment Plant10573SMRBiofiltrationVeterans Memorial Park 110041SMRRain GardenDunbar Park10331PGYRainwater HarvestingThe Big Ditch Infiltration10062SMRBiofiltrationDowntown Retrofit Biofilter10351SMRMultipleSpring Lake Preserve10630SNKMultipleCity Park 510055SMRMultipleCity Park 710057SMRMultipleCity Park 110051SMRBiofiltrationHummingbird Hollow10250SSMRain GardenHopkins Channel 210291SMRBiofiltrationMariposa Street10550WSPBiofiltrationHopkins Channel 110292SMRExtended Detention (Dry)City Park 610056SMRExtended Detention (Dry)City Park 810058SMRBiofiltrationVeterans Memorial Park 210042SMRExtended Detention (Dry)City Park 410054SMRBiofiltrationCity Park 210052SMRExtended Detention (Dry)City Park 310053SMRBiofiltrationDowntown SmartCode Water Quality PlanSan Antonio Street at LBJ Drive2SMRInlet Retrofit – Filterra SystemSan Antonio and Guadalupe Street intersection3PGYBiofiltrationHutchinson, LBJ, Guadalupe, and Hopkins Block4SMRGreen AlleyCity Memorial Park/RR ROW(Big Ditch, see WQPP)32SMRBiofiltrationCity Library Parking Lot33SMRRain GardenCity Activity Center Parking Lot34SMRRain GardenWest end of Pat Garrison Street46PGYInlet Protection/PlanterLBJ at IH-35 Truck Stop51WSPGRain Garden/BiofiltrationSouth Guadalupe Street at IH-3554WSPGGreen Channel ConversionGuadalupe and LBJ Commercial Center64PGYRain GardenHutchinson Street at North Street68PGYDownspout DisconnectionCM Allen at Purgatory Creek100SMRBioretentionCity Hall at Hopkins Street101SMRRain GardenOther from City of San Marcos Engineering StaffCM Allen ParkwayASMRGreen StreetSessom Creek RestorationBSSMNatural Channel Restoration* From July 2015 Draft Water Quality Protection Plan Report, Draft Final Phase 2 Downtown SmartCode Water Quality Plan for the City of San Marcos, July 1, 2015, and the City of San Marcos Engineering Department.Texas State Stormwater Retrofit OpportunitiesTable SEQ Table \* ARABIC 55. Texas State University stormwater retrofit BMPs*Project Name*Project IDReceiving WatershedRecommended Water Quality Treatment MeasureWater Quality Protection PlanSessom Creek Wetpond 310233SSMWet PondSessom Creek Wetpond 210232SSMWet PondFish Ponds 310493SMRWet PondSessom Creek Wetpond 110231SSMWet PondFish Ponds 210492SMRWet PondFish Ponds 110491SMRWet PondThe Gulch 110431SSMBiofiltrationThe Gulch 210432SSMExtended Detention (Dry)Peques Street10450SSMBiofiltrationThe Glade 110441PGYBiofiltrationThe Glade 610446PGYMultipleThe Glade 510445PGYMultipleThe Glade 410444PGYBiofiltrationJowers Center 410474SMRMultipleThe Glade 710447PGYBiofiltrationThe Glade 310443PGYRain GardenThe Glade 210442PGYRain GardenJowers Center 210472SMRRainwater HarvestingJowers Center 110471SMRBiofiltrationJowers Center 310473SMRBiofiltrationTexas State Staff Identified SitesClear Springs Parking Lot1SMRPorous Pave SurfaceGolf Course Parking Lot2SMRPervious Paver SystemHolland Street Sidewalk3SMRPervious Paver SystemMeadows Center Parking Lot4SMRPervious Paver SystemMeadows Peninsula ADA Walking Paths5SMRPorous Pave SurfaceMoore Street Parking Lot6PGYPorous Pave SurfaceSewell Canoe Launch7SMRPervious Paver SystemSmith House Parking Lot8PGYPorous Pave SurfaceSouth Stadium Drainage Improvements9SMRPorous Pave Surface* From July 2015 Draft Water Quality Protection Plan Report and sites identified by Texas State University staff.10.1.2 Potential Future BMPs (BMP Adaptive Management Toolbox)Management measures at the city and university level related to MS4 and HCP activities also will have pollution reduction effects. The City’s anticipated changes in land development codes to incorporate green infrastructure has the potential to further mitigate nonpoint source pollution. Although their pollution reduction potential cannot be calculated at this time, these ongoing efforts will result in the implementation of many BMPs in subbasins within the boundaries/jurisdiction of the WQPP, City Land Development Code MS4 and HCP activities. Further, modeling efforts associated with this WCR do not account for the current TCEQ and San Marcos water quality regulations in the recharge zone. If the City adopts an even higher standard of regulatory requirements, there could decreases in expected water quality degradation. Thus, future modeling can be used as a management tool to assess different options to define the least costly efforts required to meet water quality goals in the WPP. REF _Ref425944546 \h \* MERGEFORMAT Table 56 provides an example of stakeholder identified BMPs that could be implemented in the future as development continues in the watershed. A more comprehensive list and known load reductions can be found in Appendix M.Table SEQ Table \* ARABIC 56. Watershed-wide measures that are applicable in all sub-basinsWatershed Wide BMPsFor Urban ApplicationsFor Rural ApplicationsBoth Rural and Urban ApplicationsRainwater sensor incentiveLand trustMonitoring BMPs for effectivenessStormwater retrofit programConservation easementsWater conservation strategiesWater conservation strategiesFeral hog removal measuresConstruction sediment managementPromotion of compact developmentGroundwater protection strategiesEducation and outreachLow impact development/green infrastructureDeer population control measuresChemical disposal and storageWater-intensive turf grass regulationLandowner incentive programsRiparian setbacksPreservation of natural featuresReduction of impervious coverAlternative brush control- prescribed burnsSustainable site designHabitat conservation areasCurbside recycling program in ETJAgricultural and Ranch Land Management Tool Box BMPsLandscape mulchingXeriscaping/nativescapingTree protectionImproved BMP performance standardsImproved buffer zone requirementsBMP requirements for water quality zonesFee-in-lieu and cost recoveryPromotion of watershed stewardshipDevelopment of more accurate EMCsAnalysis of watershed wide contributions of pollutants from recreation10.2 Stakeholder Recommendations and Next StepsIn conjunction with the watershed characterization efforts resulting in this report, the stakeholders have begun to draft a comprehensive WPP that includes concurrent, complimentary water quality protection activities in the watershed. This comprehensive, voluntary and stakeholder-driven plan will assist in the management of surface water resources in the Upper San Marcos River watershed. The WPP will address the listed impairment (5c) for Total Dissolved Solids (TDS), as well as E. coli, nutrients, sediment and other pollutants associated with future growth and development and will include:Structural BMPs for new developments and retrofits for existing developmentDemonstration projects to encourage adoption of water quality protection practicesEducation and outreach strategies to prevent NPS pollution, increase awareness of WPP activities and increase compliance with new water quality protection regulations, ordinances and best practices Non-structural management measures including land management strategies and preservation of undeveloped land Analysis and improvement of Codes & Regulations impacting water qualityInformation gathering and monitoring to address remaining water quality data gaps. The SMWI Stakeholders selected a suite of best management practices (BMPs) to mitigate current, as well as future potential water quality impairments in the watershed. A subset of the BMPs was prioritized for immediate implementation, while others will be implemented over a number of years, as required to mitigate nonpoint source pollution from future development and other activities in the watershed. The first Implementation Phase will include water quality monitoring, demonstration projects, BMPs, education and outreach activities, land conservation activities and improvements to water quality protection ordinances. Milestones will be used to track the WPP implementation progress in years 1 through 5.Ecosystem ServicesThe San Marcos River is the defining component to the City of San Marcos as well as its citizens, institutions, and local business communities. Much of the quality of life experienced within the city boundaries and downstream is due to the relatively pristine nature of the clear flowing waters that originate in Spring Lake. The recharge zone and contributing upper watershed portions of the river basin are key hydrologic factors that afford continued superior water quality and quantity that generate the ecosystem services made available by the San Marcos River. Measures taken to ensure the health of the San Marcos River will in turn assist the health of the local economy.Ecosystem services (ES) is a framework that categorizes the services generated from the ecosystems of nature. These same services were most likely what made the area attractive to previous inhabitants of the springs thousands of years ago. More recently this concept was made popular when the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment was published in 2005. Currently the ES framework is being adopted and improved upon as nations, leaders, policy makers, and economists around the world attempt to better account for and manage natural resources. Natural capital is a similar term used to describe the components of nature that we as humans depend upon for life but have difficulty quantifying and representing in our daily transactions of economy. Recognizing the impending rapid development over the next twenty years (COSM, 2013), it is beneficial to adopt the ES framework that deals with tradeoffs and considers scenarios of resource use and landscape change (Brauman et al., 2007). This portion of the WCR will generate the reasoning for including the ES of the San Marcos river into the WPP to highlight the connection between the local economy, the local community, and the health of the San Marcos River.Figure SEQ Figure \* ARABIC 1. The nature and value of ecosystem services: an overview highlighting hydrologic services. (Brauman, 2007)I. San Marcos River ESThe San Marcos River and surrounding watershed benefit the community by contributing water of exceptional quality and available quantity ( REF _Ref425433372 \h Figure 1). However, the river also contributes an estimated $12.9 million to the local economy annually. The recreational uses associated with the San Marcos River provide unique opportunities to visitors and residents alike throughout the changing seasons of the year. The TWDB estimates there are 375,000 people who visit the San Marcos River and the Greater San Marcos Economic Development Council estimate 500,000 people visit annually with the heaviest usage rates during the summer months when people escape the seasonal heat by swimming, tubing, and boating in the river. Holiday weekends also experience a great increase of visitors when people crowd the banks of the river to grill and celebrate. All year long avid canoers, kayakers, and fisherpeople explore the waterways. Special events like the Texas Water Safari and Texas Wild Rice Festival attract people every year (Halff, 2010). An analysis of the ES of the San Marcos River will be characterized using examples of key contributing economic components of the City tied most directly to the river as well as growth numbers, tax revenue generated, and the quality of life tied to San Marcos as a “river town”.As the City of San Marcos continues to grow, so will the number of people benefiting from the ecosystem services made available by the San Marcos River. A WPP that acknowledges the existing ES contributing to the local economy is better equipped to ensure that current and future ES are protected and managed, thereby helping maintain the health of the San Marcos river, the local community, and the local economy. II. Protection Now vs. Rehabilitation LaterProtection of existing ES is almost always less expensive than restoration of a damaged system. Nature is resilient so that rehabilitation is less expensive than restoration. Furthermore, restoration is not always a viable or realistic option especially in areas dominated by intense development. It is most cost effective to protect and preserve what ES exist, and smart development in a limited area with large swaths of open land would function as a trade-off scenario. One example includes the function of a riparian buffer which provides a natural ability to filter pollution runoff. This can be compared to the cost of treating water downstream. This WPP should promote preserving and rehabilitating as much filtering landscape as possible as it is more cost effective and promotes biodiversity and connectivity. (Gomez-Baggethun, et al., 2013).Ecosystem Services References Brauman, K. A., Daily, G. C., Duarte, T. K. E., & Mooney, H. A. (2007). The nature and value of ecosystem services: an overview highlighting hydrologic services.?Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour.,?32, 67-98.City of San Marcos. 2013. Vision San Marcos: A River Runs Through Us. San Marcos, TX.Halff. 2010. Initial Study on the Recreational Impacts to Protect Species and Habitats in the Comal and San Marcos Springs Ecosystems. Prepared for the Edwards Aquifer Recovery Implementation Plan. November, 2010. (). Accessed March, 2014.Gómez-Baggethun, Erik, and David N. Barton. 2013. Classifying and valuing ecosystem services for urban planning.?Ecological Economics?86: 235-245.The Unique Culture of the Upper San Marcos WatershedI. Current CultureThe present day culture in and around the San Marcos River watershed is a diverse mix of local residents and a large and ever-growing, transient student population. During the early 2000’s, the enrollment of the local university population increased dramatically, leading to an increased transient student population. This trend has also had a significant impact on recent development, especially in the student housing industry. While there is a stable residential population, the semester-by-semester fluctuation of students has a significant impact on the local culture and economy. The City of San Marcos has more than 1,700 acres of parks and natural areas, which supply plenty of opportunities for outdoor recreational activities. From tubing, kayaking, canoeing, snorkeling, fishing, weekend or holiday picnics, or using one of the many sports fields, the culture in San Marcos is one that celebrates the outdoors. San Marcos also offers a quality shopping experience; from its historic downtown local shops and weekly Farmers Market to the famous Outlet Malls that attracts a huge number of visitors every year. There is a thriving night life, as well as a solid local music scene that truly adds to the character of San Marcos. Being a place that has one of the most pristine rivers running through it, it is hard to not find cultural traits that have a direct relationship to the water. This is why it is so important to make sure that the river’s unique ecosystem and watershed receives the proper attention and protection. II. Historical Human-Environment Relationships The San Marcos River has provided resources and shelter to humans for over 13,000 years. American Indians were drawn to the freshwater springs at the river’s headwaters before the end of the last Ice Age. Although archaeologists have not yet uncovered the camps of these earliest inhabitants, they have recovered early stone tools along with the remains of Pleistocene animals, many of which have long since gone extinct. This period, called Clovis, begins a record of essentially continuous human presence in the area (Lohse, 2013). The record is remarkable not only for its depth of time, but also because it shows different groups of people coming together to share this resource, a trait that characterizes the watershed today. The geology of San Marcos springs and the surrounding landscape define the connection between people and environment. It is expressed in sustainable exploitation on one hand and the capacity to support life on the other, and is probably the single most important factor for understanding the long-term record of human occupation in this area.The first occupants of the area are known as “Paleoindians,” a term meaning something close to “old life ways.” Although many Paleoindian societies roamed widely across the North American landscape, sites like Spring Lake suggest that, at least in some cases, they maintained distinct and limited territorial ranges. Key factors that determine patterns of settlement are the availability of food and water. In regions where these vital resources were scarce, American Indians wandered farther abroad. However, in this region, environmental abundance permitted a somewhat smaller territorial range. Hence, although Paleoindians focused their diets on large game, available small animals, and plant foods, resource diversity along the San Marcos River allowed groups to remain relatively close by, even as Pleistocene animals became extinct around 11,000 years ago. The change from Pleistocene to Holocene climates was accompanied by a dramatic increase in average annual temperatures and also by the difference in seasonal weather patterns. During the major period of adjustment for regional populations, the environmental richness of the San Marcos River sustained local groups during the climate transition. With warmer, wetter, and more seasonal climates after about 10,000 years ago, much of the dietary focus came to involve plant foods. This pattern defines what archaeologists call the Archaic period. The transition from Paleoindian to Archaic was prolonged, but the volume of Late Paleoindian materials recovered from Spring Lake by Dr. Joel Shiner indicates that this area may have been among the largest regional campsites on record (Shafer and Hester 2013). The earliest contexts of human habitation of the San Marcos Springs area documented by archaeologists date to about 8,500 years ago (Oksanen 2011), in what is called the Early Archaic. A soil dating from about 7,000-6,000 years ago provides evidence for stable landforms and relatively wet environments during this time period (Lohse et al. 2013). The surface was truncated and reburied just after 6,000 years ago during a brief dry and relatively cold interval, known as Calf Creek. This period of cold marks the end of the Early Archaic. Bison were present at the site during this time, perhaps for the first time since the Paleoindian era. Indeed, Spring Lake is among the best-documented Calf Creek components found anywhere in southern North America (Lohse et al., 2013). Climate models indicate increasingly hot and dry environments starting in what archaeologists call the Middle Archaic, about 5,700-4,200 years ago (Lohse et al. 2014). As a coarse indicator of climate change sediment deposition in the river valley was fairly rapid until about 4,200 years ago, at which point it began to slow dramatically, likely as a result of reduced precipitation. The Middle Archaic is well represented at Spring Lake, almost certainly because of the nearby water. Late Archaic sediments, beginning around 4200 years ago until as late as A.D. 1300, indicate a series of environmental changes, to be expected for such a long span of time. Temperature amelioration is noted around 3,300-2,150 years ago, as seen in a return of cool climate-favoring bison to the region. However, regional aridity is associated with a buildup of sediments across the channel of the spring-fed stream around 1,600 years ago, creating a pond-like environment. The pond was breached after 1,400 years ago, indicating a return to relatively wet climates and higher spring discharge (Hooge, 2013). Throughout all of this time, populations continued to visit the site. Late Prehistoric developments at Spring Lake largely mirror those of the rest of Texas. Bison were once more present on the landscape by A.D. 1300 and regional occupants relied heavily on these, as well as deer, small animals, and abundant plant foods. Historic documents record native use of the springs in the 1600s by groups generally belonging to the Coahuiltecan “coalition,” including Cantona, Muruam, Payaya, Sana, and Yojuate (Leezer et al., 2013). Hunting parties from south and west Texas came to the region in pursuit of bison; among these were the Chaolme, Cibolo, and Jumano tribes (Foster 1995). Later, successive waves of groups came into region, each displacing the last. This includes Tonkawa, Apache, and Comanche tribes (Dunn 1911). A Spanish mission, San Xavier, was established on the San Marcos River in 1755, and soon abandoned (Bolton 1915). The town of San Marcos de Neve was founded in 1808 but only lasted four years before it, too, was abandoned, this time as a result of hostile Indian encounters (Dobie, 1932)Based on its rich cultural record, Spring Lake and the San Marcos River continue to hold a great deal of significance to contemporary populations. This includes not only modern-day San Marcos residents, but also descendent Native American communities, some of whom consider the springs to be sacred. These intersecting values mean that each stakeholder within the contemporary watershed community appreciates the river and its associated resources in their own way. However, their common appreciation for, and reliance on this resource is shared, as it has been for over 13,000 years. Because this area is so unique in its characteristics, especially as far as cultural heritage go, the continuous effort to preserve, study, and respect archaeological data is of utmost importance. This area provides a seldom seen and preserved story of the many indigenous humans, flora, and fauna that occupied this part of the North American continent and deserves the most inclusive protection, while still being a spot that people can enjoy recreationally. Culture References Bolton, Herbert E. 1915. Texas in the Middle Eighteenth Century: Studies in Spanish Colonial History and Administration, Vol. 3. University of California Publications in History. University of California, Berkeley.Dobie, Dudley R. 1932.The History of Hays County, Texas. Unpublished Master’s thesis, The University of Texas at Austin.Dunn, William E. 1911.Apache Relations in Texas, 1718-1750. Southwestern Historical Quarterly 14:198-274.Foster, William C. 1995.Spanish Expeditions into Texas 1689-1768. The University of Texas at Austin.Hooge, Jacob. 2013. Underwater Geoarchaeology at Spring Lake, San Marcos, Texas. Unpublished Master’s thesis, Department of Anthropology, Texas State University-San Marcos.Leezer, Carole A., editor. 2013. Prehistoric Life along the Banks of Spring Lake: Results and Analysis of the Southwest Texas State Field Schools (1996-1998) at 41HY165, San Marcos, Hays County, Texas. Archaeological Studies Report No. 31. Center for Archaeological Studies, Texas State University-San Marcos.Lohse, Jon C., editor. 2013. Underwater Archaeology at 41HY147, the Terrace Locality at Spring Lake. Archaeological Studies Report No. 28. Center for Archaeological Studies, Texas State University-San Marcos.Lohse, Jon C., Amy E. Reid, David M. Yelacic, and Cinda L. Timperley. 2013. Data Recovery and Analysis at the Texas State University Ticket Kiosk Project, Located at 41HY160, Spring Lake, Hays County, Texas. Archaeological Studies Report No. 32. Center for Archaeological Studies, Texas State University-San Marcos. Lohse, Jon C., Stephen L. Black, and Laly M. Cholak. 2014. Toward an Improved Archaic Radiocarbon Chronology for Central Texas. Bulletin of the Texas Archeological Society, volume 85. Manuscript in press.Oksanen, Erik. 2012. Archaeological Investigations at the Ice House Site, 41HY161: Early Archaic Technology, Subsistence, and Settlement along the Balcones Escarpment, Hays County, Texas. Archaeological Studies Report No. 14. Center for Archaeological Studies, Texas State University-San Marcos.Shafer, Harry J., and Thomas R. Hester. 2013. Projectile Points and Other Lithics. In Underwater Archaeology at 41HY147, the Terrace Locality at Spring Lake, edited by Jon C. Lohse, pp. 17-51. Archaeological Studies Report No. 28. Center for Archaeological Studies, Texas State University-San Marcos. ................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download