BMIA Board of Trustee Agenda Packet
23 March 2021 ______Eddie Odle ~ Chairman Jim Cloud ~ Trustee Michael Scalf ~ Trustee Albert Ryans ~ Trustee Steven Misenheimer ~ Vice Chairman Robert L. Floyd ~ Trust Manager David L. Perryman ~ Trust Attorney Kenny Sullivan ~ Trust Engineer Diana Daniels ~ Secretary Daniel Ofsthun ~ Finance Director Emily Pehrson ~ Public Works Director ______
Blanchard Municipal Improvement Authority| 300 North Main Avenue | Blanchard, OK 73010
AGENDA
BLANCHARD MUNICIPAL IMPROVEMENT AUTHORITY
BOARD OF TRUSTEES
REGULAR MEETING
TUESDAY, 23 MARCH 2021
6:00 P.M.
IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWING THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING
This Agenda was posted in prominent public view on the City’s website at www.cityofblanchard.us on or before 5:00 p.m., Friday, March 19th, 2021, in accordance with the Oklahoma Open Meeting Act.
Diana Daniels City Clerk 1 | P a g e Board of Trustees Agenda 23 March 2021
A. MEETING CONVENED 1. CALL TO ORDER: 2. ROLL CALL: 3. DETERMINATION OF QUORUM:
B. BUSINESS AGENDA The following item(s) are hereby designated for discussion, consideration and take INDIVIDUAL action as deemed appropriate to:
1. BID AWARD. Discussion and vote on a motion to AWARD a contract, as recommended by Morris Engineering to Miller Inc. dba J&C Construction for submitting the lowest and best bid in the total amount of $48,395.00 for the construction of water main extension and $109,109.00 for the construction of sewer extension improvements to serve Braums. The bids received are as follows:
Contractor Sewer/Water Water/Sewer Miller Inc. dba 60/60 days $48,395.00/$109,109.00 Miller Const & Sons 45/30 days $42,316.00/$163,186.00 Urban Contractors 30/15 days $78,485.00/$217,919.00
2. BID AWARD. Discussion and vote on a motion to AWARD a contract to the lowest and best bidder for the purchase of two (2) new lift station pumps and a new submersible sewage grinder.
3. EQUIPMENT ACQUISITION. Discussion and vote on a motion to APPROVE the purchase of a T66 T4 Bobcat Compact Track Loader (skid steer) from the Oklahoma State Contract #192 with Bobcat of Oklahoma City in the total amount of $38,153.66; and authorize the City Manager to seek quotes from local banks for the lease-purchase of said equipment for the term not to exceed five (5) years at the lowest possible interest rate per annum.
4. 2016 SERIES UTILITY SYSTEM-SALES TAX REVENUE NOTE. Discussion and acknowledgment of 2016 Series Revenue Note of $1,580,000.00 pay-off.
5. RUSH SPRINGS AQUIFER. Discussion and vote on a motion, if needed, regarding the Hydrologic Investigation Report of the Rush Springs Aquifer in West-
2 | P a g e Board of Trustees Agenda 23 March 2021
Central Oklahoma, 2015.
6. WATER PRESSURE TESTING. Discussion and vote on a motion, as needed, regarding the setting of a policy for water pressure testing. This item is requested by Trustee Scalf.
C. CONSENT AGENDA The following item(s) are hereby designated for approval, acceptance or acknowledgment by one motion, SUBJECT to any conditions included therein. If any item(s) do not meet with the approval of all members, that item(s) will be heard in regular order:
1. APPROVAL of the regular meeting minutes of 23 February 2021. 2. ACKNOWLEDGE payment of FYE2021 Claims/Expenditures per fund in the total amount of $282,008.49. 3. ACKNOWLEDGE payment of 2021 Payroll in the total amount of $36,982.46. 4. ACCEPTANCE of the January 2021 Treasury Report. 5. APPROVAL of FYE2021 Budget Supplements.
D. CONSENT ITEM REMOVAL Discussion, consideration and take appropriate action re: any item(s) removed from the Consent Docket.
E. PUBLIC COMMENTS From the general public [limited to 3-minutes per speaker] for a total of 15-minutes on Utility related NON-AGENDA items. Preference will be given to Blanchard ratepayers and NO FORMAL ACTION will be taken.
F. TRUSTEE/STAFF COMMENTS This item is listed to provide an opportunity for the Board of Trustees and/or city staff to make comments and/or request specific agenda items. NO ACTION will be taken.
G. ADJOURNMENT
3 | P a g e Board of Trustees Agenda 23 March 2021
MEETING CONVENED
• Called to Order • Roll Call • Quorum Determination
BUSINESS AGENDA
BUSINESS AGENDA B-1
ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS
Notice is given that the Blanchard Municipal Improvement Authority will receive sealed bids in the Office of the Purchasing Agent, Blanchard City Hall, 122 North Main, Blanchard, Oklahoma, until 1:00PM On March 18, 2021, for:
Waterline and Sanitary Sewer Improvements, King Row to Oak Dr. along US 62.
Bids received more than ninety-six (96) hours, excluding Saturdays, Sundays and holidays, before the time set for opening of bids, as well as bids received after the time set for opening of bids, shall not be considered and shall be returned unopened. Bids shall be made in accordance with this Advertisement for Bids, the plans and specifications, and the bid forms, which are on file and available for public examination at the Office of the Purchasing Agent at City Hall at the address listed above.
Complete sets of general conditions, plans, specifications, and other bidding documents may be obtained at the Morris Engineering and Surveying office, 617 NW 27th St., Moore, OK 73160, please call ahead 405-912-2775.
Plans and specifications may be purchased for One Hundred Dollars (100.00) per set. Purchases are non-refundable. Digital copies are free and will be emailed upon request.
Bids filed with the Purchasing Agent shall be opened publicly and read aloud at City Hall at the time stated above or later. The City shall consider all bids prior to the award of the contract on or before March 23, 2021, to the lowest and best bidder meeting specifications and time schedule.
Sales Tax Exemption. Title 68, Oklahoma Statutes (1991), Section 1356(1), exempts sales to municipalities and their contractors from sales taxes on the sale of “tangible personal property or services.” All bids for Authority projects shall be assumed to have been made based on such statutory exemption as effective on the bid date.
The bidder must use the Authority’s bid forms and affidavits, and all forms must be signed and notarized/attested. The bidder must file the bid in a sealed envelope. The envelope must bear a legible notation thereon stating that it is a bid for the project proposed. The bid must be filed with the Purchasing Agent at Blanchard City Hall. All bids must be typewritten or in ink.
The following documents comprise the complete bid package and must be submitted. Incomplete bid packages will be rejected.
1. Blanchard standard bid bond or surety bid bond form. 2. Certification of Pre-bid Site Inspection, a letter acknowledging such from Bidder 3. Statement of Bidder’s Qualifications. a letter from the bidder of previous projects 4. Business Relationships Affidavit, Bid Affidavit. 5. Non-Collusion Affidavit. 6. ALL Addendum Acknowledgment(s) (if applicable).
AFB-1 Additional information may be obtained by contacting the Blanchard City Manager.
The Blanchard City Manager and Project Engineer reserves the right to reject any or all bids.
Becky Bussey Purchasing Agent
AFB-2
BUSINESS AGENDA B-2
BMIA Agenda Item No. B-2 Business Item
DATE: 23 March 2021
FROM: Robert L. Floyd, City Manager
ITEM: BID AWARD ~ Lift Station Pumps ______
BACKGROUND: The Authority is requesting the purchase of two (2) new lift station pumps and one (1) submersible sewage grinder for the lift stations. The majority of the pumps have outlived their usefulness and have been rebuilt several times over the years.
We have solicited sealed bids for this purchase and awaiting bids to be submitted and opened on Tuesday afternoon…bid date was extended from Thursday, March 18th to Tuesday, March 20th. Therefore, if we receive sealed bids, an award recommendation will be available at the meeting.
FISCAL IMPACT: $50,000.00 to $75,000.00 total cost.
ACTION REQUESTED: Discussion and vote on a motion to AWARD a contract to the lowest and best bidder in providing two (2) lift station pumps and one (1) submersible sewage grinder.
EXHIBITS: Advertisement for Bids.
1 | P a g e Staff Report No. 2 23 March 2021
Complete Bid Package Bid No. 2021-02
TWO NEW LIFT STATION PUMPS AND NEW SUBMERSIBLE SEWAGE GRINDER Bid Due Date/Time:
March 23, 2021
By 2:00 p.m.
Submitted By:
Vendor Name NOTICE TO BIDDERS
The City of Blanchard ("City"} through the Blanchard Municipal Improvement Authority ("Authority"} requests Sealed Bids for Bid No. 2021-02 Purchase of Two New Lift Station Pumps and Submersible Sewage Grinder.
To receive or view specifications, contact: Emily Pehrson Public Works Director 122 N. Main Ave Blanchard, OK 73010 Phone: (405} 485-9392 Email: [email protected]
The City/Authority reserves the right to reject any and all bids when such rejection is in the best interest of the City/Authority. All bids must be typewritten or in ink. Bids must be submitted on the forms provided in the bid documents for response to be considered. Please submit one (1} copy to one of the following: Mailing Address: Hand or Special Delivery: City of Blanchard City of Blanchard City Clerk's Office -ATTN: Bid Package Attn: Emily Pehrson P.O. Box 480 122 N. Main Ave Blanchard, OK 73010 Blanchard, OK 73010
State on the outside bottom left-hand corner of the bid envelope the following:
Bid No. 2021-02 Purchase of Two New Lift Station Pumps and Submersible Sewage Grinder Do not open until Thursday, March 18 at 2:00pm
Due Date: Bids must be received on or before 2:00 p.m. on March 18, 2021 to be considered. Proposals received more than ninety-six (96} hours, excluding Saturdays, Sundays and holidays before the time set for opening of proposals, as well as proposals received after the time set for opening, will not be considered and will be returned unopened.
Public Opening: Sealed bids filed with the City Clerk's Office shall be publicly opened and read aloud at the time stated above and considered by the Mayor/Chairman and Council/Trustees at the following next available City Council/ Authority Trustee meeting. The opening of bids will be in the Conference Room located at City Hall, 122 N. Main Ave, Blanchard, OK, 73010.
Evaluation/Award: All bids will be evaluated by staff. The City/Authority reserves the right to reject any and all proposals. The successful bidder will be notified in writing. 2/23/2021 t Date 2 GENERAL INFORMATION
1. Purpose of the Bid: The bid process is part of a competitive procurement process which will facilitate a fair opportunity for qualified firms to offer their plans and services for consideration. City/Authority is currently seeking bids for the purchase of a New Lift Station Pump and a Submersible Sewage Grinder for the Lift Station located on Tyler and NW 7th and a Lift Station Pump for the Lift Station located on Main Street and NW 7th. The City/Authority, by means of this bid, invites all qualified bidders to submit bids in accordance with the requirements outlined in this bid. The City/Authority anticipates that, based on its review and evaluation of the proposals received pursuant to this bid, it will select a bidder and execute a purchase order whereby the bidder renders services to the City/Authority, in accordance with terms and conditions set forth in the Bid Packet. Pricing is to remain effective for a period of thirty (30) days to allow Staff to review and accept or reject the bid.
2. Information about the City of Blanchard: The City of Blanchard is an innovative community southwest of Oklahoma· City, OK with a population of approximately 9,600 citizens. This progressive, forward-thinking City strives to offer a high quality of life that attracts commercial based businesses and employees seeking small-town charm within a major metropolitan area. The City/Authority strives to work with the citizens of Blanchard to meet the needs of the community while serving everyone with respect and integrity. The City/Authority strives to do so with competence, accessibility, responsiveness, and excellence. The same level of customer service is expected of its business partners.The City/Authorit y is committed to it providing the highest level of amenities for the community and the region and is dedicated to the continuous improvement of its facilities.
3. Project Overview: The City/Authority is currently seeking sealed bids from qualified vendors for the purchase of Two New Lift Station Pumps and one New Submersible Sewage Grinder in accordance with the specifications contained herein. Please contact Emily Pehrson at 405-485-9392 for further information. The vendor shall provide all materials and equipment necessary for the purchase of Two New Lift Station Pumps and one Submersible Sewage Grinder.
NEW LIFT STATION PUMPS: HEP0010786 New 4-inch D5433MV, 40HP DM Pump or equivalent
NEW SUBMERSIBLE SEWAGE GRINDER: 1000 GPM @ 90' TDH, 4" Suction/Discharge, 4" Cast Iron Base Elbow 4. PROVISIONS
a. The bid shall be awarded to the lowest responsible bidder, taking into consideration of quality, performance and delivery.
b. Freight shall be included.
c. Warranty period shall be specified. 3 5. SCHEDULE: The City/Authority intends to follow the schedule of activities as stated below and reserves the right to alter the schedule.
Issued: February 25, 2021 Bid Due Date: March 18, 2021 at 2:00 p.m. Approval of Bid: March 23, 2021 Purchase Order Issued: March 24, 2021 Delivery on or before: April 23, 2021
6. City/Authority's Right to Reject: The City/Authority reserves the right to accept or reject, in whole or in part, waive informalities, minor irregularities, or substitute items desired if deemed in the best interest of the City/Authority, therefore selecting the optimum proposal or issue a new bid. The City/Authority and its designees reserve the right to determine whether a proposal is responsive and has the ability and resources to perform the contract in full and comply with the specifications.
INSTRUCTIONS TO BIDDERS
ISSUED: February 25, 2021 CLOSES: March 18, 2021
GENERAL: Total bid price shall include all charges and freight or any other fees and charges to be charged to the City/Authority for this purchase.
BID FORMS: Bids must be submitted on the forms provided in the bid documents for response to be considered. All proposals must contain: 1. Signed and completed Bid Form (page 6) 2. Signed and completed Specifications and Exceptions Form (page 7) 3. Signed and completed Non-Collusion Affidavit (page 9) 4. Signed and completed Indemnification Agreement (page 10) 5. Signed and completed Notarized Sworn Statement (page 11) 6. Signed and completed Vendor Registration/W9 Form (last page) 7. Vendor References and Qualifications (page 8)
The completed bid return will, upon acceptance by the City/Authority, become the defined purchase specification.
EXCEPTIONS/VARIATIONS: Any variation from the specifications herein must be clearly indicated on the form provided and attached to the bid return. List any variation by specific items in enough detail to enable staff to make an accurate evaluation of the exception.
SUBMISSION OF BID: Each bid must be submitted in a sealed envelope for confidentiality of bid information prior to bid opening. All bids must be marked, on the outside sealed envelope, preferably in the lower left hand corner, to wit; bid number and bid title. Bidder's company name and address must appear in the upper left corner of the sealed envelope. All bids must be submitted to the City Clerk's Office, City Hall, 122 North Main Avenue, Blanchard, Oklahoma 73010.
4 NOTICE: If bids are sent by mail to the City Clerk's Office, City Hall, P.O. Box 480, Blanchard, Oklahoma 73010. Bidders are responsible for their delivery by the date and time set for receiving bids. If bids are delayed beyond the deadline because of the mail, or any other reason, the bid will not be considered.
METHOD OF AWARD: No bid may be withdrawn for at least ninety (90) days after the scheduled closing time for receipt of bids. All bids will be evaluated by staff. Recommendations of award shall be based on the lowest and best responsible bidder whose bid conforms to the specifications herein and whose bid is considered to be the best value for the City/Authority. The City/Authority reserves the right to reject any or all bids, if in the best interest of the City/Authority.
PAYMENT: Payment will be made with the regular accounts-payable claims when merchandise has been satisfactorily received or the service/work has been satisfactorily performed, and an invoice along with any other required documents is submitted to the Purchasing Department.
s BID RETURN SHEET
The cost of the purchase of two- 4 inch 40HP FM Pumps and one- Submersible Sewage Grinder 1000 GPM @ 90' TDH in accordance with the specifications herein is listed as follows:
New Lift Station Pumps - not to exceed: ______Submersible Sewage Grinder-not to exceed:______Freight- not to exceed:. ______Warranty-not to exceed:______ET A - not to exceed: ______
TOTAL FOR ALL:$______
All qualified proposals/bids will be evaluated and award made to the firm(s) whose proposal/bid is deemed to be in the best interest of the City/Authority, all factors considered. The City/Authority reserves the right to reject any and all offers if determined in its best interest.
Company Name Address
Telephone Fax
Authorized Agent (Print Name & Title)
Signature Date
6 The City of Blanchard
CITY/AUTHORITY, OKLAHOMA SPECIFICATIONS EXCEPTION FORM
In the interest of fairness and sound business practice, it is mandatory that you state any exceptions taken by you to our specifications. It should not be the responsibility of the City/Authority to ferret out information concerning the materials or services which you intend to furnish.
If your proposal does not meet all of our specifications you must so state in the space provided below:
Proposals on equipment, vehicles, supplies, service and materials not meeting specifications may be considered by the City/Authority, however, all deviations must be listed above.
If your proposal does not meet our specifications, and your exceptions are not listed above, the City/Authority may claim forfeiture on your proposal bond, if submitted.
Signed: ______I DO meet specifications.
Signed: ______I DO NOT meet specifications as listed in this proposal; exceptions are in the space provided.
*Failure to submit this form with your proposal response may result in your proposal being rejected as unresponsive.
7 REFERENCES
Indicate below three agencies for which you have provided equipment within the past three (3) years:
Firm: ______
Contract Name:______
Phone Number:______
Firm:. ______
Contract Name:______
Phone Number:. ______
Firm:. ______
Contract Name:. ______
Phone Number: ______
8 The City of Blanchard
NON-COLLUSION AFFIDAVIT OF VENDOR
This affidavit MUST accompany your response.
COUNTY OF------s. s. STATE OF ______)
AFFIDAVIT
I, , declare under oath, under penalty of perjury, That I am lawfully qualified and acting officer and/or agent of and that:
1. The affiant has not been party to any collusion among bidders in restraint of freedom of competition by agreement to bid at a fixed price or to refrain from bidding; or with any official of the state or political subdivision of the State, including the City or Authority, as to quantity, quality or price in the matter of the attached proposal, or any other terms of said prospective contract; or in any discussion between Proposer and any official of the State, including the City or Authority, concerning the exchange of money or other thing of value for special consideration in the letting of a contract and,
2. , has not pled guilty to or been convicted of a felony charge for fraud, bribery or corruption involving sale of real or personal property to any state or any political subdivision of a state.
3. That no person, firm, corporation subsidiary, parent, predecessor or other entity affiliated with or related to has been convicted of a fraud, bribery, or corruption relating to sale of real or personal property to any state or political subdivision of a state.
(Office or Agent)
Subscribed and sworn to before me this __Day of ______, 20__ .
(SEAL) (Notary Public)
My Commission Expires ______9 The City of Blanchard
Indemnification Form
The following indemnification agreement shall be, and is hereby a provision of any contract. Failure to submit this form with your bid response shall result in your bid being rejected as unresponsive.
The successful contractor agrees to indemnify, investigate, protect, defend and save harmless the City/Authority, its officials, officers, agents and employees from any and all claims and losses accruing or resulting to any and all contractors, subcontractors, suppliers, laborers and any other person, firm, or corporation furnishing or supplying work, services, materials or supplies in connection with the performance of this contract, and from any and all claims and losses accruing or resulting to any person, firm or corporation which may be injured or damaged by the contractor in the performance of this contract. In any case, the foregoing provisions concerning indemnification shall not be construed to indemnify the City/Authority for damage arising out of bodily injury to persons or damage to property caused by or resulting from the sole negligence of the City/Authority or its employees. This indemnification shall survive the expiration or early termination of this contract.
COMPANY______
TAXPAYER IDENTIFICATION NUMBER.______
AUTHORIZED SIGNATURE.______
ADDRESS ______
TELEPHONE ______
TOLL -FREE NUMBER. ______
FAX NUMBER______
E-MAIL ADDRESS. ______
10 The City of Blanchard
Notarized Sworn Statement (Contract)
STATE OF OKLAHOMA ) ) ss COUNTY OF ______)
______, of lawful age, being first duly sworn, on oath says:
1. {s)he is the duly authorized agent of , the contractor under the contract which is attached to this statement, for the purpose of certifying the facts pertaining to the giving of things of value to government personnel in order to procure said contract;
2. (s)he is fully aware of the facts and circumstances surrounding the making of the contract to which this statement is attached and has been personally and directly involved in the proceedings leading to the procurement of said contract; and
3. neither the contractor nor anyone subject to the contractor's direction or control has paid, given or donated or agreed to pay, give or donate to any officer or employee of the City/Authority any money or other thing of value, either directly or indirectly, in procuring the contract to which this statement is attached.
Name & Title
Address ______
County of ______
State of ______
Subscribed and sworn to before me this _____day of______, 20 __
My commission expires: ______
Farm W-9 (l~e\ 10 2007)
II Advertised in the Blanchard News February 25, 2021
BID NOTICE
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City of Blanchard/Blanchard Municipal Improvement Authority will receive sealed bids in the office of the City Clerk, Blanchard City Hall, 122 N. Main Ave, P.O. Box 480, Blanchard, Oklahoma 73010. Bids are for the Purchase of Two New Lift Station Pumps and One Submersible Sewage Grinder. Bids will not be accepted after 2:00 p. m., Thursday, March 18 2021, at which time they will be publicly opened in the Conference Room, Blanchard City Hall, 122 N. Main Ave, Blanchard, Oklahoma 73010.
Please contact Emily Pehrson, Public Works Director at 405-485-9392 or [email protected] with any questions or to receive a bid specification package. Packages are also available at http://www.cityofblanchard.us
The City/Authority reserves the right to waive informalities in the bids and reject any or all bids for any reason whatsoever at the sole discretion of the City/ Authority. The successful bidder will be notified in writing.
12
BUSINESS AGENDA B-3
BMIA Agenda Item No. B-3 Business Item
DATE: 23 March 2021
FROM: Robert L. Floyd, City Manager
ITEM: EQUIPMENT ACQUISITION ~ Bobcat Skid Steer ______
BACKGROUND: The Authority is requesting to purchase a new skid steer in the total amount of $38,153.66 (base price plus attachments) for use in the street and utility departments (see Public Works Director’s Memo dtd 2/25/21).
The Blanchard Municipal Code at Section 1-402(5) states that the city or the trust may contract for the following without giving an opportunity for competitive bidding or without requesting quotations: d. Supplies, materials or contractual services that have been bid through the Central Purchasing Agency of the state of Oklahoma.
This equipment is available under Oklahoma State Contract #192 with Bobcat of Oklahoma City.
In addition, it is requested to authorize the City (Trust) Manager to solicit quotes from local banks for the lease-purchase of said equipment not to exceed five (5) years.
FISCAL IMPACT: $38,153.66.
ACTION REQUESTED: Discussion and vote on a motion to AUTHORIZE the purchase of said equipment from State Contract; and authorize the City Manager to seek and award the lease-purchase of said equipment.
1 | P a g e Staff Report No. 3 23 March 2021
EXHIBITS: Public Works Director Request dtd 2/25/21. Bobcat Pricing of Equipment.
2 | P a g e Staff Report No. 3 23 March 2021
City of Blanchard 122 N MAIN ST PO BOX 480 OFFICE: 405.485.9392 BLANCHARD, OK 73010 FAX: 405.485.3199
February 25, 2021
RE: Public Works Skid Steer Purchase
The Public Works Director would like to purchase a new skid steer for use in the Street Department. The Department of Public Works currently only has one Backhoe Wheel Loader that is shared between both Street and Water Departments. A new skid steer will allow the Street Department to complete road projects (paving, street sweeping, repairs, debris removal) simultaneous to Water Department Projects.
Table 1: Quotes for Skid Steers
SKID STEER QUOTES CL BOYD BOBCAT OCT EQUIP 325G $59,700 T66 $34,620.57 Case TV450 $61,387.33 331G $63,500 333G $64,700
Recommendation: It is recommended that the City of Blanchard purchase a Bobcat T66 from Bobcat of Oklahoma City under the state contract pricing.
Product Quotation Quotation Numbers: 35493D035749 Date: 2021-02-19 10:43:40
Ship to Bobcat Dealer Bill To City of Blanchard Bobcat of Oklahoma City, City of Blanchard Attn: Emily Pehrson Contact: Ray Lowery Attn: Emily Pehrson 122 N Main Phone: (405) 685-5531 122 N Main [email protected] Cellular: (405) 919-6260 [email protected] Blanchard, OK 73010 [email protected] Blanchard, OK 73010 Phone: (254) 721-5160 Phone: (254) 721-5160
Description Part No Qty Price Ea. Total T66 T4 Bobcat Compact Track Loader M0349 1 $31,838.07 $31,838.07 74.0 HP Tier 4 V2 Bobcat Engine Lift Arm Support Auxiliary Hydraulics: Variable Flow Lift Path: Vertical Backup Alarm & Horn Lights, Front and Rear LED Bob-Tach Operator Cab Includes: Adjustable Suspension Seat, Top Bobcat Interlock Control System (BICS) and Rear Windows, Parking Brake, Seat Bar and Seat Belt Controls: Bobcat Standard Roll Overprotective Structure (ROPS) meets SAE-J1040 Cylinder Cushioning - Lift, Tilt and ISO 3471, Falling Object Protective Structure (FOPS) Engine/Hydraulic Performance De-Rate Protection meets SAE-J1043 and ISO 3449, Level I; (Level II is Glow Plugs (Automatically Activated) available through Bobcat Parts) Instrumentation: Standard 5" Display (Rear Camera Ready) Parking Brake: Spring Applied, Pressure Released with Keyless Start, Engine Temperature and Fuel Gauges, Solid Mounted Carriage with 4 Rollers Hour meter, RPM and Warning Indicators. Includes Tracks: Rubber, 12.6" Wide maintenance interval notification, fault display, job codes, Warranty: 2 years, or 2000 hours whichever occurs first quick start, auto idle, and security lockouts. Machine IQ Telematics
Factory Installed P17 Performance Package M0349-P06-P17 1 $1,132.10 $1,132.10 "Power Bob-Tach 7-Pin Attachment Control Dual Direction Bucket Positioning"
C52 Comfort Package M0349-P07-C52 1 $3,919.32 $3,919.32 "Standard Enclosed Cab with AC/Heat HVAC Headliner Sound Reduction Adjustable Suspension Seat" Radio Ready
Selectable Joystick Controls M0349-R01-C04 1 $431.45 $431.45 Attachments 68" Heavy Duty Bucket 7272679 1 $609.95 $609.95 --- Bolt-On Cutting Edge, 68" 6718006 1 $222.77 $222.77
Total of Items Quoted $38,153.66 Quote Total - US dollars $38,153.66
*Prices per the New Oklahoma State Contract #SW192. Contract Period: 05/29/2018 thru 5/28/2021 *Terms Net 30 Days. Credit cards accepted. *FOB: Destination within the 48 Contiguous States. *Delivery: 60 to 90 days from ARO. *State Sales Taxes if applicable. *TID# 38-0425350 *Remit to Address: Clark Equipment Company dba Bobcat Company, Govt. Sales, 75 Remittance Dr. Suite 1130, Chicago, Il 60675-1130. Prices & Specifications are subject to change. Please call before placing an order. Applies to factory ordered units only.
Effective immediately, please include tax exempt certificate with all orders or taxes will apply.
R-SERIES LOADERS
INTRODUCING R-SERIES LOADERS Bringing quality, comfort and performance to revolutionary new heights More than ever, owners and operators depend on compact equipment to do more – in all kinds of applications – and new R-Series loaders have been completely redesigned to meet the demand. With a total focus on quality, the latest R-Series loaders offer uncompromising reliability and durability, enhanced performance, and an unmatched operator experience. R-Series loaders not only look tougher, they are tougher. Bobcat® lift arms feature cast steel construction for increased material strength and rigidity. Cast steel INCREASED sections allow for more material where it’s needed, which provides greater strength while enabling a slimmer profile arm that also enhances visibility.
The newly optimized geometry of the R-Series workgroup improves lift capacity throughout your loader’s range LIFTING of motion, and an increased lift height to the hinge pins CAPABILITIES enables easy dumping into high-sided trucks and hoppers. BOB-TACH SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS A new cast steel Bob-Tach® attachment mounting system provides a stronger connection point, with more metal where it’s really needed. It has fewer welds overall, plus openings that allow dirt and debris to pass through. IMPROVED COOLING The R-Series cooling system is completely redesigned for optimal operation and maximum uptime. • Fan size has increased by approximately 50%; the reversible fan option can purge debris from the rear screen and reduce manual cleaning. • A larger, higher capacity radiator removes even more heat from the engine. • Auxiliary hydraulic hoses and tubelines have increased in size which allows hydraulic oil to flow with less restriction for more efficient flow that ultimately leads to cooler operating temperatures. • Heavy-duty steel louvers allow airflow for optimal operation, while protecting against jobsite debris.
Clear-Side Enclosure The optional clear-side enclosure adds new 3/8-inch thick polycarbonate side windows with abrasion- resistant coating, providing the best possible view to the sides, corners, tires or tracks.
Optional Touch Display Receive detailed machine information and experience unprecedented device connectivity with the optional glove-sensitive 7-inch display panel. This new display is waterproof and hardened to reduce scratching.
One-Piece Sealed and Pressurized Cab The roomier cab design offers a sealed and pressurized environment that repels dust and dirt in the cab, isolates the operator from engine and hydraulic noise, and enhances the efficiency of heating and air conditioning. It also lifts easily away for simple maintenance or repairs. S64 S66 S76 T64 T66 T76 REDESIGNED Loader Series R-Series R-Series R-Series R-Series R-Series R-Series Rated Operating Capacity (ROC) (35% of tipping load) – – – 2300 lb. (1043 kg) 2450 lb. (1111 kg) 2900 lb. (1315 kg) Counterweight kits are available to increase Counterweight kits are available to increase ROC with Counterweight (optional) 2450 lb. (1111 kg) 2550 lb. (1157 kg) ROC. See dealer on available kits and ROC 2450 lb. (1111 kg) Std ROC. See dealer on available kits and ROC increases for your loader. increases for your loader. BOBCAT ENGINE Operating Capacity (50% of tipping load) 2300 lb. (1043 kg) 2400 lb. (1089 kg) 2900 lb. (1315 kg) 3286 lb. (1491 kg) 3500 lb. (1588 kg) 4143 lb. (1879 kg) Tipping Load 4600 lb. (2087 kg) 4800 lb. (2289 kg) 5800 lb. (2631 kg) 6571 lb. (2981 kg) 7000 lb. (3175 kg) 8285 lb. (3758 kg) Operators will notice a more efficient engine ROC with Torsion – – – 2200 lb. (998 kg) 2350 lb. (1066 kg) 2800 lb. (1315 kg) that delivers the performance you need while Height to Bucket Hinge Pin 120.0 in. (3048 mm) 120.0 in. (3048 mm) 128.3 in. (3259 mm) 120.0 in. (3048 mm) 120.0 in. (3048 mm) 128.3 in. (3259 mm) Lift Arm Path Vertical Vertical Vertical Vertical Vertical Vertical reducing and simplifying routine maintenance. Size and Speed Operating Weight 6974 lb. (3163 kg) 7154 lb. (3245 kg) 8615 lb. (3908 kg) 8727 lb. (3958 kg) 8927 lb. (4049 kg) 10,250 lb. (4649 kg) • Non-DPF inline engine Width with Bucket 68.0 in. (1727 mm) 68.0 in. (1727 mm) 74.0 in. (1880 mm) 68.0 in. (1727 mm) 68.0 in. (1727 mm) 74.0 in. (1880 mm) • New larger fuel filter with longer filter life that’s Height with Cab 80.5 (2045 mm) 80.5 (2045 mm) 81.8 in. (2078 mm) 80.5 in. (2045 mm) 80.5 in. (2045 mm) 81.8 in. (2078 mm) Travel Speed – Low Range 7.4 mph (11.8 km/hr.) 7.4 mph (11.8 km/hr.) 6.8 mph (10.9 km/hr.) 7.2 mph (11.6 km/hr.) 7.2 mph (11.6 km/hr.) 6.8 mph (10.9 km/hr.) easier to change and monitor Travel Speed – High Range (optional 2-Speed travel) 11.0 mph (17.7 km/hr.) 11.0 mph (17.7 km/hr.) 11.8 mph (18.9 km/hr.) 10.2 mph (16.4 km/hr.) 10.2 mph (16.4 km/hr.) 9.2 mph (14.8 km/hr.) • Improved cold-weather operation Engine Tier 4 Tier 4 Tier 4 Tier 4 Tier 4 Tier 4 Horsepower 68 hp (50.7 kW) 74 hp (55.2 kW) 74 hp (55.2 kW) 68 hp (50.7 kW) 74 hp (55.2 kW) 74 hp (55.2 kW) • Innovative new fuel system that is more forgiving Type Turbo Diesel Turbo Diesel Turbo Diesel Turbo Diesel Turbo Diesel Turbo Diesel when fuel levels are low Fuel Tank Capacity 28.3 gal. (107.1 L) 28.3 gal. (107.1 L) 31.7 gal. (120.0 L) 28.3 gal. (107.1 L) 28.3 gal. (107.1 L) 31.7 gal. (120.0 L) Horsepower Management Included with SJC Option Included with SJC Option Included with SJC Option Included with SJC Option Included with SJC Option Included with SJC Option • Efficient fuel tank vent filter prevents debris Tires and damage Bobcat Heavy Duty Opt Opt Std – – – Bobcat Standard Std Opt Opt – – – • New lift pump and self-priming fuel system Bobcat Super Float Opt Std Opt – – – • Adjustment-free engine belts Tracks/Undercarriage Track Width - Standard – – – 12.6 in. (320 mm) 12.6 in. (320 mm) 12.6 in. (320 mm) • Extended air filter component life Track Width - Optional – – – 15.7 in. (398 mm) 15.7 in. (398 mm) 17.7 in. (450 mm) Ground Pressure (with standard tracks) – – – 5.7 psi (.039 Mpa) 5.9 psi (.040 Mpa) 6.2 psi (.043 MPa) Ground Pressure (with optional tracks) – – – 4.7 psi (0.032 MPa) 4.8 psi (0.032 MPa) 3.5 psi (0.031 MPa) OTHER R-SERIES ENHANCEMENTS Length of Track on Ground – – – 54.3 in. (1378 mm) 54.3 in. (1378 mm) 59.2 in. (1504 mm) 5-Link Torsion Suspension Undercarriage – – – Opt Opt Opt • Eye-level push-button controls Grease Cylinder Track Tensioning – – – Std Std Std • 5-Link torsion suspension undercarriage available Control Options for track models Bobcat Standard (foot pedals/steering levers) Std Std Std Std Std – Selectable Joystick Control (SJC) Opt Opt Opt Opt Opt Std • Protected battery with remote jumpstart Radio Remote Control (SJC required) Opt Opt Opt Opt Opt Opt Machine Features • Standard 5-inch LCD display with password- 2-Speed Travel Opt Std Opt Opt Opt Opt protected keyless start Heated Cloth Air-Ride Seat Opt Opt Opt Opt Opt Opt • Optional clear-side enclosure with Back-Up Alarm and Horn Std Std Std Std Std Std Bobcat Interlock Control System (BICS™) Std Std Std Std Std Std automatic heat and air conditioning Cab with Heat Opt Opt Opt – – – • Optional on-demand, automatic Cab with Heat and Air Conditioning Opt Opt Opt Opt Opt Opt Standard Display (includes keyless start) Std Std Std Std Std Std rearview camera (integrated with LED Front and Rear Work Lights Std Std Std Std Std Std standard 5-inch display and 7-inch Dual Direction Bucket Positioning Opt Opt Opt Opt Opt Opt touch display) Mechanical Suspension Seat Std Std Std Std Std Std Radio Opt Opt Opt Opt Opt Opt • Standard LED lights with Reversing Fan Opt Opt Opt Opt Opt Opt premium lighting option and Automatic Ride Control Opt Opt Opt Opt Opt Opt ROPS/FOPS Approved Cab Structure Std Std Std Std Std Std optional side lighting kit Side Lighting Kit Opt Opt Opt Opt Opt Opt Sound Reduction Opt Opt Opt Opt Opt Opt Features for Attachments Attachment Control Kit Std Std Opt Std Std Opt Bob-Dock System Opt Opt Opt Opt Opt Opt Bob-Tach Mounting System Std Std Std Std Std Std Power Bob-Tach System Opt Opt Opt Opt Opt Opt Fingertip Auxiliary Hydraulics Control Std Std Std Std Std Std Hydraulic System Pressure 3500 psi (24.1 MPa) 3500 psi (24.1 MPa) 3450 psi (23.8 MPa) 3500 psi (24.2 MPa) 3500 psi (24.2 MPa) 3450 psi (23.8 MPa) Hydraulic Standard Flow 17.6 gpm (66.5 L/min.) 17.6 gpm (66.5 L/min.) 23.3 gpm (88.1 L/min.) 17.6 gpm (66.5 L/min.) 17.6 gpm (66.5 L/min.) 23.3 gpm (88.1 L/min.) Hydraulic High Flow (optional) 26.9 gpm (101.8 L/min.) 26.9 gpm (101.8 L/min.) 30.3 gpm (114.7 L/min.) 26.9 gpm (101.8 L/min.) 26.9 gpm (101.8 L/min.) 30.3 gpm (114.7 L/min.) Pressure Release Hydraulic Quick Couplers Std Std Std Std Std Std Speed Management Included with SJC Option Included with SJC Option Included with SJC Option Included with SJC Option Included with SJC Option Included with SJC Option S64 S66 S76 T64 T66 T76 Loader Series R-Series R-Series R-Series R-Series R-Series R-Series Rated Operating Capacity (ROC) (35% of tipping load) – – – 2300 lb. (1043 kg) 2450 lb. (1111 kg) 2900 lb. (1315 kg) Counterweight kits are available to increase Counterweight kits are available to increase ROC with Counterweight (optional) 2450 lb. (1111 kg) 2550 lb. (1157 kg) ROC. See dealer on available kits and ROC 2450 lb. (1111 kg) Std ROC. See dealer on available kits and ROC increases for your loader. increases for your loader. Operating Capacity (50% of tipping load) 2300 lb. (1043 kg) 2400 lb. (1089 kg) 2900 lb. (1315 kg) 3286 lb. (1491 kg) 3500 lb. (1588 kg) 4143 lb. (1879 kg) Tipping Load 4600 lb. (2087 kg) 4800 lb. (2289 kg) 5800 lb. (2631 kg) 6571 lb. (2981 kg) 7000 lb. (3175 kg) 8285 lb. (3758 kg) ROC with Torsion – – – 2200 lb. (998 kg) 2350 lb. (1066 kg) 2800 lb. (1315 kg) Height to Bucket Hinge Pin 120.0 in. (3048 mm) 120.0 in. (3048 mm) 128.3 in. (3259 mm) 120.0 in. (3048 mm) 120.0 in. (3048 mm) 128.3 in. (3259 mm) Lift Arm Path Vertical Vertical Vertical Vertical Vertical Vertical Size and Speed Operating Weight 6974 lb. (3163 kg) 7154 lb. (3245 kg) 8615 lb. (3908 kg) 8727 lb. (3958 kg) 8927 lb. (4049 kg) 10,250 lb. (4649 kg) Width with Bucket 68.0 in. (1727 mm) 68.0 in. (1727 mm) 74.0 in. (1880 mm) 68.0 in. (1727 mm) 68.0 in. (1727 mm) 74.0 in. (1880 mm) Height with Cab 80.5 (2045 mm) 80.5 (2045 mm) 81.8 in. (2078 mm) 80.5 in. (2045 mm) 80.5 in. (2045 mm) 81.8 in. (2078 mm) Travel Speed – Low Range 7.4 mph (11.8 km/hr.) 7.4 mph (11.8 km/hr.) 6.8 mph (10.9 km/hr.) 7.2 mph (11.6 km/hr.) 7.2 mph (11.6 km/hr.) 6.8 mph (10.9 km/hr.) Travel Speed – High Range (optional 2-Speed travel) 11.0 mph (17.7 km/hr.) 11.0 mph (17.7 km/hr.) 11.8 mph (18.9 km/hr.) 10.2 mph (16.4 km/hr.) 10.2 mph (16.4 km/hr.) 9.2 mph (14.8 km/hr.) Engine Tier 4 Tier 4 Tier 4 Tier 4 Tier 4 Tier 4 Horsepower 68 hp (50.7 kW) 74 hp (55.2 kW) 74 hp (55.2 kW) 68 hp (50.7 kW) 74 hp (55.2 kW) 74 hp (55.2 kW) Type Turbo Diesel Turbo Diesel Turbo Diesel Turbo Diesel Turbo Diesel Turbo Diesel Fuel Tank Capacity 28.3 gal. (107.1 L) 28.3 gal. (107.1 L) 31.7 gal. (120.0 L) 28.3 gal. (107.1 L) 28.3 gal. (107.1 L) 31.7 gal. (120.0 L) Horsepower Management Included with SJC Option Included with SJC Option Included with SJC Option Included with SJC Option Included with SJC Option Included with SJC Option Tires Bobcat Heavy Duty Opt Opt Std – – – Bobcat Standard Std Opt Opt – – – Bobcat Super Float Opt Std Opt – – – Tracks/Undercarriage Track Width - Standard – – – 12.6 in. (320 mm) 12.6 in. (320 mm) 12.6 in. (320 mm) Track Width - Optional – – – 15.7 in. (398 mm) 15.7 in. (398 mm) 17.7 in. (450 mm) Ground Pressure (with standard tracks) – – – 5.7 psi (.039 Mpa) 5.9 psi (.040 Mpa) 6.2 psi (.043 MPa) Ground Pressure (with optional tracks) – – – 4.7 psi (0.032 MPa) 4.8 psi (0.032 MPa) 3.5 psi (0.031 MPa) Length of Track on Ground – – – 54.3 in. (1378 mm) 54.3 in. (1378 mm) 59.2 in. (1504 mm) 5-Link Torsion Suspension Undercarriage – – – Opt Opt Opt Grease Cylinder Track Tensioning – – – Std Std Std Control Options Bobcat Standard (foot pedals/steering levers) Std Std Std Std Std – Selectable Joystick Control (SJC) Opt Opt Opt Opt Opt Std Radio Remote Control (SJC required) Opt Opt Opt Opt Opt Opt Machine Features 2-Speed Travel Opt Std Opt Opt Opt Opt Heated Cloth Air-Ride Seat Opt Opt Opt Opt Opt Opt Back-Up Alarm and Horn Std Std Std Std Std Std Bobcat Interlock Control System (BICS™) Std Std Std Std Std Std Cab with Heat Opt Opt Opt – – – Cab with Heat and Air Conditioning Opt Opt Opt Opt Opt Opt Standard Display (includes keyless start) Std Std Std Std Std Std LED Front and Rear Work Lights Std Std Std Std Std Std Dual Direction Bucket Positioning Opt Opt Opt Opt Opt Opt Mechanical Suspension Seat Std Std Std Std Std Std Radio Opt Opt Opt Opt Opt Opt Reversing Fan Opt Opt Opt Opt Opt Opt Automatic Ride Control Opt Opt Opt Opt Opt Opt ROPS/FOPS Approved Cab Structure Std Std Std Std Std Std Side Lighting Kit Opt Opt Opt Opt Opt Opt Sound Reduction Opt Opt Opt Opt Opt Opt Features for Attachments Attachment Control Kit Std Std Opt Std Std Opt Bob-Dock System Opt Opt Opt Opt Opt Opt Bob-Tach Mounting System Std Std Std Std Std Std Power Bob-Tach System Opt Opt Opt Opt Opt Opt Fingertip Auxiliary Hydraulics Control Std Std Std Std Std Std Hydraulic System Pressure 3500 psi (24.1 MPa) 3500 psi (24.1 MPa) 3450 psi (23.8 MPa) 3500 psi (24.2 MPa) 3500 psi (24.2 MPa) 3450 psi (23.8 MPa) Hydraulic Standard Flow 17.6 gpm (66.5 L/min.) 17.6 gpm (66.5 L/min.) 23.3 gpm (88.1 L/min.) 17.6 gpm (66.5 L/min.) 17.6 gpm (66.5 L/min.) 23.3 gpm (88.1 L/min.) Hydraulic High Flow (optional) 26.9 gpm (101.8 L/min.) 26.9 gpm (101.8 L/min.) 30.3 gpm (114.7 L/min.) 26.9 gpm (101.8 L/min.) 26.9 gpm (101.8 L/min.) 30.3 gpm (114.7 L/min.) Pressure Release Hydraulic Quick Couplers Std Std Std Std Std Std Speed Management Included with SJC Option Included with SJC Option Included with SJC Option Included with SJC Option Included with SJC Option Included with SJC Option ®
Everything we put into Bobcat equipment is designed to make more of whatever you bring to the job. Whether it’s strength, versatility, speed or agility, it’s built around you.
Certain specification(s) are based on engineering calculations and are not actual measurements. Specification(s) are provided for comparison purposes only and are subject to change without notice. Specification(s) for your individual Bobcat equipment will vary based on normal variations in design, manufacturing, operating conditions, and other factors.
Bobcat is a Doosan company. Doosan is a global leader in construction equipment, power and water solutions, engines, and engineering, proudly serving customers and communities for more than a century. Bobcat®, the Bobcat logo and the colors of the Bobcat machine are registered trademarks of Bobcat Company in the United States and various other countries. ©2020 Bobcat Company. All rights reserved.
Bobcat Company 250 East Beaton Drive • West Fargo, ND 58078 B-2180 (4/20) Kn-10M-0420-696998-F Bobcat.com
BUSINESS AGENDA B-4
BMIA Agenda Item No. B-4 Business Item
DATE: 23 March 2021
FROM: Robert L. Floyd, City Manager
ITEM: 2016 Revenue Note ~ Payoff ______
BACKGROUND: The Authority issued its Utility System and Sales Tax Revenue Note, Series 2016 on June 7, 2016 to First National Bank and Trust Company in the total amount of $1,580,000 with an interest rate of 2.19% and a maturity date of May 1, 2016.
The purpose of the Revenue Note in providing funds to 1) finance certain water system improvements including replacement of a waterline crossing and acquisition of an automated meter reading system, along with related costs; and 2) to pay certain costs associated with the issuance of the Note.
The Note was able to be paid off after we received the FEMA reimbursement for the May 2015 storm damage to the Canadian River Crossing in the total amount of $940,542.22 was used to payoff the Note.
FISCAL IMPACT: $940,542.22 was used to pay off the 2016 Revenue Note, as of December 21, 2020 6-years early.
ACTION REQUESTED: Discussion and vote on a motion to ACKNOWLEDGE the payoff of the Utility System and Sales Tax Revenue Note, Series 2016.
EXHIBITS: 2016 Revenue Note Documents.
1 | P a g e Staff Report No. 4 23 March 2021
BUSINESS AGENDA B-5
BMIA Agenda Item No. B-5 Business Item
DATE: 23 March 2021
FROM: Robert L. Floyd, City Manager
ITEM: Hydrologic Investigation Report of the Rush Springs Aquifer - OWRB ______
BACKGROUND: The City and BMIA along with several cities are considering a joint venture to tap into the Rush Springs Aquifer which is located in the West-Central Oklahoma.
The Oklahoma Water Resources Board published a Hydrologic Investigation Report of the Rush Springs Aquifer in 2015.
The purpose of the study is required by Oklahoma groundwater law for the OWRB to conduct hyrologic investigations of Oklahoma’s aquifers to determine the MAY and EPS.
The MAY is defined as the total amount of fresh groundwater that can be produced from an aquifer allowing for a minimum 20-year life of the basin. Life of the basin is defined as the period of time during which the total overlying land of the basin will retain a saturated thickness of 15 feet for bedrock aquifers. The EPS is defined as the portion of the MAY allocated to each acre of land.
We are working with ACOG to review this report to determine the aquifer’s viability in providing sufficient groundwater to meet our future water needs.
FISCAL IMPACT: To be determined.
1 | P a g e Staff Report No. 5 23 March 2021
ACTION REQUESTED: Discussion and vote on a motion, as desired.
EXHIBITS: Hydrologic Investigation Report of the Rush Springs Aquifer in West-Central Oklahoma, 2015.
2 | P a g e Staff Report No. 5 23 March 2021
Hydrologic Investigation Report of the Rush Springs Aquifer in West-Central Oklahoma, 2015
Oklahoma Water Resources Board Publication 2018-01 Cover. Near Thomas, Oklahoma, spring 2012. Photo by Christopher Neel i
Hydrologic Investigation Report of the Rush Springs Aquifer in West-Central Oklahoma, 2015
By Christopher R. Neel, Derrick L. Wagner, Jessica S. Correll, Jon E. Sanford, R. Jacob Hernandez, Kyle W. Spears, and P. Byron Waltman
Oklahoma Water Resources Board Publication 2018-01 ii
Oklahoma Water Resources Board Julie Cunningham, Executive Director
Members Jason Hitch, Chairman Stephen Allen, Vice Chairman Robert L. Stallings, Secretary Jennifer Castillo Charles Darby Bob Drake Ford Drummond Robert L. Melton, Sr. Matt Muller
For more information on the OWRB, Oklahoma’s water agency, visit www.owrb.ok.gov or call 405-530-8800.
Any use of trade, firm, or product names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the State of Oklahoma.
Although this information product, for the most part, is in the public domain, it also may contain copyrighted materials as noted in the text. Permission to reproduce copyrighted items must be secured from the copyright owner.
Published August 2, 2018 iii
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank landowners who allowed access to their groundwater wells for water level measurements, installation of water-level recorders, and slug tests. Several public water supply managers allowed well access for aquifer tests, including Randy Epp (Corn), Keith Wright (Hinton), Phil Goofser (Hydro), Trent Perkins (Weatherford), and Paul Jones (Grady County RWD #3).
This investigation would not have been possible without the hard work during the early stages of this investigation by former Oklahoma Water Resources Board staff, including Theda Atkisson, David Correll, Lauren Guidry, Qualla Ketchum, and Mary Niles. Current OWRB staff who provided assistance include Sean Hussey, Gene Doussett, and Alan LePera. OWRB Water Quality Streams Monitoring staff installed and maintained the Deer Creek streamflow gauge on Deer Creek at Hydro to assist with this investigation. Kent Wilkins and Mark Belden provided internal technical review, and John Ellis and Shana Mashburn at the U.S. Geological Survey Oklahoma Water Science Center provided external technical reviews. Darla Whitley, Kylee Wilson, and Tracy Scopel provided internal editorial reviews, and Kylee Wilson produced the report layout. iv v
Contents Acknowledgments...... iii Abstract ...... 1 Purpose and Scope...... 2 Introduction ...... 2 Climate ...... 4 Geology ...... 6 Geologic History and Depositional Environments ...... 6 El Reno Group and Beckham Evaporites ...... 7 Marlow Formation ...... 7 Rush Springs Formation ...... 9 Cloud Chief Formation ...... 10 Quaternary Deposits ...... 11 Characteristics of the Rush Springs Aquifer...... 11 Streamflow and Base Flow ...... 11 Precipitation Trends in Base Flow...... 14 Water-level Fluctuations...... 14 Historic ...... 15 Continuous ...... 17 Regional Groundwater Flow ...... 20 2013 Potentiometric Surface ...... 20 Potentiometric Surface Changes ...... 22 Groundwater Use ...... 22 Long-term Permitted Groundwater Use ...... 22 Provisional-temporary Groundwater Permits ...... 24 Hydrogeology ...... 24 Base of the Cloud Chief Formation ...... 25 Base of the Rush Springs Aquifer ...... 25 Aquifer Saturated Thickness ...... 27 Cross Sections ...... 27 Recharge ...... 32 RORA Method ...... 32 Soil-Water Balance ...... 36 Hydraulic Properties ...... 41 Slug Tests and Well Drawdown Data Analyses ...... 42 Aquifer Tests ...... 45 Aquifer Test Discussion ...... 50 Regional Method to Determine Storage Coefficient ...... 50 Percent-Coarse Analysis ...... 51 Groundwater Quality ...... 53 Groundwater Monitoring and Assessment Program (GMAP) ...... 53 Summary ...... 56 Selected References ...... 58 vi
Figures
1. Map showing Rush Springs aquifer location, counties, cities, continuous-recorder wells, periodic water-level wells, cooperative observer stations, and Mesonet weather stations...... 3 2. Graph showing annual precipitation and 5-year weighted average (1905–2015) at 13 Cooperative Observer stations...... 6 3. Graph showing average monthly precipitation for 1936–1984 and 1985–2008...... 6 4. Surficial geologic units in the extent of the Rush Springs aquifer...... 8 5. (A) Annual base flow and total flow volume with LOESS trend line; (B) base-flow index; and (C) monthly mean streamflow, base flow, and runoff for the USGS Cobb Creek streamflow gauge near Eakly (USGS 07325800), 1969–2015...... 13 6. (A) Annual base flow and total flow volume with LOESS trend line; (B) base-flow index; and (C) monthly mean streamflow, base flow, and runoff for the USGS Little Washita River streamflow gauge east of Ninnekah (USGS 07327550), 1993–2015...... 14 7. (A) Annual base flow and total flow volume with LOESS trend line; (B) base-flow index; and (C) monthly mean streamflow, base flow, and runoff for the USGS Lake Creek streamflow gauge near Eakly (USGS 7325850), 2005–2015...... 14 8. (A) Annual base flow and total flow volume with LOESS trend line; (B) base-flow index; and (C) monthly mean streamflow, base flow, and runoff for the USGS Willow Creek streamflow gauge near Albert (USGS 7325860), 2005–2015...... 15 9. (A) Annual base flow and total flow volume with LOESS trend line; (B) base-flow index; and (C) monthly mean streamflow, base flow, and runoff for the USGS and OWRB Deer Creek streamflow gauge near Hydro (USGS 07228400 and OWRB 520620060010-003RS), 1960–1963, 1977–1980, and 2013–2015...... 15 10. Graph showing normalized water levels for wells with a climate trend in the Rush Springs aquifer. A Z-score of 0 is equivalent to the mean water level in a well over the period of record. A positive Z-score indicates a decreasing water-level and higher depth to water reading, and a negative Z-score indicates an increasing water-level and lower depth to water reading...... 16 11. Water levels from OWRB continuous recorder wells from January 2012 through December 2015 showing possible responses from long-term precipitation response (A-C, F), localized groundwater pumping (D), or both (E) in the Rush Springs aquifer area...... 18 12. Long-term continuous water levels with precipitation for the Acme Mesonet well (OWRB 89283)...... 19 13. Groundwater levels measured in USGS wells 350748098231101, 351727098290401, 352423098341701, and 352802098191601 from October 2010 through December 2015...... 19 14. Groundwater levels measured in USGS well 351308098341601 from 1948 to April 2015...... 20 15. Potentiometric surface contour map of the Rush Springs aquifer, 2013...... 21 16. Graph showing annual reported groundwater use for the study area from 1967–2015...... 23 17. Graph showing annual authorized groundwater volume issued for provisional-temporary permits in the study area from 1993–2015...... 24 18. Raster map showing the elevation of the base of the Cloud Chief Formation derived from lithologic logs submitted to the OWRB...... 26 19. Raster map showing the elevation of the base of the Rush Springs aquifer derived using lithologic logs submitted to the OWRB...... 28 20. Map showing saturated thickness (2013) in the Rush Springs aquifer...... 29 vii
21. Cross section A-A’ from the southwest to the northeast showing geologic units, 2013 potentiometric surface, and saturated thickness...... 30 22. Cross section B-B’ from the southwest to the northeast showing geologic units, 2013 potentiometric surface, and saturated thickness...... 30 23. Cross section C-C’ from the southwest to the northeast showing geological units, 2013 potentiometric surface, and saturated thickness...... 31 24. Cross section D-D’ from the southwest to the northeast showing geological units, 2013 potentiometric surface, and saturated thickness...... 31 25. (A) Annual recharge, in inches, and (B) mean monthly recharge, in inches, estimated using the Rorabaugh method (Rorabaugh, 1964) or the USGS Cobb Creek streamflow gauge near Eakly, Oklahoma (USGS 07325800)...... 33 26. (A) Annual recharge, in inches, and (B) mean monthly recharge, in inches, estimated using the Rorabaugh method (Rorabaugh, 1964) or the USGS Little Washita River streamflow gauge near Ninnekah (USGS 07327550)...... 33 27. (A) Annual recharge, in inches, and (B) mean monthly recharge, in inches, estimated using the Rorabaugh method (Rorabaugh, 1964) or the USGS Lake Creek streamflow gauge near Eakly (USGS 07325850)...... 34 28. (A) Annual recharge, in inches, and (B) mean monthly recharge, in inches, estimated using the Rorabaugh method (Rorabaugh, 1964) or the USGS Willow Creek streamflow gauge near Albert (USGS 07325860)...... 34 29. (A) Annual recharge, in inches, and (B) mean monthly recharge, in inches, estimated using the Rorabaugh method (Rorabaugh, 1964) or the USGS and OWRB Deer Creek streamflow gauge near Hydro (USGS 07228400 and OWRB 520620060010-003RS)...... 35 30. (A) Annual recharge, in inches, and (B) mean monthly recharge, in inches, estimated using the Rorabaugh method (Rorabaugh, 1964) or the USGS Barnitz Creek streamflow gauge near Arapaho (USGS 07324500)...... 35 31. (A) Annual recharge, in inches, and (B) mean monthly recharge, in inches, estimated using the Rorabaugh method (Rorabaugh, 1964) or the USGS Sugar Creek streamflow gauge near Gracemont (USGS 07327000)...... 36 32. Raster map showing spatial SWB average annual recharge estimate for 1950–2015...... 38 33. Raster map showing spatial recharge estimated by SWB for 2007, a year of high estimated recharge...... 39 34. Raster map showing spatial recharge estimate by SWB for 1980, a year of below average recharge...... 40 35. Graph showing annual recharge estimated by SWB for the study area for 1950–2015...... 41 36. Graph showing average monthly recharge for 1950–2015, 1950–1984, 1985–2001, and 2002–2015...... 42 37. Map showing locations of wells with available drawdown data in the OWRB Drillers Database and where slug tests were performed in the Rush Springs aquifer as part of this study...... 44 38. Histogram showing the hydraulic conductivity distribution of slug tests and drawdown data...... 45 39. Horizontal hydraulic conductivity of the Rush Springs aquifer based on percent-coarse analysis of lithologic descriptions in over 4,700 well logs...... 46 viii
40. Graph showing water levels during the pumping (January 28–30, 2014) and recovery periods (January 30–February 3, 2014) of the Grady County Rural Water District #6 aquifer test in the Rush Springs aquifer...... 48 41. Pumping and recovery data curve and derivative of the Grady County Rural Water District #6 aquifer test with bestfit Moench solution for leaky confined aquifers (Moench, 1997)...... 48 42. Graph showing water levels during the pumping (October 1–2, 2014) and recovery periods (October 2–3, 2014) of the Town of Hydro aquifer test in the Rush Springs aquifer...... 49 43. Pumping drawdown data curve and derivative of the town of Hydro aquifer test with best-fit Moench solution for unconfined aquifers (Moench, 1997)...... 49 44. Graph of water levels in the Cobb Creek subsurface watershed s howing no influence from precipitation from December 2013 through March 2014...... 51 45. Piper diagram showing groundwater geochemistry from 79 samples collected in the study area...... 53 46. Map showing distribution of total dissolved solids and wells exceeding the EPA maximum contaminant levels for arsenic and nitrate in the study area...... 55 Hydrologic Investigation Report of the Rush Springs Aquifer in West-Central Oklahoma, 2015 ix
Tables
1. Precipitation data collection time periods at the Cooperative Observer stations used in the Rush Springs aquifer study...... 5 2. Stratigraphic column of geologic and hydrogeologic units in the Rush Springs Aquifer...... 7 3. Streamflows and base flows at streamflow gauging stations in the vicinity of the Rush Springs aquifer summarized through 2015...... 12 4. Groundwater well sites with continuous water-level recorders in the Rush Springs aquifer...... 17 5. Summary statistics of reported groundwater use in the study area from 1967–2015...... 23 6. Table showing reported average annual groundwater use by type in the study area from 1967–2015...... 23 7. Summary statistics from provisional-temporary permits in the study area from 1993–2015...... 25 8. Average annual recharge estimated by the RORA program and recession index for stream gauging stations in the study area...... 32 9. Table of summary statistics for SWB estimated recharge for 1950–2015, 1950–1984, 1985–2001, and 2002–2015...... 41 10. Summary statistics show the count, minimum, maximum, mean, 25th percentile, 50th percentile, 75th percentile, and area-weighted mean values for hydraulic conductivity, in feet per day, derived from slug tests, drawdown analysis, and percent coarse analysis...... 45 11. Storage coefficients calculated from streamflows and change in water stored in subsurface watersheds, December 2013 through March 2014...... 52 12. Standardized lithologic categories and estimated hydraulic conductivity and storage from lithologic logs in the Rush Springs aquifer and Cloud Chief Formation...... 52 13. Summary statistics for groundwater-quality data for 79 samples collected from the Rush Springs aquifer...... 54 Hydrologic Investigation Report of the Rush Springs Aquifer in West-Central Oklahoma, 2015 1
Hydrologic Investigation Report of the Rush Springs Aquifer in West-Central Oklahoma, 2015
By Christopher R. Neel, Derrick L. Wagner, Jessica S. Correll, Jon E. Sanford, R. Jacob Hernandez, Kyle W. Spears, and P. Byron Waltman
Abstract annual precipitation of 31.28 inches. Long-term annual water- level measurements for 1905–2015 typically correspond to The Oklahoma Water Resources Board (OWRB) the dry and wet cycles with lower elevations from 1970 to conducts hydrologic investigations and surveys of the state’s early 1980 followed by higher water-level elevations in the groundwater basins as mandated by the State of Oklahoma mid-1980s through the early 2000s. to determine maximum annual yield (MAY) and equal- The contours of the potentiometric surface, estimated proportionate share (EPS). This report details the findings using 2013 groundwater levels, bow in a “V” shape upstream of the Rush Springs hydrologic investigation and provides along the Canadian River and Washita River as well as information for constructing a groundwater-flow model to major tributaries, indicating that groundwater from the allow the OWRB to simulate various management scenarios. aquifer discharges as base flow to surface water features. The Rush Springs aquifer underlies 4,692 square miles of Many streams, including Cobb Creek, Lake Creek, and west-central Oklahoma, including portions of Blaine, Caddo, Willow Creek, help sustain yields in Fort Cobb Reservoir Canadian, Comanche, Custer, Grady, Stephens, and Washita during periods of below average precipitation; other Counties. The geographic boundaries of the Rush Springs streams discharge to the Washita River and Canadian River. previously determined by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Between the Washita River streamflow gauges at Carnegie during a 1998 water resources investigation (Becker and (USGS 07325500) and near Clinton (USGS 07325000) Runkle, 1998) were expanded for this investigation to include for the periods 1964–1986 and 1990–2005, the Base Flow portions of the Rush Springs and Marlow geologic formations Index (BFI) base-flow separation technique was used to that are part of the same groundwater-flow system. estimate a base flow increase of 158.5 cubic feet per second, The Permian-age Rush Springs Formation, the which is 71 percent of the base flow at the Washita River main water-bearing geologic formation in the aquifer, streamflow gauge at Anadarko (07326500). From April 2013 is predominantly a fine-grained sandstone with some to December 2015, Deer Creek discharged into the Canadian dolomite and gypsum. The formation outcrops in the east River at an average and median streamflow rate of 32.79 and and is overlain in the west by the Cloud Chief Formation, 20.60 cubic feet per second, respectively. Average base flow a siltstone with massive beds of gypsum. Below the Rush for the same period was 18.10 cubic feet per second, which is Springs Formation is the Marlow Formation, consisting about 20 percent of the base flow farther downstream on the predominately of siltstones and shales with some sandstones. Canadian River at the streamflow gauge at Bridgeport (USGS Higher transmissive zones of the upper Marlow Formation, 07228500). which are likely in hydrologic connection with the Rush The BFI base-flow separation technique and RORA Springs Formation, are considered part of the Rush Springs method were utilized on streamflow gauge data to determine groundwater-flow system. Quaternary alluvium and terrace subsurface watershed annual recharge, which ranged from deposits from the Canadian River and Washita River, 0.46 inches in 2006 at the Little Washita River streamflow which are likely in hydrologic connection with the Rush gauge near Ninnekah (USGS 07327550) to 5.76 inches Springs Formation, are also considered part of the aquifer’s in 2007 at the Cobb Creek streamflow gauge near Eakly groundwater-flow system where they overlie the Rush Springs (USGS 07325800). For 1950–2015, annual recharge across and Marlow Formations. the aquifer, calculated using the Soil-Water-Balance model, Average precipitation in the study area for 1905–2015 ranged from 0.03 inches in 1963 to 4.63 inches in 2007 with was 28.20 inches. A lengthy dry cycle occurred during 1936– an average of 1.40 inches. 1984 with an average annual precipitation of 26.90 inches, Reported average annual groundwater use for 1967–2015 followed by a wet cycle during 1985–2008 with an average was 68,719 acre-feet per year. Irrigation accounted for 91 2 Hydrologic Investigation Report of the Rush Springs Aquifer in West-Central Oklahoma, 2015 percent, and public water supply accounted for 7.8 percent. and 485 milligrams per liter, respectively. Magnesium and The highest groundwater use reported for a single year was sodium anions were also present in groundwater samples 132,904 acre-feet during 2014, a year with below normal (more prevalent in the calcium-bicarbonate water type), precipitation totals. The lowest groundwater use reported for possibly caused by the dissolution of dolomite (magnesium) a single year was 38,405 acre-feet during 2007, a year with or clays (sodium). The spatial distribution of magnesium above average precipitation. in the groundwater suggests that sulfate concentrations are The base of the aquifer and base of the overlying likely caused by the dissolution of gypsum from the Cloud Cloud Chief Formation were estimated using lithologic logs Chief Formation. Several samples contained concentrations submitted to the OWRB by licensed water well drillers. of constituents that exceeded the maximum contaminant level Additional sources of information included geophysical logs, (MCL) for primary drinking water regulations. Four samples cores, and geologic maps. The most notable feature of the exceeded the MCL for arsenic (10 micrograms per liter) with base of the aquifer is the axis of the Anadarko Basin that runs a high concentration of 16.5 micrograms per liter; 13 samples through central Caddo County and trends westward through exceeded the MCL for nitrates (10 milligrams per liter) with a Washita County. The base of the aquifer gradually rises in high concentration of 59.2 milligrams per liter. elevation to the north and northeast. There is also a sharp rise in elevation along the southwestern boundary of the Purpose and Scope study area. Saturated thickness was estimated by subtracting the base of the Rush Springs aquifer (including the Marlow Oklahoma groundwater law requires the OWRB to formation) from the 2013 potentiometric surface, ranging conduct hydrologic investigations of Oklahoma’s aquifers from 0 to 432 feet with a mean value of 181 feet. The aquifer to determine the MAY and EPS. The MAY is defined as the is thinnest in its southeastern portions where the Rush Springs total amount of fresh groundwater that can be produced from Formation outcrops and has been eroded. Other thin areas an aquifer allowing for a minimum 20-year life of the basin. of the aquifer are near the towns of Cyril and Cement and Life of the basin is defined as the period of time during which the area northeast of Sugar Creek. The thickest saturation is the total overlying land of the basin will retain a saturated located along the Anadarko Basin axis, where the Cloud Chief thickness of 15 feet for bedrock aquifers. The EPS is defined Formation confines the Rush Springs aquifer. There is also as the portion of the MAY allocated to each acre of land a zone of thick saturation near the Town of Oakwood where (Oklahoma Water Resources Board, 2014a). The objective a full section of Rush Springs Formation may be present of the Rush Springs Hydrologic Investigation is to provide between the Canadian River and North Canadian River. the OWRB with information about the hydrogeology of Hydraulic properties for the Rush Springs aquifer were the aquifer needed to determine the MAY based on various estimated using several methods. Drawdown data from 573 proposed management scenarios. Although a USGS study well completion reports were used to estimate hydraulic of the Rush Springs aquifer was completed in 1998 (Becker conductivity, which ranged from less than 0.01 feet per day and Runkle, 1998) and a steady-state groundwater-flow to 90.90 feet per day with a mean and median of 3.30 feet model was completed by the USGS in cooperation with the per day and 1.60 feet per day, respectively. Slug tests were OWRB and Oklahoma Geological Survey (OGS) (Becker, performed on 54 wells throughout the aquifer with estimates 1998), the MAY and EPS have not been determined. A future ranging from 0.13 feet per day to 7.64 feet per day and a groundwater flow model based on updated parameters will mean and median of 1.71 feet per day and 1.46 feet per test management scenarios and provide data for allocation day, respectively. Three aquifer tests were analyzed with decisions. transmissivities ranging from 219 square feet per day to 4,129 square feet per day. Specific yield values ranged from 0.04 to Introduction 0.09. Analytical solutions for the aquifer-test data suggest that the Rush Springs Formation acts unconfined at the local scale. The Rush Springs aquifer of Oklahoma is located A regional method was performed to determine specific in Blaine, Caddo, Canadian, Comanche, Custer, Grady, yield, utilizing water-level changes and streamflow gauge Stephens, and Washita Counties and includes the communities data. Spatially distributed water-level changes were used of Anadarko, Clinton, and Weatherford, among others to estimate the change in aquifer volume while streamflow (Figure 1). The study area for this investigation underlies gauges measured the volume of water that drained the aquifer 4,692 square miles. Groundwater is predominantly used for during base flow conditions. Using this method, specific municipal and irrigation purposes, although other uses include yield estimates for subsurface watersheds were 0.05 for Cobb agricultural (non-irrigation), industrial, commercial, and Creek, 0.07 for Deer Creek, and 0.07 for Lake Creek. domestic water supply. The aquifer is one of the most utilized Groundwater-quality data collected from 79 wells groundwater sources in the state. The USGS identified Caddo indicated a bimodal distribution of water types, which were County as one of Oklahoma’s largest groundwater consuming primarily calcium bicarbonate and secondarily calcium counties (Lurry and Tortorelli, 1995). Public water suppliers sulfate. Mean and median total dissolved solids were 1,106 that use the aquifer include Caddo County Rural Water Hydrologic Investigation Report of the Rush Springs Aquifer in West-Central Oklahoma, 2015 3
Figure 1. Map showing Rush Springs aquifer location, counties, cities, continuous-recorder wells, periodic water-level wells, cooperative observer stations, and Mesonet weather stations. 4 Hydrologic Investigation Report of the Rush Springs Aquifer in West-Central Oklahoma, 2015
District (RWD) #3, Grady County RWD #6, and Washita several planning basins overlying the Rush Springs aquifer County RWD #2, and the towns of Corn, Custer City, Cyril, will experience significant groundwater depletion by 2060. Gracemont, Hinton, Marlow, Mountain View, Thomas, and One of these planning basins is located upstream from Weatherford. The USGS estimated withdrawal from the Fort Cobb Reservoir, where groundwater depletions could aquifer in 1990 to be about 54.7 million gallons per day, or cause a decline of base flow into the reservoir. Additionally, 61,272 acre-feet per year; 77.8 percent was estimated to be a majority of the groundwater permits in the aquifer are used for irrigation (Becker and Runkle, 1998). concentrated around and upstream from Fort Cobb Reservoir. The study area comprises the Western Sandstone Hills, Concerns about future reservoir yield and storage have also Western Red-bed Plains, Weatherford Gypsum Hills, and been identified by the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (USBR) the Western Sand-dune belts geomorphic provinces (Curtis (U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, 2006; Ferrari, 1994). and others, 2008). The study area can be characterized as Several publications have delineated the aquifer slightly lithified, nearly flat-lying red Permian sandstones boundary; however, the one most frequently referenced with gently rolling hills and occasional steep-walled canyons. was created by the USGS using outcrop boundaries from The western portion of the aquifer contains the Weatherford hydrologic atlases covering west-central Oklahoma and Gypsum Hills and is described as gently rolling hills of creating an approximate western boundary where total massive gypsum beds with some sinkholes and caves. In dissolved solids begin to increase, indicating a change from some areas, fields of grass-covered sand dunes lay on top of fresh water conditions to more brackish conditions where the the bedrock (Curtis and others, 2008). aquifer is confined by the Cloud Chief Formation (Becker and The predominant geologic formation in the Rush Springs Runkle, 1998). aquifer is the Permian-age Rush Springs Formation. The The study area for this investigation was expanded to Rush Springs Formation has been described as an orange- include two additional areas where well yields have exceeded brown, cross-bedded, fine-grained sandstone with some 50 gallons per minute, which by definition allows the dolomite and gypsum beds, ranging in thickness from 186 classification of “major groundwater basin” by the OWRB to 300 feet (MacLaughlin, 1967; Carr and Bergman, 1976), (Oklahoma Statutes Title 82 Section 1020.1, 2011). Areas to and consisting of about 50 to 60 percent quartz sand (Allen, the west were included in the study to delineate the increase 1980). The depositional environment was described by the in total dissolved solids. Areas north of the Canadian River OGS as a nearshore marine environment with eolian deposits and south of the North Canadian River extending to near that experienced several marine transgressions (Ham and Woodward were added to the study area as well. The eastern others, 1957; MacLaughlin, 1967) as evidenced by the outcrop boundary has been updated based on recent geologic presence of feldspar overgrowths that likely formed in marine maps published by the OGS and includes the Marlow environments. The Rush Springs Formation is underlain Formation (Chang and Stanley, 2010; Fay, 2010A; Fay, by the Marlow Formation, which was determined to be in 2010B; Johnson and others, 2003; Stanley, 2002; Stanley hydrologic communication with the Rush Springs Formation, and others, 2002; Stanley and Miller, 2004; and Stanley and and below this the Dog Creek Shale serves as the confining Miller, 2005). unit for the aquifer (see Geology section). The western portion of the Rush Springs Formation is capped by the Climate Cloud Chief Formation, which confines the aquifer and may minimize recharge in that area. Oklahoma has nine climate divisions (Oklahoma Groundwater is discharged as base flow from the aquifer Climatological Survey, 2014a). The Rush Springs aquifer into streams and rivers that flow into Fort Cobb Reservoir, is located within Climate Division 4 (west central) and which provides water supply to the communities of Bessie, Climate Division 7 (southwest). These climate divisions Clinton, Cordell, and Hobart. Major streams emanate from are classified as semi-arid according to the Koppen climate the aquifer, including Barnitz Creek, Cobb Creek, Deer classification (Oklahoma Climatological Survey, 2014b). Creek, and Sugar Creek. The North Canadian River bounds The average annual temperature ranges from 58 degrees the aquifer to the north where the river has completely eroded Fahrenheit in the northern part of the aquifer to 61 degrees the Rush Springs Formation. Streams that discharge from Fahrenheit in the southern region (Oklahoma Climatological the aquifer to the North Canadian River include Persimmon Survey, 2014c). On average, most of the study area has more Creek and Bent Creek. The Canadian River gains base flow than 70 days of temperatures above 90 degrees Fahrenheit from the Rush Springs aquifer (Ellis and others, 2016) with per year and fewer than 12 days per year with highs below the largest inflow coming from Deer Creek. The Washita 32 degrees Fahrenheit (Oklahoma Climatological Survey, River, after flowing into Foss Reservoir, gains flow from the 2014d; Oklahoma Climatological Survey, 2014e). The reservoir and flows off of the aquifer near Anadarko (see highest temperatures generally occur in July and August and Streamflow and Base Flow section). the lowest temperatures generally occur in January. Average The 2012 Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan (OCWP) annual precipitation totals increase in the southern part of (Oklahoma Water Resources Board, 2011) anticipates that the aquifer. Hydrologic Investigation Report of the Rush Springs Aquifer in West-Central Oklahoma, 2015 5
Precipitation data are collected by Cooperative Observer During these 49 years, there were 33 years of below average (COOP) stations, a network of National Weather Service annual precipitation and an overall average of 26.90 inches climate-observation volunteers who record observations in a of annual precipitation, which is 1.2 inches below the 108- variety of land-use settings (National Weather Service, 2014). year average. For 1985–2008, there were 20 years with above Precipitation data were acquired from 13 COOP stations average precipitation and an average annual precipitation, (Oklahoma Climatological Survey, 2016) in or near the study which is 3.18 inches above the long-term average. It should area to analyze long-term precipitation trends. The locations be noted that Tropical Storm Erin in the late summer of 2007 were selected based on the amount of data available and brought an unusually high amount of moisture to the region, location relative to the study area (Figure 1). Precipitation which increased the average precipitation during this period data retrieved from the COOP observer stations were (Arndt and others, 2009). Drier conditions have been prevalent collected during 1895–2015; however, not all stations had from 2008–2015 (Figure 2). available data for the entire period of record (Table 1). The A comparison of monthly data for the two periods of time number of stations in operation during a given year varied shows higher monthly average precipitation for most months from 3 to 13. Years with fewer than 3 stations concurrently during the 1985–2008 period, with the exception of May recording precipitation were not included in the analysis. For and July (Figure 3). The months of March, June, and August a given year, each station was required to have 10 months of show an increase of about an inch for each month during the data to be included in the analysis. Data collection methods wet period compared to the 1936–1984 period. The average differed between the Oklahoma Mesonet stations and the monthly precipitation for the period of record was 2.4 inches; COOP stations, resulting in differing precipitation totals. The May had the highest monthly total at 4.4 inches, and January COOP stations, which began data collection in 1895, had had the lowest at 1.0 inches. The increase in precipitation a much longer period of record than the Mesonet stations, during the 1985–2008 period, and the timing of precipitation which began data collection in 1994. Therefore, precipitation throughout the year, caused more recharge to the aquifer data from the COOP stations alone were used for analysis in during months of low evapotranspiration and mitigated the this report to maintain consistency. effects of drier months by allowing more water to stay in the The average annual precipitation derived from the COOP soils. Additionally, groundwater use during the wet period data was 28.2 inches for 1905–2015 (Figure 2). The data show was lower than in dry periods (see Groundwater Use section). numerous wet and dry patterns with two longer-term trends: Increased recharge and decreased groundwater use may have 1936–1984 and 1985–2008. For 1936–1984, precipitation was allowed water levels in the aquifer to increase or rebound predominantly below the 110-year average with several smaller from stresses. patterns of above average precipitation (on the decade scale).
Table 1. Precipitation data collection time periods at the Cooperative Observer stations used in the Rush Springs aquifer study.
Period of Number of Average annual 1936–1984 Average 1985–2008 Average Station number Station name analysis* years precipitation, in inches precipitation, in inches precipitation, in inches
340224 Anadarko 1938-2015 78 30.29 25.60 31.29 340260 Apache 1909-2015 92 30.87 N/A N/A 340332 Arnett 3NE 1911-2015 89 22.83 22.05 N/A 341906 Clinton-Sherman 1958-2015 29 24.08 N/A N/A 342039 Colony 1983-2015 33 29.84 N/A 31.75 342125 Cordell 1936-2010 74 27.48 25.60 30.60 343497 Geary 1912-2015 104 28.15 27.19 32.06 345090 Leedey 1941-2015 72 24.21 N/A 26.05 345581 Marlow 1900-2013 113 33.87 32.71 38.29 349086 Union City 1914-2015 102 33.15 33.49 36.08 349364 Watonga 1902-2015 91 28.75 27.24 33.06 349422 Weatherford 1905-2015 111 28.63 27.27 31.48 349760 Woodward 1895-2015 114 24.67 24.18 25.79 Total average, in inches 27.26 31.64 *Not continuous 6 Hydrologic Investigation Report of the Rush Springs Aquifer in West-Central Oklahoma, 2015
Figure 2. Graph showing annual precipitation and 5-year weighted average (1905–2015) at 13 Cooperative Observer stations.
Geology The Rush Springs aquifer consists of Permian-age Rush Springs Formation and Marlow Formation bedrock units and Quaternary-age alluvium and terrace deposits (Table 2 and Figure 4). The Rush Springs and Marlow Formations together make up the late Permian-age Whitehorse Group (Fay and Hart, 1978). Stratigraphically above the Rush Springs Formation is the Permian-age Cloud Chief Formation, which influences flow and chemistry of the groundwater in the study area. Below the Marlow Formation is the El Reno Group, which is defined as a minor aquifer by the OWRB (Belden, 2000). The upper unit in the El Reno Group is the Dog Creek Shale, which acts as an aquitard between the Rush Springs and El Reno aquifers.
Geologic History and Depositional Environments Prior to the deposition of the Permian-age Rush Springs Formation, a continental collision in the Pennsylvanian Period between the Laurentia (North American craton) and Gondwana plates (Perry, 1989) caused a structural inversion (i.e., reactivation of older normal faults as reverse faults) Figure 3. Graph showing average monthly precipitation for of the Southern Oklahoma Aulocogen, creating the Wichita 1936–1984 and 1985–2008. Mountains to the south with a deep foreland basin on the north Hydrologic Investigation Report of the Rush Springs Aquifer in West-Central Oklahoma, 2015 7 flank. The foreland basin, called the Anadarko Basin, is the Table 2. Stratigraphic column of geologic and hydrogeologic deepest Phanerozoic-age sedimentary basin within the North units in the Rush Springs Aquifer. American craton (Perry, 1989). As the Anadarko Basin was forming, sediments of up to 40,000 feet were deposited in Range of predominantly shallow water environments (Ham and Wilson, Period Epoch Group Formation thickness, Aquifer 1967). The thickest section (or axis) and northern extent of in feet the Anadarko Basin extends to the southeast from Sherman Cloud Chief 300d,f
County in the Texas Panhandle into Oklahoma north of the Foss Moccasin Creek Gypsum Bed 14b,h Wichita Mountains to its apex in south-central Oklahoma. Weatherford Bed 0-60c,f Regional dip along the northern arm of the Anadarko Basin is Rush Springs 90-417a,b,j approximately 20 feet per mile to the south-southwest; regional Emmanuel Bed 1a i dip in the southern arm is approximately 50 feet per mile to the Custerian Gracemont Shale 1 north-northeast (Becker and Runkle, 1998). In Oklahoma, the Upper Permian Relay Creek Bed 5-10h Whitehorse Rush Springs basin is bound by the Nemaha Uplift on the east, the Arbuckle Verden Sandstone 2-10d Uplift to the southeast, and the Wichita-Criner Uplifts to the Marlow 100-135b,h south (Poland, 2011). Within the Anadarko Basin, successively Dog Creek Shale 30-220a,d younger strata are exposed westward. Yelton Salt 0-275g Blaine 50-215f,g El Reno Group and Beckham Evaporites Flowerpot Salt 0-250g Flowerpot Shale 20-450d,g
The Permian-age El Reno Group in central Oklahoma El Reno
Cimarronian a,d
Chickasha 30-600 El Reno Minor consists of (from youngest to oldest) the Dog Creek Shale, Lower Permian Blaine Formation, Flowerpot Shale, Cedar Hills Sandstone, Cedar Hills Sandstone 180a Chickasha Formation, and the basal Duncan Sandstone (Table Duncan Sandstone 100-450e 2). The thickness of the El Reno Group ranges from 700 feet a Morton, 1980 g Jordan and Vosburg, 1963 b Becker and Runkle, 1998 h Fay, 1962 in central Oklahoma to 250 feet in Kansas (Fay, 1962). The c Hart, 1974 i Tanaka and Davis, 1963 Chickasha Formation, Duncan Sandstone, and Cedar Hills d Carr and Bergman, 1976 j Poland, 2008 e Bingham and Moore, 1975 k Green, 1936 Sandstone were deposited in a deltaic environment (Tussy f Havens, 1977 delta) at the mouth of westward- and northwestward-flowing stream systems. The depositional environment shifted to a more restricted shallow sea, resulting in the formation (Jordan and Vosburg, 1963). The El Reno Group is mentioned of the Flowerpot Shale, Blaine Formation, and Dog Creek in this report to present observations of groundwater use, Shale (MacLaughlin, 1967); the Blaine Formation contained which is discussed in the Groundwater Use section. more gypsum and dolomite, indicative of an evaporitic environment. The Chickasha Formation, Duncan Sandstone, and Cedar Hills Sandstone have hydraulic properties that Marlow Formation allow storage and flow of groundwater. Based on these The Permian-age Marlow Formation, described as an factors, the OWRB has identified parts of the El Reno Group orange-brown, cross bedded, fine grained sandstone and as a minor aquifer in Oklahoma (Belden, 2000). siltstone thinning northward, forms the lower portion of the During the Permian period, western Oklahoma was located Whitehorse Group (Carr and Bergman, 1976). Reported near the equator and shifted between wet and dry climates thicknesses range from 100 feet in Blaine County (Fay, 1962), (Ziegler, 1990). Within the Anadarko Basin, the El Reno Group 105 to 135 feet in Grady and Stephens Counties (Fay, 1962), transitioned from a deltaic system in central Oklahoma to an 115 feet (Evans, 1928), and 120 feet (Sawyer, 1924). The evaporitic environment in western Oklahoma. The Beckham formation outcrops on both limbs of the Anadarko Basin as a Evaporites, deposited along the axis of the Anadarko Basin, narrow band between half a mile to 5 miles wide, visible along show this transition and represent a facies change within the creeks and streams flowing away from the aquifer (Figure 4). El Reno Group (Jordan and Vosburg, 1963; Johnson, 2008). An unconformity has been reported to occur at the base of the The lower unit in the Beckham sequence is the Flowerpot Marlow Formation, separating it from the older Dog Creek Salt, which contains salts and shales and occupies the same Shale (Green, 1936). However, the Marlow Formation has stratigraphic position as the Flowerpot Shale. The middle unit also been reported as conformable with beds above and below is the Blaine Anhydrite, which is synonymous to the Blaine with a conglomerate at the base in place in Grady County, Formation with the exception of evaporitic anhydrite beds at which may be a sign of an erosional surface (Fay, 1962). the top. The upper unit of the Beckham Evaporites is the Yelton Contact between the Dog Creek Shale and Marlow Formations Salt, which represents a salt facies in the lower part of the has been found to be sharp and distinct (Evans, 1928). This Dog Creek Formation. The Yelton Salt is located directly west distinction was also observed by OWRB staff in geophysical of the study area and ranges in thickness from 0 to 275 feet logs from unpublished work in the study area. 8 Hydrologic Investigation Report of the Rush Springs Aquifer in West-Central Oklahoma, 2015
Figure 4. Surficial geologic units in the extent of the Rush Springs aquifer. Hydrologic Investigation Report of the Rush Springs Aquifer in West-Central Oklahoma, 2015 9
The Marlow Formation has many even-bedded and was first used in a 1929 publication by the OGS, where interbedded sandstone, siltstone, and mudstone layers with the formation was described as mostly red, cross-bedded several gypsum-anhydrite, dolomite, and shale layers, namely sandstone located near the town of Rush Springs (Sawyer, the 1-foot thick Emmanuel Bed (gypsum) at the top of the 1929). More recent descriptions of the Rush Springs Marlow Formation (Fay, 1962) and the Gracemont Shale Formation depict orange-brown, coarse-bedded, fine-grained directly below the Emmanuel Bed, about 1 foot below the top sandstone (Carr and Bergman, 1976) with a silt component of the Marlow Formation (Brown, 1937). A pink shale, the (Davis, 1955; Fay, 1962; Tanaka and Davis, 1963), exhibiting result of an altered ash flow, has been described at 10 to 15 predominantly medium to large-scale cross bedding (Reeves, inches below the Emmanuel Bed (Tanaka and Davis, 1963); 1921; Al-Shaieb, 1985). Rock cores show a composition this is likely the Gracemont Shale. Another gypsum/dolomite primarily of very-fine to fine-grained quartz sand grains layer, the Relay Creek Bed, also referred to as the Greenfield (Becker and Runkle, 1998). Quartz grains in the Rush Springs Dolomite (Evans, 1928), is situated about 20 to 28 feet below Formation are subround to subangular and moderately to the top of the Marlow Formation (Fay, 1962). The Verden poorly sorted (Davis, 1955; O’Brien, 1963; Tanaka and Davis, Sandstone, about 45 feet below the top and 85 to 105 feet 1963; Allen, 1980). The upper portion of the Rush Springs above the base of the Marlow Formation, is a pinkish-brown, Formation is a gypsum-bearing sandstone that abruptly coarse-grained, calcareous, fossiliferous sandstone (Reed changes to complete gypsum in the Moccasin Creek Gypsum and Meland, 1924; Bass, 1939; Carr and Bergman, 1976). Bed at the base of the Cloud Chief Formation (Poland, 2011). The Verden Sandstone ranges from 2 to 10 feet thick (Carr Previous investigations considered the upper and lower and Bergman, 1976) and is only about 1,000 feet at its widest contact of the Rush Springs Formation to be conformable surface exposure (Bass, 1939). The unit outcrops in Stephens (Fay, 1962; Tanaka and Davis, 1963; Al-Shaieb, 1985). County and trends northwestward into Canadian County However, others (Evans, 1928; Green, 1936; Donovan, 1974) (Bass, 1939). The Gracemont Shale and Verden Sandstone are found that the upper contact is unconformable or that both not continuous across the Marlow Formation (Fay, 1962). contacts are unconformable with 30 feet of relief with the The predominant cement in the Marlow Formation Marlow Formation near Bridgeport, Oklahoma (Green, 1936). is gypsum with small amounts of carbonate (Becker and The thickness of the Rush Springs Formation can vary Runkle, 1998) and iron oxide (Tanaka and Davis, 1963) depending on location. The USGS records the thickness as with the unit typically being moderate to well-cemented and up to 300 feet. The OGS indicates a maximum thickness of having low permeability. The USGS previously determined 334 feet where there is a full section (Davis, 1950), a range that the Marlow Formation acted as a confining unit that of 200 feet in the south, and up to 330 feet to the north retards downward movement of water from the Rush Springs (Tanaka and Davis, 1963). A well log near Cordell indicates Formation (Becker and Runkle, 1998). However, northward an approximate thickness of 350 feet (Green, 1936). Another from the town of Anadarko, shales in the Marlow Formation source records the thickness (Upper Whitehorse Group) as grade into sandstones, contain less gypsum (Green, 1936), 380 feet (Evans, 1928). A more recent analysis of a core and are more likely to store and transmit groundwater. shows 417 feet of Rush Springs Formation from a location The presence of marine fossils in parts of the Marlow near the axis of the Anadarko Basin (Poland, 2011). The OGS Formation has been interpreted as deposition in a lagoonal- records the thickness as becoming greater westward along marine environment that includes brackish water to the axis of the Anadarko Basin (Tanaka and Davis, 1963) and nearshore-marine setting (Fay, 1962) or a tidal flat bordering indicates that the Rush Springs Formation thins to the north in an open marine environment (MacLaughlin, 1967). The the Eagle City area, eventually thinning to 90 feet in Kansas Verden Sandstone has been described as a river channel that (Fay, 1962). New estimates of maximum thickness of the flowed northwestward from the Arbuckle Mountains (Reeves, aquifer are discussed in the Hydrogeology section. 1921; Reed and Medland, 1924; Evans, 1949) and also as Gypsum is the most common cement within the Rush a barrier island in a broad shallow bay near the shore of a Spring Formation (Johnson and others, 1991), although other marine sea (Sawyer, 1924; Bass, 1939). The contact between cements present include hematite, calcite, and dolomite the Marlow Formation and Rush Springs Formation grades (Suneson and Johnson, 1996). Thin-section analyses in the from a marine deposition to eolian sand sheet deposition in general locality of the Rush Springs Formation indicate the lower Rush Springs Formation. The sediment source for that the unit is composed of 50 to 60 percent quartz, 8 to 12 the Marlow Formation has been described as originating east- percent orthoclase, 2 to 3 percent microcline and plagioclase, southeastward from the Ouachita Mountains and Ozark Uplift and less than 1 percent chert and other rock fragments (Allen, (Fay, 1962). 1980). Additional thin-section analysis (Poland, 2011) confirms a high percentage of quartz in the Rush Springs, Rush Springs Formation often with clay coating the grains. Samples from near the town of Cement showed a high degree of cementation, The Permian-age Rush Springs Formation, the primary atypical for the Rush Springs Formation, which was caused water-bearing unit in the Rush Springs aquifer, is the upper by local alteration from oil and gas deposits below the portion of the Whitehorse Group. The term “Rush Springs” formation (Allen, 1980; Kirkland and Rooney, 1995). 10 Hydrologic Investigation Report of the Rush Springs Aquifer in West-Central Oklahoma, 2015
There are gypsum and dolomite beds within the Rush eolian dune to interdune to extradune (Poland, 2011). The Springs Formation, most notably the Weatherford Gypsum USGS identified drift sand deposits in the Rush Springs Bed, which is a 30-foot layer of mainly carbonate and Formation that indicate eolian deposition (Becker and gypsum about 30 to 60 feet below the surface. Several other Runkle, 1998). This interpretation is based on the sedimentary massive gypsum beds that are 2 to 5 feet thick are located structures indicative of eolian deposition (textures, surface below the Weatherford Bed in Dewey County and were hierarchy, paleocurrent data, and root casts) and a lack of any named “Old Crow” at 30 feet below the Weatherford Bed reported fossils within the Rush Springs Formation. Scanning and “One Horse” at 120 feet below the Weatherford Bed electron microscopy also confirms grain surface textures (Cragin, 1897). These beds are not continuous throughout characteristic of eolian transport and deposition (Poland, the Rush Springs Formation. The thickness between the 2011). The prevalent direction of wind transport was to the Weatherford Bed (called the Quartermaster Dolomite) and south-southwest (Poland, 2011). the younger Cloud Chief Formation decrease southward Eolian bedforms became larger and more organized (Evans, 1928) with evidence suggesting that the Weatherford through much of the time the Rush Springs Formation was Bed grades out to the southeast (Green, 1936). Thin-section being deposited until the deposition of the Weatherford analysis of the Weatherford bed shows that it comprises as Gypsum Bed in the upper portion of the Rush Springs much as 40 percent carbonate (Poland, 2011). A section of Formation. Outcrops of fluvial deposits are occasionally outcrop identified in Section 35, Township 12N, Range 13W, present in the Rush Springs Formation, which suggest located in northern Caddo County (Evans, 1928), was later fluvial systems penetrated the Rush Springs dune system determined to be Weatherford Bed with a variable thickness occasionally. Eolian conditions resumed after the deposition of a pinkish, conglomeritic, dolomitic bed containing of the Weatherford Gypsum Bed but without the large-scale geodes; about 5 feet of hard, light gray dolomite; and thinly textures seen in the lower sections of the Rush Springs laminated, reddish sandstone with somewhat irregular Formation (Poland, 2011). contacts with the underlying Whitehorse (Rush Springs The depositional system for the dolostone/gypsum Formation) and the Whitehorse Sandstone (Rush Springs Weatherford bed of the Rush Springs Formation has been Sandstone) (Moore and Snider, 1928). interpreted as a restricted marine/saline lake with a rising A 1962 bulletin by the OGS identifies the Weatherford water table and a reduced sand supply. Furthermore, the Bed as the top of the Rush Springs Formation (Fay, 1962). USGS identified recrystallized nodules in the Weatherford However, other studies (Hart, 1974; Carr and Bergman, 1976; Bed that indicate a closed basin system with hypersaline Havens, 1977; Miller and Stanley, 2004; Stanley and Miller, conditions (Becker and Runkle, 1998). The source of the 2005; Chang and Stanley, 2010) have identified strata above sediments in the Anadarko Basin likely came from multiple the Weatherford Bed and below the Moccasin Creek Bed locations: from the Ozark Uplift and Ouachita Mountains of the Cloud Chief Formation as part of the Rush Springs (Fay, 1964; Suneson and Johnson, 1996); from the northwest, Formation. The approximate 20 to 67 feet of strata between possibly from the ancestral Rocky Mountains (Davis, 1955); the Weatherford Bed and Moccasin Creek Gypsum Bed have and from the south-southeast (Fay, 1962). been described by the OGS as silty shale (Fay, 1962). Multiple theories regarding the depositional environment Cloud Chief Formation of the Permian-age Rush Springs Formation have been published. The historic view (Ham and others, 1957; O’Brien, The Permian-age Cloud Chief Formation, consisting 1963; MacLaughlin, 1967; Nelson, 1983; Al-Shaieb, 1985; of reddish-brown to orange-brown shale with interbedded and Johnson and others, 1991) indicates a shallow-marine or sandstone and siltstone (Carr and Bergman, 1976), has fluvial-deltaic environment based on the presence of eolian been described as a widely distributed red bed unit in the deposits with high porosity and permeability. The sandstone central part of Oklahoma (Ham and Curtis, 1958). The was thought to have been laid down along the eastern side USGS identified the maximum thickness of the Cloud Chief of a shallow embayment that was occasionally restricted Formation in the study area as about 100 feet (Becker and from the main Permian sea (to the west) as evidenced by Runkle, 1998). However, an earlier study found that the the sandstone grading laterally into anhydrite and gypsum Cloud Chief can be as thick as 300 feet (Green, 1936). In the westward from Caddo County in what is interpreted as a study area, much of the formation has been eroded off of the desiccation basin (Tanaka and Davis, 1963). central and eastern portions of the aquifer. In areas where A recent interpretation on Permian red beds in the gypsum is near the surface, karst features, such as dissolution southern midcontinent has challenged the shallow marine fissures, have been observed. interpretation of the Permian-age Rush Springs Formation There are several gypsum layers in the Cloud Chief (Suneson and Johnson, 1996; Benison and others, 1998; Formation, most notably the basal Moccasin Creek Gypsum Benison and Goldstein, 2002). One study interprets the Rush Bed, which has also been called the Day Creek Dolomite Springs Formation as having a terrestrial origin with fluvial (Fay, 1962). The Moccasin Creek Gypsum Bed is a triple and eolian influences with a facies assemblage ranging from gypsum sequence about 14 feet thick with shale and siltstone Hydrologic Investigation Report of the Rush Springs Aquifer in West-Central Oklahoma, 2015 11 between the gypsum and dolomitic gypsum layers (Fay, 1965) points along their flow path. Streamflow gauges maintained and is the first of a series of desiccation periods during which by the USGS on major rivers in the study area include the the evaporites of the Cloud Chief Formation were deposited. following: (Figure 1) Washita River at Anadarko (USGS The occasional presence of breccias in some areas within 07326500), Washita River at Carnegie (USGS 07325500), the clay and siltstones indicate deposition under turbulent Washita River near Clinton (USGS 07325000), Washita River conditions; rippled-marked, even-bedded, and fine-grained near Foss (USGS 07324400), Canadian River near Bridgeport silty sandstones indicate less turbulent deposition. The (USGS 07228500), North Canadian River near Seiling Moccasin Creek Gypsum Bed is approximately 30 feet above (USGS 07238000), North Canadian River at Canton (USGS the Weatherford Bed in the Rush Springs Formation. 07239000), North Canadian River below Weavers Creek near Watonga (USGS 07239300), and North Canadian River near Quaternary Deposits Calumet (USGS 07239450). Average annual streamflow of the 3 major rivers downstream of the aquifer for the common Quaternary-age alluvium and terrace deposits lie period of record (1984–2015) are 122,280 acre-feet (169 unconformably on the Permian-age bedrock and range in age cubic feet per second) at the North Canadian River below from Pleistocene to present time. They are described as wind- Weavers Creek near Watonga (USGS 07239300), 236,523 blown sand and stream-laid deposits of sand, silt, clay, gravel, acre-feet (327 cubic feet per second) at the Canadian River and volcanic ash (Carr and Bergman, 1976). The alluvium near Bridgeport (USGS 07228500), and 417,663 acre-feet and terrace deposits are considered one geologic unit in this (577 cubic feet per second) at the Washita River at Anadarko report because they have similar hydrologic properties. They (USGS 07326500). are considered to be in hydrologic connection with the Rush The Washita River has the highest average annual Springs Formation and are included as part of the same flow discharge of the 3 primary rivers. Groundwater discharges system as the Rush Springs Formation. Alluvium and terrace to perennial streams that drain into the Washita River. These deposits in the study area are found in thicknesses of about 80 include Barnitz Creek, Bear Creek, Beaver Creek, Cobb to 100 feet according to OWRB well driller logs. Creek, Sugar Creek, and Little Washita River. The confluence The two largest stream systems with alluvium and terrace of the Washita River and Little Washita River is downstream deposits in the study area are the Canadian River, flowing of the Washita River streamflow gauge at Anadarko. through the northern portion of the aquifer, and the Washita Streamflow gauges maintained by the USGS that are located River, flowing through the southern portion. The alluvium within the Washita River drainage basin in the study area and terrace deposits of the Canadian River and Washita River include Cobb Creek near Eakly (USGS 07325800), Cobb were a result of multiple cycles of deposition and erosion. Creek near Fort Cobb (USGS 07326000), Lake Creek near The initial valleys were typically broad and were eroded into Sickles (USGS 07325840), Lake Creek near Eakly (USGS the bedrock. The sand and gravel deposited at the time were 07325850), Willow Creek near Albert (USGS 07325860), composed mostly of quartz and other siliceous rocks that were a historic streamflow gauge on Barnitz Creek near Arapaho likely sourced in the Rocky Mountains or from the Tertiary (USGS 07324500), a historic streamflow gauge on Sugar deposits of the High Plains (Tanaka and Davis, 1963). Streams Creek near Gracemont (07327000), and several on the Little then degraded their channels and many older terrace deposits Washita River that include Little Washita River above SCS were transported away, allowing for the valleys to be refilled Pond No. 26 near Cyril (USGS 073274406), Little Washita partly with material reworked from the older terrace deposits River near Cyril (USGS 07327442), and Little Washita River or with sand and silt sourced from the surrounding bedrock. near Cement (USGS 07327447). Finally, valleys were cut into terrace deposits and partly filled The Canadian and North Canadian Rivers do not have with sand, silt, and clay, which comprise the alluvium of the any active USGS streamflow gauges on tributaries in the Canadian and Washita Rivers (Tanaka and Davis, 1963). The study area. A historic site, Bent Creek near Seiling (USGS Canadian River deposits are more deeply incised through the 07237800), is located in the North Canadian River drainage. Rush Springs Formation while the Washita River deposits In addition, a streamflow gauge on Deer Creek near Hydro more directly overlie the Rush Springs Formation. (OWRB 520620060010-003RS) was installed in April 2013 as part of the study; water that flows through the site discharges to the Canadian River. This OWRB location Characteristics of the Rush Springs corresponds to the historic USGS site on Deer Creek near Aquifer Hydro (USGS 07228400). The part of streamflow that is discharged from Streamflow and Base Flow groundwater is referred to as base flow, defined for this report as the portion of streamflow that is not runoff. Base flow Three large rivers flow over or adjacent to the Rush maintains streamflow in perennial streams within the study Springs aquifer: the Canadian, North Canadian, and Washita. area. A base flow separation method was used to determine All three rivers are impounded by surface water reservoirs at the volume of streamflow comprising base flow, which allows 12 Hydrologic Investigation Report of the Rush Springs Aquifer in West-Central Oklahoma, 2015 the streamflow hydrograph to be partitioned into either direct River were 1964–1986 and 1990–2005. Foss Reservoir was runoff or base flow. The base flow component of streamflow actively storing water and regulating flow during the period was computed using the BFI method, which analyzes the analyzed. Water releases from the reservoir were obtained streamflow data from a gauge for days that fit a requirement from the USBR and subtracted from the streamflow recorded of antecedent recession, designates base flow to be equal to from the gauges. Between the streamflow gauge near Foss streamflow on these days, and linearly interpolates the daily and the streamflow gauge near Clinton, average base flow record of base flow for days that do not fit the requirement of increased from 9.3 to 42.7 cubic feet per second during the antecedent recession (Rutledge, 1998). common period of record (Table 3). From the streamflow Streamflow data from the Washita River near Foss gauge near Clinton to the streamflow gauge at Carnegie, the (USGS 07324400), Washita River near Clinton (USGS average base flow increased more than three times to 144.4 07325000), Washita River at Carnegie (USGS 07325500), cubic feet per second, and from the streamflow gauge at and Washita River at Anadarko (USGS 07326500) (listed Carnegie to the streamflow gauge at Anadarko, base flow upstream to downstream) were analyzed and show a increased 50.9 cubic feet per second to 195.3 cubic feet downstream increase in base flow discharged from the aquifer per second. The increase in average base flow between the to the Washita River surface water basin. The common streamflow gauges near Clinton and at Carnegie (107.0 cubic periods of record for the 4 streamflow gauges on the Washita feet per second) indicates that the Washita River gains a
Table 3. Streamflows and base flows at streamflow gauging stations in the vicinity of the Rush Springs aquifer summarized through 2015.
Drainage Mean annual Median annual Mean annual Median annual area, in streamflow, streamflow, in base flow, in base flow, in Station square Period of in cubic feet cubic feet per cubic feet per cubic feet per number Station name miles analysis per second second second second 07324500 Barnitz Creek near Arapaho, Okla. 243 1946-1963 14.4 0 1.9 0 07237800 Bent Creek near Seiling, Okla. 139 1967-1970 7.6 2.2 1.8 1.4 07325800 Cobb Creek near Eakly, Okla. 132 1968-2015 28.8 15 14.1 12.3 07228400* Deer Creek at Hydro, Okla. 274 1961-1962, 30.50 21.20 16.80 17.20 1978-1979, 2014-2015 07325850 Lake Creek near Eakly, Okla. 52.5 1969-1978, 8.1 3.5 3 2.5 2005-2015 07327550 Little Washita East of Ninnekah, Okla. 232 1992-2015 52.20 24.00 24.70 16.20 07327000 Sugar Creek near Gracemont, Okla. 208 1956-1974 14.70 5.30 4.50 2.10 07325860 Willow Creek near Albert, Okla. 28.2 1970-1978, 4.10 1.90 1.60 1.40 2005-2015 07324400 Washita River near Foss, Okla. 1526 1956-1958, 53.8 7.4 22.3 6.0 1961-1987, 1989-2015 07325000 Washita River near Clinton, Okla. 1961 1935-2015 124.3 29.0 52.4 22.0 07325500 Washita River at Carnegie, Okla. 3116 1937-2006 361.5 116.0 148.4 84.1 07326500 Washita River at Anadarko, Okla. 3640 1903-1908, 484.1 182.0 236.4 142.0 1935-1937, 1963-2015 Washita River gauges common period of record
07324400 Washita River near Foss, Okla. 1526 1964-1986, 22.5 12.4 9.3 4.7 1990-2005 07325000 Washita River near Clinton, Okla. 1961 1964-1986, 81.5 40.9 42.7 25.1 1990-2005 07325500 Washita River at Carnegie, Okla. 3116 1964-1986, 336.3 115.3 144.4 87.3 1990-2005 07326500 Washita River at Anadarko, Okla. 3640 1964-1986, 403.8 156.8 195.3 122.1 1990-2005 *OWRB stream gauging station number 520620060010-003RS Hydrologic Investigation Report of the Rush Springs Aquifer in West-Central Oklahoma, 2015 13 significant amount of base flow between these streamflow 1970–1978 and 2005–2015 ranged from 507 acre-feet in 1971 gauges (approximately 48 percent of the base flow measured to 2,246 acre-feet in 2008 with a mean base-flow index of at Anadarko). Streams that drain into the Washita River 46 percent, ranging from 18 percent in 1975 to 76 percent in between these two streamflow gauges include Bear, Boggy, 2006 (Figure 8). Base flow in Deer Creek near Hydro for the Cavalry, Cedar, Gokey, Gyp, and Spring Creeks. Table 3 periods of 1960–1963, 1977–1980, and 2013–2015 ranged shows average annual and median stream flow and average from 11,041 acre-feet in 2014 to 18,799 acre-feet in 1962 base flow (estimated using BFI) from the streamflow gauges with a mean base-flow index of 45 percent, ranging from 25 on the Washita River for the common periods of record. percent in 1961 to 76 percent in 2014 (Figure 9). Base flow in Cobb Creek is a major tributary that drains into the Barnitz Creek near Arapaho ranged from 29 acre-feet in 1955 Washita River between the Carnegie and Anadarko streamflow to 6,411 acre-feet in 1960 with a mean base-flow index of gauges. Flow contributions from Cobb Creek would be 13 percent, ranging from 0 percent in 1956, when the stream expected to significantly increase the total flow of the Washita was dry for most of the year, to 52 percent in 1960. For the River; however, flow from Cobb Creek is influenced by Fort Bent Creek near Seiling streamflow gauge period of record Cobb Reservoir, about 7 miles upstream of the confluence (1967–1970) base flow averaged 1,302 acre-feet per year with of Cobb Creek and the Washita River, making an accurate a base-flow index of 23 percent over the period of record. assessment of the influence of Cobb Creek under natural The period of record for the USGS/OWRB Deer Creek conditions on the Washita River difficult. Average stream streamflow gauge near Hydro is October 1960 through flow for the period of record (1939–2015) for the Cobb Creek December 1963, December 1977 through September 1980, near Fort Cobb (USGS 07326000) gauging station, which is and April 2013 through December 2015. Mean base flow from downstream from the reservoir, was 37.2 cubic feet per second; the gauge from April 5, 2013 through December 31, 2015 was however, for the common period of record of the streamflow 16.8 cubic feet per second. This accounted for approximately gauges on the Washita River (1964–1986 and 1990–2005), average flow was 33.4 cubic feet per second. For the common period of record, stream-flow discharge to the Washita River from the Cobb Creek near Fort Cobb gauging station accounted for 49 percent of the stream flow increase between Carnegie and Anadarko gauging stations on the Washita River. The additional 7 miles of Cobb Creek between the gauging station and the Washita would provide an additional, but unknown, amount of stream water flow to the Washita River. Annual base-flow volume and BFI were estimated for 8 streamflow gauge sites in the study area (Table 3): Barnitz Creek near Arapaho (USGS 07324500), Bent Creek near Seiling (USGS 07237800), Cobb Creek near Eakly (USGS 07325800), Lake Creek near Eakly (USGS 07325850), Little Washita River east of Ninnekah (USGS 07327550), Sugar Creek near Gracemont (USGS 07327000), Willow Creek near Albert (USGS 07325860), and Deer Creek near Hydro (USGS 07228400 and OWRB 520620060010-003RS). Annual base flow at the Cobb Creek near Eakly streamflow gauge (period of record 1968–2015) ranged between 3,499 acre-feet in 1972 and 21,002 in 2007, and the base-flow index was estimated to be 53 percent base flow, with a low of 27 percent in 1986, a wet year with over 39 inches of rain, and a high of 92 percent in 1984, a dry year with about 20 inches of rain (Figure 5). Base flow in Little Washita east of Ninnekah (period of record 1993–2015) ranged between 3,564 acre-feet in 2012 and 50,429 acre-feet in 1993 with a base-flow index of 49 percent between 1993 and 2013 and a range between 29 percent in 2013 and 67 percent in 2001 (Figure 6). Base flow in Lake Creek near Eakly for the periods of record (1969–1978 and Figure 5. (A) Annual base flow and total flow volume with 2005–2015) varied from 435 acre-feet in 1972 to 6,143 acre- LOESS trend line; (B) base-flow index; and (C) monthly feet in 2008 with a base-flow index of 42 percent, ranging mean streamflow, base flow, and runoff for the USGS Cobb from 12 percent in 1977 to 82 percent in 2010 (Figure 7). Creek streamflow gauge near Eakly (USGS 07325800), Base flow in Willow Creek near Albert for the periods of 1969–2015. 14 Hydrologic Investigation Report of the Rush Springs Aquifer in West-Central Oklahoma, 2015
19 percent of the mean flow measured at the Bridgeport Of the four streamflow gauges, only Cobb Creek near streamflow gauge on the Canadian River for the same Eakly (07325800) and Little Washita River east of Ninnekah period, indicating that the Rush Springs aquifer contributes a (07327550) had the periods of record to properly visualize significant portion of flow to the Canadian River. trends. The base flow trend for Cobb Creek at Eakly shows an increase in base flow from the mid-1980s through the Precipitation Trends in Base Flow early 2000s (Figure 5). Base-flow data from the Little Washita River east of Ninnekah show the same base-flow LOESS (LOcally Estimated Scatterplot Smoothing) trend beginning in 1993, the first full year in the period of trend lines were incorporated in the study to show trends in record (Figure 6). The years 2007 and 2008 had higher base base flow. LOESS is a nonparametric regression procedure flow before decreases in base flow during 2010–2015. This that reduces the influence of outliers and displays a base-flow trend coincides with the increase in precipitation smooth trend line for the entire range of data (Cleveland observed over the same time period (see Climate section), and Devlin, 1988; Helsel and Hirsch, 2002). The LOESS which demonstrates the importance of precipitation and trend line is derived from a LOESS regression (Helsel recharge to the flow of streams discharging the aquifer. and Hirsch, 2002) and was created using a Microsoft Excel add-in application, LOESS Utility (Peltier Tech, Water-level Fluctuations 2009). The LOESS lines were used for trend visualization purposes only and were not used to determine the statistical Water-level observations can provide insight into significance of trends. LOESS plots were developed on an aquifer response to stresses, including climate variations annual basis for base-flow volume, total-flow volume, and and groundwater pumping and recovery. Long-term periodic base-flow index. water-level observations provide information that can be used
Figure 6. (A) Annual base flow and total flow volume with Figure 7. (A) Annual base flow and total flow volume with LOESS trend line; (B) base-flow index; and (C) monthly LOESS trend line; (B) base-flow index; and (C) monthly mean streamflow, base flow, and runoff for the USGS Little mean streamflow, base flow, and runoff for the USGS Lake Washita River streamflow gauge east of Ninnekah (USGS Creek streamflow gauge near Eakly (USGS 7325850), 07327550), 1993–2015. 2005–2015. Hydrologic Investigation Report of the Rush Springs Aquifer in West-Central Oklahoma, 2015 15 to assess regional groundwater supply or calibrate groundwater- indiscernible patterns. There were 139 wells with historic flow models. Continuous water-level observations, taken once groundwater-level observations in the study area through per hour using a transducer installed in a well, can show aquifer 2016; 25 wells had 35 years or more of data and 70 wells had response to climate variation and groundwater use on shorter a period of record between 12 and 35 years. Some wells had time scales to help develop an understanding of recharge been discontinued for various reasons while others had data events, seasonal pumping demands, and interactions between gaps. For water level analysis, researchers looked at wells surface water and groundwater. An aquifer’s response to with a minimum of 12 years of data. Water-level graphs with precipitation events or droughts can help characterize an aquifer fewer than 12 years of data often did not cover enough time as confined or unconfined at different locations and depths. to assess long-term trends. Water-level data were normalized by calculating the Z-score (Standard Test) for all water levels. For water-level data Historic at a specific site, the Z-score is a statistical measurement that Long-term annual water-level measurements have compares the data to the mean; it is calculated by subtracting been collected across the state by the OWRB since the water levels from the mean and dividing by the standard 1950s. These data are also stored in the USGS National deviation. A Z-score of 0 is equivalent to the mean water level Water Information System (NWIS) database using unique in a well over the period of record. A positive Z-score indicates USGS site numbers. Historic depth to water measurements depth to water increased compared to the mean and water levels are presented in the Appendix. Wells in this study were decreased, while a negative Z-score indicates depth to water categorized based on trends of overall increasing water decreased compared to the mean and water levels increased. levels, overall decreasing water levels, water levels Normalization provides a simple method to graphically fluctuating along with changes in climate patterns, and compare water-level trends of many wells simultaneously.
Figure 9. (A) Annual base flow and total flow volume with Figure 8. (A) Annual base flow and total flow volume with LOESS trend line; (B) base-flow index; and (C) monthly LOESS trend line; (B) base-flow index; and (C) monthly mean streamflow, base flow, and runoff for the USGS and mean streamflow, base flow, and runoff for the USGS Willow OWRB Deer Creek streamflow gauge near Hydro (USGS Creek streamflow gauge near Albert (USGS 7325860), 07228400 and OWRB 520620060010-003RS), 1960–1963, 2005–2015. 1977–1980, and 2013–2015. 16 Hydrologic Investigation Report of the Rush Springs Aquifer in West-Central Oklahoma, 2015
There were 9 wells with indiscernible water levels during Groundwater wells showed overall increasing water levels the period of record characterized by intermittent increases at 15 sites and overall decreasing water levels at 17 sites. and decreases in water levels, making the long-term changes Most of the groundwater wells showing either increasing or difficult to assess. decreasing water levels are located in the central portion of Water levels in 54 wells were determined to primarily the aquifer where groundwater use is the highest. Both of fluctuate along with climate. Water levels in these wells these trends are thought to result from either increased local were above normal for the historical wet period in Oklahoma pumping (causing water levels to decline) or reduction in local (mid-1980s through the early 2000s) and below normal during pumping (causing lower water levels to show recovery). the historical dry period (1970s and 2010–2015). The wells As part of this investigation, 15 of the 143 groundwater were located predominately in the unconfined portion of the wells measured by the USGS during 1986–1991 (Becker aquifer, which is exposed to atmospheric changes in pressure, and Runkle, 1998) were measured again in 2013 (see 2013 temperature, and precipitation. Wells with water levels Potentiometric Surface section). Water-level declines were fluctuating with climate patterns are defined in this analysis observed at 12 well sites and water-level increases were as having rising groundwater levels during wet periods and observed at 3 well sites. Water-level change from the 1986– declining levels during dry periods (see Climate section); 1991 period to 2013 ranged from a decline of 56.6 feet to declining and increasing trends are independent of climate an increase of 54.44 feet. The mean water level in the wells variability. Groundwater wells with water levels fluctuating on decreased by 11.0 feet and the median water level decreased a climate pattern. These wells are assumed to be outside the by 16.6 feet. The majority of these wells are located in the cone of depression for any nearby pumping wells or in an area heavily irrigated areas of Caddo County and western Washita where the effects of localized pumping are not noticeable and County. The large water-level decline may be explained by were located predominately in the unconfined portion of the the 1986–1991 measurements occurring during a wet period aquifer, which is exposed to atmospheric changes in pressure, (see Climate section), which would have resulted in increased temperature, and precipitation. Figure 10 shows normalized recharge to the aquifer and lower than normal irrigation, water levels for selected wells identified with a climate trend while the 2013 measurements were taken during a multi-year in the Rush Springs aquifer. The solid black line is an average drought and significantly increased irrigation to compensate of all water-level Z-scores from wells showing a climate trend. for the lack of rain.
Figure 10. Graph showing normalized water levels for wells with a climate trend in the Rush Springs aquifer. A Z-score of 0 is equivalent to the mean water level in a well over the period of record. A positive Z-score indicates a decreasing water level and higher depth to water reading, and a negative Z-score indicates an increasing water level and lower depth to water reading. Hydrologic Investigation Report of the Rush Springs Aquifer in West-Central Oklahoma, 2015 17
Continuous Figure 12 shows water-level data from the Acme Mesonet well (OWRB 89283), which has the longest Continuous water levels were monitored at 15 active period of continuous record in the study area. groundwater well sites as part of this study to observe seasonal High precipitation in 2007 is reflected by close to a 4.7 trends and regional stresses. Depth to water measurements foot increase in water levels from June 2007 to January were logged once per hour (Table 4). Three of the continuous 2008. Between 2010 and 2014, the site received very little sites are located at Oklahoma Climatological Survey (OCS) recharge due to the intensification of drought conditions Mesonet stations, two of which were installed during the across the state. The lowest groundwater levels at the site study. Groundwater wells are located at the Acme Mesonet over the period of record occurred in 2014. Water levels site (OWRB 89283), the Fort Cobb Mesonet site (OWRB showed recovery in 2015, when above average precipitation 157457), and the Weatherford Mesonet site (OWRB 156516). was recorded. Three of the continuous well sites (OWRB 137452, The USGS has monitored groundwater levels 142112, and 150482) were within 1 mile of irrigation wells, continuously at 5 sites in the Rush Springs aquifer since and hydrographs show continual or seasonal pumping 2010. Figure 13 shows groundwater levels at 4 sites from signatures (Figure 11 D). The other wells (OWRB 27650, October 2010 through the December 2015. Water-level 20024, 140033, 141465, 142042, 142324, 144003, 145203, decline is observed from late spring through early fall. Water 147385, and 156516) showed possible seasonal water-level levels stabilize during the winter months, presumably when change related to precipitation patterns (Figure 11 A-C, E, evapotranspiration and pumping from the aquifer is at a F). One well (OWRB 157457) showed a pumping signature minimum. In 2015, each site shows increasing water levels, superimposed on a possible seasonal precipitation pattern. likely caused by above average precipitation, which could be From the beginning of the study (January 2012) through indicative of groundwater recharge. the spring of 2015, the study area received below average Several of the USGS wells had manual measurements precipitation, which is reflected in continual declines in water during the historic period of record. Measurements at USGS levels. Above average precipitation recorded in May and well 351308098341601 had the longest period of record November 2015 likely accounts for water-level increases in in the study area and showed a decline of 37.52 feet from the wells shown on Figure 12. September 1948 to April 2015 (Figure 14).
Table 4. Groundwater well sites with continuous water-level recorders in the Rush Springs aquifer.
Total well depth, OWRB in feet below Well ID Latitude Longitude land surface Period of analysis 157457* 35.14886 -98.46619 205 2/3/2014 - present 156516* 35.50820 -98.77516 300 1/31/2014 - present 20024* 35.98978 -98.89006 270 3/27/2012 - present 137452* 35.55685 -98.56126 230 3/27/2012 - present 141465* 34.89508 -98.18182 92 4/11/2012 - present 142042* 35.24026 -98.86911 178 4/27/2012 - present 142112* 35.68481 -98.72428 290 4/20/2012 - present 142316 35.68559 -99.19504 376 4/27/2012 - 7/20/2012 142324* 35.67933 -99.23067 315 7/20/2012 - present 144003* 35.89506 -98.75095 184 7/20/2012 - present 151636 35.36647 -98.24883 170 12/13/2012 - 5/12/2015 27650 35.37765 -98.73433 238.5 6/11/2012 - 5/12/2015 140033 35.82682 -99.07784 272 12/3/2013 - 5/12/2015 145203* 36.04494 -99.15350 150 12/03/2013 - present 147385 35.36761 -98.24791 230 12/13/2012 - 11/12/2015 150482 35.17468 -98.57625 274 05/16/2013 - 09/04/2014 89283* 34.80833 -98.02318 50 10/9/2013 - present *recording at time of publication 18 Hydrologic Investigation Report of the Rush Springs Aquifer in West-Central Oklahoma, 2015
Figure 11. Water levels from OWRB continuous recorder wells from January 2012 through December 2015 showing possible responses from long-term precipitation response (A-C, F), localized groundwater pumping (D), or both (E) in the Rush Springs aquifer area. Hydrologic Investigation Report of the Rush Springs Aquifer in West-Central Oklahoma, 2015 19
Figure 12. Long-term continuous water levels with precipitation for the Acme Mesonet well (OWRB 89283).
Figure 13. Groundwater levels measured in USGS wells 350748098231101, 351727098290401, 352423098341701, and 352802098191601 from October 2010 through December 2015. 20 Hydrologic Investigation Report of the Rush Springs Aquifer in West-Central Oklahoma, 2015
aquifer. The potentiometric surface elevation at any point reflects the estimated height to which a column of water will rise in a cased well. A potentiometric surface map is constructed by contouring static water-level measurements in wells and can be used to determine the direction of groundwater flow. The potentiometric surface in an unconfined aquifer is the water table that is defined by the upper limit of the zone of saturation. To create a potentiometric surface map for the Rush Springs aquifer, water levels were measured in 263 wells as part of this study between March 5, 2013, and March 15, 2013. The 2013 water levels, depth to water in feet below land surface, ranged from 0.0 to 182.9 with a median of 50.0 feet. The potentiometric surface elevation was estimated by subtracting depth-to-water measurements from land- surface altitude (Figure 15). The land-surface altitude of Figure 14. Groundwater levels measured in USGS well each well location was determined by using a differentially 351308098341601 from 1948 to April 2015. corrected Global Positioning System (GPS) receiver with a horizontal accuracy of 10 centimeters (3.9 inches) and a vertical accuracy of 15 to 50 centimeters (5.9 to 19.7 inches) Regional Groundwater Flow and referenced to the North American Vertical Datum of Groundwater in the Rush Springs aquifer is under 1983 (NAD 83). Elevation control points were also included unconfined conditions in the eastern portion of the aquifer and at Fort Cobb Reservoir and USGS stream gauging stations confined conditions in the western portion where the Cloud on the Canadian and Washita Rivers within the study area. Chief Formation overlaps the aquifer. In the unconfined The potentiometric surface contours were generated in a area, groundwater flows toward streams that incise the geographic information system (GIS) and were adjusted bedrock to form perennial streams and will typically show manually to conform to basic topographic rules, especially water-level contours bending upstream. Where major rivers within the Canadian and Washita River valleys. To further incise the bedrock, groundwater discharges directly to the refine areas with poor well coverage, 74 groundwater levels alluvium aquifer systems. In confined portions of the aquifer, in the Canadian River Valley in the north and northwestern groundwater flow is generally slower because there is less portion of the aquifer that were measured during February recharge and there are few mechanisms to cause groundwater and March 2013 by the USGS were used to interpolate the to drain. Regional groundwater flow is generally to the local potentiometric surface (Ellis and others, 2016). Four southeast, but locally groundwater flows toward the edges water levels collected during slug tests in 2014 were also used of the aquifer and toward streams and rivers. Age dating of to check areas with no other water-level data within 5 miles. groundwater has not been performed; however, groundwater Groundwater in the Rush Springs generally flows to the in the confined portion of the aquifer is thought to be older southeast with the Canadian and Washita rivers acting to than groundwater in the unconfined area. drain the groundwater-flow system. Contours steeply bend In 1998, a potentiometric surface map was constructed upstream along both the Canadian River and Washita River, for part of the Rush Springs aquifer using water levels indicating that groundwater is discharging to the alluvial measured in 143 wells from 1986–1991 (Becker and groundwater system. The increased base flow in the Canadian Runkle, 1998). However, data used to produce that map River is reported as attributable to groundwater discharged were limited in spatial extent, especially in the northern from the Rush Springs aquifer (Ellis and others, 2016). and western portions of the study area, where only 12 wells Groundwater contours tend to bend around major were measured north of the city of Weatherford. An older streams, such as Cobb, Deer, Lake, Willow, Barnitz, and potentiometric surface map (Roles, 1976) and water-level Sugar Creeks and the Little Washita River, indicating that measurements in the USGS NWIS database from 1905 groundwater is discharging in these areas. Field observations provide data as well, but these are also concentrated in the and streamflow gauge data for these streams confirmed more developed portions of the aquifer. that they were perennial streams with high base flow indices. Some smaller streams in the Rush Springs aquifer 2013 Potentiometric Surface are intermittent and had no flow during the synoptic well measurement during the study as indicated in Figure 15 with The potentiometric surface of an aquifer is an contours cutting straight across. estimated imaginary surface that reflects geographic Potentiometric surface contours are mostly parallel variation in the fluid potential of the formation water in an with the geologic boundary (eastern erosional boundary) Hydrologic Investigation Report of the Rush Springs Aquifer in West-Central Oklahoma, 2015 21
Figure 15. Potentiometric surface contour map of the Rush Springs aquifer, 2013. 22 Hydrologic Investigation Report of the Rush Springs Aquifer in West-Central Oklahoma, 2015 of the Rush Springs Formation and underlying units with Counties were estimated by OGS to be about 600 acre-feet groundwater flowing toward the boundary from within the per year by 1955 (Davis, 1955). However, this accounts for Rush Springs aquifer. Along the western edge of the aquifer, only a small portion of the study area. Groundwater use in where the aquifer boundary is cut based on water use and the Caddo County area was estimated by OGS to be about water quality, rather than geologic contact, the potentiometric 25,700 acre-feet per year from 1956–1959 (Tanaka and Davis, surface contours are mostly perpendicular to the boundary, 1963). The OWRB provided a more comprehensive report in indicating that there is little inflow from the west. 1966 that showed groundwater use was about 28,000 acre- feet per year for irrigation, public water supply, industrial, Potentiometric Surface Changes domestic, and stock use. The number of groundwater wells in the study area increased from 12 in 1951 to more than 600 by The 2013 potentiometric surface (Figure 15) shows 1964 (Oklahoma Water Resources Board, 1966). The OWRB several differences from the 1986–1991 potentiometric began requiring groundwater users to submit annual water- surface (Becker and Runkle, 1998). The 2013 potentiometric use reports in the 1960s, and by 1967, a reasonable, annual surface displays fewer contour bends upstream in the minor estimation of groundwater use could be made. streams draining the Rush Springs aquifer. This may be due to a denser data set in the 2013 map or to the fact that the Long-term Permitted Groundwater Use 2013 measurements were taken during a drought, during which it would be expected that some streams lose base flow Permit holders submit water use reports to the OWRB as groundwater levels decline. Many of the streams that did annually for long-term groundwater permits. There are 2,351 not show contour lines bent upstream were observed during long-term temporary and prior right permits for groundwater the synoptic water-level measurement and found to be dry, use within the study area; the oldest prior-right permit dates indicating they were not connected to the aquifer at the time back to 1929. Groundwater use from annual water-use reports of measurement. typically indicate the type of beneficial use, including public Eleven wells from the 2013 dataset had depth-to-water water supply; irrigation; industrial; power; mining; and fish, measurements that were less than 10 feet from the land recreation, and wildlife. The term “public water supply” is surface, indicating some wells may flow under artesian used to describe groundwater use by municipalities, rural pressure during periods of higher recharge. Three wells were water districts, housing additions, trailer parks, churches, located on a potentiometric high in Custer County, and two and schools. For the study area, groundwater-use data were wells were located upstream from Fort Cobb Reservoir. reviewed for outliers and inconsistencies to ensure accuracy. Five of the wells were located in the southeast portion of Some of the groundwater use along the southern boundary the aquifer, which is a groundwater discharge area where of the aquifer, near the town of Apache, Oklahoma, and the aquifer is thinner and the hydraulic gradient is low. This southeastward through the towns of Fletcher, Sterling, and creates slower moving groundwater that is forced into a Marlow, Oklahoma, is from deep wells that penetrate through smaller aquifer volume, resulting in water levels closer to the the thin portions of the aquifer and the underlying Dog Creek surface compared to most wells in the central and northern Shale into the El Reno Minor aquifer. Reported well yields in portions of the aquifer. Several artesian wells were observed this area can be as high as 800 gallons per minute with well during the study, including one in the town of Marlow (OWRB depths ranging from 250 to 973 feet. Water use from this area 9427) and another (OWRB 2662) in Roger Mills County. was excluded from the Rush Springs aquifer analysis. To create the 2013 potentiometric surface map, Reported groundwater use from the Rush Springs aquifer researchers utilized data from 19 groundwater wells that had for 1967–2015, shown in Figure 16, averaged about 69,900 previously been measured for the 1986–1991 potentiometric acre-feet per year with a median of 62,154 acre-feet per year. surface map created by the USGS. Of those wells, 15 had a The highest total reported annual groundwater use—about water level decline and 4 had a water level increase. The mean 115,016 acre-feet in 2014 and 133,113 acre-feet in 2015— water level change in these wells was a decline of 12.7 feet. correspond to drought conditions during these years. In 1992, only 37,210 acre-feet was reported, which was the lowest Groundwater Use reported use for a single year; however, there is reason to believe data for the year 1992 may be incomplete. The second Groundwater use in the Rush Springs aquifer was lowest total use for a single year occurred in 2007 at 40,418 documented as early as 1905 in a statewide assessment of acre-feet. groundwater resources (Gould, 1905), which identified the Four trends in reported use were identified by researchers: sandstone in Caddo County and surrounding areas as a major 1967–1980, 1981–1997, 1998–2009, and 2010–2015. For source of water. By the 1950s, there was an increasing reliance 1967–1980, reported use was relatively high, averaging on groundwater in the study area, as described in an evaluation 76,544 acre-feet per year, which may be attributable to below of the resources around the Weatherford area (Allen, 1953). average precipitation during the period. Additionally, prior to Groundwater withdrawals from wells in Grady and Stephens the 1980s, users were required to report the number of acres Hydrologic Investigation Report of the Rush Springs Aquifer in West-Central Oklahoma, 2015 23
Figure 16. Graph showing annual reported groundwater use for the study area from 1967–2015. irrigated and number of times irrigation occurred, but not the Table 5. Summary statistics of reported groundwater use in amount of water applied to the land; this means researchers the study area from 1967–2015. had to make assumptions regarding the amount of water used. Groundwater use from the aquifer reached a peak in 1978 Average annual reported water use, in acre-feet per year Statistic before declining throughout the 1980s and 1990s. The 1978 Average Median Minimum Maximum peak coincides with a period of below average precipitation 1967–2015 68,719 62,179 38,485 132,904 in the late 1970s and early 1980s. During 1981–1997, the area received above average annual precipitation and annual 1967–1980 76,544 78,958 52,766 103,112 groundwater use decreased to a mean of 55,875 acre-feet per 1981–1997* 55,875 52,693 44,741 82,622 year. The mean annual groundwater use increased to 59,247 1998–2009 59,247 58,458 38,485 75,813 acre-feet per year during 1998–2009. Within that time period, 2010–2015 103,656 105,112 71,897 132,904 groundwater use averaged 73,349 acre-feet per year during *Data do not include 1992. 1998–2001. After 2001, groundwater use began to steadily decrease until a record low of 40,472 acre-feet was reported in 2007, which is likely attributable to record high precipitation. Table 6. Table showing reported average annual After 2007, groundwater use began to increase as the state groundwater use by type in the study area from 1967–2015. reentered drought conditions (Oklahoma Climatological Survey, 2013). For 2010–2015, annual groundwater use Average annual reported water use by type, increased to a mean of 103,656 acre-feet per year, with record Time span in acre-feet per year high reported use in 2014 and 2015. Table 5 shows summary Irrigation Public water supply Other statistics of reported groundwater use in the Rush Springs 1967–2015 62,501 5,362 855 since 1967. 1967–1980 72,147 3,938 457 During 1967–2015, 91.0 percent of reported groundwater 1981–1997* 50,382 4,903 584 use in the study area was for irrigation, 7.8 percent was for public water supply, and 1.2 percent was for other purposes. 1998–2009 52,139 6,306 807 Table 6 shows the average annual reported groundwater use 2010–2015 93,030 8,023 2,600 by type in the Rush Springs aquifer in three identified periods. *Data do not include 1992. 24 Hydrologic Investigation Report of the Rush Springs Aquifer in West-Central Oklahoma, 2015
Provisional-temporary Groundwater Permits Hydrogeology For temporary use of water, the OWRB issues The primary water-bearing geologic unit of the Rush provisional-temporary groundwater permits that expire 90 Springs aquifer is the Permian-age Rush Springs Formation. days after issuance. Provisional-temporary permits were The aquifer is confined to the west by the Cloud Chief first issued in 1992 and continued to be utilized at the time Formation and basally by impermeable shales and mudstones of this investigation. The primary function of a provisional- of the Dog Creek Shale. The USGS reported that the Marlow temporary permit is to allow for a short-term water supply. Formation acts as a confining unit that significantly retards These permits are typically issued for entities that need a downward movement of water from the Rush Springs aquifer short-term supply or long-term permit holders who have to underlying units (Becker and Runkle, 1998). However, exceeded their allocation and need to supplement their evidence suggests that the Marlow Formation contains water supply. Unlike long-term permits where permit holders are and is part of the groundwater-flow system (see Base of the required to submit annual use, provisional-temporary permits Rush Springs Aquifer section). Quaternary-age alluvium and are issued for a reasonable volume and are not assumed to terrace deposits lay unconformably on top of the aquifer and exceed the authorized amount. A more detailed description of are in hydrologic connection with the aquifer, transmitting provisional-temporary permits is available in OWRB Rules water readily to the Rush Springs Formation. These alluvium Chapter 30: Taking and Use of Groundwater (Oklahoma and terrace deposits are considered part of the Rush Springs Water Resources Board, 2014a). aquifer groundwater-flow system where these sediments Figure 17 shows annual groundwater use from the study directly overlie the Rush Springs Formation. area for provisional-temporary permits. Authorized volumes The term “Rush Springs aquifer” has been used for provisional-temporary permits for 1993–2015 averaged synonymously with “Rush Springs Sandstone” and “Rush 668 acre-feet per year. Springs Formation” in previous publications (Becker and The highest volume of groundwater use authorized from Runkle, 1998). In this investigation, the “Rush Springs provisional-temporary permits was 2,916 acre-feet in 2014. aquifer” is defined as the Permian-aged water-bearing rocks The lowest volume authorized was 48.4 acre-feet in 2009. of the Whitehorse Group, which includes the Rush Springs Irrigation accounted for about 54 percent of the total authorized and Marlow Formations. Generally, the Rush Springs amount; oil, gas, and mining accounted for about 31 percent. Formation is a good substrate to store and transmit water Groundwater withdrawn from the aquifer utilizing provisional- because it consists of poorly cemented sandstone, whereas temporary permits for 1993–2015 accounted for less than 1 the Marlow Formation contains more siltstones and is less percent of the total reported groundwater withdrawals (Table 7). transmissive. The Dog Creek Shale below the Marlow
Figure 17. Graph showing annual authorized groundwater volume issued for provisional-temporary permits in the study area from 1993–2015. Hydrologic Investigation Report of the Rush Springs Aquifer in West-Central Oklahoma, 2015 25
Table 7. Summary statistics from provisional-temporary permits in the study area from 1993–2015.
Reported annual water use, in acre-feet per year Statistic Irrigation Mining Public water supply Agriculture Recreation Industrial Commercial Power Total Average 361 207 45 31 17 7 1 0 668 Median 144 158 0 0 0 0 0 0 322 Minimum 0 38 0 0 0 0 0 0 48 Maximum 2,565 650 540 340 380 50 12 10 2,916 Percent of total use 54% 31% 7% 5% 2% 1% 0% 0%
Formation consists of mudstones and is very limited for contact, assuming the base of the Cloud Chief Formation was storage and transmission of water. The water-bearing rocks do equal to surface elevation, to assist in interpretation. not correspond to a conventional lithologic contact between Figure 18 is a map showing the base elevation of the geologic units. Therefore, for this investigation, the base of Cloud Chief Formation from its highest in the northwest to its the Rush Springs aquifer is within the water-bearing portions lowest in the southeast. The lowest elevation is along the axis of the Marlow Formation based on available lithologic of the Anadarko Basin, a dominant feature in the southeast. descriptions from groundwater well logs (Oklahoma Water Subtracting the Base of the Rush Springs aquifer from the base Resources Board, 2015) and in cores showing poorly of the Cloud Chief Formation indicates the maximum thickness cemented sandstone and siltstone within the Marlow of the Rush Springs aquifer ranges between 300 and 400 feet. Formation (Becker and Runkle, 1998). Base of the Rush Springs Aquifer Base of the Cloud Chief Formation The USGS previously determined the base of the aquifer The western extent of the Rush Springs aquifer is partially using lithologic logs, geophysical logs, and elevations from overlain by the Cloud Chief Formation, which is composed the Rush Springs Formation/Marlow Formation contact on of reddish-brown to orange-brown shale with interbedded 1:250,000 scale geologic maps (Becker and Runkle, 1998). siltstone and sandstone and has been reported to be up to 400 However, the investigation only included the portion of feet thick. The base of the Cloud Chief Formation is marked the Rush Springs aquifer south of the Canadian River and by the Moccasin Creek Gypsum Member, a 30 to 60 feet thick approximately east of the Washita River. Since the USGS gypsum layer (Carr and Bergman, 1976). investigation, new sources of subsurface data have been The surficial geologic contact between the Cloud Chief collected, including geophysical logs, rock core logs, and and Rush Springs Formations was inferred where Quaternary- thousands of new lithologic well logs, which have been age deposits obscure the contact (Johnson and others, submitted by well drillers to the OWRB (Oklahoma Water 2003; Miller and Stanley, 2004; Fay, 2010A; Fay, 2010B). Resources Board, 2012). As a result, the base of the aquifer in Lithologic logs were examined to assess the depth to the base the study area has been reanalyzed. of the Cloud Chief Formation. Most depths were determined The USGS reported that the Rush Springs Formation/ by using the base of the Moccasin Creek Gypsum Member Marlow Formation contact can be gradational and difficult as a marker bed in the lithologic description, which typically to establish in geophysical logs and lithologic logs (Becker appears as a last gypsum layer under siltstone. About 30 to 60 and Runkle, 1998). Additionally, lithologic descriptions feet below the Moccasin Creek Member is the Weatherford in OWRB well logs rarely differentiate the Rush Springs Gypsum Bed within the Rush Springs Formation, which is Formation and Marlow Formation. With the premise that similar in lithology and thickness, according to well logs, well drillers typically stop drilling a well when the bottom of to the Moccasin Creek Gypsum Member. The two gypsum the aquifer is reached, two distinct features were noticed in layers are separated by red-brown sandstone. the lithologic logs: (1) lithologic logs from fully-penetrating About 350 lithologic logs were found to have adequate wells often described the last lithologic unit as either “red lithologic descriptions to determine the base of the Cloud Chief bed” or “dark red bed” and (2) although the variability in Formation. Base elevations were estimated by subtracting driller lithologic descriptions is high, the majority of logs depth to base from a Digital Elevation Model (DEM) at each describe the bottom of the boring as either “red bed,” “dark well site. Some areas of the Cloud Chief Formation in the red bed,” “red shale,” or “red siltstone.” In most instances, study area have sparse well-log information, such as the area this represents a change in bedrock texture from coarser- to the southeast. About 100 control points were added at the grained to finer-grained material and a change from water- surficial Rush Springs Formation and Cloud Chief Formation bearing rock to dry rock. 26 Hydrologic Investigation Report of the Rush Springs Aquifer in West-Central Oklahoma, 2015
Figure 18. Raster map showing the elevation of the base of the Cloud Chief Formation derived from lithologic logs submitted to the OWRB. Hydrologic Investigation Report of the Rush Springs Aquifer in West-Central Oklahoma, 2015 27
Lithologic logs were also compared to geologic maps to aquifer from the 2013 potentiometric surface (Figure 20). estimate aquifer thickness for each well location. The base of Saturated thickness ranged from zero to 432 feet, with a mean the Rush Springs aquifer was estimated at each suitable well value of 181 feet. The aquifer is thinnest in the southeastern log site by subtracting the estimated depth to base from the portions where the Rush Springs Formation outcrops and land surface elevation provided by DEMs. has been eroded. On a smaller scale, the thinnest portions of Geologic maps were analyzed alongside corresponding the aquifer correspond to where the Canadian and Washita lithological logs to test the premise that the base of the Rivers have downcut (Figures 21–22). Other thin areas of the aquifer was the Rush Springs Formation and Marlow aquifer occur near the towns of Cyril and Cement where the Formation contact. Elevations of the contact were collected base is at higher elevation. The area northeast of Sugar Creek from a DEM or a geologic map and used as control points. also shows erosion of the Rush Springs Formation with thin When these points were used in conjunction with the saturated thicknesses. The thickest saturation is located along lithologic logs, the edges of the base of the aquifer were at the Anadarko Basin axis where the Cloud Chief Formation higher elevations than what was observed in the lithologic confines the Rush Springs aquifer, allowing for a full section logs independently. Since geologic contacts were not able to of the Rush Springs Formation. Between the Canadian and provide useful information regarding the base of the aquifer, North Canadian Rivers, there is also a zone of thick saturation researchers determined that the geologic contact between the near the town of Oakwood where a full section of Rush Rush Springs and Marlow Formations is not the base of the Springs Formation may be present. Because the Cloud Chief aquifer, and that the aquifer contains water-bearing portions Formation is not considered part of the groundwater-flow of the Marlow Formation. The 1963 OGS report indicated the system, potentiometric heads were capped at the base of the Marlow Formation had low yields in eastern Caddo County, formation to estimate saturated thickness. but that in western Caddo County, the Marlow Formation contained many sandstone beds that could significantly increase well yield, suggesting that the Marlow Formation Cross Sections is likely in hydrologic connection with the Rush Springs Four cross sections of the Rush Springs aquifer were Formation (Tanaka and Davis, 1963). The same process of created for the study (Figure 20) showing the base of adding control points was repeated for the current study using the Cloud Chief Formation, base of the Rush Springs the Marlow Formation and Dog Creek Shale as a base of the aquifer, and the 2013 potentiometric surface datasets aquifer, which showed a more gradational contact correlating (Figures 21–24). The cross sections trend from the north- to the regional dip of the bedrock. northeast portion of the aquifer to the south-southwest, Figure 19 shows the base elevation of the Rush Springs with approximate dip direction. The cross sections show aquifer. The most notable feature is the axis of the Anadarko numerous creeks intersecting the potentiometric surface Basin that runs through central Caddo County and trends that are likely draining the aquifer. In areas where the Cloud westward through Washita County. The base of the aquifer Chief Formation is present, streams have not downcut into gradually rises in elevation to the north and northeast. There the aquifer. In these areas, the aquifer is not draining, causing is also a rise in elevation near the towns of Cement and Cyril, confining conditions and higher potentiometric head. These indicating less aquifer thickness in these areas, which may be conditions can be observed in the southwest portions of cross a result of diagenesis of the bedrock (Donovan, 1974; Allen, sections A-A’ (Figure 21) and B-B’ (Figure 22). These areas 1980; Al-Shaieb and Lilburn, 1988) or a fault zone (Marsh, coincide with the axis of the Anadarko Basin and show a 2016). Both of these features were observed in the 1998 USGS fully-saturated aquifer. investigation (Becker and Runkle, 1998). An OGS report had Figures 21–23 are cross sections that show the Canadian previously noted the changing dip and dip direction of the River downcutting through the Rush Springs aquifer, which Marlow Formation along the northern portion of the aquifer contributes base flow to the river (Ellis and others, 2017). boundary near Greenfield in Blaine County, which averaged 17 Cross sections A-A’ and B-B’ show Barnitz Creek cutting into to 18 feet per mile west-southwest in the northern part of the the aquifer to the west, which contributes base flow to the county, 7 feet per mile in the Greenfield area, and 16 feet per Washita River downstream from Foss Reservoir. Figure 23 mile southwest to south in the southern and southwestern parts shows the Deer Creek drainage basin, which drains into the of the county (Fay, 1962). The OGS also noted the presence of Canadian River beginning about the 13-mile mark to about a broad synclinal nose near the Canton area, where the strike is mile 23. Figure 23 illustrates the Sugar Creek drainage basin in a more westerly direction (Fay, 1962). These dips were also from about the 15-mile mark in the cross section to about observed by researchers for the current analysis. mile 28, which drains a good portion of the aquifer and enters the Washita River east of Anadarko, Oklahoma. Aquifer Saturated Thickness Cross sections B-B’ and C-C’ also show the Washita River downcutting through the land surface. In B-B’, the The saturated thickness of the Rush Springs aquifer Washita River is eroding the Cloud Chief Formation with a was estimated by subtracting the base of the Rush Springs steep slope to the northeast. Downstream, in cross section 28 Hydrologic Investigation Report of the Rush Springs Aquifer in West-Central Oklahoma, 2015
Figure 19. Raster map showing the elevation of the base of the Rush Springs aquifer derived using lithologic logs submitted to the OWRB. Hydrologic Investigation Report of the Rush Springs Aquifer in West-Central Oklahoma, 2015 29
A’
B’
C’ A B
D’ C
D
Figure 20. Map showing saturated thickness (2013) in the Rush Springs aquifer. 30 Hydrologic Investigation Report of the Rush Springs Aquifer in West-Central Oklahoma, 2015
Figure 21. Cross section A-A’ from the southwest to the northeast showing geologic units, 2013 potentiometric surface, and saturated thickness.
Figure 22. Cross section B-B’ from the southwest to the northeast showing geologic units, 2013 potentiometric surface, and saturated thickness. Hydrologic Investigation Report of the Rush Springs Aquifer in West-Central Oklahoma, 2015 31
Figure 23. Cross section C-C’ from the southwest to the northeast showing geological units, 2013 potentiometric surface, and saturated thickness.
Figure 24. Cross section D-D’ from the southwest to the northeast showing geological units, 2013 potentiometric surface, and saturated thickness. 32 Hydrologic Investigation Report of the Rush Springs Aquifer in West-Central Oklahoma, 2015
C-C’, the Washita River has down cut into the Rush Springs decline on an e-log cycle after the recession curve becomes aquifer with a much steeper slope on the northeast side nearly linear on a semi-log hydrograph (Rorabaugh, 1964). of the river in Section 21, Township 8N, Range 13W, just RORA has often been used as a tool to estimate recharge for north of the town of Carnegie. The Washita River gains a regional and local studies (Rutledge and Mesko, 1996; Flynn large portion of base flow between the intersections of cross and Tasker, 2004; Risser and others, 2005; Mashburn and sections B-B’ and C-C’. others, 2013). RORA produces a recharge rate expressed as Figure 24 shows that the southeastern portion of the inches per year for the subsurface drainage basin area. aquifer is relatively thin compared to other areas, and RORA was used to calculate estimates of annual and there are no major rivers downcutting this part of the monthly recharge from streamflow hydrographs at Barnitz aquifer. The saturated thickness is thin in this area—less Creek near Arapaho (USGS 07324500), Bent Creek near than 100 feet in most locations along the section. To the Seiling (USGS 07237800), Cobb Creek near Eakly (USGS northeast, the Washita River has eroded the Rush Springs 07325800), Deer Creek at Hydro (OWRB 520620060010- and Marlow formations and downcut into the underlying 003RS and USGS 07228400), Lake Creek near Eakly (USGS Permian-age bedrock. 07325850), Willow Creek near Albert (USGS 07325860), Little Washita River near Ninnekah (USGS 07327550), and Sugar Creek near Gracemont (USGS 07327000). Basin size Recharge varies from stream to stream: Barnitz Creek is 243 square RORA Method miles, Cobb Creek is 132 square miles, Deer Creek is 272 square miles, Lake Creek is 52.5 square miles, Little Washita Groundwater recharge was estimated from streamflow River is 232 square miles, Sugar Creek is 208 square miles, hydrograph records using the computer program RORA, and Willow Creek is 28.2 square miles. In order to calculate which utilizes a model developed by Rorabaugh (Rorabaugh, recharge for the aquifer using RORA, certain criteria should 1964). The Rorabaugh model is based on an ideal flow be met: drainage basins must be less than 500 square miles system in which the aquifer has uniform thickness, hydraulic and completely within the aquifer, must not be affected by conductivity, and storage coefficient, and where the stream upstream regulation from reservoirs, and must not have fully penetrates the aquifer (Rutledge, 1998). The RORA major withdrawals of surface water or wastewater return flow program estimates the groundwater recharge in a basin (Rutledge, 1998). Most of the streams met the criteria except based on the measurement of change in the total potential Cobb Creek near Eakly, which does have a small reservoir groundwater discharge. The program uses the recession-curve upstream, Crowder Lake, with a surface area of 158 acres displacement method that is based on finding a critical time and a capacity of 2,094 acre-feet. The period of record used after a streamflow peak when recharge can be computed using for analysis of recharge from the streamflow gauges ranged the difference between the groundwater discharge from post- from 7 years at the Deer Creek streamflow gauge near Eakly storm and pre-storm recessions, and the recession index (K), to 46 years at the Cobb Creek streamflow gauge near Eakly which is the time required for the groundwater discharge to (Table 8).
Table 8. Average annual recharge estimated by the RORA program and recession index for stream gauging stations in the study area.
Drainage Station area, in Period of Minimum annual Maximum annual Mean annual number Station name square miles analysis recharge, in inches recharge, in inches recharge, in inches 07324500 Barnitz Creek near Arapaho, Okla. 243 1946-1963 0.00 0.74 0.24 07237800 Bent Creek near Seiling, Okla. 139 1967-1970 0.26 0.32 0.29 07325800 Cobb Creek near Eakly, Okla. 132 1968-2015 0.48 5.76 2.00 07228400* Deer Creek at Hydro, Okla. 274 1961-1962, 0.94 1.73 1.23 1978-1979, 2014-2015 07325850 Lake Creek near Eakly, Okla. 52.5 1969-1978, 0.18 2.74 1.02 2005-2015 07327550 Little Washita East of Ninnekah, Okla. 232 1992-2015 0.41 5.63 2.26 07327000 Sugar Creek near Gracemont, Okla. 208 1956-1974 0.11 1.53 0.58 07325860 Willow Creek near Albert, Okla. 28.2 1970-1978, 0.08 2.15 1.04 2005-2015 *OWRB stream gauging station 520620060010-003RS Hydrologic Investigation Report of the Rush Springs Aquifer in West-Central Oklahoma, 2015 33
Annual recharge rate estimates were calculated for all 0.24 inches per year at Barnitz Creek near Arapaho to 2.26 streams and ranged from 0 inches in 1953 at the Barnitz inches per year at Little Washita River (Table 8). A possible Creek near Arapaho streamflow gauge to 5.76 inches in reason for the variation between the streamflow gauge 2007 at the Cobb Creek near Eakly streamflow gauge stations is the variable period of record; most of the period (Figures 25–31). Mean annual recharge rates ranged from of record for the Barnitz Creek station occurs prior to the
A A
B B
Figure 25. (A) Annual recharge, in inches, and (B) Figure 26. (A) Annual recharge, in inches, and (B) mean mean monthly recharge, in inches, estimated using the monthly recharge, in inches, estimated using the Rorabaugh Rorabaugh method (Rorabaugh, 1964) or the USGS Cobb method (Rorabaugh, 1964) or the USGS Little Washita Creek streamflow gauge near Eakly, Oklahoma (USGS River streamflow gauge near Ninnekah (USGS 07327550). 07325800). 34 Hydrologic Investigation Report of the Rush Springs Aquifer in West-Central Oklahoma, 2015 periods of record other stations. As noted in the Climate area of the Barnitz Creek watershed is partially confined section, precipitation patterns during these time periods by the Cloud Chief Formation, which may limit areal were quite different with a major drought occurring during recharge. Additionally, both Lake Creek and Willow Creek the 1950s and above average precipitation from the mid- have much lower flows than the other streams, which can 1980s through 2008. Also, the higher elevation recharge cause error in recharge estimates; low flow rate data are
A A
B B
Figure 27. (A) Annual recharge, in inches, and (B) mean Figure 28. (A) Annual recharge, in inches, and (B) mean monthly recharge, in inches, estimated using the Rorabaugh monthly recharge, in inches, estimated using the Rorabaugh method (Rorabaugh, 1964) or the USGS Lake Creek method (Rorabaugh, 1964) or the USGS Willow Creek streamflow gauge near Eakly (USGS 07325850). streamflow gauge near Albert (USGS 07325860). Hydrologic Investigation Report of the Rush Springs Aquifer in West-Central Oklahoma, 2015 35 subject to errors that may be considerable in proportion recharge at every station, followed by increasing recharge to the total (Rutledge, 1998). Mean monthly estimates of into the late autumn months. The mean monthly recharge recharge (Figures 25–31) show recharge is typically highest ranged from 0.01 inches per month at Barnitz Creek in during the months of March through May with a significant January to 0.19 inches per month at the Little Washita River decrease in July, which had the lowest mean monthly in May.
A A
B B
Figure 29. (A) Annual recharge, in inches, and (B) mean Figure 30. (A) Annual recharge, in inches, and (B) mean monthly recharge, in inches, estimated using the Rorabaugh monthly recharge, in inches, estimated using the Rorabaugh method (Rorabaugh, 1964) or the USGS and OWRB Deer method (Rorabaugh, 1964) or the USGS Barnitz Creek Creek streamflow gauge near Hydro (USGS 07228400 and streamflow gauge near Arapaho (USGS 07324500). OWRB 520620060010-003RS). 36 Hydrologic Investigation Report of the Rush Springs Aquifer in West-Central Oklahoma, 2015
Thornthwaite and Mather derived a non-linear relationship A between soil moisture and water deficit; soils lose more water to evapotranspiration (ET) in the first few days of a water deficit and subsequently less as the deficit grows (Westenbroek and others, 2010). Using this relationship the SWB code calculates recharge as the difference between the change in soil moisture and the sources and sinks of water at each grid cell in the model domain at a daily time step (Westenbroek and others, 2010). The SWB code estimates losses caused by interception, ET, and runoff at daily time steps and removes the volume from the estimated soil moisture. Interception is a user-defined amount of water utilized by vegetation that may be specified for each land-use type and season (growing or dormant). Spatially variable potential ET is estimated in the SWB code using climate data, such as air temperature, relative humidity, and wind speed. For this investigation, the Hargreaves-Samani method (Hargreaves, 1985) was used for two reasons: (1) this method utilizes data from multiple climate stations as spatially- gridded datasets and (2) this method estimates ET using the minimum and maximum air temperature in addition to daily precipitation. The potential ET represents the maximum B amount of ET possible given no limitation to soil moisture. The change in soil moisture is calculated by the difference of potential ET and daily precipitation results in either positive or negative values, where actual ET equals potential ET, or negative values, indicating a cumulative deficiency. The SWB code only considers water input in the form of precipitation and runoff entering the grid cell from up- gradient. Using temperature data, the code determines whether precipitation takes the form of rain or snow (Westenbroek and others, 2010). The daily precipitation value for a grid cell must exceed the interception and estimated potential evapotranspiration before water is assumed to contribute to soil moisture (Westenbroek and others, 2010). Once soil-moisture exceeds the maximum water capacity for the soil type and the grid cell is considered saturated, the excess is converted to recharge (Westenbroek and others, 2010). Any additional water applied to a grid cell is converted to runoff, which is either routed to an adjacent cell or out of the model domain completely. Runoff was estimated using the U.S. Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) curve-number precipitation-runoff relation. Curve numbers are a baseline Figure 31. (A) Annual recharge, in inches, and (B) mean percentage of saturation that are modified at daily time monthly recharge, in inches, estimated using the Rorabaugh steps using the precipitation history of the previous 5 days, method (Rorabaugh, 1964) or the USGS Sugar Creek vegetation dormancy, and, optionally, the frozen ground index streamflow gauge near Gracemont (USGS 07327000). (Westenbroek and others, 2010). As soils become saturated, there is less space for water to saturate and runoff increases. The slope of the land surface is used only to direct estimated Soil-Water Balance runoff to adjacent cells (Westenbroek and others, 2010). Urban areas are typically paved and will have more runoff The soil-water balance (SWB) code provides a spatial than pastures or irrigated croplands. and temporal estimation of groundwater recharge at a regional There are some limitations of the SWB code: (1) scale using a modified Thornthwaite-Mather soil-water curve numbers, maximum soil recharge, interception, root balance approach in conjunction with landscape characteristics zone depth, available water capacities, and infiltration and climatological data (Westenbroek and others, 2010). rates are based on averages for land and soil types and Hydrologic Investigation Report of the Rush Springs Aquifer in West-Central Oklahoma, 2015 37 were not directly measured for this study; (2) depth from study area was estimated to have the least amount of recharge the bottom of the root zone to the top of the water table at 0.50 inches or less. are not factored in, resulting in recharge estimations that Figure 34 shows a map of recharge estimates for 1980, can be anomalously high in areas where the water table is a year with only 1.17 inches of estimated average annual close to the surface (Westenbroek and others, 2010); (3) recharge, one of the lowest estimates for the period of record. ET from the groundwater table is not computed and can be As with recharge estimates for 2007, much of the eastern underestimated in areas where groundwater occurs near land area of the aquifer and areas north of the Fort Cobb Reservoir surface; and (4) soil type and maximum water capacity have had the highest estimated annual recharge, and the northwest the greatest impact on recharge estimation, most notably remained the driest. Estimated average annual recharge was where surface water cuts through sandy soils. For this study, the lowest for the years 1963 and 2003 (maps not shown in the root-zone values were scaled to 70 percent to ensure this report) with both years having only 0.03 inches and many recharge values were not underestimated. cells with no estimated recharge. The SWB code was used to spatially estimate Figure 35 shows estimated annual recharge for the study groundwater recharge over the Rush Springs study area using area for 1950–2015. The average annual recharge is estimated geospatial data sampled to a 500 square-foot grid including to be 1.40 inches with a median of 1.01 inches. Three time the following datasets: (1) Land Use (Multi-Resolution Land periods were selected that show trends of below or above Characteristics Consortium, 2011, National Land Cover average recharge estimates: (1) 1950–1984, (2) 1985–2001, Database 2006 (NLCD 2006): USGS, accessed August 11, and (3) 2002–2015. 2014, at http://www.mrlc.gov/nlcd2006.php); (2) Hydrologic The period 1950–1984 had an estimated average of soil group and soil-water capacity (NRCS, US Department 1.07 inches of recharge per year, which is 0.34 inches below of Agriculture, Web Soil Survey, accessed August 11, 2014, the average annual recharge of 1.40 inches for the records at http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/); (3) tabular climate analyzed. During this period, only 8 of the 34 years had above data obtained from the COOP and Oklahoma Mesonet for a average recharge; median recharge was 0.88 inches. set of stations located in or near the study area consisting of Estimated recharge began to increase in 1985, the first daily precipitation, daily minimum temperature, and daily year of the longest period of above average recharge for the maximum temperature (Oklahoma Climatological Survey, period of record. Estimated mean annual recharge for 1985– 2014a; Oklahoma Climatological Survey, 2014b); and 2001 was 2.18 inches with a median of 2.00 inches. Over this (4) additional values for soil properties based on land use 16-year period only three years were estimated to have had such as interception and the available soil-water capacity below average recharge. (Westenbroek and others, 2010) in the form of a look-up During 2002–2015 there was a return to average table. The estimated recharge results were then clipped to the conditions of 1.30 inches of annual recharge, which is close to outline of the study area and statistics were tabulated. the estimate of 1.40 inches for the period of record. However, Figure 32 is a map showing the spatial variability in with a median of 0.80 inches, the average is skewed by high estimated average annual recharge using the SWB code precipitation amounts in 2007 and 2015, which have recharge for 1950–2015. Estimated average annual recharge for estimates of 4.63 inches and 4.18 inches, respectively. 1950–2015 in the study area was 1.40 inches. The areas Removal of these two outliers lowers the average annual with the highest recharge estimates include the Cobb Creek, recharge estimate for the period to 0.78 inches with a median Lake Creek, and Willow Creek watersheds in Caddo county; of 0.73 inches. Table 9 shows the summary statistics for the the Little Washita River watershed in southeastern Caddo, SWB estimated recharge. southwestern Grady, northeastern Comanche, and northern Figure 36 shows the average monthly recharge trends Stephens Counties; and the area north of the Canadian River for four time periods: (1) 1950–2015, (2) 1950–1984, (3) in eastern Dewey County and western Blaine County. The 1985–2001, and (4) 2002–2015. During 1950–2015 the soils in these areas have lower available water capacities, highest estimated recharge generally occurred in winter meaning the grid cells become saturated quickly and lose and spring and was likely caused by the combination of less water from evapotranspiration allowing a greater cool temperatures, dormant vegetation, and increasing percentage of precipitation to go to recharge. Recharge precipitation. The sharp decline in April was likely caused estimates are much lower in areas farther west due to lower by an increase in evapotranspiration. May had the highest precipitation totals and the presence of soils with higher average recharge estimate of the period of record analyzed available water capacity, most notably where the Cloud with 0.23 inches. Recharge decreased throughout the Chief Formation is present. summer months as evapotranspiration rates peaked; July Figure 33 is a map showing estimated recharge for 2007, had an estimated recharge of 0.02 inches, the lowest of all the wettest year on record in Oklahoma at the time of the months. study and the year with the highest estimated average annual For the 1950–1984 period, there was below average recharge (4.63 inches). In the easternmost part of the study annual recharge, with 67 percent of the months receiving area, the basins that drain into Fort Cobb Reservoir have the less than 0.10 inches. July was the only month that received highest estimated recharge. The northwestern portion of the more recharge for this period than for the period of record 38 Hydrologic Investigation Report of the Rush Springs Aquifer in West-Central Oklahoma, 2015
Figure 32. Raster map showing spatial SWB average annual recharge estimate for 1950–2015. Hydrologic Investigation Report of the Rush Springs Aquifer in West-Central Oklahoma, 2015 39
Figure 33. Raster map showing spatial recharge estimated by SWB for 2007, a year of high estimated recharge. 40 Hydrologic Investigation Report of the Rush Springs Aquifer in West-Central Oklahoma, 2015
Figure 34. Raster map showing spatial recharge estimate by SWB for 1980, a year of below average recharge. Hydrologic Investigation Report of the Rush Springs Aquifer in West-Central Oklahoma, 2015 41
Figure 35. Graph showing annual recharge estimated by SWB for the study area for 1950–2015.
Table 9. Table of summary statistics for SWB estimated recharge Hydraulic Properties for 1950–2015, 1950–1984, 1985–2001, and 2002–2015. Hydraulic properties of an aquifer are characteristics that Average annual SWB recharge, in inches describe groundwater flow and storage of water in an aquifer. Statistic 1950-2015 1950-1984 1985-2001 2002-2015 For this investigation, hydraulic properties estimated for the aquifer include hydraulic conductivity, transmissivity, and Minimum .03 0.03 0.76 0.03 storage (storage coefficient and specific yield). Hydraulic Maximum 4.63 3.61 4.15 4.63 conductivity, expressed in units of length per time (feet per Mean 1.40 1.07 2.18 1.30 day in this report), is defined as a volume of water that is Median 1.01 0.88 2.00 0.03 transmitted in a unit of time through a cross section of unit area (Lohman, 1972). Transmissivity, expressed in units of *Data do not include 1992. length squared per time (feet squared per day in this report), is defined as the rate at which water of the prevailing kinematic analyzed. May had the highest estimated recharge with 0.23 viscosity is transmitted through a unit width of the aquifer inches, while August received the least at only 0.03 inches under a unit hydraulic gradient (Lohman, 1972). Storage refers on average. to water held in the aquifer matrix that can be released from For the 1985–2001 period, there was above average the aquifer under confined and unconfined conditions. Water recharge compared to the period of record. Estimated released from the aquifer under confined conditions is caused recharge was highest for January and March, with 0.37 and by the compressibility of water and aquifer matrix through 0.31 inches, respectively, while the estimate for July was less overburden pressure and is referred to as storage coefficient. than 0.01 inches, the lowest estimate for the period of record Storage coefficient, dimensionless, is defined as the volume analyzed. of water an aquifer releases from or takes into storage per unit The estimated recharge values for 2002–2015 were surface area of the aquifer per unit change in the component of slightly below average except during the spring and summer. head normal to that surface (Sayre, 1955). The aquifer remains Estimated recharge was lowest in September with only 0.02 fully saturated under confined conditions. Under unconfined inches; estimated recharge for April through August was conditions, water is yielded from water-bearing material by above average for all months with May having the highest gravity drainage and is the ratio of the volume of water that, estimate at 0.29 inches. after being saturated, is yielded by gravity to the volume of 42 Hydrologic Investigation Report of the Rush Springs Aquifer in West-Central Oklahoma, 2015
Figure 36. Graph showing average monthly recharge for 1950–2015, 1950–1984, 1985–2001, and 2002–2015.
aquifer (Lohman, 1972) and is referred to as specific yield. In unconfined settings. Since an equation for an unconfined unconfined aquifers, compressibility of the aquifer is negligible solution was unavailable for this analysis, researchers and the storage coefficient is considered equal to specific yield. assumed that the confined solution provided a reasonable Hydraulic properties of the Rush Springs aquifer were estimate of transmissivity. This method was utilized in estimated using several methods. Hydraulic conductivity and a previous investigation of the Rush Springs aquifer transmissivity were estimated using well-drawdown data, slug (Penderson, 1999). The Cooper and Jacob equation is: tests, aquifer tests, and a percent-sand method. Storage was estimated by conducting aquifer tests and using a regional method involving water-level measurements and data from streamflow gauges. where Q is discharge rate the well was pumped (cubic feet Slug Tests and Well Drawdown Data Analyses per day) Drawdown data from specific capacity tests of 750 Sw is the total length of equilibrated drawdown (feet) municipal and irrigation wells submitted to the OWRB from T is the aquifer’s transmissivity near the well (square well drillers were used to estimate hydraulic conductivity. feet per day) These well driller logs included length of the drawdown t is time (days) of the water level due to constant pumping, pumping rate, S is the storativity of the aquifer (dimensionless) pumping duration, and well radius. For each well location, the Cooper and Jacob (Cooper and Jacob, 1946) solution was The Cooper and Jacob equation can be written to solve applied, which was derived from the Theis nonequilibrium for transmissivity: method (Theis, 1935) and utilized types of curves described by Jacob (1940), Wenzel and Fishel (1942), and Wenzel and Greenlee (1944). This solution is intended for analysis of wells in confined aquifers. Some of the wells in the Rush Because transmissivity is in the logarithm term of the Springs aquifer are in a confined setting, but most are in equation, successive approximation may be used to solve Hydrologic Investigation Report of the Rush Springs Aquifer in West-Central Oklahoma, 2015 43 for transmissivity. Transmissivity may be used to determine solution can be applied to wells in unconfined aquifers as well hydraulic conductivity: as confined aquifers that receive water from an upper confining layer (Bouwer and Rice, 1976). Hydraulic conductivities for the Rush Springs aquifer ranged from 0.13 to 7.60 feet per where day. The median hydraulic conductivity was 1.40 feet per day, K is the hydraulic conductivity of the aquifer near the with a mean of 1.70 feet per day. Three slug tests performed in well (feet per day) the alluvium of the Washita River yielded estimated hydraulic b is the saturated thickness of the aquifer (feet), base conductivities of 18.62, 37.63, and 52.19 feet per day. of the aquifer minus static water level The ranges of hydraulic conductivity identified in the drawdown data and slug tests indicate that some portions of The storativity value utilized for this method was the Rush Springs aquifer texturally consist of coarse-grained derived from the regional method to determine storage sandstone, poorly-cemented sandstone, or unconsolidated coefficient (0.072). material. Figure 37 is a map showing well sites with available Table 10 shows the descriptive statistics from the drawdown data; 688 wells were completed in bedrock and drawdown, slug test, and percent coarse (see Percent Coarse 62 were completed in the alluvium and terrace on top of the Analysis section) analyses. The comparison of drawdown bedrock. The northern and western portions of the aquifer and slug test datasets show estimated hydraulic conductivity lack drawdown data and results may be skewed to the areas within the range of published values for a sandstone aquifer, with more data, such as the central portion of the aquifer in which is from 8.5E-05 to 1.70 feet per day, and the range for Caddo County. The minimum hydraulic conductivity for the unconsolidated sand from 0.26 to 141 feet per day (Domenico Rush Springs aquifer estimated from the drawdown data was and Schwartz, 1998). less than 0.01 feet per day and the maximum was 90.90 feet Comparing the results from the drawdown and slug test per day with a median of 1.63 feet per day and a mean of 3.27 datasets shows the drawdown data with a higher estimated feet per day. The mean is higher than the median, indicating median hydraulic conductivity than the slug tests. Considering that there are some higher hydraulic conductivity outliers in that the data are from the same aquifer and both datasets the dataset. For drawdown tests in the alluvium and terrace have similar spatial coverage within the aquifer, the median deposits within the study area, the minimum hydraulic value of each dataset may be expected to be similar. A conductivity was 0.16 feet per day, the maximum was 399.58 reasonable explanation of the differences may be the well feet per day, and the mean and median were 26.02 and 6.19 construction, specifically the efficiency of the well screen. feet per day, respectively. Figure 38 is a histogram showing Data from drawdown tests are typically collected from newly the hydraulic conductivity values from all tested wells in the constructed wells, when groundwater flow into the well is the Rush Springs aquifer. most efficient. However, slug test data are typically collected Slug tests are groundwater well assessments that are from existing wells that, over time, would have become useful for determining the connectivity of a well with the less efficient. The efficiency of a well can be affected by aquifer and the hydraulic conductivity (K) of the aquifer near silt or mineralization obstructing well screen. The hydraulic the well. A slug test can be conducted by observing the water- conductivity estimate from a pumping test is on average level response from an instantaneous change in head, which considerably larger than the estimate obtained from a series can be induced by adding or withdrawing water, increasing of slug tests in the same formation (Butler and Healey, 1998), or decreasing air pressure within the well casing, or adding where the differences are attributable to incomplete well a solid mechanism of known volume, such as a solid PVC development. An interpolated raster of hydraulic conductivity cylinder, to displace the water. was created using the Inverse Distance Weighted method Fifty-four slug tests were conducted as part of the for both the slug test and drawdown analyses to determine investigation to estimate hydraulic properties at well sites the impact of any spatial clustering of the wells used for in the study area (Figure 38). Slug tests were performed each analysis (Figure 39). This area-weighted technique of according to published guidelines (Cunningham and Schalk, viewing the data helps determine if the arithmetic mean is 2011) and data were analyzed with the AQTESOLV software influenced by many wells clustered together. If the arithmetic package (Duffield, 2007). The Bouwer-Rice and Hvorslev mean and area-weighted mean diverge significantly, poor solutions for unconfined aquifers were used to estimate well distribution may be indicated. The mean area-weighted hydraulic conductivity (Hvorslev, 1951; Bouwer and Rice, hydraulic conductivity for slug tests in bedrock was 1.77 1976). Both solutions are used for overdamped response in feet per day and 3.99 feet per day for wells included in slug tests, which occurs in aquifers that have low to moderate the drawdown analysis. The arithmetic mean hydraulic hydraulic conductivities, such as non-karst bedrock aquifers conductivity for slug tests was 1.70 feet per day and 3.27 feet (AQTESOLV, 2014). The majority of the slug tests were per day for the drawdown analysis, which indicated good well analyzed using the Bouwer-Rice solution because it provided distribution for both datasets—the area-weighted mean and the best match to the data. Furthermore, the Bouwer-Rice arithmetic mean were similar. 44 Hydrologic Investigation Report of the Rush Springs Aquifer in West-Central Oklahoma, 2015
Figure 37. Map showing locations of wells with available drawdown data in the OWRB Drillers Database and where slug tests were performed in the Rush Springs aquifer as part of this study. Hydrologic Investigation Report of the Rush Springs Aquifer in West-Central Oklahoma, 2015 45
Figure 38. Histogram showing the hydraulic conductivity distribution of slug tests and drawdown data.
Table 10. Summary statistics show the count, minimum, Aquifer Tests maximum, mean, 25th percentile, 50th percentile, 75th For this study, multi-well aquifer tests were performed percentile, and area-weighted mean values for hydraulic on public water supply wells operated by Grady County Rural conductivity, in feet per day, derived from slug tests, Water District #6 and the town of Hydro. The data produced drawdown analysis, and percent coarse analysis. from the aquifer tests were used to estimate transmissivity, hydraulic conductivity, and storage of the Rush Springs Statistic Slug Tests Drawdown Analysis Percent Coarse aquifer. All depth-to-water measurements were collected at 1 minute intervals. Count 52 688 4493 Minimum 0.13 < 0.01 < 0.01 Grady County Rural Water District #6 Maximum 7.60 90.90 75.00 Mean 1.70 3.27 6.30 The Grady County Rural Water District #6 production 25th Percentile 0.66 0.90 2.75 well (OWRB 151469) was completed with a 12-inch casing to a depth of 180 feet below land surface and sealed 50th Percentile 1.40 1.63 4.00 to a depth of 130 feet. The production well construction 75th Percentile 2.18 3.01 7.95 information was not available from Grady County Rural Area-weighted 1.77 3.99 6.37 Water District #6 and was presumed to be screened in the *Data do not include 1992 report. bottom 100 feet of the well, similar to other wells in the area. 46 Hydrologic Investigation Report of the Rush Springs Aquifer in West-Central Oklahoma, 2015
Figure 39. Horizontal hydraulic conductivity of the Rush Springs aquifer based on percent-coarse analysis of lithologic descriptions in over 4,700 well logs. Hydrologic Investigation Report of the Rush Springs Aquifer in West-Central Oklahoma, 2015 47
The observation well (OWRB 3952) had a 6-inch casing, periods was 219 square feet per day, hydraulic conductivity was located 18.2 feet from the production well, and was was 1.60 feet per day, and specific yield was 0.09. completed as a 16-inch open hole to a depth of 185 feet below land surface. The production well was turned off prior to the Re-analysis of 1955 Single Well Aquifer Test in Southern test to allow for water to recover to static levels. The well Grady County, Oklahoma began pumping at 12:19 PM on January 28, 2014, at an initial rate of 564 gallons per minute. During the test, the pumping A single well pumping test was conducted by the OGS rate gradually decreased from 564 gallons per minute to 525 in 1955 in Section 3, Township 4N, Range 7W in southern gallons per minute. The pump ran for approximately 38 hours Grady County, Oklahoma, in the southeastern portion of the and was shut off at 2:14 AM on January 30, 2014. Maximum Rush Springs Formation, about 2,000 feet from the contact water-level displacement in the observation well during between the Rush Springs and Marlow Formations (Davis, pumping was 22.20 feet. Water levels in the observation well 1955). The test was analyzed using the Theis formula for were collected during recovery from January 30 through estimating the drawdown at any place in the aquifer at any February 3, 2014 (Figure 40). time for any rate of continuous pumping (Davis, 1955). The The aquifer test data were analyzed using the OGS report includes the drawdown and pumping information AQTESOLV software package (Duffield, 2007). Several that allowed for the data to be imported into AQTESOLV and unconfined and confined model curve matching solutions analyzed for transmissivity and specific yield. were tested for the pumping period. The curve matching The test was performed on a well owned by the Magnolia solution with the best fit was the Moench for unconfined Petroleum Company (4N7W-3-1) that was drilled to 500 feet aquifer solution (Moench, 1997). The Moench solution for the and plugged back to 122 feet below land surface. A 20-inch pumping period estimated transmissivity to be 4,129 square diameter casing was set to 72 feet and a 19-inch diameter feet per day, hydraulic conductivity was 44.9 feet per day, and hole was reamed to 122 feet. The well is perforated from 72 the specific yield was 0.04 (Figure 41). to 120 feet below land surface. The well fully penetrated the Rush Springs aquifer. The water level in the well was initially Town of Hydro, Oklahoma about 50 feet below land surface. The well was pumped continuously for 24 hours at an average rate of 163 gallons The town of Hydro production well (OWRB 173538) per minute. Water level declined by 96 feet during the test and was completed to a depth of 280 feet below land surface then recovered for 24 hours to a level of 52.5 feet below land (oral communication with Hydro officials, 2016) with a surface. The data were analyzed model using the Moench 12-inch casing. Complete construction information for the (1997) solution for an unconfined aquifer. Transmissivity was production well was not available from Hydro officials and estimated at 956.1 square feet per day, hydraulic conductivity was presumed to be screened in the bottom 100 feet of the was 6.4 feet per day, and specific yield was 0.09. well. The observation well (OWRB 90884), located 395 feet from the production well, was completed to a depth of 255 Re-analysis of 1956 Multi-Well Aquifer Test Near feet, and sealed to a depth of 20 feet. The observation well Sickles, Oklahoma was open hole from 20 to 255 feet with a casing diameter of 6 inches. The OGS conducted a 2-week multi-well aquifer test The production well was shut off at 7:42 AM on on the Rush Springs Formation in 1956 that included an September 30, 2014, to allow water levels to return to static irrigation well located in Section 23, Township 10N, Range conditions. The production well began pumping at 8:34 AM 12W in Caddo County (Tanaka and Davis, 1963). The test on October 1, 2014, at a rate of 80 gallons per minute for involved 9 observation wells, of which 3 had accessible about 30.3 hours until the pump was shut off at 2:55 PM on water levels to be analyzed. Observation wells were located October 2, 2014. Maximum water-level displacement in the 200, 600, and 1,085 feet from the pumped well. Water-level observation well during pumping was 13.00 feet. Water levels data from this test were digitized and re-analyzed using in the observation well were collected from October 2, 2014, AQTESOLV to update the results. through October 3, 2014, and 12.59 feet of recovery were The irrigation well was pumped at a constant rate of recorded (Figure 42). 730 gallons per minute from April 8 to 14, 1956, while The aquifer test data were analyzed using the depth-to-water measurements were taken with continuous AQTESOLV software package (Duffield, 2007). Several automatic water-level recorders and steel tapes. The pumped unconfined and leaky-confined model curve-matching well was drilled to 178 feet and had a diameter of 2 feet 8 solutions were tested for the pumping and recovery period. inches. The well was perforated to the bottom 160 feet below The solution with the best visual curve match for the pumping land surface. The well partially penetrated the Rush Springs period was the Moench solution for unconfined aquifers aquifer, which had an estimated base of 270 feet below land solution (Moench, 1997) (Figure 43). Estimated transmissivity surface. The static depth to water in the pumped well was 56 from the Moench solution for the drawdown and recovery feet below land surface and reached a maximum level of 142 48 Hydrologic Investigation Report of the Rush Springs Aquifer in West-Central Oklahoma, 2015
Figure 40. Graph showing water levels during the pumping (January 28–30, 2014) and recovery periods (January 30–February 3, 2014) of the Grady County Rural Water District #6 aquifer test in the Rush Springs aquifer.
Figure 41. Pumping and recovery data curve and derivative of the Grady County Rural Water District #6 aquifer test with best- fit Moench solution for leaky confined aquifers (Moench, 1997). Hydrologic Investigation Report of the Rush Springs Aquifer in West-Central Oklahoma, 2015 49
Figure 42. Graph showing water levels during the pumping (October 1–2, 2014) and recovery periods (October 2–3, 2014) of the Town of Hydro aquifer test in the Rush Springs aquifer.
Figure 43. Pumping drawdown data curve and derivative of the town of Hydro aquifer test with best-fit Moench solution for unconfined aquifers (Moench, 1997). 50 Hydrologic Investigation Report of the Rush Springs Aquifer in West-Central Oklahoma, 2015 feet below land surface. The data were analyzed using the occurs, then the base flow in a stream is the water being Moench solution for an unconfined aquifer. Transmissivity released from storage, and an equation can be written as was estimated at 1,225.4 square feet per day, hydraulic follows: conductivity was 5.4 feet per day, and specific yield was Sy = Qb/ΔDTW 0.07. The OGS report estimated transmissivity between 1,470 and 1,870 square feet per day with a storage value where of 0.01 to 0.03. Using modern estimation methods such as Sy is the specific yield (dimensionless) AQTESOLV allows for a more precise estimation of aquifer Qb is the amount of base flow during properties than the curve matching techniques available in a set period of time the early 1960s. ΔDTW is the change in the depth to water over a set period of time Aquifer Test Discussion This method was used during the winter of 2013–2014, For many of the existing production wells in the Rush a period where major groundwater use had ended for the Springs aquifer, screen length could not be determined. For year and little precipitation had occurred. Precipitation on these wells, researchers assumed a screen length of 100 the central portion of the Rush Springs aquifer as measured feet, which is typical for other similar wells in the aquifer. by the Weatherford Mesonet weather station during the time Each solution was tested for sensitivity to screen length between the first and last synoptic measurements was 3.1 by changing the well construction in AQTESOLV to open inches (Oklahoma Mesonet, 2014), which is less than the borehole. Changing the screen length did not affect the average value of 6.9 inches for the time period of 1994–2014; solutions. a low of 0.03 inches was recorded in January 2014, and a high of 1.47 inches was recorded in March 2014. Groundwater Regional Method to Determine Storage levels were not influenced by precipitation during this period, Coefficient as observed in nearby groundwater wells equipped with water-level recorders (Figure 44). Streamflow hydrographs Regional methods can be used to characterize aquifers for these 3 gauges indicated small increases in daily flow using hydrologic data at large scales. The regional method from precipitation, but the base flow index (the ratio of the described in this report uses base flow discharge and monthly groundwater to runoff in the stream discharge) computed groundwater-level measurements between November 12, by using the BFI program was 89 to 93 percent, indicating 2013, and March 24, 2014, to estimate storage in the Cobb most of the streamflow was groundwater. Only the base flow Creek, Deer Creek, and Lake Creek watersheds within the portion of streamflow was used for this method. Rush Springs aquifer. Storage coefficients estimated by this Discharge was measured at streamflow gauges at Cobb method are considered an average value for each subsurface Creek near Eakly (USGS 07325800), Deer Creek at Hydro watershed because the data are spatially distributed. The (OWRB 520620060010-003RS), and Lake Creek near Eakly regional method to calculate specific yield assumes that if (USGS 07325850) during the time period of the synoptic an aquifer is not being recharged during a specific time, but water-level measurements. With the contributing groundwater is only draining, the ratio of the volume of groundwater area upgradient, these streamflow gauges defined the lower discharged to the volume of the aquifer drained is the storage reaches for each subsurface watershed. Willow Creek and coefficient for that volume of aquifer drained (Christenson the Little Washita River were not utilized for this method and others, 2011). The limitation of this method is that it because the low number of water-level measurements in only estimates the storage in the portion of the aquifer that those subsurface watersheds did not provide an adequate was drained. While multiple well pumping tests provide density of data to extrapolate water levels across the entire defensible estimates of storage coefficient and specific yield, watershed. Monthly synoptic water-level measurements those values are local to the area of influence around the well. were collected between November 12, 2013, and March 24, The regional method has been used to provide an estimate of 2014, and water-level maps were created for the Cobb Creek storage over an entire watershed within an aquifer (Schilling, (127.3 square miles), Deer Creek (280.1 square miles), and 2009; Christenson and others, 2011). Lake Creek (58.9 square miles) subsurface watersheds. To An equation to calculate the storage value can be derived estimate the total volume of groundwater gained or lost from from the concept that base flow is often considered a proxy each subsurface watershed, the boundaries of each subsurface for diffuse recharge in watersheds with gaining streams basin were determined using a combination of topographic (Scanlon and others, 2002; Risser and others, 2005). The maps and the potentiometric surface contours created from water-table fluctuation method of calculating recharge (Healy the March 2013 synoptic well measurements (Figure 15). and Cook, 2002), defines a relationship between specific Groundwater levels rose slightly between November yield, the change in the water table over time, and recharge. If and December 2013, which is likely a result of aquifer base flow is substituted for recharge and little to no recharge recovery from late season irrigation and some recharge from Hydrologic Investigation Report of the Rush Springs Aquifer in West-Central Oklahoma, 2015 51
Figure 44. Graph of water levels in the Cobb Creek subsurface watershed showing no influence from precipitation from December 2013 through March 2014. an early November rain event, and were not used for the coefficient of 0.049 was estimated for the Cobb Creek storage calculation. Groundwater levels declined between subsurface watershed, 0.072 for the Deer Creek subsurface the December 16, 2013, and March 24, 2014, synoptic watershed, and 0.065 for the Lake Creek subsurface measurements, which were utilized for storage estimates. watershed. The lower storage estimated for the Cobb Creek During this period, a total of 1.09 inches of precipitation subsurface watershed may be attributed to the upper watershed was recorded at the Weatherford Mesonet site, the nearest being regulated by Crowder and Worth Richmond Lakes, climate station to the groundwater basins used in this which would capture base flow from the upper reaches of method. In those 99 days, there were 7 days with measurable the watershed and effectively lower the storage estimation. precipitation of at least 0.01 inch, and 4 days with more than The range of storage values estimated by this method was of 0.01 inch. The largest event was 0.31 inch of precipitation on similar magnitude to the range of previous values calculated March 15, 2014. Water levels and base-flow hydrographs in for the Rush Springs aquifer, with results from this study the basins reflect little to no impact from these events and the ranging between 0.04-0.09. Previous work had specific yield assumption is that precipitation either exited the system as from core samples ranging between 0.13 and 0.34, and storage runoff or did not diffuse down to the aquifer as recharge. coefficients from pumping tests near Weatherford ranged The volume of aquifer drained in each subsurface between 0.0035 and 0.02 (Becker and Runkle, 1998). watershed between each groundwater-level measurement was estimated using ESRI’s ArcGIS desktop software. The volume Percent-Coarse Analysis of water drained was the base-flow component as computed by the PART program for each streamflow gauge. Dividing Another method used to determine the hydraulic the volume of water drained by the volume of aquifer drained conductivity of the Rush Springs aquifer was the percent- gave monthly storage coefficient estimates for each basin coarse analysis, which uses lithologic descriptions included and ranged from 0.047 to 0.090 (Table 11). Using the total in water well logs submitted by groundwater well drillers volume of aquifer drained and the total base flow discharged to the OWRB. This method has been utilized for bedrock between December 2013 and March 2014, an average storage and unconsolidated aquifers in Oklahoma (Mashburn and 52 Hydrologic Investigation Report of the Rush Springs Aquifer in West-Central Oklahoma, 2015 others, 2013; Ellis and others, 2017) and has given reasonable Lithologic descriptions of about 5,700 well logs were estimates of hydraulic conductivity and storage. The majority standardized to 16 simplified categories (Table 12). The of the lithologic logs used in this analysis penetrated the three categories that accounted for about 59 percent of all entire depth of the aquifer, with some penetrating below the descriptions were medium sandstone, clay, and medium base of the aquifer. sand. Cumulatively, all sandstone categories accounted for
Table 11. Storage coefficients calculated from streamflows and change in water stored in subsurface watersheds, December 2013 through March 2014.
Total baseflow Volume of aquifer Combined Basin size discharge based on drained in subsurface Storage storage Average water Subsurface (square daily gauged flow watersheds coefficient coefficient level decline watershed miles) Dates Measured (acre-feet) (acre-feet) (dimensionless) (dimensionless) (feet) Dec. 2013 - Jan. 2014 477 12,932 0.037 0.16 Cobb Creek 127.3 Jan. 2014 - Feb. 2014 519 11,042 0.047 0.05 0.14 Feb. 2014 - Mar. 2014 802 12,816 0.063 0.16 Dec. 2013 - Jan. 2014 1321 14,620 0.090 0.08 Deer Creek 280.1 Jan. 2014 - Feb. 2014 1537 28,048 0.055 0.07 0.16 Feb. 2014 - Mar. 2014 1652 20,060 0.082 0.11 Dec. 2013 - Jan. 2014 115 1,697 0.068 0.05 Lake Creek 58.9 Jan. 2014 - Feb. 2014 143 3,029 0.047 0.07 0.08 Feb. 2014 - Mar. 2014 191 2,176 0.088 0.06
Table 12. Standardized lithologic categories and estimated hydraulic conductivity and storage from lithologic logs in the Rush Springs aquifer and Cloud Chief Formation.
Lithologic distribution Rush Springs Cloud Chief Conductivity, Lithology Formation Formation in feet per day Specific yield Clay 14% 22% Shale 5% 11% Clay *6x10-4 e3% Siltstone 1% 4% Claystone 0.10% 1% Silt 5% 7% Fine sandstone 8% 8% Gypsum 3% 11% Silt *0.06 e5% Anhydrite 0% 0.50% Limestone 0% 0.10% Fine sand 6% 4% Fines +abc4 abce8% Medium sandstone 30% 12% Medium sand 16% 7% Coarse sandstone 1% 0.20% Sand *d30 e12% Topsoil 9% 11% Coarse sand 1% 1% Coarse f60 e25% Gravel 0% 1% Gravel f90 e25%
*Morrison and Johnson, 1967 d Aquifer test from Grady County Rural Water District #6 + Becker and Runkle, 1998 e Johnson, 1967 a Aquifer test from Town of Hydro f Contained less than 3 percent of lithologic description and had b Tanaka and Davis, 1963 minimal effect on conductivity for the aquifer c Davis, 1955 Hydrologic Investigation Report of the Rush Springs Aquifer in West-Central Oklahoma, 2015 53
35 percent of the lithologic descriptions. The medium sand partially eroded, total dissolved solid concentrations increase description sometimes occurred between sandstone lithologies along with higher magnesium concentrations. Specific at or below the water table, which may be caused by the conductance measurements of the groundwater collected as dissolution of calcite and gypsum cement. Lithologic logs part of this study using a Solinst model 107 Temperature- that included descriptions accounting for less than 30 percent Level-Conductivity meter showed the same trend of increasing of the total thickness of the Rush Springs aquifer at each conductivity where the Cloud Chief Formation is present. wellhead were removed. Additionally, lithologic logs with only a single lithologic description, logs with inconsistencies Groundwater Monitoring and Assessment in recorded depths, incorrect lithologies determined from comparisons with colocated wells, and unidentifiable Program (GMAP) lithologic descriptions were discarded. Lithologic logs The OWRB’s Groundwater Monitoring and Assessment completed in the alluvium and terrace deposits were removed Program (GMAP) staff collected water quality samples from from this analysis. About 4,900 lithologic logs were used to 64 well sites in 2013 (Oklahoma Water Resources Board, describe the Rush Springs Formation and 800 lithologic logs 2014b). Another sample collected at that time was included were used for the Cloud Chief Formation, which equates to in this analysis because the well penetrates the Rush Springs about one log per 0.98 and 0.63 square miles, respectively. Formation. Additional samples were collected as part of this Each lithologic log was used to estimate the hydraulic investigation from 14 well sites to achieve a better spatial properties where the well was located. distribution across the study area. Figure 45 shows a Piper The 16 simplified lithologies were grouped into 6 diagram and Table 13 shows summary statistics of data categories that represented material of the Rush Springs collected from 79 well sites. aquifer and overlying Cloud Chief Formation (Table 12), Mean total dissolved solids from all samples was 1,106 which allowed comparison across the aquifer and the milligrams per liter and ranged from 178 to 4,680 milligrams assignment of more streamlined hydraulic parameters. per liter with a median of 485 milligrams per liter. Figure Hydraulic conductivity and specific yield values were assigned 46 is a map showing spatial distribution of total dissolved to each lithologic group based on results from aquifer tests, solids in the study area with a noticeable east-to-west trend slug tests, and single-well drawdown tests, as well as values of higher concentrations where the Cloud Chief Formation found in literature. This method was expected to provide is present to lower concentrations where the Rush Springs estimations of hydraulic conductivity and specific yield Formation is exposed at land surface. There is also an area that encompasses the majority of grain sizes encountered near the towns of Cyril and Cement and to the southeast in the Rush Springs aquifer and Cloud Chief Formations. toward the town of Rush Springs that has higher total For the Rush Springs aquifer, the average and median dissolved solid concentrations that may be attributed to hydraulic conductivity was 6.30 and 4 feet per day (Table 10), respectively, with higher hydraulic conductivity values in the eastern portion of the aquifer and lower values in the western portion (Figure 39). The average and median specific yield were 0.07 and 0.08, respectively. For the Cloud Chief Formation, the average and median hydraulic conductivity was 1.6 and 0.9 feet per day, respectively. Both the average and median specific yields were 0.06. The area-weighted average hydraulic conductivity of the Rush Springs aquifer was 6.37 (Table 10), based on an interpolated raster of all hydraulic conductivity values created using the IDW method in ArcGIS.
Groundwater Quality The quality of the water from the Rush Springs aquifer has been described as fair to good, very hard, and moderately alkaline (Oklahoma Water Resources Board, 2014b) with the most common water types being calcium bicarbonate and calcium sulfate (Becker and Runkle, 1998). Groundwater in the high use areas of the aquifer (Caddo County), where the Rush Springs Formation is exposed at land surface, typically has the highest quality, which can be attributed to more precipitation recharge. To the west, where the Cloud Chief Figure 45. Piper diagram showing groundwater geochemistry Formation overlies the Rush Springs Formation or has been from 79 samples collected in the study area. 54 Hydrologic Investigation Report of the Rush Springs Aquifer in West-Central Oklahoma, 2015
Table 13. Summary statistics for groundwater-quality data for 79 samples collected from the Rush Springs aquifer.
Number of Percentile Constituent Mean Minimum Maximum samples below detection limit 25 50 75 specific conductance 1,331 321 5,830 0 526 763 2365 Temperature 19.7 15.2 24.3 0 18.8 19.6 20.6 pH 7.17 6.41 7.82 0 7.04 7.18 7.28 total dissolved solids* 1106 178 4680 0 313 485 2155 Hardness* 632.4 144 2,050 0 198 297 936 Calcium* 214.4 32.2 556 0 61.2 94.9 454.5 Magnesium* 51.2 <5 1,114 2 13.75 21 55.9 Sodium* 47.7 8.4 890 0 20.3 26.6 43.8 Potassium* 1.7 <0.5 6 2 1 1.3 2.3 Bicarbonate* 218.6 30.5 473 0 170 216 267 Sulfate* 572 <10 2,300 6 21.5 73.3 1310 Chloride* 31.2 <10 812 26 <10 13 26.6 Fluoride* 0.21 <0.2 0.52 39 <0.2 0.21 0.52 Bromide** 279.4 121 1,200 0 197 248 319.5 Silica** 27.7 11.4 53 0 24.6 26.9 30.3 Nitrate as N* 6.6 0.24 59.2 0 1.5 3.9 7.3 Phosphorous** 0.02 <0.005 0.22 53 ++ ++ 0.02 Aluminum**+ ++ <100 ++ 79 ++ ++ ++ Arsenic**+ ++ <10 16.5 75 ++ ++ ++ Barium**+ 127.1 <10 859 16 12.4 81.6 180.3 Boron**+ 169.2 <50 1,200 31 ++ 77.5 211.5 Cadmium** ++ <5 ++ 79 ++ ++ ++ Chromium** ++ <5 23.7 64 ++ ++ ++ Copper** ++ <5 15.5 72 ++ ++ ++ Iron**+ ++ <50 435 73 ++ ++ ++ Lead**+ ++ <10 19.7 78 ++ ++ ++ Manganese**+ ++ <50 60 78 ++ ++ ++ Molybdenum**+ ++ <10 26 77 ++ ++ ++ Uranium** 6.6 <1 61.2 15 1.4 3.4 6.3 Vanadium**+ 14.7 <10 40.2 22 ++ 13.7 18.5 Zinc**+ 18.3 <10 299 53 ++ ++ 15.33 ++, analyses were below analytical detection limit and statistics could not be estimated +includes analysis of samples with different detection limits Specific conductance is in microseimens per centimeter at 25° C *presented in milligrams per liter **presented in micrograms per liter Hydrologic Investigation Report of the Rush Springs Aquifer in West-Central Oklahoma, 2015 55
Figure 46. Map showing distribution of total dissolved solids and wells exceeding the EPA maximum contaminant levels for arsenic and nitrate in the study area. 56 Hydrologic Investigation Report of the Rush Springs Aquifer in West-Central Oklahoma, 2015 the alteration of the cement in the Rush Springs Formation calcium that were near or below the 25th percentile for both (Allen, 1980). constituents. The dominant cation type was calcium; 74 samples had Nitrate concentrations exceeding maximum contaminant more than 60 percent calcium, which was likely attributable levels can cause health issues, most notably, shortness of to the dissolution of calcite, dolomite, and gypsum from breath, blue baby syndrome, and fatality (Environmental diffuse precipitation recharging the aquifer. Calcium Protection Agency, 2015). The USGS reported that concentrations ranged from 32 to 556 milligrams per liter background nitrate concentrations in groundwater are with a mean of 214.4 and a median of 94.9 milligrams per generally less than 2 milligrams per liter (Mueller and Helsel, liter. The anion distribution was bimodal with carbonate/ 1996). Three major sources of nitrates were identified in the bicarbonate as the dominant anion and a secondary population Rush Springs, and inorganic fertilizer applied to cropland of sulfates. Mean bicarbonate content was 219 milligrams was determined to be the major contributor of nitrates to per liter, ranging from 30.5 to 473 milligrams per liter with the groundwater flow system (Carrell and Murray, 2012). a median of 216 milligrams per liter. Mean sulfate content The USGS reported nitrate concentrations of 28.1 and 31.5 was 572 milligrams per liter, ranging from <10.0 to 2,300 milligrams per liter in two groundwater wells upgradient milligrams per liter with a median of 124 milligrams per liter. of a wastewater lagoon near Fort Cobb Reservoir in Caddo The low median sulfate concentration compared to the mean County (Becker, 2001). Nitrate in the wells was determined indicated that a majority of the samples had lower sulfate to be sourced from commercial fertilizer. The USGS reported concentrations and that a small distribution of samples had that mean nitrate concentrations from samples in the Rush higher sulfate content. The bicarbonate/sulfate distribution Springs aquifer were 14.3 milligrams per liter, which could be an indication that characteristics of the groundwater exceeds the maximum contaminant level of 10 milligrams flow system control the groundwater chemistry of the aquifer. per liter (Becker and Runkle, 1998). The mean from samples Since gypsum breaks down easily into calcium and sulfate reported in this investigation is 6.6 milligrams per liter with ions, the expected trend is to see higher concentrations of a maximum of 59.2 milligrams per liter. Thirteen of the calcium and sulfate where the Cloud Chief Formation overlies samples reported concentrations exceeding the maximum the aquifer, or also in areas where gypsum units are within the contaminant level for nitrates (Figure 46). Rush Springs aquifer. Statistics reported for this investigation may differ from Some of the groundwater samples showed constituent data previously reported. The scope of this investigation concentrations that exceeded maximum contaminant levels includes areas farther west than the 1998 USGS study for primary drinking water regulations (Figure 46). Four where the Cloud Chief Formation overlies the Rush Springs of the samples exceeded the maximum contaminant level Sandstone, which would change the overall characterization (MCL) for arsenic of 10 micrograms per liter; the highest of the water quality from the aquifer. concentration of arsenic sampled was 16.5 micrograms per liter. Previous investigations have examined the chemical Summary concentrations in the groundwater and sources of the arsenic (Becker and Runkle, 1998; Becker and others, 2010, Haggard The Rush Springs aquifer consists of the Permian-age and others, 2003; Magers, 2011). Water quality samples from Rush Springs and Marlow Formations, which are described the 1998 USGS study indicated a statistical mean arsenic as fine-grained sandstones and siltstones with some gypsum concentration of 14.9 micrograms per liter in 64 samples, and dolomite. The study area includes 4,692 square miles which were predominantly from Caddo and Grady Counties in west-central Oklahoma, underlying portions of Blaine, (Becker and Runkle, 1998). However, the statistical 75th Caddo, Canadian, Comanche, Custer, Grady, Stephens, and percentile was 5.2 micrograms per liter, which is below Washita counties. The study area for this investigation was the drinking water standard. The USGS reported arsenic expanded from a 1998 study by the US Geological Survey to concentrations in the Rush Springs Formation ranging include two additional areas where well yields are indicative from 7.1 to 18.2 micrograms per liter (Becker and others, of a “major groundwater basin” as defined by the OWRB. The 2010). An x-ray fluorescence analyzer was used in 2011 to western boundary for this investigation was expanded further determine average arsenic concentrations in core (8.20 ppm) westward from previous investigations based on increasing and outcrop (7.62 ppm) samples, which was noted to fall total dissolved solid content and decreasing reported within the range of background samples (Magers, 2011). The groundwater use from the aquifer. The Rush Springs and mobilization of arsenic was likely caused by competing ions; Marlow formations north of the Canadian River and south phosphorous was a potential constituent due to application of the North Canadian River were included based on similar of fertilizers (Magers, 2011). Three of the 4 samples that geological and hydrological characteristics and well yields. exceeded arsenic standards had phosphorous concentrations The study area received an annual average of 28.20 below the detection limit, which may indicate that phosphate inches of precipitation from 1905–2015. Recharge occurred sorption had taken place. The 4 samples that exceeded the through diffuse precipitation and discharges through arsenic MCL also had concentrations of magnesium and groundwater withdrawals and streams, including Barnitz, Hydrologic Investigation Report of the Rush Springs Aquifer in West-Central Oklahoma, 2015 57
Cobb, Deer, and Lake Creeks. Groundwater also supplies that can be considered part of the aquifer system. Therefore, baseflow to the Canadian and Washita rivers. Recharge for this study, the Marlow Formation was included as part was estimated using the SWB code and the RORA method. of the aquifer. Average saturated thickness using the 2013 Estimates using SWB for the period 1950–2015 ranged from potentiometric map and base of aquifer is 181 feet with a 0.03 inches in 1963 to 4.63 inches in 2007 and an average maximum thickness of 432 feet. The area of greatest saturated annual recharge of 1.4 inches. RORA, which utilizes a base- thickness occurs along the axis of the Anadarko Basin where flow separation technique from streamflow gauging stations, the Cloud Chief Formation confines the Rush Springs aquifer. ranged from 0.46 inches in 2006 on the Little Washita River Hydraulic conductivity was estimated from drawdown streamflow gauge near Ninnekah to 5.76 inches in 2007 on analysis, slug tests, aquifer tests, and a percent-coarse Cobb Creek streamflow gauge near Eakly. From 1946–2015, analysis from lithologic logs. The minimum hydraulic at least one station from the study area had streamflow data to conductivity for the Rush Springs aquifer estimated from estimate recharge using RORA. drawdown data was less than 0.01 feet per day, and the Reported groundwater use from the Rush Springs aquifer maximum was 90.90 feet per day with a median of 1.63 for 1967–2015 averaged 69,900 acre-feet per year with a feet per day and a mean of 3.27 feet per day. Hydraulic median of 62,154 acre-feet per year. During this period, 91.0 conductivity estimated from slug tests ranged from 0.13 feet percent of reported groundwater use in the study area was for per day to 7.60 feet per day, with a mean of 1.70 feet per irrigation, 7.8 percent was for public water supply, and 1.2 day and median of 1.40 feet per day. Hydraulic conductivity percent was for other purposes. The highest total reported estimates from three multi-well aquifer tests were 1.60, 6.40, annual groundwater use was about 115,016 acre-feet in 2014 and 44.9 feet per day. Using lithologic logs and assigning and 133,113 acre-feet in 2015, which corresponded to drought hydraulic conductivity to lithologic descriptions, mean and conditions during these years. In 1992, only 37,210 acre-feet median hydraulic conductivity were estimated to be 6.3 and was reported, which was the lowest reported use for a single 4.0 feet per day, respectively. Transmissivity estimates for the year; however, the data for that year may be incomplete. The three multi-well aquifer tests were 219, 956, and 4,129 feet second lowest reported total use for a single year occurred in squared per day. 2007 at 40,418 acre-feet. Water use trends for the period of Specific yield was estimated from regional methods record correspond with changing precipitation patterns, with and aquifer tests. Using base flow discharge and monthly the highest groundwater use occurring during the 2010-2015 groundwater-level measurements, specific yield was drought period and the lowest groundwater use during the wet estimated in the Cobb Creek, Deer Creek, and Lake Creek period in the late 1980s and early 1990s. subsurface watersheds. For this method, the ratio of the Annual water-level measurements collected by the volume of groundwater discharged to the volume of the OWRB since the 1950s were analyzed for long-term trends. aquifer drained is the specific yield for the aquifer drained. Water-level data from 95 wells with a period of record The specific yield estimated for Cobb Creek, Deer Creek, and of greater than 12 years provided enough data to assess Lake Creek subsurface watersheds was 0.05, 0.07, and 0.07, long-term trends. Water-level trends from 54 wells were respectively. Specific yield estimated from three multi-well determined to primarily fluctuate with climate trends, aquifer tests was 0.04, 0.07, and 0.09, which correlates with showing declining water levels during drought periods and the regional method. increasing water levels during wet periods. Data from 15 The mean total dissolved solids concentration from sites showed overall increasing water levels and 17 sites 79 samples collected from the study area was 1,106 showed decreasing water levels; nine sites had indiscernible milligrams per liter. Concentrations ranged from 178 to 4,680 water levels during the period of record. Measurements at milligrams per liter with a median of 485 milligrams per the USGS well 351308098341601 had the longest period of liter. The dominant cation of the samples is calcium and the record in the study area and showed a decline of 37.52 feet dominant anion is carbonate/bicarbonate with a secondary from September 1948 to April 2015. bimodal population of sulfates, which were predominantly Lithologic descriptions from groundwater wells were collected in areas where the Cloud Chief Formation overlies used to determine the base of the aquifer. Generally most of the Rush Springs Formation. Four samples exceeded the the descriptions indicated a “red bed,” “dark red bed,” or “red maximum contaminant level for arsenic of 10 micrograms shale” at the bottom of the borehole, which was interpreted per liter; the highest concentration of arsenic sampled to be the base of the aquifer. The contact between the Rush was 16.5 micrograms per liter. Thirteen samples reported Springs and Marlow formations on geologic maps was used concentrations exceeding the maximum contaminant level for to refine the edges of the aquifer where lithologic logs were nitrates of 10 milligrams per liter; the highest concentration sparse; however, this caused the edges of the base of the of nitrate sampled was 59.2 milligrams per liter. aquifer to be at higher elevations than what was observed on the lithologic logs independently. Rock cores collected in the study area also show the Marlow Formation consisting of some coarser-grained layers capable of transmitting water 58 Hydrologic Investigation Report of the Rush Springs Aquifer in West-Central Oklahoma, 2015
Bouwer, H. and Rice, R.C., 1976, A slug test method for Selected References determining hydraulic conductivity of unconfined aquifers Al-Shaieb, Z., 1988, Hydrocarbon-induced diagenetic aureoles with completely or partially penetrating wells, Water (HIDA) at Cement-Chickasha Anticline, Oklahoma: Resources Research, vol. 12, no. 3, p. 423–428. Geological Society of America, Centennial Field Guide Brown, O.E., 1937, Unconformity at the base of Whitehorse Section, p. 103–108. Formation, Oklahoma: American Association of Petroleum Al-Shaieb, Z. and Lilburn, R.A., 1985, Geochemistry and isotopic Geologists Bulletin, vol. 21, p. 1534–1556. composition of hydrocarbon-induced diagenetic aureole Butler, Jr., J.J., and Healy, J.M., 1998, Relationship between (HIDA), Cement Field Oklahoma: The Shale Shaker Digest pumping-test and slug-test parameters: Scale effect or XI, p. 46–72. artifact?: Groundwater, vol. 36, no. 2, p. 305–313. Allen, F.W., 1953, Weatherford water: Oklahoma Academy of Carr J.E. and Bergman D.L., 1976, Hydrologic Atlas 5: Science Proceedings 1953, vol. 34, p. 139–143 Reconnaissance of the water resources of the Clinton Allen, R.F., 1980, Uranium potential of the Cement District, Quadrangle, West-Central Oklahoma. southwestern Oklahoma: Oklahoma State University master’s Carrell, J.R. and Murray, K.E., 2012, Comparison of fertilizer, thesis, Stillwater, Oklahoma, p. 84. concentrated animal feeding operation, and septic tank AQTESOLV, Slug Tests: Aquifer Testing 101. HydroSOLVE Inc., effluent impacts on nitrogen concentration of the Rush accessed December 12, 2014, at http://www.aqtesolv.com/ Springs aquifer, 2012 Oklahoma Water Resources Research slug-tests/slug-tests.htm. Symposium Abstract. Arndt , D. S., Basara, J.B., McPherson, R.A., Illston, B.G., Chang, J.M. and Stanley, T.M., 2010, Geologic map of the Pauls McManus, G.D., and Demko, D.B., 2009, Observations of Valley 30’ X 60’ quadrangle (Preliminary), Carter, Cleveland, the overland reintensification of Tropical Storm Erin (2007). Garvin, Grady, McClain, Murray, Pottawatomie, and Stephens Bulletin of the American Meteorology Society, vol. 90, no. 8, Counties, Oklahoma: Oklahoma Geological Quadrangle 81, p. 1079–1093. scale 1:100,000. Bass, N.W., 1939, Verden Sandstone of Oklahoma—an exposed Christenson, S., Osborn, N.I., Neel, C.R., Faith, J.R., Blome, shoestring sand of Permian age: Bulletin of the American C.D., Puckette, J., and Pantea, M.P., 2011, Hydrogeology and Association of Petroleum Geologists, vol. 23, no. 4, p. simulation of groundwater flow in the Arbuckle-Simpson 559–581. aquifer, south-central Oklahoma: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2011-5029, 104 p. Becker, C.J., 2001, Ground-water quality, levels, and flow direction near Fort Cobb Reservoir, Caddo County, Cleveland, W.S. and Devlin, S.J., 1988, Locally weighted Oklahoma, 1998–2000: USGS Water Resources regression: An approach to regression analysis by local Investigations Report 01-4076, 20 p. fitting: Journal of the American Statistical Association, vol. 83, no. 403, p. 596–610. Becker, M.F., 1998, Steady-state simulation of ground-water flow in the Rush Springs Aquifer, western Oklahoma: USGS Water Cooper, H.H. and Jacob, C.E., 1946, A generalized graphical Resources Investigations Report 98-4082, 74 p. method for evaluating formation constants and summarizing well field history: American Geophysics Union Transactions, Becker, M.F. and Runkle, D.L., 1998, Hydrology, water quality, vol. 27, p. 526–534. and geochemistry of the Rush Springs aquifer, western Oklahoma: USGS Water-Resources Investigations Report Cragin, F.W., 1897, Observations on the Cimarron Series: 98-4081, 37 p. American Geologist, vol. 19, p. 361–363. Becker, C.J., Smith, S.J., Greer, J.R., and Smith, K.A., 2010, Cunningham, W.L. and Schalk, C.W., 2011, Groundwater Arsenic-related water quality with depth and water quality of Technical Procedures of the U.S. Geological Survey: U.S. well-head samples from production wells, Oklahoma, 2008: Geological Survey Techniques and Methods 1-A1, p. U.S. Geological Scientific Investigations Report 2010-5047, 145–151. 38 p. Curtis, N.M., Ham, W.E., and Johnson, K.S., 2008, Geomorphic Belden, M. H., 2000, El Reno, Fairview, Isabella, and Loyal Minor Provinces of Oklahoma: Oklahoma Geological Survey Groundwater Basins in Central Oklahoma: OWRB Technical Educational Publication 9, 6 p. Report 2000-1, 21 p. Davis, L.V., 1950, Ground water in the Pond Creek basin, Caddo Benison, K.C. and Goldstein, R.H., 2002, Recognizing acid lakes County, Oklahoma: Oklahoma Geological Survey Mineral and groundwaters in the rock record: Sedimentary Geology, report no. 22, 23 p. vol. 151, p. 177–185. Davis, L.V., 1955, Geology and ground water resources of Grady Benison, K.C., Goldstein, R.H., Wopenka, B., Burruss, R.C., and and northern Stephens counties, Oklahoma: Oklahoma Pasteris, J.D., 1998, Extremely acid Permian lakes and ground Geological Survey Bulletin, vol. 73, p. 1–184. waters in North America: Nature, vol. 392, p. 911–914. Domenico, P.A., and Schwartz, F.W., 1998, Physical and chemical Bingham, R.H., and Moore, R.L., 1975, Reconnaissance of the hydrogeology (2d ed.): New York, N.Y., John Wiley & Sons, water resources of the Oklahoma City quadrangle, central Inc., 528 p. Oklahoma: Oklahoma Geological Survey Hydrologic Atlas 4, scale 1:250,000, 4 sheets. Hydrologic Investigation Report of the Rush Springs Aquifer in West-Central Oklahoma, 2015 59
Donovan, T.J., 1974, Petroleum microseepage at Cement, Haggard, B.E, Masoner, J.R., Becker, C.J., 2003, Percentile Oklahoma; evidence and mechanism: Bulletin of the distributions of median nitrite plus nitrate as nitrogen, total American Association of Petroleum Geologists, vol. 58, p. nitrogen, and total phosphorus concentrations in Oklahoma 429–446. streams, 1973–2001: U.S. Geological Survey Water Resources Investigations Report 03-4084, 30 p. Duffield, G.M., 2007, AQTESOLV for Windows aquifer test analysis software, professional edition: Reston, Virginia, Ham, W.E., Merritt, C.A. and Frederickson, E.A., 1957, Field HydroSOLVE, Inc, version 4.5. conference on geology of the Wichita Mountain region in southwestern Oklahoma, May 2–4, 1957: Oklahoma Ellis, J.H., Mashburn, S.L., Graves, G.M., Peterson, S.M., Smith, Geological Survey Guidebook 5, 58 p. S.J., Fuhrig, L. T., Wagner, D.L., and Sanford, J. E., 2016, Hydrogeology and simulation of groundwater flow and Ham, W.E. and Curtis, N.M., 1958, Gypsum in the Weatherford- analysis of projected water use for the Canadian River alluvial Clinton district, Oklahoma: Oklahoma Geological Survey aquifer, western and central Oklahoma: U.S. Geological Mineral Report 35, 32 p. Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2016-5180, 64 p. Ham, W.E. and Wilson, J.L., 1967, Paleozoic epeirogeny and Environmental Protection Agency, 2015, Basic information about orogeny in the central United States: American Journal of nitrate in drinking water, accessed February 8, 2015, at http:// Science, vol. 265, p. 332–407. water.epa.gov/drink/contaminants/basicinformation/nitrate. cfm#three. Hargreaves, G.H. and Samani, Z.A., 1985, Reference crop evapotranspiration from temperature: Applied Engineering in Evans, N.O., 1928, Stratigraphy of the Weatherford area, Agriculture, vol. 1, no. 2, p. 96–99. Oklahoma: American Association of Petroleum Geologists Bulletin, vol. 11, no. 7, p. 705–714. Hart, Jr., D.L., 1974, Reconnaissance of the water resources of the Ardmore and Sherman quadrangles, southern Oklahoma: Evans, O.F., 1949, The origin of the Verden sandstone of Oklahoma Geological Survey Hydrologic Atlas 3. Oklahoma: Journal of Sedimentary Petrology, vol. 19, no. 2, p. 87–94. Havens, J.S., 1977, Reconnaissance of the water resources of the Lawton quadrangle southwestern Oklahoma: Oklahoma Fay, R.O., 1962, Stratigraphy and general geology of Blaine Geological Survey Hydrologic Atlas 6. County, in Geology and mineral resources of Blaine County, Oklahoma: Oklahoma Geological Survey, Bulletin 89, 140 p. Healy, R.W. and Cook, P.G., 2002, Using groundwater levels to estimate recharge: Hydrogeology Journal, vol. 10, p. 91. Fay, R.O., 1964, The Blaine and related formations of northwestern Oklahoma and southern Kansas: Oklahoma Helsel, D.R. and Hirsch, R.M., 2002, Statistical methods in water Geological Survey Bulletin 98, 238 p. resources. Techniques of water-resources investigations: U.S. Geological Survey, Book 4, Chapter A3, 522 p. Fay, R.O., 1965, Geology and mineral resources of Woods County, Oklahoma: Oklahoma Geological Survey Bulletin 106, 189 p. Hvorslev, M.J., 1951, Time lag and soil permeability in ground- water observations: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Waterways Fay, R.O., 2010A, Preliminary geologic map of the Foss Reservoir Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi, Bulletin 36, p. 30’ X 60’ quadrangle, Beckham, Custer, Dewey, Ellis, and 1–50. Roger Mills Counties, Oklahoma: Oklahoma Geologic Quadrangle 78A, scale 1:100,000. Jacob, C.E., 1940, On the flow of water in an elastic artesian aquifer: American Geophysics Union Transactions, 1940, pt. Fay, R.O., 2010B, Preliminary geologic map of the Watonga 30’ 2, p. 574–586. x 60’ quadrangle, Blaine, Caddo, Canadian, Custer, Dewey, and Kingfisher Counties, Oklahoma: Oklahoma Geological Johnson, A.I., 1967, Compilation of specific yield for various Quadrangle 77A, scale 1:100,000. materials, U.S. Geological Survey Water-Supply Paper 1662- D, 74 p. Fay, R. O. and Hart, D. L., 1978, Geology and mineral resources (exclusive of petroleum) of Custer County, Oklahoma: Johnson, K.S., 2008, Geologic History of Oklahoma: Oklahoma Oklahoma Geological Survey Bulletin 114, 88 p. Geological Survey Educational Publication 9, 6 p. Ferrari, R.L., 1994, Fort Cobb Reservoir: 1993 sedimentation Johnson, K.S., Runkle, D.L., and Becker, M.F., 1991, survey, 33 p. Hydrogeology of the Rush Springs-Marlow aquifer in the Anadarko Basin, west-central Oklahoma, U.S.A, in H. Flynn, R.H., and Tasker, G.D., 2004, Generalized estimates Ventriss, ed., Proceedings of the International Conference on from streamflow data of annual and seasonal ground-water Groundwater in Large Sedimentary Basins, vol. 20: Canberra, recharge rates for drainage basins in New Hampshire: U.S. A.C.T., Australia. Australian Water Resources Council, p. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2004- 100–109. 5019, 61 p. Johnson, K.S., Stanley, T.M., and Miller, G.W., 2003, Geologic Gould, C.N., 1905, Geology and Water Resources of Oklahoma: map of the Elk City 30’ X 60’ quadrangle, Beckham, Custer, U.S. Geological Survey Water-Supply and Irrigation Paper Greer, Harmon, Kiowa, Roger Mills, and Washita Counties, no. 148, 178 p. Oklahoma: Oklahoma Geological Quadrangle 44, scale 1:100,000. Green, D.A., 1936, Permian and Pennsylvania sediments exposed in central and west-central Oklahoma: Bulletin of the American Association of Petroleum Geologists, vol. 20, p. 1454–1475. 60 Hydrologic Investigation Report of the Rush Springs Aquifer in West-Central Oklahoma, 2015
Jordan, L. and Vosburg, D.L., 1963, Permian salt and associated Oklahoma Climatological Survey, 2013, Monthly Summaries: evaporites in the Anadarko Basin of the western Oklahoma- accessed June 6, 2016, at http://climate.ok.gov/summaries/ Texas Panhandle region: Oklahoma Geological Survey monthly/2013/MCS_February_2013.pdf. Bulletin 102, 71 p. Oklahoma Climatological Survey, 2014a, Map of Oklahoma Kirkland, D.W. and Rooney, M.A., 1995, Diagenetic alteration of climate divisions: accessed October 2014, at http://climate. Permian strata at oil fields of south central Oklahoma, USA: ok.gov/index.php/climate/map/map_of_oklahoma_climate_ Marine and Petroleum Geology, vol. 12, no. 6, p. 629–644. divisions/oklahoma_south-central_u.s. Lohman, S.W., 1972, Ground-water hydraulics: U.S. Geological Oklahoma Climatological Survey, 2014b, Climate of Oklahoma: Survey Professional Paper 708, p. 70. accessed October 2014, at http://climate.ok.gov/index.php/ site/page/climate_of_oklahoma. Lurry, D.L. and Tortorelli, R.L., 1995, Estimated freshwater withdrawals in Oklahoma, 1990: U.S. Geological Survey Oklahoma Climatological Survey, 2014c, Normal annual Water-Resources Investigations Report 95-4276, 2 sheets. temperature: accessed October 2014, at http://climate. ok.gov/index.php/climate/map/mean_annual_temperature2/ MacLaughlin, M.E., 1967, Paleotectonic investigation of the oklahoma_south-central_u.s. Permian System in the United States, (E) Oklahoma: U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 515-E, p. 85–92. Oklahoma Climatological Survey, 2014d, Average number of days with highs above 90 F: accessed October 2014, at http:// Magers, J.S., 2011, Occurrence of arsenic in the Rush Springs climate.ok.gov/index.php/climate/map/average_number_of_ Sandstone and its implications on groundwater chemistry: days_with_highs_above_90f/oklahoma_south-central_u.s. Caddo County, Oklahoma: Oklahoma State University master’s thesis, Stillwater, Oklahoma, p. 50. Oklahoma Climatological Survey, 2014e, Average number of days with highs below 32 F: accessed October 2014, at http:// Marsh, S., 2016, Comprehensive Fault Map of Oklahoma, climate.ok.gov/index.php/climate/map/average_number_of_ accessed June 26, 2017, at http://ogs.ou.edu/docs/openfile/ days_with_highs_below_32f/oklahoma_south-central_u.s. OF2-2016P1.pdf. Oklahoma Climatological Survey, 2016, Daily time series using Mashburn, S.L., Ryter, D.W., Neel, C.R., Smith, S.J, and Magers, cooperative observer (COOP) data: accessed July 6, 2016 at J.S., 2013. Hydrogeology and simulation of groundwater http://climate.ok.gov/cgi-bin/public/climate.timeseries.one. flow in the Central Oklahoma (Garber-Wellington) Aquifer, cgi. Oklahoma, 1987 to 2009, and simulation of available water in storage: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Oklahoma Mesonet, 2014, Daily data retrieval, accessed Report 2013-5219, 92 p. November 12, 2014, at http://www.mesonet.org/index.php/ weather/daily_data_retrieval. Miller, G.W. and Stanley, T.M., 2004, Geologic map of the Anadarko 30’ x 60’ quadrangle, Caddo, Canadian, Custer, Oklahoma Mesonet, 2016, About the Oklahoma Mesonet, Grady, Kiowa, and Washita Counties, Oklahoma: Oklahoma accessed September 13, 2016, at http://www.mesonet.org/ Geological Quadrangle 58, scale 1:100,000. index.php/site/about. Moore, H. and Snider, L.B., 1928, Stratigraphy of the Weatherford Oklahoma Statutes Title 82 Section 1020.1, 2011, Definitions. Area, Oklahoma Discussion: American Association of Petroleum Geologists Bulletin, vol. 12, no. 10, p. 1024–1026. Oklahoma Water Resources Board, 1966, Groundwater in the Rush Springs Sandstone, Caddo County Area, OWRB Morris, D.A. and Johnson, A.I., 1967, Summary of hydrologic and Publication no. 15, 25 p. physical properties of rock and soil materials, as analyzed by the Hydrogeologic Laboratory of the U.S. Geological Survey, Oklahoma Water Resources Board, 2011, Oklahoma 1948–1960, U.S. Geological Survey Water-Supply Paper Comprehensive Water Plan west-central watershed planning 1839-D, 42 p. region draft report, 84 p. Morton, R.B., 1980, Reconnaissance of the water resources of the Oklahoma Water Resources Board, 2012, Data and Maps— Woodward quadrangle, northwestern Oklahoma: Oklahoma Groundwater: Oklahoma Water Resources Board web page, Geological Survey Hydrologic Atlas 7. accessed June 2012 at http://www.owrb.ok.gov/maps/PMG/ owrbdata_GW.html. Mueller, D.K. and Helsel, D.R., 1996, Nutrients in the nation’s waters—too much of a good thing?: U.S. Geological Survey Oklahoma Water Resources Board, 2014a, Taking and use of Circular 1136, 15 p. groundwater, Title 785, Chapter 30: accessed September 14, 2016, at http://www.owrb.ok.gov/util/rules/pdf_rul/current/ National Weather Service, 2014, What is the COOP Program?, Ch30.pdf. accessed November 2014, at http://www.weather.gov/om/ coop/what-is-coop.html. Oklahoma Water Resources Board, 2014b, 2013 Oklahoma groundwater report: Beneficial Use Monitoring Program, 82 Nelson, M.R., 1983, Areal geology of Cement-Cyril area, p. southeastern Caddo County, Oklahoma: University of Oklahoma master’s thesis, Norman, Oklahoma, 64 p. Oklahoma Water Resources Board, 2015, Data and Maps— Groundwater: Oklahoma Water Resources Board web page, O’Brien, B.E., 1963, Geology of east-central Caddo County, accessed August 2012 at http://www.owrb.ok.gov/maps/PMG/ Oklahoma: University of Oklahoma master’s thesis, Norman, owrbdata_GW.html. Oklahoma, 72 p. Hydrologic Investigation Report of the Rush Springs Aquifer in West-Central Oklahoma, 2015 61
Peltier Tech, 2009, LOESS Utility for Excel, accessed July 21, Stanley, T.M., 2002, Geologic map of the Woodward 30’ x 60’ 2014, at http://peltiertech.com/loess-utility-for-excel. quadrangle, Ellis, Dewey, Roger Mills, and Woodward Counties, Oklahoma: Oklahoma Geological Quadrangle 40, Penderson, L.R., 1999, Steady-state simulation of ground-water scale 1:100,000. flow in the Rush Springs Aquifer, Cobb Creek Basin, Caddo County, Oklahoma: Oklahoma State University master’s Stanley, T.M. and Miller, G.W., 2004, Geologic map of the thesis, Stillwater, Oklahoma, 520 p. Anadarko 30’ X 60’ quadrangle, Caddo, Canadian, Custer, Grady, Kiowa, and Washita Counties, Oklahoma: Oklahoma Perry, W.J., 1989, Tectonic evolution of the Anadarko basin: U.S. Geological Quadrangle 58, scale 1:100,000. Geological Survey Bulletin 1866-A, 19 p. Stanley, T.M. and Miller, G.W, 2005, Geologic map of the Poland, Z.A., 2011, Sedimentology of the Rush Springs Sandstone Lawton 30’ X 60’ quadrangle, Caddo, Comanche, Cotton, (Permian/Guadalupian), western Oklahoma: evidence of Grady, Kiowa, Stephens, and Tillman Counties, Oklahoma: an erg-erg margin depositional system: Oklahoma State Oklahoma Geological Quadrangle 63, scale 1:100,000. University master’s thesis, Stillwater, Oklahoma, 69 p. Stanley, T.M., Miller, G.W., and Suneson, N.H., 2002, Geologic Reed, R.D. and Meland, N., 1924, The Verden Sandstone: Journal map of the Fairview 30’ x 60’ quadrangle, Alfalfa, Blaine, of Geology, vol. 32, p. 150–167. Dewey, Garfield, Kingfisher, Major, Woods, and Woodward Roles, J.S., 1976, Ground water resources of the Rush Springs Counties, Oklahoma: Oklahoma Geological Quadrangle 41, Sandstone of southwestern Oklahoma: Oklahoma Water scale 1:100,000. Resources Board Hydrologic Investigations Publication 72, Suneson, N.H. and Johnson, K.S., 1996, Geology of Red Rock scale 1:250,000, 3 sheets. Canyon State Park: Oklahoma Geology Notes, vol. 56, p. Rorabaugh, M.I., 1964, Estimating changes in bank storage 88–105. and ground-water contribution to streamflow: Extract of Tanaka, H.H. and Davis, L.V., 1963, Ground-water resources publication 63 of the I.A.S.H. Symposium Surface Waters, p. of the Rush Springs Sandstone in the Caddo County area, 432–441. Oklahoma: Oklahoma Geological Survey Circular 61, 33 p. Reeves, F., 1921, Geology of the Cement Oil Field, Caddo County, Theis, C.V., 1935, The relation between the lowering of the Oklahoma: U.S. Geological Survey Bulletin 726, 51 p. piezometric surface and the rate and duration of discharge Risser, D.W., Conger, R.W., Ulrich, J.E., and Asmussen, of a well using groundwater storage, American Geophysical M.P., 2005, Estimates of ground-water recharge based Union Transaction, vol. 16, p. 519–524. on streamflow-hydrograph methods: Pennsylvania: U.S. U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, 2006, Concluding appraisal report: Geological Survey Open-File Report 2005-1333, 30 p. conveyance system expansion, Fort Cobb Division, Washita Rutledge, A.T., 1998, Computer programs for describing the Basin Project, Oklahoma, 30 p. recession of ground-water discharge and for estimating Wenzel, L.K. and Fishel, V.C., 1942, Methods for determining mean ground-water recharge and discharge from streamflow permeability of water-bearing materials: U.S. Geological records—update: U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources Survey Water-Supply Paper 887, 192 p. Investigations Report 98-4148, 43 p. Wenzel, L.K., and Greenlee, A.L., 1944, A method for determining Rutledge, A.T., and Mesko, T.O., 1996, Estimated hydrologic transmissibility and storage coefficients by tests of multiple characteristics of shallow aquifer systems in the Valley and well systems: American Geophysics Union Transactions, Ridge, the Blue Ridge, and the Piedmont Physiographic 1943, pt. 2, p. 547–560. Provinces based on analysis of streamflow recession and base flow: U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 1422-B, 58 Westenbroek, S.M., Kelson, V.A., Dripps, W.R., Hunt, R.J., and p. Bradbury, K.R., 2010, SWB – A modified Thornthwaite- Mather soil-water-balance code for estimating groundwater Sawyer, R.W., 1924, Areal geology of a part of southwestern recharge: U.S. Geological Survey Techniques and Methods, Oklahoma: Bulletin of the American Association of Petroleum Book 6, chap. A31, 60 p. Geologists, vol. 8, no. 3, p. 318–319. Ziegler, P.A. 1990. Geological atlas of Western and Central Sawyer, R.W., 1929, Oil and gas in Oklahoma; Kiowa and Washita Europe. 2nd edition, Shell International Petroleum Mij. B.V., Counties: Oklahoma Geological Survey Bulletin 40-HH, 15 p. distributed by Geological Society, London, Publishing House, Sayre, A.N., 1955, Redefinition of coefficient of storage: U.S. Bath, 239 p. Geological Survey Ground Water Branch Memorandum 55.28. Scanlon, B.R., Healy, R.W., Cook, P.G., 2002, Choosing appropriate techniques for quantifying groundwater recharge: Hydrogeology Journal, vol. 10, p. 18–39. Schilling, K.E., 2009, Hydrological processes inferred from water table fluctuations, Walnut Creek, Iowa: University of Iowa, master’s thesis, Iowa City, Iowa, 172 p.
BUSINESS AGENDA B-6
BMIA Agenda Item No. B-6 Business Item
DATE: 23 March 2021
FROM: Robert L. Floyd, City Manager
ITEM: Water Pressure Testing - Policy ______
BACKGROUND: Trustee Scalf has requested that the City thru the Authority test the water pressure on houses that are experiencing low volumn and/or low water pressure especially if our overall system is operating at adequate and sufficient pressure and experiencing no problems.
The City Engineer has provided a method for testing, if desired by the Council/Trustees.
FISCAL IMPACT: To be determined.
ACTION REQUESTED: Discussion and vote on a motion to ADOPT a policy for water pressure testing in accordance with the City Engineer’s recommendations.
EXHIBITS: City Engineer Email dtd 3/13/21.
1 | P a g e Staff Report No. 6 23 March 2021
Robert Floyd
Fwd: Water Pressure Testing
Kenneth Sullivan
Robert,
My recommendation for water pressure testing is simple. Since most of the complaints are in the Old Town area, a FH should be within a block of all residents.
When the City receives a complaint,
1. Measure the pressure on an outside faucet of the subject property. 2. Have property owner turn on a faucet inside and measure pressure again. 3. Measure the pressure on the nearest fire hydrant. 4. Compare the numbers. 5. If all numbers are low, check water level of towers.
Kenny Sullivan 405-802-8004
Begin forwarded message:
From: Michael Scalf Sr
Robert,
I would like for the proposed water pressure testing procedure to be on the BMIA Agenda on the 23rd. I talked to Kenny about it at the last meeting and mentioned that we need to get this in place before we get into the spring and especially summer. With it being targeted toward homes with chronic pressure issues, we know that most of those are older homes. By getting this going, we will deflect most of the criticism away from the city’s fault and force home owners to address the real problem, old corroded supply lines from the meter to the house.
Michael Scalf Sr Veterans Memorial Chairman
Blanchard City Council
Ward 2
405-815-7806
www.michaelscalf.com
CONSENT AGENDA
CONSENT AGENDA C-1
MINUTES
BLANCHARD MUNICIPAL IMPROVEMENT AUTHORITY
BOARD OF TRUSTEES
CONDUCTED A
REGULAR MEETING ON
TUESDAY, 23 FEBUARY 2021
6:00 P.M.
IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWING THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING
This Agenda was posted in prominent public view on the City’s website at www.cityofblanchard.us on or before 5:00 p.m., Friday, February 19th, 2021, in accordance with the Oklahoma Open Meeting Act.
Diana Daniels for City Clerk
1 | Page Board of Trustees Minutes 23 February 2021
A. MEETING CONVENED 1. CALL TO ORDER @ 7:06 p.m. by Chairman. 2. ROLL CALL: Jim Cloud, Trustee ~ Present Michael Scalf, Trustee ~ Present Albert Ryans, Trustee ~ Present Steve Misenheimer, Vice Chairman ~ Present Eddie Odle, Chairman ~ Present 3. DETERMINATION OF QUORUM: 5 ~ PRESENT; 0 ~ ABSENT
STAFF ATTENDANCE: Diana Daniels, Secretary Kenny Sullivan, Trust Engineer David L. Perryman, Trust Attorney Robert L. Floyd, Trust Manager
MEDIA: None.
B. BUSINESS AGENDA The following item(s) are hereby designated for discussion, consideration and take INDIVIDUAL action as deemed appropriate to:
1. BID STATUS. Discussion of the construction of sanitary sewer and water main extension bids to serve Braums.
No Action Taken. Information Only.
C. CONSENT AGENDA The following item(s) are hereby designated for approval, acceptance or acknowledgment by one motion, SUBJECT to any conditions included therein. If any item(s) do not meet with the approval of all members, that item(s) will be heard in regular order:
1. APPROVAL of the regular meeting minutes of 26 January 2021. 2. ACKNOWLEDGE payment of FYE2021 Claims/Expenditures per fund in the total amount of $352,181.11. 3. ACKNOWLEDGE payment of 2021 Payroll in the total amount of $31,053.07. 4. ACCEPTANCE of the January 2021 Treasury Report. 2 | Page Board of Trustees Agenda 23 February 2021
MOTION BY Trustee Scalf and SECOND BY Trustee Cloud … to approve Consent Agenda, as presented.
MOTION CARRIED: 5 ~ AYES: Cloud, Scalf, Ryans, Misenheimer, Odle 0 ~ NAYS: None 0 ~ ABSENT: None
D. CONSENT ITEM REMOVAL Discussion, consideration and take appropriate action re: any item(s) removed from the Consent Docket.
None.
E. PUBLIC COMMENTS From the general public [limited to 3-minutes per speaker] for a total of 15-minutes on Utility related NON-AGENDA items. Preference will be given to Blanchard ratepayers and NO FORMAL ACTION will be taken.
None.
F. TRUSTEE/STAFF COMMENTS This item is listed to provide an opportunity for the Board of Trustees and/or city staff to make comments and/or request specific agenda items. NO ACTION will be taken.
None.
G. ADJOURNMENT CALLED @ 7:11 pm.
______Chairman
3 | Page Board of Trustees Minutes 23 February 2021
ATTEST: (BMIA Seal)
______Secretary
4 | Page Board of Trustees Agenda 23 February 2021
CONSENT AGENDA C-2
Tue Mar 16, 2021 2:30 PM CLAIMS REPORT Page 4 Check Range: 2/16/2021- 3/15/2021
VENDOR CHECK VENDOR NAME REFERENCE AMOUNT TOTAL CHECK# DATE
BMIA ACE HARDWARE MISC. SUPPLIES (OPEN PO) 92.96 3609 3/09/21 AMERICAN ELECTRIC POWER ELECTRIC SERVICES (BULK) 97.73 3588 2/24/21 AMERICAN FIDELITY ASSURANCE FLEX SPENDING 33.32 30231 2/26/21 AMERICAN FIDELITY ASSURANCE AFA LT DISABILI 197.86 30233 2/26/21 AMERICAN ELECTRIC POWER ELECTRIC SERVICES (OPEN PO) 165.98 3589 2/24/21 AMERICAN ELECTRIC POWER ELECTRIC SERVICES (OPEN PO) 249.63 3590 2/24/21 AMERICAN ELECTRIC POWER ELECTRIC SERVICES (OPEN PO) 58.12 3591 2/24/21 AMERICAN ELECTRIC POWER ELECTRIC SERVICES (OPEN PO) 1,615.14 3592 2/24/21 AMERICAN ELECTRIC POWER ELECTRIC SERVICES (OPEN PO0 41.29 2,130.16 3593 2/24/21 AMERICAN WATERWORKS SUPPLY INC !' METER SETTER, LARGE METER B 437.00 3594 2/24/21 BLANCHARD BUILDING CENTER MISC. SUPPLIES (OPEN PO) 38.98 3610 3/09/21 BLUEMENTHAL HEAVY DUTY TRANSIMSSION REPLACEMENT 3,664.76 3611 3/09/21 CARLSON & BROWN ENTERPRISES BORE FOR E 319 N MADISON WATER 450.00 3595 2/24/21 CARLSON & BROWN ENTERPRISES BORE WATER TAP(3141 NE 10TH) 400.00 850.00 3596 2/24/21 CITY OF BLANCHARD INS FUND HEALTH INSURANC 1,191.42 30235 2/26/21 CITY OF NEWCASTLE WATER PURCHASES (OPEN PO) 265.55 3597 2/24/21 CITY OF NEWCASTLE WATER PURCHASES (OPEN PO) 4,344.85 4,610.40 3612 3/09/21 CITY OF OKLAHOMA CITY WATER PURCHASES (OPEN PO) 49,927.39 21036005 2/25/21 CORNER COPY & PRINTING, LLC LONG SLEEVE SHIRTS FOR PUBLIC 395.96 3613 3/09/21 CRAWFORD & ASSOCIATES ACCOUNTING SERVICES (OPEN PO) 2,574.00 3598 2/24/21 FIRST NATIONAL BANK & TRUST CO LOAN PMT-435.36 WATER METER TR 435.36 3614 3/09/21 FIRST NATIONAL BANK & TRUST CO LOAN PMT-468.44 NEW TRUCK 468.44 903.80 3615 3/09/21 GELLCO BOOTS (TRENT) 150.00 3616 3/09/21 THE HARTFORD GROUP BENEFITS HARTFORD LIFE 5.79 30356 3/12/21 INDUSTRIAL COMM ENTERPRISES SEWER LINES@ 801 N VAN BUREN 695.20 3617 3/09/21 INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE FED/FICA TAX 3,538.52 10096841 2/26/21 INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE FED/FICA TAX 3,834.98 7,373.50 10096843 3/12/21 LOVE, BEAL & NIXON, P.C. Garnishment 100.00 30237 2/26/21 LOVE, BEAL & NIXON, P.C. Garnishment 100.00 200.00 30358 3/12/21 NATIONWIDE RETIREMENT RETIREMENT 401a 938.01 30227 2/26/21 NATIONWIDE RETIREMENT RETIREMENT 401a 981.47 1,919.48 30353 3/12/21 O'REILLY AUTO PARTS 10.00- 21036006 2/25/21 O'REILLY AUTO PARTS MISC PARTS & SUPPLIES 117.88 21036007 2/25/21 O'REILLY AUTO PARTS MISC PARTS & SUPPLIES 101.16 21036008 2/25/21 O'REILLY AUTO PARTS MISC PARTS & SUPPLIES 279.80 488.84 21036009 2/25/21 OK WATER 6x SPRINKLER HEADS-LAND 12,730.44 3599 2/24/21 OKLAHOMA ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE ELECTRIC SERVICES(OPEN PO) 287.00 3600 2/24/21 OKLAHOMA ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE ELECTRIC SERVICES (OPEN PO) 1,248.74 1,535.74 3601 2/24/21 OKLAHOMA NATURAL GAS GAS SERVICES (OPEN PO) 50.76 3602 2/24/21 OKLAHOMA NATURAL GAS GAS SERVICES (OPEN PO) 285.33 336.09 3603 2/24/21 OKLAHOMA TAX COMMISSION STATE TAX 454.57 10096840 2/26/21 OKLAHOMA TAX COMMISSION STATE TAX 499.57 954.14 10096842 3/12/21 OMES INSERT FOR MONTHLY BILLS (OPEN 316.23 3604 2/24/21 OMES POSTAGE FOR STATEMENT (OPEN 1,603.26 3605 2/24/21 OMES INSERT FOR MONTHLY BILLS (OPEN 315.02 3618 3/09/21 OMES POSTAGE FOR STATEMENT (OPEN 1,663.51 3,898.02 3619 3/09/21 NATIONWIDE RETIREMENT SOLUTION 457 DEF COMP 163.21 30225 2/26/21 NATIONWIDE RETIREMENT SOLUTION 457 DEF COMP 163.21 326.42 30352 3/12/21 PIONEER SECURITY SYSTEMS SECURITY SERVICES (OPEN PO) 24.95 3620 3/09/21 ROBERTS TOWING TOW PUBLIC WORKS TRUCK TO 601 200.00 3621 3/09/21 SAM'S CLUB DIRECT MISC. SUPPLIES (OPEN PO) 115.35 21036010 2/25/21 SPANGLER SMASHING, LLC TRASH COMPACTING (OPEN PO) 1,540.00 3622 3/09/21 TCS CONSTRUCTION NOTE 2019-NEW FIRE STATION 112,475.53 3663 3/09/21
APCLAIRP 12.08.20 City of Blanchard OK OPER: TR Tue Mar 16, 2021 2:30 PM CLAIMS REPORT Page 5 Check Range: 2/16/2021- 3/15/2021
VENDOR CHECK VENDOR NAME REFERENCE AMOUNT TOTAL CHECK# DATE
UTS (27) MXU'S 4,320.00 3623 3/09/21 UTS (24) 3/4 METERS 4,300.00 3624 3/09/21 UTS (1) 2' METER 820.00 9,440.00 3627 3/11/21 VERIZON WIRELESS CELL PHONE SERVICE (OPEN PO) 205.72 3606 2/24/21 VERIZON WIRELESS CELL PHONE SERVICE (OPEN PO) 205.72 411.44 3625 3/09/21 VERIZON WIRELESS SCADA/TELEMETRY SIM CARD 39.06 3607 2/24/21 VERIZON WIRELESS SCADA/TELEMETRY SIM CARD 39.06 78.12 3626 3/09/21 WASTE CONNECTIONS OF CHICKASHA TRASH SERVICES (OPEN PO) 59,963.70 3608 2/24/21 ------205 BMIA TOTAL 282,008.49
APCLAIRP 12.08.20 City of Blanchard OK OPER: TR Tue Mar 16, 2021 2:30 PM CLAIMS REPORT Page 10 CLAIMS FUND SUMMARY
FUND NAME AMOUNT
205 BMIA 282,008.49 ------TOTAL FUNDS 282,008.49
APCLAIRP 12.08.20 City of Blanchard OK OPER: TR
CONSENT AGENDA C-3
BMIA Salary and Fringe Benefits Monthly Payroll - FEB/MAR 2021 # of Payrolls: 2 Payroll 1 Payroll 2 2/26/2021 3/12/2021 Total (month) BMIA Admin (20) $ 8,352.08 $ 8,885.22 $ 17, 237.30 Water(21) $ 4,436.99 $ 4,541.02 $ 8,978.01 Sewer(22) $ 2,990.64 $ 3,222.45 $ 6,213.09 Sanitation(23) $ 315.72 $ 414.06 $ 729.78
Total BMIA Salary 16,095.43 17,062.75 33,158.18
BMIA Admin (20) $ 851.15 $ 918.61 $ 1,769.76 Water(21) $ 593.39 $ 606.54 $ 1,199.93 Sewer(22) $ 384.72 $ 414.05 $ 798.77 Sanitation(23) $ 24.15 $ 31.67 $ 55.82
Total BMIA Fringe Benefits 1,853.41 1,970.87 3,824.28 TOTAL SALARY AND FB 17,948.84 19,033.62 36,982.46
CONSENT AGENDA C-4
CITY OF BLANCHARD BMIA MONTHLY TREASURY REPORT For the Month February 1, 2021 TO February 28, 2021 These are unaudited numbers CODE DESCRIPTION BEGINNING BANK DEPOSITS WITHDRAWALS INTEREST PAID SERVICE FEES ENDING BANK BALANCE Outstanding Deposits In Balance per Number of BALANCE Checks Transit General Ledger Checks Issued 16 BMIA $668,371.80 $175,556.20 $168,912.65 $51.05 $0.00 $675,066.40 $ (83,574.26) 5,164.56 $ 596,656.70 41 DEBT SERVICE FUND (75% OF 1 13 CENT SALES TAX) $126,300.47 $164,262.90 $211,833.95 $10.29 $10.00 $78,729.71 $ - $ 78,729.71 8 12 WATER METER DEPOSIT $157,388.88 $2,200.00 $2,850.85 $12.07 $0.00 $156,750.10 $ (2,457.72) $ 154,292.38 18
3 BMIA GENERAL FUND (RESERVE) $448,683.76 $0.00 $0.00 $68.84 $0.00 $448,752.60 $ 448,752.60 0
18 FOX RUN ST IMPROVEMENT FUND $80,255.53 $8,591.71 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $88,847.24 $ 88,847.24 0 27 BMIA Accrued Leave Acct $15,331.97 $0.00 $0.00 $1.18 $0.00 $15,333.15 $ 15,333.15 0 BMIA Subtotal: $1,496,332.41 $348,410.81 $380,746.60 $130.18 $10.00 $1,463,479.20
CONSENT AGENDA C-5
CITY OF BLANCHARD SUPPLEMENTAL BUDGET FORM
Fund: SEWER Amendment #: Fiscal Year: 2021 Estimated Revenue Appropriations Account # Account Name Increase Decrease Increase Decrease 205-22-6405 LAND SALES $ 339,848.96 205-22-6430 UTILITY INFRASTRUCTURE $ 22,224.64 205-22-6310 UTILITY SERVICE $ 4,380.00 205-03-3111 FUND BALANCE $ 366,453.60
TOTALS - 366,453.60 366,453.60 -
EXPLANATION: PURCHASE LAND FOR SPRAY FIELDS
Requested by & date:
Signature & Date Approved by City Manager:
Date Approved by City Council:
Unappropriated Fund Balance Remaining After Amendment: 205-22-6405 LAND SALES $ 3,500.00 $ 343,348.96 205-22-6430 UTILITY INFRASTRUCTURE 25000 $ 47,224.64 CITY OF BLANCHARD SUPPLEMENTAL BUDGET FORM
Fund: WATER Amendment #: Fiscal Year: 2021 Estimated Revenue Appropriations Account # Account Name Increase Decrease Increase Decrease 205-21-6435 GENERAL INFRASTRUCTURE $ 3,105.26 205-21-6502 LEASE PURCHASE LAND $ 7,340.00 205-03-3111 FUND BALANCE $ 10,445.26
TOTALS - 10,445.26 10,445.26 -
EXPLANATION: FIX NEGATIVE BUDGETED ITEMS - Lease purchase of land with State WATER METERS PURCHASED IN JUNE PAID IN JULY
Requested by & date:
Signature & Date Approved by City Manager:
Date Approved by City Council:
Unappropriated Fund Balance Remaining After Amendment: 205-21-6435 GENERAL INFRASTRUCTURE $ 34,699.74 $ 37,805.00 205-21-6502 LEASE PURCHASE LAND 0 $ 7,340.00 CITY OF BLANCHARD SUPPLEMENTAL BUDGET FORM
Fund: BMIA ADMIN Amendment #: Fiscal Year: 2021 Estimated Revenue Appropriations Account # Account Name Increase Decrease Increase Decrease 205-20-6380 WATER PURCHASING $ 336,896.00 205-20-6637 VEHICLE INSURANCE $ 7,993.80 205-03-3111 FUND BALANCE $ 344,889.80
TOTALS - 344,889.80 344,889.80 -
EXPLANATION: INCREASE NEGATIVE BALANCES - WATER PURCHASES INCREASED DUE TO WATER ISSUE BETWEEN JULY TO SEPT WITH OKLAHOMA CITY AND WATER PURCHASED FROM NEWCASTLE VEHICLE INSURANCE INCREASED DUE TO NEW VEHICLES
Requested by & date:
Signature & Date Approved by City Manager:
Date Approved by City Council:
Unappropriated Fund Balance Remaining After Amendment: 205-20-6380 WATER PURCHASING $ 690,000.00 $ 1,026,896.00 205-20-6637 VEHICLE INSURANCE 0 $ 7,993.80
CONSENT AGENDA ITEM REMOVAL
PUBLIC COMMENTS
TRUSTEE – STAFF COMMENTS
ADJOURNMENT