DOCSLIB.ORG

The Edwards Aquifer and the Guadalupe River

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The Edwards Aquifer and the Guadalupe River TheThe EdwardsEdwards AquiferAquifer andand thethe GuadalupeGuadalupe RiverRiver WhatWhat’’ss onon TapTap forfor SouthSouth CentralCentral Texas?Texas? ----AA WaterWater forfor PeoplePeople && thethe EnvironmentEnvironment ConferenceConference---- SeptemberSeptember 9,9, 2006666620066666 ToddTodd VottelerVotteler (800)(800) 413413--41304130 www.gbra.orgwww.gbra.org TexasTexas WaterWater LawLaw EdwardsEdwards AquiferAquifer--AssociatedAssociated RiversRivers ••BeginsBegins asas StateState surfacesurface waterwater –– rechargerecharge alongalong streambedsstreambeds ••BecomesBecomes privateprivate groundwatergroundwater pumpedpumped byby wellswells ••BecomesBecomes StateState surfacesurface waterwater againagain –– atat springssprings ••EdwardsEdwards AquiferAquifer waterwater goesgoes fromfrom StateState waterwater toto regulatedregulated byby TCEQTCEQ toto groundwatergroundwater regulatedregulated byby thethe EAAEAA toto StateState waterwater asas itit travelstravels ••TexasTexas groundwatergroundwater law,law, thethe RuleRule ofof CaptureCapture -- pumpingpumping cancan drydry upup springssprings –– nono remedyremedy AllAll ofof thethe LargestLargest SpringsSprings inin TexasTexas OriginateOriginate fromfrom thethe EdwardsEdwards AquiferAquifer…… San Felipe San Marcos San Marcos Del Rio Comal New Braunfels Texas Wild Rice Fountain darter Las Moras Springs Brackettville Most Have 3 Endangered Species ComalComal SpringsSprings –– NewNew Braunfels,Braunfels, TexasTexas ••MostMost prolificprolific sprinspringg systesystemm WestWest ofof MississippiMississippi RiverRiver ••AveraAveraggee dischardischarggee 300300 cfscfs, equalsequals 217,200217,200 acft/yracft/yr ••HomeHome ofof thethe endangeredendangered fountainfountain darterdarter && otherother listedlisted speciesspecies ••UntilUntil now,now, nono criticalcritical habitathabitat designateddesignated forfor ComalComal SpringsSprings 4 WhyWhy areare thethe SpringsSprings ImportantImportant toto thethe GuadalupeGuadalupe Basin?Basin? •• SpringflowsSpringflows formform ComalComal && SanSan MarcosMarcos RiversRivers -- majormajor tributariestributaries toto GuadalupeGuadalupe RiverRiver •• AverageAverage flowsflows atat ComalComal && SanSan MarcosMarcos SpringsSprings contributecontribute toto thethe GuadalupeGuadalupe RiverRiver twicetwice whatwhat SanSan AntonioAntonio pumpspumps annuallyannually •• SummerSummer 19961996 DroughtDrought –– SpringsSprings providedprovided majoritymajority ofof GuadalupeGuadalupe flowflow atat VictoriaVictoria && almostalmost halfhalf ofof SanSan AntonioAntonio BayBay’’ss freshwaterfreshwater •• SpringsSprings are critical to waterwater supplysupply for communities from San Marcos, New Braunfels to Victoria •• EndangeredEndangered SpeciesSpecies ActAct protects species & habitats at Comal & San Marcos Springs 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 The Guadalupe River is the Primary Source of Freshwater Inflows to San Antonio Bay… Brown Shrimp Guadalupe River Blue Crab T 3 2.9 2.8 o 2.7 TxEMP ni 2.6 MODEL to 2.5 SOLUTIONS An 2.4 n (MILLIONS LBS) 2.3 Sa FISHERIES HARVES 2.2 ay 3 .1 5 7 .2 5 3 1 1 .2 1. B WhoopingWhooping 1.0 1.1 1.1 1 1.15 INFLOW (MILLIONS CraneCrane ACRE-FEET) MAF 12 EdwardsEdwards AquiferAquifer CharacteristicsCharacteristics Record Edwards Aquifer Pumping - 1989 542,500 acft/yr Average Edwards Irrigation: 1993-2003 121,500 acft/yr Average Edwards M/I Use: 1993-2003 288,000 acft/yr Average Comal/San Marcos Spring 436,600 Discharge - 1993-2003 acft/yr Record High Edwards Recharge - 1992 2.49 M acft Edwards Recharge - 2004 2.2 M acft Record Low Recharge - 1956 43,700 acft TheThe EvolutionEvolution ofof PumpingPumping LimitsLimits YEARYEAR EVENTEVENT 19561956 DroughtDrought ofof Record:Record: ComalComal SpringsSprings CeasesCeases toto FlowFlow 19611961 StateState WaterWater PlanPlan RecommendsRecommends UnspecifiedUnspecified LimitLimit onon EdwardsEdwards AquiferAquifer 19671967 FirstFirst EdwardsEdwards AquiferAquifer SpeciesSpecies AddedAdded toto ListList ofof EndangeredEndangered SpeciesSpecies 19681968 TexasTexas WaterWater PlanPlan RecommendsRecommends 400,000400,000 acft/yracft/yr LimitLimit onon EdwardsEdwards AquiferAquifer PumpingPumping 19731973 EndangeredEndangered SpeciesSpecies ActAct BecomesBecomes LawLaw14 TheThe EvolutionEvolution ofof PumpingPumping LimitationsLimitations YEARYEAR EVENTEVENT 1984 WaterWater forfor TexasTexas RecommendsRecommends 425,000425,000 1990 acftacft LimitLimit onon EdwardsEdwards AquiferAquifer PumpingPumping 1992 19921992 USFWSUSFWS RecommendsRecommends 450,000450,000 acftacft LimitLimit FollowedFollowed byby 400,000400,000 acftacft LimitLimit 19931993 JudgeJudge BuntonBunton RulesRules inin FavorFavor ofof AquiferAquifer RegulationRegulation inin SierraSierra ClubClub v.v. BabbittBabbitt ESAESA LitigationLitigation 19931993 EdwardsEdwards AquiferAquifer AuthorityAuthority createdcreated byby SenateSenate BillBill 14771477 15 InIn 19931993 thethe TexasTexas LegislatureLegislature replacesreplaces thethe EdwardsEdwards UnderUnder-- GroundGround WaterWater DistrictDistrict withwith thethe EdwardsEdwards AquiferAquifer AuthorityAuthority TheThe ActAct requiresrequires EAAEAA to:to: ••IssueIssue permitspermits && regulateregulate pumpingpumping ••PermitsPermits basedbased onon historicalhistorical useuse ••PermitPermit capcap @@ 450,000450,000 acft/yracft/yr ••20082008 capcap isis 400,000400,000 acft/yracft/yr ••RequiresRequires continuouscontinuous minimumminimum springflowsspringflows toto preservepreserve endangeredendangered speciesspecies habitatshabitats byby 20122012 The “Catfish Farm” The “Catfish Farm16” ••AdoptAdopt pumpingpumping droughtdrought rulesrules World’s Largest Artesian Well EdwardsEdwards AquiferAquifer IssuesIssues •• 450,000450,000 acft/yracft/yr untiluntil 2007;2007; 400,000400,000 acft/yracft/yr inin 20082008 –– yetyet permitspermits currentlycurrently totaltotal 549,000549,000 acft/yr,acft/yr, somesome 99,00099,000 acft/yracft/yr overover thethe limitlimit •• CapsCaps onon AnnualAnnual AquiferAquifer PumpingPumping –– Issue:Issue: WhatWhat toto dodo aboutabout excessexcess permitpermit rightsrights aboveabove 450,000450,000 acftacft/yr?/yr? ProportionallyProportionally reducereduce allall permits,permits, buybuy--downdown excessexcess rights?rights? –– StateState legislationlegislation inin 20052005 toto increaseincrease capcap toto ““sumsum ofof allall permitspermits”” diddid notnot passpass •• EAAEAA solutionsolution isis toto makemake thethe portionportion ofof permitspermits aboveabove capcap ““JuniorJunior”” rightsrights –– cancan bebe accruedaccrued whenwhen aquiferaquifer isis aboveabove certaincertain levelslevels 17 JuniorJunior--SeniorSenior RightsRights •• BifurcatedBifurcated ((““JuniorJunior--SeniorSenior””)) permitpermit rulesrules allowallow thethe portionportion ofof permitspermits aboveabove capcap -- ““juniorjunior”” rightsrights toto bebe accumulatedaccumulated whenwhen JJ--1717 isis aboveabove 665665 ftmslftmsl andand usedused whenwhen aquiferaquifer isis belowbelow 665,665, butbut 650650 isis wherewhere StageStage II ofof thethe CriticalCritical PeriodPeriod ManagementManagement PlanPlan isis triggeredtriggered •• JuniorJunior rightsrights cancan bebe soldsold apartapart fromfrom seniorsenior rightsrights 18 TCEQTCEQ ResolutionResolution onon Junior/SeniorJunior/Senior WaterWater RightsRights ,, EssentiallyEssentially aa RecommendationRecommendation ...... •• ““[T]he[T]he EAAEAA’’ss Junior/SeniorJunior/Senior permitpermit rulesrules willwill havehave aa measurablemeasurable effecteffect onon downstreamdownstream waterwater interests,interests, particularlyparticularly surfacesurface waterwater rightright holders.holders.”” PermitsPermits fromfrom KerrvilleKerrville toto VictoriaVictoria areare impacted;impacted; andand •• ““[T]he[T]he EAAEAA’’ss Junior/SeniorJunior/Senior permitpermit rulesrules areare contrarycontrary toto thethe [TCEQ[TCEQ’’s]s] actionsactions affectingaffecting downstreamdownstream interestsinterests becausebecause theythey couldcould measurablymeasurably deprivedeprive downstreamdownstream waterwater rightright holdersholders ofof aa portionportion ofof riverriver flowsflows .. .. .. underunder permitspermits andand certificatescertificates ofof adjudicationadjudication .. .. .. andand alsoalso couldcould otherwiseotherwise measurablymeasurably deprivedeprive flowsflows forfor instreaminstream uses.uses.”” 19 JuniorJunior--SeniorSenior RightsRights •• JuniorJunior rightsrights werewere availableavailable fromfrom JanuaryJanuary 1st1st toto AprilApril 15th15th thisthis year.year. •• TheThe aquiferaquifer plummetedplummeted duringduring thatthat time.time. •• IsIs 20062006 thethe kindkind ofof yearyear inin whichwhich moremore waterwater shouldshould bebe pumpedpumped outout ofof thethe EdwardsEdwards AquiferAquifer thanthan isis allowedallowed underunder thethe 450,000450,000 acftacft cap?cap? 20 PreviousPrevious AttemptsAttempts toto ProvideProvide SanSan AntonioAntonio withwith aa SignificantSignificant SurfaceSurface WaterWater AlternativeAlternative •• 1960s,1960s, SanSan AntonioAntonio withdrawswithdraws fromfrom efforteffort withwith GBRAGBRA toto buildbuild CueroCuero II && IIII ReservoirsReservoirs •• 1976,1976, SanSan AntonioAntonio CityCity CouncilCouncil rejectsrejects purchasepurchase ofof 30,00030,000 acftacft/yr/yr fromfrom CanyonCanyon ReservoirReservoir withwith optionoption forfor 50,00050,000 acftacft/yr/yr •• 19911991 && 1994,1994, citycity electionelection inin SanSan AntonioAntonio rejectsrejects ApplewhiteApplewhite
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Habitat and Phenology of the Endangered Riffle Eetle, Heterelmis
    Arch. Hydrobiol. 156 3 361-383 Stuttgart, February 2003 Habitat and phenology of the endangered riffle beetle Heterelmis comalensis and a coexisting species, Microcylloepus pusillus, (Coleoptera: Elmidae) at Comal Springs, Texas, USA David E. Bowles1 *, Cheryl B. Barr2 and Ruth Stanford3 Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, University of California, Berkeley, and United States Fish and Wildlife Service With 5 figures and 4 tables Ab tract: Habitat characteristics and seasonal distribution of the riffle beetles Herere/­ mis comalensis and Microcylloepu pusillus were studied at Comal Springs, Texas, during 1993-1994, to aid in developing sound reconunendations for sustaining their natural popu1atioas. Comal Springs consists of four major spring cutlers and spring­ runs. The four spring-runs are dissimilar in size, appearance, canopy and riparian cover, substrate composition, and aquatic macrophyte composition. Habitat conditions associated with the respective popuJatioos of riffle beetles, including physical-chemi­ cal measurements, water depth, and currenc velocity, were relatively unifom1 and var­ ied lHUe among sampling dates and spring-runs. However, the locations of the beetles in the respective spri ng-runs were not well correlated to current velocity, water depth, or distance from primary spring orifices. Factors such as substrate size and availability and competition are proposed as possibly influencing lheir respective distributions. Maintaining high-quality spring-flows and protection of Lhe physical habitat of Here· re/mis comalensis presently are the only means by which to ensure the survival of this endemic species. Key words: Conservation, habitat conditions, substrate availability, competition. 1 Authors' addresses: Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, 4200 Smith School Road, Austin, Texas 78744, USA.
    [Show full text]
  • Comal County Regional Habitat Conservation Plan Environmental Impact Statement
    Draft Comal County Regional Habitat Conservation Plan Environmental Impact Statement Prepared for: Comal County, Texas Comal County Commissioners Court Prepared by: SWCA Environmental Consultants Smith, Robertson, Elliott, Glen, Klein & Bell, L.L.P. Prime Strategies, Inc. Texas Perspectives, Inc. Capital Market Research, Inc. April 2010 SWCA Project Number 12659-139-AUS DRAFT COMAL COUNTY REGIONAL HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT April 2010 Type of Action: Administrative Lead Agency: U.S. Department of the Interior Fish and Wildlife Service Responsible Official: Adam Zerrenner Field Supervisor U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 10711 Burnet Road, Suite 200 Austin, Texas For Information: Bill Seawell Fish and Wildlife Biologist U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 10711 Burnet Road, Suite 200 Austin, Texas Tele: 512-490-0057 Abstract: Comal County, Texas, is applying for an incidental take permit (Permit) under section 10(a)(1)(B) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended 16 U.S.C. § 1531, et seq. (ESA), to authorize the incidental take of two endangered species, the golden-cheeked warbler (Dendroica chrysoparia) and the black-capped vireo (Vireo atricapilla), referred to collectively as the “Covered Species.” In support of the Permit application, the County has prepared a regional habitat conservation plan (Proposed RHCP), covering a 30-year period from 2010 to 2040. The Permit Area for the Proposed RHCP and the area of potential effect for this Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is Comal County in central Texas. The requested Permit would authorize the following incidental take and mitigation for the golden-cheeked warbler: Take: As conservation credits are created through habitat preservation, authorize up to 5,238 acres (2,120 hectares) of golden-cheeked warbler habitat to be impacted over the 30-year life of the Proposed RHCP.
    [Show full text]
  • Barton Springs Segment of the Edwards (Balcones Fault Zone) Aquifer, Central Texas
    OLD G The Geological Society of America Memoir 215 OPEN ACCESS Barton Springs segment of the Edwards (Balcones Fault Zone) Aquifer, central Texas Brian B. Hunt Brian A. Smith Barton Springs/Edwards Aquifer Conservation District, Austin, Texas 78748, USA Nico M. Hauwert Balcones Canyonland Preserve, City of Austin, Austin Water, Wildland Conservation Division, Austin, Texas 78738, USA ABSTRACT The Barton Springs segment of the Edwards (Balcones Fault Zone) Aquifer is a prolifi c karst aquifer system containing the fourth largest spring in Texas, Barton Springs. The Barton Springs segment of the Edwards Aquifer supplies drinking water for ~60,000 people, provides habitat for federally listed endangered salamanders, and sustains the iconic recreational Barton Springs pool. The aquifer is composed of Lower Cretaceous carbonate strata with porosity and permeability controlled by dep- ositional facies, diagenesis, structure, and karstifi cation creating a triple permeability system (matrix, fractures, and conduits). Groundwater fl ow is rapid within an inte- grated network of conduits discharging at the springs. Upgradient watersheds pro- vide runoff to the recharge zone, and the majority of recharge occurs in the streams crossing the recharge zone. The remainder is direct recharge from precipitation and other minor sources (infl ows from Trinity Group aquifers, the San Antonio segment, the bad-water zone, and anthropogenic sources). The long-term estimated mean water budget is 68 ft3/s (1.93 m3/s). The Barton Springs/Edwards Aquifer Conserva- tion District developed rules to preserve groundwater supplies and maximize spring fl ow rates by preserving at least 6.5 ft3/s (0.18 m3/s) of spring fl ow during extreme drought.
    [Show full text]
  • Designation of Critical Habitat for the Peck's Cave Amphipod, Comal
    Tuesday, July 17, 2007 Part III Department of the Interior Fish and Wildlife Service 50 CFR Part 17 Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Designation of Critical Habitat for the Peck’s Cave Amphipod, Comal Springs Dryopid Beetle, and Comal Springs Riffle Beetle; Final Rule VerDate Aug<31>2005 15:16 Jul 16, 2007 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4717 Sfmt 4717 E:\FR\FM\17JYR3.SGM 17JYR3 rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with RULES3 39248 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 136 / Tuesday, July 17, 2007 / Rules and Regulations DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Comal County, Texas. The Comal second) (Fahlquist and Slattery 1997, p. Springs dryopid beetle is a subterranean 1; Slattery and Fahlquist 1997, p. 1). Fish and Wildlife Service insect with vestigial (poorly developed, Both spring systems emerge as a series non-functional) eyes. The species has of spring outlets along the Balcones 50 CFR Part 17 been found in two spring systems, fault that follows the edge of the RIN 1018–AU75 Comal Springs and Fern Bank Springs, Edwards Plateau in Texas. Fern Bank that are located in Comal and Hays Springs and Hueco Springs have Endangered and Threatened Wildlife Counties, respectively. The Comal considerably smaller flows and consist and Plants; Designation of Critical Springs riffle beetle is an aquatic insect of one main spring with several satellite Habitat for the Peck’s Cave Amphipod, that is found in and primarily restricted springs or seep areas. Comal Springs Dryopid Beetle, and to surface water associated with Comal The four spring systems designated Comal Springs Riffle Beetle Springs in Comal County and with San for critical habitat are characterized by Marcos Springs in Hays County.
    [Show full text]
  • Geohydrology of Comal, San Marcos, and Hueco Springs
    ~ f~~" u *~"} ~~~~~~~i/ ~~ TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES REPORT 234 GEOHYDROLOGY OF COMAL, SAN MARCOS, AND HUECO SPRINGS By William F. Guyton & Associates June 1979 TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES Harvey Davis, Executive Director TEXAS WATER DEVELOPMENT BOARD A. l. Black, Chairman John H. Garrett, Vice Chairman Milton Potts Glen E. Roney George W. McCleskey W. O. Bankston TEXAS WATER COMMISSION Felix McDonald, Chairman Dorsey B. Hardeman, Commissioner Joe R. Carroll, Commissioner Authorization for use or reproduction of any original material contained in this publicatiun, i.e., not obtained from other sources, is freely granted. The Department would appreciate acknowledgement. Published and distributed by the Texas Department of Water Resources Post Office Box 13087 Austin, Texas 78711 " TABLE OF CONTENTS Page SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS INTRODUCTION 3 Purpose 3 Scope 3 Area of Investigation 3 Previous Investigations 4 Acknowledgements 4 Metric Conversions 4 DESCRIPTION OF SPRINGS 7 Comal Springs. 7 San Marcos Springs 7 Hueco Springs. 7 EDWARDS (BALCONES FAULT ZONE) AQUIFER. 8 Geology. 8 Recharge 8 Natural Discharge 9 Storage . 9 Bad Water Line 9 Withdrawals of Water Through Wells 11 Effects of Withdrawals . 11 GEOLOGY IN VICINITY OF SPRINGS 15 General . 15 Stratigraphy 15 iii TABLE OF CONTENTS-Continued Page Glen Rose Formation 15 Walnut Formation 15 Edwards Group 15 Georgetown Formation. 19 Del Rio Formation 19 Buda Formation 19 Eagle Ford Group 19 Austin Group 19 Taylor Group 19 Navarro Group 19 Quaternary Alluvium 20 Structural Geology . 20 Detailed Geology of Comal, San Marcos, and Hueco Springs Localities 20 Comal Springs. 20 San Marcos Springs 25 Hueco Springs.
    [Show full text]
  • LETTER to the EDITOR from GENERAL MANAGER October
    LETTER TO THE EDITOR FROM GENERAL MANAGER October 2000 Sharing the Edwards Aquifer and the Other Water Resources of Our Region Bill West, General Manager, Guadalupe – Blanco River Authority Nature within the past decade has inscribed upon the wide- spreading Texas landscape grim warnings of greater disasters to come if development of the State’s water resources is neglected. (1961 Texas Water Plan) The Past These opening words of the 1961 Texas Water Plan are just as appropriate today as they were 39 years ago, when they introduced the state’s first blueprint to meet our future water needs during a repeat of the drought of record. The drought of record, which lasted from 1947 to 1957, was the worst drought since detailed records have been kept. During the drought’s worst year in 1956, Comal Springs dried up for 144 days. Until the drought of record, the pumping demand from groundwater wells was so small that it made little difference to the abundant Edwards Aquifer and its outlets at Comal and San Marcos Springs. Now, increased groundwater pumping, particularly during years of below - normal rainfall and low recharge, accelerates the aquifer’s decline and reduces the flow from the springs. Springs from the Edwards Aquifer are the headwaters of many of the region's rivers, including the San Antonio River, the Comal River and the San Marcos River, all of which eventually flow into the Guadalupe River and then into San Antonio Bay. The 1 Cities of San Antonio, San Marcos and New Braunfels were founded near the springs long before water was available from wells drilled into the aquifer.
    [Show full text]
  • Brian Hunt, [email protected]
    Long-Term Trends of Precipitation, Streamflow, and Barton Springs Discharge, Central Texas Robin Gary, [email protected]; Brian Hunt, [email protected]; Steff Lazo-Herencia, [email protected]; Brian Smith, [email protected] Barton Springs/Edwards Aquifer Conservation District Austin, Texas, USA Abstract Methods and Data Results and Observations MCLENNAN Effective management of karst aquifers depends on an accurate understanding of the available water budget. Total monthly precipitation data were obtained from nine 27" MILLS 29" 31" 33" 35" 37" 39" Rainfall CORYELL FALLS LIMESTONE Recent studies have shown an increase in discharge at Barton Springs since the 1960’s, attributable, in part, to National Climatic Data Center (NCDC) weather stations (Table LAMPASAS SAN SABA Despite climatic models that show Texas as “generally drying” with regard to precipitation over time, our urbanization increasing recharge (Sharp, 2010). However, similar patterns of increasing streamflow from rivers 1, Figure 4). To provide the most complete monthly BELL review of Central Texas data shows a general increase in precipitation over the past 50 years, which agrees with in the area suggest a potential climatic shift since the 1960’s and just after the area’s drought-of-record. This precipitation totals dataset, data gaps within the nine primary ROBERTSON Llano Rv Jarrell previous state-wide assessments (Nielson-Gammon, 2008). poster presents an evaluation of long-term precipitation and streamflow data from stations up to 75 miles sites were identified. at Llano Davilla 2n BURNET MILAM from Barton Springs and the potential influence of regional climatic changes on the water budget and Data were analyzed and the missing records were Burnet Most precipitation PrecipitaƟon: running 48-month totals springflow.
    [Show full text]
  • HYDROCHEMISTRY of the COMAL, HUECO, and SAN MARCOS SPRINGS, EDWARDS AQUIFER, TEXAS Go To: Contents : Next Article
    HYDROCHEMISTRY OF THE COMAL, HUECO, AND SAN MARCOS SPRINGS, EDWARDS AQUIFER, TEXAS go to: Contents : Next Article HYDROCHEMISTRY OF THE COMAL, HUECO, AND SAN MARCOS SPRINGS, EDWARDS AQUIFER, TEXAS Albert E. Ogden, Ray A. Quick and Samuel R. Rothermel ABSTRACT The hydrochemistry of three of the largest springs emerging from the Edwards Aquifer was analyzed weekly for a year to determine if locally derived recharge could be enhanced through dam construction as a means of preserving spring flow. A recent model has predicted the cessation of spring flow to occur as early as the year 2020 due to Edwards Aquifer ground-water mining around San Antonio. This model did not consider the possibility of separate flow systems to the various spring orifices. Two recent tracer tests have verified differing flow patterns to the San Marcos Springs. Also, the hydrochemical analyses of six San Marcos spring orifices have demonstrated that two chemically different spring groups exist. The southern group of orifices display higher temperature, and tritium and dissolved oxygen concentrations when compared to the northern group of spring orifices. Also, changes in discharge have a more profound effect on water chemistry for the northern spring orifices. A detailed potentiometric surface map was constructed around San Marcos during low spring-flow conditions (70 cfs, 2 cms). The highly fractured and faulted Edwards Limestone produced a very complex potentiometric surface configuration. The numerous faults associated with the Balcones fault zone can act as either ground-water barriers or avenues of enhanced ground-water flow. Pressure head distributions demonstrate the existence of two separate flow regimes, one of "older" water from the San Antonio region and the other of "younger" water moving to the springs from the Blanco River.
    [Show full text]
  • San Marcos Salamander Critical Habitat Was Designated July 14, 1980
    United States Department of the Interior FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 10711 Burnet Road, Suite 200 Austin, Texas 78758 (512) 490-0057 JAN 11 2008 Consultation No. 21450-2007-F-0056 Mark. A. Pohlmeier, Colonel Department of the Air Force HQ AETC/A7C 266 F Street West Randolph AFB, TX 78150-4319 Dear Colonel Pohlmeier: This is the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's (Service) biological opinion based on our review of the effects of ongoing Edwards aquifer (Balcones Fault Zone) well withdrawals by the Department of Defense (DoD) on listed threatened and endangered species pursuant to the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) (Act). The groundwater withdrawals support the existing and future missions at the following Department of Defense (DoD) military installations in Bexar County, Texas: (1) Fort Sam Houston, (2) Lackland Air Force Base (AFB), and (3) Randolph AFB (Figure 1). Species evaluated for effects are the following: (1) Texas wild-rice (Zizania texana), (2) Peck’s cave amphipod (Stygobromus pecki), (3) Comal Springs dryopid beetle (Stygoparnus comalensis), (4) Comal Springs riffle beetle (Heterelmis comalensis), (5) San Marcos gambusia (Gambusia georgei), (6) fountain darter (Etheostoma fonticola), (7) San Marcos salamander (Eurycea nana), and (8) Texas blind salamander (Eurycea rathbuni). We evaluated effects to designated critical habitat of the following species: Texas wild-rice, fountain darter, San Marcos gambusia, San Marcos salamander, Peck’s cave amphipod, Comal Springs dryopid beetle, and Comal Springs riffle beetle. Brooks City-Base also uses water from the Edwards aquifer. However, DoD did not want to include it in this consultation.
    [Show full text]
  • Hill Country Conservation: a Network and Narrative for Large-Scale Collaborative Conservation
    Hill Country Conservation: A Network and Narrative for Large-scale Collaborative Conservation A Report to the Cynthia and George Mitchell Foundation Research and Report by: R. Patrick Bixler, PhD Ashley Noel Lovell, PhD 1 Executive Summary From April 2015-May 2016, we have been involved in a joint research and practitioner-based effort to understand the network and the narrative that shapes Hill Country conservation opportunities and outcomes. We have collected and analyzed over 40 hours of interview data and developed an extensive database of information on the organizations and agencies that work to make the Hill Country a socially and ecologically thriving landscape. Through these efforts, we believe that opportunities exist to improve coordination of activities, leverage and pool resources, increase and use social capital, enhance conflict management (prevention, reduction, resolution), and im- prove knowledge management (including generation, trans- lation, and diffusion). The report that follows summarizes these efforts and offers insights and recommendations based on our analysis. The following are some key take-aways: 1. The organizations and agencies working in the Hill Coun- try are many and diverse. The Hill Country is a special place to many people, it may come as no suprise that there is an abundace of organizations working on conservation issues in the region. Our survey identified 160 organizations and agen- cies (which is not exhaustive) that represent ten different or- ganizational categories, examples include community-based organizations (23% of the network), state non-governmental organizations (15% of the network), and land trusts (5% of the network). Some organizations are focused on specific places, others are focused on connecting with specific constituencies, while still others work on regional or state policy.
    [Show full text]
  • Management of the Edwards Aquifer Region: How the Endangered Species Act Influenced Action
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by OpenSIUC Management of the Edwards Aquifer Region: How the Endangered Species Act influenced Action Glenn Longley Director, Edwards Aquifer Research & Data Center Southwest Texas State University, San Marcos, Texas and Wayne R. Jordan Director, Texas Water Resources Institute Texas A & M University, College Station, Texas INTRODUCTION The Edwards Aquifer (EA) located in southwest Texas is a component of an extensive hydrologic system originating with a large contributing area in the Edwards plateau and terminating as fresh water inflows into bays and estuaries on the state’s Gulf coast. Details of the surface and groundwater systems of the region are presented elsewhere in this issue by Grubb (1997). Historically, most concerns about the EA centered on its ability to continue to provide adequate quantities of high quality water for irrigation, recreation, municipal and industrial supplies, and springflows, which, in turn, provide for instream flows to satisfy downstream water rights and maintain productivity of bays and estuaries. Less well known and appreciated is the unique biological community that exists in and is supported by natural springflows from the EA (Longley 1981, 1992). Members of this community reside within the underground channel/cave system of the karstic aquifer, in the shallow lakes above spring openings and in the streams fed by flows from springs in those lakes and the stream beds. The community includes 4 endangered and 1 threatened species, but a host of other vertebrate and invertebrate organisms are present and may be unique to the EA.
    [Show full text]
  • Edwards Aquifer Bibliography Through 2010
    1615 N. St. Mary’s San Antonio, Texas 78215 http://www.edwardsaquifer.org EDWARDS AQUIFER BIBLIOGRAPHY THROUGH 2010 Compiled by: Roberto Esquilin, P.G. Hydrogeologist Robert Clarkson Program Manager August 2011 i TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................ 1 Purpose and Scope .................................................................................................... 1 Description of the Edwards Aquifer.......................................................................... 2 Other Edwards Aquifer-related Bibliographies ........................................................ 4 Methodology and Approach ..................................................................................... 4 References Organization ........................................................................................... 5 Acknowledgements ................................................................................................... 6 References Cited in the Introduction ......................................................................... 7 BIBLIOGRAPHY Overview Studies .................................................................................................... 10 Archeology .............................................................................................................. 25 Biography ................................................................................................................ 27 Biology ...................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]