Geology topics

Natalie A. Houston

Publications and source records attributed to Natalie A. Houston.

At least 37 records · Page 2Linked to original sources

USGS2009

Description and evaluation of numerical groundwater flow models for the Edwards Aquifer, south-central Texas

A substantial number of public water system wells in south-central Texas withdraw groundwater from the karstic, highly productive Edwards aquifer. However, the use of numerical groundwater flow models to aid in the delineation of contributing areas for public water system wells in the Edwards aquifer is problematic because of the complex hydrogeologic framework and the presence of conduit-dominated flow paths in the aquifer. The U.S. Geological Survey, in cooperation with the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, evaluated six published numerical groundwater flow models (all deterministic) that have been developed for the Edwards aquifer San Antonio segment or Barton Springs segment, or both. This report describes the models developed and evaluates each with respect to accessibility and ease of use, range of conditions simulated, accuracy of simulations, agreement with dye-tracer tests, and limitations of the models. These models are (1) GWSIM model of the San Antonio segment, a FORTRAN computer-model code that pre-dates the development of MODFLOW; (2) MODFLOW conduit-flow model of San Antonio and Barton Springs segments; (3) MODFLOW diffuse-flow model of San Antonio and Barton Springs segments; (4) MODFLOW Groundwater Availability Modeling [GAM] model of the Barton Springs segment; (5) MODFLOW recalibrated GAM model of the Barton Springs segment; and (6) MODFLOW–DCM (dual conductivity model) conduit model of the Barton Springs segment. The GWSIM model code is not commercially available, is limited in its application to the San Antonio segment of the Edwards aquifer, and lacks the ability of MODFLOW to easily incorporate newly developed processes and packages to better simulate hydrologic processes. MODFLOW is a widely used and tested code for numerical modeling of groundwater flow, is well documented, and is in the public domain. These attributes make MODFLOW a preferred code with regard to accessibility and ease of use. The MODFLOW conduit-flow model incorporates improvements over previous models by using (1) a user-friendly interface, (2) updated computer codes (MODFLOW–96 and MODFLOW–2000), (3) a finer grid resolution, (4) less-restrictive boundary conditions, (5) an improved discretization of hydraulic conductivity, (6) more accurate estimates of pumping stresses, (7) a long transient simulation period (54 years, 1947–2000), and (8) a refined representation of high-permeability zones or conduits. All of the models except the MODFLOW–DCM conduit model have limitations resulting from the use of Darcy’s law to simulate groundwater flow in a karst aquifer system where non-Darcian, turbulent flow might actually dominate. The MODFLOW–DCM conduit model is an improvement in the ability to simulate karst-like flow conditions in conjunction with porous-media-type matrix flow. However, the MODFLOW–DCM conduit model has had limited application and testing and currently (2008) lacks commercially available pre- and post-processors. The MODFLOW conduit-flow and diffuse-flow Edwards aquifer models are limited by the lack of calibration for the northern part of the Barton Springs segment (Travis County) and their reliance on the use of the calibrated hydraulic conductivity and storativity values from the calibrated Barton Springs segment GAM model. The major limitation of the Barton Springs segment GAM and recalibrated GAM models is that they were calibrated to match measured water levels and springflows for a restrictive range of hydrologic conditions, with each model having different hydraulic conductivity and storativity values appropriate to the hydrologic conditions that were simulated. The need for two different sets of hydraulic conductivity and storativity values increases the uncertainty associated with the accuracy of either set of values, illustrates the non-uniqueness of the model solution, and probably most importantly demonstrates the limitations of using a one-layer model to represent the heterogeneous hydrostratigraphic units composing the Edwards aquifer. In general, the best matches or agreement between groundwater flow directions inferred by numerical model simulation, and by dye-tracer tests, are observed where model outputs accurately reproduce the configuration of the potentiometric surface with regard to the positions of major and minor groundwater troughs and divides. None of the models, with the possible exception of the MODFLOW–DCM conduit model, has a documented capability to accurately simulate travel times for conduit-dominated velocities in the Edwards aquifer. Public water system assessments of wells in the Barton Springs segment of the Edwards aquifer, and elsewhere where conduit-flow conditions are thought to dominate aquifer hydraulic behavior, might be enhanced by use of either the MODFLOW–DCM model or the newly developed U.S. Geological Survey MODFLOW Conduit-Flow Process module for MODFLOW–2005, because each incorporates a type of dual or triple hydraulic conductivity approach and has the capability to explicitly simulate turbulent flow and conduit hydraulic characteristics.

Texas↗

USGS2008

Water-level altitudes 2008 and water-level changes in the Chicot, Evangeline, and Jasper Aquifers and compaction 1973-2007 in the Chicot and Evangeline Aquifers, Houston-Galveston Region, Texas

This report, done in cooperation with the Harris-Galveston Subsidence District, the City of Houston, the Fort Bend Subsidence District, and the Lone Star Groundwater Conservation District, is one in an annual series of reports that depicts water-level altitudes and water-level changes in the Chicot, Evangeline, and Jasper aquifers, and compaction in the Chicot and Evangeline aquifers in the Houston-Galveston region, Texas. The report contains 17 sheets and 16 tables: 3 sheets are maps showing current-year (2008) water-level altitudes for each aquifer, respectively; 3 sheets are maps showing 1-year (2007-08) water-level changes for each aquifer, respectively; 3 sheets are maps showing 5-year (2003-08) water-level changes for each aquifer, respectively; 4 sheets are maps showing long-term (1990-2008 and 1977-2008) water-level changes for the Chicot and Evangeline aquifers, respectively; 1 sheet is a map showing long-term (2000-2008) water-level change for the Jasper aquifer; 1 sheet is a revision of a previously published water-level-altitude map for the Jasper aquifer for 2003; 1 sheet is a map showing site locations of borehole extensometers; and 1 sheet comprises graphs showing measured compaction of subsurface material at the sites from 1973 or later through 2007, respectively. Tables listing the data used to construct the aquifer-data maps and the compaction graphs are included.

Texas↗

USGS2007

Geologic and hydrogeologic information for a geodatabase for the Brazos River Alluvium Aquifer, Bosque County to Fort Bend County, Texas

During July-October 2006, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), in cooperation with the Texas Water Development Board (TWDB), developed geologic and hydrogeologic information for a geodatabase for use in development of a Groundwater Availability Model (GAM) of the Brazos River alluvium aquifer along the Brazos River from Bosque County to Fort Bend County, Texas. The report provides geologic and hydrogeologic information for a study area that encompasses the Brazos River alluvium aquifer, a 1/2-mile-wide lateral buffer surrounding the aquifer, and the rocks immediately underlying the aquifer. The geodatabase involves use of a thematic approach to create layers of feature data using a geographic information system. Feature classes represent the various types of data that are keyed to spatial location and related to one another within the geodatabase. The 1/2-mile-wide buffer surrounding the aquifer was applied to include data from wells constructed primarily in alluvium but outside the boundary of the Brazos River alluvium aquifer. A 1/2- by 1/2-mile grid was generated on the study area to facilitate uniform distribution of data for eventual input into the GAM. Data were compiled primarily from drillers and borehole geophysical logs from government agencies and universities, hydrogeologic sections and maps from published reports, and agency files. The geodatabase contains 450 points with geologic data and 280 points with hydrogeologic data.

Open-File Report↗

USGS2007

Water-level altitudes 2007 and water-level changes in the Chicot, Evangeline, and Jasper aquifers and compaction 1973-2006 in the Chicot and Evangeline aquifers, Houston-Galveston region, Texas

This report, done in cooperation with the Harris-Galveston Subsidence District, the City of Houston, the Fort Bend Subsidence District, and the Lone Star Groundwater Conservation District, is one in an annual series of reports that depicts water-level altitudes and water-level changes in the Chicot, Evangeline, and Jasper aquifers, and compaction in the Chicot and Evangeline aquifers in the Houston-Galveston, Texas, region. The report contains 18 sheets and 17 tables: 3 sheets are maps showing current-year (2007) water-level altitudes for each aquifer, respectively; 3 sheets are maps showing 1-year (2006-07) water-level changes for each aquifer, respectively; 3 sheets are maps showing 5-year (2002-07) water-level changes for each aquifer, respectively; 4 sheets are maps showing long-term (1990-2007 and 1977-2007) water-level changes for the Chicot and Evangeline aquifers, respectively; 1 sheet is a map showing long-term (2000-2007) water-level change for the Jasper aquifer; 2 sheets are revisions of previously published water-level-altitude maps for the Jasper aquifer for 2000 and 2002, respectively; 1 sheet is a map showing site locations of borehole extensometers; and 1 sheet comprises graphs showing measured compaction of subsurface material at the sites from 1973 or later through 2006, respectively. Tables listing the data used to construct the aquifer-data maps and the compaction graphs also are included.

Texas↗

USGS2007

Hydrogeologic characterization of the Brazos River Alluvium Aquifer, Bosque County to Fort Bend County, Texas

Introduction The Brazos River alluvium aquifer underlies the Brazos River in Texas from Bosque County to Fort Bend County. The aquifer, one of 21 minor aquifers in the State, supplies water for irrigation, domestic, stock, and commercial use. The Brazos River alluvium aquifer likely will become more important in the future as demand for water increases statewide. A thorough understanding of the hydrogeology of the alluvium aquifer will be the foundation for future studies in the area. During October 2006-April 2007, the U.S. Geological Survey, in cooperation with the Texas Water Development Board, conducted a study to delineate the altitude of the top, altitude of the base, and thickness of the Brazos River alluvium aquifer, and to compile and summarize available hydraulic property (specific capacity, transmissivity, and hydraulic conductivity) data. A digital elevation model was used as the altitude of the top of the aquifer. The altitude of the base of the aquifer was generated using data from wells. The study area encompasses the Brazos River alluvium aquifer in parts of Bosque, Hill, McLennan, Falls, Robertson, Milam, Brazos, Burleson, Grimes, Washington, Waller, Austin, and Fort Bend Counties and a 1.5-mile-wide lateral buffer adjacent to the aquifer. The results of this study will be used by the Texas Water Development Board for input into a ground-water availability model.

Scientific Investigations Map↗

USGS2006

Water-level altitudes 2006 and water-level changes in the Chicot, Evangeline, and Jasper aquifers and compaction 1973-2005 in the Chicot and Evangeline aquifers, Houston-Galveston region, Texas

This report is one in an annual series of reports that depicts water-level altitudes and water-level changes in the Chicot, Evangeline, and Jasper aquifers, and compaction in the Chicot and Evangeline aquifers in the Houston-Galveston region. The Houston-Galveston region comprises Harris, Galveston, Fort Bend, Waller, and Montgomery Counties and adjacent parts of Brazoria, Grimes, Walker, San Jacinto, Liberty, and Chambers Counties. The report was prepared in cooperation with the Harris-Galveston Coastal Subsidence District, the City of Houston, the Fort Bend Subsidence District, and the Lone Star Groundwater Conservation District. For the Chicot and Evangeline aquifers, maps show approximate water-level altitudes in 2006, water-level changes from 2005 to 2006, and approximate water-level changes from 2001 to 2006, from 1990 to 2006, and from 1977 to 2006 (figs. 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 ). For the Jasper aquifer, maps show approximate water-level altitudes in 2006 and water-level changes from 2005 to 2006 and 2000 to 2006 (figs. 11 , 12 , 13 ). The report also contains a map showing borehole extensometer (well equipped with compaction monitor) site locations ( fig. 14 ) and graphs showing measured compaction of subsurface material at these sites from 1973 or later to 2005 ( fig. 15 ). The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) has published annual reports of water-level altitudes and water-level changes for the Chicot and Evangeline aquifers in the Houston-Galveston region since 1979; and annual reports of same for the Fort Bend subregion (Fort Bend County and adjacent areas) since 1990. The USGS published its first water-level-altitude map for the Jasper aquifer in the greater Houston area (primarily Montgomery County) in 2001. The 2006 water-level-altitude and water-level-change maps for the three aquifers are included in this report.

Texas↗

USGS2005

Water-level altitudes 2005 and water-level changes in the Chicot, Evangeline, and Jasper aquifers and compaction 1973-2004 in the Chicot and Evangeline aquifers, Houston-Galveston region, Texas

This report is one in an annual series of reports that depicts water-level altitudes and water-level changes in the Chicot, Evangeline, and Jasper aquifers, and compaction in the Chicot and Evangeline aquifers in the Houston-Galveston region. The Houston-Galveston region comprises Harris, Galveston, Fort Bend, Waller, and Montgomery Counties and adjacent parts of Brazoria, Grimes, Walker, San Jacinto, Liberty, and Chambers Counties. The report was prepared in cooperation with the Harris-Galveston Coastal Subsidence District, the City of Houston, the Fort Bend Subsidence District, and the Lone Star Groundwater Conservation District. For the Chicot and Evangeline aquifers, maps show approximate water-level altitudes in 2005, water-level changes from 2004 to 2005, and approximate water-level changes from 2000 to 2005, from 1990 to 2005, and from 1977 to 2005 (figs. 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , and 10 ). For the Jasper aquifer, maps show approximate water-level altitudes in 2005 and water-level changes from 2004 to 2005 and 2000 to 2005 (figs. 11 , 12 , and 13 ). The report also contains a map showing borehole extensometer (well equipped with compaction monitor) site locations ( fig. 14 ) and graphs showing measured compaction of subsurface material at these sites from 1973 or later to 2004 ( fig. 15 ). The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) has published annual reports of water-level altitudes and water-level changes for the Chicot and Evangeline aquifers in the Houston-Galveston region since 1979; and annual reports of same for the Fort Bend subregion (Fort Bend County and adjacent areas) since 1990. The USGS published its first water-level-altitude map for the Jasper aquifer in the greater Houston area (primarily Montgomery County) in 2001. The 2005 water-level-altitude and water-level-change maps for the three aquifers are included in this report.

Texas↗

USGS2005

Evaluation of ground-water flow and land-surface subsidence caused by hypothetical withdrawals in the northern part of the Gulf Coast Aquifer system, Texas

During 2003–04 the U.S. Geological Survey, in cooperation with the Texas Water Development Board (TWDB) and the Harris-Galveston Coastal Subsidence District (HGCSD), used the previously developed Northern Gulf Coast Ground-Water Availability Modeling (NGC GAM) model to evaluate the effects of hypothetical projected withdrawals on ground-water flow in the northern part of the Gulf Coast aquifer system and land-surface subsidence in the NGC GAM model area of Texas. The Gulf Coast aquifer system comprises, from the surface, the Chicot and Evangeline aquifers, the Burkeville confining unit, the Jasper aquifer, and the Catahoula confining unit. Two withdrawal scenarios were simulated. The first scenario comprises historical withdrawals from the aquifer system for 1891–2000 and hypothetical projected withdrawals for 2001–50 compiled by the TWDB (TWDB scenario). The projected withdrawals compiled by the TWDB are based on ground-water demands estimated by regional water planning groups. The second scenario is a “merge” of the TWDB scenario with an alternate set of projected withdrawals from the Chicot and Evangeline aquifers in the Houston metropolitan area for 1995–2030 provided by the HGCSD (HGCSD scenario). Under the TWDB scenario withdrawals from the entire system are projected to be about the same in 2050 as in 2000. The simulated potentiometric surfaces of the Chicot aquifer for 2010, 2020, 2030, 2040, and 2050 show relatively little change in configuration from the simulated 2000 potentiometric surface (maximum water-level depths in southern Harris County 150–200 feet below NGVD 29). The simulated decadal potentiometric surfaces of the Evangeline aquifer show the most change between 2000 and 2010. The area of water levels 250– 400 feet below NGVD 29 in western Harris County in 2000 shifts southeastward to southern Harris County, and water levels recover to 200–250 feet below NGVD 29 by 2010. Water levels in southern Harris County recover to 150–200 feet below NGVD 29 by 2020 and remain in that range through 2050. A relatively small cone of depression in southern Montgomery County that did not appear in the 2000 surface develops and enlarges during the projected period, with a maximum depth of 250–300 feet below NGVD 29 in 2030, 2040, and 2050. The simulated decadal potentiometric surfaces of the Jasper aquifer each have a major cone of depression centered in southern Montgomery County that was minimally developed in 2000 but reaches depths of 550–650 feet below NGVD 29 in the 2020, 2030, 2040, and 2050 surfaces. Under the TWDB scenario the percentage of withdrawals supplied by net recharge increases from 75 percent in 2000 to 87 percent in 2050, and the percentage of withdrawals supplied by storage decreases from 25 percent in 2000 to 13 percent in 2050. Under the HGCSD scenario, withdrawals from the Chicot and Evangeline aquifers increase about 74 percent during 1995–2030; Jasper aquifer withdrawals are unchanged from those of the TWDB scenario. For the 2010, 2020, and 2030 potentiometric surfaces of the Chicot and Evangeline aquifers, the substantially greater withdrawals of the HGCSD scenario relative to those of the TWDB scenario result in progressively deeper cones of depression than those in the potentiometric surfaces associated with the TWDB scenario—for the Chicot aquifer in southern Harris County, 400–450 feet below NGVD 29 in 2030; for the Evangeline aquifer in southern Montgomery County, 700–750 feet below NGVD 29 in 2030. Although Jasper aquifer withdrawals are the same for both scenarios, the major cone of depression centered in southern Montgomery County in the 2030 potentiometric surface is 50 feet deeper at its center (600–700 feet below NGVD 29) than the cone in the 2030 surface under the TWDB scenario. Under the HGCSD scenario, the percentage of withdrawals supplied by net recharge decreases from 72 percent in 1995 to 57 percent in 2030, and the percentage of withdrawals supplied by storage increases from 28 percent in 2000 to 43 percent in 2030. About 85 percent of the increase supplied by storage is from the compaction of clay. Land-surface subsidence in the major area of subsidence centered in Harris and Galveston Counties during 2000–50 that results from simulating the TWDB withdrawal scenario expands slightly to the west and increases in places. The maximum change occurs in the Conroe area where subsidence increases from about 4 to about 13 feet during the projected period. Land-surface subsidence in the major area of subsidence during 1995–2030 that results from simulating the HGCSD withdrawal scenario increases substantially. For example, in east-central Harris County maximum subsidence increases from about 10–11 feet in 1995 to 22 feet in 2030. The hypothetical projected withdrawal scenarios are estimates of future withdrawals and might not represent actual future withdrawals. The simplifying assumptions that the downdip limit of freshwater flow in each hydrogeologic unit is a stable, sharp interface across which no flow occurs and that the base of the system is a no-flow boundary become less realistic and thus increase the uncertainty in results as drawdowns increase. The presence of uncertainty dictates that the results of the predictive simulations described in this report be used with caution in any decision-making process.

Texas↗

USGS2004

Analyses and estimates of hydraulic conductivity from slug tests in alluvial aquifer underlying Air Force Plant 4 and Naval Air Station-Joint Reserve Base Carswell Field, Fort Worth, Texas

This report describes the collection, analyses, and distribution of hydraulic-conductivity data obtained from slug tests completed in the alluvial aquifer underlying Air Force Plant 4 and Naval Air Station-Joint Reserve Base Carswell Field, Fort Worth, Texas, during October 2002 and August 2003 and summarizes previously available hydraulic-conductivity data. The U.S. Geological Survey, in cooperation with the U.S. Air Force, completed 30 slug tests in October 2002 and August 2003 to obtain estimates of horizontal hydraulic conductivity to use as initial values in a ground-water-flow model for the site. The tests were done by placing a polyvinyl-chloride slug of known volume beneath the water level in selected wells, removing the slug, and measuring the resulting water-level recovery over time. The water levels were measured with a pressure transducer and recorded with a data logger. Hydraulic-conductivity values were estimated from an analytical relation between the instantaneous displacement of water in a well bore and the resulting rate of head change. Although nearly two-thirds of the tested wells recovered 90 percent of their slug-induced head change in less than 2 minutes, 90-percent recovery times ranged from 3 seconds to 35 minutes. The estimates of hydraulic conductivity range from 0.2 to 200 feet per day. Eighty-three percent of the estimates are between 1 and 100 feet per day.

Texas↗

USGS2003