# RPSEA

Feasibility of Using Alternative Water

Sources for Shale Gas Well Completions

— A Preliminary Guidance Document on

Current Practices in the Barnett

Report No. 08122

- 05.0 3



# Barnett and Appalachian Shale

Water Management and Reuse

Technologi

es

Contract 08122

- 05

February 22, 2010

Principal Investigator Project Manager

Jean

- Philippe Nicot

Research Scientist

Bureau of Economic Geology

The University of Texas at Austin

University Station, Box X

Austin, TX 78713

- 8924 Tom Hayes

Coordina tor, Environmental

Engineering Solutions

Gas Technology Institute

1700 S. Mount Prospect Rd.

Des Plaines, IL

### LEGAL NOTICE

This report was prepared by the The University of Texas at Austin, Bureau of Economic

Geology, as an account of work sponsor ed by the Research Partnership to Secure

Energy for America, RPSEA. Neither RPSEA members of RPSEA, the National Energy

Technology Laboratory, the U.S. Department of Energy, nor any person acting on

behalf of any of the entities :

a. MAKES ANY WARRANTY OR REPR ESENTATION, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WITH

RESPECT TO ACCURACY, COMPLETENESS, OR USEFULNESS OF THE

INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS DOCUMENT, OR THAT THE USE OF ANY

INFORMATION, APPARATUS, METHOD, OR PROCESS DISCLOSED IN THIS

DOCUMENT MAY NOT INFRINGE PRIVATELY OWNE D RIGHTS, OR

b. ASSUMES ANY LIABILITY WITH RESPECT TO THE USE OF, OR FOR ANY AND

ALL DAMAGES RESULTING FROM THE USE OF, ANY INFORMATION,

APPARATUS, METHOD, OR PROCESS DISCLOSED IN THIS DOCUMENT.

THIS IS AN INTERIM REPORT. THEREFORE, ANY DATA, CALCULATI ONS, OR

CONCLUSIONS REPORTED HEREIN SHOULD BE TREATED AS PRELIMINARY

.

REFERENCE TO TRADE NAMES OR SPECIFIC COMMERCIAL PRODUCTS, COMMODITIES,

OR SERVICES IN THIS REPORT DOES NOT REPRESENT OR CONSTIITUTE AND

ENDORSEMENT, RECOMMENDATION, OR FAVORING BY RPSEA OR ITS CONTRACTORS

OF THE SPECIFIC COMMERCIAL PRODUCT, COMMODITY, OR SERVICE.

# THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

# ABSTRACT

This document presents early results of a study investigating alternative sources of water

to be used in the last completion phase (so

- called ― fracing ‖ ) of gas wells in the Barnett

Shale play. Millions of gallons is needed to perform the fracing operation

, and in the past

few years gas operators have used (1) groundwater from dedicated supply wells, (2)

surface water from water

- rights owner s (private or state agencies such as r iver

a uthorities), (3) surface water from private ponds and other water bodies, (4) treated

water from municipalities and industrial users

, and (5) water recycled from previous

fracing operations. As gas production moves away from the core area (Denton, Johnson,

Tarrant, and Wise C ounties) toward the north, south

, and west to access the remainder of

the play, gas operators are faced with two challenges: (1) increase d water scarcity and (2)

measured reluctance to impact domestic and public water supplies. This study analyzes

three potential sources able to meet those goals: (1) small ponds outside the S tate

regulation of surface water

, (2) smallish groundwater aquifer s west of the more plentiful

Trinity a quifer

, and (3) treated wastewater outfalls. D ifferent alternative sources were

inventoried through orthoimagery coverage to detect all non

- S t ate

- water bodies, an

analysis of the groundwater literature supplemented by perusal of S tate agency databases,

and a thorough examination of relevant wastewater databases ( S tate and F ederal),

respectively.

Historical data and projections estimated tha t as much as 40,000 AF of water could be

used every year to frac wells. This fi gure compares well with water available from non

S tate

- surf ace

- water bodies (>100,000 AF at any given time), groundwater ( > 25,000 AF

available per year) , and wastewater outfall (>100,000 AF/ yr).

# TABLE OF CONTENTS

1 Introduction

................................ ................................ ................................ ............................. 1

2 Current Practices

................................ ................................ ................................ ..................... 6

3 Water

- Quantity and Water

- Quality Requirements

................................ ............................... 10

3.1 Water

- Quantity Requirements

................................ ................................ ...................... 10

3.2 Water

- Quality Requirements

................................ ................................ ........................ 10

4 Surface

- W ater Bodies

................................ ................................ ................................ ........... 15

4.1 Water

- Body Statistics

— Satellite

- Imagery Study

................................ ......................... 15

4.2 Surface

- Water

- Body Analysis

................................ ................................ ...................... 17

5 Groundwater

................................ ................................ ................................ ......................... 26

6 Nonconventional Water Sources

................................ ................................ ........................... 34

6.1 What are they?

................................ ................................ ................................ .............. 34

6.2 WWTP Data Source

................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 34

6.3 Results

................................ ................................ ................................ ........................... 35

6.3.1 Wastewater Flow

................................ ................................ ................................ .. 35

6.3.2 Wastewater Quality

................................ ................................ ............................... 36

7 Summary and Conclusions

................................ ................................ ................................ ... 42

8 References

................................ ................................ ................................ ............................. 43

9 Appendix A: Characteristics of WWTP Outfalls

................................ ................................ .. 44

10 Appendix B: Summary Statistics for Water Features

................................ ....................... 54

11 Appendix C: Plotting Results of Surface

- Water

- Body Study

................................ ........... 75

# LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1. Barnett Shale and Trinity aquifer exte nts.

................................ ................................ ........ 2

Figure 2. Barnett Shale well locations (>15,000 wells as of end of 2010)

................................ ...... 3

Figure 3. Rivers and reservoirs in the study a rea.

................................ ................................ ............ 4

Figure 4. Map displaying counties of interest.

................................ ................................ ................. 5

Figure 5. Cumulative gas production and water use in Barnett Shale play from origins.

............. 11

Figure 6. Barnett Shale

— vertical vs. horizontal and directional wells through time.

................... 11

Figure 7. Barnett Shale

— annual number of frac jobs superimposed on annual average,

median, and other percentiles of individual

- well frac

- water use for (a) vertical wells

and (b) horizontal wells.

................................ ................................ ................................ 12

Figure 8. Barnett Shale

— histograms of frac

- water use for 2000

– 2010 (a) vertical wells and (b)

horizontal wells.

................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 13

Figure 9. Example of Barnett Shale density of laterals (Dallas

- Tarrant County line).

.................. 14

Figure 10. Project area counties and distribution of Barnett Shale wells.

................................ ..... 19

Figure 11. Wettest and driest months, 1995

– 2000.

................................ ................................ ....... 19

Figure 12. Landsat Paths 28 and 27 in relation to the study area.

................................ ................. 20

Figure 13. Surface

- water features identified during multiple yea rs and shown with source

Landsat images.

................................ ................................ ................................ .............. 21

Figure 14. Surface

- water features identified during multiple years without image backdrops.

.... 22

Figure 15. Example (Erath County) of plots presented in Appendix C.

................................ ........ 23

Figure 16. Pond intensity (acre per square mile) for selected times.

................................ ............. 24

Figure 17. Pond density (pond count per square mile) for selected times.

................................ .... 24

Figure 18. Comparison of annual precipitation (and minimum, average, and maximum pond

inte nsity).

................................ ................................ ................................ ....................... 25

Figure 19. Monthly precipitation (small dots) and time location of orthoimagery results (large

circles).

................................ ................................ ................................ ........................... 25

Figure 20 . Map of groundwater conservation districts.

................................ ................................ . 29

Figure 21. Tentative map of Paleozoic formations in north

- central Texas.

................................ ... 30

Figu re 22. West

- east and north

- south geologic cross sections of study area.

................................ 31

Figure 23. Public water

- supply wells tapping Paleozoic aquifers (red) and all others (blue),

mostly Trinity but also Woodbine and alluvium.

................................ .......................... 32

Figure 24. Brackish water is common in Paleozoic aquifers.

................................ ........................ 33

Figure 25. Map showing municipal and ind ustrial wastewater facilities listed in the TCEQ

Wastewater Outfall database (green dots) vs. those facilities for which we have

chemical and flow

- rate information (red dots

— most masking green dots).

................. 38

Figure 26. Distribution of wastewater facilities sorted by county according to their discharge

rates.

................................ ................................ ................................ ............................... 39

Figure 27. All dischargers within the study area separated into groups on th e basis of various

flow rates (<0.05 MGD; 0.05

– 0.1 MGD; 0.1

– 1.0 MGD; >1.0 MGD).

......................... 40

Figure 28. Flow

- rate distribution of WWTP: (a) all plants, (b) plants with average flow >1

MGD, and (c) plant s with average flow <0.1 MGD.

................................ ..................... 41

# LIST OF TABLES

Table 1. Summary of water sources and assessment of use in the Barnett play.

............................ 9

Table 2. Precipitation extremes and Landsat data availability.

................................ .................... 18

Table 3. Characteristics of small aquifers outside Trinity aquifer footprint.

................................ 28

# LIST OF ACRONYMS

AF Acre

- foot

BSWCMC Barnett Shale Water Conservation and Management Committee

GCD Groundwater c onservation d istrict

gpm Gallon per minute

MGD Million gallons per day

PWS Public water system

SES Steam electri c station

TCEQ Texas Commission on Environmental Quality

TDS Total dissolved solids

TNRIS T exas Natural Resources Information System

T S S Total s uspended solids

TWDB Texas Water Development Board

WWTP Wastewater treatment plant

### 1



# 1 Introduction

This report documents preliminary results of year 1 of Task 6.0

, ―Determine Feasibility of Using

Alternative Water Sources

. ‖ The impetus of the work was a realization that development for gas

production in the Barnett Shale area is expanding to the west , n orth

, and south of the core area into

areas with few known groundwater resources and with some of the surface

- water resources tied up

for municipal use ( Figure 1 show s footprint of the Trinity a quifer

, Figure 2 depict s Barnett Shale

well location as of early 2011, Figure 3 display s surface

- water features, and Figure 4 show s the

counties of interest ) . There is a clear need for a coordinated approach to loc ating alternate sources of

water and evaluating various means of water delivery to alleviate potential water

- availability

constraints on Barnett Shale production over the next 20 yr. The objectives of the s tudy as a whole

are to

1. Gather baseline data and de termine current and predicted water use for all purposes

, 2. Review water

- quality specifications required to perform frac jobs developed by the Barnett

Shale Water Conservation and Management Committee ( BSWCMC ) Frac Job Expert Panel

and determine technical an d economic feasibility of utilizing alternate sources of water

, 3. Inventory sources of surface water

, 4. Inventory nonconventional water sources: desalination concentrates, reclaimed water from

treatment plants, low

- salinity produced water, dewatering activiti es, etc.

, 5. Interview and interact with industry operators to learn about current practices of locating

alternate sources of water in counties with water limitations

, 6. Determine water compositions of alternate water sources by obtaining existing data (from

TW DB and TCEQ) , and

7. Determine possible interactions between sources.

The overall goal is for BSWCMC/RPSEA/GTI to visualize water availability and quality below

some cost threshold from any location in the study area. This interim report focuses on Subtask 5

but could not be completed without input and results from Subtasks 1 through 4

, which set the

stage. Subtasks 1 through 5 will be revisited in the final topical report because operators’

approaches and technologies evolve fairly quickly in the play. An int eresting development is the

current focus on the so

- called combo play located in Clay and Montague Counties in the north

section of the Barnett Shale footprint. The combined production of oil and gas makes the area

more attractive

, given currently depresse d gas prices. Subtasks 6 and 7 will be fully addressed in

the final topical report. The spatial focus of this study includes 14 counties with significant gas

production: Bosque, Dallas, Denton, Erath, Hill, Hood, Jack, Johnson, Montague, Palo Pinto,

Parker , Somervell, Tarrant, and Wise.

This preliminary guidance document mostly follows subtasks in the order that they are listed: (1)

a section on background information of current water use in the Barnett Shale and relevant

conclusions from the expert panel on water quality, (2) a discussion of surface

- water bodies, and

(3) a discussion of nonconventional water sources. Contributors to the work include Steve

Walden and Russ Baier from Steve Walden Consulting and Cliff Lam

, undergraduate at UT, for

the WWTP st udy ; Teresa Howard from the Center for Space Research at UT for the water

features study ; Ed McGlynn, graduate student at UT, for the groundwater study ; and Cari Breton

at BEG for help on the GIS work. Some of the contacts were made through the BSWCMC

( http://www.barnettshalewater.org/index.html )

### 2

Figure 1

. Barnett Shale and Trinity a quifer extents. 

### Structural boundaries

of the Barnett Shale Barnett Shale extent

(blue) Trinity aquifer outcrop

(solid green)

Trinity aquifer subcrop

(stippled light green)

### 3

Note: county boundaries of area of study highlighted by thicker solid lines



### Figure 2 . Barnett Shale well locations (>15,000 wells as of end of 2010)

### 4

Figure 3 . Rivers and reservoirs in the study area.

### 5 

### (a)

(b)

Note: Maps show Barnett Shale footprint, D allas

- F ort W orth m etroplex, and gas

- well locations through 2008. The

10 counties of initial interest are also shown: Tier1, the closest to the core area (Montague, Wise, Parker, Wood, and

Somervell) and Tier2 (Jack, Palo Pinto, Erath, Bosque, and Hill). Area approximately delimited by yellow lines

represents sections of shale with sufficient thermal maturity. (b) A ddition of Denton, Tarrant, Johnson

, and Dallas

C ounties.



### Figure 4 . Map displaying c ounties of interest

.

### 6



# 2 Current Practices

Although operators typically declare to the State legal authority (RRC) how much water and how

much proppant they use during well stimulation

, there is no legal requirement to declare the

source of frac makeup water or the quality of the water being used

. Although known anecdotally,

comprehensive information is hard to obtain

. The general picture emerging from conversations

with operators is that the search for water is done in a mostly ad hoc fashion

, with operators at

the corporate level not tracking the source of the frac water very well or un willing to share to

ensure their competitive advantage. In other words, access to and knowledge of the different

approaches to satisfy water needs are possible

, but more quant itative results with breakup figures

among the different approaches are more difficult to compile

.

T here are several ways to access information about current practices put forward by gas

operators to obtain water for frac jobs : formal surveys, literature review and conference

proceedings and attendance, and direct interaction with managers or technical experts in charge

of well completions. The first option was not retained because of the typical low return as

experienced by BEG in previous projects. The s econd option is appropriate

, and a lot could be

gained because, in general, the information is dense, consistent, and thorough . A drawback might

be that data could be out dated. The third option is likely the best if the person of interest has time

to devot e to answering questions, which is unfortunately rarely the case.

I nformation used in this document was gleaned from literature search, interactions with experts

at conferences or other private meetings

, and phone calls. In 2010, the top 10 producers were

, in

decreasing order of production

, Devon, Chesapeake, XTO (Exxon), EOG, Quicksilver, Encana,

R ange, Carrizo , Williams, and Burlington (Conoco

- Phillips)

, with the first three dominating the

play (RRC website). Information was also obtained through direct interaction with staff members

of some of these companies.

Water sources fall into three broad categories: surface water, groundwater, and a composite

group. Typically water is either trucked or piped to location. N eeded injection rates cannot be

matched by truck traffic or pipeline

- flow rate

, so water is generally stored on site in a tank

battery or in an impoundment. For example, Chesapeake uses ponds holding several millions of

gallons of water that can be used to drill and frac several wells within a r adius of 1 or 2 miles.

Surface waters include lakes and rivers, for which a permit is needed, but also artificial ponds

, whose water originates from the subsurface, and impoundments. Groundwater is pumped from

wells drilled by the operator or owned by a n earby landowner. The last category is composed of

what could be terme d unconventional or alternative sources of water , including municipal water

(which initially may be groundwater, surface water, or a mix of both) and wastewater from

municipal or industri al facilities

, to which recycled flowback water can be added. Ano ther source

not commonly present in the Barnett footprint is acid mine drainage.

The latest reliable piece of information on groundwater

– surface water split dates back a few

years. The sourc e of fresh water was nearly even in 2005 between surface water and groundwater

(estimated at 53% and 47%, respectively)

, and it was projected that by 2007 the fraction of fresh

water from surface water would rise to

~ 59% as drilling activity expanded in th e Fort Worth

metropolitan area (Galusky, 2007). Information from other shale

- gas plays can also reveal other

companies’ approach es to water management in the Barnett play. For example, Veil (2010)

report ed on water management in the Marcellus but focused m ostly on the disposal of

### 7



### wastewater and Gaudlip et al. ( 2008) investigated approaches used in the Marcellus a few years

ago.

Table 1 summarizes qualitatively current approaches. Large surface

- water bodies and

groundwater are like ly conventional targets. Surface

- water bodies can be managed by municipal,

S tate, S tate

- initiated, or F ederal entities ( U.S. Department of Agriculture

, U.S. Corp s of

Engineers)

. Operators can, for example, contract with the Br azos River Authority (BRA)

, wh ich

control s surface water in the south section of the study area ( Figure 3 ) or with the Trinity River

or Red River Authorit y which controls surface water f a rther north. As far as we know, water use

by category for river authorities is not specific enough to carve out the part related to fracing. For

example, BRA sells

~ 2% of the water (that it is allowed by the State to sell) for mining use that

includes fracing but possibly other uses

. Municipal water is also a ta rget of choice , especially in

urban environments with no access to surface water and limited access to groundwater. For

example, the City of Arlington, Tarrant County , provides a maximum of 3% of i ts 140

- MGD

capacity to gas operators (J. J. Hunt , Arlington Water Utilities, oral communication, 2010). This

amount is apparently enough to frac 300+ wells every year

, but how much of that water is

actually used for fracing is unclear

.

As an example, Chesapeake (2008 presentation) has the following approximate so urce

breakdown: surface water 35% (Brazos River Authority, Trinity River Authority, U.S. Corps of

Engineers), private water 25% (private lakes and ponds and stock tanks), water

- supply wells

25% (all but three had already been drill ed), municipal water purc hases 15% (Arlington,

Burleson, Cleburne, Crowley, Keene, Fort Worth, and Grand Prairie), and reuse/wastewater <

1%.

There is also a move toward using b rackish and saline water

, includ ing flowback, produced

water, and water originating from shallow and de ep aquifers . In some cases, operators might then

run into obstacles (see Section 3.2 ). Recycling is also an option but not hotly pursued in the

Barnett play because disposal (mostly into the underlying Ellenburger) is more conv enient and,

currently, cheaper. On a per

- well basis, i nitial flowback water requiring limited treatment

amounts to 200,000 gal (M. Mantell, Chesapeake, GWPC Conference , January 2010)

, or only

~ 5% of the amount injected. Transporting such a small fraction o f the water needed to frac

another well causes logistical problem s, unless the well is on a multiwell pad. The 20 to 30%

flowback recovered in the 2 weeks followin g stimulation can be reused

, but, for some of it, only

after having received a more expensive t reatment t o remove the excess sa linity through

evaporative thermal or membrane reverse osmosis processes. More innovative approaches

yielding lesser volumes of water include reuse of drilling wastewater and use of excess water

coll e cted during wet months or heavy precipitations events. Blending of water from different

sources

, and particularly of different quality

, has become more widespread in the past few years

(and has compounded geochemical compatibility and scaling issues).

The work in this report i s described along three fronts: (1) groundwater not related to the Trinity

aquifer ( the regional aquifer tapped by municipalities )

, (2) non

- S tate surface waters

, and (3)

municipal and industrial sources. Groundwater and surface water

, being broadly distrib uted

, natural water sources, are less controllable in terms of quantity and quality through time. The

next section (Section 3 ) gives details on water

- quantity and water

- quality requirements. Section

4 endeavors to explain the use of small ponds by the industry by examining pond supply through

time and under different climatic conditions (wet year, dry year)

. This information may suggest

new approaches to the industry for coping with the lack of easil y accessible groundwater.

### 8



### Section 5 investigates availability of groundwater outside the Trinity a quifer, particular ly in

terms of volume, water volume, and well yield. Lastly, Section 6 describes o ptions for the use of

nonconventional sources of water and the availability of this water for future completions in the

Barnett Shale.

As the population within the Barnett Shale footprint continues to grow and as demands for fresh

water intensify

, it may be strategically important in the long term for the industry to dev elop

fewer water

- intensive fracs. In the midterm, the ability of the industry to process its flowback

and produced water for reuse in frac jobs will be of tactical significance as a means o f reducing

fresh

- water demand in the shale

- gas industry. Further improvement in industry fresh

- water

demand could be achieved through improved additives and treatment technologies to us e with

saline water produced from deeper saline aquifers (e.g., Ferguso n and Johnson, 2009)

. Auxiliary

water use such as drilling could also move from water

- based mud to air drilling as much as

possible. In the interval, alternate sources such as (nonpotable) brackish aquifers could help in

the transition.

### 9

Table 1 . Summary of water sources and assessment of use in the Barnett play

.

Source Water Quality

Water Use***

Fresh* Brackish Saline**

Surface Water

Lakes, rivers √ ++++ √ ++

Ponds √ +++

Ground w ater

Shallow depth √ ++++

S hallow to

intermediate depth √ ++

Deep a quifer and

produced water √ +

Unconventional / Reuse

Municipal WS √ +++

Industrial WW √ +

Municipal WW √ ++

Minimally treated

flowback √ √ ++

Recycled flowback √ ++

Mining impou n dments

or p onds –



### * defined as <1,000 mg/L

** defined as >20,000 mg/L (see Section 3 )

*** qualitatively defined as heavy (++++), significant (+++), marginal (++), emerging (+) , or

very minor (

– ) use

WS= water supply; WW= waste water

### 10



# 3 Water

- Quantity and Water

- Quality Requirements

3.1 Water

- Quantity Requirements

Fracing needed to open up flow pathways to produce gas requires large amount s of water

, and

th ose details will not be discussed here. The Barnett Shale play has used

~ 100,000 AF of fresh

water (1 AF = 325,851 gal = 7

, 758 bbl) ( Figure 5 ) and is currently using

~ 25,000 AF/yr

, with a

dip in 2009

– 2010 because of economic circumstances and low gas price s

. As described in Bené

et al. (2007) a nd Nicot and Potter (2007), this amount of water is small compared with the

volumes needed for municipal and other uses. The S tate of Texas as a whole uses 18+ million

AF/yr of fresh water (TWDB, 2007). Initially in the 1990’s and early 2000’s

, most fraced wells

were vertical

, but, beginning in 2003

– 04, drilling of horizontal wells grew fast and now

dominates the play ( Figure 6 ). Vertical wells were used mostly in the core area, close to Fort

Worth, in Denton, Johns on, Tarrant, and Wise Counties. This comment is important because

horizontal wells consume more water than vertical wells on average and, thus, require more

plentiful water sources . Vertical wells use

~ 1 to 1.5 million gal per frac job ( Figure 7 a and

Figure 8 a)

, whereas horizontal wells consume 3+ million gal ( Figure 7 b and Figure 8 b). In

gen eral, water must be delivered during fracing in a short amount of time (

~ 1 day)

, and water is

stored onsite while the well is being drilled (~3 weeks). This r equirement translates in to a

constraint for water sources to be able to provide this volume in the allotted time. Of course,

water demands for completions become larger in magnitude and more complex (with regard to

timing of delivery) as the industry moves toward the use of multiple

- well pads ( Figure 9 ). Three

million gal in 3 weeks requires a pumping rate of ~100 gal per minute (gpm) or 0.14 MGD ( gpm

and MGD are customary units for well pumpage and treatment plants, respectively )

. Bené et al.

(2007) suggested that the groundwater surface water split was

~ 50

- 50%

, but the data are not

easy to access and the issue has become more complicated by the use of recycling. The split most

likely varies in space and time because operators are opportunistic.



## 3.2 Water

- Quality Requirements

A report was obtained from a Hydraulic Fracturing Expert Panel conducted by the BSWCMC

that described the minimum quality of water needed to conduct hydraulic fracturing without

compromising the quality of shale

- gas well completions (Hayes, 2007). The report discusse s

critical parameters on t ot al d issolved s olids (TDS), ionic make

- up

, and other requirements of

fracing fluids

. Some of the key elements are:

C onsistency in fluid composition

, which relates to water amount

— that is, a source large

enough to provide water for a t least a significant fra ction of the job

, C ircum

- neutral pH (6

– 8) for optimal biocide use

, L ow hardness (Ca <350 mg/L) to limit polyacrylamide friction reducer demand

, TDS as measured by chloride; use of water with a chlorinity of 10 g/L(~16

– 17 g/L TDS) is

still appropriate acco rding to all panel members; high TDS (Cl>35,000 mg/L) is detrimental

to friction reducers,

T otal s uspended s olids (T S S) <50

– 100 mg/L , and

S ulfate that must be watch ed closely because of the impact of sulfate

- reducing bacteria and

because of scale

- forming B aSO 4 

### with a very low solubility product

.

### 11



### Other parameters to be considered include iron

, boron (premature cross

- linkage), and dissolved

O 2 

### (bacteria). These observations are confirmed by other statements available online. However,

note that the Hydraulic Fracturing Expert Panel was conducted more than 3 yr ago and that the

technology is quickly advancing. Another issue beco ming more prevalent i s the increase in the

number of stages and total water volume requirement s. A related concern involves the

managem ent of the chemical compatibility of waters that are more and more likely to be of from

different origins (blending) as the required amount increases

.

Figure 5 . Cumulative gas production and water use in Barnett Shale play from origins

.

Figure 6 . Barnett Shale

— v ertical vs. horizontal and directional wells through time

.

### 12



### (a)

(b)

Figure 7 . Barnett Shale

— a nnual number of frac jobs superimposed on annual average, median, and oth er

percentiles of individual

- well frac

- water use for (a) vertical wells and (b) horizontal wells.

### 13 

### (a)

(b)

Figure 8 . Barnett Shale

— h istograms of frac

- water use for 2000

– 2010 (a) vertical wells and (b) horizontal

wells

.

### 14

Source C ourtesy of DrillingInfo

Note: map displays an average drainage area of ~80 acres/well (laterals not pads) where laterals are dense.

Pentagons depict location s of multilateral well pads

, whereas dotted lines depict different laterals originating from

the sa me well pad. Laterals are more or less parallel because they are oriented perpendicular to the local minimum

horizontal stress. Underlying gray boundaries denote property lines (not relevant to the discussion).



### Figure 9 . Example o f Barnett Shale density of laterals (Dallas

- Tarrant C ounty line)

.

### 15



# 4 Surface

- Water Bodies

Surface water in Texas , such as rivers and lakes ( Figure 3 ), is owned by the State

, which grants

the right to use it to different entities. T ypically a permit is needed to retrieve the water unless i t

falls under an ― exempt use

. ‖ Exempt uses include ― d omestic and l ivestock u se

, ‖ for which

impound ing and stor ing of water are allowed on properties adjoining a stream but no t greater

than 200 AF (6 5 million gal) on average in any consec u tive 12 months. This water cannot be

sold

, however

. For the water to be used for that purpose

, the landowner would need to en sure

that the potential buyer ( gas operator) obtained a temporary permit from TCEQ. I f a su rplus of

water is not appropriated, temporary permits can be granted relatively easily . Clearly, during

drought, when junior water rights might not be fulfilled, temporary permit requests will not be

approved. P rocessing in regional TCE Q offices is general ly quick, provided the volume

requested is , at most, less than 10 AF (3.26 million gal) in a calendar year. In addition, surface

runoff, as long as it has not entered a natural water course, belongs to the landowner

, not the

State.

As detailed next

, orthoi magery coverage (publicly available from T exas Natural Resources

Information System

, or TNRIS) was used to inventory surface

- water bodies. In addition, t he

TCEQ Central Registry (see Section 6) was also used to examine and evaluate other program

related da tasets for further water

- availability potential. These included w ater r ights, u tilities, and

p ublic w ater s ystem/ s upply p rograms. Water

- r ights permit holders are authorized to withdraw a

designated amount of water from surface

- water sources for industrial, agricultural, municipal,

and other uses. Approximately 570 entities hold w ater

- r ights permits in the initial 10

- county

study area. Utilities are established entities approved by the TCEQ to provide water and

wastewater services to specified geographic are as of the state. Approximately 250 u tilities are

authorized in the 10

- county area. Public w ater s ystems (PWS) cover a broad spectrum of public

or privately owned facilities

, ranging from cities to neighborhood water

- supply systems to

individual businesses that provide potable water to customers. Approximately 530 PWS s exist in

the study area. Because all of these entities are already committed to providing existing or future

uses of water in the area, they were determined to be unlikely sources of available water for

fracing operations.



## 4.1 Water

- Body Statistics

— Satellite

- Imagery Study

The inventory of non

- S tate

- regulated surface

- water features in the footprint of the Barnett Shale

in Montague, Wise, Parker, Hood, Somervell, Jack, Palo Pinto, Erath, Bosque, and Hill C ounties

is nearing completion ( Figure 10 ). Previously, the wettest and driest months from 1995 through

2000 (that is, before gas

- drilling activities) were identified. Within the counties of interest,

greatest departures fro m normal mean precipitation for 1971 through 2000, both wet and dry,

occurred in the month of February ( Figure 11 ). The wettest month was February 1997 in which a

mean monthly precipitation of 7.7 inches was recorded . The driest m onth occurred 2 years later.

For the 10

- county area, the driest year in the region of interest occurred in 1999; 1997 was the

wettest year.

Two Landsat satellite passes, typically called paths , are required to cover the area of interest.

These are P ath 28 to the west and P ath 27 to the east ( Figure 12 ). Two Landsat images per path

are required to cover the area of interest. Previously all potential Landsat images for the period

of interest (1995 through the present) were prescreen ed. In total 60 cloud

- free candidates and 20

### 16



### additional candidates were potentially useful in some capacity. Table 2 shows the image

candidates chosen for time

- series analysis and a brief synopsis of collection conditions in

relat ion to monthly mean precipitation. The image candidates for 2010 were updated when

cloud

- free observations were made in November of that year. Preference was given to single date

collections by path and near

- date collections for adjacent paths. For example , the dry baseline

image for P ath 27 uses data collected on February 14, 1999, for the east half of the area of

interest. A near

- date image collected on February 21, 1999, was chosen for P ath 28. Although

the latter image was collected during the month ran ked as third

- driest, the mean monthly

precipitation and the 7

- day time proximity made it the best match. I mages representing the

wettest baseline dataset were chosen in a similar manner. For 2003 through 2010, preference was

given to same

- date images colle cted along each path. The final choice was based on date

proximity of adjacent path collections.

Landsat 5 Thematic Mapper data were preprocessed and mosaicked by path. Alternative methods

for preprocessing and classification were tested. In the final proc essing for identification of non

S tate

- regulated water features from Landsat satellite data currently under way, each image

mosaic is processed to remove most atmospheric noise. Vegetation indices, water indices

, and a

texture measure are calculated. The p reprocessed data are subdivided into tiles. Next the

multiband tiles are entered into a geographic

, object

- based

, image

- analysis program in which

each tile is segmented into objects of varying size and classified using an iterative process that

first ident ifies and flags large reservoirs and then identifies water bodies of increasingly smaller

sizes. Some features as small as a quarter acre are identified

, but the most reliably identified

features are 1 acre in size or larger.

Following image classificatio n, results were exported into a common raster data format. Included

in the results were objects classified as medium and large reservoirs, rivers, and other surface

water features classed by area extent. The latter water features were exported as unified o bjects

and, in parallel, as objects class ifi ed according to water content: 100% water, 75

– 99 % water

content, and 50

– 74% water content. All tiled results were exported to a conventional image

processing application to reconstruct complete image mosaics. Th e reconstructed classified

image data were exported into a vector GIS format. Within a GIS environment, classification

results were compared with source Landsat images. GIS tools were used to eliminate most false

positive objects, including mosaic seam lin es, cloud shadow, shadow in terrain, wet soil in fallow

fields, water pooling in streambeds, river water not classified as such, and large pools of water in

riverine floodplains. The data review also revealed some missed opportunities

, but it was not

feasi ble to correct omissions in a timely manner. The area of image overlap was scrutinized. For

6 of the 10 yr analyzed, < 9 days elapsed between collection periods. For three of the remaining

years

, the gap was more than 3 weeks. The largest gap was 39 days i n 2004. Consequently

, it

was decided to merge data collected during a single year to create 10 datasets. Appendix B

contains summary statistics describing results

, which are arranged by county geography, from

north to south and west to east. R esults are an alyzed in Section 4.2

.

Figure 13 and Figure 14 show representative results using P ath 27 data from multiple years:

1997, 1999, 2005

, and 2010. The area depicted shows the int ersection of three counties of

interest: Hood, Erath

, and Somervell. The smallest identified features are 0.22 acres in size (30

-

× 30

- m pixels) but might be slightly larger or smaller in actuality. G raphics are displayed at a

slightly greater resolution th an is appropriate for 30

- m Landsat data

, so the reader can see

### 17



### changes in smaller features over time. Some change in feature size is evident in the time

- series

sample. N ote that the number of the smallest water features fluctuates over time.

N ote also tha t some features might be missing in the final classifications and that some features

identified as water might not be water in actuality. Several factors determine which features are

properly classified. In general, filter ing out features represented by 1 to 3 pixels is preferable

because of uncertainties in the classifications. However, these smallest features are retained at

this time. A review of selected features in comparison with recent high

- resolution aerial images

indicates that many correspond to w ater features. Note that feature areas as presented in the

t ables of Appendix B necessarily represent metrics based on pixel size.



## 4.2 Surface

- Water

- Body Analysis

The objective of this part of Section 4 is to assess how much water is potentially available from

small private ponds and whether impact of well

- completion activities can be seen in a history of

pond count and surface area. Note that satellite imagery provides access to the area covered by a

water body not to its depth

, although it makes sense to positively correlate area and depth. We

plan to further investigate this relationship to better constrain the amount of water available.

Figure 15 displays examples of plots prepared for all counties in Appendix C. Type 1 plots

( Figure 15 ) display cumulative area at selected times (as discussed in the p re vious section). In a

given county

, the area varies by a factor of 3 as a function of precipitation. Type 2 plots,

illustrating variation s in pond count of different sizes at selected times, consistently show that

small ponds are numerous, which is not only an advantage for servic ing well pads distributed

across the county, but also the y are sensitive to weather variations (wet/dry periods). Type 3

plots display completion count s (extracted from the IHS Energy database and calculated on a

1/10 of a year basis) and pond intensity and try to discern impact of fracing on amount of water

sto red in ponds.

Typical surface area values ranges from <1,000 to <10,000 acres

, depending on the county and

time. Another way to present the information is to normalize the cumulative pond area by the

county area ( Figure 16 ) or to normalize the pond count (all sizes) by the county area ( Figure 17 ).

A representative value is 4 acres of (non

- S tate) surface water per square mile

, or 0.25 acre per 40

acres. Assuming a depth of 5 ft on average , this is a water volume of ~0.4 Mgal/40 acres. Adding

the time dimension shows that this amount of water is more than sufficient to meet all fracing

needs. If the play is active for several decades and the pond can be naturally replenished (t hat is,

with precipitation and runoff

, not through groundwater pumping or owner interv en tion ) several

times a year, the amount of water available is beyond what is needed for a generic well. Another

way to present the information that may be simpler is to compare projections for annual needs at

the county level to approximate pond volume. Annual needs are estimated to be close to an

average of 2,000 AF

/yr /county (Nicot et al., 2011 ), which is covered by the 1,000

- to 10,000

- acre range with a 5

- ft nominal de pth.

Comparison with National Weather Service data ( http://www4.ncdc.noaa.gov/cgi

win/wwcgi.dll?WWDI~getstate~USA ) shows that pond area is correlated with precipitation

( Figure 18 and Figure 19 ) but requires more analysis . Gaining a better understanding of the s plit

between stored groundwater and surface

- water runoff ( still unknown ) is also impor tant in fully

access ing the true amount of water available in ponds and other surface

- water bodies.

### 18

Table 2

. Precipitation extremes and Landsat data availability

.

Mean

Monthly

Precip.

(in c hes ) M o Yr Path Location

of AOI Date

Lan dsat

Collection Rank (1995

– 1999)

or Departure from

Normal (2003

– 2010) Precipitation

Comparison

Status Mean

Monthly

Normal

Precip.

(in ches )

0.13 Feb 1999 27 East 2/14/1999 D riest Baseline 1.9

0.15 Feb 1999 28 West 2/21/1999 3rd driest Baseline 1.8

7.8 Fe b 1997 27 East 3/3/1997 W ettest Baseline 2.0

5.5 Mar 1997 28 West 3/28/1997 4th wettest Baseline 2.5

2.3 Oct 2003 27 East 10/23/2003 D rier than normal Oct mean 3.9

2.9 Oct 2003 28 West 10/14/2003 D rier than normal Sep/Oct mean 3.4

3.1 Sep 2004 27 East 9/7/2004 N ear normal Aug/Sep mean 2.7

2.5 Oct 2004 28 West 10/16/2004 D rier than normal Sep/Oct mean 3.4

2.3 Feb 2005 27 East 2/14/2005 N ear normal Jan/Feb mean 1.9

2.2 Feb 2005 28 West 2/21/2005 N ear normal Feb mean 2.0

2.5 Nov 2006 27 East 11/16/2006 D rier than normal Oct/Nov mean 3.1

1.6 Nov 2006 28 West 11/23/2006 D rier than normal Nov mean 2.1

4.0 Mar 2007 27 East 3/8/2007 W etter than normal Feb/Mar mean 2.5

6.5 Mar 2007 28 West 3/31/2007 W etter than normal Mar mean 2.5

4.8 Apr 2008 27 East 4/1 1/2008 W etter than normal Mar/Apr mean 2.8

4.8 Apr 2008 28 West 4/18/2008 W etter than normal Mar/Apr mean 2.6

8.4 Oct 2009 27 East 10/23/2009 W etter than normal Oct mean 3.9

5.9 Sep 2009 28 West 9/28/2009 W etter than normal Sep mean 3.0

n/a Jun 2010 27 East 11/27/2010 n/a n/a n/a

n/a Apr 2010 28 West 11/18/2010 n/a n/a n/a

### 19

Figure 10 . Project area counties and distribution of Barnett Shale wells

.

Figure 11 . Wettest and driest months

, 1995

– 2000

.

### 20

Figure 12 . Landsat P aths 28 and 27 in relation to the study area

.

### 21

Figure 13

. Surface

- water features identified during multiple years and shown with source Landsat images

.

### 22

Figure 14

. Surface

- water features identified during multiple years without image backdrops

.

### 23 

### Type 1 plot

Type 2 plot

Type 3 plot

Note: 1997: preactivity wettest month; 1999 preactivity driest month



### Figure 15

. Example (Erath C ounty) of plots presented in Appendix C

.

### 24

Note: straight lin e segment s are not meant to infer that interpolation is linear between data points (actually it is very

likely that is not) but for ease of reading

.



### Figure 16 . Pond inten sity (acre per square mile) for selected times

.

Figure 17 . Pond density (pond count per square mile) for selected times

.

### 25

Note: solid lines: 43 weather stations covering the 10

- county area of interest; open symbols: pond intensi ty

.



### Figure 18 . Comparison of annual precipitation (and minimu m , average , a nd maximum pond intensity ).

Figure 19

. Monthly precipitation (small dots) and time location of orthoimagery results (large circ les)

.

### 26



# 5 Groundwater

Generally groundwater belongs to the landowner under the rule of cap ture. Groundwater is

managed by pseudo

- governmental entities called Groundwater Conservation Districts ( GCDs )

, often corresponding to a single county. If the property is not part of any GCD, the rule of capture

fully applies

, and the landowner is free to first pump and then sell as much water as he/ she

wishes. Within the confines of a GCD, some rules apply. Most of the are a of interest is part of a

GCD

, except for Palo Pi nto and Jack Counties ( Figure 20 )

. N ot coincidentally th e se two counties

also have a limited amount of good

- quality ground water

.

A literature survey of aquifers existing in the footprint of the study area was performed and other

information on them was gathered as well . The major aquifer in the area is the Trinity a quifer

( Figure 1 )

, but several counties also include smaller aquifers in Paleozoic formations in Palo

Pinto and Jack C ounties, as well as bits of Montague, Wise, Parker, and Erath. Th e se smaller

aquifers contain significant amounts of brackish water ; in this analysis, both fresh

- and brackish

water aquifers are of interest

.

Overall, g r o undwater resources in the study area can be categorized in to two groups: Trinity

a quifer resources and all others ( Figure 21 )

. T he T rinity aquifer outcrop is elongated n orth

- s outh

and covers, from n orth to s outh, most of or a sizable fraction of Montague, Wise, Parker, Hood,

and Erath C oun ties. East of these counties the Trinity aquifer is confined (from n orth to s outh,

Cooke, Denton, Tarrant, Johnson, Hill, and Bosque Counties )

, and water is more plentiful.

F a rther e ast, the Woodbine a quifer (a minor aquifer) crops out in the e ast section of Cooke,

Denton, Tarrant, and Johnson C ounties. N o TWDB

- defined major or minor aquifer lies west of

the Trinity a quifer, only relatively limited sand lenses

. Jack and Palo Pinto C ounties are entirely

outside the Trinity footprint

. Montague, Wise, Parker, Hood, and Erath C ounties are on the

Trinity outcrop

, which is thin in much of or in the west half of the counties

. The Trinity aquifer

, whose sediments are of Cretaceous age, is contained in the first formation deposited on top of

older Paleozoic formation s. They dip toward the southeast toward the Gulf

, whereas Paleozoic

formations dip toward the center of the basin

, currently located in the Midland area ( Figure 22 ).

The Trinity a quifer outcrop is particularly thin in parts of Mon tague and Wise Counties

, whe re

wells are drilled through it to reach underlying Paleozoic aquifers. Figure 23 depicts the

distribution of P WS wells (not domestic wells). Apparently w hen available

, the Trinity aquifer is

used heavi ly (although the Dallas

- Fort Worth metroplex uses mostly surface water for municipal

purposes) . Some Paleozoic aquifers are also a good source of fresh water

, with rates as high as

150 gpm in Montague County.

T he TCEQ PWS database provides mostly flow

- rat e information about municipal wells and

other regulated entities; water

- quality information is not as complete. The TWDB Driller

database ( http://www.twdb.state.tx.us/GwRD/waterwell/w ell_info.asp ) contains data about

domestic wells and provides more information on both well and aquifer characteristics

. Note that

any water well drilled in Texas needs to be reported to TCEQ. Some drillers do so electronically

, and their applications are available through the TWDB website. Others file their application s in a

paper format

, and extracting the information would require much more time to sift through the

files. Data to be extract ed are yield ( Q or flow rate) sustained by wells and drawdown ( s ) . Most

well files provide that information; however

, most wells are domestic and do not pump as much

water as the well can provide. Th is information is available through computation of specific

### 27



### discharge ( Q / s or flow rate over drawdown), although it is ha rder to obtain because many drillers

do not report drawdowns.

Clearly a better understanding of Paleozoic aquifers is needed , particularly their recharge

processes and flow system s

. TWDB has understandably been focusing on much larger , more

heavily used a quifers across the state

, although th e se Paleozoic aquifers are locally important.

Typically in a period of drought, water users rely more on groundwater than on surface water

, but how resilient to drought is groundwater if most of the flow system has shor t pathways and

quickly discharge s into streams and rivers? Further work is needed to compare water level as a

function of time and precipitation. Paleozoic aquifers are typically small

, with a footprint of less

than a county in area. Limited information ab out one of them is provided next

.

Avakian and Wermund (199 4 ) studied the Mineral Wells a quifer in Palo Pinto County. The

Mineral Wells Formation g en e rally consists of thin sandstones and limestones embedded within

mostly shaly sediments. Near the city of M ineral Wells in Palo Pinto County

, where the

f ormation is 700 ft thick (Avakian and Wermund, 199 4 , p. 21)

, seven nonshale units can be

count ed with the following thickness es : 25 ft (Hog Mountain S andstone) ; 10 ft (unknown); <50

ft (Lake Pinto S andstone) ; a nd 5 ft , 12 ft

, and <50 ft (Turkey Creek S andstone)

, from oldest to

youngest (note that names vary in different publications). Avakian and Wermund (199 4 ) found

that t he H og Mounta in S andstone (IPhm in Brown et al., 1972) can be followed

~ 5 or 6 miles

ea s t of the city of Mineral Wells. The Turkey Creek Sandstone (IPtc in Brown et al., 1972) can

be followed 25+ miles until it disappears under the Cretaceous ; it is probably hydraulicall y

connected to the s ands of the Twin Mountains Formation and possibly recha rged through them.

TDS s are close to the 1

, 000 mg/L threshold and frequently above it . Formations seem

un connected

, and water levels in wells seem to reflect local precipitation (Avakian and

Wermund, 199 4 , p. 57) . Many low

- yield wells tap (or at least use d to tap ) th e se formations

(Fisher et al., 1996, p. 7). Water drillers go down 500 ft to reach th e se formations

, and they

report that traces of oil or gas are currently encountered below ~250 ft (p. 7) [see Parker County

recent incident]. Fisher et al. (199 6, p

. 17) also noted that w ells are constructed deep to increase

well storage and ensure steady water supply

. Fisher et al. (1996) performed well testing and

extensive sampling.

### 28

Table 3 . Characteristics of small aquifers outside Trinity a quifer footprint

.

Percentile Bicarb

(mgl) Sulfate

(mgl) Chloride

(mgl) pH TDS Alkalinity Specific

Capacity

(gpm/ft

drawdown) Transmissivity

(ft 2 

### /day) Well

Depth

(ft)

95th 749 593 1,700 8.8 3,796 638 5.01 964.2 499

70th 518 151 235 8.3 1170 434 1 .70 327.6 245

50th 425 78 120 8.1 758 357 1.00 192.6 190

30th 353 45 52 7.7 545 296 0.50 96.3 113

5th 213 15 14 7.2 334 182 0.10 19.3 29

Max 2,026 4530 9,572 11.5 14,189 1,660 40.1 7,722.5 1,010

### 29

Source: TWDB website

Note: 75: Red River GCD; 62: N orth Texas GCD; 92: Upper Trinity G CD ; 63: Northern Trinity GCD; 72:

Prair i elands GCD; 59: Middle Trinity GCD.



### Figure 20 . Map of g roundwater c onservation d istricts

.

### 30

Figure 21 . Tentative map of Paleozoic f ormations in n orth

- c entral Texas

.

### 31

Note: Barnett Shale of Mississippian age included in gr a y

- colored horizon.



### Figure 22

. West

- east and n orth

- south geologic cross sections of study area

.

### 32

Note: highest Paleozoic well rate is 150 gpm

.



### Figure 23 . Public water

- supply wells tapping Paleozoic aquifers (red) and all others (blue), mostly Trinity

but also Woodbine and alluvium.

### 33

Figure 24

. Brackish water is common in Paleozoic aquifers

. 

### Ogallala

Trinity

Edwards

- Trinity

Several smaller aquifers

w ith mostly brackish water

### 34



# 6 Non c onventional Water S ources

6.1 What are they?

This task consists of an inventory of all non conventional water sources

, such as desalination

plants, mines with dewatering operations, p roduced water from conventional oil and gas

operations, and, most likely with the highest potential, WWTP outfalls.



## 6.2 WWTP Data Source

This project was initiated to research available data on potential sources of water of sufficient

quantity and quality in the large Barnett Shale natural gas fie ld in n orth

- c entral Texas west of the

Dallas

- Fort Worth metropolitan area. The study focused on identifying available water sources in

a 10

- county area

, including Bosque, Erath, Hood, Hill, Jack, Montague, Palo Pinto, Parker,

Somervell, and Wise C ounties. Examinations were later expanded to Tarrant and Johnson

C ounties and parts of Denton County (west of IH 35) as well ( Figure 4 )

.

TCEQ maintains an electronic Central Registry database of information on all companies and

facilities regulated by the various rul es and programs of the agency. The database

( http://www12.tceq.state.tx.us/crpub/index.cfm?fuseaction=regent.RNSearch ), accessible

thr oug h the TCEQ website, was initially queried to identify all large industrial or municipal

operations in the area by examining data for various TCEQ program areas

, including air, water

rights, stormwater , and wastewater permits.

Because the intent of the pro ject was to identify sources of water that were not committed to

other uses, we decided to examine only wastewater dischargers in greater detail. A methodic al

search was conducted for every active wastewater discharge permit by county to obtain facility

id entification, ownership, and o ther registration information. Research was also conducted on the

TCEQ Central Records to obtain hardcopies of critical por tions of permit documents. Specific

information regarding the regulated entity, contact information, de scription of type of source and

discharges at the facilities, effluent flow and parameter discharge limitations, sampling and

reporting requirements, and geographic coordinates are recorded in the permits. Information on

~ 143 individual permits was retriev ed.

To ensure completeness, a listing of all cities and towns within the Barnett Shale study area was

obtained from Texas Home Locators ( http://texas.hometownlocator.com/index.cfm ). A

comparison was made to determine whether the incorporated areas were included in the

wastewater discharger data o btained from TCEQ and EPA. Most incorporated cities appeared to

have wastewater treatment systems included in the datasets, whereas other s may have been

s erved by county or regional systems or depend ed to a large extent on onsite sewage treatment.

The greatest gaps appear ed to be in Denton, Tarrant, and Parker C ounties

, and additional

inv estigation may be necessary to obtain more data on the wast ewater syst ems in th e se areas.

However, most missing treatment facilities are associated with communities that are small and

may not represent significant potential water sources.

Most wastewater dischargers permitted by TCEQ ( http://www.tceq.state.tx.us/gis/sites.html )

under the Texas Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (TPDES) must file quarterly effluent

monitoring reports with EPA into the Permit Compliance System (PCS) and the Integrated

Compliance In formation System

— National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (ICIS

-

### 35



### NPDES), whi ch is gradually replacing PCS. This reporting data may be accessed through EPA’s

Enforcement and Compliance History On

- Line (ECHO) system ( http://www.epa

- echo.gov/cgi

bin/effluentsquery.cgi ). From this site, data were obtained regarding average and maximum flow

rates (MGD) through the treatment plant, as well as average concentrations of dissolved oxygen

(DO), biochemical oxygen demand (BOD), total suspended solids (TSS), nitrogen, sulfate, and

chlorine (in millig rams per liter, mg/ L ). Maximum and minimum pH and chlori ne levels were

also retrieved. Available information was analyzed for the 3

- yr period from Oct ober 2006

through September 2009 and recorded on a comprehensive spreadsheet for each permitted

discharge by county. The number of facilities examined in each county is as follows :

• Bosque County

— 11 Montague County

— 4 Denton County

— 16

• Erath County

— 3 • Palo Pinto County

— 11 • Johnson County

— 17

• Hill County

— 14 • Parker County

— 11 • Tarrant County

— 20

• Hood County

— 15 • Somervell County

— 5

• Jack County

— 2 • Wise County

— 14

In most counties, several TCEQ permits were identified for wastewater discharger s for which no

correspo nding EPA data were available. In some cases, it was determined that the permits had

been terminated or were inactive.

Geographic coordinates were obtained from TCEQ permit files and from a TCEQ database of

wastewater outfalls. Thes e data were compared to determine similarities and significant

differences. Whereas most of the coordinates for the same identified facilities were similar,

permit files seemed to be the most accurate and up to date. During examination of the two

coordinat e datasets, it was observed that a small number of dischargers were not included in

either database and/or had no current effluent reporting information. Additional effort was made

to obtain information regarding these dischargers. But, i n most cases, the wastewater permits had

been either terminated or were inactive. Most also appeared to be sources that would not be

expected to generate significant flows, such as small commercial sites, private resorts or camps,

schools, or community systems.



## 6.3 Results

6.3.1 Wa s te w a ter Flow

Assuming that

~ 3.5 million gal of fresh water must be used for a single fracing operation, it is

useful to further categorized wastewater dischargers in each county according to the ir daily

volume of effluent to determine the sources with the greatest potential to provide suffic ient water

to meet that demand. If a wastewater discharger produces > 0.1 MGD, sufficient water could be

obtain ed within

~ 1 month from that single source to support one hydraulic fracturing completion

of a horizontal shal e gas well

. Smaller dischargers could also be used if more time were allocated

to accumulating water or if water were obtained from multiple sources. Figure 26 shows

wastewater dischargers in each county in the stu dy area with a distribution of the approximate

daily volume of effluent that may be available for acquisition and use. Figure 26 a shows that

flow rate s are dominated by the Fort Worth WWTP in Tarrant County, follow ed by many large

and medium

- size d facilities in Denton County , whose grand total is ~52 MGD . Because th e se

### 36



### two counties are different in their plant count or volume from those of the remaining 11 counties

, Figure 26 b displays outfall flow rate for all facilities but the Fort Worth WWTP and facilities

with a capacity of >1 MGD in Denton County; they are included in Figure 26 c

, which shows

th e se >1

- MGD facilities. Most countie s have a larger facility (county seat) and several other

smaller dischargers.

The largest wastewater discharger in the study area by far is the Comanche Peak Steam Electric

Station (SES) (Somervell County)

, with a reported effluent flow of 2,844 MGD. Othe r large

dischargers include Decordova SES (Hood County) with 441 MGD, Randle W. Miller SES (Palo

Pinto County) with 119 MGD, Handley SES (Tarrant County) with 219 MGD, and the City of

Fort Worth Village Creek WWTP (Tarrant County) with 116 MGD. The four SE S facilities ’

outfall s are once

- through cooling outfalls and cannot be considered available. Some of the same

SES facilities do have a regular wastewater outfall

, whose rates are more on par with those of

other facilities.

Other dischargers that reported > 1.0 MGD include City of Lewisville (Denton County), Stewart

Creek WWTP (Denton County), City of Stephenville (Erath County), Hillsboro WWTP (Hill

County), Southeast Plan WWTP (Hood County), City of Cleburne (Johnson County), Randle W.

Miller WWTP #2 (Palo Pinto County), City of Weatherford (Parker County), City of Grapevine

(Tarrant County), and Hanson Aggregates, Inc. (Wise County). Large cities and power plants

dominate these larger sources. A relatively wide gap exists in most counties between larger

di schargers (>0.1 MGD) and much smaller dischargers (<0.05 MGD)

, reflecting the differences

in wastewater plants that serve concentrated population centers and those that serve small

communities and dispersed commercial operations ( Figure 27 a

– c) . A large percentage of

wastewater dischargers in the study area have reported average effluent flows less than 0.025

MGD. Unless several of these small dischargers were in the immediate area of a proposed gas

well and could be combined, it may be difficult to utilize them as practical sources of fracing

water.

Combined

, nonpower sources total 224 MGD, half of which comes from the Fort Worth Village

Creek WWTP (Tarrant County). The remaini ng 108 MGD , or 121,000 AF /yr

, is the eq uivalent

of two to three times the anticipated maximum annual consumption in the Barnett play (Nicot et

al., 2011)

.



## 6.3.2 Waste w ater Quality

Water quality from wastewater

- treatment facilities is generally good and is closely regulated by

TCEQ to prevent violati ons of surface

- water

- quality standards in rivers, streams, and lakes.

Specific effluent standards in the permits of individual plants can vary, depending on the type of

wastewater being treated (municipal, commercial, industrial), the designated use of the receiving

water body, and the current degree of water

- quality impairment. However, most effluent

limitations for the parameters evaluated in this report include

• B iochemical o xygen d emand (5

- day) (BOD5)

— 30

- day average of no more than 10 mg/ L and a

daily maximum of no more than 45 mg/ L ;

• T otal s uspended s olids (TSS)

— 30

- day average of no more than 15 mg/ L and a daily maximum

of no more than 40 mg/ L ;

• R esidual c hlorine

— minimum of at least 2.0 mg/ L and a maximum of 4.0 mg/ L at all times;

• pH

— minimum of 6.0 (standard units) and a maximum of 9.0 at all times;

### 37



### • D issolved o xygen (DO)

— minimum of between 2.0 and 5.0 mg/ L, depending on aquatic life

use of the receiving stream; and

• E ffluent limits on certain nutrients and other compounds, such as nitrogen, phosp hate, sulfate,

and chlorine, which are also placed on some permits.

With a few exceptions, the actual average and maximum values for these parameters reported by

dischargers are generally well within established standards

, with fluctuations occurring only

during rare instances of noncompliance. The data provided in this report were obtained from

monthly self

- monitoring reports to the EPA recorded on the automated ECHO system. BOD5

and TSS values are averages of all available data from the reported 30

- day av erages over the 3

- yr

period from October 2006 through September 2009. Chlorine residual and pH maximums and

minimums and minimum DO values are also averages over that same period of time. Overall,

25th and 75th percentiles are: BOD5: 3

– 7.5 mg/L; TSS: 3.5

– 1 4.0 mg/ L ; chlorine: 1

– 3.5 mg/L;

pH: 6.9

– 7.9; DO: 5

– 7 mg/L. There is little information on the TDS

, but, by law, it has to be less

than 1,000 mg/L. The high O 2 

### concentration is an impediment for use in fracing operations

, but

one that can be overcome easily

.

### 38

Figure 25

. Map showing municipal and industrial wastewater facilities listed in the TCEQ Waste w ater Outfall database (green dots) vs. those

facilities for which we have chemical and flow

- rate infor mation (red dots

— most masking green dots).

### 39 

### (a)

(b)

(c)

Note: colors represent different facilities in each county



### Figure 26

. Distribution of w astewater facilities sorted by county according to their d ischarge r ates.

### 40

Figure 27 . All dischargers within the study area separated into groups on the basis of various flow rates

(<0.05 MGD; 0.05

– 0.1 MGD; 0.1

– 1.0 MGD; >1.0 MGD)

.

### 41 

### (a)

(b)

(c)

Figure 28

. Flow

- rate distribution of WWTP: (a) all plants, (b) plants with average flow >1 MGD

, and (c)

plants with average flow <0.1 MGD.

### 42



# 7 Summary and Conclusions

This preliminary report documents the current but fast

- changing practices of the gas industry to

ac cess water in the Barnett Shale footprint and analyzes potential sources of water alternative to

large surface water bodies and the local major aquifer (the Trinity Aquifer). They include treated

water from wastewater treatment plants, groundwater from sma llish possibly slightly brackish

aquifers, and farmer ponds and other non

- state surface water bodies. A first

- order estimate of the

amount of water available consists of more than 100,000 AF at any given time in non

- State

surface

- water bodies

, more than 25 ,000 AF avai lable per year from groundwater , and more than

100,000 AF available per year from wastewater outfalls. Those figures compare well with the

maximum projected annual water use of 40,000 AF. However, spatial match between water

sources and points of use remain an issue and is the subject of an analysis being currently

conducted.

### 43



# 8 References

Avakian, A. J., and Wermund, E. G.

, 1994, Physical Environment of Fort Wolters military

reservation, Parker and Palo Pinto Counties, Texas : The University of T exas at Austin, Bureau of

Economic Geology, r

eport prepared for the Texas Army National Guard

, April, 90 p.

Bené, P. G., Harden, B. , Griffin , S. W., and Nicot, J.

- P., 2007, Northern Trinity/Woodbine

aquifer groundwater availability model: ass ess ment of gr

oundwater use in the northern Trinity

aquifer due to urban growth and Barnett Shale development: Texas Water Development Board,

TWDB Contract N umber 0604830613, 50 p. + apps, last accessed July 2010

.

Brown , L. F.

, Jr.

, Goodson

, J. L.

, and Harwood

, P.

, 197 2, Abilene s heet : The University of Texas

at Austin

, Bureau of Economic Geology, scale 1:250000

.

Ferguson, M. L.

, and Johnson, M. A., 2009, Comparing friction reducers’ performance in

produced water from tight gas shales : Journal of Petroleum Technology, 61(11), p. 24

- 27.

Fisher

, R. S., Mace

, R. E., and Boghici

, E

., 1996, Groundwater and s urface w ater h ydrology of

Fort Wolters, Parker and Palo Pinto Counties : The University of Texas at Austin, Bureau of

Economic Geology, r eport prepared for the Texas Army National Guard and t he Nature

Conservancy of Texas

, May 31, 42 p. + Appendices

.

Galusky, L. P., Jr., 2007, Fort Worth Basin/Barnett Shale natural gas play: a n assessment of

present and projected fresh water use: Texerra , report prepared for the Barnett Sh ale Water

Conservation and Management Committee, April 7, 21 p., last accessed December 2010,

http://barnettshalewater.org/documents/Bar nett_Shale_Regional_Assessment_of_Water_Use%2

0_Apr_3_2007.pdf

Gaudlip, A. W., Paugh, L. O. , and Hayes, T. D., 2008, Marcellus Shale water management

challenges in Pennsylvania : Society of Petroleum Engineers SPE Paper #119898.

Hayes, T

. , 2007, Proceedin gs and m inutes of the Hydraulic Fracturing Expert Panel, held at XTO

Facilities, Fort Worth, Texas, on September 26, 2007, variously paginated.

http://www.barnettshalewater.org/documents/Full_Documentation_of_the_Frac_Job_Expert_Pan

el%20_v2.pdf

Nicot, J.

- P., Hebel, A. K., Ritter, S. M., Walden, S., Baier, R., Galusky, P., Beach, J., Kyle, R.,

Symank, L., and Breton, C., 2011, Current and pr ojected water use in the Texas mining and oil

and gas Industry: The University of Texas at Austin, Bureau of Economic Geology, report

prepared for the Texas Water Development Board, February draft, 331 p.

Nicot, J.

- P., and Potter, E. , 2007, Historical and 2006

– 2025 estimation of ground water use for

gas production in the Barnett Shale, North Texas: The University of Texas at Austin, Bureau of

Economic Geology, letter report prepared for R. W. Harden & Associates and Texas Water

Development Board, 66 p.

TWD B, 2007, Water for Texas, Vol. II, Document GP

- 8

- 1, January, 392 p.

Veil, J. A., 2010, Water m anagement t echnologies u sed by Marcellus Shale g as p roducers :

Argonne National Laboratory, report prepared for U.S. Department of Energy , NETL

, July, 56

p.

### 4 4



# 9 Ap pendix A: Characteristics of WWTP O utfalls

TPDES # Regulated Entity Average Monthly Discharge Conditions (PCS database)

Flow

(MGD) BOD

(mg/L) TSS

(mg/L) Cl min

(mg/L) Cl max

(mg/L) pH

Min pH

Max DO

(mg/L) N

(mg/L

)

Bosque

WQ0010043001 CITY OF CLIFTON WWTF 0.357 4.24 3.24 0.99 2.50 6.86 7.07 5.15

WQ0010113001 CITY OF MERIDIAN 0.201 3.56 6.71 1.29 3.25 7.23 7.80 6.36

WQ0004167000 BOSQUE COUNTY POWER PLANT 0.183 0.03 0.04 6.91 8.07

WQ0010307001 CITY OF VALLEY MILLS WWTP 0.112 3.91 6.26 1.13 1.91 7.45 7.79 5.19

WQ0012217001 CITY OF MORGAN 0.027 19.71 54.23 8.16 8.77 6.16

WQ0014169001 CITY OF CRANFILLS GAP WWTP 0.022 4.77 13.16 1.42 2.95 7.32 7.67 5.73

WQ0011565001 CITY OF IREDELL WWTP 0.013 8.03 8.03 1.62 2.47 7.44 7.77 5.55

W Q0013536001 CAMP JOHN MARC WWTF 0.011 5.28 11.53 1.19 1.98 7.72 8.30

WQ0013436001 WALNUT SPRINGS CITY OF WWTP 0.001 23.06 68.15 8.43 9.00 5.99

WQ0013982001 KOPPERL ISD WWTP 0.001 6.89 11.53 1.09 2.53 7.35 7.93 4.33

WQ0012087001 WHITNEY POWER HOUSE WWTP 0.000 5.70 19.23 1.38 3.61 7.15 8.03 6.68

Denton

WQ0010027003 PECAN CREEK WATER RECLAMATION PLANT 13.457 2.21 3.05 6.98 7.35 6.60 0.23

WQ0010662001 CITY OF LEWISVILLE 7.986 4.58 1.57 1.16 6.45 7.10 7.31

WQ0010172003 STEWART CREEK WEST PLANT 5.529 2.94 1.92 6.77 7.35 6.63 2.44

WQ0013457001 DENTON CREEK REGIONAL WWTP 4.976 1.95 3.54 6.81 7.39 6.84 0.79

WQ0011321001 TOWN OF FLOWER MOUND WWTF 4.541 5.07 3.09 6.86 7.48 7.45 0.84

WQ0010698001 UTRWD LAKEVIEW REGIONAL WATER

RECLAMATION PLANT 3.739 2.31 1.55 6.76 7.26 5.48

WQ0011570001 STEWART CREEK WWTP 2.290 2.46 2.72 6.93 7.26 6.86 1.34

WQ0014245001 PANTHER CREEK WWTP 2.062 3.07 0.82 6.71 7.34 6.29 0.15

WQ0011600001 TOWN OF LITTLE ELM 1.731 3.19 2.44 7 .09 7.49 7.48 0.38

### 45 TPDES # Regulated Entity Average Monthly Discharge Conditions (PCS database)

Flow

(MGD) BOD

(mg/L) TSS

(mg/L) Cl min

(mg/L) Cl max

(mg/L) pH

Min pH

Max DO

(mg/L) N

(mg/L

)

WQ0004336000 DENTON RECYCLE CENTER 1.291 7.03 8.21

WQ0010271001 CITY OF SANGER 0.683 2.31 4.69 1.31 2.13 7.45 7.68 8.81 1.26

WQ0014372001 SANGER WWTP 0.683 2.31 4.69 1.31 2.13 7.45 7.68 8.81 1.26

WQ0011593001 TROPHY CLUB M UD 0.624 3.64 3.09 7.44 7.83 6.50 0.19

WQ0010698002 UTRWD RIVERBEND REGIONAL WATER

RECLAMATION PLANT 0.569 2.16 1.77 6.94 7.70 6.53 0.39

WQ0010361001 CITY OF PILOT POINT 0.366 2.27 4.45 1.12 3.51 7.00 7.66 6.94 0.42

WQ0003840000 SEWELL CLAY MIN E 0.365 6.00 6.77 6.77

WQ0010698002 UTRWD RIVERBEND REGIONAL WATER

RECLAMATION PLANT 0.305 2.16 1.79 6.94 7.71 6.54 0.40

WQ0011312001 CITY OF JUSTIN 0.296 7.05 15.33 1.01 2.69 7.24 7.59 5.97 2.32

WQ0010027004 ROBSON RANCH TREATMENT PLANT 0.179 7.47 1.06 8.04 8.04 5.92 0.41

WQ0013647001 AUBREY WWTP 0.159 2.44 4.59 1.26 3.39 7.37 7.86 4.61 0.79

WQ0010064001 CITY OF AUBREY 0.159 2.44 4.59 1.26 3.39 7.37 7.86 4.61 0.79

WQ0014323001 UTRWD PENINSILA REGIONAL WATER

RECLAMATION PLANT 0.152 2.06 1.14 6.77 7.47 5.80 0.21

WQ0011287003 PONDER WWTP 0.103 5.44 8.57 1.14 3.62 7.38 7.80 7.66 0.63

WQ0010729001 CITY OF KRUM 0.087 26.39 28.86 7.94 7.94

WQ0013434001 CITY OF HACKBERRY 0.043 11.94 14.69 0.70 2.98 7.07 7.12 5.45 15.70

WQ001 4186001 SHALE CREEK WWTP 0.033 4.29 11.31 1.36 3.42 7.28 7.73 7.47 1.47

WQ0013732001 ROCKY POINT MHP FLOWER MOUND 0.015 5.46 8.42 1.17 3.65 6.75 7.22 4.74 4.50

WQ0014139001 NORTHLAKE VILLAGE MHP 0.007 2.67 3.09 1.36 3.26 6.92 6.92 7.24

WQ0013785001 HI DDEN COVE PARK WWTP 0.003 3.17 7.34 1.06 2.92 7.86 8.03 6.55

WQ0012605002 BRIARWOOD RETREAT 0.002 4.53 8.02 1.03 3.20 7.99 8.28 7.75

Denton

- West

WQ0010662001 CITY OF LEWISVILLE 7.986 4.58 1.57 1.16 6.45 7.10 7.31

WQ0013457001 DENTON CREEK REG IONAL WWTP 4.976 1.95 3.54 6.81 7.39 6.84 0.79

### 46 TPDES # Regulated Entity Average Monthly Discharge Conditions (PCS database)

Flow

(MGD) BOD

(mg/L) TSS

(mg/L) Cl min

(mg/L) Cl max

(mg/L) pH

Min pH

Max DO

(mg/L) N

(mg/L

)

WQ0011321001 TOWN OF FLOWER MOUND WWTF 4.541 5.07 3.09 6.86 7.48 7.45 0.84

WQ0011570001 STEWART CREEK WWTP 2.290 2.46 2.72 6.93 7.26 6.86 1.34

WQ0010271001 CITY OF SANGER 0.683 2.31 4.69 1.31 2. 13 7.45 7.68 8.81 1.26

WQ0011593001 TROPHY CLUB MUD 0.624 3.64 3.09 7.44 7.83 6.50 0.19

WQ0003840000 SEWELL CLAY MINE 0.365 6.00 6.77 6.77

WQ0011312001 CITY OF JUSTIN 0.296 7.05 15.33 1.01 2.69 7.24 7.59 5.97 2.32

WQ0010027004 ROBSON RANC H TREATMENT PLANT 0.179 7.47 1.06 8.04 8.04 5.92 0.41

WQ0010064001 CITY OF AUBREY 0.159 2.44 4.59 1.26 3.39 7.37 7.86 4.61 0.79

WQ0011287003 PONDER WWTP 0.103 5.44 8.57 1.14 3.62 7.38 7.80 7.66 0.63

WQ0010729001 CITY OF KRUM 0.087 26.39 28.86 7 .94 7.94

WQ0014186001 SHALE CREEK WWTP 0.033 4.29 11.31 1.36 3.42 7.28 7.73 7.47 1.47

WQ0013732001 ROCKY POINT MHP FLOWER MOUND 0.015 5.46 8.42 1.17 3.65 6.75 7.22 4.74 4.50

WQ0014139001 NORTHLAKE VILLAGE MHP 0.007 2.67 3.09 1.36 3.26 6.92 6.92 7.24

WQ0012605002 BRIARWOOD RETREAT 0.002 4.53 8.02 1.03 3.20 7.99 8.28 7.75

Erath

WQ0010290001 CITY OF STEPHENVILLE 1.432

WQ0010405001 DUBLIN WWTF 0.210 18.51 34.85 8.12 8.99 7.61 3.65

WQ0010290001 CITY OF STEPHENVILLE 0.178

WQ0004314000 MILK TRANSPORT SERVICES

WQ0003074000 SCHREIBER FOODS

Hill

WQ0010630001 HILLSBORO WWTP 1.215 2.35 2.21 0.07 6.48 7.16 6.30 0.29

WQ0011408002 POLK STREET WWTP 0.212 10.95 18.03 8.50 9.21 4.85 0.86

WQ0010534001 CITY OF HUBBARD WWTP 0.136 3.76 6.23 0.98 2.75 7.30 8.09 5.86 0.54

WQ0010423001 CITY OF ITASCA WWTP 0.134 5.36 14.60 1.15 3.26 7.34 7.72 6.94

### 47 TPDES # Regulated Entity Average Monthly Discharge Conditions (PCS database)

Flow

(MGD) BOD

(mg/L) TSS

(mg/L) Cl min

(mg/L) Cl max

(mg/L) pH

Min pH

Max DO

(mg/L) N

(mg/L

)

WQ0013786002 WHITE BLUFF WWTP 0.041 7.74 14.33 1.32 3.03 7.26 7.62 5.36

WQ00108200 01 CITY OF BLUM WWTP 0.023 4.57 7.36 1.25 3.05 7.38 7.73 4.34

WQ0011544001 CITY OF ABBOTT WWTP 0.022 18.50 39.95 8.14 8.71 5.31

WQ0010514001 CITY OF MALONE WWTF 0.019 5.93 6.93 1.31 2.35 7.32 7.42 4.16

WQ0011542001 CITY OF BYNUM WWTP 0.014 7.4 2 10.99 1.41 2.53 6.74 7.28 4.47

WQ0012279001 CITY OF COVINGTON WWTP 0.013 24.64 77.92 8.48 9.66 6.23

WQ0013621001 PENELOPE SANITATION DEPT.

- WWTP 0.011 34.35 152.77 8.66 8.67 7.93

WQ0011464001 CITY OF MOUNT CALM WWTP 0.009 32.57 121.61 8.76 9.04 7.55

WQ0013075001 MHC TT LAKE WHITNEY PRESERVE 0.008 4.71 7.08 1.44 2.01 7.27 7.62 4.23

WQ0013271001 CITY OF MERTENS WWTF 0.006 31.00 187.67 8.30 8.30 10.50

WQ0014883001 LAKE WHITNEY RESORTS, LLC

WQ0013891001 LAKE WHITNEY RESORTS, LLC

WQ0002726000 VLASIC FARMS

WQ0004497000 OWL LIVESTOCK

WQ0011276001 PRESBYTERIAN CHILDERN'S HOME

WQ0013820001 LATHAM SPRINGS BAPTIST ENCAMPMENT

Hood

WQ0001481000 DECORDOVA SES 441.316 0.06

WQ0010178002 SOUTHEAST PLANT WWTP 1.078 2.90 3.13 7.32 7.51 5.62 0.40

WQ0002889000 LAKE GRANBURY SURFACE WATER 0.421 7.39 7.78

WQ0004288000 WOLF HOLLOW I, L.P.

- POWER PLT. 0.3 41 5.29 0.12 7.36 8.28 0.23

WQ0014211001 DECORDOVA BEND ESTATES WWTP 0.272 2.76 3.58 7.23 7.49 1.03 3.55 7.00 0.25

WQ0014212001 ACTON MUD

- PECAN PLANTATION 0.150 3.70 4.83 1.03 3.54 7.18 7.40 5.76

WQ0002678000 OAK TRAIL SHORES

- EDR

- WWTP 0.084 7.37 7.78

WQ0014233001 CITY OF TOLAR 0.059 3.49 5.97 1.80 3.36 7.32 7.68 5.92

### 48 TPDES # Regulated Entity Average Monthly Discharge Conditions (PCS database)

Flow

(MGD) BOD

(mg/L) TSS

(mg/L) Cl min

(mg/L) Cl max

(mg/L) pH

Min pH

Max DO

(mg/L) N

(mg/L

)

WQ0013022001 BLUE WATER SHORES 0.022 9.25 15.18 1.26 3.50 7.40 7.85 5.84

WQ0013786001 CANYON CREEK WWTP 0.015 7.92 13.73 0.93 3.27 7.96 8.33 7.14

WQ001414700 1 TREATY OAKS WWTF 0.009 4.50 7.85 1.15 3.57 7.44 7.97 8.05 0.15

WQ0013025001 RIDGE UTILITIES WWTF 0.007 7.09 11.69 1.00 3.70 7.67 8.12 6.75

WQ0014805001 CITY OF CRESSON WWTP 1 0.005 2.68 3.84 1.44 3.41 7.03 7.23 4.55 0.23

WQ0013590001 CITY OF LIPAN W WTP 0.004 22.08 57.88 8.48 9.16 8.07

WQ0013809001 FALL CREEK UTILITY CO, INC. 0.003 7.71 13.48 1.01 2.90 7.19 7.83 4.61

WQ0001481000 DECORDOVA SES

WQ0004288000 WOLF HOLLOW I, L.P.

- POWER PLT.

Jack

WQ001099400 1 CITY OF JACKSBORO WWTF 0.278 4.05 5.39 1.15 2.07 7.40 7.86 7.21 0.14

WQ0010994002 CITY OF JACKSBORO WWTF 0.005 3.66 7.57 7.75

WQ0010135001 CITY OF BRYSON

Johnson

WQ0010006001 CITY OF CLEBURNE WWTP 4.184 2.24 3.15 6.61 7.29 5.66 0.25

WQ0014350001 JOHNSON COUNTY SUD WWTF 0.402 3.96 6.33 1.19 3.71 6.49 6.91 6.95 0.84

WQ0010611002 CITY OF KEE NE 0.369 2.29 2.97 1.06 3.44 7.10 7.51 7.61 1.82

WQ0010567001 CITY OF ALVARADO 0.191 23.61 55.10 7.74 8.14 5.22 23.22

WQ0010180001 CITY OF GRANDVIEW 0.157 2.72 5.07 1.27 3.73 7.41 7.76 5.17 0.42

WQ0010542001 CITY OF GODLEY 0.114 10.33 15.49 1.83 2.3 6 7.38 7.57 5.91 6.96

WQ0013546001 CITY OF RIO VISTA 0.048 2.98 4.83 1.01 3.39 7.37 7.76 5.03 0.54

WQ0013769001 COUNTRY VISTA PLANT 0.028 5.37 7.98 1.12 2.70 7.30 7.56 4.85

WQ0013846001 GRAND RANCH PHASE 2 0.016 4.93 10.07 1.06 2.63 7.34 7.69 6.83

WQ0014411001 BLUE WATER OAKS POA 0.013 4.51 9.54 1.07 2.64 7.47 7.83 4.49 0.46

WQ0014680001 RV RANCH WWTP 0.009 15.56 31.15 0.96 1.64 7.35 7.72 4.15

### 49 TPDES # Regulated Entity Average Monthly Discharge Conditions (PCS database)

Flow

(MGD) BOD

(mg/L) TSS

(mg/L) Cl min

(mg/L) Cl max

(mg/L) pH

Min pH

Max DO

(mg/L) N

(mg/L

)

WQ0013868001 WALNUT CREEK MHP 0.008 9.83 13.94 1.82 3.08 7.25 7.81 5.11

WQ0013376001 OAK RIDGE SQUAR E MHP 0.006 19.51 26.99 1.48 2.89 7.06 7.08 3.01

WQ0014373001 THE RETREAT WWTP 0.005 2.89 5.52 1.23 2.82 7.54 8.11 4.62

WQ0014101001 ALVARADO ISD 0.004 3.63 7.29 1.26 3.32 7.48 7.81 6.82

WQ0014556001 PLEASANT OAKS MHP 0.003 13.84 18.19 1.58 2.36 7.20 7.78 4.72

WQ0014790001 JOHNSON CO NORTHBOUND REST AREA

WWTP 0.003 7.11 12.46 1.15 3.54 7.05 7.65 7.93

Montague

WQ 0010071003 CITY OF BOWIE WWTF 0.658 2.09 2.59 7.44 7.67 7.54 0.11

WQ0010355003 CITY OF NOCONA SOUTH WWTP 0.168 2.38 5.07 1.41 3.33 7.02 7.47 5.01

WQ0010355002 CITY OF NOCONA WWTF 0.088 2.17 4.31 1.33 3.21 6.93 7.36 4.53

WQ0014496001 CITY OF SAIN T JO WWTP 0.077 2.71 6.48 1.12 2.05 7.16 7.96 4.30 0.60

Palo Pinto

WQ0001903000 RANDLE W. MILLER SEGS

- WWTP 118.864

WQ0001903000 RANDLE W. MILLER SEGS

- WWTP 3.978 29.21 7.85 8.17

WQ0010585001 POLLARD CREEK WWTP 1.503 3.45 1. 75 1.00 0.08 6.91 7.49 7.08 0.75

WQ0004325000 GEORGE N. BAILEY, JR.

- WWTP 0.145 24.81 7.57 7.82

WQ0010326001 CITY OF STRAWN

- WWTP 0.127 21.55 31.21 7.73 8.12 4.24

WQ0002461000 SPORTMAN'S WORLD MUD 0.044 7.39 7.88

WQ0002789 000 DOUBLE DIAMOND UTILITIES CO 0.043 15.00 13.00 7.34 8.00

WQ0011698001 PALO PINTO COUNTY WWTF 0.022 7.42 5.01 1.11 3.64 7.01 7.01 6.68

WQ0010722001 CITY OF GRAFORD WWTP 0.020 22.81 55.84 8.09 8.86 6.17

WQ0011311001 PALO PINTO COUNTY RA

- WWTP 0.005 9.62 15.00 1.25 5.12 6.51 7.24 7.86

WQ0014173001 HILL COUNTY HARBOR WWTF 0.002 3.80 7.90 1.15 4.03 6.95 7.42 7.06 1.98

WQ0004891000 BAR

- B TRAVEL PLAZA

### 50 TPDES # Regulated Entity Average Monthly Discharge Conditions (PCS database)

Flow

(MGD) BOD

(mg/L) TSS

(mg/L) Cl min

(mg/L) Cl max

(mg/L) pH

Min pH

Max DO

(mg/L) N

(mg/L

)

WQ0004820000 METROPLEX QUARRY

WQ0004820000 METROP LEX QUARRY

WQ0004820000 METROPLEX QUARRY

WQ0004820000 METROPLEX QUARRY

WQ0004820000 METROPLEX QUARRY

WQ0004820000 METROPLEX QUARRY

WQ0004820000 METROPLEX QUARRY

WQ0004894000 BUCKLEY OIL COMPANY

WQ0014511001 GAINES BEND UTILTIES, INC

WQ0012330001 SPORTSMAN'S WORLD MUNICIPAL

Parker

WQ0010380002 CITY OF WEATHERFORD WWTP 2.622 1.98 1.07 7.17 7.60 6.48 0.83

WQ0010585004 WILLOW CREEK WWTP 0.473 3.28 2.78 0.08 6.76 7.45 7.20 0.37

WQ0014198001 WEATHERFORD WATER PURIFICATION 0.422 11.58 7.58 7.89

WQ0010847001 CITY OF ALEDO WWTP 0.231 6.40 7.75 1.06 2.69 7.47 7.48 6.45 2.65

WQ001 0649001 CITY OF SPRINGTOWN

- WWTP 0.226 6.26 13.37 1.08 3.49 6.93 7.26 6.10 0.93

WQ0013834001 CITY OF WILLOW PARK

- WWTP 0.095 5.20 11.18 1.01 3.20 7.74 8.15 7.82 2.81

WQ0001904000 NORTH TEXAS SES

- WWTP 0.060 2.96 7.55 8.07

WQ0014003001 COWTO WN RV PARK WWTF 0.009 7.02 8.13 1.42 2.22 7.37 7.40 4.41

WQ0014163001 SUGARTREE WWTF 0.006 6.25 9.57 1.01 3.46 7.13 7.53 6.61

WQ0013589001 PEASTER I.S.D. WWTP 0.006 6.97 22.10 1.32 2.75 7.36 7.56 5.37 1.14

WQ0003835000 PHILIPS ELECTRONICS 0.001 7.28 7.52

WQ0001904000 NORTH TEXAS SES

- WWTP 4.84 7.55 8.06

WQ0004852000 PARKER COUNTY SPECIAL UTILITY DISTRICT

WQ0013798002 BROCK INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT

### 51 TPDES # Regulated Entity Average Monthly Discharge Conditions (PCS database)

Flow

(MGD) BOD

(mg/L) TSS

(mg/L) Cl min

(mg/L) Cl max

(mg/L) pH

Min pH

Max DO

(mg/L) N

(mg/L

)

WQ0013759001 CITY OF WILLOW PARK

Somervell

WQ0001854000 COMANCHE PEAK SES 2843.694

WQ0001854000 COMANCHE PEAK SES 0.695 8.56 7.35 7.99

WQ0010177001 CITY OF GLEN ROSE WWTP 0.344 3.23 3.01 2.45 3.33 7.29 7.84 7.81 0.81

WQ0001854000 COMANCHE P EAK SES 0.021 3.67 5.34 6.72 6.95

WQ0010895001 RIVERBEND RETREAT CENTER

- WWTP 0.007 5.43 6.84 1.35 2.89 7.12 7.75 4.31

WQ0001854000 COMANCHE PEAK SES

WQ0001854000 COMANCHE PEAK SES

WQ0001854000 COMANCHE PEA K SES

WQ0001401000 UNIMIN CORP

- CLEBURNE PLANT

Tarrant

WQ0000552000 HANDLEY STEAM ELECTRIC STATION 218.514

WQ0010494013 CITY OF FORTH WORTH VILLAGE CREEK

WWTP 115.831 2.02 2.28 6.92 7.39 6.48 0.1 9

WQ0010486002 CITY OF GRAPEVINE 3.458 2.44 1.30 6.76 7.64 6.83 0.39

WQ0011183003 ASH CREEK PLANT 0.833 3.17 2.05 1.05 2.38 7.05 7.52 6.98 0.91

WQ0013036001 PINE TREE MHP 0.065 3.15 3.80 1.40 2.20 7.05 7.05 4.70

WQ0010486003 SOUTHWEST PLANT 0.04 6 4.22 8.34 1.18 4.20 7.82 7.83 7.50

WQ0013518001 MAYFAIR ADDITION 0.046 5.76 9.20 1.05 2.90 7.43 7.71 4.92 9.02

WQ0012536002 NORTH PLANT 0.023 3.28 3.30 1.25 1.90 7.05 7.05 5.85

WQ0013831001 PINE TREE 0.023 3.28 3.30 1.25 1.90 7.05 7.05 5.85

WQ0 012536001 SOUTH PLANT 0.023 3.28 3.30 1.25 1.90 7.05 7.05 5.85

WQ0012723001 BENBROOK VILLAGE MHP 0.023 7.74 14.92 1.20 3.73 7.56 7.60 5.36

WQ0003993000 ARLINGTON PUMPING STATION PIPELINE

BREAKOUT STATION 0.021 6.49 7.03

### 52 TPDES # Regulated Entity Average Monthly Discharge Conditions (PCS database)

Flow

(MGD) BOD

(mg/L) TSS

(mg/L) Cl min

(mg/L) Cl max

(mg/L) pH

Min pH

Max DO

(mg/L) N

(mg/L

)

WQ0010791001 OAK GROVE AIRPORT 0.007 7.68 8.26 1.27 2.70 6.99 7.48 3.75 3.96

WQ0003730000 CHEVRON FORTH WORTH TERMINAL 0.006 8.49 8.44

WQ0012807001 GOLDEN TRIANGLE ESTATES 0.006 8.84 13.82 0.92 2.95 7.05 7.07 3.96

WQ0011032001 ALTA VISTA MOBILE HOME PARK 0 .006 4.29 6.71 1.52 2.71 6.93 6.93 4.54

WQ0011123001 FORTH WORTH BOAT CLUB 0.005 3.60 4.55 1.29 3.54 7.42 7.42 4.51

WQ0012982001 REGENCY CONVERSIONS 0.002 2.86 4.45 1.11 3.67 7.54 7.56 4.88

WQ0002831000 REAGENT CHEMICAL & RESEARCH 0.002 38.12 6.67 6.81 3.17

WQ0012909001 EAGLE MOUNTAIN RV PARK 0.001 4.44 4.87 1.30 3.65 7.33 7.33 4.99

Wise

WQ0001406001 HANSON AGGREGATES, INC. 1.937 9.67 8.05 8.15

WQ0010009001 CITY OF DECATUR WWTP 0.790 3.15 2.33 7.07 7.82 6.96 0.24

WQ0010 389002 CITY OF BRIDGEPORT WWTF 0.553 3.17 3.94 0.98 3.46 6.87 7.26 5.96 2.18

WQ0001406000 HANSON AGGREGATES, INC. 0.504 26.40 7.92 8.08

WQ0010131001 CITY OF BOYD WWTP 0.097 4.57 15.92 0.94 2.70 7.51 7.62 7.29

WQ0010862001 CITY OF RUNAWAY BAY WWTP 0.096 3.47 3.17 1.15 3.06 6.94 7.51 6.97 2.61

WQ0010701002 WESTSIDE WWTF 0.071 4.21 7.51 1.00 2.90 7.11 7.73 6.65 1.67

WQ0010023001 CITY OF CHICO 0.066 28.53 28.73 0.89 4.06 7.41 7.73 5.69 15.24

WQ0014339001 CITY OF ALVORD WWTP 0.060 4.84 8.76 0.9 9 3.98 7.36 7.75 5.69 0.67

WQ0011626001 CITY OF NEWARK WWTF 0.049 4.67 13.89 1.01 4.67 7.43 7.80 6.67 0.64

WQ0010701001 CITY OF RHOME 0.044 36.25 63.88 7.97 9.05 7.99

WQ0013439001 PARADISE ISD WWTF 0.017 8.16 9.43 1.35 3.00 7.13 7.13 4.85

WQ001 4306001 SLIDELL I.S.D.

- WWTP 0.007 2.60 5.53 1.54 3.30 7.42 7.42 7.52

WQ0013427001 GARRETT CREEK RANCH WWTP 0.001 6.91 9.16 1.34 2.75 7.57 7.80 3.67

WQ0001214000 LIMESTONE MINING AND PROCESSIN

WQ0000679000 HANSON AGGREGATES, INC.

### 53 TPDES # Regulated Entity Average Monthly Discharge Conditions (PCS database)

Flow

(MGD) BOD

(mg/L) TSS

(mg/L) Cl min

(mg/L) Cl max

(mg/L) pH

Min pH

Max DO

(mg/L) N

(mg/L

)

WQ0014841001 IVY VALLEY UTILITIES, LP

WQ0011382001 FORTH WORTH INDEPENDENT SCHOOL

DISTRICT

WQ0014910001 CHISOLM SPRINGS

### 54



# 10 Appendix B: Summary S tatistics for Water Features

Water

- feature statistics for the following counties:

Montague

, Jack, Wise, Palo Pinto, Parker, Erath, Hood, Somervell, Bosque, and Hill

Montague County Summary S tatistics for Water Features in Acres

Category Count Sum Mean Minimum Maximum Std Dev Range

Ye ar 1997 < 0.1 ha 1118 248.24 0.22 0.01 0.22 0.01 0.21

Date 1 Mar 3 0.1

- 0.5 ha 1714 1189.07 0.69 0.25 1.20 0.25 0.95

Date 2 Mar 28 0.5

- 1 ha 522 898.21 1.72 1.29 2.47 0.35 1.18

1

- 10 ha 404 2441.15 6.04 2.47 24.32 4.53 21.85

10

- 20 ha 20 693.91 34.70 24.82 47.96 7.22 23.15

> 20 ha 4 452.36 113.09 64.50 218.17 71.45 153.67

Baseline Wet Total 3782 5922.95 26.08 0.01 218.17 218.16

Year 1999 < 0.1 ha 263 58.49 0.22 0.22 0.22 0 0

Date 1 Feb 14 0.1

- 0.5 ha 360 206.90 0.57 0.25 1.19 0.27 0.94

Date 2 Feb 21 0.5

- 1 ha 71 123.17 1.73 1.32 2.45 0.35 1.13

1

- 10 ha 118 788.69 6.68 2.49 22.55 4.44 20.06

10

- 20 ha 6 165.33 27.55 24.91 35.48 4.09 10.57

> 20 ha 4 786.85 196.71 52.93 517.98 219.07 465.05

Baseline Dry Total 822 2129.43 38.91 0.22 517.98 517.76

Year 2003 < 0.1 ha 598 132.97 0.22 0.20 0.22 0 0.02

Date 1 Oct 14 0.1

- 0.5 ha 775 478.28 0.62 0.25 1.20 0.26 0.95

Date 2 Oct 23 0.5

- 1 ha 182 304.92 1.68 1.29 2.45 0.32 1.15

1

- 10 ha 161 997.15 6.19 2.50 23.96 3.95 21.45

10

- 20 ha 9 283.77 31.53 26.91 38.03 4.15 11.12

> 20 ha 3 261.54 87.18 54.49 151.01 55.28 96.52

Total 1728 2458.63 21.24 0.20 151.01 150.80

Year 2004 < 0.1 ha 1296 288.22 0.22 0.22 0.22 0 0

Date 1 Sep 7 0.1

- 0.5 ha 1749 1127.17 0.64 0.25 1.20 0 .26 0.95

Date 2 Oct 16 0.5

- 1 ha 472 807.28 1.71 1.31 2.46 0.35 1.15

1

- 10 ha 353 2206.49 6.25 2.48 23.83 4.50 21.35

10

- 20 ha 15 539.64 35.98 25.44 46.67 6.75 21.22

> 20 ha 3 354.05 118.02 62.49 218.39 87.09 155.90

Total 3888 5322.85 27. 14 0.22 218.39 218.17

Year 2005 < 0.1 ha 1184 262.80 0.22 0.00 0.22 0.01 0.22

Date 1 Feb 14 0.1

- 0.5 ha 1894 1221.45 0.64 0.25 1.21 0.27 0.96

Date 2 Feb 21 0.5

- 1 ha 435 746.98 1.72 1.25 2.47 0.34 1.22

1

- 10 ha 337 1988.81 5.90 2.47 22.67 4.07 2 0.20

10

- 20 ha 16 554.69 34.67 25.07 45.21 6.30 20.13

> 20 ha 3 366.28 122.09 69.83 207.05 74.22 137.22

Total 3869 5141.02 27.54 0.00 207.05 207.05

### 55



### Montague County Summary S tatistics for Water Features in Acres

Year 2006 < 0.1 ha 545 121.09 0.22 0.15 0.22 0 0.08

Date 1 Nov 16 0.1

- 0.5 ha 660 409.29 0. 62 0.25 1.21 0.26 0.96

Date 2 Nov 23 0.5

- 1 ha 115 193.38 1.68 1.33 2.47 0.32 1.14

1

- 10 ha 146 850.12 5.82 2.48 20.24 3.67 17.75

10

- 20 ha 8 244.18 30.52 25.09 43.14 7.68 18.06

> 20 ha 3 466.14 155.38 51.37 252.20 100.60 200.82

Total 147 7 2284.20 32.37 0.15 252.20 252.05

Year 2007 < 0.1 ha 1797 399.13 0.22 0.01 0.22 0.01 0.21

Date 1 Mar 8 0.1

- 0.5 ha 2268 1469.74 0.65 0.25 1.23 0.25 0.97

Date 2 Mar 31 0.5

- 1 ha 628 1089.41 1.73 1.29 2.47 0.34 1.18

1

- 10 ha 477 2905.78 6.09 2.47 23.14 4.28 20.67

10

- 20 ha 30 958.12 31.94 25.38 47.33 5.38 21.96

> 20 ha 12 1092.83 91.07 52.07 228.62 57.07 176.55

Total 5212 7915.02 21.95 0.01 228.62 228.61

Year 2008 < 0.1 ha 1427 316.81 0.22 0.06 0.22 0.01 0.16

Date 1 Apr 11 0.1

- 0. 5 ha 2253 1465.01 0.65 0.25 1.23 0.27 0.97

Date 2 Apr 18 0.5

- 1 ha 621 1068.28 1.72 1.30 2.45 0.35 1.14

1

- 10 ha 479 2869.63 5.99 2.47 24.64 4.58 22.16

10

- 20 ha 15 552.81 36.85 25.35 48.96 8.28 23.61

> 20 ha 4 419.92 104.98 52.74 213.28 73.21 160.53

Total 4799 6692.44 25.07 0.06 213.28 213.22

Year 2009 < 0.1 ha 1237 275.08 0.22 0.20 0.22 0 0.02

Date 1 Sep 28 0.1

- 0.5 ha 1631 1084.57 0.66 0.30 1.23 0.25 0.93

Date 2 Oct 23 0.5

- 1 ha 519 883.89 1.70 1.24 2.47 0.36 1.23

1

- 10 ha 37 7 2263.67 6.00 2.48 24.02 4.33 21.54

10

- 20 ha 15 529.81 35.32 26.46 44.03 6.98 17.57

> 20 ha 3 334.26 111.42 59.38 201.27 78.14 141.89

Total 3782 5371.28 25.89 0.20 201.27 201.06

Year 2010 < 0.1 ha 1274 283.33 0.22 0.22 0.22 0 0

Date 1 Nov 18 0.1

- 0.5 ha 1477 968.45 0.66 0.41 1.11 0.23 0.70

Date 2 Nov 27 0.5

- 1 ha 400 686.27 1.72 1.33 2.45 0.36 1.11

1

- 10 ha 291 1948.85 6.70 2.67 24.24 4.46 21.57

10

- 20 ha 12 415.21 34.60 26.02 44.26 6.53 18.24

> 20 ha 2 261.09 130.55 72.95 18 8.15 81.46 115.20

Total 3456 4563.19 29.07 0.22 188.15 187.92

### 56



### Jack County Summary S tatistics for Water Features in Acres

Category Count Sum Mean Minimum Maximum Std Dev Range

Year 1997 < 0.1 ha 1238 274.43 0.22 0.00 0.22 0.01 0 .22

Date 1 Mar 3 0.1

- 0.5 ha 2301 1598.48 0.69 0.25 1.20 0.24 0.95

Date 2 Mar 28 0.5

- 1 ha 722 1229.36 1.70 1.33 2.47 0.35 1.15

1

- 10 ha 343 1776.17 5.18 2.48 23.80 3.78 21.32

10

- 20 ha 9 294.01 32.67 26.02 40.11 4.83 14.09

> 20 ha 12 1341.3 2 111.78 53.17 558.66 141.58 505.49

Baseline Wet Total 4625 6513.77 25.37 0.00 558.66 558.65

Year 1999 < 0.1 ha 503 111.72 0.22 0.07 0.22 0 0

Date 1 Feb 14 0.1

- 0.5 ha 433 270.28 0.62 0.25 1.20 0.23 0.95

Date 2 Feb 21 0.5

- 1 ha 87 147.25 1.69 1.32 2.45 0.35 1.13

1

- 10 ha 67 421.38 6.29 2.50 23.00 4.29 20.50

10

- 20 ha 5 171.80 34.36 27.58 41.37 5.94 13.79

> 20 ha 5 627.82 125.56 51.37 338.26 122.82 286.89

Baseline Dry Total 1100 1750.25 28.13 0.07 338.26 338.19

Year 2003 < 0.1 ha 941 2 08.75 0.22 0.01 0.22 0 0.21

Date 1 Oct 14 0.1

- 0.5 ha 1007 625.47 0.62 0.25 1.19 0.24 0.93

Date 2 Oct 23 0.5

- 1 ha 192 322.13 1.68 1.33 2.45 0.35 1.11

1

- 10 ha 95 561.87 5.91 2.56 20.46 4.14 17.89

10

- 20 ha 5 198.22 39.64 35.36 44.92 3.58 9.56

> 20 ha 3 641.83 213.94 57.60 497.50 246.00 439.90

Total 2243 2558.27 43.67 0.01 497.50 497.49

Year 2004 < 0.1 ha 1427 316.97 0.22 0.02 0.22 0 0

Date 1 Sep 7 0.1

- 0.5 ha 1817 1200.44 0.66 0.25 1.19 0.24 0.93

Date 2 Oct 16 0.5

- 1 ha 435 737.7 2 1.70 1.33 2.46 0.36 1.13

1

- 10 ha 190 1037.61 5.46 2.50 22.24 4.12 19.74

10

- 20 ha 8 297.84 37.23 26.02 46.70 7.18 20.68

> 20 ha 4 758.59 189.65 54.04 545.53 238.00 491.49

Total 3881 4349.17 39.15 0.02 545.53 545.52

Year 2005 < 0.1 ha 1342 297.74 0.22 0.02 0.23 0.01 0.21

Date 1 Feb 14 0.1

- 0.5 ha 1769 1158.99 0.66 0.25 1.20 0.24 0.95

Date 2 Feb 21 0.5

- 1 ha 374 626.45 1.67 1.31 2.45 0.33 1.14

1

- 10 ha 177 1029.67 5.82 2.52 23.57 4.49 21.05

10

- 20 ha 7 264.23 37.75 26.99 45.1 2 6.57 18.13

> 20 ha 5 726.34 145.27 52.93 400.31 145.75 347.38

Total 3674 4103.41 31.90 0.02 400.31 400.29

Year 2006 < 0.1 ha 656 145.65 0.22 0.01 0.22 0 0.21

Date 1 Nov 16 0.1

- 0.5 ha 614 375.38 0.61 0.25 1.20 0.23 0.95

Date 2 Nov 23 0.5

- 1 ha 87 151.32 1.74 1.33 2.47 0.35 1.14

### 57



### Jack County Summary S tatistics for Water Features in Acres

1

- 10 ha 68 434.30 6.39 2.53 20.76 4.49 18.23

10

- 20 ha 3 94.68 31.56 29.07 33.58 2.29 4.51

> 20 ha 4 605.36 151.34 49.59 362.50 143.44 312.91

Total 1432 1806.70 31.98 0.01 362.50 362.49

Year 2007 < 0.1 ha 1949 432.65 0.22 0.00 0.22 0.01 0.22

Date 1 Mar 8 0.1

- 0.5 ha 2619 1750.44 0.67 0.25 1.21 0.24 0.95

Date 2 Mar 31 0.5

- 1 ha 760 1304.33 1.72 1.33 2.47 0.36 1.14

1

- 10 ha 441 2385.64 5.41 2.47 24.69 3.91 22.21

10

- 20 ha 10 361.17 36.12 27.35 48.04 6.80 20.68

> 20 ha 16 2046.10 127.88 51.37 604.91 134.47 553.54

Total 5795 8280.34 28.67 0.00 604.91 604.91

Year 2008 < 0.1 ha 1631 362.09 0.22 0.02 0.22 0.01 0.20

Date 1 Apr 11 0.1

- 0.5 ha 2372 1583.27 0.67 0.25 1.21 0.25 0.95

Da te 2 Apr 18 0.5

- 1 ha 669 1140.64 1.70 1.32 2.46 0.35 1.14

1

- 10 ha 350 1807.82 5.17 2.48 24.69 3.71 22.21

10

- 20 ha 6 231.80 38.63 25.35 48.70 9.00 23.35

> 20 ha 10 1164.72 116.47 49.43 567.33 159.60 517.90

Total 5038 6290.34 27.14 0.02 5 67.33 567.31

Year 2009 < 0.1 ha 1189 263.84 0.22 0.02 0.22 0 0.21

Date 1 Sep 28 0.1

- 0.5 ha 1348 887.74 0.66 0.25 1.23 0.24 0.98

Date 2 Oct 23 0.5

- 1 ha 322 548.29 1.70 1.24 2.46 0.36 1.22

1

- 10 ha 177 931.75 5.26 2.49 22.68 3.78 20.20

10

- 2 0 ha 9 304.63 33.85 24.91 48.99 9.82 24.08

> 20 ha 4 640.81 160.20 56.13 435.45 184.29 379.32

Total 3049 3577.05 33.65 0.02 435.45 435.43

Year 2010 < 0.1 ha 908 201.51 0.22 0.03 0.22 0 0

Date 1 Nov 18 0.1

- 0.5 ha 1085 718.93 0.66 0.44 1.11 0.2 3 0.67

Date 2 Nov 27 0.5

- 1 ha 236 398.31 1.69 1.33 2.45 0.35 1.11

1

- 10 ha 129 790.17 6.13 2.67 23.13 4.25 20.46

10

- 20 ha 10 334.70 33.47 27.58 43.14 6.46 15.57

> 20 ha 4 692.09 173.02 49.59 496.61 216.48 447.01

Total 2372 3135.72 35.87 0.03 496.61 496.58

### 58



### Wise County Summary S tatistics for Water Features in Acres

Category Count Sum Mean Minimum Maximum Std Dev Range

Year 1997 < 0.1 ha 1389 308.30 0.22 0.00 0.22 0.01 0.22

Date 1 Mar 3 0.1

- 0.5 ha 1828 1225.04 0.67 0.25 1.19 0.24 0.93

Date 2 Mar 28 0.5

- 1 ha 486 828.27 1.70 1.32 2.45 0.35 1.13

1

- 10 ha 285 2053.08 7.20 2.47 23.80 5.46 21.32

10

- 20 ha 28 926.77 33.10 24.91 47.37 6.50 22.46

> 20 ha 8 725.97 90.75 51.81 129.43 32.33 77.62

Baseline Wet Total 4024 60 67.43 22.27 0.00 129.43 129.43

Year 1999 < 0.1 ha 468 104.08 0.22 0.22 0.22 0 0

Date 1 Feb 14 0.1

- 0.5 ha 540 337.42 0.62 0.25 1.20 0.26 0.95

Date 2 Feb 21 0.5

- 1 ha 89 154.72 1.74 1.33 2.45 0.36 1.11

1

- 10 ha 139 1119.62 8.05 2.50 24.69 5.36 22 .19

10

- 20 ha 10 343.98 34.40 25.35 48.17 8.37 22.81

> 20 ha 4 256.55 64.14 52.11 76.28 9.90 24.17

Baseline Dry Total 1250 2316.37 18.20 0.22 76.28 76.06

Year 2003 < 0.1 ha 887 197.08 0.22 0.02 0.24 0 0.23

Date 1 Oct 14 0.1

- 0.5 ha 1061 669.98 0.63 0.25 1.20 0.25 0.95

Date 2 Oct 23 0.5

- 1 ha 214 363.32 1.70 1.31 2.45 0.34 1.14

1

- 10 ha 197 1538.95 7.81 2.49 24.69 5.21 22.20

10

- 20 ha 15 439.22 29.28 25.13 39.14 4.55 14.01

> 20 ha 3 228.59 76.20 69.74 82.60 6.43 12.87

Total 237 7 3437.12 19.31 0.02 82.60 82.59

Year 2004 < 0.1 ha 1500 333.18 0.22 0.04 0.22 0 0

Date 1 Sep 7 0.1

- 0.5 ha 1612 1035.87 0.64 0.25 1.20 0.25 0.95

Date 2 Oct 16 0.5

- 1 ha 367 620.76 1.69 1.29 2.46 0.33 1.17

1

- 10 ha 253 2023.20 8.00 2.49 24.46 5. 59 21.97

10

- 20 ha 20 629.53 31.48 24.91 38.47 4.56 13.57

> 20 ha 5 418.79 83.76 69.39 108.75 14.77 39.36

Total 3757 5061.32 20.96 0.04 108.75 108.70

Year 2005 < 0.1 ha 1386 307.53 0.22 0.00 0.24 0.01 0.24

Date 1 Feb 14 0.1

- 0.5 ha 1914 12 52.04 0.65 0.25 1.21 0.25 0.95

Date 2 Feb 21 0.5

- 1 ha 394 664.15 1.69 1.33 2.47 0.32 1.14

1

- 10 ha 304 2210.06 7.27 2.48 24.69 5.08 22.21

10

- 20 ha 20 653.50 32.68 26.24 46.29 5.90 20.04

> 20 ha 7 599.81 85.69 51.82 133.44 27.74 81.62

To tal 4025 5687.11 21.37 0.00 133.44 133.44

Year 2006 < 0.1 ha 356 78.98 0.22 0.04 0.22 0 0.18

Date 1 Nov 16 0.1

- 0.5 ha 417 267.67 0.64 0.25 1.20 0.27 0.95

Date 2 Nov 23 0.5

- 1 ha 76 134.76 1.77 1.33 2.45 0.36 1.12

1

- 10 ha 121 917.70 7.58 2.50 2 4.51 4.85 22.00

### 59



### Wise County Summary S tatistics for Water Features in Acres

10

- 20 ha 4 117.44 29.36 26.05 35.42 4.25 9.37

> 20 ha 3 216.69 72.23 58.72 92.60 17.95 33.88

Total 977 1733.24 18.64 0.04 92.60 92.55

Year 2007 < 0.1 ha 1574 349.49 0.22 0.00 0.22 0.01 0.22

Date 1 Mar 8 0.1

- 0.5 ha 1712 11 23.94 0.66 0.25 1.19 0.24 0.93

Date 2 Mar 31 0.5

- 1 ha 418 717.24 1.72 1.31 2.46 0.34 1.15

1

- 10 ha 271 1866.33 6.89 2.48 23.72 5.06 21.24

10

- 20 ha 15 528.81 35.25 26.46 45.64 6.19 19.17

> 20 ha 7 713.89 101.98 55.21 171.81 51.58 116.60

Total 3997 5299.69 24.45 0.00 171.81 171.81

Year 2008 < 0.1 ha 2063 457.93 0.22 0.00 0.22 0.01 0.22

Date 1 Apr 11 0.1

- 0.5 ha 2612 1710.45 0.65 0.25 1.22 0.26 0.97

Date 2 Apr 18 0.5

- 1 ha 698 1204.65 1.73 1.32 2.47 0.34 1.15

1

- 10 ha 462 3212.24 6.95 2.48 24.46 5.23 21.99

10

- 20 ha 37 1227.36 33.17 24.91 48.62 7.33 23.72

> 20 ha 9 782.16 86.91 54.49 123.65 25.03 69.16

Total 5881 8594.79 21.61 0.00 123.65 123.65

Year 2009 < 0.1 ha 1739 386.47 0.22 0.00 0.24 0 0.24

Date 1 Sep 28 0.1

- 0.5 ha 1951 1287.79 0.66 0.27 1.23 0.24 0.95

Date 2 Oct 23 0.5

- 1 ha 512 867.58 1.69 1.24 2.45 0.33 1.20

1

- 10 ha 369 2601.05 7.05 2.49 24.43 5.07 21.95

10

- 20 ha 24 778.65 32.44 25.13 48.51 6.34 23.38

> 20 ha 7 537.58 76.80 54.49 95.87 19. 08 41.39

Total 4602 6459.12 19.81 0.00 95.87 95.87

Year 2010 < 0.1 ha 1477 327.89 0.22 0.01 0.22 0 0

Date 1 Nov 18 0.1

- 0.5 ha 1668 1101.16 0.66 0.44 1.11 0.23 0.67

Date 2 Nov 27 0.5

- 1 ha 351 612.41 1.74 1.33 2.45 0.37 1.11

1

- 10 ha 272 20 60.07 7.57 2.67 24.69 5.22 22.02

10

- 20 ha 24 746.80 31.12 25.35 43.81 5.59 18.46

> 20 ha 6 491.27 81.88 57.60 111.86 18.85 54.26

Total 3798 5339.60 20.53 0.01 111.86 111.86

### 60



### Palo Pinto County Summary S tatistics for Water Features in Acre s

Category Count Sum Mean Minimum Maximum Std Dev Range

Year 1997 < 0.1 ha 1278 283.83 0.22 0.08 0.22 0.01 0.14

Date 1 Mar 3 0.1

- 0.5 ha 1844 1259.64 0.68 0.25 1.19 0.25 0.93

Date 2 Mar 28 0.5

- 1 ha 562 961.55 1.71 1.33 2.45 0.35 1.11

1

- 10 ha 335 1959.97 5.85 2.49 24.69 4.59 22.20

10

- 20 ha 9 280.58 31.18 25.35 45.50 7.26 20.15

> 20 ha 5 620.60 124.12 73.84 182.59 42.89 108.75

Baseline Wet Total 4033 5366.16 27.29 0.08 182.59 182.51

Year 1999 < 0.1 ha 448 99.49 0.22 0.13 0.23 0 0

Da te 1 Feb 14 0.1

- 0.5 ha 576 376.15 0.65 0.25 1.19 0.24 0.93

Date 2 Feb 21 0.5

- 1 ha 127 220.82 1.74 1.31 2.45 0.38 1.14

1

- 10 ha 106 789.29 7.45 2.49 23.76 5.30 21.27

10

- 20 ha

> 20 ha 4 369.77 92.44 59.82 126.91 27.74 67.09

Basel ine Dry Total 1261 1855.51 20.50 0.13 126.91 126.78

Year 2003 < 0.1 ha 856 190.37 0.22 0.22 0.22 0 0.00

Date 1 Oct 14 0.1

- 0.5 ha 813 517.77 0.64 0.25 1.20 0.25 0.95

Date 2 Oct 23 0.5

- 1 ha 136 232.69 1.71 1.33 2.45 0.36 1.11

1

- 10 ha 111 756.48 6.82 2.49 24.69 4.99 22.20

10

- 20 ha 1 30.25 30.25 30.25 30.25 0.00 0.00

> 20 ha 5 447.93 89.59 57.16 124.12 30.22 66.96

Total 1922 2175.48 21.54 0.22 124.12 123.90

Year 2004 < 0.1 ha 1312 291.61 0.22 0.12 0.22 0 0

Date 1 Sep 7 0.1

- 0.5 h a 1223 778.49 0.64 0.25 1.20 0.25 0.95

Date 2 Oct 16 0.5

- 1 ha 226 384.97 1.70 1.31 2.45 0.36 1.14

1

- 10 ha 165 1072.74 6.50 2.47 23.80 4.94 21.32

10

- 20 ha 3 113.09 37.70 32.81 42.26 4.73 9.45

> 20 ha 5 544.45 108.89 66.94 129.01 25.35 62.07

Total 2934 3185.35 25.94 0.12 129.01 128.89

Year 2005 < 0.1 ha 1003 222.89 0.22 0.14 0.22 0.00 0.09

Date 1 Feb 14 0.1

- 0.5 ha 1355 924.93 0.68 0.25 1.20 0.25 0.95

Date 2 Feb 21 0.5

- 1 ha 356 603.87 1.70 1.33 2.46 0.35 1.14

1

- 10 ha 223 1384 .78 6.21 2.47 24.24 4.47 21.77

10

- 20 ha 6 175.68 29.28 24.78 35.69 4.90 10.91

> 20 ha 6 602.14 100.36 51.15 130.89 33.68 79.74

Total 2949 3914.30 23.07 0.14 130.89 130.75

Year 2006 < 0.1 ha 674 149.89 0.22 0.22 0.22 0 0.00

Date 1 Nov 16 0. 1

- 0.5 ha 567 359.11 0.63 0.25 1.21 0.25 0.96

Date 2 Nov 23 0.5

- 1 ha 108 185.68 1.72 1.32 2.45 0.36 1.13

1

- 10 ha 116 715.19 6.17 2.54 20.91 4.74 18.37

### 61



### Palo Pinto County Summary S tatistics for Water Features in Acre s

10

- 20 ha 2 58.93 29.47 27.13 31.80 3.30 4.67

> 20 ha 5 417.76 83.55 56.93 108.86 23.12 5 1.92

Total 1472 1886.58 20.29 0.22 108.86 108.63

Year 2007 < 0.1 ha 1784 396.04 0.22 0.05 0.22 0.01 0.17

Date 1 Mar 8 0.1

- 0.5 ha 2174 1432.12 0.66 0.25 1.23 0.23 0.97

Date 2 Mar 31 0.5

- 1 ha 631 1083.95 1.72 1.33 2.46 0.35 1.13

1

- 10 ha 37 5 2197.36 5.86 2.47 24.69 4.24 22.21

10

- 20 ha 12 375.18 31.27 26.24 42.70 5.44 16.46

> 20 ha 10 919.36 91.94 49.82 134.85 33.04 85.03

Total 4986 6404.01 21.94 0.05 134.85 134.80

Year 2008 < 0.1 ha 1419 315.08 0.22 0.10 0.22 0.01 0.12

Date 1 Apr 11 0.1

- 0.5 ha 1889 1266.92 0.67 0.25 1.20 0.26 0.95

Date 2 Apr 18 0.5

- 1 ha 484 836.11 1.73 1.33 2.46 0.36 1.13

1

- 10 ha 294 1736.80 5.91 2.51 24.46 4.24 21.95

10

- 20 ha 10 354.92 35.49 26.24 49.15 7.30 22.91

> 20 ha 5 583.51 116.70 72 .28 146.34 29.52 74.06

Total 4101 5093.35 26.79 0.10 146.34 146.24

Year 2009 < 0.1 ha 1009 223.79 0.22 0.04 0.24 0 0.21

Date 1 Sep 28 0.1

- 0.5 ha 1169 756.88 0.65 0.37 1.23 0.24 0.86

Date 2 Oct 23 0.5

- 1 ha 278 480.61 1.73 1.25 2.45 0.36 1.20

1

- 10 ha 205 1268.74 6.19 2.49 24.69 4.47 22.20

10

- 20 ha 8 281.97 35.25 25.82 47.81 7.97 21.99

> 20 ha 4 422.67 105.67 80.06 124.88 18.67 44.82

Total 2673 3434.66 24.95 0.04 124.88 124.85

Year 2010 < 0.1 ha 827 183.65 0.22 0.06 0.22 0 0

Date 1 Nov 18 0.1

- 0.5 ha 841 550.32 0.65 0.36 1.11 0.24 0.76

Date 2 Nov 27 0.5

- 1 ha 189 334.38 1.77 1.25 2.45 0.38 1.20

1

- 10 ha 153 949.82 6.21 2.67 22.24 4.24 19.57

10

- 20 ha 5 159.15 31.83 26.46 38.92 4.51 12.45

> 20 ha 5 501.50 100.30 55.38 126.54 28.17 71.17

Total 2020 2678.83 23.50 0.06 126.54 126.48

### 62



### Parker County Summary S tatistics for Water Features in Acres

Category Count Sum Mean Minimum Maximum Std Dev Range

Year 1997 < 0.1 ha 1288 285.92 0.22 0.05 0.22 0.01 0.17

Date 1 Mar 3 0.1

- 0.5 ha 1575 1048.19 0.67 0.25 1.21 0.26 0.96

Date 2 Mar 28 0.5

- 1 ha 393 676.39 1.72 1.33 2.47 0.35 1.13

1

- 10 ha 295 1779.93 6.03 2.47 22.08 4.24 19.61

10

- 20 ha 10 350.51 35.05 25.70 48.69 6.70 23.00

> 20 ha 6 753.82 125. 64 50.11 398.98 136.52 348.87

Baseline Wet Total 3567 4894.76 28.22 0.05 398.98 398.92

Year 1999 < 0.1 ha 511 113.27 0.22 0.06 0.22 0 0

Date 1 Feb 14 0.1

- 0.5 ha 705 452.14 0.64 0.25 1.22 0.25 0.97

Date 2 Feb 21 0.5

- 1 ha 164 288.26 1.76 1.31 2.47 0.37 1.16

1

- 10 ha 141 963.41 6.83 2.47 24.43 4.83 21.96

10

- 20 ha 10 316.62 31.66 25.92 44.22 5.99 18.29

> 20 ha 4 434.11 108.53 65.16 135.88 30.32 70.72

Baseline Dry Total 1535 2567.82 24.94 0.06 135.88 135.82

Year 2003 < 0.1 ha 779 172.66 0.22 0.03 0.22 0 0.20

Date 1 Oct 14 0.1

- 0.5 ha 905 549.97 0.61 0.25 1.21 0.26 0.95

Date 2 Oct 23 0.5

- 1 ha 153 261.44 1.71 1.33 2.46 0.32 1.13

1

- 10 ha 158 1043.89 6.61 2.48 24.02 4.77 21.54

10

- 20 ha 8 259.74 32.47 24.85 43.81 7.34 18.97

> 20 ha 2 158.12 79.06 64.72 93.41 20.29 28.69

Total 2005 2445.81 20.11 0.03 93.41 93.38

Year 2004 < 0.1 ha 1137 252.28 0.22 0.05 0.22 0 0

Date 1 Sep 7 0.1

- 0.5 ha 1246 761.80 0.61 0.25 1.20 0.25 0.95

Date 2 Oct 16 0.5

- 1 ha 252 430.06 1.71 1.3 0 2.45 0.33 1.14

1

- 10 ha 197 1251.09 6.35 2.48 24.63 4.19 22.15

10

- 20 ha 12 396.79 33.07 25.45 44.92 6.89 19.47

> 20 ha 2 195.49 97.74 71.61 123.87 36.96 52.26

Total 2846 3287.51 23.28 0.05 123.87 123.82

Year 2005 < 0.1 ha 886 196.22 0 .22 0.00 0.22 0.01 0.22

Date 1 Feb 14 0.1

- 0.5 ha 1423 945.80 0.66 0.25 1.24 0.26 0.98

Date 2 Feb 21 0.5

- 1 ha 363 618.07 1.70 1.33 2.45 0.34 1.12

1

- 10 ha 248 1442.75 5.82 2.49 22.19 3.88 19.71

10

- 20 ha 13 437.36 33.64 27.04 44.48 5.82 17.44

> 20 ha 6 602.24 100.37 56.84 153.67 36.32 96.83

Total 2939 4242.44 23.74 0.00 153.67 153.67

Year 2006 < 0.1 ha 459 101.69 0.22 0.05 0.24 0 0.19

Date 1 Nov 16 0.1

- 0.5 ha 634 408.74 0.64 0.25 1.22 0.27 0.97

Date 2 Nov 23 0.5

- 1 ha 176 306.13 1.74 1.33 2.45 0.34 1.11

1

- 10 ha 140 909.71 6.50 2.55 21.82 4.68 19.26

### 63



### Parker County Summary S tatistics for Water Features in Acres

10

- 20 ha 5 153.22 30.64 25.13 38.18 4.87 13.05

> 20 ha 3 260.42 86.81 58.71 121.21 31.72 62.49

Total 1417 2139.93 21.09 0.05 121.21 121.15

Year 2007 < 0.1 ha 1267 280.88 0.22 0.03 0.22 0.01 0.20

Date 1 Mar 8 0.1

- 0.5 ha 1682 1122.87 0.67 0.25 1.20 0.24 0.95

Date 2 Mar 31 0.5

- 1 ha 425 723.17 1.70 1.30 2.46 0.34 1.16

1

- 10 ha 322 1757.61 5.46 2.48 23.40 3.84 20.92

10

- 20 ha 13 414.48 31.88 25.13 40.92 4.8 2 15.79

> 20 ha 5 591.22 118.24 66.50 225.59 66.14 159.10

Total 3714 4890.24 26.36 0.03 225.59 225.57

Year 2008 < 0.1 ha 1358 301.10 0.22 0.01 0.22 0.01 0.22

Date 1 Apr 11 0.1

- 0.5 ha 1914 1225.84 0.64 0.25 1.20 0.27 0.95

Date 2 Apr 18 0.5

- 1 ha 488 839.97 1.72 1.31 2.46 0.33 1.15

1

- 10 ha 369 2113.32 5.73 2.49 23.63 4.19 21.14

10

- 20 ha 13 501.91 38.61 26.78 48.03 7.54 21.25

> 20 ha 4 913.60 228.40 80.06 407.87 150.66 327.81

Total 4146 5895.73 45.89 0.01 407.87 407.87

Year 2009 < 0.1 ha 1213 269.06 0.22 0.03 0.24 0 0.21

Date 1 Sep 28 0.1

- 0.5 ha 1446 943.63 0.65 0.37 1.23 0.24 0.86

Date 2 Oct 23 0.5

- 1 ha 435 758.55 1.74 1.24 2.47 0.36 1.23

1

- 10 ha 316 1926.38 6.10 2.48 24.45 4.58 21.98

10

- 20 ha 8 273.32 34.16 26.24 47.87 7.82 21.63

> 20 ha 5 702.44 140.49 74.50 284.67 85.77 210.16

Total 3423 4873.39 30.56 0.03 284.67 284.63

Year 2010 < 0.1 ha 1205 267.06 0.22 0.01 0.22 0 0

Date 1 Nov 18 0.1

- 0.5 ha 1344 881.65 0.66 0.29 1.19 0.23 0.90

Date 2 Nov 27 0.5

- 1 ha 383 665.81 1.74 1.33 2.45 0.36 1.11

1

- 10 ha 235 1638.70 6.97 2.67 24.24 4.93 21.57

10

- 20 ha 9 302.90 33.66 26.02 46.26 6.35 20.24

> 20 ha 2 232.63 116.31 69.39 163.24 66.36 93.85

Total 3178 3988.74 26.59 0.01 163.24 163.23

### 64



### Erath County Summary S tatistics for Water Features in Acres

Category Count Sum Mean Minimum Maximum Std Dev Range

Year 1997 < 0.1 ha 1696 376.85 0.22 0.01 0.22 0.01 0.21

Date 1 Mar 3 0.1

- 0.5 ha 2252 1498.17 0.67 0.25 1.20 0.25 0.95

Date 2 Ma r 28 0.5

- 1 ha 575 978.62 1.70 1.30 2.47 0.34 1.17

1

- 10 ha 309 2096.65 6.79 2.47 24.40 5.36 21.93

10

- 20 ha 25 893.25 35.73 24.91 49.25 7.70 24.34

> 20 ha 21 1436.14 68.39 49.44 138.55 26.14 89.11

Baseline Wet Total 4878 7279.67 18.92 0.01 13 8.55 138.54

Year 1999 < 0.1 ha 572 127.09 0.22 0.10 0.22 0 0

Date 1 Feb 14 0.1

- 0.5 ha 751 460.35 0.61 0.25 1.19 0.25 0.94

Date 2 Feb 21 0.5

- 1 ha 147 255.33 1.74 1.33 2.45 0.36 1.12

1

- 10 ha 133 1110.94 8.35 2.48 23.96 5.57 21.48

10

- 20 ha 19 573.74 30.20 25.13 41.81 4.45 16.68

> 20 ha 4 279.55 69.89 51.15 89.85 21.17 38.70

Baseline Dry Total 1626 2807.00 18.50 0.10 89.85 89.75

Year 2003 < 0.1 ha 939 208.59 0.22 0.10 0.22 0 0.12

Date 1 Oct 14 0.1

- 0.5 ha 1133 690.35 0.61 0.25 1.20 0 .25 0.95

Date 2 Oct 23 0.5

- 1 ha 177 295.63 1.67 1.33 2.46 0.34 1.13

1

- 10 ha 152 1136.16 7.47 2.49 23.37 5.43 20.89

10

- 20 ha 26 835.59 32.14 24.91 40.92 4.90 16.01

> 20 ha 4 298.66 74.66 53.82 114.51 28.30 60.69

Total 2431 3464.98 19.46 0.10 114.51 114.41

Year 2004 < 0.1 ha 1491 331.18 0.22 0.01 0.22 0 0

Date 1 Sep 7 0.1

- 0.5 ha 1617 1015.93 0.63 0.25 1.21 0.25 0.95

Date 2 Oct 16 0.5

- 1 ha 308 526.20 1.71 1.32 2.47 0.34 1.15

1

- 10 ha 196 1432.02 7.31 2.49 22.98 5.53 20.50

1 0

- 20 ha 33 1117.83 33.87 25.15 43.68 5.62 18.54

> 20 ha 4 306.83 76.71 52.26 117.12 29.31 64.86

Total 3649 4729.99 20.07 0.01 117.12 117.11

Year 2005 < 0.1 ha 1189 264.23 0.22 0.12 0.22 0 0.10

Date 1 Feb 14 0.1

- 0.5 ha 1846 1200.60 0.65 0.25 1.20 0.25 0.95

Date 2 Feb 21 0.5

- 1 ha 418 704.37 1.69 1.30 2.46 0.33 1.16

1

- 10 ha 258 1774.08 6.88 2.48 24.41 5.52 21.93

10

- 20 ha 34 1213.59 35.69 24.91 48.26 6.21 23.35

> 20 ha 7 528.19 75.46 50.71 123.47 27.78 72.77

### 65



### Erath County Summary S tatistics for Water Features in Acres

Total 3752 5685. 07 20.10 0.12 123.47 123.35

Year 2006 < 0.1 ha 464 103.19 0.22 0.22 0.22 0 0

Date 1 Nov 16 0.1

- 0.5 ha 539 341.55 0.63 0.25 1.22 0.26 0.96

Date 2 Nov 23 0.5

- 1 ha 112 188.36 1.68 1.33 2.45 0.37 1.12

1

- 10 ha 129 1088.17 8.44 2.54 24.68 5.98 22.1 4

10

- 20 ha 13 427.35 32.87 25.87 42.48 5.65 16.61

> 20 ha 2 138.80 69.40 58.93 79.87 14.80 20.93

Total 1259 2287.43 18.87 0.22 79.87 79.64

Year 2007 < 0.1 ha 1955 434.28 0.22 0.01 0.22 0.01 0.21

Date 1 Mar 8 0.1

- 0.5 ha 2337 1529.98 0.65 0.25 1.21 0.23 0.96

Date 2 Mar 31 0.5

- 1 ha 609 1028.49 1.69 1.29 2.47 0.35 1.18

1

- 10 ha 318 2033.47 6.39 2.48 23.57 5.10 21.10

10

- 20 ha 37 1322.46 35.74 25.35 48.93 7.41 23.57

> 20 ha 15 1034.08 68.94 50.26 154.69 27.80 104.43

Total 52 71 7382.75 18.94 0.01 154.69 154.69

Year 2008 < 0.1 ha 1452 322.51 0.22 0.03 0.22 0.01 0.19

Date 1 Apr 11 0.1

- 0.5 ha 1822 1157.43 0.64 0.25 1.20 0.25 0.95

Date 2 Apr 18 0.5

- 1 ha 368 635.36 1.73 1.33 2.45 0.34 1.12

1

- 10 ha 257 1853.24 7.21 2.4 9 23.67 5.52 21.18

10

- 20 ha 34 1170.03 34.41 25.13 48.93 5.89 23.80

> 20 ha 5 398.97 79.79 52.03 116.76 32.77 64.72

Total 3938 5537.54 20.67 0.03 116.76 116.72

Year 2009 < 0.1 ha 1272 282.47 0.22 0.01 0.22 0 0.21

Date 1 Sep 28 0.1

- 0.5 ha 1488 985.34 0.66 0.27 1.23 0.25 0.95

Date 2 Oct 23 0.5

- 1 ha 375 649.17 1.73 1.24 2.47 0.36 1.23

1

- 10 ha 235 1694.22 7.21 2.49 24.24 5.40 21.75

10

- 20 ha 29 996.50 34.36 25.22 48.93 7.43 23.71

> 20 ha 3 218.49 72.83 64.36 78.73 7.52 14.37

Total 3402 4826.19 19.50 0.01 78.73 78.72

Year 2010 < 0.1 ha 1045 231.45 0.22 0.02 0.22 0 0

Date 1 Nov 18 0.1

- 0.5 ha 1066 704.99 0.66 0.44 1.11 0.23 0.67

Date 2 Nov 27 0.5

- 1 ha 263 440.12 1.67 1.33 2.45 0.33 1.11

1

- 10 ha 195 1517.00 7.78 2 .67 24.46 5.60 21.79

10

- 20 ha 28 932.50 33.30 26.24 42.48 5.06 16.23

> 20 ha 4 304.01 76.00 53.60 113.20 27.31 59.60

### 66



### Erath County Summary S tatistics for Water Features in Acres

Total 2601 4130.07 19.94 0.02 113.20 113.18



### Hood County Summary S tatistics for Water Features in Acres

Category Count Sum Mean Minimum Maximum Std Dev Range

Year 1997 < 0.1 ha 571 126.35 0.22 0.00 0.22 0.01 0.22

Date 1 Mar 3 0.1

- 0.5 ha 522 340.24 0.65 0.25 1.20 0.24 0.94

Date 2 Mar 28 0.5

- 1 ha 141 242.95 1.72 1.33 2.46 0.34 1.13

1

- 10 ha 76 409.09 5.38 2.48 21. 35 4.47 18.87

10

- 20 ha 1 28.62 28.62 28.62 28.62 0 0

> 20 ha 1 73.28 73.28 73.28 73.28 0 0

Baseline Wet Total 1312 1220.52 18.31 0.00 73.28 73.28

Year 1999 < 0.1 ha 221 49.05 0.22 0.12 0.22 0 0

Date 1 Feb 14 0.1

- 0.5 ha 219 146.37 0.67 0.25 1 .19 0.26 0.93

Date 2 Feb 21 0.5

- 1 ha 41 69.44 1.69 1.33 2.45 0.30 1.11

1

- 10 ha 41 240.06 5.86 2.49 24.54 4.34 22.06

10

- 20 ha

> 20 ha 1 59.23 59.23 59.23 59.23 0 0

Baseline Dry Total 523 564.16 13.53 0.12 59.23 59.11

Year 2003 < 0.1 ha 466 103.61 0.22 0.20 0.22 0 0.03

Date 1 Oct 14 0.1

- 0.5 ha 397 261.25 0.66 0.25 1.20 0.26 0.95

Date 2 Oct 23 0.5

- 1 ha 83 145.52 1.75 1.31 2.45 0.38 1.14

1

- 10 ha 61 387.62 6.35 2.56 21.49 4.85 18.93

10

- 20 ha 2 59.96 29.98 25.05 34.9 2 6.98 9.87

> 20 ha 1 68.32 68.32 68.32 68.32 0 0

Total 1010 1026.28 17.88 0.20 68.32 68.12

Year 2004 < 0.1 ha 723 160.46 0.22 0.05 0.22 0 0

Date 1 Sep 7 0.1

- 0.5 ha 529 340.15 0.64 0.25 1.20 0.24 0.95

Date 2 Oct 16 0.5

- 1 ha 127 218.56 1.72 1.32 2.45 0.36 1.13

1

- 10 ha 85 521.12 6.13 2.47 24.46 5.14 21.99

10

- 20 ha 3 89.33 29.78 25.80 35.58 5.14 9.79

> 20 ha 1 69.04 69.04 69.04 69.04 0.00 0.00

Total 1468 1398.66 17.92 0.05 69.04 68.98

Year 2005 < 0.1 ha 439 97.63 0.22 0.22 0.22 0 0

Date 1 Feb 14 0.1

- 0.5 ha 607 405.53 0.67 0.25 1.20 0.25 0.95

Date 2 Feb 21 0.5

- 1 ha 144 245.36 1.70 1.33 2.46 0.34 1.13

1

- 10 ha 86 487.74 5.67 2.52 23.80 4.57 21.28

### 67 10

- 20 ha 3 91.01 30.34 28.02 34.47 3.59 6.45

> 20 ha 1 75.66 7 5.66 75.66 75.66 0.00 0.00

Total 1280 1402.92 19.04 0.22 75.66 75.43

Year 2006 < 0.1 ha 229 50.91 0.22 0.20 0.22 0 0.02

Date 1 Nov 16 0.1

- 0.5 ha 258 181.08 0.70 0.25 1.18 0.26 0.93

Date 2 Nov 23 0.5

- 1 ha 77 133.54 1.73 1.33 2.45 0.35 1.11

1

- 10 ha 50 302.73 6.05 2.67 18.46 3.82 15.79

10

- 20 ha 1 33.14 33.14 33.14 33.14 0.00 0.00

> 20 ha 1 64.77 64.77 64.77 64.77 0.00 0.00

Total 616 766.17 17.77 0.20 64.77 64.57

Year 2007 < 0.1 ha 441 97.85 0.22 0.09 0.22 0.01 0.13

Date 1 Ma r 8 0.1

- 0.5 ha 577 391.78 0.68 0.25 1.20 0.25 0.94

Date 2 Mar 31 0.5

- 1 ha 156 267.50 1.71 1.31 2.46 0.35 1.15

1

- 10 ha 104 534.83 5.14 2.48 21.00 3.40 18.53

10

- 20 ha 4 125.85 31.46 26.02 36.92 4.50 10.90

> 20 ha 1 73.72 73.72 73.72 73.72 0 .00 0.00

Total 1283 1491.53 18.82 0.09 73.72 73.63

Year 2008 < 0.1 ha 673 149.46 0.22 0.08 0.22 0.01 0.14

Date 1 Apr 11 0.1

- 0.5 ha 682 443.40 0.65 0.25 1.19 0.24 0.93

Date 2 Apr 18 0.5

- 1 ha 209 355.47 1.70 1.31 2.45 0.36 1.14

1

- 10 ha 118 661.75 5.61 2.48 22.02 3.73 19.54

10

- 20 ha 4 133.29 33.32 29.13 37.81 4.24 8.67

> 20 ha 1 68.02 68.02 68.02 68.02 0.00 0.00

Total 1687 1811.39 18.25 0.08 68.02 67.94

Year 2009 < 0.1 ha 609 135.33 0.22 0.17 0.22 0 0.05

Date 1 Sep 28 0.1

- 0.5 ha 609 404.29 0.66 0.31 1.23 0.24 0.92

Date 2 Oct 23 0.5

- 1 ha 168 286.49 1.71 1.33 2.45 0.34 1.11

1

- 10 ha 156 924.38 5.93 2.53 24.24 4.71 21.71

10

- 20 ha 1 36.92 36.92 36.92 36.92 0.00 0.00

> 20 ha 1 76.85 76.85 76.85 76.85 0.00 0.00

Total 1544 1864.27 20.38 0.17 76.85 76.68

Year 2010 < 0.1 ha 556 123.61 0.22 0.16 0.24 0 0

Date 1 Nov 18 0.1

- 0.5 ha 699 451.53 0.65 0.37 1.11 0.23 0.74

Date 2 Nov 27 0.5

- 1 ha 181 309.35 1.71 1.33 2.45 0.37 1.11

1

- 10 ha 127 748.84 5.90 2.67 23.35 4.24 20.68

10

- 20 ha 4 128.10 32.02 27.13 37.58 5.33 10.45

> 20 ha 1 70.05 70.05 70.05 70.05 0.00 0.00

Total 1568 1831.48 18.43 0.16 70.05 69.89

### 68



### Somervell County Summary S tatistics for Water Features in Acres

Category Count Sum Me an Minimum Maximum Std Dev Range

Year 1997 < 0.1 ha 1118 248.24 0.22 0.01 0.22 0.01 0.21

Date 1 Mar 3 0.1

- 0.5 ha 1714 1189.07 0.69 0.25 1.20 0.25 0.95

Date 2 Mar 28 0.5

- 1 ha 522 898.21 1.72 1.29 2.47 0.35 1.18

1

- 10 ha 404 2441.15 6.04 2.47 24.3 2 4.53 21.85

10

- 20 ha 20 693.91 34.70 24.82 47.96 7.22 23.15

> 20 ha 4 452.36 113.09 64.50 218.17 71.45 153.67

Baseline Wet Total 3782 5922.95 26.08 0.01 218.17 218.16

Year 1999 < 0.1 ha 263 58.49 0.22 0.22 0.22 0 0

Date 1 Feb 14 0.1

- 0.5 ha 360 206.90 0.57 0.25 1.19 0.27 0.94

Date 2 Feb 21 0.5

- 1 ha 71 123.17 1.73 1.32 2.45 0.35 1.13

1

- 10 ha 118 788.69 6.68 2.49 22.55 4.44 20.06

10

- 20 ha 6 165.33 27.55 24.91 35.48 4.09 10.57

> 20 ha 4 786.85 196.71 52.93 517.98 219.07 465.05

B aseline Dry Total 822 2129.43 38.91 0.22 517.98 517.76

Year 2003 < 0.1 ha 598 132.97 0.22 0.20 0.22 0 0.02

Date 1 Oct 14 0.1

- 0.5 ha 775 478.28 0.62 0.25 1.20 0.26 0.95

Date 2 Oct 23 0.5

- 1 ha 182 304.92 1.68 1.29 2.45 0.32 1.15

1

- 10 ha 161 997 .15 6.19 2.50 23.96 3.95 21.45

10

- 20 ha 9 283.77 31.53 26.91 38.03 4.15 11.12

> 20 ha 3 261.54 87.18 54.49 151.01 55.28 96.52

Total 1728 2458.63 21.24 0.20 151.01 150.80

Year 2004 < 0.1 ha 1296 288.22 0.22 0.22 0.22 0 0

Date 1 Sep 7 0.1

- 0.5 ha 1749 1127.17 0.64 0.25 1.20 0.26 0.95

Date 2 Oct 16 0.5

- 1 ha 472 807.28 1.71 1.31 2.46 0.35 1.15

1

- 10 ha 353 2206.49 6.25 2.48 23.83 4.50 21.35

10

- 20 ha 15 539.64 35.98 25.44 46.67 6.75 21.22

> 20 ha 3 354.05 118.02 62.49 218.39 87.0 9 155.90

Total 3888 5322.85 27.14 0.22 218.39 218.17

Year 2005 < 0.1 ha 1184 262.80 0.22 0.00 0.22 0.01 0.22

Date 1 Feb 14 0.1

- 0.5 ha 1894 1221.45 0.64 0.25 1.21 0.27 0.96

Date 2 Feb 21 0.5

- 1 ha 435 746.98 1.72 1.25 2.47 0.34 1.22

1

- 10 h a 337 1988.81 5.90 2.47 22.67 4.07 20.20

10

- 20 ha 16 554.69 34.67 25.07 45.21 6.30 20.13

> 20 ha 3 366.28 122.09 69.83 207.05 74.22 137.22

Total 3869 5141.02 27.54 0.00 207.05 207.05

Year 2006 < 0.1 ha 545 121.09 0.22 0.15 0.22 0 0.08

### 69



### Somervell County Summary S tatistics for Water Features in Acres

Date 1 Nov 16 0.1

- 0.5 ha 660 409.29 0.62 0.25 1.21 0.26 0.96

Date 2 Nov 23 0.5

- 1 ha 115 193.38 1.68 1.33 2.47 0.32 1.14

1

- 10 ha 146 850.12 5.82 2.48 20.24 3.67 17.75

10

- 20 ha 8 244.18 30.52 25.09 43.14 7.68 18.06

> 20 ha 3 466.14 155.38 51.37 252.20 100.60 200.82

Total 1477 2284.20 32.37 0.15 252.20 252.05

Year 2007 < 0.1 ha 1797 399.13 0.22 0.01 0.22 0.01 0.21

Date 1 Mar 8 0.1

- 0.5 ha 2268 1469.74 0.65 0.25 1.23 0.25 0.97

Date 2 Mar 31 0.5

- 1 ha 628 1089.41 1.73 1.29 2.47 0.34 1.1 8

1

- 10 ha 477 2905.78 6.09 2.47 23.14 4.28 20.67

10

- 20 ha 30 958.12 31.94 25.38 47.33 5.38 21.96

> 20 ha 12 1092.83 91.07 52.07 228.62 57.07 176.55

Total 5212 7915.02 21.95 0.01 228.62 228.61

Year 2008 < 0.1 ha 1427 316.81 0.22 0.06 0. 22 0.01 0.16

Date 1 Apr 11 0.1

- 0.5 ha 2253 1465.01 0.65 0.25 1.23 0.27 0.97

Date 2 Apr 18 0.5

- 1 ha 621 1068.28 1.72 1.30 2.45 0.35 1.14

1

- 10 ha 479 2869.63 5.99 2.47 24.64 4.58 22.16

10

- 20 ha 15 552.81 36.85 25.35 48.96 8.28 23.61

> 20 h a 4 419.92 104.98 52.74 213.28 73.21 160.53

Total 4799 6692.44 25.07 0.06 213.28 213.22

Year 2009 < 0.1 ha 1237 275.08 0.22 0.20 0.22 0 0.02

Date 1 Sep 28 0.1

- 0.5 ha 1631 1084.57 0.66 0.30 1.23 0.25 0.93

Date 2 Oct 23 0.5

- 1 ha 519 883.89 1.70 1.24 2.47 0.36 1.23

1

- 10 ha 377 2263.67 6.00 2.48 24.02 4.33 21.54

10

- 20 ha 15 529.81 35.32 26.46 44.03 6.98 17.57

> 20 ha 3 334.26 111.42 59.38 201.27 78.14 141.89

Total 3782 5371.28 25.89 0.20 201.27 201.06

Year 2010 < 0.1 ha 1274 2 83.33 0.22 0.22 0.22 0 0

Date 1 Nov 18 0.1

- 0.5 ha 1477 968.45 0.66 0.41 1.11 0.23 0.70

Date 2 Nov 27 0.5

- 1 ha 400 686.27 1.72 1.33 2.45 0.36 1.11

1

- 10 ha 291 1948.85 6.70 2.67 24.24 4.46 21.57

10

- 20 ha 12 415.21 34.60 26.02 44.26 6.53 18.24

> 20 ha 2 261.09 130.55 72.95 188.15 81.46 115.20

Total 3456 4563.19 29.07 0.22 188.15 187.92

### 70



### Bosque County Summary S tatistics for Water Features in Acres

Category Count Sum Mean Minimum Maximum Std Dev Range

Year 1997 < 0.1 ha 1025 227 .71 0.22 0.01 0.22 0.01 0.22

Date 1 Mar 3 0.1

- 0.5 ha 705 456.70 0.65 0.44 1.11 0.23 0.67

Date 2 Mar 28 0.5

- 1 ha 163 280.88 1.72 1.33 2.45 0.39 1.11

1

- 10 ha 167 1157.90 6.93 2.67 22.91 5.11 20.24

10

- 20 ha 6 204.60 34.10 27.13 43.81 6.36 16.6 8

> 20 ha 4 299.56 74.89 51.37 128.18 35.76 76.80

Baseline Wet Total 2070 2627.36 19.75 0.01 128.18 128.17

Year 1999 < 0.1 ha 422 93.74 0.22 0.11 0.22 0 0

Date 1 Feb 14 0.1

- 0.5 ha 367 244.22 0.67 0.25 1.11 0.23 0.86

Date 2 Feb 21 0.5

- 1 ha 103 184.64 1.79 1.33 2.45 0.38 1.11

1

- 10 ha 125 940.25 7.52 2.67 24.24 5.41 21.57

10

- 20 ha 3 82.95 27.65 25.58 30.47 2.53 4.89

> 20 ha 5 327.09 65.42 49.82 113.87 27.21 64.05

Baseline Dry Total 1025 1872.90 17.21 0.11 113.87 113.76

Year 2003 < 0.1 ha 747 165.93 0.22 0.03 0.22 0 0.19

Date 1 Oct 14 0.1

- 0.5 ha 576 370.62 0.64 0.25 1.11 0.23 0.86

Date 2 Oct 23 0.5

- 1 ha 135 237.74 1.76 1.33 2.45 0.36 1.11

1

- 10 ha 143 1059.49 7.41 2.67 24.24 5.54 21.57

10

- 20 ha 4 110.09 27.52 24.91 29 .58 1.97 4.67

> 20 ha 5 338.83 67.77 51.37 108.53 24.18 57.16

Total 1610 2282.70 17.55 0.03 108.53 108.50

Year 2004 < 0.1 ha 1582 351.41 0.22 0.00 0.22 0 0

Date 1 Sep 7 0.1

- 0.5 ha 988 629.94 0.64 0.25 1.11 0.22 0.86

Date 2 Oct 16 0.5

- 1 ha 212 365.39 1.72 1.33 2.45 0.38 1.11

1

- 10 ha 246 1747.44 7.10 2.67 24.69 5.11 22.02

10

- 20 ha 12 368.95 30.75 25.35 45.81 6.03 20.46

> 20 ha 4 287.06 71.77 50.48 112.31 28.33 61.83

Total 3044 3750.20 18.70 0.00 112.31 112.31

Year 2005 < 0.1 ha 981 217.58 0.22 0.00 0.22 0.01 0.22

Date 1 Feb 14 0.1

- 0.5 ha 921 603.54 0.66 0.28 1.11 0.23 0.83

Date 2 Feb 21 0.5

- 1 ha 206 358.06 1.74 1.33 2.45 0.38 1.11

1

- 10 ha 209 1462.91 7.00 2.67 23.80 5.07 21.13

10

- 20 ha 10 322.92 32.29 26.02 41.59 5.29 15.57

### 71



### Bosque County Summary S tatistics for Water Features in Acres

> 20 ha 3 232.21 77.40 61.56 106.38 25.13 44.83

Total 2330 3197.22 19.88 0.00 106.38 106.38

Year 2006 < 0.1 ha 153 33.65 0.22 0.01 0.22 0 0.22

Date 1 Nov 16 0.1

- 0.5 ha 169 107.86 0.64 0.44 1.11 0.23 0.67

Date 2 Nov 23 0.5

- 1 ha 73 132.77 1.82 1.33 2.45 0.39 1.11

1

- 10 ha 89 647.17 7.27 2.67 23.35 4.97 20.68

10

- 20 ha 4 136.11 34.03 25.13 39.36 6.67 14.23

> 20 ha 1 73.84 73.84 73.84 73.84 0.00 0.00

Total 489 1131.39 19.63 0.01 73.84 73.83

Year 2007 < 0.1 h a 427 94.96 0.22 0.22 0.22 0 0

Date 1 Mar 8 0.1

- 0.5 ha 492 328.29 0.67 0.25 1.11 0.23 0.86

Date 2 Mar 31 0.5

- 1 ha 130 234.63 1.80 1.33 2.45 0.38 1.11

1

- 10 ha 149 1009.23 6.77 2.67 21.79 4.79 19.13

10

- 20 ha 8 243.74 30.47 24.91 41.59 5.86 16 .68

> 20 ha 2 128.32 64.16 51.37 76.95 18.09 25.58

Total 1208 2039.17 17.35 0.22 76.95 76.73

Year 2008 < 0.1 ha 1046 232.46 0.22 0.06 0.22 0.01 0.16

Date 1 Apr 11 0.1

- 0.5 ha 754 496.20 0.66 0.33 1.11 0.24 0.78

Date 2 Apr 18 0.5

- 1 ha 191 32 5.14 1.70 1.33 2.45 0.38 1.11

1

- 10 ha 219 1572.78 7.18 2.67 24.69 5.21 22.02

10

- 20 ha 15 477.04 31.80 25.80 47.59 5.70 21.79

> 20 ha 4 312.84 78.21 54.71 129.41 34.60 74.71

Total 2229 3416.46 19.96 0.06 129.41 129.36

Year 2009 < 0.1 ha 1127 250.63 0.22 0.21 0.22 0 0.01

Date 1 Sep 28 0.1

- 0.5 ha 978 647.61 0.66 0.25 1.11 0.24 0.86

Date 2 Oct 23 0.5

- 1 ha 269 468.36 1.74 1.33 2.45 0.38 1.11

1

- 10 ha 283 1898.58 6.71 2.67 23.13 4.76 20.46

10

- 20 ha 8 228.84 28.61 25.35 33.14 3. 10 7.78

> 20 ha 6 483.04 80.51 53.15 108.53 21.46 55.38

Total 2671 3977.07 19.74 0.21 108.53 108.31

Year 2010 < 0.1 ha 902 200.30 0.22 0.03 0.22 0 0

Date 1 Nov 18 0.1

- 0.5 ha 949 612.71 0.65 0.26 1.11 0.23 0.85

Date 2 Nov 27 0.5

- 1 ha 238 41 3.21 1.74 1.33 2.45 0.35 1.11

1

- 10 ha 244 1712.44 7.02 2.67 24.69 5.24 22.02

10

- 20 ha 13 376.29 28.95 25.35 36.70 3.20 11.34

### 72



### Bosque County Summary S tatistics for Water Features in Acres

> 20 ha 5 386.95 77.39 54.26 131.68 30.97 77.41

Total 2351 3701.90 19.33 0.03 131.68 131.65



### Hill County Sum mary S tatistics for Water Features in Acres

Category Count 

### Sum Mean Minimum Maximum Std Dev Range

Year 1997 < 0.1 ha 1016 

### 225.953 0.222 0.222 0.222 0 0

Date 1 Mar 3 0.1

- 0.5 ha 799 

### 524.185 0.656 0.445 1.112 0.233 0.667

Date 2 Mar 28 0.5

- 1 ha 189 

### 3 29.589 1.744 1.334 2.446 0.370 1.112

1

- 10 ha 184 

### 1310.795 7.124 2.669 23.129 5.148 20.460

10

- 20 ha 19 

### 630.045 33.160 25.131 47.815 6.862 22.684

> 20 ha

Baseline Wet Total 2207 

### 3020.567 8.581 0.222 47.815 47.592

Year 1999 < 0.1 ha 6 20 

### 137.885 0.222 0.222 0.222 0 0

Date 1 Feb 14 0.1

- 0.5 ha 471 

### 309.351 0.657 0.445 1.112 0.239 0.667

Date 2 Feb 21 0.5

- 1 ha 126 

### 214.833 1.705 1.334 2.446 0.383 1.112

1

- 10 ha 158 

### 1226.063 7.760 2.669 24.463 5.581 21.795

10

- 20 ha 15 

### 497.720 33 .181 25.575 44.924 6.845 19.348

> 20 ha

Baseline Dry Total 1390 

### 2385.852 8.705 0.222 44.924 44.701

Year 2003 < 0.1 ha 885 

### 196.819 0.222 0.222 0.222 0 0

Date 1 Oct 14 0.1

- 0.5 ha 665 

### 435.227 0.654 0.445 1.112 0.241 0.667

Date 2 Oct 23 0.5

- 1 ha 176 

### 303.124 1.722 1.334 2.446 0.344 1.112

1

- 10 ha 160 

### 1130.211 7.064 2.669 24.019 4.917 21.350

10

- 20 ha 16 

### 518.402 32.400 25.131 46.481 7.051 21.350

> 20 ha

Total 1902 

### 2583.783 8.413 0.222 46.481 46.258

Year 2004 < 0.1 h a 1635 

### 363.616 0.222 0.222 0.222 0 0

Date 1 Sep 7 0.1

- 0.5 ha 1198 

### 765.483 0.639 0.445 1.112 0.227 0.667

Date 2 Oct 16 0.5

- 1 ha 255 

### 436.339 1.711 1.334 2.446 0.356 1.112

1

- 10 ha 222 

### 1505.613 6.782 2.669 21.795 4.887 19.126

10

- 20 ha 17 

### 565.10 5 33.241 26.243 48.260 6.961 22.017

> 20 ha

Total 3327 

### 3636.156 8.519 0.222 48.260 48.037

Year 2005 < 0.1 ha 974 

### 216.613 0.222 0.222 0.222 0 0

Date 1 Feb 14 0.1

- 0.5 ha 991 

### 644.945 0.651 0.445 1.112 0.226 0.667

Date 2 Feb 21 0.5

- 1 h a 277 

### 485.266 1.752 1.334 2.446 0.384 1.112

### 73



### Hill County Sum mary S tatistics for Water Features in Acres

1

- 10 ha 212 

### 1446.678 6.824 2.669 24.241 4.824 21.572

10

- 20 ha 20 

### 661.180 33.059 25.131 48.037 6.540 22.907

> 20 ha

Total 2474 

### 3454.681 8.502 0.222 48.037 47.815

Year 2006 < 0.1 ha 241 

### 53.597 0.222 0.222 0.222 0 0

Date 1 Nov 16 0.1

- 0.5 ha 271 

### 181.919 0.671 0.445 1.112 0.236 0.667

Date 2 Nov 23 0.5

- 1 ha 84 

### 147.448 1.755 1.334 2.446 0.370 1.112

1

- 10 ha 94 

### 657.844 6.998 2.669 22.017 4.861 19.348

10

- 20 ha 2 

### 64.050 32.025 31. 135 32.914 1.258 1.779

> 20 ha

Total 692 

### 1104.858 8.334 0.222 32.914 32.692

Year 2007 < 0.1 ha 744 

### 165.462 0.222 0.222 0.222 0 0

Date 1 Mar 8 0.1

- 0.5 ha 702 

### 455.909 0.649 0.445 1.112 0.230 0.667

Date 2 Mar 31 0.5

- 1 ha 200 

### 350.717 1 .754 1.334 2.446 0.380 1.112

1

- 10 ha 169 

### 1154.007 6.828 2.669 23.351 4.791 20.683

10

- 20 ha 10 

### 321.583 32.158 25.353 46.481 6.604 21.128

> 20 ha

Total 1825 

### 2447.678 8.322 0.222 46.481 46.258

Year 2008 < 0.1 ha 1468 

### 326.476 0.222 0.222 0.222 0 0

Date 1 Apr 11 0.1

- 0.5 ha 1286 

### 831.806 0.647 0.445 1.112 0.233 0.667

Date 2 Apr 18 0.5

- 1 ha 345 

### 605.804 1.756 1.334 2.446 0.384 1.112

1

- 10 ha 287 

### 1850.833 6.449 2.509 22.907 4.594 20.398

10

- 20 ha 22 

### 771.933 35.088 25.575 49. 149 7.476 23.574

> 20 ha

Total 3408 

### 4386.850 8.832 0.222 49.149 48.927

Year 2009 < 0.1 ha 1380 

### 306.905 0.222 0.222 0.222 0 0

Date 1 Sep 28 0.1

- 0.5 ha 1318 

### 874.679 0.664 0.445 1.112 0.234 0.667

Date 2 Oct 23 0.5

- 1 ha 404 

### 712.331 1.7 63 1.334 2.446 0.371 1.112

1

- 10 ha 345 

### 2194.148 6.360 2.669 23.796 4.534 21.128

10

- 20 ha 23 

### 802.623 34.897 25.353 49.372 6.935 24.019

> 20 ha 5 

### 384.298 76.860 50.261 95.852 17.578 45.591

Total 3475 

### 5274.983 20.128 0.222 95.852 95.630

Y ear 2010 < 0.1 ha 1300 

### 289.113 0.222 0.222 0.222 0 0

Date 1 Nov 18 0.1

- 0.5 ha 1244 

### 819.525 0.659 0.445 1.112 0.234 0.667

Date 2 Nov 27 0.5

- 1 ha 285 

### 490.825 1.722 1.334 2.446 0.364 1.112

1

- 10 ha 272 

### 1809.182 6.651 2.669 24.019 4.855 21.350

10

- 20 ha 15 

### 491.270 32.751 25.131 46.925 6.914 21.795

### 74



### Hill County Sum mary S tatistics for Water Features in Acres

> 20 ha

Total 3116 

### 3899.916 8.401 0.222 46.925 46.703

### 75



# 11 Appendix C: Plotting Results of Surface

- Water

- Body Study

This appendix presents three sets of plots:

- W ater

- body cumulative surf ace area per county for selected times

- W ater

- body count per county for selected times

- C omparison of pond intensity (acre per square mile for each county) and drilling activity

1

- Plots displaying for each county ( Montague

, Jack, Wise, Palo Pinto, Parker, E rath, Hood,

Somervell, Bosque, and Hill) the cumulative surface area of non

- state waters for selected times

, as described in the main text.

### 76



### 2

- P lots (linear scale and log scale on left

- hand and right

- hand side s , respectively) display ing

nu mber of ponds in each category (<1,000 m 2 

### , between 1,000 and 5,000 m 2 

### , between 5,000 and

10,000 m 2 

### , between 10,000 and 100,000 m 2 

### , between 100,000 and 200,000 m 2 

### , and >200,000

m 2 

### ) for each county ( Montague

, Jack, Wise, Palo Pinto, Parker, Erath, Hood, Some rvell, Bosque,

and Hill) for selected times

, as described in the main text

.

### 77

### 78

### 79



### 3

- P lots contrast ing completion count (extracted from IHS Energy database and calculated on a

1/10 of a year basis) and pond intensity (acre per squa re mile) per county ( Montague

, Jack, Wise,

Palo Pinto, Parker, Erath, Hood, Somervell, Bosque, and Hill).

### 80

### 81

### 82