Three-dimensional representation of the conceptual model output.

DavisMountains

BarillaMountains

GlassMountains

Grandfalls

Pecos River

Pecos River

PECOSCOUNTY

BREWSTERCOUNTY

PRESIDIOCOUNTY

REEVESCOUNTY

TERRELL COUNTY

CROCKETT COUNTY

JEFF DAVISCOUNTY

UPTON COUNTY

WARDCOUNTY

CRANECOUNTY

285

10

20

10

285

Balmorhea

Toyahvale

Alpine

FortDavis

Belding Fort Stockton

Pecos

Base modified from U.S. Geological Survey digital data, 1:2,000,000 Albers Equal-Area Conic projection, Texas State Mapping SystemNorth American Datum of 1983

Aquifer modified from Ashworth and Hopkins, 1995. Physiographic provinces from N.M. Fenneman and D.W. Johnson, 1946; E.G. Wermund, 1996. Lithologic and geophysical data from

Daniel B. Stephens and Associates, 2010; Railroad Commission of Texas, 2010; Meyer and others, 2011; Texas Water Development Board, 2011; University Lands, 2011;

and U.S. Geological Survey, 2011

SanSolomonSpring

Santa RosaSpring

Leon Springs

ComancheSprings

Diamond Y Spring

0

100

20 MILES10

20 KILOMETERS

102°30’103°30’104°00’

31°00’

30°30’

103°00’

HIGH PLAINS

MEXICANHIGHLAND

PECOS VALLEY EDWARDS (STOCKTON) PLATEAU

BASIN AND RANGE PROVINCE

GREAT PLAINS PROVINCE

BALMORHEASTATE PARK

EXPLANATION

Method of hydrostratigraphic picks Pick reviewed from lithological descriptions in well reports Pick made from interpreted borehole geophysical log Pick made from interpreted geophysical audio-magnetotelluric soundingSpring

Edwards-Trinity aquifer subcropEdwards-Trinity aquifer outcropConceptual model study area boundaryLeon-Belding area boundarySection boundary within physiographic province

7

TEXASStudy area

PECOS COUNTYREGION

Pecos River

U.S. Department of the InteriorU.S. Geological Survey

Fact Sheet 2014–3025July 2014

IntroductionThe Edwards-Trinity aquifer is a vital groundwater resource for agricultural, industrial, and public supply uses in the Pecos

County region of western Texas (Barker and Ardis, 1992; Freese and Nichols, Inc., and LBG-Guyton, Inc., written commun., 2010). Resource managers would like to understand the future availability of water in the Edwards-Trinity aquifer in the Pecos County region and the effects of the possible increase or temporal redistribution of groundwater withdrawals. To provide resource managers with that information, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), in cooperation with the Middle Pecos Groundwater Conservation District, Pecos County, City of Fort Stockton, Brewster County, and Pecos County Water Control and Improvement District No. 1, completed a three-phase study of the Edwards-Trinity and related aquifers in parts of Brewster, Jeff Davis, Pecos, and Reeves Counties (fig. 1).

Figure 1. Location of study area and hydrostratigraphic data used to identify tops and bases of the hydrostratigraphic contacts in the Pecos County region, Texas (modified from Bumgarner and others, 2012, figs. 1 and 7).

Prepared in cooperation with the Middle Pecos Groundwater Conservation District, Pecos County, City of Fort Stockton, Brewster County, and Pecos County Water Control and Improvement District No. 1

A Multiphased Approach to Groundwater Assessments for the Edwards-Trinity and Related Aquifers in the Pecos County Region, Texas

Printed on recycled paper

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1,000

1,100

1,200

1,300

1,400

1,500

1,600

1,700

Cret

aceo

usP e

rmian

Coma

mche

Ocho

aGu

adalu

pe

Frede

ricks

burg

Trini

tyW

hiteh

orse

Salad

oYa

tes

Seve

n Rive

rsQu

een

Gray

burg

Tria

ssic

TansillEd

ward

sTr

inity

Sand

s

Limestone

Shale

Sandstone

Dolomitic anhydrite

Salt and anhydrite

Sandstone

Anhydritic dolomite

Sandstone and shale

Anhydrite

Dolomitic shale

Dolomite

Sandstone and shaleDockum

Rustler

Dewey Lake

Dolomitic shale

MON

UMEN

T DR

AW T

ROUG

H

PECOSTROUGH

GlassMountains

DavisMountains

BarillaMountains

Pecos River

285

10

20

10

285

Base modified from U.S. Geological Survey digital data, 1:2,000,000Albers Equal-Area Conic projection, Texas State Mapping SystemNorth American Datum of 1983

0 20 MILES10

0 20 KILOMETERS10

31°00'

30°30'

102°00'

103°00'104°00' 102°30'103°30'

Base surface altitude of the Edwards-Trinity aquifer, in feet above North American Vertical Datum of 1988

High: 4,315 Low: 1,555

EXPLANATION

Edwards-Trinity aquifer subcropEdwards-Trinity aquifer boundaryConceptual model study area boundaryFault zone—Represents numerous faultsGeologic structure boundaryCounty boundary

Pecos River

GlassMountains

BarillaMountains

FB01FB02

FB03FB04

FB05

FB06

FB09FB08

FB10

FB07Davis

Mountains

285

10

20

10

285

Base modified from U.S. Geological Survey digital data, 1:2,000,000Albers Equal-Area Conic projection, Texas State Mapping SystemNorth American Datum of 1983

0 20 MILES10

0 20 KILOMETERS10

A

A'B'B'

B

31°00'

30°30'

102°00'

103°00'

104°00'102°30'

103°30'

EXPLANATION

Edwards-Trinity aquifer subcropEdwards-Trinity aquifer outcropConceptual model study area boundaryFault zone—Represents numerous faultsCounty boundaryLine of sectionFault block identifier

A'AFB01

U.S. Geological Survey gage at Santa Rosa Spring near Grandfalls, Texas.

The first phase was to collect groundwater, surface-water, geochemical, geophysical, and geologic data in the study area and develop a geodatabase of historical and collected data (Pearson and others, 2012). Data compiled in the first phase of the study were used to develop the conceptual model in the second phase of the study (Bumgarner and others, 2012). The third phase of the study involved the development and calibration of a numerical groundwater-flow model of the Edwards-Trinity aquifer to simulate groundwater conditions based on various groundwater-withdrawal scenarios (Clark and others, 2014).

Analysis of well, geophysical, geochemical, and hydrologic data contributed to the development of the conceptual model in phase 1. Lithologic information obtained from well reports and geophysical data was used to describe the hydrostratigraphy and structural features of the groundwater-flow system, and aquifer-test data were used to estimate aquifer hydraulic properties. Geochemical data were used to evaluate groundwater-flow paths, water-rock interaction, aquifer interaction, and the mixing of water from different sources in phase 2. Groundwater-level data also were used to evaluate aquifer interaction, as well as to develop a potentiometric-surface map, delineate regional groundwater divides, and describe regional groundwater-flow paths. During phase 3, the data collected and compiled along with the conceptual information in the study area were incorporated into a numerical groundwater-flow model to evaluate the sustainability of recent (2008) and projected water-use demands on groundwater resources in the study area.

Hydrogeologic FrameworkSubsurface data were obtained from well reports; natural

gamma, electric, and electromagnetic induction borehole geophysical logs; and audio-magnetotelluric soundings. The subsurface data were used to map the top and base surfaces of the Edwards-Trinity aquifer (fig. 2), the top of the Trinity Group of the Edwards-Trinity aquifer, and the lateral and vertical relations of overlying and underlying aquifers where

they occur in order to develop the hydrostratigraphy of the study area and evaluate structural features.

In the study area, the Edwards-Trinity aquifer ranged in thickness from about 5 feet (ft) to about 797 ft. The aquifer is thinnest in the eastern part of the study area, near the northwestern slope of the Glass Mountains, and near the northeastern slope of the Davis Mountains. Some of the thickest sections of the Edwards-Trinity aquifer were in the Pecos, Monument Draw, and Belding-Coyanosa Trough areas.

Normal fault zones were delineated on the basis of interpretations of cross sections of the top and base surfaces of the Edwards-Trinity aquifer. Faults in the study area appear to have formed as growth and collapse features as sediments were deposited along the margins of more resistant rocks and structures, such as the Glass Mountains, and as overlying sediments collapsed into the voids created by the dissolution of Permian-age evaporite deposits. The fault zones delineate domains in the hydrogeologic framework that generally align with previously identified structural features. Each fault zone represents a series of parallel and transverse faults that result in an overall displacement between two adjacent fault blocks (fig. 3).

Figure 2. Base surface altitude of the Edwards-Trinity aquifer in the Pecos County region, Texas (modified from Bumgarner and others, 2012, fig. 13).

Figure 3. Locations of fault zones and fault blocks within the study area, Pecos County region, Texas, delineated on the basis of the interpretation of multiple cross sections of interpolated hydrostratigraphic contacts (modified from Bumgarner and others, 2012, fig. 17).

U.S. Geological Survey pump hoist truck and water-quality trailer.

Water-quality sampling by the U.S. Geological Survey, San Solomon Spring, Texas.

GeochemistryAnalysis of the geochemical and isotopic samples, from

the study, provided insights into the chemical characteristics of water from different sources and different aquifers. Chemical characteristics of water from different sources were used to qualitatively evaluate aquifer interaction, groundwater-flow paths, water-rock interaction, and mixing of water from different sources and to identify likely source waters and geochemical endmembers (distinct water types).

Geochemical and isotopic results indicate that groundwater in the system likely is dominated by mineralized, regional groundwater flow that probably recharged during the cooler, wetter climates of the Pleistocene with variable contributions of more recent, local recharge. The mixing of water from multiple sources combined with water-rock interaction with various rock types, including siliciclastic, carbonate, evaporite, and igneous rocks, contributed to a groundwater chemistry that was complex and variable between and within aquifers.

Four endmembers were identified to use as part of the qualitative groundwater-flow and mixing analysis. The endmembers represented (1) mineralized groundwater that likely recharged northwest of the study area during the Pleistocene and is flowing through the Edwards-Trinity aquifer along regional groundwater-flow paths; (2) dilute, recent recharge from the Barilla and Davis Mountains with a composition indicative of interaction with igneous rocks; (3) dilute, recent recharge from the Glass Mountains with a composition indicative of interaction with carbonate rocks; and (4) mineralized groundwater that is likely a mixture of recharge under recent and Pleistocene climatic conditions and is flowing through the Edwards-Trinity aquifer along regional groundwater-flow paths east of the Monument Draw Trough. Inverse geochemical modeling (PHREEQC; Parkhurst and Appelo, 1999) was used to simulate the mixing of upgradient Edwards-Trinity aquifer groundwater, recharged in the Barilla, Davis, and Glass Mountains, with Rustler aquifer groundwater to approximate the composition of the groundwater. Geochemical model results indicate that Edwards-Trinity aquifer groundwater in the Leon-Belding and Fort Stockton areas is a mixture of groundwater recharged in the Barilla and Davis Mountains and groundwater that has upwelled from the Rustler aquifer. In the Leon-Belding area, the proportion of Rustler aquifer groundwater in the Edwards-Trinity aquifer increased downgradient from south (0–48.8 percent) to north (87.1–100 percent).

Groundwater-Flow SystemGroundwater-level and geochemical data were used in

context with the hydrogeologic framework to assess regional groundwater-flow paths, recharge sources, and groundwater mixing and discharge in the study area. Groundwater-level altitudes used to generate the potentiometric-surface map of the Edwards-Trinity aquifer ranged from about 2,300 to about 3,300 ft and generally decreased from southwest to northeast. Regional groundwater flow is from areas of recharge in the south and southwest to the north and northeast. Four principal sources of recharge to the Edwards-Trinity aquifer were identified: (1) regional groundwater flow in the Edwards-Trinity aquifer that originated as recharge northwest of the study area and enters the study area near the western corner; (2) runoff from the Barilla, Davis, and Glass Mountains that percolates through underlying rocks and into the gravels along the slopes of the mountains; (3) return flow from irrigation; and (4) upwelling from deeper aquifers. Although some of the groundwater appears to have recharged under conditions similar to the current climate, the only samples collected from the Edwards-Trinity aquifer that likely recharged during the last 60 years (after the onset of atmospheric nuclear weapon testing) were collected from wells in mountain-front recharge areas and in areas receiving agricultural return flow.

Groundwater generally flows north into the downdip extent of the Edwards-Trinity aquifer or east out of the study area. Regional groundwater flow entering the study area from the northwest naturally discharges from springs or turns northward to flow into the Pecos Trough where it discharges into the Pecos Valley or Dockum aquifers at the downdip extent of the Edwards-Trinity aquifer. Recharge from the Barilla and Davis Mountains also predominantly flows toward the Pecos Trough and most likely naturally discharges to other aquifers in the groundwater system. Groundwater flow in the Edwards-Trinity aquifer in the Monument Draw Trough originated as recharge in the Glass Mountains, agricultural return flow, or upwelling groundwater from lower units. Edwards-Trinity aquifer groundwater generally flows north and northeast in the Monument Draw Trough and naturally discharges from springs or to other aquifers in the groundwater system at the downdip extent. Groundwater in the eastern part of the study area likely originated in the Glass Mountains, generally flows northeast, and flows out of the study area to the east or naturally discharges from springs to other aquifers in the groundwater system at the downdip extent or to the Pecos River.

PECOSCOUNTY

BREWSTERCOUNTY

PRESIDIOCOUNTY

REEVES

COUNTY

TERRELL COUNTY

CROCKETT COUNTY

JEFF DAVISCOUNTY

UPTON COUNTY

WARDCOUNTY CRANE

COUNTY Pecos River

Leon-Belding area

Belding

Fort Stockton

£¤285

£¤285

§̈¦10

§̈¦20

§̈¦10

GlassMountains

DavisMountains

BarillaMountains

3,1003,100

3,0003,000

2,9002,900

3,1003,100 3,000

3,000

2,8002,800

3,5003,500

3,4003,400

3,3003,300

3,2003,200

2,7002,700

2,6002,600

3,6003,600

2,7002,700

2,6002,600

2,5002,500

2,4002,4002,6002,600

2,5002,500

2,600

2,600

2,3002,300

0 10 20 MILES

0 10 20 KILOMETERS

Base modified from U.S. Geological Survey digital data, 1:2,000,000Albers Equal-Area Conic projection, Texas State Mapping SystemNorth American Datum of 1983

EXPLANATIONSimulated water level, in feet above North American

Vertical Datum of 1988 (NAVD 88)

2,181.1 to 2,200.0 2,200.1 to 2,400.0 2,400.1 to 2,600.0 2,600.1 to 2,800.0

2,800.1 to 3,000.0 3,000.1 to 3,200.0 3,200.1 to 3,400.0 3,400.1 to 3,600.0

Measured water level 1980 to 2010 (Bumgarner and others, 2012)—Dashed where approximately located. Interval 25 feet. Datum is NAVD 88

Minor contour

Major contour2,6002,600

Groundwater divide

Groundwater-flow model boundary

Conceptual model study area boundary

Fault zone—Represents numerous faults

102°00’102°30'103°00’103°30'104°00’

31°00’

30°30'

Groundwater-Flow SimulationThe modular finite-difference code USGS MODFLOW-2005 (Harbaugh, 2005) was used to develop equations governing three-

dimensional groundwater flow. The model has five layers representing the Pecos Valley aquifer (alluvial layer), the Edwards part of the Edwards-Trinity aquifer (Edwards layer), the Trinity part of the Edwards-Trinity aquifer (Trinity layer), the Dockum aquifer (Dockum layer), and the Rustler aquifer (Rustler layer). The calibration period of the simulation extends from 1940 to 2010 for a total of 70 years and 144 stress periods, each one approximately 6 months in length. The hydrologic boundaries of the model include specified flux (areal recharge, pumping, and no-flow), specified heads (Rustler aquifer), and head-dependent flux (general-head and river boundaries). Each boundary was included to represent a specific aspect of the groundwater-flow system. The measured potentiometric surface for 1980–2010 (fig. 4) and the simulated potentiometric surface for 2010 of the Edwards-Trinity aquifer generally are in agreement.

Groundwater pumping in the model represents public supply, manufacturing, mining, power generation (industrial), and irrigation, with irrigation being the largest water-use category. Groundwater-pumping data were compiled from multiple sources to develop a pumping record for 1940–2010. Site-specific pumping data were used when available, though much of the record for irrigation pumping contained only aggregated amounts of withdrawals by county, aquifer, and year. Wells were assigned a model layer if the screen interval of the well was contained within the top and bottom of a given model layer (fig. 5).

Hydraulic properties in the model were assigned as discrete zones (large areas possessing the same property value) and as distributed properties by using pilot points (Doherty, 2005). The value of each pilot point, as well as other discrete zone parameters, was adjusted through manual and automated methods to achieve a best fit to measured values of hydraulic head and spring flow.

Figure 4. Measured potentiometric surface (1980–2010) and simulated groundwater-level altitudes for the Edwards-Trinity aquifer in the model area of the Pecos County region, Texas, 2010 (modified from Clark and others, 2014, fig. 12).

U.S. Geological Survey pump hoist truck deploying pump in windmill well for aquifer testing and electromagnetic flowmeter logging.

Development of Groundwater-Pumping ScenariosThe model was used to simulate groundwater levels resulting from prolonged pumping to evaluate the sustainability of recent (2008)

and projected water use. Each of three scenarios is a continuation of the 70-year calibration period and simulates a 30-year period from 2010 to 2040. In scenario 1, recent (2008) irrigation and non-irrigation pumping rates are extended for each year of the 30-year simulation period. Scenario 2 evaluates the effects of 2008 pumping rates applied as continuous, year-round maximum permitted groundwater-pumping rates in the Leon-Belding area for the 30-year simulation period. Scenario 3 evaluates the effects of periodic increases in pumping rates over the 30-year simulation period. For each scenario, the change in groundwater level from 2010 to 2040 was extracted from the model for comparison with regard to effects of changes in pumping. The 30-year period is discretized into sixty 6-month stress periods generally representing seasonality of irrigation water demand.

Projected groundwater-level changes in and around the Fort Stockton area indicate little if any change from current conditions, indicating that the groundwater system is near equilibrium with respect to recent (2008) pumping stress. Projected groundwater-level declines (from 15.0 to 31.0 ft) occurred in localized areas by the end of the scenario in the Leon-Belding area. Results of scenario 1 indicate relatively stable water levels ranging from -5.0 to 5.0 ft throughout most of the model area during the 30-year simulation using pumping amounts as specified for the year 2008. In scenario 2, the maximum projected groundwater-level declines in the Leon-Belding irrigation area were approximately 31.3 ft in small isolated areas, which are depicted as water-level changes ranging from 25.0 to 32.0 in. The remaining area and magnitude of groundwater-level decline are almost identical to that of scenario 1. Results of scenario 3 (fig. 6) indicate that the maximum projected groundwater-level decline in the Leon-Belding area was greater than either scenario 1 or 2 at approximately 34.5 ft, and the extent of the decline is larger in area (about 17 percent increase) than that of scenario 2. Additionally, the area of projected groundwater-level declines in the eastern part of the model area increased as compared to scenario 2. The lack of differences in the remaining areas associated with the results of scenarios 2 and 3 might be attributed to the low magnitude of pumping in 2008 and the relatively small total increase in water use of about 15 percent over the 30-year period, which together produce small increases in pumping amounts.

VERTICAL SCALE GREATLY EXAGGERATED

Figure 5. Oblique view of the Pecos County region, Texas, with selected wells extending into the simulated water table of the Edwards-Trinity aquifer (vertically exaggerated) (modified from Clark and others, 2014).

£¤285

£¤285

§̈¦10

§̈¦20

§̈¦10

GLASSMOUNTAINS

BARILLAMOUNTAINS

DAVISMOUNTAINS

Leon-Belding area

PEC

OS

CO

UN

TY

BREWSTER

COUNTY

REEVES COUNTY

TE

RR

EL

LC

OU

NT

Y

CROCKETTCOUNTY

JEFF DAVIS

COUNTY

UPTONCOUNTY

WA

RD

CO

UN

TY

CR

AN

E C

OU

NT

Y

BeldingFort

Stockton

102˚00’102˚30'103˚00’103˚30'104˚00’

31˚00’

30˚30'

Base modified from U.S. Geological Survey, 1:2,000,000-scale digital dataAlbers Equal Area Projection, Texas State Mapping SystemNorth American Datum of 1983

0 5 10 15 20 MILES

0 5 10 15 20 KILOMETERS

EXPLANATION

Groundwater-flow model boundaryConceptual model study area boundaryFault zone—Represents numerous faults -5.1 to -13.5

4.9 to -5.014.9 to 5.0

24.9 to 15.034.5 to 25.0

Water-level change from 2010 to 2040,in feet (2010 minus 2040)

Pecos R iver

Figure 6. Groundwater-level difference for the Edwards-Trinity aquifer in the model area of the Pecos County region, Texas, from 2010 to 2040 for groundwater-pumping scenario 3 (modified from Clark and others, 2014, fig. 20).

U.S. Department of the InteriorU.S. Geological Survey

Data Series 678

Prepared in cooperation with the Middle Pecos Groundwater Conservation District, Pecos County, City of Fort Stockton, Brewster County, and Pecos County Water Control and Improvement District No. 1

Data Collection and Compilation for a Geodatabase of Groundwater, Surface-Water, Water-Quality, Geophysical, and Geologic Data, Pecos County Region, Texas, 1930–2011

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

??

? ?

WEST EAST

SECT

ION

B–B

'

A A'

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

3,500

Altit

ude,

in fe

etab

ove

Nor

th A

mer

ican

Ver

tical

Dat

um o

f 198

8U.S. Department of the InteriorU.S. Geological Survey

Scientific Investigations Report 2012–5124 (Revised July 10, 2012)

Prepared in cooperation with the Middle Pecos Groundwater Conservation District, Pecos County, City of Fort Stockton, Brewster County, and Pecos County Water Control and Improvement District No. 1

A Conceptual Model of the Hydrogeologic Framework, Geochemistry, and Groundwater-Flow System of the Edwards-Trinity and Related Aquifers in the Pecos County Region, Texas

Water-level change 2010–2040 for Scenario 3

Water-level decline

Water-level rise

Leon-Belding area

PECOS COUNTYBREWSTER COUNTY

REEVES COUNTY

TERRELL COUNTY

CROCKETTCOUNTY

JEFF DAVIS COUNTY

UPTON COUNTY

WA

RD

CO

UN

TY

CR

AN

E C

OU

NT

Y

BeldingFort Stockton

Pecos River

Oblique view of the Pecos County region with selected wells extending into the simulated water tableof the Edwards-Trinity aquifer (vertically exaggerated)

U.S. Department of the InteriorU.S. Geological Survey

Scientific Investigations Report 2013–5228 Revised July 2014

Prepared in cooperation with the Middle Pecos Groundwater Conservation District, Pecos County, City of Fort Stockton, Brewster County, and Pecos County Water Control and Improvement District No. 1

Simulation of Groundwater Flow in the Edwards-Trinity and Related Aquifers in the Pecos County Region, Texas

Railroad Commission of Texas, 2010, Geophysical log database: Accessed September 30, 2011, at http://rrcsearch.neubus.com/esd-rrc/#results.

Texas Water Development Board, 2011, Groundwater database reports: Accessed December 19, 2011, at http://www.twdb.state.tx.us/publications/reports/GroundWaterReports/GWDatabaseReports/GWdatabaserpt.asp.

Texas Water Development Board, 2013, 2011 regional water plan: Accessed June 6, 2013, at http://www.twdb.state.tx.us/waterplanning/data/projections/2012/doc/Population/PopulationByRWPG/4PopulationF.pdf.

University Lands, 2011, Well library: Accessed July 1, 2011, at http://www.utlands.utsystem.edu/techdata.aspx.

U.S. Geological Survey, 2011, National Water Information System (NWISWeb) data: Accessed December 19, 2011, at http://waterdata.usgs.gov/tx/nwis/nwis.

ISSN 2327-6916 (print)ISSN 2327-6932 (online)

http://dx.doi.org/10.3133/fs20143025

This fact sheet is based on the following USGS reports:

Publishing support provided byLafayette and Rolla Publishing Service Centers

For additional information, contact Director, Texas Water Science Center U.S. Geological Survey 1505 Ferguson Lane Austin, Texas 78754–4501 http://tx.usgs.gov/

References CitedAshworth, J.B., and Hopkins, Janie, 1995, Aquifers of Texas:

Texas Water Development Board Report 345, 69 p.Barker, R.A., and Ardis, A.F., 1992, Configuration of the base of

the Edwards-Trinity aquifer and hydrogeology of the underlying pre-Cretaceous rocks, west-central Texas: U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report 91–4071, 25 p., 1 pl.

Doherty, J.E., 2005, PEST—Model-independent parameter estimation, user manual (5th ed.): Watermark Numerical Computing, 336 p.

Harbaugh, A.W., 2005, MODFLOW-2005, the U.S. Geological Survey modular ground-water model—The ground-water flow process: U.S. Geological Survey Techniques and Methods 6–A16, variously paged.

Meyer, J.E., Wise, M.R., and Kalaswad, Sanjeev, 2011, Pecos Valley aquifer, west Texas—Structure and brackish groundwater: Texas Water Development Board Brackish Resources Aquifer Characterization System (BRACS), 92 p.

Parkhurst, D.L., and Appelo, C.A.J., 1999, User’s guide to PHREEQC (version 2)—A computer program for speciation, batch-reaction, one-dimensional transport, and inverse geochemical calculations: U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report 99–4259, 312 p.

Pearson, D.K., Bumgarner, J.R., Houston, N.A., Stanton, G.P., Teeple, A.P., and Thomas, J.V., 2012, Data collection and compilation for a geodatabase of groundwater, surface-water, water-quality, geophysical, and geologic data, Pecos County region, Texas, 1930–2011: U.S. Geological Survey Data Series 678, 67 p., http://pubs.usgs.gov/ds/678/.

Bumgarner, J.R., Stanton, G.P., Teeple, A.P., Thomas, J.V., Houston, N.A., Payne, J.D., and Musgrove, MaryLynn, 2012, A conceptual model of the hydrogeologic framework, geochemistry, and groundwater-flow system of the Edwards-Trinity and related aquifers in the Pecos County region, Texas: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2012–5124, 74 p., http://pubs.usgs.gov/sir/2012/5124/.

Clark, B.R., Bumgarner, J.R., Houston, N.A., and Foster, A.L., 2014, Simulation of groundwater flow in the Edwards-Trinity and related aquifers in the Pecos County region, Texas: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2013–5228, 56 p., http://dx.doi.org/10.3133/sir20135228. (Revised July 2014).

— Jonathan V. Thomas