fort bend subsidence district · pursuant to fort bend subsidence district (the district or fbsd)...

Adopted 6/28/17 by FBSD Resolution # 17-388

Fort Bend Subsidence District

2016 ANNUAL GROUNDWATER REPORT

(27th Annual Report)

YEAR ENDING, DECEMBER 31, 2016

P.O. Box 427 301 Jackson Street, Suite 639, Richmond, TX 77469-0427

(281) 342-3273

Adopted 6/28/17 by FBSD Resolution # 17-388 i

2016 GROUNDWATER HEARING

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Introduction ................................................................................................................................................................................................ . 1

Testimony and Findings .......................................................................................................................................................................... 1

Subsidence District Testimony ............................................................................................................................................................. 2

FBSD Exhibit No. 1: Weather Monitoring Sites ........................................................................................................................ 3

FBSD Exhibit No. 2: 2016 Precipitation at Sugar Land Airport ...................................................................................... 4

Groundwater Withdrawals and Total Water Demand for 2016 ............................................................................................. 5

FBSD Exhibit No. 3: Groundwater Pumpage – By Use - Regulatory Area A ............................................................. 6

FBSD Exhibit No. 4: Groundwater Pumpage – By Use - Regulatory Area B ............................................................. 7

FBSD Exhibit No. 5: Groundwater Pumpage – By Use – Fort Bend County .............................................................. 8

FBSD Exhibit No. 6: Groundwater Pumpage – By Reg. Area – Fort Bend County .................................................. 9

FBSD Exhibit No. 7: Alternate Water (Surface and Re-use Water) History .............................................................. 10

FBSD Exhibit No. 8: Total Water Demand – By Source in Fort Bend County ........................................................ 11

FBSD Exhibit No. 9: Tri-County Groundwater Pumpage – By County Percentages – Fort Bend, Galveston and Harris Counties ....................................................................................................................................................................... 12

FBSD Exhibit No. 10: Tri-County Groundwater Pumpage – By Use – Fort Bend, Galveston and Harris Counties ............................................................................................................................................................................................ 13

United States Geological Survey Testimony ................................................................................................................................. 14

MEASURED WATER-LEVEL CHANGES IN THE CHICOT, EVANGELINE AND JASPER AQUIFERS ........................................................................................................................................................................................ 16

USGS EXHIBIT NO. 1: APPROACH AND METHODS ............................................................................................... 16

USGS EXHIBIT NO. 2: MAP OF STUDY AREA ........................................................................................................... 17

USGS EXHIBIT NO. 3: HYDROGEOLOGIC SECTION OF THE GULF COAST AQUIFER SYSTEM .. 18

USGS EXHIBIT NO. 4: STRATIGRAPHIC COLUMN OF GEOLOGIC AND HYDROGEOLOGIC UNITS OF THE GULF COAST AQUIFER SYSTEM .................................................................................................... 19

USGS EXHIBIT NO. 5: WATER-LEVEL NETWORK DESCRIPTION ................................................................. 20

USGS EXHIBIT NO. 6: WATER-LEVEL MONITORING NETWORK ................................................................. 21

USGS EXHIBIT NO. 7: 2017 WATER-LEVEL ALTITUDE - CHICOT AQUIFER ........................................... 22

USGS EXHIBIT NO. 8: 2017 WATER-LEVEL ALTITUDE - EVANGELINE AQUIFER .............................. 23

USGS EXHIBIT NO. 9: 2017 WATER-LEVEL ALTITUDE - JASPER AQUIFER ............................................ 24

USGS EXHIBIT NO. 10: 2016-2017 CHICOT AQUIFER WATER-LEVEL CHANGE .................................... 25

Adopted 6/28/17 by FBSD Resolution # 17-388 ii

USGS EXHIBIT NO. 11: 2016-2017 EVANGELINE AQUIFER WATER-LEVEL CHANGE ....................... 26

USGS EXHIBIT NO. 12: 2016-2017 JASPER AQUIFER WATER-LEVEL CHANGE ..................................... 27

USGS EXHIBIT NO. 13: 2016-2017 WATER-LEVEL CHANGE SUMMARY ................................................... 28





USGS EXHIBIT NO. 18: 2000-2017 JASPER AQUIFER WATER-LEVEL CHANGE ..................................... 33

USGS EXHIBIT NO. 19: CONCEPTUALIZATION OF GROUNDWATER FLOW AND SUBSIDENCE ................................................................................................................................................................................................ ............. 34

USGS EXHIBIT NO. 20: OVERVIEW OF SUBSIDENCE MECHANISMS ......................................................... 35

USGS EXHIBIT NO. 21: EXTENSOMETER LOCATIONS MAP ............................................................................ 36

USGS EXHIBIT NO. 22: LAKE HOUSTON, NORTHEAST, EAST END, SOUTHWEST, JSC NASA AND ADDICKS EXTENSOMETERS .................................................................................................................................. 37

USGS EXHIBIT NO. 23: TEXAS CITY, BAYTOWN, SEABROOK, CLEAR LAKE AND PASADENA EXTENSOMETERS ................................................................................................................................................................ .... 38

USGS EXHIBIT NO. 24 AND 25: SUMMARY ................................................................................................................ 39

Subsidence District Testimony (Continued) Measured Land Surface Subsidence Using CORS, PAMS and Extensometers ...................................................................................................................................................................................... 41

FBSD Exhibit No. 11: GPS Monitoring Network ............................................................................................................... 42

FBSD Exhibit No. 12: GPS Monitoring Network in Fort Bend County ...................................................................... 43

FBSD Exhibit No. 13: Subsidence Rates in Feet per Decade ......................................................................................... 44

FBSD EXHIBIT NO. 14: SUBSIDENCE RATES IN FEET PER DECADE FOR ................................................ 45

REGULATORY AREA A ......................................................................................................................................................... 45

FBSD Exhibit No. 15: Subsidence Rates ............................................................................................................................... 46

FBSD Exhibit No. 16: FBSD PAM 29 Vertical GPS Data 2007-2016 ........................................................................ 47

HEARING CONCLUSION ......................................................................................................................................................... 48

WRITTEN COMMENTS .............................................................................................................................................................. 48

APPENDICES ................................................................................................................................................................ ................ 49

Appendix A: GPS Ellipsoid Monitoring Sites ...................................................................................................................... 49

Appendix A-1: GPS Ellipsoid Monitoring Sites Change Table ...................................................................................... 50

USGS Exhibit No. A-2: Location of the Cinco Ranch Extensometer .......................................................................... 55

Appendix B: Written Comments from John Loper ............................................................................................................. 56

Appendix C: District Staff’s Response to Comments from John Loper ...................................................................... 58

Adopted 6/28/17 by FBSD Resolution # 17-388 1

INTRODUCTION

Pursuant to Fort Bend Subsidence District (the District or FBSD) Resolution No. 17-385 passed on February 22, 2017, the Board of Directors held the Annual Groundwater Hearing beginning at 2:30 p.m. on April 24, 2017 at the William B. Travis building, 301 Jackson Street, sixth floor meeting room, in Richmond, Texas. The public hearing fulfills the requirements of the District’s enabling legislation, which states that the Board of Directors shall hold a public hearing to take testimony concerning the effects of groundwater withdrawals on the subsidence of land within the District during the preceding year.

This report was prepared in accordance with an Inter-local Agreement between the District and the Harris-Galveston Subsidence District (HGSD). This report was prepared by Mr. Robert Thompson of the District’s staff, with special assistance from Mr. Vanson Truong, Mr. Mike Chrismer, along with other’s from the District staff; from Mr. Mark Kasmarek, from the US Geological Survey; and Mr. Cliff Middleton of the National Geodetic Survey (retired) and Dr. Guoquan “Bob” Wang of the Department of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences-University of Houston. The following findings were presented for this Groundwater Report for the year ending December 31, 2016.

Helen Stewart Truscott Hearing Examiner

TESTIMONY AND FINDINGS

Ms. Helen Truscott, the Hearing Examiner, opened the Hearing at approximately 2:30 p.m. She stated that representatives from the Fort Bend Subsidence District and the United States Geological Survey would give testimony. She also asked that anyone else giving testimony or asking questions, state their name and whom they were representing. The record was left open until May 1, 2017 at 5:00 pm.

In attendance at the hearing were members of the public and members of the District and USGS staffs. Those giving testimony were Mr. Robert Thompson of the District and Mr. Mark Kasmarek, Hydrologist, Houston Sub-district, Water Resources Division, United States Geological Survey, Department of the Interior. Mr. Thompson began by presenting ten exhibits including topics of precipitation, groundwater pumpage, and surface-water use. Mr. Kasmarek then presented a total of 25 exhibits showing aquifer water-level altitudes and changes, exhibits showing extensometer compaction measurements taken in neighboring counties, and exhibits summarizing the data. Mr. Thompson continued by presenting six exhibits including maps, subsidence charts/monitor site locations within Fort Bend County and three exhibits (found in the appendices) that showed the change in elevation measurements during 2016 for each of the Periodically Active Monitor Sites (PAMs), Continuously Operating Reference Stations (CORS) and Extensometers in and around Fort Bend County.

___

______


2

SUBSIDENCE DISTRICT TESTIMONY

Mr. Thompson presented testimony concerning monthly precipitation and groundwater withdrawals during the year 2016. The groundwater withdrawals for 2016 were compared with annual groundwater pumpage data since 1990. This data was compiled from annual groundwater pumpage reports submitted by well owners whose wells were permitted by the District at any time during the calendar year of 2016. The District’s enabling legislation requires each well owner to submit water well pumpage data annually to the District. There were 972 permited wells in 2016. The reports, submitted as of the date of the Groundwater Hearing, represented nearly 100 percent of the pumpage within the District for the year 2016. Only ten well reports for 2016 (estimated at 0.0 MGD) had not yet been received at the time of this report. The following exhibits and summaries depict Mr. Thompson’s presentation.

Mr. Thompson noted that because the amount and timing of rainfall often determines the amount of irrigation (and consequently the amount of groundwater pumped) that takes place annually, he would begin his presentation with a look at the precipitation patterns in the District.

______


3

FBSD EXHIBIT NO. 1: WEATHER MONITORING SITES

Mr. Thompson presented two exhibits describing precipitation measurements for calendar year 2016 in the District. The data is reported for Sugar Land Regional Airport, a site within the City of Sugar Land. Precipitation data is collected from the NOAA National Data Center web site.

Exhibit 1: Location of weather stations across the area.


4

FBSD EXHIBIT NO. 2: 2016 PRECIPITATION AT SUGAR LAND AIRPORT

Monthly precipitation data for Sugar Land is reported for the year ending December 31, 2016. Normal precipitation is based on three full decades (1981-2010). The light brown color in the bottom section of the chart represents below normal and dark green is for above normal rain fall. The chart at the top displays the normal and actual temperatures for 2016.

Total precipitation was 57.6 inches in 2016. The one-year cumulative departure from normal for Sugar Land Airport was +10.0 inches. There was a period of about six weeks during the summer that there was little or no rainfall. Mr. Thompson noted that regulations and precipitation patterns can affect the amount of groundwater that is pumped. Mr. Thompson moved on to show changes in pumpage patterns.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration


5

GROUNDWATER WITHDRAWALS AND TOTAL WATER DEMAND FOR 2016

Mr. Thompson next presented eight exhibits on water use: four exhibits depicting groundwater withdrawal within Fort Bend County broken out by regulatory area and use, one exhibit showing surface and re-use water, one exhibit showing total demand, and two exhibits showing groundwater withdrawal for the Tri-County region of Fort Bend, Harris, and Galveston Counties. All groundwater and surface-water use is reported in million gallons per day (MGD).

As is usual, the groundwater withdrawal total was updated for the previously reported year of 2015. Subsequent data was added and corrections made after the 2015 Groundwater Report was presented in April 2016. For 2015 there was no change in the overall numbers. These changes are made during the normal permitting and reporting process as part of the exchange between the District and its permittees. The changes include updating estimated amounts with actual amounts, correction of data entry errors, and errors in the submitted data.

For comparison and as part of the continued cooperation between the Fort Bend Subsidence District and HGSD, recorded groundwater pumpage totals were also used for Harris and Galveston Counties. In 2013, the FBSD approved the 2013 Regulatory Plan, which divides the District into two large regulatory areas (Area A and Area B, and Sub-Area R/R). Beginning in 2017, Regulatory Area A & Sub-Area R/R were combined into one regulatory area. The following charts now show only two areas, Areas A and B, now that there is no difference in the reduction dates and/or reduction requirement amounts. Regulatory Area A encompasses the greatest density of population of Fort Bend County, generally the northern and eastern portions of Fort Bend County, and in the following charts is highlighted in blue. Regulatory Area B encompasses the remainder of Fort Bend County, generally the far western and southern portions of the county and is highlighted in yellow.

______


6

FBSD EXHIBIT NO. 3: GROUNDWATER PUMPAGE – BY USE - REGULATORY AREA A

Total groundwater pumpage from Regulatory Area A was 61.4 MGD for 2016; a 1% increase from 2015. Irrigation pumpage is given as a total and as a breakout of agricultural (includes traditional farm crops plus nurseries, sod farms, tree farms, etc.) and other (includes uses for irrigation of parks, cemeteries, golf courses, common areas, and amenity lakes) irrigation.

Year Total %

Chg Public Supply

% Chg Indust.

% Chg

All Irrig.

% Chg

Ag. Irrig.

% Chg

Other Irrig.

% Chg

2015 60.9 -3% 52.1 -2% 3.5 -2% 5.3 -12% 1.9 -10% 3.5 -13%

2016 61.4 1% 52.3 0% 3.5 0% 5.6 5% 2.1 11% 3.5 1%

Eighty-five percent (52.3 MGD) of the total groundwater pumped (61.4 MGD) was for public supply. The next largest portion (6%, 3.5 MGD) went to other irrigation use followed by industrial (6%, 3.5 MGD). Agricultural irrigation was the smallest category, accounting for 3% (2.1 MGD) of the groundwater pumped within Regulatory Area A.

______


7

FBSD EXHIBIT NO. 4: GROUNDWATER PUMPAGE – BY USE - REGULATORY AREA B

Total groundwater pumpage Regulatory Area B was 11.2 MGD for 2016; a 7% increase from 2015.

Year Total %

Chg Public Supply

% Chg Indust.

% Chg

All Irrig.

% Chg

Ag. Irrig.

% Chg

Other Irrig.

% Chg

2015 10.5 -7% 1.9 12% 0.0 -12% 8.6 -10% 8.1 -9% 0.5 -28%

2016 11.2 7% 1.8 -1% 0.0 3% 9.4 9% 8.8 10% 0.5 4%

Seventy-seven percent (8.8 MGD) of the groundwater pumped was for agricultural irrigation, while 18% (1.8 MGD) went to public supply. The remaining groundwater was used for other irrigation (5%, 0.5 MGD) and industrial use accounted for very little.

______


8

FBSD EXHIBIT NO. 5: GROUNDWATER PUMPAGE – BY USE – FORT BEND COUNTY

Looking at the data from a District-wide perspective, total groundwater pumpage increased by 2% in 2016, from 71.4 MGD in 2015 to 72.7 MGD in 2016.

Year Total %

Chg Public Supply

% Chg Indust.

% Chg

All Irrig.

% Chg

Ag. Irrig.

% Chg

Other Irrig.

% Chg

2015 71.4 -4% 54.0 -2% 3.5 -2% 13.9 -11% 9.9 -9% 4.0 -15%

2016 72.7 2% 54.2 0% 3.5 0% 15.0 8% 10.9 10% 4.1 2%

Seventy-five percent (54.2 MGD) of the groundwater pumped was used for public supply; the second largest percentage was agricultural irrigation, which accounted for 14% (10.9 MGD) of the total 72.7 MGD. Other irrigation usage followed at 6% (4.1 MGD) with industrial usage as the smallest category of use at 5% (3.5 MGD).

______


9

FBSD EXHIBIT NO. 6: GROUNDWATER PUMPAGE – BY REG. AREA – FORT BEND COUNTY

Of the 72.7 MGD total groundwater pumpage for Fort Bend County, Regulatory Area A, accounted for 85% (61.4 MGD) for 2016. Regulatory Area B pumped 15% (11.2 MGD) of the total.

Year Total % Chg Area A % Chg Area B % Chg

2015 71.4 -4% 60.9 -3% 10.5 -7%

2016 72.7 2% 61.4 1% 11.2 7%

______


10

FBSD EXHIBIT NO. 7: ALTERNATE WATER (SURFACE AND RE-USE WATER) HISTORY

Within the District’s boundaries, two primary water sources are utilized; groundwater and alternate water, which is comprised of surface water and re-use water. Surface water use in 2016 decreased by 8% (7.2 MGD). Re-use water remains only a small portion of the alternate water supply strategy amounting to 5% (3.7 MGD) of the alternate water total of 82.1 MGD in 2016. Surface water in Fort Bend County comes from the Brazos River 74% (60.8 MGD) and San Jacinto/Trinity Rivers 21% (17.6 MGD).

Surface/ San

Surface/ Alternate % Brazos %

San Jacinto/ % %

Year Water Chg River Chg Trinity Chg Reuse Chg

2015 89.3 4% 69.2 3% 16.1 13% 4.0 -11%

2016 82.1 -8% 60.8 -12% 17.6 9% 3.7 -6%

______


11

FBSD EXHIBIT NO. 8: TOTAL WATER DEMAND – BY SOURCE IN FORT BEND COUNTY

In 2016, total water demand for Fort Bend County was 154.7 MGD. Groundwater pumpage constituted 44% of that amount, surface water from the Brazos was 43%, the San Jacinto/Trinity was 10% and re-use was 3%.

Total Water Ground-

water

San Jacinto/ Brazos Re-use

Year Demand Trinity

Amt %

Chg Amt %

Chg Amt %

Chg Amt %

Chg Amt %

Chg

2015 160.7 0% 71.4 -4% 16.1 13% 69.2 3% 4.0 -11%

2016 154.7 -4% 72.7 2% 17.6 9% 60.8 -12% 3.7 -6%

______


12

FBSD EXHIBIT NO. 9: TRI-COUNTY GROUNDWATER PUMPAGE – BY COUNTY PERCENTAGES – FORT BEND, GALVESTON AND HARRIS COUNTIES

Looking at groundwater pumping in the Tri-County region of Fort Bend, Harris and Galveston Counties, Harris County remains the largest user of groundwater at 75% in 2016. Fort Bend pumped 25% of the total groundwater. Galveston County’s portion remained below 1%.

Total groundwater pumped in the Tri-County region for 2016 was 299.1 MGD.

Year Total % Chg Fort Bend

% Chg Galveston % Chg Harris

% Change

2015 284.6 4% 71.4 -4% 0.7 5% 212.5 7%

2016 299.1 5% 72.7 2% 0.7 1% 225.8 6%

______


13

FBSD EXHIBIT NO. 10: TRI-COUNTY GROUNDWATER PUMPAGE – BY USE – FORT BEND, GALVESTON AND HARRIS COUNTIES

In the Tri-County region, 87% of the groundwater withdrawn was used for public supply, industrial use accounted for 5%, agriculture for 4%, and 4% was for other uses.

Year Total % Chg

Ag % Chg Indust. % Chg Public % Chg

Other % Chg

2015 284.6 4% 11.2 -10% 13.2 3% 248.0 5% 12.2 -5%

2016 299.1 5% 12.3 10% 12.9 -2% 262.1 6% 11.9 -3%

Mr. Thompson noted that groundwater withdrawal inversely affects the water-levels within the aquifers. Over time, as pumpage increases, water-levels decrease. The following exhibits from the United States Geological Survey look at subsidence mechanisms, changes to aquifer water-levels, and the resulting compaction that has been measured.

Mr. Thompson yielded to Mr. Kasmarek from the USGS.

______


14

UNITED STATES GEOLOGICAL SURVEY TESTIMONY

Mr. Mark Kasmarek, a Groundwater Hydrologist with the USGS, presented testimony concerning annual water-level measurements, taken in December 2016 through March 2017 and compaction measurements taken monthly from thirteen extensometer sites. The USGS collects water level and subsidence measurements as part of a joint funding agreement with the District, the Harris-Galveston Subsidence District, the City of Houston, the Brazoria County Groundwater Conservation District, and the Lone Star Groundwater Conservation District. Mr. Kasmarek submitted for the USGS, a total of 22 exhibit drafts, as part of a U.S. Department of the Interior, USGS Open File Report to be released mid-summer 2017, upon final national review.

______


15

Mr. Kasmarek gave a brief description of the history of the USGS and an overview of the project.


16

___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

MEASURED WATER-LEVEL CHANGES IN THE CHICOT, EVANGELINE AND JASPER AQUIFERS

Mr. Kasmarek presented 22 exhibits describing the network of monitor wells and the changes in aquifer pressures (water-level changes) which occurred from 2016 to 2017, from 1990 to 2017, from 1977 to 2017 and from 2000 to 2017, including water-level altitude maps for each aquifer.

USGS EXHIBIT NO. 1: APPROACH AND METHODS


17

USGS EXHIBIT NO. 2: MAP OF STUDY AREA

The area involved in the ongoing study of water level-changes is depicted in the map below.


18

USGS EXHIBIT NO. 3: HYDROGEOLOGIC SECTION OF THE GULF COAST AQUIFER SYSTEM

The Gulf Coast Aquifer System has three main aquifers within the greater Houston area. The Chicot Aquifer is the shallowest aquifer and generally has supplied Galveston County and southern Harris County. The Evangeline Aquifer lies beneath the Chicot Aquifer and has supplied much of Harris County and surrounding counties. The Jasper Aquifer lies beneath the Evangeline Aquifer, and is generally considered too salty for public consumption throughout most of the District, but has been pumped in Montgomery County and in more recent years has been pumped in northern Harris County. The cross-section depicts aquifer depths and thicknesses along a line from Grimes County to Galveston County based on recorded well logs throughout the area.


19

USGS EXHIBIT NO. 4: STRATIGRAPHIC COLUMN OF GEOLOGIC AND HYDROGEOLOGIC UNITS OF THE GULF COAST AQUIFER SYSTEM


20

USGS EXHIBIT NO. 5: WATER-LEVEL NETWORK DESCRIPTION

Exhibit 5 gives a description of the criteria of the wells used in the water-level network.


21

For water-level change maps representing a time period of five years or more, water-level rises (increases) are depicted with blue contour lines and shading, while water-level declines are depicted with red contour lines and shading. For water-level change maps representing a time period of less than five years, water-level rises are depicted with blue, upward pointing triangles and labeled with the measured rise on an accompanying legend, while declines are depicted with red, downward pointing triangles and labeled with the measured decline on an accompanying legend.

USGS EXHIBIT NO. 6: WATER-LEVEL MONITORING NETWORK

In the map below, the blue dots depict the distribution of monitoring wells in the Chicot Aquifer, the red dots depict the wells in the Evangeline Aquifer, and the yellow dots depict the wells in the Jasper Aquifer. Together they make up the 2017 Water-Level Monitoring Network.


22

USGS EXHIBIT NO. 7: 2017 WATER-LEVEL ALTITUDE - CHICOT AQUIFER

Exhibit 7 shows the altitude of the Chicot Aquifer for 2017.


23

USGS EXHIBIT NO. 8: 2017 WATER-LEVEL ALTITUDE - EVANGELINE AQUIFER

Exhibit 8 shows the altitude for the Evangeline Aquifer for 2017.


24

USGS EXHIBIT NO. 9: 2017 WATER-LEVEL ALTITUDE - JASPER AQUIFER

Exhibit 9 shows the altitude of the Jasper Aquifer for 2017.


25

USGS EXHIBIT NO. 10: 2016-2017 CHICOT AQUIFER WATER-LEVEL CHANGE

Water-level altitudes measured in 2017 are depicted in relationship to sea level. Altitudes for the Chicot Aquifer in Harris and surrounding counties were drawn based on 164 water wells screened solely in the Chicot Aquifer out of the total of 693 measurements taken.

Changes in altitudes in the Chicot Aquifer ranged from a rise of 20 feet near Clear Lake to an area of decline of 50 feet near the West Beltway and the Harris county line; and State Highway 249 and the North Beltway.


26

USGS EXHIBIT NO. 11: 2016-2017 EVANGELINE AQUIFER WATER-LEVEL CHANGE

Altitudes for the Evangeline Aquifer in Harris and surrounding counties were drawn based on 307 water wells screened solely in the Evangeline Aquifer out of the total of 693 measurements taken.

Changes in altitudes in the Evangeline Aquifer ranged from a rise of 50 feet near the Fort Bend and Harris County line and the West Beltway; and the Harris and Montgomery County line, to a decline of 50 feet near an area north of the Addicks Reservoir.


27

USGS EXHIBIT NO. 12: 2016-2017 JASPER AQUIFER WATER-LEVEL CHANGE

Altitudes for the Jasper Aquifer in Harris and surrounding counties were drawn based on 102 water wells screened solely in the Jasper Aquifer out of the total of 693 measurements taken.

Changes in altitudes in the Jasper Aquifer ranged from a rise of 50 feet over a large area near The Woodlands to a decline of 50 feet also near The Woodlands.


28

USGS EXHIBIT NO. 13: 2016-2017 WATER-LEVEL CHANGE SUMMARY

The following exhibit provides another way of looking at the water-level changes in the Chicot, Evangeline and Jasper Aquifers.


29


This exhibit shows the changes in water altitudes in the Chicot Aquifer (since the creation of the Fort Bend Subsidence District) as groundwater withdrawal regulations changed and groundwater dependence decreased.


30


This exhibit shows the changes in water altitudes in the Evangeline Aquifer (since the creation of the Fort Bend Subsidence District) as groundwater withdrawal regulations changed and groundwater dependence decreased.


31


This exhibit shows the changes in water altitudes in the Chicot Aquifer (since the creation of the District) as groundwater withdrawal regulations changed and groundwater dependence decreased.


32


This exhibit shows the changes in water altitudes in the Evangeline Aquifer (since the creation of the District) as groundwater withdrawal regulations changed and groundwater dependence decreased.


33

USGS EXHIBIT NO. 18: 2000-2017 JASPER AQUIFER WATER-LEVEL CHANGE

This exhibit shows the declines in water altitudes in the Jasper Aquifer since 2000 (since the creation of the Lone Star Groundwater Conservation District in Montgomery County). Wells in the Jasper Aquifer are predominately located in Montgomery County and northern Harris County.


34

USGS EXHIBIT NO. 19: CONCEPTUALIZATION OF GROUNDWATER FLOW AND SUBSIDENCE

This figure shows a conceptualized diagram of groundwater flow and subsidence. Here we can see the Houston-metro area sitting below land surface in something of a bowl, with presumably a very, very large well below it sucking up lots and lots of water which induces depressurization of subsurface sediments and the mechanism of compaction to begin.


35

Mr. Kasmarek presented four exhibits including a location map depicting the thirteen extensometers in Harris and Galveston Counties and two graphs showing the compaction measured at the extensometers. The site compaction measurements are continuously chart recorded with a modified Type F Recorder and read approximately every twenty-eight days.

USGS EXHIBIT NO. 20: OVERVIEW OF SUBSIDENCE MECHANISMS

The drawing below depicts an overview of how groundwater withdrawal leads to the compaction that is associated with land subsidence in this region.


36

USGS EXHIBIT NO. 21: EXTENSOMETER LOCATIONS MAP

This map shows the location of the extensometer sites (two extensometers, one shallow depth and one deep located at both the Baytown and Clear Lake Sites); and three extensometer sites (Addicks, Northeast Houston and Lake Houston) are equipped with GPS antennas atop the extensometer’s inner pipe and are included in the NGS Continuous Operating Reference Station (CORS) Program. The Cinco MUD 1 Extensometer site, in Fort Bend County, is not shown on this map because it didn’t start collecting data until January 1, 2017.


37

USGS EXHIBIT NO. 22: LAKE HOUSTON, NORTHEAST, EAST END, SOUTHWEST, JSC NASA AND ADDICKS EXTENSOMETERS

Exhibit 22 is the first of two graphs and shows the Lake Houston (blue line), Northeast Houston (plum line), East End (brown line), Southwest Houston (red line), Johnson Space Center (purple line) and Addicks (green line) extensometers. Scaling is in 1/10th of one foot increments from top to bottom (0-3.8 feet) and in one year increments, left to right (1973 to 2016).


38

USGS EXHIBIT NO. 23: TEXAS CITY, BAYTOWN, SEABROOK, CLEAR LAKE AND PASADENA EXTENSOMETERS

This second extensometer graph shows the measurements for Texas City (blue line), Baytown Shallow (brown line), Baytown Deep (purple line), Seabrook (green line), Clear Lake Shallow (blue line), Clear Lake Deep (brown line) and Pasadena (blue line) extensometers.


39

USGS EXHIBIT NO. 24 AND 25: SUMMARY


40

The water-level report entitled “Kasmarek, M.C., and Ramage, J.K., 2017, Water-Level Measurement Data, Water-Level Altitude and Long-term Water-Level Altitude Change Contours (2017) in the Chicot, Evangeline, and Jasper Aquifers, Houston-Galveston Region, Texas: U.S. Geological Survey data release, https://doi.org/10.5066/F77S7M18” can be found at the following link: https://www.sciencebase.gov/catalog/item/58ee46c4e4b0eed1ab8cf1aa

The report for the extensometer data entitled “Ramage, J.K., 2017, Cumulative compaction of subsurface sediments (2016) in thirteen extensometers completed in the Chicot and Evangeline Aquifers in the Houston-Galveston Region, Texas: U.S. Geological Survey data release, https://doi.org/10.5066/F7PC30KC” can be found at the following link: https://www.sciencebase.gov/catalog/item/58a21d0ae4b0c82512856c1c

The above sites will also have the final reports when they have been approved later this summer.

This concluded Mr. Kasmarek’s testimony.

https://doi.org/10.5066/F77S7M18

https://www.sciencebase.gov/catalog/item/58ee46c4e4b0eed1ab8cf1aa

https://doi.org/10.5066/F7PC30KC

https://www.sciencebase.gov/catalog/item/58a21d0ae4b0c82512856c1c


41

SUBSIDENCE DISTRICT TESTIMONY (CONTINUED) MEASURED LAND SURFACE SUBSIDENCE USING CORS, PAMS AND EXTENSOMETERS

Mr. Thompson returned to present six exhibits including two location maps and four subsidence charts. The charts showed data from three types of sites across ten counties.

Measurement Methodology and Notes

GPS heights are derived at each of the occupied GPS sites every thirty seconds during the duration of monitoring (generally a seven day period, every eight weeks). The data for each site is processed against each of the District’s three CORS/extensometers (Addicks, Northeast Treatment Plant and Lake Houston) and published as a daily height. These daily heights are then averaged for that week of observations for each site. This average is represented as a single point on the subsidence chart for that site.


42

FBSD EXHIBIT NO. 11: GPS MONITORING NETWORK

This is a map that shows the locations of the GPS sites within the District and the surrounding counties.


43

FBSD EXHIBIT NO. 12: GPS MONITORING NETWORK IN FORT BEND COUNTY

This map shows the locations of the GPS sites within the District.


44

FBSD EXHIBIT NO. 13: SUBSIDENCE RATES IN FEET PER DECADE

For the map above, the one-year average rate of subsidence from 2011 to 2016 was used. The data shown on the map above is in feet per decade. Shaded areas range from -0.1 ft./decade to approximately -0.64 ft./decade. The unshaded areas range from -0.1 ft./decade to approximately +0.14 ft./decade and generally show areas of elastic uplift.


45

FBSD EXHIBIT NO. 14: SUBSIDENCE RATES IN FEET PER DECADE FOR REGULATORY AREA A

This map shows a close up of Regulatory Area A. Some of the highest rates of subsidence can be seen generally in the Katy area at about seven inches per decade.


46

FBSD EXHIBIT NO. 15: SUBSIDENCE RATES

This map shows the rates of projected subsidence. Some of the highest rates can be seen in the Katy and Sugar Land areas.


47

FBSD EXHIBIT NO. 16: FBSD PAM 29 VERTICAL GPS DATA 2007-2016

Exhibit 15-PAM 29 Vertical GPS Data 2007-2016 located near Katy.


48

HEARING CONCLUSION

Ms. Truscott asked for additional testimony. There was no additional testimony given.

Ms. Truscott opened it up for questions. There were a few questions from the public.

WRITTEN COMMENTS

The record was held open until May 1, 2017 at 5:00 pm to allow for written comments and corrections. Written comments were submitted by Mr. John Loper. A copy of the written comments can be found in Appendix B.

Responses to the written comments by the Subsidence District Staff can be found at the end of Appendix B.

There were no other oral or written comments submitted.

______


49

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A: GPS ELLIPSOID MONITORING SITES


50

APPENDIX A-1: GPS ELLIPSOID MONITORING SITES CHANGE TABLE


51


52


53


54


55

USGS EXHIBIT NO. A-2: LOCATION OF THE CINCO RANCH EXTENSOMETER

Exhibit A-2 shows the location of the new extensometer in Cinco Ranch MUD 1. This extensometer is expected to be fitted with its own recording device later in 2017.


56

APPENDIX B: WRITTEN COMMENTS FROM JOHN LOPER


57


58

APPENDIX C: DISTRICT STAFF’S RESPONSE TO COMMENTS FROM JOHN LOPER


59

fort bend subsidence district · pursuant to fort bend subsidence district (the district or fbsd)...

Documents