Comal Springs Mapping Project

Texas Parks and Wildlife DepartmentUnited States Fish and Wildlife Service

Why map Comal Springs?• Identify precise locations

of GW inputs• Provides basis for future

comparison at varying flows

• Provides basis for systematic sampling of springs for inverts

• Provide info on habitat associations

Comal Springs Mapping Project

Goal – to map, describe, and document the various spring outlets that comprise Comal

Springs

Objectives• Gather geospatial data with submeter accuracy

• Gather elevation, WQ, flow, and photos• Describe physical habitat of each spring• Compile data into a geodatabase

• Disseminate info to interested parties

Results• 425 Springs mapped• 333 point springs• 92 groups of springs

• Landa Lake – 176 (42%)• W. Shore – 142 (32%)• SR 1 – 21 (5%)• SR 2 – 14 (3%)• SR 3 – 57 (13%)• SR 4-6, OC, SFP – 1-5 (≤ 1%)

Comal Springs Mapping Project

Results

• Spring types– 165 (39%) alluvial, 195 (46%) upwelling, 40 (9%)

single orifice

• 17 veg types associated with spring openings– Associated with 132 (31%) of springs– Anacua (27%), Elephant Ear (23%), and Ligustrum

(19%) most common

• Total discharge ranged from 244 to 224 cfs– Historical average (1934-2011) is 290 cfs

Results

SR 1 - 20 cfs

SR2 – 4.6 cfs

SR3 – 31.3 cfs

19.2 cfs

99.4 cfs

Location Discharge (cfs)

Spring Run 1 20

Spring Run 2 4.6

Spring Run 3 31.3

Upper Landa Lake 19.2

W Shoreline/Spring Island Area 80.2

W Shoreline/Landa Lake Area 84.7

Total Discharge (Comal River) 240

Discussion• Map provides basis for future work• Future mapping efforts at varying flows

• Reveal changes in spring habitats and system as a whole

• Targets (cfs) – 290, 196, 150, 120, 100, 90-30 at 10 cfs increments

• Sampling of CSRB and other rare inverts in Comal Springs system• Systematic sampling of springs to define distribution of

organisms in system• Provide information on habitat associations• Estimating surface population size