springs and recharge in the northern segment of the ... symposium/2015...springs and recharge in the...

Springs and recharge in the Northern Segment of the Edwards Balcones Fault Zone aquifer

Stephanie S. Wong and Joe C. Yelderman Jr.Department of Geology | Baylor University | One Bear Place #97354 | Waco TX 76798

[email protected]

Presented at the 15th Annual Bell County Water SymposiumThursday, November 19, 2015 || Belton, Texas

Presentation outline

• Setting• Milestones and research

activities, 2011-2015• Ongoing and future work• Lessons learned

Our purpose today:Step through time and revisit milestones of Edwards

aquifer study

2

Northern Segment

Barton Springs Segment

San Antonio Segment

Setting: The Edwards BFZ Aquifer

SALADO

SAN ANTONIO

AUSTIN

(I-35 CAC, 2011) 3

Study area: Salado Springs complex

Big BoilingSpring

Anderson Spring

Critchfield Spring

Doc Benedict Spring

Little Bubbly Spring

USGS stream gage

Big Boiling spring

Anderson spring

Critchfieldspring

Edwards aquifer research through time

2011

• The Epic Drought• Beginning of

Baylor relationship with Clearwater

5

Recent Drought

2011

http://droughtmonitor.unl.edu

Abnormally dry

Moderate drought

Severe drought

Extreme droughtExceptional drought

6


2011

2012

• Salado salamander proposed to be listed as endangered

7

Salado Salamander, Eurycea chisolmensis

Big BoilingSpring

Anderson Spring

Critchfield Spring

Doc Benedict Spring

Little Bubbly Spring

USGS stream gage

Salado Salamander

• Fully aquatic – restricted to water-filled openings, or near spring outflows

• Endemic to the Salado Springs system


2011

2012

2013

• Research contract with Baylor

• Dye tracer test (summer)

9

Why should we study the Edwards aquifer?

• Not well-studied• Important as water

source and habitat• Local groundwater

management measure

• Continued growth in the area– What are impacts of

development on aquifer? 0

50,000

100,000

150,000

200,000

250,000

300,000

350,000

201320101990198019701960

Popu

latio

n

(United States Census Bureau, 2015)

2013: 326,843

Bell County Population

Salado springs

DFC: Minimum 100 ac-ft /

month

10

Collaboration with CUWCD: objectives

• To improve our understanding of the Northern Segment of the Edwards Aquifer,

– Research– Monitoring

• to communicate research results and scientific knowledge with project partners and stakeholders,

– Regular communication with CUWCD– Presentations

• so that management of the Northern Segment for water resource and critical habitat can be better informed

11

Research program design for CUWCD

• System characterization:– Measuring well water levels– Dye tracing– Dissolved radon concentrations– Recharge feature characterization

• Monitoring:– Stream cross sections– Multi-parameter dataloggers

• Long-term deployments• Event-based deployments

– Weather stations

FOCUS AREAS:• Instrumentation• Build knowledge

base• Field tests and

feasibility studies12

Measuring synoptic water levels

13

Groundwater elevations, 2013

600

n = 39

SALADO

14

2010-2013 comparison

400

450

500

550

600

650

700

750

800

850

Wat

er le

vel e

leva

tion

(ft)

Well pair

2010 2013

01 0302 0504 06 07

?

==

Average change = +1 ft

15

Dye tracing

• Tracks water flow paths

• Use of particles or chemical

Spring connectivity: Dye tracing

Critchfield

Stagecoach Inn Cave

USGS Gage

Side sp.

Big Boiling upstream

Low Water Dam

Big Boiling

AndersonDoc Benedict

Rock sp.

Pace ParkRobertson sp.

upstreamRobertson sp.

(outlet 1) Robertson sp.(outlet 2)

SymbolsCave well

Surface waterSpringC O N T R O L

C O N N E C T I O N ?

Mahler et al., 1998:• Well to Big Boiling Sp.

(~800 ft)• Lanthanide-tagged clay

(particle trace)

??

17

Summer 2013 trace

Critchfield

Stagecoach Inn Cave

USGS Gage

Side sp.


Low Water Dam

Big Boiling


Rock sp.

Pace Park

Robertson sp.(outlet 2)

Summer 2013 trace results

DETECTIONTime elapsed

(hrs)Big Boiling

First: 1.8Peak: 2.7

Big Boiling

Anderson

18


2011

2012

2013

2014

• Salado salamander listed as threatened

• Research permit• Instrumentation

19

Summer 2014 field work

• ~30 sites visited; 20 sites sampled

• Sampled:– Water level– pH, temperature, specific

conductance– Dissolved nitrates, phosphates,

organic carbon– Nitrogen isotopes– Radon

• Lessons learned:– Site suitability

Gifford

Goode Towing

Broeker Funeral Home

ThalerBartlett

Salado ISD

Big Boiling Sp.

Daybreak

Tenroc 2

Tenroc 1Coppin

Bloomer

Owens

Peters

Capps

Little D.

Eastland W.

Salado QuarriesGault site

Stowe

Summer 2014 sample locations

21

Monitoring recharge: Weather stations

Station 1(since spring 2014)

Station 2(since fall 2014)

Station 3(since fall 2014)

0

0.02

0.04

0.06

0.08

0.1

0

20

40

60

80

100

Rai

n (in

)

Tem

pera

ture

(°F)

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

0

20

40

60

80

100

Rai

n (in

)

Tem

pera

ture

(°F)

00.10.20.30.40.50.60.7

0

20

40

60

80

100

Rai

n (in

)

Tem

pera

ture

(°F)

June 15-20, 2015

22

SaladoHidden Springs

Gault Site

Potential areas for additionalRain gauges

23


20152011

2012

2013

2014

• Ongoing research

• Dye tracer test (spring)

24

Spring 2015 trace

Critchfield

Stagecoach Inn Cave (injection)

USGS Gage

Side sp.


Low Water Dam

Big Boiling


Rock sp.

Pace ParkRobertson sp.

upstreamRobertson sp.

(outlet 1) Robertson sp.(outlet 2)

Big Boiling

Anderson

DETECTIONTime elapsed

(hrs)Big Boiling

First: 0.26Peak: 1.5

25

300

350

400

450

500

550

600

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

Spec

ific

cond

ucta

nce

(S/

cm)

Distance from south bank (feet)

North bank groundwater discharge

= Sept. 21, 2013 = April 19, 2014

Upstream of Big Boiling

Downstream of Big Boiling

Big Boiling spring run

Groundwater

StreamflowSalado Creek

Big Boiling Springs

S a l a d o C r e e k

Big Boiling Springs

?

? Dye detection

26

14 ft

March 28, 2015:Installing piezometer caused sediment discharge from Rock spring.

July 2, 2015:

Rock spring outlet buried by gravel.

• July: 504 µS/cm• Sept.: 601 µS/cm

27

Multi-parameter monitoring

• Three parameters:– Water level change– Temperature– Specific Conductance

• Long-term monitoring and event-based monitoring

Long-term monitoring atStagecoach Inn Cave

(since May 2013)

Event-based monitoring

28

29

68.90

69.00

69.10

69.20

69.30

69.40

69.50

69.60

69.70

69.80

69.90

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

7.0

8.0

9.0

10.0

Tem

pera

ture

(°F)

Wat

er le

vel (

ft ab

ove

sens

or)

Spec

ific

cond

ucta

nce

(µS/

cm)

650

640

630

620

610

600

590

570

580

550

560

Stagecoach Inn cave well, May 2015

30

68.90

69.00

69.10

69.20

69.30

69.40

69.50

69.60

69.70

69.80

69.90

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

7.0

8.0

9.0

10.0

Tem

pera

ture

(°F)

Wat

er le

vel (

ft ab

ove

sens

or)

Spec

ific

cond

ucta

nce

(µS/

cm)

650

640

630

620

610

600

590

570

580

550

560


31

68.90

69.00

69.10

69.20

69.30

69.40

69.50

69.60

69.70

69.80

69.90

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

7.0

8.0

9.0

10.0

Tem

pera

ture

(°F)

Wat

er le

vel (

ft ab

ove

sens

or)

Spec

ific

cond

ucta

nce

(µS/

cm)

650

640

630

620

610

600

590

570

580

550

560


400420440460480500520540560

Spec

ific

cond

ucta

nce

(S/

cm)

Anderson sp.

400420440460480500520540560

Spec

ific

cond

ucta

nce

(S/

cm)

Time

Doc Benedict sp.

Specific conductance, April 14-30, 2015

Cave well

1. Separate fractures from cave to springs?

2. One major fracture to Anderson with branch-off to Doc B.?

30


20152011

2012

2013

2014

There is still much to learn!

33

Ongoing research and future work

• Continue monitoring and data collection– New sensor: nitrate data– Thermal imagery

• Refine field tests and sampling• Analysis and interpretation of collected data

– Monitoring data (dataloggers, weather stations)– Recharge features

32

Recharge features analysis

• Objectives:– Identify lineations and

depressions using LiDAR data

– Differentiate between geologic and anthropogenic lineations and depressions

– Identify geologic lineations and depressions that are potential recharge features

Field reconnaissance of karst features(February 2015)

35

0.5 0.25 0 0.5 Miles

N

I-35

Losing stream section,Stanford Ranch

LiDAR point cloud

1.

Elevation (masl)

198.425

193.937

1 x 1 m DEM

2.

193.937 – 194.065

194.065 – 194.146

194.146 – 194.276

194.276 – 198.425

Elevation (masl)Extracted pixels

3. 36

Fractures Sinkholes

Caves Losing streams 37

Thermal imagery

• FLIR - High-performance infrared imaging

• Spatial data calibrated to other water data (chemistry, flow etc.)

• Potential relevance:– Groundwater/surface

water interactions– Habitat delineation – Advancing science

36

New knowledge

• Water levels have not greatly declined, even through Epic Drought

• Baseline chemistry of groundwater and surface water established

• Clear difference in chemistry between groundwater and surface water at Salado Springs

• Identification of groundwater discharge points that are not official springs

• Confirmation that all springs in Salado Springs complex are connected

• Aquifer response to recharge events

37

Key to success?

38

People!

• Collaboration and communication • Everyone has valuable knowledge;

everyone wants to learn• Many hands make light work• Access to sites• Foundation for follow-up work

39

Management contributions

• Stream gauge location is suitable for aquifer monitoring

• Aquifer study important to listing process of Salado Salamander

• As development in the area continues, a monitoring program builds baseline for aquifer conditions– Facilitates change detection– Prepares managers to assess, respond to, and manage aquifer

impacts

Proposed to be listed in 2012Listed as threatened in Feb. 2014

40

springs and recharge in the northern segment of the ... symposium/2015...springs and recharge in the...

Documents