UTGCD Public Hearing Monday, May 16, 2016

Our Mission

The Upper Trinity Groundwater Conservation District aims to provide protection to existing wells, prevent waste, promote conservation, provide a framework

that will allow availability and accessibility of groundwater for future generations in the counties of Montague, Wise, Parker, and Hood counties and

the state of Texas.

Groundwater Management

Areas with GCDs

What is a Groundwater Management Area?

A groundwater management area (GMA) is a geographic area suitable for the management of groundwater resources.

TWDB designated 16 GMAs across the state that include all major and minor aquifers.

The boundaries of the GMAs generally coincide with the hydrologic features of the state’s major aquifers.

Upper Trinity GCD is located in GMA 8.

Beginning in 2005, the GCDs in each management area are charged with engaging in joint planning and developing Desired Future Conditions (DFCs) for the aquifers.

What is a Desired Future Condition?

A desired future condition (DFC) is a quantitative description, adopted in accordance with Section 36.108, of the desired condition of the groundwater resources in a management area at one or more specified future times.

There can be different DFCs for different aquifers, subdivisions of aquifers, or geographic areas, the DFCs must be physically possible.

Once DFCs are adopted, they do not remain static.

DFCs may be amended at any time, but, at a minimum, DFCs must be reestablished at least once every five (5) years.

The GMA must utilize groundwater models approved by the TWDB in their development of DFCs.

DFC Considerations (by state law)

Provide a balance between the “highest practicable level of groundwater production and the conservation, preservation, protection, recharging, and prevention of waste of groundwater and control of subsidence in the management area.”

Nine “factors” including: 1) aquifer uses and conditions, 2) water supply needs and management strategies, 3) hydrological conditions, 4) environmental impacts, 5) subsidence, 6) socioeconomic impacts, 7) private property rights, 8) DFC feasibility, and 9) any other relevant information.

Trinity Aquifer

Outcrop

Characteristics of a Dipping Aquifer

5 Regions with different aquifer characteristics

5 Regions with different aquifer characteristics

5 Regions with different aquifer characteristics

Model Runs 5, 6 & 10

Run 5 – 2010 (baseline) pumping

Run 6 – A series of runs meant to evaluate aquifer conditions assuming a pro rata increase or decrease in pumping

Simulated factors of 0.7, 1.3, 1.6 and 1.9 Also reported average drawdown for a factor of 1.1

and 1.2 *Run 10* – A simulation in which Districts entered a

realistic future pumping scenario – UTGCD used a 30% increase over estimated 2010 pumping.

Proposed DFCs

GMA 8 approved Proposed DFCs at a Public Meeting on April 1, 2016 by a vote of 10 to 1

UTGCD voted against the Proposed DFCs UTGCD’s dissenting vote was based on: A difference in the way the Groundwater Model was

used Failure of the Proposed DFCs to recognize the

difference between Outcrop and Subcrop

Proposed DFCs

Paluxy Glen RoseTwin

Mountains Travis Peak Hensell Hosston AntlersGMA 8 144 116 313 177 118 206 177

Aquifer Wide Scale Total Average Drawdown from January 1, 2010 through December 31, 2070 (feet)

Paluxy Glen RoseTwin

Mountains Travis Peak Hensell Hosston AntlersUpper Trinity GCD 4 17 29 80 43 141 30

Groundwater District Wide Scale Total Average Drawdown from January 1, 2010 through December 31, 2070 (feet)

Proposed DFCs

Paluxy Glen RoseTwin

Mountains Travis Peak Hensell Hosston AntlersHood 5 9 25 80 43 141 -Parker 4 22 34 - - - 11Wise - - - - - - 45Montague - - - - - - 18

County Wide Scale Total Average Drawdown from January 1, 2010 through December 31, 2070 (feet)

Outcrop Subcrop Outcrop Subcrop Outcrop Subcrop Outcrop Subcrop Outcrop Subcrop Outcrop Subcrop Outcrop Subcrop

Hood 5 - 7 27 4 46 - - - 43 - 141 - -Parker 5 1 10 28 2 45 - - - - - - - 11Wise - - - - - - - - - - - - 30 139Montague - - - - - - - - - - - - - 18

County Wide Scale Total Average Drawdown from January 1, 2010 through December 31, 2070 Seperated for Outcrop/Subcrop (Feet)

HosstonHensellTravis PeakTwin

MountainsGlen RosePaluxy Antlers

RUN 10 Report By LBG Guyton did not separate outcrop and subcrop, thus these are interpreted results

Proposed DFCs

Paluxy Glen RoseTwin

Mountains Travis Peak Hensell Hosston AntlersHood 5 9 25 80 43 141 -Parker 4 22 34 - - - 11Wise - - - - - - 45Montague - - - - - - 18

County Wide Scale Total Average Drawdown from January 1, 2010 through December 31, 2070 (feet)

Paluxy Glen RoseTwin

Mountains Travis Peak Hensell Hosston AntlersHood 95% 95% 89% 80% 86% 53% -Parker 96% 90% 84% - - - 94%Wise - - - - - - 84%Montague - - - - - - 91%

County Wide Scale Total Average Drawdown from January 1, 2010 through December 31, 2070 (% Drawdown Remaining above the Bottom of the Aquifer)

Antlers Paluxy Glen RoseTwin

Mountains Hensell HosstonCounty

Hood 159 756 11,429 36 53Montague 3,878Parker 2,899 2,659 3,164 3,151Wise 9,741

Pumping Output Associated with Proposed DFCs (MAG)

The figures above are shown in acre-feet per year. An acre foot is equal to 325,851 gallons. Or the amount of water it takes to cover an acre (approximately a football field) with one foot of water.

Amount of water that the simulated model run estimates can be pumped each year and achieve the Proposed DFC

Represents a 30% increase over estimated 2010 pumping

Proposed DFCs

Recent Groundwater Production in UTGCD

Recent Groundwater Production in Hood County

Recent Groundwater Production in Parker County

Questions?

Doug Shaw General Manager

Upper Trinity Groundwater Conservation District PO Box 1749, Springtown, 76082

Phone: 817-523-5200 Fax: 817-523-7687

www.uppertrinitygcd.com

Public Hearings

Monday, May 16, 2016 – Bowie or Weatherford/Granbury

Monday, June 20, 2016 – Bowie or Weatherford/Granbury

Monday, July 18, 2016 – Springtown This is likely after the close of the 90 day public

comment period – however either at this meeting or the August meeting should discuss and take action to submit comments received to GMA 8.

Potential socioeconomic impact of proposed DFCs

From a qualitative perspective, both positive and negative socioeconomic impacts may potentially result from implementation of proposed DFCs.

Proposed DFCs may require conversion to alternative supply, which may have increased costs associated to infrastructure, operation, and maintenance.

Proposed DFCs may reduce/eliminate the costs of lowering pumps and either drilling or deepening of wells.

Potential socioeconomic impact of proposed DFCs

Positive and negative socioeconomic impacts potentially resulting from implementation of proposed DFCs:

Proposed DFCs may serve to sustain/enhance economic growth due to assurances provided by diversified water portfolio.

Alternatives to proposed DFCs may result in short-term reduction in utility rates due to reduction in cost of water management strategy implementation.

Alternatives to proposed DFCs may result in significant but unquantified production costs due to transition from confined to unconfined conditions in local aquifers.

The protection of private property rights by GCDs

Existing uses within the GCD

Projected future uses within the GCD

Investment-backed expectations of existing users and property owners

Long-term viability of groundwater resources in area

Availability of water to all properties and ability to allocate MAG through rules after DFC adoption

Appropriate scale of management

Single unit or by aquifer group?

Management zones such as counties or areas underlain by Trinity?

Feasibility of monitoring

Existing monitoring well network

Locations of potential wells for monitoring network expansion

Process for checking compliance with DFC

Consistent with legislative intent of joint planning process

Positive DFC Attributes

Clear path to management

Complex enough to effectively manage the aquifer

Simple enough to implement and communicate

Other considerations…

Management Concepts

Science does not answer the whole question:

The science informs:

Relationship between pumping and impacts to the aquifer

How the district can measure progress toward DFC

The policy informs:

How to weigh competing goals: today vs. future

Groundwater Science What is Possible?

Groundwater Policy What is Better/Worse?

Management Concepts – Confined Areas

Types of Impacts Regional water level and well yield declines

Increased costs

Aligning Monitoring with DFC

Influenced by well locations and the aquifer(s) they screen

Not tied to aquifer layering in the GAM for setting DFC

e.g. it may make sense to set DFC for the Twin Mountains in the southern half of district since many wells in the district produce from both the Hensel and Hosston

Outside Influences

Pumping in neighboring counties (especially to the east)

Management Concepts – Unconfined Areas

Types of Impacts Local-scale water level declines and reduced well yields

Shallow wells going dry

Reduced outflow to streams and creeks

Aligning Monitoring with DFC

Influenced by well locations

Changes in groundwater-surface water interaction difficult to monitor

Outside Influences Shallow unconfined wells can be at risk of drought impacts

DFC Framework Options for Discussion

Spatial Scale

Groundwater Management Area

Groundwater Conservation District

Counties

Outcrop/Subcrop

Geology (i.e. Antlers)

Groundwater Management Zones

Vertical Scale

Whole Trinity or Antlers

Paluxy, Glen Rose, Twin Mountains

Paluxy, Glen Rose, Hensell, Pearsall, Hosston

Metric

Average Drawdown

Specified Drawdown

Percent of 2010 Available Drawdown Remaining (confined only) (confined and unconfined)

Saturated Thickness Change (unconfined only)

Cross Section of Trinity Aquifer

Current Trinity DFC & MAG

Cross-Section: Montague County

Cross-Section: Wise County

Cross-Section: Parker County

Cross-Section: Hood County

Performance Metrics

Drawdown - drawdown is equal to the simulated 2010 head (water level expressed as an elevation) minus the 2070 head Contour maps of drawdown (in feet) Average drawdown calculated by County and Aquifer

Well Impacts Evaluated as reduction in available drawdown

Water Budget – an accounting of inflow, outflows and change in storage by county and aquifer (Trinity – Woodbine). Evaluated at 2011, 2020, 2030, 2040, 2050, 2060, 2070 Presented in tables and in time-series plots

Montague County

Montague County Drawdown

Region Aquifer Zone 0.7 1 1.3 1.6 1.9Region 1 Antlers Outcrop 1 6 11 16 22

Pumping Factor

Montague County % Available 2010 Drawdown Remaining in 2070

Region Aquifer Zone 0.7 1 1.3 1.6 1.9Region 1 Antlers Outcrop 99% 97% 96% 94% 92%

Pumping Factor

Wise County

Wise County Drawdown

Region Aquifer Zone 0.7 1 1.3 1.6 1.9Region 1 Antlers Outcrop -12 3 17 29 39

Confined -56 11 77 136 180

Pumping Factor

Wise County % Available 2010 Drawdown Remaining in 2070

Region Aquifer Zone 0.7 1 1.3 1.6 1.9Region 1 Antlers Outcrop 104% 99% 95% 91% 88%

Confined 111% 98% 85% 73% 65%

Pumping Factor

Parker County

Parker County Drawdown

Region Aquifer Zone 0.7 1 1.3 1.6 1.9Region 1 Antlers Outcrop -14 -4 6 15 22Region 2 Paluxy Outcrop 2 3 4 5 6

Confined -7 -2 4 9 15Glen Rose Outcrop 3 6 8 12 16

Confined -29 -2 25 54 84Twin Mountains Outcrop -1 0 1 2 3

Confined -58 -9 40 88 124

Pumping Factor

Parker County % Available 2010 Drawdown Remaining in 2070

Region Aquifer Zone 0.7 1 1.3 1.6 1.9Region 1 Antlers Outcrop 105% 101% 98% 94% 91%Region 2 Paluxy Outcrop 98% 97% 96% 95% 94%

Confined 105% 101% 98% 94% 90%Glen Rose Outcrop 98% 97% 96% 94% 92%

Confined 112% 101% 90% 78% 65%Twin Mountains Outcrop 100% 100% 99% 98% 98%

Confined 123% 104% 85% 67% 53%

Pumping Factor

Hood County

Hood County Drawdown

Region Aquifer Zone 0.7 1 1.3 1.6 1.9Region 2 Paluxy Outcrop 3 4 5 6 6

Glen Rose Outcrop 4 5 7 9 11Confined -6 11 30 50 73

Twin Mountains Outcrop 0 2 4 7 9Confined -37 8 52 83 106

Region 4 Hensell Confined -43 7 58 109 161Hosston Confined -78 47 173 278 291

Pumping Factor

Hood County % Available 2010 Drawdown Remaining in 2070

Region Aquifer Zone 0.7 1 1.3 1.6 1.9Region 2 Paluxy Outcrop 97% 96% 95% 94% 93%

Glen Rose Outcrop 98% 97% 96% 95% 94%Confined 103% 96% 88% 79% 69%

Twin Mountains Outcrop 100% 99% 97% 96% 95%Confined 114% 97% 82% 71% 62%

Region 4 Hensell Confined 114% 98% 81% 64% 48%Hosston Confined 127% 84% 40% 4% 0%

Pumping Factor

Additional Model Runs

The UTGCD has agreed to participate in an additional model run with several other districts in GMA 8 Most Districts will be adjusting baseline pumping The UTGCD Board of Directors decided at their November

Meeting to increase baseline pumping by 30% for this run Should see results by the end of the year.

Schedule GMA 8

January 2016: GCDs must formally submit DFC options to GMA 8 for consideration.

January 2016 – April 2016: GMA 8 will approve a DFC option (or multiple DFC options) to be formally considered. Then, GMA 8 will approve at least one DFC option to be further reviewed with respect to the 9 statutory criteria, and GMA 8 will work through that criteria.

April 2016: After working through the statutory criteria, GMA 8 will approve proposed DFCs to distribute to the GCDs.

May – Summer 2016: GCDs will conduct a comment period and hold public hearings on the proposed DFCs.

Summer/Fall 2016: GMA 8 consider comments received by the GCDs and take action to adopt DFCs.

Schedule UTGCD

January 2016: UTGCD will continue to analyze results of model runs and prepare and submit DFC statement(s) to GMA 8 for its consideration.

January 2016 – April 2016: UTGCD will continue to discuss and consider the 9 statutory criteria, and once GMA 8 approves for further review at least one DFC option, UTGCD will consider how that DFC option impacts each of the 9 statutory criteria.

May – Summer 2016: UTGCD will conduct a public comment period and hold a public hearing on the proposed DFCs. UTGCD will prepare and submit to GMA 8 a report summarizing the comments received on the proposed DFCs.

Summer/Fall 2016: After GMA 8 adopts DFCS, UTGCD must also adopt the DFCs. Once DFCs are adopted UTGCD will begin to develop: Monitoring program Management structure and Permanent Rules.

Keep in Mind that the management structure put in place to implement DFCs will have a larger impact on the end user than the DFCs themselves