DOCSLIB.ORG

Geology and Ground -Water Resources of Comal County,Texas

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Geology and Ground -Water Resources of Comal County,Texas Geology and Ground -Water Resources of Comal County,Texas GEOLOGICAL SURVEY WATER-SUPPLY PAPER 1138 Geology and Ground -Water Resources of Comal County,Texas By WILLIAM O. GEORGE With sections on SURFACE-WATER RUNOFF By SETH D. BREEDING CHEMICAL CHARACTER OF THE WATER By WARREN W. HASTINGS GEOLOGICAL SURVEY WATER-SUPPLY PAPER 1138 Prepared in cooperation with the Texas Board of Water Engineers Sanfrancisco UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE, WASHINGTON : 1952 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Oscar L. Chapman, Secretary GEOLOGICAL SURVEY W. E. Wrather, Director *H'j&v-.'' l"*J* For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U. S. Government Printing Office Washington 25, D. C. CONTENTS Page Abstract.._______._,__________________ = ;siiii. i ___ ii ________________ 1 Introduction, _____________________________________________________ 2 Purpose and scope_____________________________________________ 2 History of settlement-___-____--_-_-_______---__-_-____________ 2 Location-.___________________________________________________ 3 Agriculture and% industrial development________--_______-_-_______ 3 Methods of investigation,______________________________________ 5 Previous investigation._________________________________________ 6 Acknowledgments. ______________________________________________ 6 Climate-_____-____-__---___-_-_-_-___-_-___-____-___-_-__________ 6 Topographjr ______________________________________________________ 11 General features_______________________________________________ 11 Drainage._ ___________________________________________________ 11 Stratigraphy. _______________________________'______________________ 12 Rock formations and their water-bearing properties._______________ 13 Pre-Cretaeeous rocks__ ______________________________________ 13 Cretaceous system.________________________________________ 13 Pre-Comanche rocks..__________________________________ 13 Comanche series_________________-____-_-__-____-______ 15 Trinity group.____________________________________ 15 Travis Peak formation. ________________J_______ 15 Glen Rose limestone. ________________________ -_ 17 Fredericksburg group. _____________________________ 21 Walnut clay______________________--___-_____. 21 Comanche Peak limestone.______-____--__-__-__ 22~ Edwards limestone___________________________ 22 Washita group.___________________________________ 23 Georgetown limestone_________________________ 24 Graysoii (Del Rio) shale__________-____----.-- 25 Buda limestone______________________________ 25 Gulf series__-.__.-_____._.___________-___---___-___-._ 26 Eagle Ford shale. _________________________ 26 Austin chalk____________________.___________ 26 Anacacho limestone and Taylor marl_____________ 27 Tertiary (?) system..._______________________________ 27 Pliocene (?) series-_____-___-_-___-__--_--__------_--__ 27 Uvalde gravel_______-______-__-_-__-_-_-_-____ 27 Quaternary system, _ ______________________________________ 28 Pleistocene series___________________.._______-__-_______ 28 Leona formation_____________________________ 28 ni IV CONTENTS Page Structural geology_-______-____-___________-__-_-_-__-____________.. 28 Faults______________________________________________________ 28 Comal Springs fault____-______ ___________ _ ______________ 29 Hueco Springs fault.___ ___________________ _________________ 29 Bat Cave fault-_-__-__-_-_-._ ._-___-__-__________________ 30 Bear Creek fault___J_______________.______________________ 30 Hidden Valley fault_______________________________________ 31 Tom Creek fault____________________________________________ 31 Spring Branch fault______-___--_-____-_____________________ ' 31 Minor faults and folds_ _______ ._____....________________..__.._ 32 Cause of faulting, ____ _______________________________________ 32 Age of faulting._____________________________________________ 32 Other structural features--__--____-__-._-_--__-_-_-.-..____-_____ 33 San Marcos arch, ___________________________________________ 33 Regional dips ._._..____.______....____ _______________________ 33 Sinkholes- _ ________________________________________________ 34 Methods of water-well construction-__________________________________ 34 Occurrence of ground water, with special reference to discharge and source of Comal Springs__ _____________________ .____-___-______-..___-___ 35 The development of the reservoir in the Edwards lirnestone_--______ 36 The development of the reservoirs in the Glen Rose limestone______ 38 Ground-water discharge________-..__________-_-____---_-_-__-_-. 38 Comal Springs_____________...--_-_____-_-___---_--_-_-____ 38 Hueco Springs__________---_-----_--_--_-_-_-.-_-_-_----,_-_ 40 Other springs_____________________________________________ 41 Discharge from \vells______________-_-______-_-..--_____---__ 42 Ground-water recharge____________________-__-_-_-_----____-_-_ 42 Water levels in wells in relation to rainfall and discharge of springs- _ _____-__--- __-_--___---------_-_-_--__-----_-_ 43 Movement of ground water. __-____.--_-_------__---_-----_----- 48 Rate of movement---__-_-__-____------_---- ____-______-_-_ 50 Direction of movement-__________________-_-_-__-_-___-__-._ 52 Stream losses and gains-___________--_-___-__-_-_-__-_-_.--- 53 Summary of conclusions._____________---_--_-----------__-_-_-- 60 Surface-water supplies, by Seth D. Breeding-_________________________ 61 Guadalupe River___.________________-------------------------- 61 Comal Springs____________________ _---_---- - ------ 65 Blanco River______________________-__-----_----------------- 67 Comal Creek____.___________ __._ 67 Cibolo Creek__ - - 67 Simultaneous records.___________________---__-_-_____--_-_--- 67 Conclusions. __ __________________ _ - - - 69 Chemical character of the water, by Warren W. Hastings..- _-_-_-_- 69 References cited-_________________________- __-_--_--_ _.-- --- 72 Logs of wells___ _ _ ______ -_ _______ 115 Index. _____________ _ _ _ - _ - - 125 CONTENTS ILLUSTRATIONS Page PLATE 1. A, Guadalupe River at Hueco Springs fault. B, Cavern in flood plain on Cibolo Creek________________._______ Facing 10 2. Geologic map and section of Comal County, Tex., showing lo­ cations of recorded wells and springs.________.:____ In pocket 3. A, Rudistid limestone in Guadalupe River canyon. B, Ed­ wards and Comanche Peak limestone in Guadalupe River canyon______________________-___-___________---- Facing 24 4. A, Comal Springs. B, Private power plant below Hueco Springs______________________________________---- Facing 40 5. Map showing altitudes of water levels and lines of equal pres­ sure in Edwards limestone reservoir, 1951______--_-__ In pocket 6. Map of Cibolo Creek basin showing geology and stream gaging stations._________________________________________ In pocket FIGURE 1. Index map showing location of Comal County, Tex_________ 4 2. Altitudes of water levels in wells compared with rainfall, 1936-50_____________________________________________ 45 3. Monthly discharge-of Comal Springs compared with water levels and rainfall, 1932-50___________________________ 46 4. Daily discharge of Comal Springs, water level fluctuations, and rainfall, 1942_____________________.________.__________ 49 5. Average monthly discharge of the Guadalupe River at Com­ fort, Spring Branch, and New Braunfels stations, 1939-50- 55 6. Simultaneous runoff water levels, and precipitation records, 1946-50_____________________________________________ 57 7. Chemical character of ground water in Comal County, Tex__ 71 TABLES TABLE 1. Mean monthly temperature at New Braunfels, Tex_________ 7 2. Frost data for New Braunfels for the years 1930-49, inclusive_ 7 3. Monthly precipitation, in inches, at New Braunfels, Comal County, Tex., 1889-1950.____________________________ 8 4. Monthly precipitation, in inches, at Fischer Store, Comal County, Tex., 1890-1950_______________---____-_-_---_ 9 5. Monthly precipitation, in inches, at Boerne, Kendall County, Tex., 1892-1950_________ _ - -- ---- -_ 10 6. Monthly precipitation, in inches, at Bulverde, Comal County, Tex./1940-50_____________-_-__-_-_--------_--_-_---_ 11 7. Geologic formations in Comal County, Tex________________ 14 8. Comparison of minimum, maximum, and average discharge of Comal Springs and other important springs of the Balcones fault zone, Texas_____________________________________ 39 9. Temperatures, hardness, and discharge of Hueco. Springs, Texas. ________________-_-_-_-_______________ 52 VI CONTENTS Pagfr TABLE 10. Gaging stations in the Comal County area, Texas_________ 61 11. Runoff of the Guadalupe River.________-______'___________ 62 12. Discharge of the Guadalupe River near Spring Branch and at New Braunfels and pickup between stations; rainfall at Fischer Store and New Braunfels, Tex., 1928-50-.-_.___ 63 13. Discharge measurements, Hueco Springs, 3 miles north of New Braunfels, Tex_.._____________________________ 63 14. Discharge measurements to determine seepage on the Guad­ alupe River from Comfort, Tex., to New Braunfels, Tex., in January 1928____________-________-_---__---_--____ 64 15. Discharge measurements to determine seepage on the Guad­ alupe River from Comfort, Tex., to New Braunfels, Tex., in February 1929____________-___-___-__----_--__---_-_ 65 16. Discharge measurements to determine seepage on the Guad­ alupe River from Spring Branch, Tex., to New Braunfels, Tex., in August 1944__________________________________ 66 17. Average monthly and annual discharge, in second-feet, of Comal Springs at New Braunfels, Tex___________________ 66 18. Rainfall and runoff, Comal
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Geologic Resource Evaluation Report, Lyndon B. Johnson
    National Park Service U.S. Department of the Interior Natural Resource Program Center Lyndon B. Johnson National Historical Park Geologic Resource Evaluation Report Natural Resource Report NPS/NRPC/GRD/NRR—2008/024 ON THE COVER: The cattle on the LBJ Ranch are descended from the same bloodline as the herd that Lyndon Johnson owned. They look more like 1960s Hereford cattle and so they can be called "history on the hoof." Lyndon B. Johnson National Historical Park Web site (www.nps.gov/lyjo, accessed 1/23/2008). NPS Photo Lyndon B. Johnson National Historical Park Geologic Resource Evaluation Report Natural Resource Report NPS/NRPC/GRD/NRR—2008/024 Geologic Resources Division Natural Resource Program Center P.O. Box 25287 Denver, Colorado 80225 February 2008 U.S. Department of the Interior Washington, D.C. The Natural Resource Publication series addresses natural resource topics that are of interest and applicability to a broad readership in the National Park Service and to others in the management of natural resources, including the scientific community, the public, and the NPS conservation and environmental constituencies. Manuscripts are peer- reviewed to ensure that the information is scientifically credible, technically accurate, appropriately written for the intended audience, and is designed and published in a professional manner. Natural Resource Reports are the designated medium for disseminating high priority, current natural resource management information with managerial application. The series targets a general, diverse audience, and may contain NPS policy considerations or address sensitive issues of management applicability. Examples of the diverse array of reports published in this series include vital signs monitoring plans; "how to" resource management papers; proceedings of resource management workshops or conferences; annual reports of resource programs or divisions of the Natural Resource Program Center; resource action plans; fact sheets; and regularly- published newsletters.
    [Show full text]
  • 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]
  • GEOLOGIC QUADRANGLE MAP NO. 49 Geology of the Pedernales Falls Quadrangle, Blanco County, Texas
    BUREAU OF ECONOMIC GEOLOGY THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT AUSTIN AUSTIN, TEXAS 78712 W. L. FISHER, Director GEOLOGIC QUADRANGLE MAP NO. 49 Geology of the Pedernales Falls Quadrangle, Blanco County, Texas By VIRGIL E. BARNES November 1982 THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT AUSTIN TO ACCOMPANY MAP-GEOLOGIC BUREAU OF ECONOMIC GEOLOGY QUADRANGLE MAP NO. 49 GEOLOGY OF THE PEDERNALES FALLS QUADRANGLE, BLANCO COUNTY, TEXAS Virgil E. Barnes 1982 CONTENTS General setting .. .. .. ............... 2 Cretaceous System (Lower Cretaceous) . 10 Geologic formations ......... .. ... 2 Trinity Group . 10 Paleozoic rocks ........... .. .. 2 Travis Peak Formation . 10 Cambrian System (Upper Cambrian) . 2 Sycamore Sand . 10 Moore Hollow Group ....... 2 Hammett Shale and Cow Creek Wilberns Formation . ........ 2 Limestone . 10 San Saba Member . .. .... 2 Shingle Hills Formation . 10 Ordovician System (Lower Ordovician) .. 3 Hensen Sand Member . 10 Ellenburger Group . ... .. .... 3 Glen Rose Limestone Member . 10 Tanyard Formation .. ... .... 3 Cenozoic rocks . 11 Threadgill Member ..... ... 3 Quaternary System . 11 Staendebach Member ....... 3 Pleistocene Series . 11 Gorman Formation ...... 4 Terrace deposits . 11 Honeycut Formation ......... 5 Recent Series . 11 Devonian system . .. .... .... 7 Alluvium . 11 Stribling Formation .... .. .. 7 Subsurface geology . 11 Devonian-Mississippian rocks . ...... 8 Mineral resources . 12 Joint fillings ...... ... ... 8 Construction materials . 12 Houy Formation ....... .. .. 8 Building stone . 12 Mississippian System ......... ...
    [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]