Texas Springs Inventory, Flow, and Water Quality

Home , Comal Springs (Texas), San Marcos Springs

Franklin T. Heitmuller Geographer U.S. Geological Survey

In cooperation with the One orifice of Texas Parks and Wildlife Comal Springs in Department, the Texas Landa Park, New Braunfels, TX Water Development

Board, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Outline

1. Importance of Springs 2. History of Assessment 3. Current Studies in Texas 4. Recent USGS Activity 5. Possible Future Work

Importance of Texas Springs • Discrete connections between ground water and surface water; water budget studies • Maintain baseflow for numerous perennial rivers in Texas • Form unique habitats for a variety of species, including rare, threatened, and endangered species • Recreation • Historical or cultural significance Hancock Springs at Lampasas, • Municipal or industrial water- Texas supply

• Unique features in their own right; education

History of Assessment in Texas

• USGS monitoring began in 1894 – Barton Springs in Austin (Comal, San Felipe, and Las Moras followed in 1895) • Meinzer (1927) – called attention to large springs in the U.S. and proposed a magnitude classification system • Texas Board of Water Engineers (TBWE) and Texas Water Commission (TWC) county records of wells and springs – 1930s-60s • Texas Water Development Board (TWDB)

Spring Magnitude

• Meinzer (1927) MAGNITUDE AVERAGE AVERAGE DISCHARGE DISCHARGE First ≥100 ft3/s ≥ 2.83 m3/s Second 10 – 100 ft3/s 0.283 – 2.83 m3/s Third 1 – 10 ft3/s 0.0283 – 0.283 m3/s Fourth 100 gallons per minute (gpm) 0.006309 – 0.0283 m3/s –1 ft3/s

Fifth 10 – 100 gpm 630.9 – 6309 cm3/s Sixth 1 – 10 gpm 63.1 – 630.9 cm3/s 1 pint per minute – 1 gpm Seventh 7.89 – 63.1 cm3/s < 1 pint per minute Eighth < 7.89 cm3/s History of Assessment in Texas

• Gunnar Brune (1975) – Major and Historical Springs of Texas (TWDB Report 189) – 281 springs • Guyton & Associates (1979) – Geohydrology of Comal, San Marcos, and Hueco Springs (TWDB Report 234) • Gunnar Brune (1981) – Springs of Texas: Vol. 1 (183 of 254 Texas counties) Research Today

• Uliana and Sharp (2001) – Investigation of regional flow paths and localized contributions to spring flow in Trans-Pecos Texas • Schuster (1997) – M.S. thesis on precipitation and springs in Trans-Pecos Texas • Mahler and Lynch (1999) – Suspended sediment from Barton Springs • Helen Besse – effort to publish Springs of Texas – Volume 2 • TPWD (Chad Norris) – Assessments of spring flow and water quality of springs in Central Texas • USGS – Use of ADV to monitor flow in Barton Springs and Jacob’s Well • USGS – Aggregate information on springs, flow, and water- quality into a singular database (Heitmuller and Reece, 2003)

USGS-Monitored Springs

• CONTINUOUSLY MONITORED – 08155500 Barton Springs – 08168000 Hueco Springs – 08168710 Comal Springs – 08170000 San Marcos Springs – 08170990 Jacob’s Well – 08427000 Giffin Springs – 08456300 Las Moras Springs • DISCRETE VISITS – 08155395 Upper Barton Springs (QW only) – 08155501 Eliza Spring (QW only) – 08155503 Old Mill Spring (QW only) – 08129500 Dove Creek Spring – 08143900 Springs at Fort McKavett – 08146500 San Saba Springs – 08149500 Seven Hundred Springs – 08149395 Tanner Springs – 08177818 San Antonio Springs – 08178090 San Pedro Springs San Antonio Spring; San Antonio, TX – 08425500 Phantom Lake Spring – 08427500 San Solomon Springs

3-phase Texas springs project

1. DATABASE - Aggregation of known springs and spring flow measurements from selected sources into a singular database (Heitmuller and Reece, 2003) – complete http://water.usgs.gov/pubs/of/2 003/ofr03-315 2. MAJOR SPRINGS - Identify large or significant springs; aggregate all known water quality and quantity data for these springs into a singular database; identify gaps in the data – complete 3. SAMPLING - Sample springs from Phase 2 to fill gaps in water quantity and quality data; status and trends analysis – planned Small spring along fracture in Guadalupe / Canyon Lake spillway canyon Phase I

• Spring and spring flow o 102 W 100oW database 36oN

o 98 W o o 96 W 34 N • 2,061 springs 94oW

106oW o • Over 7,000 spring flow o 104 W 32 N measurements, not including continuously 30oN

monitored data EXPLANATION Springs 28oN

0 75 150 225 300 MILES • http://water.usgs.gov/p 0 90 180 270 360 KILOMETERS Albers equal area projection parameters Base modified from Texas Natural Resources Central meridian: -100.0 Information System (TNRIS) digital data at Standard parallel 1: 34.91666667 o 1:24,000 (2005) Standard parallel 2: 27.41666667 26 N ubs/of/2003/ofr03-315 Latitude of origin: 31.16666667 Phase I Issues

1. Some accuracy issues derived from historical data source • Location reported to minute accuracy • Some locations only from description (e.g., 13 miles NNW of Cameron) • Alternate names resulting in two points for one spring (e.g. Fort Stockton Springs, Comanche Springs) 2. Data limited to selected sources • Brune (1975) and Brune (1981) not digitized; although TWDB digital data contained many; many Brune springs w/o coordinate data • Anderson County – 3 springs in database; 23 springs when other data sources were searched (DRGs, very old USGS and miscellaneous reports) Phase I

Leona Springs, Group 2

Leona Springs, Group 4

Leona Springs, Group 3

08204000 - Leona Springs near Uvalde, Texas

01234MILES ¸ Phase I

08168710 - Comal Springs at New Braunfels, Texas

0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1 MILES ¸ Phase I

08104300 - Salado Springs at Robertson Spring Salado, Texas Big Boiling Spring Groves Spring Spring

0 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 MILES ¸ Comal Springs and Goodenough Spring

Flow - Comal Springs and Goodenough Spring

450 450

400 Goodenough Comal 400

350 350

300 300

250 250 /s) - Comal Springs - Comal /s)

3 200 200 /s) - Goodenough Spring 3 150 150

100 100 Discharge (ft Discharge (ft 50 50

0 0 1928 1933 1938 1943 1948 1953 1958 Date Roaring Springs – Texas Panhandle

Roaring Springs

40.00 2.50

Precipitation - Matador Spring Flow 35.00 2.00 30.00 )

25.00 /s) 1.50 3

20.00

1.00 15.00 Spring flow(ft Annual precipitation (in 10.00 0.50 5.00

0.00 0.00 1947 1952 1957 1962 1967 1972 1977 1982 1987 1992 Date μ 1.38 ft3/s; σ 0.32 ft3/s 1960s – Flow becomes sensitive (local pumping?)

Hannah Springs – Lampasas Hannah Springs 60 4.00

3.50 50 Precipitation - Lampasas Spring Flow

3.00 ) 40

2.50 /s) 3

30 2.00

1.50 20 Spring flow (ft Annual precipitation (in 1.00

10 0.50

0 0.00 1957 1962 1967 1972 1977 1982 1987 1992 Date

μ 1.44 ft3/s; σ 0.48 ft3/s

More rapid response to precipi tation – small recharge area Decline in flow – pumping or pool construction that applies a greater constant head

Hannah Springs in Lampasas, TX Comal Springs – New Braunfels Comal Springs Precipitation - New Braunfels Precipitation - Uvalde Spring Flow 60.00 500

450 50.00 400 ) 350 40.00 /s) 300 3

30.00 250

200

20.00 Spring flow (ft 150 Annual precipitation (in

100 10.00 50

0.00 0 1928 1933 1938 1943 1948 1953 1958 1963 1968 1973 1978 1983 1988 1993 1998 2003 Date μ 287 ft3/s; σ 86 ft3/s

Lag period of ~ 1 year from peak rainfall to peak flow High precipitation in Uvalde – lagged pulse in flow that remains for a few years

San Solomon Spring - Balmorhea San Solomon Springs Precipitation - Balmorhea Precipitation - Fort Davis Spring Flow Precipitation - Van Horn 30.00 90

80 25.00 70 ) 20.00 60 /s) 3 50 15.00 40

10.00 30 Spring flow (ft Annual precipitation (in 20 5.00 10

0.00 0 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 Date μ 30 ft3/s; σ 6.4 ft3/s

Very steady spring flow; highest discharge related to local precipitation events Large contributing zone Eurycea habitat assessment

Phase II

o • Aggregation of water- 102 W 100oW

36oN quality data

o 98 W o 34oN 96 W • Stakeholder meetings – o 94 W 2004 o 106 W 104oW • Select springs based on 32oN established criteria and o mailed questionnaires 30 N

EXPLANATION

• 232 springs selected to Springs 30 - Edwards Plateau 28oN LEVEL III Ecoregions 31 - Southern Texas Plains 23 - Arizona/New Mexico Mountains 32 - Texas Blackland Prairies represent all level III 24 - Chihuahuan Deserts 33 - East Central Texas Plains 25 - High Plains 34 - Western Gulf Coastal Plain 26 - Southwestern Tablelands 35 - South Central Plains Base modified from U.S. o Environmental Protection ecoregions 27 - Central Great Plains 26 N Agency (EPA) digital data (2004) 29 - Cross Timbers 0 60 120 180 240 MILES Albers equal area projection parameters Central meridian: -100.0 Standard parallel 1: 34.91666667 0 80 160 240 320 KILOMETERS Standard parallel 2: 27.41666667 Latitude of origin: 31.16666667 Phase II Phase II

102oW100oW 25 36oN • Few water-quality data for 26 High Plains and Gulf 27

o 98 W o 34oN 26 96 W Coastal Plain correspond 25 94oW

with few springs 27 23 o 29 106 W 104oW • Wide availability of water- 32oN 30 32 quality data in Blackland 35 33 Prairie because largest, 24 30 most closely monitored 30oN 32 springs issue from this 34

ecoregion, although QW EXPLANATION 31 Level III ecoregions 23 - 35 28oN associated with Edwards Number of independent water-quality values 13 - 50 Plateau 51 - 100 101 - 500 Base modified from U.S. 501 - 1,000 Environmental Protection o Agency (EPA) digital data (2004) 1,001 - 2,500 26 N 0 60 120 180 240 MILES Albers equal area projection parameters 2,501 - 5,500 Central meridian: -100.0 Standard parallel 1: 34.91666667 0 80 160 240 320 KILOMETERS Standard parallel 2: 27.41666667 Latitude of origin: 31.16666667 Phase II

102oW100oW 25 36oN 26 • Median total dissolved 27

solids highest in o 98 W o 34oN 26 96 W 94oW Chihuahuan Desert 25 27 springs; associated with 23 o 29 106 W o o 104 W 32 N 30 32 long, deep flow paths and 35 subsurface geology 33 24 30 • Median total dissolved o 30 N solids lowest in South 32 34 Central Plains; most 31 bottling companies use EXPLANATION 28oN Level III ecoregions 23 - 35 these springs Median total dissolved solids concentration in milligrams per liter 25 - 100 101 - 250 Base modified from U.S. 251 - 500 Environmental Protection o Agency (EPA) digital data (2004) 501 - 1,000 26 N 0 60 120 180 240 MILES Albers equal area projection parameters 1,001 - 1,500 Central meridian: -100.0 Standard parallel 1: 34.91666667 0 80 160 240 320 KILOMETERS Standard parallel 2: 27.41666667 Latitude of origin: 31.16666667 Phase II 102oW100oW 102oW100oW o o 102 W 100 W o 25 25 36 N 36oN o 25 26 36 N 26 26 27 27 bicarbonate 27 silica sodium o 98 W o o 96 W o 26 98 W o 34 N o o 96 W 94 W o 34 N 26 25 98 W o o o 94 W 34 N 26 96 W 25 25 94oW 27 27 27 23 23 o 29 106 W o 23 o 29 o 104 W 106 W o 32 N o 29 o 104 W 30 32 106 W 104oW 32 N o 30 32 35 32 N 30 32 35 35 33 33 33 24 24 24 30 30 30 30oN 30oN 30oN 32 32 32 34 34 34

31 31 31 o o 28 N o 28 N 28 N EXPLANATION EXPLANATION EXPLANATION Level III ecoregions 23 - 35 Level III ecoregions 23 - 35 Level III ecoregions 23 - 35 Median bicarbonate concentration in milligrams per liter Median silica concentration in milligrams per liter Median sodium concentration in milligrams per liter 10 - 50 10 - 15 1 - 10 Base modified from U.S. Base modified from U.S. Base modified from U.S. Environmental Protection 16 - 22 Environmental Protection 11 - 50 Environmental Protection 51 - 150 Agency (EPA) digital data (2004) o Agency (EPA) digital data (2004) o Agency (EPA) digital data (2004) 26oN 26 N 23 - 30 26 N 51 - 100 151 - 300 0 60 120 180 240 MILES Albers equal area projection parameters 0 60 120 180 240 MILES Albers equal area projection parameters 0 60 120 180 240 MILES Albers equal area projection parameters 301 - 450 31 - 34 Central meridian: -100.0 101 - 400 Central meridian: -100.0 Central meridian: -100.0 Standard parallel 1: 34.91666667 Standard parallel 1: 34.91666667 Standard parallel 1: 34.91666667 0 80 160 240 320 KILOMETERS Standard parallel 2: 27.41666667 0 80 160 240 320 KILOMETERS Standard parallel 2: 27.41666667 0 80 160 240 320 KILOMETERS Standard parallel 2: 27.41666667 Latitude of origin: 31.16666667 Latitude of origin: 31.16666667 Latitude of origin: 31.16666667

o o o o 102 W 100 W 102 W 100 W 102oW100oW

o 25 o 25 25 36 N 36 N 36oN 26 26 26 pH 27 sulfate 27 chloride 27

o o o 98 W o 98 W o 98 W o o 96 W o 96 W 34 N 26 34 N 26 34oN 26 96 W 25 94oW 25 94oW 25 94oW

27 27 27 23 23 23 o 29 o 29 29 106 W o 106 W o o 104 W 104 W 106 W 104oW 32oN 30 32 32oN 30 32 32oN 30 32 35 35 35 33 33 33 24 24 24 30 30 30 30oN 30oN 30oN 32 32 32 34 34 34

31 31 31 28oN 28oN 28oN EXPLANATION EXPLANATION EXPLANATION Level III ecoregions 23 - 35 Level III ecoregions 23 - 35 Level III ecoregions 23 - 35 Median sulfate concentration in milligrams per liter Median chloride concentration in milligrams per liter Median pH 5 - 20 2 - 20 5.4 - 6.0 Base modified from U.S. Base modified from U.S. Base modified from U.S. 21 - 50 Environmental Protection 21 - 50 Environmental Protection 6.0 - 6.75 Environmental Protection o Agency (EPA) digital data (2004) o Agency (EPA) digital data (2004) o Agency (EPA) digital data (2004) 51 - 150 26 N 51 - 100 26 N 6.75 - 7.25 26 N 0 60 120 180 240 MILES Albers equal area projection parameters 0 60 120 180 240 MILES Albers equal area projection parameters 0 60 120 180 240 MILES Albers equal area projection parameters 151 - 400 Central meridian: -100.0 101 - 250 Central meridian: -100.0 7.25 - 8.0 Central meridian: -100.0 Standard parallel 1: 34.91666667 Standard parallel 1: 34.91666667 Standard parallel 1: 34.91666667 0 80 160 240 320 KILOMETERS Standard parallel 2: 27.41666667 0 80 160 240 320 KILOMETERS Standard parallel 2: 27.41666667 0 80 160 240 320 KILOMETERS Standard parallel 2: 27.41666667 Latitude of origin: 31.16666667 Latitude of origin: 31.16666667 Latitude of origin: 31.16666667 Phase III

• Visit and measure 232 springs selected in Phase II • Standardized spring flow measurement and water- quality sampling • 2 purposes – Identify additional springs for long-term monitoring

– Update existing data and identify status and trends of flow and water quality

Cold Spring along Town Lake in Austin, Texas References

• Brune, G., 1975, Major and historical springs of Texas: Texas Water Development Board Report 189, 95 p. • Brune, G., 1981, Springs of Texas – volume 1: Fort Worth, Tex., Branch-Smith, Inc., 566 p. • Heitmuller, F.T., and Reece, B.D., 2003, Data base of historically documented springs and spring flow measurements in Texas: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 03- 315, 4 p., database on CD-ROM. • Mahler, B.J., and Lynch, F.L., 1999, Muddy waters — Temporal variation in sediment discharging from a karst spring: Journal of Hydrology, v. 214, p. 165–178. • Meinzer, O.E., 1927, Large springs in the United States: U.S. Geological Survey Water- Supply Paper 557, 94 p. • Schuster, S.K., 1997, Hydrogeology and local recharge analysis in the Toyah Basin aquifer: unpublished M.S. thesis, The University of Texas at Austin, 130 p. • Uliana, M.M., and Sharp, J.M., 2001, Tracing regional flow paths to major springs in Trans-Pecos Texas using geochemical data and geochemical models: Chemical Geology, v. 179, p. 53-72. • William F. Guyton & Associates, 1979, Geohydrology of Comal, San Marcos, and Hueco Springs: Texas Water Development Board Report 234, 85 p.