DOCSLIB.ORG

GSA Poster 2013 Long

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

Hydrological and Geochemical Characteristics in the Edwards and Trinity Hydrostratigraphic Units Using Multiport Monitor Wells in the Balcones Fault Zone, Hays County, Central Texas Alan Andrews, Brian Hunt, Brian Smith Purpose Rising-falling K Slug-in K Slug-out K Zone Zone (ft/day) (ft/day) (ft/day) Thickness (ft) Trans ft2/day Stratigraphy 21 0.3 -- -- 35 10 Stratigraphy General Hydrologic ID To better understand the hydrogeological properties of and 20 53 -- -- 70 3700 Eagle Ford/ Hydrostratigraphy Function thickness in feet Lithology Porosity/Permeability Sources Rising-falling K Slug K Zone Transmissivity Qal? confining Zone (ft/day) (ft/day) Thickness (ft) (ft2/day) 19 5 8 6 30 140 40-50 Dense limestone Buda unit (CU) Low 18 3 3 -- 25 84 relationships between the geologic units that make up the Confining Units 14 -- -- 136 -- CU Blue-green to 17 38 -- 44 105 4000 Upper Del Rio 50-60 Upper Confining Unit 13 65 -- 72 13000 137.9’ Fract oyster wakestone yellow-brown clay 16 29 80 19 70 2000 12 2 -- 34 460 145.7’ stylolites and fract I Edwards, Upper and Middle Trinity Aquifers and to compare Georgetown Fm. CU Marly limestone; grnst Low 15 29 105 161 75 2100 40-60 11 4 -- 159 8300 Crystalline limestone; mdst to wkst 14 8 10 3 45 370 Leached and 199.6’ fossil (toucasid) vug Aquifer (AQ) III to milliolid grnst; chert; collapse High 10 0.09 -- 197 50 13 4 2 6 40 160 observed hydrologic properties of formations to generally accept- Collapsed mbrs 230’ solutioned bedding plane 30-80 breccia 9 0.005 -- 97 4 12 0.2 -- -- 85 -- 200 feet Reg. Dense mbr CU IV 20-30 238’ solutioned fracture Low; vertical barrier Argillaceous mudstone 8 0.7 -- 56 515 11 0.1 -- -- 90 -- Person Person Fm. Grainstone mbr AQ V 45-60 Low ed understanding of them and suggest nomenclature that best 283’ solutioned fracture Milliolid grnst; mdst to wkst; chert 7 26 -- 68 21000 10 0.2 -- -- 100 24 6 0.4 0.9 72 365 9 0.6 0.1 -- 30 16 Kirschberg AQ VI Crystalline limestone; chalky High mbr 5 -- 0.2 77 -- 8 0.4 -- -- 30 -- describes hydrogeologic properties of hydrostratigraphic units 65-75 mudstone; chert 1996 et al., Small 4 -- 37 27 38000 Edwards Aquifer Edwards 7 0.3 -- -- 70 -- Edwards Group Edwards 3 26 -- 26 27000 6 0.1 0.6 -- 70 6 4d. in the study area. 4c. 4e. 4f. 2 34 -- 20 36000 5 0.202 -- -- 40 8 VII Mudstone to grainstone; Locally permeable Dolomitic AQ 1 -- -- 41 -- 4 6 7 7 30 170 Kainer Fm. mbr 110-150 crystalline limestone; chert Figures 4a-f. Tool used to open and close Introduction Table 1. 3 0.2 -- -- 30 5 2 1 1.5 2 25 26 Basal Nod- Karst AQ; VIII Shaly, fossiliferous, 1 19 60 -- 55 1060 nodular limestone; mudstone Low ports inside wells. Ports consist of a screened section • Permeabilities are a dening characteristic of aquifers. ular mbr not karst CU 45-60 Table 2. Karst and fract Interval A Alt. mdst, wkst, and pkst permeable near Edwards AQ not karst CU 30-120 local solution zones contact, decreases with of PVC coupling, which when moved up or • Detailed permeability data for distinct depth Tables 1 and 2. List distribution of hydraulic conducti- CU; AQ assoc. Interval B Alt. mdst, clays, wkst Low Karst and fract 120-150 and pkst down, respectively open or close the casing to forma- litho/hydrostratigraphic units in the Edwards and Trinity Upper Figure 4a. 4b. vities in Ruby Ranch (left) and Antioch (right) multiport wells, Lower Cretaceous Lower Upper Member Trinity AQ Interval C Calcareous mud and Moderate; breccia, and moldic 10-20 ft vuggy mudstone (boxwork) texture tion water. Aquifers has not been quantied in a single borehole. Glen Rose based on rising/falling head tests and slug tests. Limestone Alt wkst, pkst, marl; AQ assoc. Interval D High in biostrome; lower 90 ft thick biostromes • Hydrologic connection between hydrostratigraphic units in this biostromes only 135-180 very low porosity locally Moderate breccia, Hydraulic conductivity values for the three hydrostratigraphic Calcareous mud and AQ Interval E and moldic (boxwork) area is not entirely understood and needs more thorough char- vuggy mudstone 7-10 texture Clark, 2004 Clark, AQ in bioherms Lower Glen Rose (Clark, 2004): Good porosity and perm. groupings observed are: 320-340 acterization to better manage water resources. and evaporite beds, Alt mdst, wkst, pkst, and grnst; in bioherms; low porosity and Lower Member karst and fracture; bioherms permeability elsewhere CU elswhere • Edwards Aquifer, values between 0.3 and 66 ft/day. Glen Rose • Two Westbay multiport wells were used to measure Middle Lower Glen Rose (Wierman et al., 2010) Fabric selective; AQ in reefs ~250 Limestone Trinity Alternating mdst, wkst, and grnst; Good porosity and 26 ft/day avg. lower and upper reef intervals permeability hydrogeologic characteristics of rock units. in reefs Hensel CU 15-40 Low • Upper Trinity Aquitard, from 0.01 to 0.7 ft/day. Mudstone, clay and shale Location 2010 Wierman et al., AQ ~70 Figure 5a. Figure 5b. Cow Creek Grainstone, dolomitic toward base High 0.25 ft/day avg. AUSTI N Co l d Hammett CU ~40 Low; permeable near top Bar ton Confining Unit Mudstone, dolomite, and clay Figures 5a,b. Examples of underdamped and overdamped Barton Creek Sp r ings Figure 3. • Middle Trinity Aquifer, from 0.2 to 37 ft/day. Sp r ings water level equilibration. Bouwer-Rice (Fig.5a) and Butler (5b) analy- Williamson Creek Methods 13.6 ft/day avg. Hwy 290 tical solutions were used to calculate hydraulic conductivities at IH-35 Two Westbay multiport wells were used to measure water Conclusions ContributingTravis County Zone HaysHa County each port, based on water level response. ys County Recharge Zone levels, conduct rising/falling head and slug tests, and • Observed hydraulic conductivities of the various formations Figures 1 and 2. Antioch Westbay Well Hydrostratigraphy Elevation (ft-msl) vs Depth (ft) TDS K that make up the Edwards Aquifer (Fig. 3) generally agree with BearCreek collect water samples at ports located at dierent depths, and Results 570 590 610 630 (mg/L) (ft/d) Fm 1826 702 ft-msl D Wells are located in the Barton Buda screened individually to distinct litho/hydrostratigraphic layers. Del Rio those qualitatively assigned by previous studies. 100 5/18/11 2/16/11 12/2/10 9/30/10 Springs Segment of the Lith. Notes Gamma Caliper Ruby Ranch Westbay Well Georgetown 21 Hydrostratigraphy (cps) (in) ns 0.3 • Upper-most units of the Upper Glen Rose exhibit high hy- Zone Symbols Select Borehole Photographs Elevation (ft-msl) vs Depth (ft) TDS K Leached & 0 100 5 10 Collapsed fracture Eagle Ford/Qal? (mg/L) (ft/d) 200 20 273 53 Edwards Aquifer, within the Stratigraphy Multiport Well mbrs Buda 815 ft-msl 620 640 660 680 700 720 Saline (brackish) breccia 40 Person Little Bear RDM 19 279 4.5 draulic conductivity and good quality water similar to units in Confined Zone chert nodule Creek Del Rio Grainst 18 ns 3.3 Antioch Well Balcones Fault Zone. Both wells gypsum 80 300 5/18/11 2/18/11 12/2/10 9/30/10 ns - BUDA pyrite Figure 4. Multiport 100 Ruby Well 120 Dolomitic Kirschberg 133.5’ Oyster wake-packstone 14 17 288 38 the Edwards Aquifer. calcite spar Georgetown Fm. 21 Member mbr 160 154.2’ fracture are about 15 miles south of Austin irregular bedding Leached and f,m Kainer Formation 13 329 66 400 Onion Creek 165.4’ Caprinid rudist Edwards Group f 199.6’ fossil (toucasid) vug Edwards Aquifer laminar bedding m well layout and examples 200 Edwards Group 200 Collapsed 20 16 • Most of the Upper Trinity “Aquifer” is best described as an f 304 29 230’ solutioned bedding plane A) Solutioned fracture zone 20, Walnut Fm. 12 Dolomitic shale beds mbrs A b 263 1.6 Kainer Fm. IH-35 240 Person Fm, Edwards Grp. mbr D’ chickenwire texture Reg. Dense mbr f and 3.5 miles apart. 19 b 238’ solutioned fracture 500 rudistid Fm. Person B of downhole imagery, 300 15 280 18 1,320 (4/08) 302 29 Grainstone mbr 283’ solutioned fracture 291.2 toucasid wake-packstone aquitard and conning unit in this area, especially when shell fossil f 11 to 28 N 320 C f 289 (6/09) 14 Kirschberg b 600 Walnut Fm 446 8.3 caliper log, and 400 0 2 miles Porosity 360 17 mbr 13 439 4 comparing its hydraulic conductivities to those found in the Blanco River Group Edwards Upper Member KYLE f = fracture 400 Glen Rose m = moldic 700 12 f gamma log, which were 500 Limestone 3,567 0.1 Figure 1. b b = bedding 440 16 b 3,270 0.1 Edwards and Middle Trinity Aquifers. 10 480 Dolomitic f Upper Trinity Aquifer Depth (ft) Kainer Fm. B) Moddled texture zone 18, f 11 mbr Person Fm, Edwards Grp. used to establish 600 800 Upper Mbr 2,884 0.1 520 f Depth (feet) 15 Glen Rose • Uppermost units of the Lower Member of the Glen Rose 9 650.51655.80 560 f 3,852 0.01 Limestone Basal Nodular m D 14 placement of hydraulically 700 900 10 D’ 600 f 3,037 0.2 Ruby mbr 599.1 clasts? Limestone exhibit low hydraulic conductivity (<1 ft/d) and f 8 635.30 644.42 3,291 1.2 West 13 Multiport East 640 1.5 in dia 9 2,853 0.5 PVC coupling 800 Rudist isolated “zones” in the Lower Member 7 509 32 1000 8 Antioch 680 Reef 2,993 0.4 high TDS (2100 to 3200 mg/l), resembling values found in the Well 12 Glen Rose Multiport Depth (ft) 720 sampleport 6 7 3,268 0.3 Limestone 771 0.6 1100 spring 1100 packer multiport wells during 900 Well 760 C) Cavernous zone 17, 1100 Upper Trinity Aquitard.
Recommended publications
  • GEOLOGIC QUADRANGLE MAP NO. 49 Geology of the Pedernales Falls Quadrangle, Blanco County, Texas

    GEOLOGIC QUADRANGLE MAP NO. 49 Geology of the Pedernales Falls Quadrangle, Blanco County, Texas

    BUREAU OF ECONOMIC GEOLOGY THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT AUSTIN AUSTIN, TEXAS 78712 W. L. FISHER, Director GEOLOGIC QUADRANGLE MAP NO. 49 Geology of the Pedernales Falls Quadrangle, Blanco County, Texas By VIRGIL E. BARNES November 1982 THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT AUSTIN TO ACCOMPANY MAP-GEOLOGIC BUREAU OF ECONOMIC GEOLOGY QUADRANGLE MAP NO. 49 GEOLOGY OF THE PEDERNALES FALLS QUADRANGLE, BLANCO COUNTY, TEXAS Virgil E. Barnes 1982 CONTENTS General setting .. .. .. ............... 2 Cretaceous System (Lower Cretaceous) . 10 Geologic formations ......... .. ... 2 Trinity Group . 10 Paleozoic rocks ........... .. .. 2 Travis Peak Formation . 10 Cambrian System (Upper Cambrian) . 2 Sycamore Sand . 10 Moore Hollow Group ....... 2 Hammett Shale and Cow Creek Wilberns Formation . ........ 2 Limestone . 10 San Saba Member . .. .... 2 Shingle Hills Formation . 10 Ordovician System (Lower Ordovician) .. 3 Hensen Sand Member . 10 Ellenburger Group . ... .. .... 3 Glen Rose Limestone Member . 10 Tanyard Formation .. ... .... 3 Cenozoic rocks . 11 Threadgill Member ..... ... 3 Quaternary System . 11 Staendebach Member ....... 3 Pleistocene Series . 11 Gorman Formation ...... 4 Terrace deposits . 11 Honeycut Formation ......... 5 Recent Series . 11 Devonian system . .. .... .... 7 Alluvium . 11 Stribling Formation .... .. .. 7 Subsurface geology . 11 Devonian-Mississippian rocks . ...... 8 Mineral resources . 12 Joint fillings ...... ... ... 8 Construction materials . 12 Houy Formation ....... .. .. 8 Building stone . 12 Mississippian System ......... ...
  • Plate Stratigraphic & Structure Cross Sections11 E

    Plate Stratigraphic & Structure Cross Sections11 E

    West East EXPLANATION M E E’ M Line intersection w/ B-B’ S M Upper Pan Glen Rose M 11-1 STRATIGRAPHIC CROSS SECTION E-E’ Geophysical Log & Samples (Kgru) S M Blanco River Dip Cross Section # # # Alex S. Broun, P.G., Douglas A. Wierman, P.G. # # and Wesley Schumacher M S F Wyn M Line intersection Geophysical Log Lower w/ C-C’ BLANCO CO. HAYS CO. Glen Rose M (Kgrl) S M M S G F Hensel (Khe) BLANCO RIVER Ap SB PR2 Upper Glen Rose: M Upper Trinity G G Upper Trinity Cow Creek ft LasM3 Upper Glen Rose (Kcc) 400 Limited Aquifer Geophysical Log & Samples Hammett Wall1 BLANCO (Kha) Ap SB PR1 Cie Sey Stl Nar Nel Arr Samples S G RIVER S M Geophysical Log Geophysical Log Geophysical Log Shell Core Geophysical Log Geophysical Log Sligo (Ksl) BLANCO RIVER 300 Lithology from Lederman Well S M Upper Aptian - Lower Albian Aptian - Lower Upper Stratotype Surface Sec. Offline one mile NW # Upper Glen Rose # Lower-Upper Sycamore/ “CA” Regional Marker Upper Glen Rose Glen Rose (1) Hosston Contact (Ksy/Kho) M 200 S F S KarstKarst Dinosaur tracks Little Blanco S F M measured section S F B. Hunt & S Lower Glen Rose BLANCO RIVER Burnet Ranch #1 S. Musick Shell core S Explanation M S Limestone (micr) Figure modified from Stricklin & S S F Lozo, 1971 and R.W. Scott, 2007 100 Limestone (skel) Lower Glen Rose Stratigraphic notes: Lower Glen Rose S Lower Glen Rose: Middle Trinity Aquifer LOWER CRETACEOUS Limestone (reef) 1- Edwards Group, Kainer Fm, as defined by Rose (1972).
  • U.S. Geological Survey Karst Interest Group Proceedings, San Antonio, Texas, May 16–18, 2017

    U.S. Geological Survey Karst Interest Group Proceedings, San Antonio, Texas, May 16–18, 2017

    A Product of the Water Availability and Use Science Program Prepared in cooperation with the Department of Geological Sciences at the University of Texas at San Antonio and hosted by the Student Geological Society and student chapters of the Association of Petroleum Geologists and the Association of Engineering Geologists U.S. Geological Survey Karst Interest Group Proceedings, San Antonio, Texas, May 16–18, 2017 Edited By Eve L. Kuniansky and Lawrence E. Spangler Scientific Investigations Report 2017–5023 U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey U.S. Department of the Interior RYAN ZINKE, Secretary U.S. Geological Survey William Werkheiser, Acting Director U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia: 2017 For more information on the USGS—the Federal source for science about the Earth, its natural and living resources, natural hazards, and the environment—visit https://www.usgs.gov/ or call 1–888–ASK–USGS (1–888–275–8747). For an overview of USGS information products, including maps, imagery, and publications, visit https://store.usgs.gov. Any use of trade, firm, or product names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the U.S. Government. 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. Suggested citation: Kuniansky, E.L., and Spangler, L.E., eds., 2017, U.S. Geological Survey Karst Interest Group Proceedings, San Antonio, Texas, May 16–18, 2017: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2017–5023, 245 p., https://doi.org/10.3133/sir20175023.
  • Supporting Information

    Supporting Information

    Supporting Information Darrah et al. 10.1073/pnas.1322107111 SI Text mational brines away from the hinterland and into the foreland Geological Background. Northeastern Pennsylvania (Marcellus). The (i.e., Appalachian Plateau) (18, 19). Appalachian Basin is an archetypal energy-producing foreland Rifting of the Atlantic Ocean that began in the Mesozoic (e.g., basin (Fig. S1) located in the northeastern United States. In the Triassic basalts of Connecticut and New Jersey), accompanied by eastern part (northeastern Pennsylvania and southern New York) recent cycles of glacial advance and retreat, led to rapid exhu- of the northern Appalachian Basin (NAB), oil and gas production mation/unloading, erosion, and neotectonic jointing (i.e., often occurs within various lithologies throughout the northern termed J3) in at least the top 0.5 km of the crust (20). The major Appalachian Plateau region, but is largely confined to two genetic Triassic rift basins in the Appalachian Basin occur in the Gettys- – groups: (i) migrated gases sourced from Ordovician (∼485–443 burg Newark lowland and offshore. Because these rift basins are Ma) shales and hosted in Ordovician/Silurian (∼443–419 Ma) on the opposite side of the Appalachian Structural Front, it is tight sands and carbonates of the Trenton/Black River and (ii) highly unlikely that these Triassic rifts made significant mantle Middle Devonian (∼384–377 Ma) source/reservoir tight gas contributions to the gas chemistry of the plateau region, specifi- > black shales of the Marcellus Group (1). More complete de- cally in our study area (i.e., 150 km away from rift basins). Note that all of our samples have purely crustal helium isotope ra- scriptions of relevant Appalachian geology and hydrocarbon po- 3 4 20 22 – tios ( He/ He) and atmospheric neon isotope ratios ( Ne/ Ne tential in this area are available elsewhere (1 4).
  • Guidebook to the Geology of Travis County.Pdf (4.815Mb)

    Guidebook to the Geology of Travis County.Pdf (4.815Mb)

    Page | 1 Guidebook to the Geology of Travis County: Preface Geology of the Austin Area, Travis County, Texas Keith Young When Robert T. Hill first came to Austin, Texas, as the first professor of geology, he described Austin and its surrounding area as an ideal site for a school of geology because it offered such varied outcrops representing rocks of many ages and varieties. Although Hill resigned his position about 85 years ago, the opportunities of the local geology have not changed. Hill (Hill, 1889) implies the intent of writing a series of papers to describe the geology of the local area for all who might be interested. The authors of this volume hope that they have fulfilled in large measure Hill's original intent. No product can ever be all things to all users, but we have presented here common geological phenomenon for many, including the description of an ancient volcano, the description of faulting that occurred in the Austin area in the past, a geologic history of the Austin area, a description of the local rocks, including their classification, field trips for interested observers of the geologic scene, collecting localities for the lovers of fossils, and resource places and agencies. We cannot emphasize enough that many unique geological phenomena are on private property. Please do not trespass, obtain permission. And if permission is not granted, observe from a distance. There are sufficient areas of geologic interest in the Austin area to please all without antagonizing landowners and making it even more difficult for the next person. Page | 2 Guidebook to the Geology of Travis County: Author's Note A useful guide to the geology of the Austin area has long been a goal.
  • Ground-Water Availability of the Lower Cretaceous Formations in the Hill

    Ground-Water Availability of the Lower Cretaceous Formations in the Hill

    Report 273 GROUND- WA TER AVAILABILITY OF THE LOWER CRETACEOUS FORMATIONS IN THE HILL COUNTRY OF SOUTH- CENTRAL TEXAS TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES January 1983 “‘._ __ __.. TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES REPORT 273 GROUND-WATER AVAILABILITY OF THE LOWER CRETACEOUS FORMATIONS IN THE HILL COUNTRY OF SOUTH-CENTRAL TEXAS John B. Ashworth, Geologist January 1983 TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES Charles E. Nemir, Executive Director TEXAS WATER DEVELOPMENT BOARD Louis A. Beecherl Jr., Chairman George W. McCleskey, Vice Chairman Glen E. Roney Lonnie A. “Bo” Pilgrim W. 0. Bankston Louie Welch TEXAS WATER COMMISSION Lee B. M. Biggart, Chairman Felix McDonald, Commissioner John D. Stover, Commissioner Authorization for use or reproduction of any original material contained in this publication, i.e., not obtained from other sources, is freely granted The Department would appreciate acknowledgement. Published and distributed by the Texas Department of Water Resources Post Office Box 13087 Austin, Texas 78711 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page CONCLUSIONS . INTRODUCTION Purpose and Scope Location and Extent 2 Geography. 2 Topography and Drainage. 2 Population. 2 Economy and Land Use 3 Vegetation . 3 Climate. 3 Previous Investigations . 3 Acknowledgements. 3 Well-Numbering System 7 Definition of Terms . 8 Metric Conversions . 9 GEOLOGY AS RELATED TO THE OCCURRENCE OF GROUND WATER. 9 Depositional History 9 Stratigraphy 9 Structure . 10 STRATIGRAPHY OF THE WATER-BEARING UNITS. 19 Pre-Cretaceous Rocks 19 Trinity Group. 19 Lower Trinity Aquifer 19 iii TABLE OF CONTENTS-Continued Page Middle Trinity Aquifer . 19 Upper Trinity Aquifer 33 Fredericksburg Group 33 Quaternary Alluvium 33 CHEMICAL QUALITY OF GROUND WATER AS RELATED TO USE 33 General Chemical Quality of Ground Water 33 Public Supply.
  • Geologic Framework and Hydrostratigraphy of the Edwards and Trinity Aquifers Within Hays County, Texas

    Geologic Framework and Hydrostratigraphy of the Edwards and Trinity Aquifers Within Hays County, Texas

    Prepared in cooperation with the Edwards Aquifer Authority Geologic Framework and Hydrostratigraphy of the Edwards and Trinity Aquifers Within Hays County, Texas Pamphlet to accompany Scientific Investigations Map 3418 U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey A B C Cover. A, Photograph showing the Blanco River Valley, looking north from Little Arkansas Road, Hays County, Texas (photograph by Allan K. Clark, U.S. Geological Survey, February 27, 2018). B, Photograph showing a low water crossing on the Blanco River, looking south from Little Arkansas Road, Hays County, Texas (photograph by Allan K. Clark, U.S. Geological Survey, February 27, 2018). C, Photograph showing swimming hole on Cypress Creek in Blue Hole Regional Park, Wimberley, Hays County, Texas (photograph by Allan K. Clark, U.S. Geological Survey, February 27, 2018). Geologic Framework and Hydrostratigraphy of the Edwards and Trinity Aquifers Within Hays County, Texas By Allan K. Clark, Diana E. Pedraza, and Robert R. Morris Prepared in cooperation with the Edwards Aquifer Authority Pamphlet to accompany Scientific Investigations Map 3418 U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey U.S. Department of the Interior RYAN K. ZINKE, Secretary U.S. Geological Survey James F. Reilly II, Director U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia: 2018 For more information on the USGS—the Federal source for science about the Earth, its natural and living resources, natural hazards, and the environment—visit https://www.usgs.gov or call 1–888–ASK–USGS. For an overview of USGS information products, including maps, imagery, and publications, visit https://store.usgs.gov.
  • 7.0 Geology of the Trinity Group: Glen Rose and Cow Creek Formations, and the Cypress Creek Study Lower Trinity—Including the Sligo and Hosston Formations

    7.0 Geology of the Trinity Group: Glen Rose and Cow Creek Formations, and the Cypress Creek Study Lower Trinity—Including the Sligo and Hosston Formations

    7.0 Geology of the Trinity Group: Glen Rose and Cow Creek formations, and the Cypress Creek Study Lower Trinity—including the Sligo and Hosston formations. The general stratigraphy is shown on 7.1 Geologic Setting Figure 14. The Trinity Group in western Hays County is 7.3 Lower Trinity (300 feet thick) Lower Cretaceous in age, extending from the Neocomian to the Albo-Aptian. The geologic 7.3.1 Sycamore/Hosston Formation section consists of the wedge-edge of a shallow- water, carbonate shelf which onlapped the The coarse clastic Sycamore Formation outcrops thrusted Paleozoic rocks of the buried Ouachita in Blanco County and the northwest corner of Mountains. The Llano Uplift and highlands to Hays County. The Sycamore represents those the west and northwest were the provenance for sedimentary rocks equivalent to the subsurface a coarse-clastic sedimentary base Hosston Formation. The basal conglomerates (Sycamore/Hosston) that shoals upwards in a and sands are fluvial, representing early series of carbonate-dominated sequences. Cretaceous erosion of the Llano highlands. Tectonic movement during Early Miocene time Geophysical logs and cuttings samples of the resulted in a series of northeast-southwest Hosston in western Hays County are interpreted striking, en-echelon, normal faults that cut the as stacked fluvial channel sands, shoreline Lower Cretaceous sedimentary rocks and sandstones and siltstones with silty shale dropped the section by as much as 1,200 feet to overbank deposits. the south-southeast (Balcones Fault Zone). The Hosston is 95 feet thick at the Brushy Top The purpose of the geology section of this report No.
  • Cretaceous Paleogeography: Implications of Endemic Ammonite Faunas

    Cretaceous Paleogeography: Implications of Endemic Ammonite Faunas

    Geological Circular 72-2 Cretaceous Paleogeography: Implications of Endemic Ammonite Faunas BY Keith Young BUREAU OF ECONOMIC GEOLOGY The University of Texas at Austin Austin, Texas 78712 W. L. Fisher, Director 1972 Geological Circular 72-2 Cretaceous Paleogeography: Implications of Endemic Ammonite Faunas BY Keith Young BUREAU OF ECONOMIC GEOLOGY The University of Texas at Austin Austin, Texas 78712 W. L. Fisher, Director 1972 Contents Abstract 1 Introduction 1 Paleogeographicsetting 1 Cosmopolitan-endemiccycles of the Comanchean 3 Trinity faunas 3 Fredericksburgcycle 6 Washita endemicfaunas— 8 Low generic diversity a key to endemism 8 Relationof endemismto depositionalcycles 9 Endemismand correlation 9 Conclusions 11 Acknowledgments 12 References 12 Illustrations Figures— Page 1. The Comanchean Shelf behind thebarrier reef 3 2. Block diagram illustrating the back-reeftopography for a part of Texas during theMiddle Albian 4 3. Paleogeographicfeatures of Texas during muchof the Comanchean ... 5 4. Diagrammaticrepresentationofrockscontaining endemicand cosmopolitanfaunas 6 Tables Tables— Page 1. CorrelationofComancheansectionsfor areasfromwhichformations arementionedintext 2 2. Alternationof endemic and cosmopolitanzones on theTexas. ComancheShelf 7 3. CorrelationwithEuropeanzones 11 CretaceousPaleogeography:Implicationsof Endemic AmmoniteFaunas Keith Young Abstract Endemic ammonite faunas evolved from cosmo- produced endemism. With the next basin adjust- politan faunas in a series of successive episodes ment the endemic faunabecame extinct,anda new overabout 35 million years of the Cretaceous of the cosmopolitan fauna migrated into the back-reef Gulf Coast of the United States. During basin— area, likewise evolving into an endemic faunainits basin-margin tectonic adjustments the Cretaceous turn. Six cosmopolitan-endemic cycles have been barrier reef was inundated or circumvented so that identified. Geological evidence suggests two or a cosmopolitan fauna entered the back-reef area.
  • Geologic and Geochemical Characterization of Cross-Communication Potential Within the Northern Edwards Aquifer System, Texas" (2016)

    Geologic and Geochemical Characterization of Cross-Communication Potential Within the Northern Edwards Aquifer System, Texas" (2016)

    Stephen F. Austin State University SFA ScholarWorks Electronic Theses and Dissertations Fall 12-17-2016 Geologic and Geochemical Characterization of Cross- Communication Potential within the Northern Edwards Aquifer System, Texas Ingrid J. Eckhoff Stephen F. Austin State University, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.sfasu.edu/etds Part of the Geology Commons Tell us how this article helped you. Repository Citation Eckhoff, Ingrid J., "Geologic and Geochemical Characterization of Cross-Communication Potential within the Northern Edwards Aquifer System, Texas" (2016). Electronic Theses and Dissertations. 59. https://scholarworks.sfasu.edu/etds/59 This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by SFA ScholarWorks. It has been accepted for inclusion in Electronic Theses and Dissertations by an authorized administrator of SFA ScholarWorks. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Geologic and Geochemical Characterization of Cross-Communication Potential within the Northern Edwards Aquifer System, Texas Creative Commons License This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 4.0 License. This thesis is available at SFA ScholarWorks: https://scholarworks.sfasu.edu/etds/59 Geologic and Geochemical Characterization of Cross-Communication Potential within the Northern Edwards Aquifer System, Texas By Ingrid Jenssen Eckhoff, Bachelor of Science Presented to the Faculty of the Graduate School of Stephen F. Austin State University in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Masters of Science STEPHEN F. AUSTIN STATE UNIVERSITY December 2016 Geologic and Geochemical Characterization of Cross-Communication Potential within the Northern Edwards Aquifer System, Texas By Ingrid Jenssen Eckhoff, B.S.
  • Quick Handbook on Geologic Formations Related to Groundwater in Medina County, Texas

    Quick Handbook on Geologic Formations Related to Groundwater in Medina County, Texas

    Quick Handbook on Geologic Formations Related to Groundwater in Medina County, Texas April 3rd, 2013 Edition 1 The following pages contain basic representations that help provide a description of the underground portion of Medina County, relevant to groundwater production. It’s based on explaining common questions about what is down there, how does it work, and what is it like. It is not intended to be a scientific document, but explains the basic concepts. Well types throughout Medina County Wells (the dots, color coded by their source aquifer) vary on their water source throughout the county. Moving from north to south, wells encountered tend to change from being from one aquifer, to being generally from another aquifer. The Edwards aquifer tends to be the largest exception, with most of the wells located in the northern part of the county, but with wells extending well to the southern part of the county, usually from 300 feet deep in the north, deeper as one looks south, all the way to about 3,000feet deep in the southern part of the county. Some wells have a question mark. This is for wells which do not have enough information to identify the source aquifer, or for which the source aquifer is being determined. 2 Geology and Wells at the Surface At the surface, a similar trend is noticed in the surface geology. From east to west, the surface seems to be made up of generally the same geologic material, and as you move from north to south, the type of surface materials tend to change from one to another.
  • Map 3363 U.S

    Map 3363 U.S

    U.S. Department of the Interior Scientific Investigations Map 3363 U.S. Geological Survey Version 1.1 Pamphlet accompanies map Kgrue Kgrcb Kgrf Kgrcb Kgrb Kkbn Kgrcb Kgrle Kkbn Kgrb Kgrle Kgrcb Kgrf Kgrf Kgrb Kgrf Kgrb Kgrf Kgrf Kgrlb Kgrlb U Kgrle Kgrb D Kgrf Kgrcb Kkbn Kgrle Kgrle Site 2 Kgrb Kgrf Kgrcb Kgrts Kgrf Kgrlb Kgrle Kgrb Kgrb Kgrle Kgrf Kgrd Kgrb Kgrlb Kgrle Kgrts Kgrb Kgrle Kgrb Kgrue Kgrb Kgrr U Kgrlb D Kgrle Kgrf Kgrlb Kgrue U Kgrb D Kgrf D Kgrf Kgrlb Kgrcb Kgrue U D U Kgrts U D Kgrf Kgrb Kgrts Kgrts Kgrd Kgrf Kgrle Kgrle Kgrf Kkbn Kgrlb Kgrb Kgrd Kgrf Kgrlb D Kgrts Kgrlb U Kgrd Kgrts D Kgrf D U Kgrb U Kgrb Kgrd Kgrts Kgrle Kgrcb Kgrts Kgrlb Kgrr Kgrcb U Kgrlb Kgrd Kgrts D Kgrb Khah Kgrr Kgrr Kgrd Kgrts Kgrb Kgrb Site 1 Kcccc Kgrd Kgrd Kkbn Kkbn Kgrf Kgrts Kgrb Kgrlb Kgrlb Kgrts U Kgrts Kgrr Kgrf Kgrf D U Kgrd D Kgrle Kgrd Kgrle Kgrb Kgrhc Kgrlb Kgrf Kgrts Kkbn Kgrb Kgrts Kgrb Kgrb Kgrcb Kgrhc Kgrlb Kgrle Kgrts Kgrlb D Kgrlb Kgrr Kgrhc Kgrlb U Kgrr U Kgrd Kgrue U Kheh D Kgrts D Kgrb Kgrhc Kcccc Kgrlb Kgrd Kgrle D U Kgrr Kgrf Kgrr Kgrts U Kgrd Kgrb Kgrd Kgrb Kgrcb Kcccc D D Kgrf Kgrf U Kgrle Kgrd Kgrlb Kheh U Kgrr D Kgrd Kgrle U D Kgrue Kgrb Kgrd Kgrts Kgrts Kgrle Kgrhc Kgrf Kgrd Kgrf Kgrb Kgrhc Kgrb Kgrd Kgrhc Kgrlb Kgrr Kgrts Kgrb Kgrf U Kgrr Kgrts Kgrlb Kgrr D Kgrue Kgrb Kgrd Kheh Kgrlb Kgrf Kgrb Kgrts Kgrts U Kgrhc D Kgrb Kgrlb Kgrts Kheh Kgrb Kgrf Kgrle U Kgrle Kgrlb D Kgrle Kgrlb Kgrf Kkbn Kgrr Kgrlb Kgrf Kgrlb Kgrlb Kgrd Kgrd Kgrcb Kgrts Kgrf Kgrb Kgrts Kgrlb Kgrue Kgrle Kgrd Kgrle Kgrf Kgrts Kgrr Kgrle Kgrlb Base from U.S.