Conceptio › Archive › USGS Publications

USGS Publicationspublic full text

Hydrogeologic Framework and Conceptual Model of the Red River Alluvial Aquifer East of Lake Texoma, Southeastern Oklahoma, 1980–2022

Chloe Codner, Nicole C. Gammill, Isaac A. Dale, Amy S. Morris, Ethan A. Kirby, Grant M. Graves · U.S. Geological Survey

USGS Publications · Papers · License: Public Domain

Open Source ↗Direct PDF ↓

alluvial aquifer conceptual east framework hydrogeologic lake model

usgs, geological survey, united states, science, government publication, usgs scientific investigations report, 2025, 5054, hydrogeologic, framework, conceptual, model, red, river, alluvial, aquifer, east, lake, texoma, southeastern, oklahoma, 1980, 2022

Prepared in cooperation with the Oklahoma Water Resources Board

Hydrogeologic Framework and Conceptual Model of the Red River Alluvial Aquifer East of Lake Texoma, Southeastern Oklahoma, 1980–2022

Scientific Investigations Report 2025–5054

U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey

Cover background: Red River at low water just downstream of its confluence with Choctaw Creek in Kemp, Oklahoma, July 5, 2022. Photograph courtesy of Krissy Sardina, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Top left, Sandbars along the Red River near Grant, Oklahoma, September 25, 2024. Photograph courtesy of Krissy Sardina, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Top right, View of the Red River near Yuba, Oklahoma, September 17, 2024. Photograph courtesy of Krissy Sardina, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Bottom left, Gravel bar on the Red River at its confluence with Pawpaw Creek near Colbert, Oklahoma/ Denison, Texas, September 22, 2022. Photograph courtesy of Krissy Sardina, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Bottom right, Airboat parked at bank in a pool on the Red River in Yuba, Oklahoma, December 7, 2023. Photograph courtesy of Krissy Sardina, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Back cover: Top left, Hydrologist Amy Morris downloading data at Red04 well south of Red River, November 11, 2023. Photograph by Evin Fetkovich, U.S. Geological Survey. Top right, Springtime on the Red River in Colbert, Oklahoma, July 7, 2021. Photograph courtesy of Krissy Sardina, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Bottom left, Train bridge over the Red River just downstream of Denison Dam in Colbert, Oklahoma, May 8, 2025. Photograph courtesy of Krissy Sardina, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Bottom right, View of the Red River near Yuba, Oklahoma, September 17, 2024. Photograph courtesy of Krissy Sardina, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

Hydrogeologic Framework and Conceptual Model of the Red River Alluvial Aquifer East of Lake Texoma, Southeastern Oklahoma, 1980–2022 By Chloe Codner, Nicole C. Gammill, Isaac A. Dale, Amy S. Morris, Ethan A. Kirby, Grant M. Graves, Evin J. Fetkovich, Derrick L. Wagner, Jon E. Sanford, and Colin A. Baciocco

Prepared in cooperation with the Oklahoma Water Resources Board

Scientific Investigations Report 2025–5054

U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey

U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia: 2025

For more information on the USGS—the Federal source for science about the Earth, its natural and living resources, natural hazards, and the environment—visit https://www.usgs.gov or call 1–888–392–8545. For an overview of USGS information products, including maps, imagery, and publications, visit https://store.usgs.gov/ or contact the store at 1–888–275–8747. Any use of trade, firm, or product names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the U.S. Government. Although this information product, for the most part, is in the public domain, it also may contain copyrighted materials as noted in the text. Permission to reproduce copyrighted items must be secured from the copyright owner. Suggested citation: Codner, C., Gammill, N.C., Dale, I.A., Morris, A.S., Kirby, E.A., Graves, G.M., Fetkovich, E.J., Wagner, D.L., Sanford, J.E., and Baciocco, C.A., 2025, Hydrogeologic framework and conceptual model of the Red River alluvial aquifer east of Lake Texoma, southeastern Oklahoma, 1980–2022: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2025–5054, 46 p., https://doi.org/10.3133/sir20255054. Associated data for this publication: Gammill, N.C., Codner, C.E., Dale, I.A., Morris, A.S., Kirby, E.A., Graves, G.M., Fetkovich, E.J., Wagner, D.L., Sanford, J.E., and Baciocco, C.A., 2025, Soil-Water-Balance model of the Red River alluvial aquifer east of Lake Texoma, southeastern Oklahoma, 1980–2022: U.S. Geological Survey data release, https://doi.org/10.5066/P1KUH5DS. ISSN 2328-0328 (online)

iii

Acknowledgments The authors value the contributions of the Oklahoma Water Resources Board (OWRB) and U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) staff that led to the successful completion of the project. The authors thank the OWRB for support on this project, especially Division Chief (Water Rights Administration Division) Christopher Neel, who provided hydrogeologic data and aided in defining study objectives and deliverables. The authors express gratitude to USGS employees who performed data-collection activities in the field. Levi Close, Kyle Cothren, Nick Pierson, and Kevin Smith collected synoptic base-flow measurements during 2023. The authors also thank USGS employees Michael T. Pavelko and Adam R. Trevisan, who performed detailed technical reviews of this report and the accompanying data release. The authors acknowledge and appreciate the professionalism, experience, and dedication of these helpful and resourceful colleagues.

Contents Acknowledgments��iii Abstract��1 Introduction��1 Purpose and Scope��3 Description of Study Area��3 Land Use��3 Long-Term Climate Patterns��3 Streamflow and Base-Flow Patterns��5 Groundwater Use��12 Hydrogeology of the Eastern Part of the Red River Alluvial Aquifer��16 Quaternary Sedimentary Deposits and Cretaceous Bedrock Units��16 Groundwater Levels��16 Water Quality��19 Textural and Hydraulic Properties��19 Horizontal Hydraulic Conductivity Estimated From Test Holes and Cores��19 Horizontal Hydraulic Conductivity Estimated From Lithologic Logs��23 Hydraulic Properties Estimated From a Multiwell Aquifer Test��25 Hydraulic Properties From Previous Reports��27 Hydrogeologic Framework��27 Aquifer Extent��27 Potentiometric Surface and Saturated Thickness��28 Conceptual Groundwater-Flow Model and Water Budget��32 Hydrologic Boundaries��32 Recharge��32 WTF Method��33 SWB Code��34 Saturated-Zone Evapotranspiration��35 Streambed Seepage��39 Well Withdrawals��39 Lateral Groundwater Flows��39 Change in Groundwater Storage��40 Conceptual-Model Water Budget��40 Summary��40 References Cited��42

Figures 1.

Map showing extent of the eastern part of the Red River alluvial aquifer, with selected data-collection stations in southeastern Oklahoma, northeastern Texas, and southwestern Arkansas��2 2. Map showing distribution of land- and crop-cover types for the study area, southeastern Oklahoma, northeastern Texas, and southwestern Arkansas, 2022��4

3. 4.

8. 9.

10.

11.

12.

13.

14.

15.

16. 17. 18.

Graphs showing proportions of land- and crop-cover types for the eastern part of the Red River alluvial aquifer, southeastern Oklahoma, 2022��5 Graphs showing long-term precipitation and long-term temperature within the study area overlain with locally weighted scatterplot smoothing curves and estimated cool or warm and wet or dry periods for the period of record, southeastern Oklahoma,1916–2023��8 Graphs showing mean monthly precipitation and mean monthly temperature within the study area for the period of record (1916–2023) and the study period (1980–2022), southeastern Oklahoma��9 Graphs showing annual base flow, annual streamflow, and annual base-flow index for U.S. Geological Survey streamgage 07332500 Blue River near Blue, Oklahoma; U.S. Geological Survey streamgage 07335500 Red River at Arthur City, Texas; and U.S. Geological Survey streamgage 07337000 Red River at Index, Arkansas��11 Graphs showing mean annual reported groundwater use by category and annual reported groundwater use, eastern part of the Red River alluvial aquifer, southeastern Oklahoma, 1967–2022��13 Map showing dedicated land areas and wells permitted for groundwater use in the eastern part of the Red River alluvial aquifer, southeastern Oklahoma, 2024��15 Map showing surficial extent of geologic units in the Red River alluvial aquifer study area, southeastern Oklahoma, northeastern Texas, and southwestern Arkansas��17 Chart showing surficial geologic and hydrogeologic units in the Red River alluvial aquifer study area, southeastern Oklahoma, northeastern Texas, and southwestern Arkansas��18 Graphs showing groundwater levels measured in continuous U.S. Geological Survey recorder wells in the eastern part of the Red River alluvial aquifer study area in southeastern Oklahoma and northeastern Texas��20 Piper diagram showing relations between major cations and anions measured in water-quality samples collected from the eastern part of the Red River alluvial aquifer study area in southeastern Oklahoma, 1996–2019��22 Graphs showing range of estimate hydraulic conductivity values and distribution of estimated hydraulic conductivity values and estimated horizontal hydraulic conductivity obtained from lithologic logs and by using Geoprobe hydraulic profiling tool in the Red River alluvial aquifer in southeastern Oklahoma and northeastern Texas��24 Graphs showing pumping drawdown data curve for well Red07; pumping recovery curve from well Red07; and pumping drawdown curve from observation well Red04, with best-fit Tartakovsky-Neuman method for unconfined aquifer analysis��26 Map showing altitude of the base of the eastern part of the Red River alluvial aquifer, constructed by using data from lithologic logs, in southeastern Oklahoma and northeastern Texas��29 Map showing potentiometric surface of the Red River alluvial aquifer in February and March 2022, southeastern Oklahoma and northeastern Texas��30 Map showing estimated saturated thickness of the Red River alluvial aquifer in February and March 2022, southeastern Oklahoma and northeastern Texas��31 Graph showing estimated mean annual inflows and outflows by water-budget component for the conceptual model of the eastern part of the Red River alluvial aquifer, southeastern Oklahoma, 1980–2022��32

vii

19.

Map showing spatially distributed mean annual recharge for a selected grid area within the study area estimated with the Soil-Water-Balance code, southeastern Oklahoma, northeastern Texas, and southwestern Arkansas,1980–2022��36 20. Graphs showing annual precipitation and Soil-Water-Balance (SWB) estimated recharge and monthly precipitation and SWB-estimated recharge for a selected grid area within the study area, southeastern Oklahoma, northeastern Texas, and southwestern Arkansas, 1980–2022��37 21. Map showing wetlands in the eastern part of the Red River alluvial aquifer��38

Tables 1.

5. 6.

7. 8.

10.

Data-collection locations in and near the eastern part of the Red River alluvial aquifer study area, southeastern Oklahoma, northeastern Texas, and southwestern Arkansas��6 Mean annual streamflow, base flow, and base-flow index for the period of record at selected U.S. Geological Survey streamgages (1937–2022) and for the study period (1980–2022) in the eastern part of the Red River alluvial aquifer study area in Southeastern Oklahoma��10 Reported mean annual groundwater use by type for various periods between 1967 and 2022 for the eastern part of the Red River alluvial aquifer in southeastern Oklahoma��14 Summary statistics of reported groundwater use for various periods between 1967 and 2022 for the eastern part of the Red River alluvial aquifer in southeastern Oklahoma��14 Horizontal hydraulic conductivities calculated by using a Geoprobe hydraulic profiling tool at nine test holes in southeastern Oklahoma and northeastern Texas��23 Summary statistics of horizontal hydraulic conductivities obtained at nine test holes by using a Geoprobe hydraulic profiling tool in southeastern Oklahoma and northeastern Texas��23 Horizontal hydraulic properties of lithologic categories calculated for a core collected at the Kh02 test hole in southeastern Oklahoma��25 Conceptual-model water budget of estimated mean annual inflows and outflows for hydrologic boundaries for the eastern part of the Red River alluvial aquifer, southeastern Oklahoma, 1980–2022��33 Summary of recharge estimates using the water-table fluctuation method for the Red River alluvial aquifer in southeastern Oklahoma and northeastern Texas, 2022–23��34 Summary of streambed seepage estimates obtained from streamflow and base flow estimates for streams crossing the Red River alluvial aquifer in southeastern Oklahoma, northeastern Texas, and southwestern Arkansas��40

viii

Conversion Factors U.S. customary units to International System of Units

Multiply

To obtain

Length inch (in.)

2.54

centimeter (cm)

inch (in.)

25.4

millimeter (mm)

foot (ft)

0.3048

meter (m)

mile (mi)

1.609

kilometer (km)

Area acre

4,047

square meter (m2)

acre

0.4047

hectare (ha)

acre

0.4047

square hectometer (hm2)

acre

0.004047

square kilometer (km2)

square mile (mi2)

259.0

square mile (mi2)

2.590

hectare (ha) square kilometer (km2)

Volume acre-foot (acre-ft)

1,233

acre-foot (acre-ft)

0.001233

cubic meter (m3) cubic hectometer (hm3)

Flow rate acre-foot per year (acre-ft/yr)

1,233

cubic meter per year (m3/yr)

acre-foot per year (acre-ft/yr)

0.001233

cubic hectometer per year (hm3/yr)

cubic foot per second (ft3/s)

0.02832

cubic meter per second (m3/s)

0.06309

liter per second (L/s)

gallon per day (gal/d)

Hydraulic conductivity foot per day (ft/d)

0.3048

meter per day (m/d)

Transmissivity foot squared per day (ft2/d)

0.09290

meter squared per day (m2/d)

Precipitation and recharge inch per year (in/yr)

2.54

centimeter per year (cm/yr)

International System of Units to U.S. customary units

Multiply

To obtain

millimeter (mm)

0.03937

inch (in.)

meter (m)

3.281

foot (ft)

meter (m)

1.094

yard (yd)

Temperature in degrees Fahrenheit (°F) may be converted to degrees Celsius (°C) as follows: °C = (°F – 32) / 1.8.

Datum Vertical coordinate information is referenced to the North American Vertical Datum of 1988 (NAVD 88). Horizontal coordinate information is referenced to the North American Datum of 1983 (NAD 83). Altitude, as used in this report, refers to distance above the vertical datum.

Supplemental Information Concentrations of dissolved solids in water are given in milligrams per liter (mg/L).

Abbreviations BFI

base-flow index

DEM

digital elevation model

HPT

hydraulic profiling tool

LOWESS

locally weighted scatterplot smoothing

MAY

maximum annual yield

NCEI

National Centers for Environmental Information

NWIS

National Water Information System

OWRB

Oklahoma Water Resources Board

SWB

soil-water-balance

TWDB

Texas Water Development Board

USDA

U.S. Department of Agriculture

USGS

U.S. Geological Survey

WTF

water-table fluctuation

Hydrogeologic Framework and Conceptual Model of the Red River Alluvial Aquifer East of Lake Texoma, Southeastern Oklahoma, 1980–2022 By Chloe Codner,1 Nicole C. Gammill,1 Isaac A. Dale,1 Amy S. Morris,1 Ethan A. Kirby,1 Grant M. Graves,1 Evin J. Fetkovich,1 Derrick L. Wagner,2 Jon E. Sanford,2 and Colin A. Baciocco1

Abstract The 1973 Oklahoma Groundwater Law (Oklahoma Statutes §82-1020.5) requires that the Oklahoma Water Resources Board conduct hydrologic investigations of the State’s groundwater basins to support a determination of the maximum annual yield for each groundwater basin. At present (2025), the Oklahoma Water Resources Board has not established a maximum annual yield for the Red River alluvial aquifer east of Lake Texoma. To support the evaluation and determination of a maximum annual yield, a hydrogeologic framework and conceptual groundwater-flow model were developed to assess groundwater availability in the Red River alluvial aquifer east of Lake Texoma. The scope of this hydrologic investigation is the alluvium and terrace containing the Red River alluvial aquifer in Oklahoma between Lake Texoma, the Texas State line, and the Arkansas State line, an extent referred to in this report as “the eastern part of the Red River alluvial aquifer.” Parts of the alluvium and terrace extent in Arkansas and Texas are included in some analyses to address hydrologic influences from outside the aquifer’s boundaries in Oklahoma. The eastern part of the Red River alluvial aquifer in southeastern Oklahoma consists of approximately 401,280 acres of Quaternary alluvium and terrace deposits associated with the Red River and its major tributaries. Mean annual recharge to the aquifer for the 1980–2022 study period was estimated to be 8.62 inches per year, or 17.98 percent of the mean annual precipitation over the same period (47.94 inches). This mean annual recharge rate is equivalent to an inflow of approximately 288,250 acre-feet per year for the eastern part of the Red River alluvial aquifer. Recharge estimated using the Soil-Water-Balance code accounts for 98.7 percent of the conceptual-model inflows to the eastern part of the Red River alluvial aquifer. Saturated-zone

1U.S. Geological Survey 2Oklahoma Water Resources Board

evapotranspiration accounts for 11.9 percent and net streambed seepage accounts for 87.4 percent of the outflows in the conceptual model.

Introduction The Red River alluvial aquifer extends more than 500 miles (mi) along the Oklahoma and Texas State line (fig. 1; Kent, 1980). The Red River alluvial aquifer is considered a major alluvial aquifer by the Oklahoma Water Resources Board (OWRB), and wells completed in this aquifer yield more than 1,000 gallons per minute in some localized areas (OWRB, 2012a). The aquifer supplies groundwater for irrigation, livestock, household, municipal, and industrial purposes (OWRB, 2012a). By 2060, total water demand for the Red River alluvial aquifer in the central part of the aquifer in Bryan County and the western extent of Choctaw County is projected to reach 85,700 acre-feet per year (acre-ft/yr), an increase of approximately 24,300 acre-feet (acre-ft; about 40 percent) from the reported 2010 water demand for this part of the aquifer (OWRB, 2012b). Total water demand for the Red River alluvial aquifer in the easternmost part of Choctaw County and McCurtain County is projected to reach 72,930 acre-ft/yr, an increase of approximately 14,830 acre-ft (about 26 percent) from the 2010 demand of 58,100 acre-ft for this part of the aquifer (OWRB, 2012d). The 1973 Oklahoma Water Law (Oklahoma Statutes §82-1020.5 [Oklahoma State Legislature, 2021b]; OWRB 2024a) requires the OWRB to conduct hydrogeologic investigations of Oklahoma’s groundwater basins (aquifers) to support a determination of the maximum annual yield (MAY), the amount of fresh groundwater that can be withdrawn annually while ensuring a minimum 20-year life of the groundwater basin, for each aquifer. Groundwater is considered fresh by the OWRB if the dissolved-solids concentration is less than 5,000 milligrams per liter (mg/L) (OWRB, 2012c). For alluvium and terrace aquifers, the groundwater-basin-life requirement is satisfied if, after 20 years of MAY withdrawals, 50 percent of the groundwater

96°00'

95°30'

95°00'

94°30'

94°00' POLK COUNTY

Atoka

C-04 Hugo C-07

Pat Mayse Lake Lake Crook

S-07 Sherman Valley Lake

Van Alstyne

Bois

d'A rc Cr ee

COLLIN COUNTY

River 40 MILES

40 KILOMETERS

S-06

Red04 Red07 (pumping well)

streamgage (USGS, 2024) with map identifier (table 1)

Climate station, with map identifier (Oklahoma Mesonet, 2023; National Centers for Environmental Information, 2023; table 1)

OKLAHOMA

C-07 Geoprobe hydraulic profiling tool Dam release streamflow site (table 1; U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 2024)

Wake Texarkana New Boston Village BOWIE COUNTY Texarkana Red River alluvial aquifer boundary modified from Oklahoma Geological Survey (Stoeser and others, 2005); and Oklahoma Water Resources Board (OWRB), and Texas Water Development Board (OWRB, 2023) Cities from National Atlas of the United States (2014) Hydrography from Horizon Systems Corporations (2015)

Aquifer pumping test well map identifier

(HPT) site, with identifier (USGS 2024; table 1)

Ashdown

t Bay ou

TITUS COUNTY

EXPLANATION USGS continuous-recorder well S-02 USGS continuous-record (USGS, 2024) with map identifier (table 1)

LITTLE RIVER COUNTY

Hugo Lake

ive

Red River alluvial aquifer extent in Arkansas

Kh08

S-05

Wa ln u

FRANKLIN COUNTY

Kh09

ttl

DELTA COUNTY 10

Kh08

Red River alluvial aquifer extent in Texas

Red07

RED RIVER COUNTY

Clarksville

n B ay ou

SEVIER COUNTY

C-06

De Queen

C-09

Idabel

LAMAR COUNTY

FANNIN COUNTY

Base modified from U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) 1:1,100,000-scale digital data; Albers Equal-Area Conic, USGS contiguous United States projection North American Datum of 1983 Eastern part of the Red River alluvial aquifer in Oklahoma

Paris

Coffee Mill Lake

HUNT COUNTY

Red06 Kh07

Pec a

Reno

Broken Bow

MILLER COUNTY

33°30'

GRAYSON COUNTY

Lake Bonham Bonham

v er

C-05

Red02

Kh03

Randell Lake Denison

ARKANSAS

Kh04

er e d R iv

C-08

Red03 S-04 Kh06

Red07 Red04

Kh05

Hugo Lake

OKLAHOMA

S-01 Kh01 Red01 Red05 Kh02

S-03

S-02

C-02

CHOCTAW COUNTY

tl e Lit

34°00'

BRYAN COUNTY

Hugo Lake

r ve

MARSHALL COUNTY Durant Lake C-01 Texoma

Broken Bow Lake

Pine Creek Lake

ver

C-03 i Ri ich

iv e

HOWARD COUNTY

MCCURTAIN COUNTY

Glo

PUSHMATAHA COUNTY

McGee Creek

Ki a m

B lu

ATOKA Cle COUNTY ar Bo gg yC re e k

eek ggy C r Bo dy ud M

JOHNSTON COUNTY

TEXAS

Map area

Figure 1. Extent of the eastern part of the Red River alluvial aquifer, with selected data-collection stations in southeastern Oklahoma, northeastern Texas, and southwestern Arkansas.

2 Hydrogeologic Framework and Conceptual Model, Red River Alluvial Aquifer, Lake Texoma, Oklahoma, 1980–2022

96°30'

Introduction 3 basin retains a saturated thickness of at least 5 feet (ft). When a MAY has been established, the amount of land owned or leased by a permit applicant determines the annual volume of water allocated to that applicant. The annual volume of water allocated per acre of land is known as the equal-proportionate-share pumping rate (OWRB, 2024a). Computation of the equal proportionate share is complex and can benefit from a comprehensive hydrologic investigation. This paragraph was adapted from Fetkovich and others (2025, p. 1). Water withdrawals for the Red River alluvial aquifer are the subject of ongoing studies, and at present (2025), the OWRB has yet to establish the MAY for the eastern part of this alluvial aquifer. To help support the OWRB’s determination of the MAY, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), in cooperation with the OWRB, conducted a hydrologic investigation with the following objectives: (1) describe the hydrogeologic framework of the eastern part of the Red River alluvial aquifer, which includes the delineation of the aquifer boundaries, hydraulic properties, surface-water flows, and groundwater levels; and (2) develop a conceptual-flow model for the eastern part of the alluvial aquifer for a 1980–2022 study period.

Purpose and Scope The purpose of this report is to describe the hydrogeology and conceptualize groundwater flow for the part of the Red River alluvial aquifer contained in the alluvium and terrace deposits east of Lake Texoma in southeastern Oklahoma to the north-south Oklahoma-Arkansas State line. This report presents a hydrogeologic framework of the eastern part of the alluvial aquifer and documents the development of a conceptual groundwater-flow model of the aquifer during the study period 1980–2022. The part of the Red River alluvial aquifer in Oklahoma described herein is referred to as the “eastern part of the Red River alluvial aquifer.” Although the focus herein is on this part of the aquifer within Oklahoma, the study area also includes parts of the alluvium and terrace containing the Red River alluvial aquifer in Texas and Arkansas (fig. 1). Although the study areas differ, the organization and the wording of sections in this report are modified from those in Smith and others (2017, 2021).

Description of Study Area The eastern part of the Red River alluvial aquifer in southeastern Oklahoma consists of approximately 401,280 acres of Quaternary alluvium and terrace deposits associated with the Red River and its major tributaries. The Red River alluvial aquifer is an expansive aquifer along the southern border of Oklahoma, although the geographic scope of this report is the alluvium and terrace deposits containing the Red River alluvial aquifer in Oklahoma between Lake Texoma and the Arkansas State line (fig. 1). Some analyses

in this report include the alluvial and terrace deposits in Texas and Arkansas to address hydrologic influence from surrounding areas. Similar to the rest of the Red River alluvial aquifer, the eastern part of this aquifer is hydrologically connected to the Red River and its major tributaries and is composed of unconsolidated terrace and alluvial deposits associated with the Red River and selected tributaries (fig. 1).

Land Use Land-use data for the study area in southeastern Oklahoma, northeastern Texas, and southwestern Arkansas were obtained from the CropScape database, which includes land-cover characteristics compiled at 30-meter (m) resolution for 2022 (figs. 2, 3; National Agricultural Statistics Service, 2024; U.S. Department of Agriculture [USDA], 2023). Land cover overlying the eastern part of the Red River alluvial aquifer is primarily cropland (81.6 percent), which is concentrated near the southern extent of the aquifer (figs. 2, 3). The remainder of the land-cover types are forest or shrubland (13.4 percent); developed (3.2 percent); and other, which includes water, wetlands, or barren land (1.9 percent). Predominant crops contributing to the total percentage of cropland in the study area are winter wheat (54.9 percent), cotton (17.7 percent), and hay or alfalfa (9.4 percent). Sorghum, corn, and soybeans account for a combined 8.4 percent of the total cropland. Fallow or idle cropland accounted for 9.5 percent of the cropland. The percentages for crop-cover types are long-term mean values and are subject to change in any given year because of seasonal, economic, and hydrologic factors. Percentages may not sum to 100.0 percent because of rounding.

Long-Term Climate Patterns The climate of southeastern Oklahoma is characterized as humid subtropical (Kottek and others, 2006). Daily climate data (mean, maximum, and minimum temperature, and mean precipitation) were compiled from nine selected climate stations near or within the study area (fig. 1, table 1) operated as part of the Oklahoma Mesonet network (Oklahoma Mesonet, 2023) or the National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI, 2023). Climate data were used to assess patterns in long-term (1916–2023) annual and monthly temperature and precipitation for the study area. A locally weighted scatterplot smoothing (LOWESS) curve (Cleveland, 1979) was applied to the annual data to determine periods of above- or below-mean precipitation or temperature (fig. 4). Mean annual precipitation in the study area for the 1916–2023 period of record was 46.6 in., and the mean annual temperature was 63.3 degrees Fahrenheit (°F). Compared to those values, the mean annual precipitation was 1.3 inches (in.) higher, and the mean annual temperature was 0.3 °F lower for the 1980–2022 study period. Within the study area, precipitation data display temporal variations. Minimum

96°00'

JOHNSTON COUNTY

95°30'

95°00'

94°30' POLK COUNTY

PUSHMATAHA COUNTY

ATOKA COUNTY

MARSHALL COUNTY

HOWARD COUNTY

MCCURTAIN COUNTY

CHOCTAW COUNTY

34°00'

94°00'

SEVIER COUNTY

BRYAN COUNTY

LITTLE RIVER COUNTY LAMAR COUNTY

GRAYSON COUNTY

RED RIVER COUNTY

33°30'

COLLIN COUNTY Base modified from U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) 1:1,100,000-scale digital data; Albers Equal-Area Conic, USGS contiguous United States projection North American Datum of 1983

HUNT COUNTY 0 0

DELTA COUNTY 10

FRANKLIN COUNTY

20 20

40 MILES

40 KILOMETERS

EXPLANATION Corn

Crop-cover type Alfalfa/hay Fallow/idle cropland

Forest/shrubland

Soybeans

Other cropland

Grass/pasture

Winter wheat Sorghum

BOWIE COUNTY

Red River alluvial aquifer boundary modified from Oklahoma Geological Survey (Stoeser and others, 2005); and Oklahoma Water Resources Board (OWRB), and Texas Water Development Board (OWRB, 2023) Land and and crop cover from National Agricultural Statistics Service (2024) Cities from National Atlas of the United States (2014) Hydrography from Horizon Systems Corporations (2015)

Land-cover type Developed

Cotton

TITUS COUNTY

MILLER COUNTY

FANNIN COUNTY

Boundary of eastern part of the Red River alluvial aquifer in Oklahoma

Other (water, wetland, and barren)

Figure 2. Distribution of land- and crop-cover types for the study area, southeastern Oklahoma, northeastern Texas, and southwestern Arkansas, 2022.

4 Hydrogeologic Framework and Conceptual Model, Red River Alluvial Aquifer, Lake Texoma, Oklahoma, 1980–2022

96°30'

Introduction 5

Developed 3.2

Other (water, wetland, and barren) 1.9 Fallow/idle 9.5

Forest/shrubland 13.4

Cotton 17.7 Cropland 81.6

Sorghum 4.9 2.1 Corn Alfalfa/hay 9.4

Winter wheat 54.9

Soybeans (1.4)

Land-cover type, 2022, in percent1 1

Cropland-cover type, 2022, in percent1

Values in figure may not sum to 100 percent due to rounding.

Figure 3. Proportions of land- and crop-cover types for the eastern part of the Red River alluvial aquifer, southeastern Oklahoma, 2022 (National Agricultural Statistics Service, 2024; U.S. Department of Agriculture, 2023).

annual precipitation was 27.9 in. during 2005, and maximum annual precipitation was 67.2 in. during 2015 (fig. 4A). Temperature is also variable over the period of record; the minimum annual mean temperature was 59.5 °F in 1926, and the maximum annual mean temperature was 67.0 °F in 1921 (fig. 4B). Monthly precipitation is typically greatest in April and May, and steadily increases from January to May. Monthly precipitation is lowest in January, and annual snowfall in the study area is the lowest in the State (Oklahoma Climatological Survey, 2024). The mean monthly precipitation for the 1980–2022 study period was greatest (6.1 in.) in May and least (2.9 in.) in January (fig. 5A). The mean monthly temperature during 1980–2022 was highest (81.8 °F) in July and lowest (42.2 °F) in January (fig. 5B). Patterns in mean monthly precipitation and temperature were similar over the combined period of record for both precipitation and temperature (1916–2023) and during the study period (1980–2022).

Streamflow and Base-Flow Patterns Daily streamflow data were recorded at selected USGS streamgages in the study area (fig. 1) and summarized for the 1980–2022 study period (table 2). Streamflow is primarily the sum of runoff and base flow; precipitation that falls directly on a stream is a small, nearly negligible component of streamflow (Barlow and Leake, 2012). Runoff refers to surface runoff (overland flow) that drains into a stream channel and subsurface stormflow (interflow) that originates from surface runoff. Base flow is the streamflow component supplied by groundwater discharge to streams (Barlow and Leake, 2012).

For this report, streamflow-hydrograph data obtained from the USGS National Water Information System (NWIS; USGS, 2024) were separated into runoff and base-flow components by using the Base-Flow Index (BFI) code (Wahl and Wahl, 1995) in the USGS Groundwater Toolbox (Barlow and others, 2015). The BFI code uses the minimum streamflow in a moving n-day window as a basis for hydrograph separation, where n is the user-defined number of days. Turning points are then determined by comparing minimums to adjacent minimums on the base-flow hydrograph. If 90 percent of a given minimum is less than the preceding and succeeding minimums, then that minimum is considered a turning point. Turning points can then be used to linearly interpolate base flow by connecting adjacent values with a straight line (Moix and Galloway, 2005). With these data, the BFI (or the percentage of base flow per streamflow) can be calculated. Multiple n-day bins were tested by plotting mean BFI against different n-day values. For consistency, a 5-day window and an f-statistic of 0.9 were used for all streamgages in this report. Three USGS streamgages in the study area were used for BFI analysis: 07332500 Blue River near Blue, Okla. (map identifier S-02) (hereinafter referred to as the “Blue River streamgage”); 07335500 Red River at Arthur City, Tex. (map identifier S-04) (hereinafter referred to as the “Arthur City streamgage”); and 07337000 Red River at Index, Ark. (map identifier S-06) (hereinafter referred to as the “Index streamgage”). Data from the Blue River, Arthur City, and Index streamgages were analyzed for the period 1937–2022 to depict monthly base flow, monthly streamflow, and the annual base-flow index with an associated 5-year moving average (fig. 6). Streamgage data for the Arthur City and

[U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) 2024 data can be accessed using the 8- or 15-digit station number or other identifier. mm/dd/yyyy, month/day/year; NAD 83, North American Datum of 1983; NAVD 88, North American Vertical Datum of 1988; Tex., Texas; Okla., Oklahoma; Ark, Arkansas; crk, creek; FM, farm to market road; nr, near; --, unknown or not applicable]

Latitude (decimal degrees NAD 83)

Map identifier (fig. 1)

Station number or station identifier (fig. 1)

Red River at Denison Dam near Denison, Tex.

S-01

07331600

33.819

Blue River near Blue, Okla.

S-02

07332500

Blue River streamgage

Muddy Boggy Creek near Unger, Okla.

S-03

07335300

Red River at Arthur City, Tex.

S-04

Red River near De Kalb, Tex.

Station name

Station short name

Longitude (decimal degrees NAD 83)

Period of record (may contain gaps) (mm/dd/yyyy)

Landsurface altitude (feet above NAVD 88)

Well or hole depth (feet below land surface)

Begin

End

−96.563

01/01/1924

Present (2025)

494.79

33.997

−96.241

06/10/1936

Present (2025)

496.97

Muddy Boggy streamgage

34.027

−95.750

10/18/1961

Present (2025)

393.23

07335500

Arthur City streamgage

33.875

−95.502

10/01/1905

Present (2025)

374.85

S-05

07336820

33.684

−94.694

01/03/1968

Present (2025)

303.08

Red River at Index, Ark.

S-06

07337000

Index streamgage

33.552

−94.041

10/01/1986

Present (2025)

246.55

Bois D’Arc Crk at FM 409 nr Honey Grove, Tex.

S-07

07332622

Bois D’Arc streamgage

33.744

−95.961

06/03/2009

Present (2025)

448.39

Continuous-record streamgages (USGS, 2024)

Continuous groundwater-level recorder wells (USGS, 2024) 08S-08E-33-DAD (Red01)

Red01

334847096275901

33.813

−96.466

11/19/2021

Present (2025)

611.81

RT-17-13-3xx (Red02)

Red02

335030095243401

33.842

−95.410

11/19/2021

Present (2025)

411.47

07S-17E-29-BAA 1 (Red03)

Red03

335528095325701

33.924

−95.549

12/14/2021

Present (2025)

414.01

RT-17-10-301 (Red04)

Red04

335001095471701

33.834

−95.788

12/14/2021

Present (2025)

442.85

09S-08E-09-ADD 1 (Red05)

Red05

334717096280101

33.788

−96.467

12/15/2021

Present (2025)

547.99

13.3

07-22E-24-DDD 1 (Red06)

Red06

335535094565301

33.926

−94.948

12/13/2021

Present (2025)

466.46

RT-17-10-6xx (Red04 Pmp01)

Red07

334959095471701

33.833

−95.788

11/06/2023

12/06/2023

442.00

43.27

6 Hydrogeologic Framework and Conceptual Model, Red River Alluvial Aquifer, Lake Texoma, Oklahoma, 1980–2022

Table 1. Data-collection locations in and near the eastern part of the Red River alluvial aquifer study area, southeastern Oklahoma, northeastern Texas, and southwestern Arkansas.

Table 1. Data-collection locations in and near the eastern part of the Red River alluvial aquifer study area, southeastern Oklahoma, northeastern Texas, and southwestern Arkansas.—Continued [U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) 2024 data can be accessed using the 8- or 15-digit station number or other identifier. mm/dd/yyyy, month/day/year; NAD 83, North American Datum of 1983; NAVD 88, North American Vertical Datum of 1988; Tex., Texas; Okla., Oklahoma; Ark, Arkansas; crk, creek; FM, farm to market road; nr, near; --, unknown or not applicable]

Latitude (decimal degrees NAD 83)

Map identifier (fig. 1)

Station number or station identifier (fig. 1)

Durant

C-02

DURA

33.921

Antlers

C-03

ANT2

Hugo

C-04

HUGO

Valliant

C-05

Idabel

C-06

Station name

Station short name

Period of record (may contain gaps)

Longitude (decimal degrees NAD 83)

(mm/dd/yyyy)

Landsurface altitude (feet above NAVD 88)

Well or hole depth (feet below land surface)

Begin

End

−96.320

01/01/1994

Present (2025)

34.250

−95.668

04/15/2011

Present (2025)

34.031

−95.540

01/01/1994

Present (2025)

VALL

33.939

−95.115

10/14/2015

Present (2025)

IDAB

33.830

−94.880

01/01/1994

Present (2025)

Climate stations (Oklahoma Mesonet, 2023)

Climate stations (National Centers for Environmental Information, 2023) Durant, Okla.

C-01

Durant

34.000

−96.389

08/03/1901

03/21/2022

Hugo, Okla.

C-07

Hugo

34.021

−95.538

01/01/1915

04/30/2006

Valliant, Okla.

C-08

Valliant

33.998

−95.143

09/09/1941

01/31/2015

Idabel, Okla.

C-09

Idabel

33.934

−94.828

02/22/1907

Present (2025)

Geoprobe hydraulic profiling tool (HPT) sites (USGS, 2024) Kh01

335254096265401

33.817

−96.466

719

54.75

Kh02

334743096244901

33.795

−96.414

587

31.25

09S-10E-19-BAB 1 (HPT03)

Kh03

334556096181801

33.766

−96.305

508

28.35

RT-17-10-3xx (HPT04)

Kh04

335028095461201

33.841

−95.770

438

43.15

08S-11E-12-DAA 1 (HPT05)

Kh05

335225096054001

33.874

−96.095

---

511

52.35

08S-18E-11-CBC 1 (HPT06)

Kh06

335215095235801

33.881

−95.400

397

49.15

08S-21E-03-AAA 1 (HPT07)

Kh07

335341095051901

33.895

−95.089

373

53.9

09S-23E-14-ACB 1 (HPT08)

Kh08

334628094523101

33.774

−94.876

355

56.65

09S-24E-24-BBB 1 (HPT09)

Kh09

334553094454801

33.765

−94.764

342

47.35

Hugo Lake

HGLO2

12/01/1971

Present (2025)

452.50

Reservoir site (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 2024) Hugo Lake

34.012

−95.380

Introduction 7

08S-08E-11-BBB 1 (HPT01) 09S-09E-06-CCC 1 (HPT02)

8 Hydrogeologic Framework and Conceptual Model, Red River Alluvial Aquifer, Lake Texoma, Oklahoma, 1980–2022 A

2010

2015

2020 2023

2015

2020 2023

2005

2000

1995

1990

1985

1980

1975

1970

1965

1960

1955

1950

1945

1940

1935

1930

1925

2010

2005

2000

1995

1990

1985

1980

1975

1970

1965

1960

1955

1950

1945

1940

1935

1930

1925

Study period 1980−2022 1916

Annual temperature, in degrees Fahrenheit (°F)

1916

1920

Study period 1980−2022

1920

Annual precipitation, in inches per year (in/yr)

Year EXPLANATION Periods above or below 1916−2023 mean annual precipitation—Lighter shade shown for study period 1980–2022 Wet period Dry period Periods above or below 1916−2023 mean annual temperature—Lighter shade shown for study period 1980–2022 Cool period Warm period

Periods when 5 percent LOWESS1 curve (percent of the overall mean) was above or below 1916−2023 mean annual precipitation or temperature Period when precipitation was above the mean annual precipitation Period when precipitation was below the mean annual precipitation Period when temperature was above the mean annual temperature Period when temperature was below the mean annual temperature

Annual mean precipitation Annual mean temperature LOWESS1 curve Period of record, 1916−2023 Mean annual precipitation (46.6 inches) Mean annual temperature (63.3 °F) Study period, 1980−2022 Mean annual precipitation (47.9 inches) Mean annual temperature (63.0 °F)

Locally weighted scatterplot smoothing (Cleveland, 1979). A smoothing factor of 0.05 was used for these plots.

Figure 4. A, Long-term precipitation, and B, long-term temperature within the study area overlain with locally weighted scatterplot smoothing (LOWESS) curves and estimated cool or warm and wet or dry periods for the period of record, southeastern Oklahoma,1916–2023 (Oklahoma Mesonet, 2023; National Centers for Environmental Information, 2023).

Introduction 9

Mean monthly precipitation, in inches

6 5 4 3 2 1 0

Jan.

Feb.

Mar.

Apr.

May

June

July

Aug.

Sept.

Oct.

Nov.

Dec.

Sept.

Oct.

Nov.

Dec.

Month EXPLANATION Period of record (1916−2023) Study period (1980−2022)

Mean monthly temperature, in degrees Fahrenheit

80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0

Jan.

Feb.

Mar.

Apr.

May

June

July

Aug.

Month EXPLANATION Period of record (1916−2023) Study period (1980−2022)

Figure 5. A, Mean monthly precipitation, and B, mean monthly temperature within the study area for the period of record (1916–2023) and the study period (1980–2022), southeastern Oklahoma (Oklahoma Mesonet, 2023; National Centers for Environmental Information, 2023).

Index streamgages indicate BFI values generally increased over the first part of the 1937–2022 period of record and were in a slightly downward or stable pattern from the mid-1990s through 2022. Data from the Blue River streamgage indicate relatively consistent BFI values over the 1937–2022 period of record. Mean annual BFI values for the Blue River, Arthur City, and Index streamgages over the 1980–2022 period were

32.1, 52.0, and 58.3 percent, respectively (table 2). The mean annual base flows for the Blue River, Arthur City, and Index streamgages for the 1980–2022 period were 103.4; 5,670; and 5,170 cubic feet per second (ft3/s), respectively. For the overall 1937–2022 period of record, there is a slight upward pattern in annual base-flow values for all three sites (fig. 6A–C).

[Values computed by using the Base-Flow Index (BFI) code (Wahl and Wahl, 1995) in the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Groundwater Toolbox (Barlow and others, 2015). ft3/s, cubic foot per second; POR, period of record; Okla., Oklahoma; Tex., Texas; Ark., Arkansas; %, percent]

Station name

USGS streamgage number (table 1)

Station short name

Map identifier (fig. 1)

Mean annual streamflow1 (ft3/s)

Mean annual base flow1 (ft3/s)

Mean annual BFI (%)

Study period (1980–2022)

POR (1937–2022)

Study period (1980–2022)

POR (1937–2022)

Study period (1980–2022)

POR (1937–2022)

92.2

32.1

31.1

Blue River near Blue, Okla.

07332500

Blue River streamgage

S-02

351

324

103

Red River at Arthur City, Tex.

07335500

Arthur City streamgage

S-04

10,150

9,100

5,670

4,300

52.0

43.5

Red River at Index, Ark.

07337000

Index streamgage

S-06

14,000

12,800

5,170

6,780

58.3

50.9

1Data from USGS National Water Information System (USGS, 2024).

10 Hydrogeologic Framework and Conceptual Model, Red River Alluvial Aquifer, Lake Texoma, Oklahoma, 1980–2022

Table 2. Mean annual streamflow, base flow, and base-flow index for the period of record at selected U.S. Geological Survey streamgages (1937–2022) and for the study period (1980–2022) in the eastern part of the Red River alluvial aquifer study area in Southeastern Oklahoma.

Introduction 11

1,400

A. USGS streamgage 07332500 Blue River near Blue, Okla.

100 90

1,200

1,000

70 60

800

50 600

40 30

400

200

1937 1939 1941 1943 1945 1947 1949 1951 1953 1955 1957 1959 1961 1963 1965 1967 1969 1971 1973 1975 1977 1979 1981 1983 1985 1987 1989 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007 2009 2011 2013 2015 2017 2019 2021

B. USGS streamgage 07335500 Red River at Arthur City, Tex.

100 90

30,000

25,000

70 60

20,000

50 15,000

40 30

10,000

5,000 0

40,000

C. USGS streamgage 07337000 Red River at Index, Ark.

100 90

35,000

30,000

25,000

20,000

50 40

15,000

10,000

5,000

10 1937 1939 1941 1943 1945 1947 1949 1951 1953 1955 1957 1959 1961 1963 1965 1967 1969 1971 1973 1975 1977 1979 1981 1983 1985 1987 1989 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007 2009 2011 2013 2015 2017 2019 2021

Annual base-flow index, in percent

35,000

Annual mean streamflow and base flow, in cubic feet per second

Year EXPLANATION Annual mean streamflow Annual mean base flow

Annual base-flow index, 5-year moving average Annual base-flow index

Figure 6. Annual base flow, annual streamflow, and annual base-flow index for A, U.S. Geological Survey streamgage 07332500 Blue River near Blue, Oklahoma (map identifier S-02; table 1); B, U.S. Geological Survey streamgage 07335500 Red River at Arthur City, Texas (map identifier S-04; table 1); and C, U.S. Geological Survey streamgage 07337000 Red River at Index, Arkansas (map identifier S-06; table 1).

12 Hydrogeologic Framework and Conceptual Model, Red River Alluvial Aquifer, Lake Texoma, Oklahoma, 1980–2022

Groundwater Use The OWRB permits and regulates all groundwater use except for groundwater withdrawals less than 5 acre-ft/yr used for domestic purposes for irrigating less than 3 acres of land for growing gardens, orchards, or lawns in Oklahoma (Oklahoma Statutes §82–1020.1[2] [Oklahoma State Legislature, 2021a]; OWRB, 2012c; Oklahoma Statutes §82–1020.3 [Oklahoma State Legislature, 2021c]). Since 1980, permitted users have self-reported groundwater-use data annually to the OWRB. Groundwater permits issued by the OWRB are divided into nine categories: (1) irrigation; (2) public supply; (3) industrial; (4) power; (5) mining; (6) commercial; (7) recreation, fish, and wildlife (hereinafter referred to as “recreation”); (8) agricultural; and (9) other. Groundwater use reports submitted to the OWRB by 702 permitted users that withdraw water from the eastern part of the Red River alluvial aquifer were summarized for 1967–2022 (OWRB, 2024b). Most of the reported groundwater withdrawn from the eastern part of the Red River alluvial aquifer was used for irrigation and accounted for a long-term mean of 1,440 acre-ft/yr, or approximately 84 percent of the total reported groundwater use of 1,720 acre-ft/yr for 1967–2022 (fig. 7A; table 3). Over the same period, a mean of 263 acre-ft/yr, or approximately 15 percent of total groundwater use, was for public supply and the approximately remaining 1 percent was for agriculture (slightly more than 0.9 percent) and a combination of other, industrial, and recreation (slightly less than 0.1 percent). For the purposes of this long-term (1967–2022) analysis, the categories other, industrial, and recreation were combined, owing to their comparatively small shares of total groundwater use in the focus area (slightly less than 0.1 percent of total groundwater use combined). Although the proportions of individual permit

categories fluctuated throughout the 1967–2022 period, irrigation was the predominant use category for most years analyzed (fig. 7B). Total reported groundwater use data also fluctuated throughout the study period but indicated an upward pattern overall, especially during 2012–22 for which mean annual groundwater use was 2,235 acre-ft/year greater than the 1967–2022 long-term mean (fig. 7B). This upward pattern in groundwater use is further indicated by comparing mean annual water use during the 1980–2022 study period to the 1967–2022 period of record in which reported nondomestic groundwater use increased approximately 277 acre-ft/yr (table 4). Changes in groundwater use were also observed to coincide with changes in the amount of precipitation falling on the eastern part of the Red River alluvial aquifer. During the 2007–09 period, groundwater use was relatively low (fig. 7B), and precipitation exceeded the long-term mean, which lessened the demand for groundwater withdrawals for irrigation (fig. 4A; Oklahoma Mesonet, 2023; NCEI, 2023). The portion of groundwater use reported for public supply was greater than usual compared to irrigation for the 1982–99 period, which was also a period when annual precipitation exceeded the long-term mean annual precipitation, thereby decreasing groundwater use for irrigation. Total permitted water use increased over the period of record and has not exceeded the total permitted amount (fig. 7B). Currently (2025), the OWRB permits active groundwater wells within the study area to withdraw water for various use categories (fig. 8). Across the eastern part of the Red River alluvial aquifer, the predominant use type for these wells is irrigation, with a large concentration near Lake Texoma (fig. 8). All reported annual groundwater use data are published in the accompanying data release (Gammill and others, 2025).

Introduction 13 A. Mean annual reported groundwater use,1 in percent and acre-feet per year (acre-ft/yr), 1967−2022 Agriculture (0.9 percent) 15 acre-ft/yr

Other (0.1 percent) 2 acre-ft/yr

Public supply (15 percent) 263 acre-ft/yr

Irrigation (84 percent) 1,440 acre-ft/yr

B. Annual reported groundwater use,1 1967−2022

12,000 10,000 8,000 6,000 4,000 2,000 0

1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022

Reported groundwater use, in acre-ft/yr

14,000

Year EXPLANATION Groundwater use categories Irrigation

Other

Public supply

Permitted use

Mean annual groundwater use 1967-2022, 1,720 acre-ft/yr

Agriculture 1 Groundwater use data provided by the Oklahoma Water Resources Board (OWRB) and available in Gammill (2025).

Figure 7. A, Mean annual reported groundwater use by category, and B, annual reported groundwater use, eastern part of the Red River alluvial aquifer, southeastern Oklahoma, 1967–2022.

14 Hydrogeologic Framework and Conceptual Model, Red River Alluvial Aquifer, Lake Texoma, Oklahoma, 1980–2022 Table 3. Reported mean annual groundwater use by type for various periods between 1967 and 2022 for the eastern part of the Red River alluvial aquifer in southeastern Oklahoma. [All values are in acre-feet per year. Groundwater use data were provided by the Oklahoma Water Resources Board and are available in the accompanying data release (Gammill and others, 2025). Table only includes regulated groundwater uses. The category “other” is a sum of the categories other, industrial, and recreation, fish, and wildlife. Table excludes groundwater use less than 5 acre-feet per year for domestic and agricultural purposes and groundwater use for irrigation of fewer than 3 acres of land for growing of gardens, orchards, or lawns (Oklahoma Statutes §82-1020.3)]

Timespan

Public supply

Irrigation

Agriculture

Other

Total

1967–2022

263

1,440

1,720

1980–2022

321

1,653

1,997

2012–2022

314

3,632

3,956

Table 4. Summary statistics of reported groundwater use for various periods between 1967 and 2022 for the eastern part of the Red River alluvial aquifer in southeastern Oklahoma. [All values are in acre-feet per year. Groundwater use data were provided by the Oklahoma Water Resources Board and are available in the accompanying data release (Gammill and others, 2025). Table excludes groundwater use less than 5 acre-feet per year for domestic and agricultural purposes and groundwater use for irrigation of fewer than 3 acres of land for growing of gardens, orchards, or lawns (Oklahoma Statutes §82-1020.3)]

Timespan

Minimum

Median

Mean

Maximum

1967–2022

179.0

1,153

1,720

4,848

419.0

1,391

1,997

4,848

3,599

3,955

4,848

1980–2022 2012–2022

2,898

96°30'

96°00'

95°30'

95°00'

94°30'

94°00' POLK COUNTY Rolling Fork

Atoka

River Ri

Hugo

ver

CHOCTAW COUNTY

tl e Lit

34°00'

BRYAN COUNTY

Hugo Lake

r ve

MARSHALL COUNTY Durant Lake Texoma

v er

Broken Bow

Valley Lake

Van Alstyne

Bois

d'A rc Cr ee

COLLIN COUNTY

Base modified from U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) 1:1,100,000-scale digital data; Albers Equal-Area Conic, USGS contiguous United States projection North American Datum of 1983

0 0

10 10

20 20

40 MILES

40 KILOMETERS

ttl

Wa ln u

ive

t Bay ou

Ashdown

TE BOWIE COUNTY

LITTLE RIVER COUNTY

Wake Texarkana Village Texarkana Red River alluvial aquifer boundary modified from Oklahoma Geological Survey (Stoeser and others, 2005); and Oklahoma Water Resources Board (OWRB), and Texas Water Development Board (OWRB, 2023) Cities from National Atlas of the United States (2014) Hydrography from Horizon Systems Corporations (2015) TITUS COUNTY

FRANKLIN COUNTY

DELTA COUNTY

HUNT COUNTY

Clarksville

LAMAR COUNTY

FANNIN COUNTY

MILLER COUNTY

33°30'

GRAYSON COUNTY

n B ay ou

RED RIVER COUNTY

Reno

Paris

Coffee Mill Lake

Pec a

ARKANSAS

Lake Crook Lake Bonham Bonham

Pat Mayse Lake

OKLAHOMA

er e d R iv

Randell Lake Denison Sherman

De Queen SEVIER COUNTY

Idabel

HOWARD COUNTY

Broken Bow Lake

Pine Creek Lake

i Ri ich

ive r

MCCURTAIN COUNTY

Glo

PUSHMATAHA COUNTY

McGee Creek

Ki a m

Bl u

ATOKA Cle COUNTY ar Bo gg yC re e k

eek ggy C r Bo dy ud M

JOHNSTON COUNTY

New Boston

EXPLANATION Eastern part of the Red River alluvial aquifer in Oklahoma

Permitted dedicated lands by type (OWRB, 2024)

Wells with permitted groundwater use (OWRB, 2024b)

Agriculture

Irrigation

Public supply

Other

Figure 8. Dedicated land areas and wells permitted for groundwater use in the eastern part of the Red River alluvial aquifer, southeastern Oklahoma, 2024.

Introduction 15

16 Hydrogeologic Framework and Conceptual Model, Red River Alluvial Aquifer, Lake Texoma, Oklahoma, 1980–2022

Hydrogeology of the Eastern Part of the Red River Alluvial Aquifer The eastern part of the Red River alluvial aquifer in Oklahoma is contained in Quaternary sedimentary deposits, primarily alluvium and terrace deposits associated with the Red River and its major tributaries. Bedrock units underlying the eastern part of the alluvial aquifer consist mostly of consolidated sandstone and shale. Although faulting occurs within the study area, faults are unlikely to penetrate the alluvium and terrace deposits composing the eastern part of the alluvial aquifer or affect groundwater flow within the aquifer (Huffman and others, 1978).

Quaternary Sedimentary Deposits and Cretaceous Bedrock Units The Quaternary sedimentary deposits in the study area primarily consist of alluvium and terrace deposits formed by the Red River and its tributaries (fig. 9; Ryder, 1996; Stoeser and others, 2005). Alluvium deposits contain sand, silt, and clay (Frye and Leonard, 1963; Huffman and others, 1978). Frye and Leonard (1963) subdivided terrace deposits along the Red River in northern Texas by land-surface altitude, slight compositional and structural differences, and fossil assemblages. The terrace deposits consist of gravel, sand, silt, and clay, and differ slightly in composition and thickness across the study area (Huffman and others, 1978). Units that make up the bedrock beneath the eastern part of the Red River alluvial aquifer consist of consolidated units distinct from the alluvium or terrace deposits. In the study area, sedimentary bedrock units deposited during the Cretaceous underlie the alluvium or terrace deposits composing the eastern part of the Red River alluvial aquifer. The Oklahoma Geological Survey described geology at the county scale in Bryan, Choctaw, and McCurtain Counties (Davis, 1960; Huffman and others, 1975, 1978), the three counties east of Lake Texoma that contain the eastern part of the Red River alluvial aquifer in Oklahoma (fig. 1). The Oklahoma Geological Survey (Huffman and others, 1978) conducted a geology and mineral resources study in Bryan County, documenting that Lower Cretaceous bedrock units from the Trinity Group are exposed at the surface and overlain by extensive Quaternary terrace and alluvium deposits near streams. Lower Cretaceous bedrock units are divided into the Trinity, Fredericksburg, and Washita Groups. Within this area, the Trinity Group is represented in Bryan County by sandstone exposures; the Fredericksburg Group is represented by limestone exposures, sometimes fossiliferous and interbedded with fissile shale; and the Washita Group is represented by sandstone, limestone (sometimes fossiliferous and interbedded with shale), limestone-shale, shale, and marlstone with nodular limestone exposures (Huffman and others, 1978).

The Oklahoma Geological Survey (Huffman and others, 1975) described the geology and mineral resources in Choctaw County, noting that Mississippian or Cretaceous bedrock units are exposed at the surface in Choctaw County. In areas where Lower Cretaceous bedrock units (Trinity, Fredericksburg, and Washita Groups) have been eroded away (or partially eroded away in the case of the Washita Group) in the southeastern part of Choctaw County, the Upper Cretaceous Woodbine Formation unconformably overlies basal layers of the Washita Group. The Woodbine aquifer is considered a minor bedrock aquifer by the OWRB (fig. 10). As in Bryan County, Cretaceous bedrock units in Choctaw County are overlain by extensive Quaternary terrace and alluvium deposits. The Oklahoma Geological Survey (Davis, 1960) investigated the geology and groundwater resources of southern McCurtain County. In McCurtain County, the Upper Cretaceous Tokio and Woodbine Formations underlie the units containing the eastern part of the Red River alluvial aquifer along most of the southern part of the county. In the southeastern part of McCurtain County along its eastern border, a small exposure of the undifferentiated Upper Cretaceous Ozan and Brownstown Formations underlie units containing the eastern part of the Red River alluvial aquifer. As in Bryan and Choctaw Counties, the Cretaceous bedrock units in McCurtain County are overlain by extensive Quaternary terrace and alluvium deposits.

Groundwater Levels Hydrologic stressors, such as drought and flooding, can cause groundwater-level fluctuations on a spatial and temporal basis. Various hydrologic stressors affect groundwater-level fluctuations in an alluvial aquifer, including recharge, evapotranspiration, groundwater withdrawal, and streambed seepage (Freeze and Cherry, 1979). In 2021, continuous groundwater-level recorders were installed in six pre-existing wells completed in the eastern part of the Red River alluvial aquifer (wells Red01–Red06) (fig. 1; table 1; USGS, 2024). Seasonal groundwater-level patterns were similar for these six wells (fig. 11A–D). Groundwater levels typically decreased during summer and winter and increased during spring and fall. Precipitation data collected at nearby USGS streamgages were compared to groundwater levels from each USGS groundwater well. Groundwater levels measured at wells Red02, Red05, and Red06 displayed large changes in response to precipitation, whereas the changes in groundwater levels measured at wells Red03 and Red04 were muted following precipitation. The pattern of changes in groundwater levels recorded in wells Red03 and Red04 in response to groundwater withdrawals from nearby irrigation wells was characterized by rapid decreases in groundwater levels when irrigation withdrawals were occurring and slow recoveries after the withdrawals ceased. The groundwater-levels measured in well Red01 do not change appreciably as a result of changes in groundwater withdrawals for irrigation

96°30'

96°00' pK

95°30'

Qat

pK JOHNSTON COUNTY Qat Kt

Qat

Kfg

ATOKA COUNTY Kt

Qat

Kfg

Kws

Qat

Qat Kws

Qat

Kef

Kau Qat Kef

Kau HUNT COUNTY COLLIN COUNTY Ko 0

Base modified from U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) 1:1,100,000-scale digital data; Albers Equal-Area Conic, USGS contiguous United States projection North American Datum of 1983

DELTA COUNTY Kna Ktg 10

20 20

Qat FRANKLIN Kna COUNTY

Qat 30

40 MILES

40 KILOMETERS

Kau

Austin Group, undivided (Upper Cretaceous)

Kbr Ko

Kbr Ko LITTLE RIVER COUNTY Ktg AR Qat

Qat Qat

Ktg

Qat

Kna

Kna TITUS COUNTY

TE XA S

AS Qat

BOWIE Qat COUNTY

MILLER COUNTY

GRAYSON COUNTY

FANNIN COUNTY Kau

Kto

RED RIVER Ktg Ko COUNTY

Kbr

Kto

Kwb

Red River alluvial aquifer boundary modified from Oklahoma Geological Survey (Stoeser and others, 2005); and Oklahoma Water Resources Board (OWRB), and Texas Water Development Board (OWRB, 2023) Cities from National Atlas of the United States (2014) Hydrography from Horizon Systems Corporations (2015)

EXPLANATION Qat

Quaternary alluvial and terrace deposits, undifferentiated

Kna Navarro Group, undivided (Upper Cretaceous)

Tertiary deposits, undifferentiated

Ktg

Taylor Group, undivided (Upper Cretaceous) Ko

Kbr

Ozan Formation (Upper Cretaceous)

Kto 1

Brownstown Marl1 (Upper Cretaceous) Tokio Formation (Upper Cretaceous)

Brownstown Formation in Oklahoma.

Kef

Eagle Ford Formation (Upper Cretaceous)

Kwb

Woodbine Formation (Upper Cretaceous)

Kws

Washita Group (Lower Cretaceous), undivided

Kfg

Fredericksburg Group (Lower Cretaceous), undivided

Trinity Group (Lower Cretaceous), undivided

Pre-Cretaceous rock units, undifferentiated Water Boundary of eastern part of the Red River alluvial aquifer

Figure 9. Surficial extent of geologic units in the Red River alluvial aquifer study area, southeastern Oklahoma, northeastern Texas, and southwestern Arkansas (Stoeser and others, 2005).

Hydrogeology of the Eastern Part of the Red River Alluvial Aquifer 17

Kef

Qat

Kau

LAMAR COUNTY

Qat

Kto

Qat Qat

Kau Qat

Kwb

Kef

Kws Kwb

Kws

Qat

ARKANSAS

Qat

OKLAHOMA

Kwb

SEVIER COUNTY Kt

Kws

Qat

MCCURTAIN COUNTY

CHOCTAW COUNTY

Kws

HOWARD COUNTY

POLK COUNTY

PUSHMATAHA COUNTY pK

Kwb

Qat

94°00'

Kwb

Kws

33°30'

Qat

BRYAN MARSHALL COUNTY COUNTY

34°00'

Kfg

94°30' Qat

Kws

Kfg Kws Kfg

95°00'

Eon

Erathem

Cenozoic

System

Series

Group

Geologic unit Oklahoma

Geologic unit Texas

Geologic unit Arkansas

Hydrogeologic unit

Map abbreviation and color

Quaternary

Holocene

Undifferentiated alluvium and terrace deposits

Red River alluvial aquifer

Qat

Tertiary

Not present in vicinity of Oklahoma portion of Red River alluvial aquifer

Minor aquifer2

Kna

Undifferentiated

Ozan Formation

Referred to as Navarro Group Ozan Formation

Ozan Formation

Brownstown Formation

Brownstown Marl

Tokio Formation

Referred to as Austin Group

Eagle Ford Formation

Woodbine Formation

Washita Group

Undivided

Fredericksburg Group

Undivided

Trinity Group

Antlers Sandstone6

Pre-Cretaceous rock, undifferentiated

Navarro Group1,2 Taylor Group1,3,4 Upper

Mesozoic

Cretaceous

Phanerozoic

Lower

Austin Group1,3,5

Tokio Formation

Minor aquifer

Ktg

Kau

Ko Kbr Kto

Confining unit

Kef

Woodbine (minor) aquifer

Kwb

Minor aquifer2

Kws

Undivided

Kfg

Undivided7

Paluxy and Hosston Formations6,8

Antlers aquifer8 and Trinity aquifer7

Pre-Cretaceous rock, undifferentiated

Undifferentiated confining units

Woodbine Formation

Permian Pennsylvanian Mississippian Paleozoic

Devonian

Pre-Cretaceous rock, undifferentiated

Silurian Ordovician Cambrian Proterozoic

Young (1965). 2 Davis (1960). 3 Gordon (1911). 4 Thompson (1972). 4 Hill (1901). 6 Not shown on figure 9. 7 Kuniasky and others (1996). 8 Fetkovich and others (2025). 1

Modified from Fay (1997)

Figure 10. Surficial geologic and hydrogeologic units in the Red River alluvial aquifer study area, southeastern Oklahoma, northeastern Texas, and southwestern Arkansas.

18 Hydrogeologic Framework and Conceptual Model, Red River Alluvial Aquifer, Lake Texoma, Oklahoma, 1980–2022

[*Formation is not part of a group, -- not on map or in study area. Gray shading indicates missing rock. Wavy line indicates unconformity]

Hydrogeology of the Eastern Part of the Red River Alluvial Aquifer 19 or in response to precipitation, but they do display seasonal fluctuations similar to those observed in the groundwater levels measured in wells Red02, Red05, and Red06.

Water Quality Because of the considerable surface-water-groundwater interaction in alluvial aquifers (Winter, 1995), a combination of surface-water and groundwater samples were used to assess water quality in the eastern part of the Red River alluvial aquifer. The OWRB collected groundwater-quality samples at sites in the study area in August 2015 and again in June 2019 as part of their Groundwater Monitoring and Assessment Program (OWRB, 2018). In addition to the groundwater-quality data collected by the OWRB, surface-water-quality data were obtained from the NWIS database (USGS, 2024) from USGS sites in the study area sampled between October 1, 1959, and October 27, 2011. Water-quality data from 21 samples collected at 16 OWRB groundwater sites and 189 samples collected at 3 USGS streamgage sites (S-01, S-04, S-05; fig. 1; table 1) in the study area were used for analysis after omitting samples with incomplete data or samples with an ionic charge-balance error exceeding 20 percent after the major-ion concentrations were converted into milliequivalents (Hem, 1985). USGS surface-water samples used in this analysis were collected from the Red River. Major cations and anions were examined using the Piper (1944) method (fig. 12). For this method, the selected major cations were calcium (Ca2+), magnesium (Mg2+), potassium (K+), and sodium (Na+), and the selected major anions were bicarbonate (HCO3−), carbonate (C032−), chloride (Cl−), fluoride (F−), and sulfate (SO42−). Samples lacking data for more than two major ions were not included in the analysis. Water-quality data were converted from milligrams per liter to milliequivalents per liter before the charge-balance error was calculated for each sample by using the following equation:

∑ cations − ∑anions __________________ CBE =    × 100 , ∑ cations + ∑anions where CBE is the charge-balance error, in percent; ∑ cations

is the sum of the selected major cations, in milliequivalents; and

∑ anions

is the sum of the selected major anions, in milliequivalents.

Surface-water quality samples tended to tightly cluster on the Piper diagrams and proportionally contained higher concentrations of magnesium, sodium, potassium, sulfate, and chloride, with dominant water types of Ca-Mg-SO4-Cl and Na-SO4-Cl. OWRB groundwater-quality samples

(1)

were less clustered compared to surface-water samples. Groundwater-quality samples displayed higher concentrations of sodium, potassium, bicarbonate, carbonate, and chloride (fig. 12). Dissolved-solids concentrations in the reported water-quality samples ranged from 40 to 1,537 mg/L, with a mean concentration of 893 mg/L and a median concentration of 977 mg/L (Gammill and others, 2025). The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2017) has established a secondary drinking-water standard of 500 mg/L for dissolved-solids concentrations, and the State of Oklahoma designates a domestic beneficial use for groundwater with dissolved-solids concentrations of less than 3,000 mg/L (OWRB, 2015). Dissolved-solids concentrations in groundwater-quality samples tended to be lower compared to those in surface-water samples. Results from OWRB groundwater-quality samples used for this analysis indicated dissolved-solids concentrations ranged from 40 to 1,064 mg/L, with a mean of 385 mg/L. In contrast, dissolved-solids concentrations in surface-water samples ranged from 106 to 1,537 mg/L, with a mean of 947 mg/L. Altogether, 179 of the 209 total number of samples used for Piper (1944) analysis exceeded the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency secondary drinking-water standard of 500 mg/L for dissolved-solids concentrations.

Textural and Hydraulic Properties The distribution and variability of textural and hydraulic properties of aquifer materials were assumed to be the primary controls on groundwater flow in the eastern part of the Red River alluvial aquifer. Methods used to estimate the range of hydraulic conductivity values in the aquifer included hydraulic profiling in test holes, analysis of cored material, summary of lithologic logs, and a multiwell aquifer test.

Horizontal Hydraulic Conductivity Estimated From Test Holes and Cores A direct-push Geoprobe hydraulic profiling tool (HPT) (Geoprobe Systems, 2015) was used to estimate horizontal hydraulic conductivity at nine test holes (Kh01–Kh09) across the eastern part of the Red River alluvial aquifer (fig. 1; table 1). To estimate horizontal hydraulic conductivity, water was injected at 0.05-ft depth intervals, and electrical conductivity, injection pressure (corrected for the hydrostatic pressure gradient when saturated), and injection rate were recorded. Horizontal hydraulic conductivity was calculated from data collected in each test hole at selected depth intervals by using the ratio of injection flow rate and injection pressure (Geoprobe Systems, 2015). This ratio method (McCall, 2010) is appropriate for estimating horizontal hydraulic conductivity where it is less than 150 feet per day (ft/d) in the saturated zone of an unconsolidated aquifer. All nine HPT sites were

20 Hydrogeologic Framework and Conceptual Model, Red River Alluvial Aquifer, Lake Texoma, Oklahoma, 1980–2022 A. U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) continuous-recorder well Red01 (table 1); precipitation data from C-01 (table 1)

5 0

B. USGS continuous-recorder well Red02 (table 1) used for water-table fluctuation (WTF) analysis (table 8); precipitation data from C-04 (table 1)1

Depth to water, in feet below land surface

10 Period analyzed for WTF method (2022−2023)

10 5

0 10

C. USGS continuous-recorder well Red03 (table 1) used for water-table fluctuation (WTF) analysis (table 8); precipitation data from C-04 (table 1)1 Period analyzed for WTF method (2022−2023) Equipment malfunction

Nearby groundwater withdrawals

20 15

D. USGS continuous-recorder well Red04 (table 1); precipitation data from C-04 (table 1)

30 40

Nearby groundwater withdrawals

Daily mean precipitation, in inches

Nearby groundwater withdrawals

Dec. Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. May June July Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec. Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. May June July Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec. 2021 2022 2023

5 0

EXPLANATION Precipitation (Oklahoma Mesonet, 2023; National Centers for Environmental Information, 2023) Groundwater level 1

Used for water-table fluctuation (WTF) method (table 9)

Figure 11. Groundwater levels measured in continuous U.S. Geological Survey recorder wells in the eastern part of the Red River alluvial aquifer study area in southeastern Oklahoma and northeastern Texas.

Hydrogeology of the Eastern Part of the Red River Alluvial Aquifer 21

Depth to water, in feet below land surface

15 Period analyzed for WTF method (2022−2023)

20 30

F. USGS continuous-recorder well Red06 (table 1) used for water-table fluctuation (WTF) analysis (table 8); precipitation data interpolated from C-06 and C-09 (table 1)1

20 15

Period analyzed for WTF method (2022−2023)

30 40

10 5

Daily mean precipitation, in inches

E. USGS continuous-recorder well Red05 (table 1) used for water-table fluctuation (WTF) analysis (table 8); precipitation data from C-01 (table 1)1

10 5

Dec. Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. May June July Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec. Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. May June July Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec. 2021 2022 2023

EXPLANATION Precipitation (Oklahoma Mesonet, 2023; National Centers for Environmental Information, 2023) Groundwater level 1

Used for water-table fluctuation (WTF) method (table 9)

Figure 11.—Continued

drilled to a depth of refusal, which was assumed to be the contact of the alluvium and terrace deposits with underlying bedrock units (Rogers and others, 2023). The nine test holes were drilled to a range of 28.4 to 56.7 ft below land surface (table 5). At these test holes, the estimated depth to water ranged from 17.3 to 42.9 ft below land surface, and the mean horizontal hydraulic conductivity at each test hole ranged from 7.5 to 113 ft/d, with an overall mean of 62.2 ft/d (table 6). The distribution of discrete HPT horizontal hydraulic conductivity values is depicted in fig. 13A, B. At one HPT test-hole site, Kh02 (fig. 1; table 1), a 27-foot core sediment sample was collected to check the accuracy of the HPT horizontal hydraulic conductivity measurements. Sediment cores were retrieved in 48-in.-long plastic tubes with a 2.25-in. diameter. The sediment core measured in

the Kh02 test hole, like all other HPT measurements, was obtained by drilling from land surface to a depth of refusal, which was assumed to be the bedrock contact. Sediment cores were described in small depth increments by noting changes to grain size, sorting, and Munsell (1912) color; the data produced by this effort are included in the accompanying data release (Gammill and others, 2025). The lithologic descriptions of the sediment cores were grouped into one of six lithologic categories based on the dominant grain size: fine sand, medium sand, coarse sand, gravel, and clay. Lithologic descriptions obtained from the core were then correlated to the HPT values at the same depth to estimate horizontal hydraulic conductivity for each lithology (table 7). Mean horizontal hydraulic conductivity for the core collected at the Kh02 test hole was 29 ft/d (table 7).

100

22 Hydrogeologic Framework and Conceptual Model, Red River Alluvial Aquifer, Lake Texoma, Oklahoma, 1980–2022

80 60

ch (F − )+

lo r

lc iu

id e

(Cl − )

(SO 2

−

m siu

flu

ori

g ma

)

lfa

100

ate

arb +c ate on arb

60 Calcium (Ca2+)

100

Bic

100

O3 −)

(HC

60 80

)

2− 4

(SO

esi

lfa

siu

tas

g 2+ )

(CO 2

−

)

20 40

diu

Chloride (Cl−) + fluoride (F−)

Cations

Anions

PERCENT EXPLANATION

Dissolved-solids concentration, in milligrams per liter 40

339

639

938

1,238

Hydrochemical facies (dominant water types) 1,537

Calciummagnesium Sulfatechloride

Water-quality sample type Surface water Groundwater

Calciummagnesium bicarbonate

Note: Only samples with charge balance errors of less than 20 percent were used for the analysis.

Magnesium Mixed Calcium

Sodium sulfatechloride

Sodium bicarbonate

Sulfate Mixed

Sodium

Bicarbonate

Chloride

Figure 12. Relations between major cations and anions measured in water-quality samples collected from the eastern part of the Red River alluvial aquifer study area in southeastern Oklahoma, 1996–2019 (Oklahoma Water Resources Board, 2023; U.S. Geological Survey, 2024).

Hydrogeology of the Eastern Part of the Red River Alluvial Aquifer 23 Table 5. Horizontal hydraulic conductivities calculated by using a Geoprobe hydraulic profiling tool at nine test holes in southeastern Oklahoma and northeastern Texas. Map identifier (fig. 1; table 1)

Total depth below land surface (feet)

Mean estimated horizontal hydraulic conductivity (feet per day)

Kh01

54.8

47.7

Kh02

31.3

34.8

Kh03

28.4

7.50

Kh04

43.2

25.3

Kh05

52.4

113

Kh06

49.2

50.2

Kh07

53.9

45.5

Kh08

56.7

52.5

Kh09

47.4

70.4

Table 6. Summary statistics of horizontal hydraulic conductivities obtained at nine test holes by using a Geoprobe hydraulic profiling tool (HPT) in southeastern Oklahoma and northeastern Texas (fig. 1; tables 1, 5). HPT estimated depth to water (feet below land surface)

Estimated horizontal hydraulic conductivity (feet per day)

Minimum

17.3

0.20

Mean

30.7

62.2

Median

34.3

40.5

Maximum

42.9

150

Statistic

Horizontal Hydraulic Conductivity Estimated From Lithologic Logs Horizontal hydraulic conductivity distribution across the eastern part of the Red River alluvial aquifer was estimated by using information obtained from lithologic logs (OWRB, 2023; Texas Water Development Board [TWDB], 2023). Hydraulic conductivity is a measure of the capacity of a porous medium to transmit water (Driscoll, 1986). Lithologic logs were compiled and analyzed to characterize the alluvium and terrace deposits of the eastern part of the Red River alluvial aquifer. Because the OWRB and TWDB have not currently (2025) required standardized reporting of lithologic-log descriptions for the rocks and sediments recovered during drilling, lithologic logs sometimes used different terms for describing the same or similar rocks and sediments. For this report, descriptions of the rocks and sediments were standardized by using the techniques described in Mashburn and others (2014). Lithologic-log descriptions of sediments contained in the eastern part of the Red River alluvial aquifer were classified by using the following standard lithologic categories (Wentworth, 1922; Guy, 1969; Mashburn and others, 2014):

• silt and clay (less than or equal to 0.0625 millimeter [mm] to less than 0.125 mm), • fine sand (0.125 mm to less than 0.25 mm), • medium sand (0.25 mm to less than 0.50 mm), • coarse sand (0.50 mm to less than 1 mm), • very coarse sand (1 mm to less than 2 mm), and • fine gravel (2 mm to less than 4 mm). As described in the “Spatial Distribution of Lithologic Categories” section of Paizis and Trevisan (2021, p. 23), for each section of a lithologic log, a percentage of coarse materials ranging from 0 percent coarse materials (no coarse materials, only silt and clay) to 100 percent coarse materials (only fine gravel or larger particles) was assigned by evaluating the sediment composition: • If the given section of the lithologic log was classified as silt and clay, it was assumed to have 0–20 percent coarse material. • If the given section of the lithologic log was classified as fine sand, it was assumed to have 21–40 percent coarse material.

24 Hydrogeologic Framework and Conceptual Model, Red River Alluvial Aquifer, Lake Texoma, Oklahoma, 1980–2022

Estimated hydraulic conductivity, in feet per day

180

A 590

5,270

160 140 120 100 80 60 40 20 0

Lithologic logs Geoprobe

EXPLANATION 5,270 Number of observations Outside value—Value is >1.5 times the interquartile range beyond either end of the box 90th percentile

75th percentile Mean 50th percentile (median)

Interquartile range

25th percentile 10th percentile

B EXPLANATION Lithologic logs

Geoprobe

>92 and ≤ 96

>96 and ≤ 100

>88 and ≤ 92

>84 and ≤ 88

>80 and ≤ 84

>76 and ≤ 80

>72 and ≤ 76

>68 and ≤ 72

>64 and ≤ 68

>60 and ≤ 64

>56 and ≤ 60

>52 and ≤ 56

>48 and ≤ 52

>44 and ≤ 48

>40 and ≤ 44

>36 and ≤ 40

>32 and ≤ 36

>28 and ≤ 32

>24 and ≤ 28

>20 and ≤ 24

>16 and ≤ 20

>12 and ≤ 16

>4 and ≤ 8

>8 and ≤ 12

>0 and ≤ 4

Percentage of observations within each specified range of values related to the total number of observations

Estimated hydraulic conductivity, in feet per day

Figure 13. A, Range of estimate hydraulic conductivity values, and B, distribution of estimated hydraulic conductivity values and estimated horizontal hydraulic conductivity obtained from lithologic logs and by using Geoprobe hydraulic profiling tool (HPT) in the Red River alluvial aquifer in southeastern Oklahoma and northeastern Texas.

Hydrogeology of the Eastern Part of the Red River Alluvial Aquifer 25 Table 7. Horizontal hydraulic properties of lithologic categories calculated for a core collected at the Kh02 test hole in southeastern Oklahoma. Estimated horizontal hydraulic conductivity (feet per day)

Proportional amount of total core (percent)

Minimum

Mean

Maximum

Fine sand

22.4

Medium sand

53.0

0.10

Coarse sand

0.70

Gravel

3.70

Lithologic description

Topsoil

5.00

Clay

15.2

Total core

100

• If the given section of the lithologic log was classified as medium sand, it was assumed to have 41–60 percent coarse material. • If the given section of the lithologic log was classified as coarse sand/very coarse sand, it was assumed to have 61–80 percent coarse material. • If the given section of the lithologic log was classified as fine gravel, it was assumed to have 81–100 percent coarse material. Lithologic-log descriptions with obvious errors were corrected, and lithologic logs were omitted from the study if the descriptions contained unclear, few, or no descriptions of sediments and rocks. Additionally, lithologic logs for wells drilled less than 15 ft deep were excluded from the analysis, as lithologic-log descriptions from those wells were assumed to not be representative of the aquifer. The lithologic logs were then used to calculate hydraulic conductivity by using the following equation, modified from Ellis and others (2017): K h = (1.8725 × Ps  ) − 18.525, where

is the horizontal hydraulic conductivity, in feet per day; and

is the percentage-coarse-material value.

(2)

This equation was derived by using the range of 0.2–150 ft/d obtained using the Geoprobe HPT in which the minimum and maximum hydraulic conductivity values were correlated to 10 and 90 percent coarse material, respectively, to create a linear regression relating horizontal hydraulic conductivity and percent coarse material. Calculated hydraulic conductivity values from lithologic logs ranged from approximately 0.02 to 169 ft/d, with a mean of 44.5 ft/d (fig. 13A). Hydraulic conductivity values derived from lithologic logs are similar to hydraulic conductivity values obtained by using a Geoprobe HPT (fig. 13B).

Hydraulic Properties Estimated From a Multiwell Aquifer Test Multiwell aquifer tests are a more accurate method for estimating mean hydraulic conductivity and storage properties of aquifer materials compared to other methods such as deriving conductivity from grain size (Freeze and Cherry, 1979). A multiwell aquifer test was completed in November 2023 at an irrigation well in the eastern part of the Red River alluvial aquifer (well Red07; fig. 1; table 1). To conduct the test, well Red07 groundwater was withdrawn at an approximately constant rate of 316 gallons per minute for approximately 21 hours until the water levels measured in the designated observation well for the aquifer test (well Red04) stabilized (fig. 14A). The observation well Red04 was approximately 233 ft from the pumping well (well Red07). Pumping induced a maximum drawdown of 25.8 ft in the pumping well (Red07) (fig. 14A) and 1.33 ft in the observation well (Red04) (fig. 14C). Water levels from the pumping and recovery period were matched to a curve defined by the Tartakovsky and Neuman (2007) method, which computes drawdown in an unconfined aquifer using the following equation: S = ST + SH + SU, where

(3)

is the drawdown in an unconfined aquifer;

is the drawdown for a fully penetrating well in a nonleaky confined aquifer;

is the drawdown correction for partial penetration in a nonleaky confined aquifer; and

is the drawdown correction for saturated-unsaturated flow in an unconfined aquifer.

26 Hydrogeologic Framework and Conceptual Model, Red River Alluvial Aquifer, Lake Texoma, Oklahoma, 1980–2022 A

100

Recovery, in ft

Displacement, in feet (ft)

100

0.1

0.01

0.001

0.0001 0.1

100

1,000

10,000

100,000 1,000,000

0.0001 0.1

100

1,000

10,000

100,000

Agarwal equivalent time, in seconds

Time, in seconds

Displacement, in ft

0.1

0.01

0.001

0.0001 0.1

100

1,000

10,000

100,000 1,000,000

Time, in seconds EXPLANATION Line of best match for analytical solution (Tartakovsky and Neuman, 2007) Water-level displacement measurement Agarwal equivalent time is a method of replacing time since pumping began to an equivalent time based on when recovery of the groundwater level began (Duffield, 2025). 1

Figure 14. A, Pumping drawdown data curve for well Red07; B, pumping recovery curve from well Red07; and C, pumping drawdown curve from observation well Red04, with best-fit Tartakovsky-Neuman method for unconfined aquifer analysis (Tartakovsky and Neuman, 2007; Gammill and others, 2025).

Hydrogeologic Framework 27 Drawdown and recovery data obtained using the Tartakovsky and Neuman (2007) method were reported in either standard time or Agarwal equivalent time—an adjustment that transforms standard time into an equivalent time that is relative only to recovery time (Duffield, 2025). The Tartakovsky and Neuman (2007) method is most appropriate for evaluating groundwater flow in an unconfined aquifer, such as the eastern part of the Red River alluvial aquifer. The multiwell aquifer test was analyzed by using the AQTESOLV software package (Hydrosolve, Inc., 2011). Hydraulic properties presented in this report were collected from the observation well (Red04). Transmissivity, specific yield, and the storage coefficient were estimated by using the Tartakovsky and Neuman (2007) method with a user-specified saturated thickness value. A saturated thickness value of 116.5 ft was used for the observation well (Red04) and was computed from the saturated thickness map as discussed in the “Potentiometric Surface and Saturated Thickness” section herein. Transmissivity in the observation well was approximately 7,900 square feet per day (ft2/d). Geohydrologic-unit hydraulic conductivity was estimated at 67.49 ft/d. Specific yield (unitless) was estimated at 0.038, and the estimated storage coefficient (also unitless) was estimated at 0.002 (fig. 14).

Hydraulic Properties From Previous Reports Although published reports describing the textural and hydraulic properties specific to the eastern part of the Red River alluvial aquifer were not found during the literature review, those properties have been described for the alluvial aquifers associated with selected tributaries to the Red River. Smith and others (2017, 2021) described the North Fork Red River aquifer and the Salt Fork Red River aquifer and included data relevant to the hydraulic and textural properties of these aquifers. The methods and data described in Smith and others (2017, 2021) for estimating hydraulic properties were also used in this report. Smith and others (2017) estimated textural and hydraulic properties of the North Fork Red River aquifer by using lithologic logs, Geoprobe HPT logs, and a multiwell aquifer test. Mean hydraulic conductivity values estimated from lithologic logs and HPT were 52 and 61 ft/d, respectively. Mean horizontal hydraulic conductivity values were 4 ft/d higher when they were estimated by using well logs and 1 ft/d lower when they were estimated by using HPT in the North Fork Red River aquifer compared to the well log and HPT estimates of mean hydraulic conductivity for the eastern part of the Red River alluvial aquifer, respectively. Mean transmissivity estimated from the multiwell aquifer test ranged from 5,900 to 7,900 ft2/d for the North Fork Red River aquifer, which was comparable to the estimate obtained from the multiwell aquifer test described in this report (7,900 ft2/d). Smith and others (2021) estimated horizontal hydraulic conductivity properties of the Salt Fork Red River aquifer by using lithologic logs and Geoprobe HPT logs. For the Salt

Fork Red River aquifer, the mean hydraulic conductivity estimated from lithologic logs was 45 ft/d, and the mean hydraulic conductivity estimated from Geoprobe HPT logs was 51 ft/d. The mean horizontal hydraulic conductivity estimated from lithologic logs in Smith and others (2021) was 3 ft/d less than the 48-ft/d mean estimated from lithologic logs for the eastern part of the Red River alluvial aquifer. The mean horizontal hydraulic conductivity estimated from Geoprobe HPT logs in the Salt Fork Red River aquifer was 51 ft/d, which was 11 ft/d less than the 62 ft/d mean estimated for the eastern part of the Red River alluvial aquifer by using Geoprobe HPT logs.

Hydrogeologic Framework A hydrogeologic framework serves as a three-dimensional model of an aquifer, illustrating its interactions with adjacent geologic formations and influences on groundwater flow. For alluvial and terrace deposits in the eastern part of the Red River alluvial aquifer, this framework incorporates revised definitions of the aquifer’s boundaries and potentiometric surface, along with an analysis of the hydraulic and textural characteristics of aquifer materials. This hydrogeologic framework was utilized to develop a conceptual groundwater-flow model for the eastern part of the Red River alluvial aquifer presented in this report.

Aquifer Extent The spatial extent of the eastern part of the Red River alluvial aquifer was determined by using 1:250,000-scale geologic maps (Stoeser and others, 2005). The eastern part of this alluvial aquifer extends vertically from land surface to the depth of the geologic contact of the alluvium and terrace deposits with underlying bedrock units. The spatial extent of the aquifer is further defined by the eastern border of Lake Texoma, the Oklahoma-Texas State line, and the confluence of the Blue River with the Red River. Where the eastern part of the Red River alluvial aquifer is present, the top of the Red River alluvial aquifer was defined as the land-surface altitude obtained from a 10-m (horizontal resolution) digital elevation model (DEM) (USGS, 2015) with filled depressions. The altitude of the base of the eastern part of the aquifer was contoured at a 20-ft interval from bedrock depths obtained from lithologic logs, well-completion reports, and test-hole data (OWRB, 2023; TWDB, 2023). The potentiometric surface of the aquifer was constructed using groundwater-level data and was used to determine saturated thickness for the aquifer by subtracting the base-of-aquifer altitude. The altitude of the base of the aquifer was calculated by subtracting the measured bedrock depth from the land-surface altitude. For consistency, the land-surface altitude was obtained from the 10-m DEM, even when the data source provided a land-surface altitude.

28 Hydrogeologic Framework and Conceptual Model, Red River Alluvial Aquifer, Lake Texoma, Oklahoma, 1980–2022 Lithologic logs obtained from the OWRB (2023) and the TWDB (2023) were used to construct the alluvium and bedrock surface contact of the Red River alluvial aquifer in records where the bedrock contact could be determined. Permian bedrock unit terms were used to identify red or consolidated materials such as “red bed,” “bedrock,” and “shale.” The bedrock surface was defined at the base of the aquifer by the presence of a red sand or shale on an impervious red clay layer adjoining an alluvial sand or gravel. The altitude of the base of the aquifer, determined from well logs, was contoured at a 20-ft interval. The altitude of the base of the eastern part of the Red River alluvial aquifer (fig. 15) ranged from 220 to 580 ft. The base of the aquifer dips downward from the aquifer’s border with Lake Texoma in the west eastward toward the Arkansas State line.

Potentiometric Surface and Saturated Thickness A potentiometric surface is a theoretical topographic surface that displays the altitude at which water would have stood in tightly cased wells at a specified time across a given aquifer (Fetter, 2001). Potentiometric surface maps can be used to identify general groundwater-flow directions and delineate subsurface groundwater basins within an aquifer. Groundwater generally flows perpendicularly to contours from areas of high potentiometric altitudes to areas of low potentiometric altitudes (Freeze and Cherry, 1979). A potentiometric surface map was constructed for the eastern part of the Red River alluvial aquifer by interpolating synoptic groundwater-level altitude data to create a continuous surface. Synoptic data were measured at wells constructed with steel or polyvinyl chloride casings with sand backfill surrounding the outside of the casings. To determine groundwater-level altitudes, the depth to water below land-surface datum was measured at each well by using a calibrated electric tape following methods described in Cunningham and Schalk (2011). The depth to water was subtracted from the land surface datum, referenced to the North American Vertical Datum of 1988 (NAVD 88), to compute the groundwater-level altitude at each well (Cunningham and Schalk, 2011). A stream is an expression of the groundwater-level altitude, so additional water-surface altitudes along streams were obtained from the 10-meter DEM and used as control points to create the potentiometric surface map (USGS, 2015). The groundwater-level altitudes, including

the water-surface altitudes along streams, were interpolated by using inverse-distance-weighted interpolation methods in ArcGIS (Esri, 2024a). Contours were constructed from the interpolated surface and compared to altitude data from the DEM to ensure that potentiometric contours were below land surface. During February 28–March 2, 2022, synoptic groundwater-level-altitude measurements were made at 44 wells across the Red River alluvial aquifer study area. Depth to the water table ranged from 1.36 to 65.85 ft below land surface datum. Additional groundwater-level altitude measurements were compiled from OWRB well-completion reports, which provided the interval depth at which water was first observed during the well drilling process (OWRB, 2023). Groundwater generally flowed in the same east-west direction as the flow of the Red River from a water-level altitude of approximately 680 ft near Lake Texoma in the west to 240 ft near the Arkansas State line in the east (fig. 16). Saturated thickness was determined by subtracting the estimated altitude of the aquifer base—specifically, the contact between the base of alluvium that contains the aquifer and the top underlying bedrock—from the simulated groundwater-level altitude. Data from 211 lithologic logs were carefully checked to eliminate inaccurate point data, such as negative saturated thickness values that could affect saturated thickness interpolation, and then used to estimate saturated thickness (fig. 17). Saturated thickness was not calculated in parts of the study area where data were not available (fig. 17). Given the insufficient quantity of groundwater-level altitude measurements for parts of the aquifer within 1 mi of the Red River, some saturated thickness values were initially simulated as negative values. To eliminate negative saturated thickness values simulated within 1 mi of the Red River, a minimum of 20 ft of saturated thickness was required. This assumed minimum value is considered conservative based on the assumed 35–50 ft of saturated thickness of the similar sand-channel Washita alluvial aquifer (Hart, 1965). Bedrock altitudes determined from lithologic log point-data were used to create a topographic raster that in turn was used to create bedrock altitude contours. The bedrock-altitude contours were compared to potentiometric surface contours to ensure that bedrock contours were always lower in altitude than potentiometric contours. Simulated saturated thickness within the aquifer included a minimum thickness of 0 ft, a maximum thickness of 141.19 ft, and a mean thickness of 62.13 ft.

96°30'

96°00'

95°30'

95°00'

94°30'

94°00' POLK COUNTY Rolling Fork

Atoka

0 44

River

n B ay ou

240

Clarksville

LAMAR COUNTY

40 MILES

40 KILOMETERS

ive

t Bay ou

Ashdown

FRANKLIN COUNTY

LITTLE RIVER COUNTY

DELTA COUNTY

ttl

Wa ln u

240 0

10 10

ver

0 32

560 540 0 520

460

480

Pec a

RED RIVER COUNTY

Reno

Paris

Red River

MILLER COUNTY

340

Idabel

280

Base modified from U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) 1:1,100,000-scale digital data; Albers Equal-Area Conic, USGS contiguous United States projection North American Datum of 1983

340

SEVIER COUNTY

ARKANSAS

Lake Crook

k HUNT COUNTY

300

De Queen

OKLAHOMA

360

Coffee Mill Lake FANNIN COUNTY

COLLIN COUNTY

320

340

Broken Bow

300

d'A rc Cr ee

340

v er

320

Van Alstyne

Bois

0 22 40 260 0 2 28

Pat Mayse Lake

320

360 0 380 400 420 44 460

33°30'

GRAYSON COUNTY

Lake Bonham Bonham

Valley Lake

400

440

480

300

440 420 440

Sherman

400 420

300

320 340

0 Randell 48 Lake Denison

Hugo

280 34 3 0 380 60

580

CHOCTAW COUNTY

HOWARD COUNTY

Broken Bow Lake

tl e Lit

34°00'

BRYAN COUNTY

Hugo Lake

r ve

MARSHALL COUNTY Lake Durant Texoma

MCCURTAIN COUNTY Pine Creek Lake

i Ri ich

ive r

Ki a m

eek ggy C r Bo dy ud M

Bl u

PUSHMATAHA COUNTY

McGee Creek

ATOKA Cle COUNTY ar Bo gg yC re e k

Glo

JOHNSTON COUNTY

TITUS COUNTY

BOWIE COUNTY

New Boston

EXPLANATION Eastern part of the Red River alluvial aquifer in Oklahoma

Aquifer-base contour—Shows the altitude of the base of the eastern Red River alluvial aquifer, in feet. Dashed where approximately located. Contour interval 20 feet. Datum is North American Vertical Datum of 1988

Well with lithologic log (OWRB, 2023; Texas Water Development Board, 2023)

Figure 15. Altitude of the base of the eastern part of the Red River alluvial aquifer, constructed by using data from lithologic logs, in southeastern Oklahoma and northeastern Texas (Oklahoma Water Resources Board, 2023; Texas Water Development Board, 2023).

Hydrogeologic Framework 29

Red River alluvial aquifer extent in Texas

300

96°00'

95°30'

95°00'

94°30'

94°00' POLK COUNTY Rolling Fork

Atoka

398

Lake Crook

520

560

ver

River

280

20 20

40 MILES

40 KILOMETERS

Eastern part of the Red River alluvial aquifer in Oklahoma Red River alluvial aquifer extent in Texas

LITTLE RIVER COUNTY t Bay ou

278

Ashdown

TE TITUS COUNTY

BOWIE COUNTY

EXPLANATION 400

ive

FRANKLIN COUNTY

DELTA COUNTY 10

342

MILLER COUNTY

294

Clarksville

LAMAR COUNTY

ttl

Wa ln u

302

Base modified from U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) 1:1,100,000-scale digital data; Albers Equal-Area Conic, USGS contiguous United States projection North American Datum of 1983

RED RIVER COUNTY

Reno

Paris

400 n B ay ou

320

COLLIN COUNTY

HUNT COUNTY

Pec a

400

Red River

520

349

350 360

SEVIER COUNTY

ARKANSAS

360

385

De Queen

Idabel

331

360

430

410

440

Broken Bow

360

360 375 385 382

400 440 Pat Mayse Lake

v er

Van Alstyne

460 451 450 442 450 525 477 520 523 480 520 520

366

400 436 440

Lake Coffee Mill Bonham Valley Lake Bonham Lake FANNIN Bois d'A COUNTY rc Cr eek

560

33°30'

GRAYSON COUNTY

600

424

Hugo

OKLAHOMA

510 556 512 527 523 Randell Denison 489

640 680

Sherman

382

600 606

CHOCTAW COUNTY

HOWARD COUNTY

Broken Bow Lake

tl e Lit

34°00'

BRYAN COUNTY

Hugo Lake

r ve

MARSHALL COUNTY Lake Durant Texoma

MCCURTAIN COUNTY Pine Creek Lake

i Ri ich

ive r

Ki a m

eek ggy C r Bo dy ud M

Bl u

PUSHMATAHA COUNTY

McGee Creek

ATOKA Cle COUNTY ar Bo gg yC re e k

Glo

JOHNSTON COUNTY

Potentiometric contour—Shows the altitude in feet at which the water level would have stood in tightly cased wells. Dashed where approximate. Contour interval 40 feet. Datum is North American Vertical Datum of 1988 (NAVD 88)

342

Synoptic water level from February 28−March 3, 2022, in feet above NAVD 88

Figure 16. Potentiometric surface of the Red River alluvial aquifer in February and March 2022, southeastern Oklahoma and northeastern Texas.

New Boston

30 Hydrogeologic Framework and Conceptual Model, Red River Alluvial Aquifer, Lake Texoma, Oklahoma, 1980–2022

96°30'

96°00'

95°30'

95°00'

94°30'

94°00' POLK COUNTY Rolling Fork

Atoka

River Ri

Hugo

ver

CHOCTAW COUNTY

tl e Lit

34°00'

BRYAN COUNTY

Hugo Lake

r ve

MARSHALL COUNTY Lake Durant Texoma

v er

Broken Bow

Randell Denison Lake

Lake Crook Lake Bonham Bonham

Van Alstyne

Bois

d'A rc Cr ee

FANNIN COUNTY

COLLIN COUNTY

Base modified from U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) 1:1,100,000-scale digital data; Albers Equal-Area Conic, USGS contiguous United States projection North American Datum of 1983

0 0

20 20

ive

LITTLE RIVER COUNTY t Bay ou

40 MILES

40 KILOMETERS

Ashdown

FRANKLIN COUNTY

DELTA COUNTY 10

k HUNT COUNTY

ttl

Wa ln u

Clarksville

LAMAR COUNTY

MILLER COUNTY

33°30'

GRAYSON COUNTY

n B ay ou

RED RIVER COUNTY

Reno

Paris

Coffee Mill Lake

Pec a

ARKANSAS

Pat Mayse Lake

OKLAHOMA

Red River

Valley Lake

De Queen SEVIER COUNTY

Idabel

Sherman

HOWARD COUNTY

Broken Bow Lake

Pine Creek Lake

i Ri ich

ive r

MCCURTAIN COUNTY

Glo

PUSHMATAHA COUNTY

McGee Creek

Ki a m

Bl u

ATOKA Cle COUNTY ar Bo gg yC re e k

eek ggy C r Bo dy ud M

JOHNSTON COUNTY

TITUS COUNTY

BOWIE COUNTY

New Boston

EXPLANATION Boundary of the eastern part of the Red River alluvial aquifer in Oklahoma Boundary of the Red River aquifer extent in Texas Lithologic log

Figure 17. Estimated saturated thickness of the Red River alluvial aquifer in February and March 2022, southeastern Oklahoma and northeastern Texas.

Hydrogeologic Framework 31

Saturated thickness, in feet, February 2022−March 2022 >0 to 20 >20 to 50 >50 to 75 >75 to 100 >100 to 141

32 Hydrogeologic Framework and Conceptual Model, Red River Alluvial Aquifer, Lake Texoma, Oklahoma, 1980–2022

Conceptual Groundwater-Flow Model and Water Budget

Hydrologic Boundaries

A conceptual groundwater-flow model (hereinafter referred to as the “conceptual model”) is a simplified representation of the groundwater-flow system that accounts for the major inflow and outflow sources across hydrologic boundaries for a specified period. For this report, hydrologic boundaries are boundaries based upon the hydrogeologic framework where groundwater flows into or out of an aquifer, potentially affecting the total storage of the aquifer. The conceptual-model water budget (fig. 18; table 8) was used to estimate mean annual inflows and outflows for the eastern part of the Red River alluvial aquifer during the 1980–2022 study period. Estimated groundwater flows in the conceptual model were assumed to be analogous to those in similar alluvial aquifers in Oklahoma (Ryter and Correll, 2016; Ellis and others, 2017, 2020; Smith and others, 2017, 2021; Rogers and others, 2023).

For the purposes of the conceptual model discussed in this report, hydrologic boundaries represent sources (inflows) and sinks (outflows) of water to and from the eastern part of the Red River alluvial aquifer. Some hydrologic boundaries can function as both sources of inflows and sinks for outflows and were classified as locations of “net inflows” or “net outflows” in this report, depending on which is the dominant flow component.

Recharge For the purposes of this report, recharge is the infiltration of precipitation through the soil zone to the saturated zone. Infiltration occurs when precipitation falls on the land surface and percolates downward into the unsaturated zone (Freeze and Cherry, 1979). Many factors affect the amount of recharge to the aquifer, such as the amount of water stored in the unsaturated zone, the slope of the land surface, the composition of rocks and soils that contain the aquifer, the type of vegetation and general land use over the aquifer, and the intensity and duration of precipitation. Because many factors affect recharge, estimates are difficult to quantify.

400,000

Mean-annual flow, in acre-feet per year

300,000

200,000

100,000

3,930

288,253

0 −34,939

−255,247

−1,997

Saturated-zone evapotranspiration

Net streambed seepage

Well withdrawals

−100,000

−200,000

−300,000

Net change in groundwater storage

Recharge

Net lateral groundwater flow

Hydrologic boundary

Figure 18. Estimated mean annual inflows and outflows by water-budget component for the conceptual model of the eastern part of the Red River alluvial aquifer, southeastern Oklahoma, 1980–2022.

Conceptual Groundwater-Flow Model and Water Budget 33 Table 8. Conceptual-model water budget of estimated mean annual inflows and outflows for hydrologic boundaries for the eastern part of the Red River alluvial aquifer, southeastern Oklahoma, 1980–2022. [acre-ft/yr, acre-foot per year; in/yr, inch per year; USGS, U.S. Geological Survey; NWI, National Wetlands Inventory; OWRB, Oklahoma Water Resources Board; --, not quantified; %, percent]

Hydrologic boundary

Mean annual inflow or outflow amount (acre-ft/yr)

Percentage of water budget

288,250

98.7%

8.62 in/yr or 17.98 percent of mean annual precipitation estimated using the Soil-Water-Balance code (Westenbroek and others, 2010).

3,930

1.3%

Assumed to be a negligible part of water budget, used to balance the model.

292,183

100%

Notes

Inflows Recharge

Net change in groundwater storage Total inflow

Outflows Net streambed seepage

255,247

87.4%

Net lateral groundwater flow

Assumed to be negligible part of water budget.

Saturated-zone evapotranspiration

34,939

11.9%

1.8 in/yr multiplied by the total NWI wetland area of 232,926 acres (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2023) overlying 58% of the eastern part of the Red River alluvial aquifer. Evapotranspiration value adjusted from White (1932) to account for differences in climate and length of growing season.

Well withdrawals

1,997

0.7%

From OWRB reported groundwater use data (table 3). Mean reported use for the study period 1980–2022 (OWRB, 2024b).

Total outflow

292,183

100%

Two methods were used in this study to estimate recharge: the water-table fluctuation (WTF) method, used to estimate local recharge for the 2021–23 period, and application of the Soil-Water-Balance (SWB) code, used to model regional, spatially distributed recharge rates across the study area for 1980–2022 study period.

Estimated from streamflow and base-flow data at selected USGS streamgages and streamflow at Hugo Lake Dam (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 2024).

where

is recharge, in inches per year;

is the specific yield of the aquifer (dimensionless);

Δh

is the change in water-level altitude, in inches; and

Δt

is the change in time, in years.

WTF Method The WTF method (Healy and Cook, 2002) was used to estimate localized recharge for the eastern part of the Red River alluvial aquifer. The WTF method assumes that short-term level rises, lasting hours to days, in unconfined groundwater wells are attributable to precipitation causing recharge in the saturated zone of an aquifer. The WTF method is best applied to groundwater wells placed in locations with a shallow water table that display rapid responses to precipitation. The WTF method requires knowledge or estimation of specific yield, which can be variable across an aquifer. The WTF method was used to directly calculate recharge at specified groundwater wells using the following formula:

Δh, R = S y * ∑_ Δt

(4)

Water-level hydrographs from four of the six USGS continuous groundwater-level recording wells in the study area were used for WTF analysis because their hydrographs and locations were appropriate for the requirements and assumptions of the WTF method (Healy and Cook, 2002); the four wells used in the analysis were wells Red02, Red03, Red05, and Red06 (fig. 11A–D; table 9; USGS, 2024). Well Red01 was excluded from WTF analysis because of inadequate signals in water-level fluctuation, whereas well Red04 was excluded because the groundwater withdrawals at this well were much larger than the groundwater withdrawals at any of the other wells. The groundwater withdrawals at wells Red02, Red03, Red05, and Red06 were analyzed for

34 Hydrogeologic Framework and Conceptual Model, Red River Alluvial Aquifer, Lake Texoma, Oklahoma, 1980–2022 2022 and 2023. A specific yield (Sy  ) value of 0.038 was estimated by using the Tartakovsky and Neuman (2007) method with the data collected from observation well Red04 during the multiwell aquifer test and was used for WTF analysis. Daily precipitation data for the period 1980–2023 were obtained from climate sites closest to each USGS continuous groundwater-level recording well (fig. 1; table 1; Oklahoma Mesonet, 2023; NCEI, 2023). WTF-estimated mean annual recharge for the 2022–23 period was 16.0 inches per year (in/yr) (approximately 35.1 percent of mean annual precipitation for the period 1980–2022) (table 9; Oklahoma Mesonet, 2023; NCEI, 2023). The 1.33-ft/yr recharge rate multiplied by the 401,280-acre

extent of the eastern part of the Red River alluvial aquifer in Oklahoma is equivalent to an estimated inflow volume of approximately 534,000 acre-feet per year (acre-ft/yr).

SWB Code Spatially distributed groundwater recharge for a selected grid area within the study area (fig. 19) was estimated by using the SWB code (SWB version 1.2.511; Westenbroek and others, 2010). The SWB code uses a gridded data structure to compute the amount of daily infiltration resulting from precipitation, accounting for losses, that exceeds the storage capacity of the plant root zone (the depth below ground surface to which plant roots extend) and evapotranspiration

Table 9. Summary of recharge estimates using the water-table fluctuation method for the Red River alluvial aquifer in southeastern Oklahoma and northeastern Texas, 2022–23. [NCEI, National Centers for Environmental Information; Dates in mm/dd/yyyy format. Continuous water-level recorder wells Red01 and Red04 were not suitable for analysis with the water-table-fluctuation method. Estimated specific yield values are provided in E notation. %, percent; --, not applicable] U.S. Geological Survey continuous water-level-recorder well (fig. 1; table 1)

Descriptor Red02

Red03

Red05

Red06

Mean annual precipitation during 1980–2022, in inches, from nearby NCEI climate stations

46.2

44.1

47.6

Applicable NCEI or Oklahoma Mesonet climate stations

C-04, C-07

C-01, C-02

C-06, C-09

Estimated specific yield

3.8E-02

Year 1, date range

01/01/2022–12/31/2022

Station annual precipitation, in inches

43.0

37.0

48.1

Sum of water-level rises, in feet

22.5

27.5

34.5

35.4

Recharge, in inches per year

10.3

12.5

15.7

16.2

Recharge, expressed as the percentage of annual precipitation

23.8%

29.1%

42.4%

33.6%

Recharge, in inches per year, normalized to mean annual precipitation, 1980–2022

11.0

13.5

18.7

16.0

Year 2, date range

01/01/2023–12/31/2023

Station annual precipitation, in inches

42.0

45.0

58.3

Sum of water-level rises, in feet

36.6

31.8

35.6

36.2

Recharge, in inches per year

16.7

14.5

16.2

16.5

Recharge, expressed as the percentage of annual precipitation

39.6%

34.5%

36.1%

28.3%

Recharge, in inches per year, normalized to mean annual precipitation, 1980–2022

18.3

16.0

15.9

13.5

Mean annual recharge 2022–2023, in feet per year, normalized to mean annual precipitation, 1991–2020

1.33

Conceptual Groundwater-Flow Model and Water Budget 35 demand from vegetation. Data required by the SWB code include climatological characteristics (precipitation and temperature) and landscape characteristics (soil-water storage capacity, hydrologic soil group, land-cover type, and land-surface gradient). The input data files and output recharge data files discussed in this report are included in the accompanying data release (Gammill and others, 2025). The SWB code uses the following equation to estimate recharge (modified from Westenbroek and others, 2010): R = (P + S + Ri  ) − (Int + R0  + P et) − ΔSm, where

is recharge, in inches per day;

is precipitation, in inches per day;

is snowmelt, in inches per day;

is surface runoff, in inches per day;

Int

is plant interception, in inches per day;

is surface runoff outflow, in inches per day;

Pet

is reference evapotranspiration, in inches per day; and

(5)

ΔSm is the change in soil moisture, in inches per day. The SWB code estimates recharge (R) over a user-defined grid by using a modified Thornthwaite-Mather method (Thornthwaite and Mather, 1957). To estimate reference evapotranspiration (Pet) in the study area, the Hargreaves and Samani (1985) method for a reference latitude of 33.4–34.2 degrees was applied by using the SWB code. Land-cover data from the National Land Cover Database (Multi-Resolution Land Characteristics Consortium, 2023) were resampled to the SWB model grid resolution using the most common land-cover type within each cell. Land-cover data and hydrologic soil group data obtained from the Gridded Soil Survey Geographic database (USDA, 2021) were used to separate daily precipitation (P) into plant interception (Int) and surface runoff (Ri and R0). To avoid unrealistic overestimations of recharge related to surface runoff, the D8 method (Greenlee, 1987) was used to calculate land-surface gradient from a 10-meter resolution DEM (USGS, 2015) that was resampled to the resolution of the SWB grid. Depressions, or sinks, in the DEM were filled using the ArcGIS Fill tool to ensure correct routing of surface runoff (Esri, 2024b). Daily precipitation, minimum temperature, and maximum temperature grids for the 1980–2022 SWB model period were obtained from the Daymet database (version 4; Thornton and others, 2020). Default plant root-zone depths for the SWB code, which are modeled from permeable glacial deposits in Wisconsin, were scaled to 25 percent for this analysis.

Smaller root-zone depths resulted in increased recharge and decreased evapotranspiration of water from the plant root zone. SWB-estimated mean annual recharge within the eastern part of the Red River alluvial aquifer extent was 8.62 in/yr, or 17.98 percent of the mean annual precipitation over the same period (47.94 in/yr). The SWB-estimated mean annual recharge rate of 8.62 in/yr was approximately half of the WTF-estimated mean annual recharge rate of 16.0 in/yr for the 1980–2022 study period (fig. 19). SWB-estimated recharge rates were summarized annually and monthly in conjunction with precipitation data to calculate recharge efficiency, which is the ratio of recharge to precipitation. Annual SWB-estimated recharge rates for southeastern Oklahoma ranged from 2.82 to 16.60 in/yr for the period 1980–2022, corresponding to years of below-mean and above-mean precipitation, respectively (figs. 4A, 20A). During the 1980–2022 study period, monthly recharge efficiency was equal to or above 20 percent from November to March, when evapotranspiration tends to be at a minimum because of decreased temperatures and precipitation (figs. 5, 20B). Monthly recharge efficiency did not exceed 15 percent for the warmer, wetter months of April through September, when evapotranspiration is generally higher compared to the mostly cooler months of October through March (figs. 5, 20B). SWB-estimated recharge within the aquifer extent was used to approximate recharge for the eastern part of the Red River alluvial aquifer conceptual model because the SWB code accounts for various inputs over the entire aquifer, as opposed to the localized estimates gathered by the WTF method. Recharge was estimated as an inflow of 288,250 acre-ft/yr or 98.7 percent of the estimated inflows of the conceptual model water budget (fig. 18; table 8).

Saturated-Zone Evapotranspiration Evapotranspiration is the process by which water is transferred to the atmosphere directly through evaporation and indirectly through plant transpiration. Most evapotranspiration occurs at the land surface where precipitation pools as surface water or where it infiltrates the soil unsaturated zone and becomes available to plant root zones; most precipitation does not reach the aquifer saturated zone (Lubczynski, 2009). Saturated-zone evapotranspiration mostly occurs in areas of the aquifer where the water table is close to the land surface and the saturated zone intersects the plant root zones, commonly in lower altitude areas such as near streams and wetlands (Lubczynski, 2009). Saturated-zone evapotranspiration was an essential consideration for the conceptual-model water budget, as approximately 58 percent, or 232,926 acres, of the eastern part of the Red River alluvial aquifer was classified as wetlands according to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s National Wetlands Inventory (fig. 21; table 8; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2023). Wetlands are land areas that are frequently saturated or flooded and are heavily concentrated along the Red River within the eastern part of the Red River alluvial aquifer. The National Wetlands

96°00'

95°30'

95°00'

94°30'

94°00'

River Ri

Hugo

ver

CHOCTAW COUNTY

tl e Lit

34°00'

BRYAN COUNTY

Hugo Lake

r ve

MARSHALL COUNTY Lake Durant Texoma

v er

Broken Bow

Randell Denison Lake

Lake Crook Lake Bonham Bonham

Van Alstyne

Bois

d'A rc Cr ee

FANNIN COUNTY

COLLIN COUNTY

Base modified from U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) 1:1,100,000-scale digital data; Albers Equal-Area Conic, USGS contiguous United States projection North American Datum of 1983

0 0

20 20

ive

LITTLE RIVER COUNTY t Bay ou

40 MILES

40 KILOMETERS

TITUS COUNTY

BOWIE COUNTY

New Boston

EXPLANATION Spatially distributed, mean-annual soil-water-balance estimated recharge (1980–2022), in inches per year 0 to 5 >5 to 9 >9 - 13

Ashdown

FRANKLIN COUNTY

DELTA COUNTY 10

k HUNT COUNTY

ttl

Wa ln u

Clarksville

LAMAR COUNTY

MILLER COUNTY

33°30'

GRAYSON COUNTY

n B ay ou RED RIVER COUNTY

Reno

Paris

Coffee Mill Lake

Pec a

ARKANSAS

Pat Mayse Lake

OKLAHOMA

Red River

Valley Lake

De Queen SEVIER COUNTY

Idabel

Sherman

HOWARD COUNTY

Broken Bow Lake

Pine Creek Lake

i Ri ich

ive r

MCCURTAIN COUNTY

Glo

PUSHMATAHA COUNTY

McGee Creek

Ki a m

Bl u

ATOKA Cle COUNTY ar Bo gg yC re e k

eek ggy C r Bo dy ud M

JOHNSTON COUNTY

Boundary of eastern part of the Red River alluvial aquifer

>13 to 21 >21 to 37 >37 to 76.28

Figure 19. Spatially distributed mean annual recharge for a selected grid area within the study area estimated with the Soil-Water-Balance code (Westenbroek and others, 2010), southeastern Oklahoma, northeastern Texas, and southwestern Arkansas, 1980–2022.

Hydrogeologic Framework and Conceptual Model, Red River Alluvial Aquifer, Lake Texoma, Oklahoma, 1980–2022

POLK COUNTY Rolling Fork

Atoka

96°30'

Conceptual Groundwater-Flow Model and Water Budget 37 A

50 40

10 0

Annual recharge efficiency, in percent

100

1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022

Annual precipitation and soil-waterbalance-estimated recharge, in inches

Year EXPLANATION Mean annual precipitation during 1980–2022 (47.94 inches per year)

Annual precipitation, in inches Annual soil-water-balance (SWB) estimated recharge, in inches

Mean annual SWB recharge during 1980–2022 (8.62 inches per year)

Recharge efficiency, in percent—The ratio of recharge to precipitation

100 90

80 5

70 60

50 3

40 30

20 1 0

10 Jan.

Feb.

Mar.

Apr.

May

June

July

Aug.

Sept.

Oct.

Nov.

Dec.

Monthly recharge efficiency, in percent

Mean monthly precipitation and soil-waterbalance-estimated recharge, in inches

Month EXPLANATION Mean monthly precipitation, in inches Mean monthly estimated SWB recharge, in inches Recharge efficiency, in percent—The ratio of recharge to precipitation

Figure 20. A, Annual precipitation and Soil-Water-Balance (SWB) estimated recharge; and B, monthly precipitation and SWB-estimated recharge for a selected grid area within the study area, southeastern Oklahoma, northeastern Texas, and southwestern Arkansas, 1980–2022 (Oklahoma Mesonet, 2023; National Centers for Environmental Information, 2023).

Inventory’s classification of wetlands is different than that of the National Agricultural Statistics Service’s classification of wetlands, as the National Agricultural Statistics Service only classified 1.9 percent of the eastern part of the Red River alluvial aquifer as other, which includes wetlands, water, and barren land (figs. 2–3; National Agricultural Statistics Service,

2024; USDA, 2023). The National Wetlands Inventory is built upon a biological definition of wetlands, whereas the National Agricultural Statistics Service is focused on overlying vegetation used for agricultural purposes (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2024; National Agricultural Statistics Service, 2024).

96°00'

95°30'

95°00'

94°30'

94°00' POLK COUNTY Rolling Fork

Atoka

River Ri

Hugo

ver

CHOCTAW COUNTY

tl e Lit

34°00'

BRYAN COUNTY

Hugo Lake

r ve

MARSHALL COUNTY Lake Durant Texoma

v er

Broken Bow

Randell Denison Lake

Lake Crook Lake Bonham Bonham

Van Alstyne

Bois

d'A rc Cr ee

FANNIN COUNTY

COLLIN COUNTY

Base modified from U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) 1:1,100,000-scale digital data; Albers Equal-Area Conic, USGS contiguous United States projection North American Datum of 1983

0 0

20 20

ive

LITTLE RIVER COUNTY t Bay ou

40 MILES

40 KILOMETERS

Ashdown

FRANKLIN COUNTY

DELTA COUNTY 10

k HUNT COUNTY

ttl

Wa ln u

Clarksville

LAMAR COUNTY

MILLER COUNTY

33°30'

GRAYSON COUNTY

n B ay ou

RED RIVER COUNTY

Reno

Paris

Coffee Mill Lake

Pec a

ARKANSAS

Pat Mayse Lake

OKLAHOMA

Red River

Valley Lake

De Queen SEVIER COUNTY

Idabel

Sherman

HOWARD COUNTY

Broken Bow Lake

Pine Creek Lake

i Ri ich

ive r

MCCURTAIN COUNTY

Glo

PUSHMATAHA COUNTY

McGee Creek

Ki a m

Bl u

ATOKA Cle COUNTY ar Bo gg yC re e k

eek ggy C r Bo dy ud M

JOHNSTON COUNTY

TITUS COUNTY

BOWIE COUNTY

New Boston

EXPLANATION Eastern part of the Red River alluvial aquifer Wetlands from National Wetlands Inventory (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2023)

Figure 21. Wetlands in the eastern part of the Red River alluvial aquifer. Coverage from National Wetlands Inventory, southeastern Oklahoma (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2023).

38 Hydrogeologic Framework and Conceptual Model, Red River Alluvial Aquifer, Lake Texoma, Oklahoma, 1980–2022

96°30'

Conceptual Groundwater-Flow Model and Water Budget 39

Streambed Seepage As explained in the “Streamflow and Base-flow Patterns” section of this report, streamflow is primarily a combination of two components, runoff and base flow (Rantz, 1982). Quantifying the amount of base flow in the eastern part of the Red River alluvial aquifer was useful for the conceptual model, as conceptual-model net streambed seepage was assumed to equal net base flows from the aquifer. Base flow can be approximated from streamflow measurements when the runoff component of streamflow is negligible (Garner and Bills, 2012). When base-flow measurements are collected at multiple locations during a short period of time (within 1–3 days), they are commonly referred to as synoptic “base-flow measurements” or “seepage-run measurements”; the latter term is used in this report. Seepage-run measurements were made at 13 sites within the spatial extent of the eastern part of the Red River alluvial aquifer during January 17–19, 2023. Streamflow was measured during the winter to minimize the effects of evapotranspiration, peak annual water usage, precipitation, and other factors that contribute to streamflow. (For example, in the study area, peak annual water usage occurs in the spring and summer, and winter is the driest season of the year.) Streamflow measurements made as part of a seepage-run analysis can be used to determine whether stream reaches flowing across the surficial extent of an aquifer are gaining (increasing in streamflow in the downstream direction) or losing (decreasing in streamflow in the downstream direction). A seepage gain or loss is calculated by subtracting inflow from a given stream and associated tributaries from outflow on the same stream at a point downstream (Niswonger and others, 2005). Although 13 streamflow measurements were collected for streambed seepage analysis, additional measurement sites that would have helped pinpoint locations of gains and losses were inaccessible because they were on private land, and permission to make the measurements was not obtained. The conceptual model incorporated the amount of base flow measured during the seepage run and base flow from ungaged tributaries corrected for dam releases (table 8; fig. 18). Net streambed seepage in the eastern part of the Red River alluvial aquifer was estimated as follows. Mean annual streamflow at USGS streamgage 07331600 Red River at Denison Dam near Denison, Tex. (hereinafter referred to as the “Denison Dam streamgage”) (map identifier S-01) was collected for the 1980–2022 study period. Mean annual streamflow at Hugo Lake dam (fig. 1; table 1; U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 2024) was multiplied by 0.43 to account for the portion of the gaged stream outside the boundary of the eastern part of the Red River alluvial aquifer. The multiplier used for the Hugo Lake dam streamflow measurement was approximated from the mean annual BFI value from the nearby Arthur City streamgage for the 1937–2022 period (fig. 6B; table 2). Mean annual base flow from the Blue River streamgage was multiplied by 2 to account for ungaged

drainage areas both upstream and downstream. Mean annual base flow from the Index streamgage was multiplied by 0.85 to account for the portion of the gaged stream that extends beyond the boundary of the eastern part of the Red River alluvial aquifer. Long-term mean annual base-flow values were computed from the annual mean base flows from USGS streamgage 07335300 Muddy Boggy Creek near Unger, Okla. (hereinafter referred to as the “Muddy Boggy streamgage”) (map identifier S-03) and USGS streamgage 07332622 Bois D’Arc Creek at Farm-to-Market Road 409 near Honey Grove, Tex. (map identifier S-07) (hereinafter referred to as the “Bois D’Arc streamgage”) for the 1980–2022 study period. The mean annual streamflow at Hugo Lake dam and the Denison Dam streamgage along with the estimated mean annual base flow from the Blue River, Muddy Boggy, and Bois D’Arc streamgages were subtracted from the estimated mean annual base flow at the Index streamgage to estimate net streambed seepage for the eastern part of Red River alluvial aquifer. The total net streambed seepage estimated for the eastern part of the Red River alluvial aquifer was 255,247 acre-ft/yr and accounted for 87.4 percent of total outflows in the conceptual-model water budget (fig. 18; tables 8 and 10).

Well Withdrawals Mean annual well withdrawals were assumed to be equivalent to the mean annual reported groundwater use for the period 1980–2022, or 1,997 acre-ft/yr (tables 3–4). Well withdrawals in the eastern part of the Red River alluvial aquifer are predominantly used for irrigation purposes. Well withdrawals were observed to decrease during wet and cool years as increased precipitation lessens the demand for irrigation (figs. 4, 7). The well withdrawal rate of 1,997 acre-ft/yr for the study period accounted for 0.7 percent of outflows in the total conceptual water budget (fig. 18; table 8).

Lateral Groundwater Flows No data were available to estimate lateral groundwater flows across the boundaries of the eastern part of the Red River alluvial aquifer in Oklahoma. Lateral groundwater flows were assumed to be into the aquifer from Lake Texoma and from flow across the aquifer from west to east as groundwater travels from Oklahoma into Arkansas. It is possible that lateral groundwater flow may occur as an interaction between the underlying minor Woodbine bedrock aquifer but is likely negligible because of the Woodbine aquifer’s comparatively lower estimated hydraulic conductivity value of 0.5 ft/d (Wilkins, 1998). The net lateral groundwater flow of the eastern part of the Red River alluvial aquifer was assumed to be a negligible component of the conceptual-model water budget.

40 Hydrogeologic Framework and Conceptual Model, Red River Alluvial Aquifer, Lake Texoma, Oklahoma, 1980–2022 Table 10. Summary of streambed seepage estimates obtained from streamflow and base flow estimates for streams crossing the Red River alluvial aquifer in southeastern Oklahoma, northeastern Texas, and southwestern Arkansas. [USGS, U.S. Geological Survey; acre-ft/yr, acre-foot per year; BFI, base-flow index; --, not applicable]

Station number or identifier (USGS, 2024; U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 2024) 07331600

Map identifier (fig. 1)

Mean streamflow, 1980–2022 (thousands of acre-ft/yr)

Mean base flow, 1980–2022 (thousands of acre-ft/yr)

S-01

13,832.13

1,560.0

Multiplier

Net streambed seepage, 1980–2022 (acre-ft/yr)

3,832,130

22.00

149,600

07332500

S-02

254.3

174.8

07335300

S-03

1,385.3

1302.5

302,503

16,165.41

20.85

5,240,600

119.5

19,500

30.43

681,593

255,247

07337000

S-06

10,240.7

07332622

S-07

191.1

HGLO2

Hugo Lake

11,585.1

Total

1Value used in net streambed seepage calculation. 2Multiplier determined by estimating percentage of measured stream section overlying the eastern part of the Red River alluvial aquifer or to account for ungaged drainage areas upstream or downstream. 3Multiplier determined by calibrating to nearby BFI value.

Change in Groundwater Storage Annual groundwater-level measurements for the 1980–2022 study period from wells completed within the eastern part of the Red River alluvial aquifer were not available; therefore, it was not possible to estimate net storage change in the aquifer. Net change in groundwater storage was calculated as the difference between the aquifer inflows (recharge) and the aquifer outflows (saturated-zone evapotranspiration, streambed seepage, and well withdrawals) and was used to balance the conceptual-model water budget. Net change in groundwater storage in the eastern part of the Red River alluvial aquifer was estimated to be a net inflow of 3,930 acre-ft/yr or 1.3 percent of the conceptual model inflows (table 8).

Conceptual-Model Water Budget The conceptual-model water budget (fig. 18; table 8) summarizes mean annual inflows to, and outflows from, the eastern part of the Red River alluvial aquifer during 1980–2022. Recharge, estimated from the SWB method, accounts for 98.7 percent of the conceptual-model inflows to the eastern part of the Red River alluvial aquifer. Saturated-zone evapotranspiration accounts for 11.9 percent, and net streambed seepage accounts for 87.4 percent of the outflows for the conceptual model (table 8). The contributions to outflows from saturated zone evaporation and net streambed seepage are essentially the inverse of those for other alluvial aquifers in Oklahoma (Ryter and Correll, 2016; Ellis and others, 2017, 2020; Smith and others, 2017, 2021; Rogers and others, 2023), likely because the part of the study area overlain by wetlands for the eastern part of the Red River alluvial aquifer was much larger compared to most alluvial

aquifers in Oklahoma. In the eastern part of the Red River alluvial aquifer, a total of 232,926 acres, or 58 percent of the study area, is covered by wetlands (fig. 21; table 8), which could cause the higher percentage of saturated-zone evapotranspiration as seen in the conceptual model. Comparatively higher saturated-zone evapotranspiration could also be due to the comparatively warmer and wetter environment of the eastern part of the Red River alluvial aquifer (Kottek and others, 2006), because warmer temperatures allow for more atmospheric evapotranspiration storage and more frequent or abundant precipitation may allow greater availability of groundwater to the plant root zone. Net changes in groundwater storage (1.3 percent), and well withdrawals (0.7 percent) each accounted for less than 5 percent of conceptual water-budget inflows or outflows. The net change in groundwater storage of the eastern part of the Red River alluvial aquifer was assumed to be a small component of the conceptual model and was used to balance the water budget.

Summary The 1973 Oklahoma Groundwater Law (Oklahoma Statutes §82-1020.5) requires that the Oklahoma Water Resources Board conduct hydrologic investigations of the State’s groundwater basins to support a determination of the maximum annual yield for each groundwater basin (hereinafter referred to as an “aquifer”). The maximum annual yield allocated per acre of land is known as the equal-proportionate-share pumping rate. At present (2025), the Oklahoma Water Resources Board has not established a maximum annual yield and equal-proportionate-share

Summary 41 pumping rate for the Red River alluvial aquifer east of Lake Texoma. To provide information to support the evaluation and determination of a maximum annual yield, the U.S. Geological Survey, in cooperation with the Oklahoma Water Resources Board, conducted a hydrologic investigation and evaluated the effects of potential groundwater withdrawals on groundwater availability in the Red River alluvial aquifer east of Lake Texoma. This report describes a hydrologic investigation of the eastern part of the Red River alluvial aquifer east of Lake Texoma in southeastern Oklahoma that includes (1) a description of the aquifer including the definition of a hydrogeologic framework of the aquifer using historical and new data, and (2) the development of a conceptual flow model of the aquifer during the 1980–2022 study period. The geographic scope of the hydrologic investigation is specific to the part of the Red River alluvial aquifer in southeastern Oklahoma between Lake Texoma and the Arkansas and Texas State lines. The eastern part of the Red River alluvial aquifer in southeastern Oklahoma consists of approximately 401,280 acres of Quaternary alluvium and terrace deposits associated with the Red River and major tributaries. Additionally, to address hydrologic influences from surrounding regions, the study area includes segments of the alluvial aquifer in Texas. Although the study area extends into Arkansas and Texas, the report primarily focuses on the aquifer's scope within Oklahoma, referred to in the report as “the eastern part of the Red River alluvial aquifer.” In the study area, the predominant land-cover type is cropland (81.6 percent), with the predominant crop type being winter wheat (54.9 percent). Long-term climate patterns for the period 1916–2023 were analyzed for the study area. The mean annual precipitation and mean annual temperature for the period of record were approximately 46.6 inches per year (in/yr) and 63.3 degrees Fahrenheit, respectively. The mean annual temperature was about 0.3 degrees Fahrenheit lower, and the mean annual precipitation was about 1.3 in/yr higher, for the 1980–2022 study period than for 1916–2023. Daily streamflow data were summarized for three U.S. Geological Survey streamgages in the study area for the 1980–2022 study period. Streamflow data displayed increasing base flow over the period of record for all three sites and an increase in base-flow index for two of the three sites analyzed. The mean annual reported groundwater use was 1,720 acre-feet per year for the 1967–2022 period of record and 1,997 acre-feet per year for the 1980–2022 study period. The predominant category of groundwater use in the study area is irrigation, which was the primary category of use over the entire 1967–2022 period of record. The extent of the eastern part of the Red River alluvial aquifer was updated from previously published extents using data from detailed geologic maps, completed lithologic well log reports, synoptic groundwater-level measurements, and interpretation. The altitude of the base of the eastern part of

the Red River alluvial aquifer was assumed to be equivalent to the altitude of bedrock contacts extrapolated from completed lithologic log reports. The altitude of the base of the eastern part of the Red River alluvial aquifer ranged from 220 to 580 feet. A potentiometric surface for the eastern part of the Red River alluvial aquifer was constructed using synoptic groundwater-level measurements. The potentiometric surface of the eastern part of the Red River alluvial aquifer depicts decreasing potentiometric contours from west to east, with a maximum altitude of 680 ft to a minimum of 240 ft. Using the potentiometric surface map and data from lithologic logs, a saturated thickness map of the aquifer was constructed. Estimated saturated thickness of the eastern part of the Red River alluvial aquifer ranged from a minimum of 0 ft to a maximum of 141.19 ft; the mean was 62.13 ft. Hydraulic and textural properties for the eastern part of the Red River alluvial aquifer were estimated using in-place estimation in test holes, analysis of core material, summary of data in lithologic logs, and a multiwell aquifer test. Horizontal hydraulic conductivity estimated by using the Geoprobe hydraulic profiling tool in test holes ranged from 0.2 to 150 feet per day (ft/d) with a mean value of 62.2 ft/d. The mean horizontal hydraulic conductivity value estimated from one core collected in the study area was 29 ft/d. The horizontal hydraulic conductivity estimated from lithologic logs ranged from approximately 0.02 to 169 ft/d with a mean of 44.5 ft/d. Transmissivity estimated from a multiwell aquifer test was approximately 7,900 square feet per day. Geohydrologic-unit hydraulic conductivity from the multiwell aquifer test was estimated to be 67.49 ft/d and provided a specific yield value of 0.038. A storage coefficient of 0.002 was also estimated from the aquifer test. A conceptual groundwater-flow model of aquifer inflows and outflows was developed for the eastern part of the Red River alluvial aquifer for the 1980–2022 study period. The conceptual-model water budget estimated mean annual inflows to, and outflows from, the eastern part of the Red River alluvial aquifer. Recharge is the predominant inflow to the eastern part of the Red River alluvial aquifer. The mean annual recharge rate to the eastern part of the Red River alluvial aquifer for the period 1980–2022 was estimated to be approximately 8.62 in/yr, or 17.98 percent of the mean annual precipitation for the same period (47.94 in/yr). This 1980–2022 mean annual recharge rate is equivalent to a mean annual recharge rate of approximately 288,250 acre-feet per year for the eastern part of the Red River alluvial aquifer. Recharge estimated using the Soil-Water-Balance code accounts for 98.7 percent of the conceptual-model inflows to the eastern part of the Red River alluvial aquifer. Saturated-zone evapotranspiration accounts for 11.9 percent of the outflows for the conceptual model and net streambed seepage accounts for 87.4 percent.

42 Hydrogeologic Framework and Conceptual Model, Red River Alluvial Aquifer, Lake Texoma, Oklahoma, 1980–2022

References Cited Barlow, P.M., Cunningham, W.L., Zhai, T., and Gray, M., 2015, U.S. Geological Survey Groundwater Toolbox, a graphical and mapping interface for analysis of hydrologic data (version 1.0)—User guide for estimation of base flow, runoff, and groundwater recharge from streamflow data: U.S. Geological Survey Techniques and Methods, book 3, chap. B10, 27 p., accessed December 27, 2023, at https://doi.org/10.3133/tm3B10. Barlow, P.M., and Leake, S.A., 2012, Streamflow depletion by wells—Understanding and managing the effects of groundwater pumping on streamflow: U.S. Geological Survey Circular 1376, 84 p., accessed December 27, 2023, at https://doi.org/10.3133/cir1376. Cleveland, W., 1979, Robust locally weighted regression and smoothing scatterplots: Journal of the American Statistical Association, v. 74, no. 368, p. 829–836, accessed February 26, 2024, at https://doi.org/10.1080/01621459. 1979.10481038. Cunningham, W.L., and Schalk, C.W., comps., 2011, Groundwater technical procedures of the U.S. Geological Survey: U.S. Geological Survey Techniques and Methods, book 1, chap. A1, 151 p., accessed May 11, 2023, at https://doi.org/10.3133/tm1A1. Davis, L.V., 1960, Geology and ground-water resources of southern McCurtain County, Oklahoma: Oklahoma Geological Survey, Bulletin 86, 108 p., accessed February 28, 2024, at http://ogs.ou.edu/docs/bulletins/ B86.pdf. Driscoll, F.G., 1986, Groundwater and wells (2d ed.): St. Paul, Minn., Johnson Filtration Systems, 1,089 p. Duffield, G.M., 2025, Representative values of hydraulic properties: AQTESOLV web page, accessed February 4, 2025, at http://www.aqtesolv.com/pumping-tests/recovery- tests.htm. Ellis, J.H., Mashburn, S.L., Graves, G.M., Peterson, S.M., Smith, S.J., Fuhrig, L.F., Wagner, D.L., and Sanford, J.E., 2017, Hydrogeology and simulation of groundwater flow and analysis of projected water use for the Canadian River alluvial aquifer, western and central Oklahoma: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2016–5180, 64 p., accessed March 11, 2024, at https://doi.org/10.3133/sir20165180.

Ellis, J.H., Ryter, D.W., Fuhrig, L.T., Spears, K.W., Mashburn, S.L., and Rogers, I.M.J., 2020, Hydrogeology, numerical simulation of groundwater flow, and effects of future water use and drought for reach 1 of the Washita River alluvial aquifer, Roger Mills and Custer Counties, western Oklahoma, 1980–2015: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2020–5118, 81 p., accessed March 11, 2024, at https://doi.org/10.3133/sir20205118. Esri, 2024a, Tool reference—Topo to Raster (Spatial Analyst): Esri web page, accessed November 15, 2024, at https://pro. arcgis.com/en/pro-app/latest/tool-reference/spatial-analyst/ topo-to-raster.htm. Esri, 2024b, Tool reference—Fill (Spatial Analyst): Esri web page, accessed November 15, 2024, at https://pro. arcgis.com/en/pro-app/latest/tool-reference/spatial-analyst/ fill.htm. Fay, R.O., 1997, Stratigraphic units in Oklahoma, Texas, Arkansas, and adjacent areas: Oklahoma Geological Survey Open-File Report OF 2–97, 229 p., accessed December 16, 2024, at https://ngmdb.usgs.gov/Prodesc/proddesc_ 98100.htm. Fetkovich, E.J., Morris, A.S., Dale, I.A., Codner, C., Kirby, E.A., Baciocco, C.A., Rogers, I.M.J., Wagner, D.L., Tomlinson, Z.D., and Fiorentino, E.G., 2025, Hydrogeologic investigation, framework, and conceptual flow model of the Antlers aquifer, southeastern Oklahoma, 1980–2022: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2025–5013, 55 p., https://doi.org/ 10.3133/sir20255013. Fetter, A.W., 2001, Applied hydrogeology (4th ed.): Upper Saddle River, N.J., Prentice-Hall, 102 p. Freeze, R.A., and Cherry, J.A., 1979, Groundwater: Englewood Cliffs, N.J., Prentice-Hall, 604 p. Frye, J.C., and Leonard, A.B., 1963, Pleistocene geology of Red River Basin in Texas: Austin, Tex., University of Texas, Bureau of Economic Geology, Report of Investigations No. 49, 48 p., accessed December 4, 2023, at https://doi.org/ 10.23867/RI0049D. Gammill, N.C., Codner, C.E., Dale, I.A., Morris, A.S., Kirby, E.A., Graves, G.M., Fetkovich, E.J., Wagner, D.L., Sanford, J.E., and Baciocco, C.A., 2025, Soil-Water-Balance model of the Red River alluvial aquifer east of Lake Texoma, southeastern Oklahoma, 1980–2022: U.S. Geological Survey data release, https://doi.org/10.5066/P1KUH5DS. Garner, B.D., and Bills, D.J., 2012, Spatial and seasonal variability of base flow in the Verde Valley, central Arizona, 2007 and 2011: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2012–5192, 33 p., accessed December 12, 2023, at https://doi.org/10.3133/sir20125192.

References Cited 43 Geoprobe Systems, 2015, Geoprobe Hydraulic Profiling Tool (HPT) system, standard operating procedure: Salina, Kans., Kejr, Inc., Technical Bulletin MK3137, 22 p., accessed February 29, 2024, at https://geoprobe.com/ literature/hpt-sop. Gordon, C.H., 1911, Geology and underground waters of northeastern Texas: U.S. Geological Survey Water-Supply Paper 276, 78 p., accessed November 25, 2024, at https:// pubs.usgs.gov/wsp/0276/report.pdf. Greenlee, D.D., 1987, Raster and vector processing for scanned linework: Photogrammetric Engineering and Remote Sensing, v. 53, no. 10, p. 1383–1387, accessed May 28, 2024, at https://www.asprs.org/wp-content/uploads/pers/ 1987journal/oct/1987_oct_1383-1387.pdf. Guy, H.P., 1969, Laboratory theory and methods for sediment analysis: Techniques of Water-Resources Investigations of the U.S. Geological Survey, book 5, chap. C1, 59 p., accessed April 16, 2025, at https://pubs.usgs.gov/twri/ twri5c1/pdf/TWRI_5-C1.pdf. Hargreaves, G.H., and Samani, Z.A., 1985, Reference crop evapotranspiration from temperature: Applied Engineering in Agriculture, v. 1, no. 2, p. 96–99, accessed August 3, 2022, at https://doi.org/10.13031/2013.26773. Hart, D.L., Jr., 1965, Ground water in the alluvial deposits of the Washita River between Clinton and Anadarko, Oklahoma: Oklahoma Water Resources Board, Bulletin 26, 25 p., accessed November 25, 2024, at https://www.owrb. ok.gov/studies/reports/reports_pdf/Bulletin%2026_ Ground%20Water%20in%20Alluvial%20Deposits_ Washita.pdf. Healy, R.W., and Cook, P.G., 2002, Using groundwater levels to estimate recharge: Hydrogeology Journal, v. 10, no. 1, p. 91–109, accessed August 3, 2022, at https://doi.org/ 10.1007/s10040-001-0178-0. Hem, J.D., 1985, Study and interpretation of the chemical characteristics of natural water: U.S. Geological Survey Water-Supply Paper 2254, 264 p., accessed October 17, 2024, at https://doi.org/10.3133/wsp2254. Hill, R.T., 1901, Geography and geology of the Black and Grand Prairies, Texas, pt. 7 of Twenty-first annual report of the Director of the United States Geological Survey, 1899–1900: U.S. Geological Survey, 666 p., accessed November 21, 2024, at https://ngmdb.usgs.gov/Prodesc/ proddesc_93154.htm. Horizon Systems Corporation, 2015, National Hydrography Dataset Plus (NHDPlus) version 1: Horizon Systems Corporation website, accessed June 6, 2023, at https://nhdplus.com/NHDPlus/.

Huffman, G.G., Alfonsi, P.P., Dalton, R.C., Duarte-Vivas, A., and Jeffries, E.L., 1975, Geology and mineral resources of Choctaw County, Oklahoma: Oklahoma Geological Survey, Bulletin 120, 39 p., accessed December 5, 2023, at http://www.ogs.ou.edu/pubsscanned/BULLETINS/ Bulletin120mm.pdf. Huffman, G.G., Hart, T.A., Olson, L.J., Currier, J.D., and Robert, W., 1978, Geology and mineral resources of Bryan County, Oklahoma: Oklahoma Geological Survey, Bulletin 126, 105 p., accessed December 5, 2023, at https:// digitalprairie.ok.gov/digital/collection/stgovpub/id/90910/. Hydrosolve, Inc., 2011, Aqtesolv for Windows: Hydrosolve, Inc. website, accessed June 1, 2023, at http://www.aqtesolv. com/. Kent, D.C., 1980, Evaluation of aquifer performance and water supply capabilities of alluvial and terrace deposits of the north fork of the Red River in Beckham, Greer, Kiowa and Jackson Counties, Oklahoma: Stillwater, Okla., Oklahoma State University, administrative report, accessed September 24, 2021, at https://www.owrb.ok.gov/studies/ reports/reports_pdf/RedRiverNFork1980.pdf. Kottek, M., Grieser, J., Beck, C., Rudolf, B., and Rubel, F., 2006, World map of the Köppen-Geiger climate classification updated: Berlin, Meteorologische Zeitschrift, v. 15, no. 3, p. 259–263, accessed March 25, 2024, at https://doi.org/10.1127/0941-2948/2006/0130. Kuniansky, E.L., Jones, S.A., Brock, R.D., and Williams, M.D., 1996, Hydrogeology at Air Force Plant 4 and vicinity and water quality of the Paluxy aquifer, Fort Worth, Texas: U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report 96–4091, 1 p., accessed November 21, 2024, at https://doi.org/10.3133/wri964091. Lubczynski, M.W., 2009, The hydrogeological role of trees in water-limited environments: Hydrogeology Journal, v. 17, no. 1, p. 247–259, accessed December 12, 2023, at https://doi.org/10.1007/s10040-008-0357-3. Mashburn, S.L., Ryter, D.W., Neel, C.R., Smith, S.J., and Correll, J.S., 2014, Hydrogeology and simulation of groundwater flow in the central Oklahoma (Garber-Wellington) aquifer, Oklahoma, 1987 to 2009, and simulation of available water in storage, 2010–2059: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2013–5219, 92 p., accessed June 5, 2020, at https://doi.org/ 10.3133/sir20135219. McCall, W., 2010, Tech guide for calculation of estimated hydraulic conductivity (Est. K) log from HPT data: Salina, Kans., Kejr, Inc., 20 p., accessed August 3, 2022, at https://geoprobe.com/sites/default/files/pdfs/tech_guide_ estk_v5_0_0.pdf.

44 Hydrogeologic Framework and Conceptual Model, Red River Alluvial Aquifer, Lake Texoma, Oklahoma, 1980–2022 Moix, M.W., and Galloway, J.M., 2005, Base flow, water quality, and streamflow gain and loss of the Buffalo River, Arkansas, and selected tributaries, July and August 2003: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2004–5274, 36. p., accessed April 16, 2025, at https://doi.org/10.3133/sir20045274. Multi-Resolution Land Characteristics Consortium, 2023, National Land Cover Database 2021 (NLCD 2021): U.S. Geological Survey database, accessed April 16, 2025, at https://www.mrlc.gov/data. Munsell, A.H., 1912, A pigment color system and notation: American Journal of Psychology, v. 23, no. 2, p. 236–244, accessed November 26, 2024, at https://doi.org/ 10.2307/1412843. National Agricultural Statistics Service, 2024, Research and science, cropland data layers—FAQs: U.S. Department of Agriculture database, accessed November 24, 2024, at https://www.nass.usda.gov/Research_and_Science/ Cropland/sarsfaqs2.php#how. National Atlas of the United States, 2014, Global map— Cities and towns of the United States, 2014: National Atlas of the United States, accessed April 16, 2025, at https:// earthworks.stanford.edu/catalog/stanford-nh933kw1202. National Centers for Environmental Information [NCEI], 2023, Climate data online: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration database, accessed July 24, 2023, at https://ncei.noaa.gov/maps/daily/. Niswonger, R.G., Prudic, D.E., Pohll, G., and Constantz, J., 2005, Incorporating seepage losses into the unsteady streamflow equations for simulating intermittent flow along mountain front streams: Water Resources Research, v. 41, no. 6, p. 1–16, accessed November 15, 2024, at https://doi.org/10.1029/2004WR003677. Oklahoma Climatological Survey, 2024, Normal annual snowfall: Oklahoma Climatological Survey web page, accessed February 26, 2024, at https://climate.ok.gov/ index.php/climate/map/normal_annual_snowfall/ oklahoma_climate. Oklahoma Mesonet, 2023, Daily data retrieval: Oklahoma Climatological Survey database, accessed May 16, 2023, at https://www.mesonet.org/index.php/weather/daily_data_ retireval. Oklahoma State Legislature, 2021a, Definitions, chap. 1020, section 1 of Waters and water rights: Oklahoma Statutes, title 82, accessed October 19, 2021, at https://oksenate.gov/ sites/default/files/2019-12/os82.pdf.

Oklahoma State Legislature, 2021b, Determination of maximum annual yield, chap. 1020, section 5 of Waters and water rights: Oklahoma Statutes, title 82, accessed October 19, 2021, at https://oksenate.gov/sites/default/files/ 2019-12/os82.pdf. Oklahoma State Legislature, 2021c, Domestic use—Spacing of wells and waste, chap. 1020, section 3 of Waters and water rights: Oklahoma Statutes, title 82, accessed October 19, 2021, at https://oksenate.gov/sites/default/files/ 2019-12/os82.pdf. Oklahoma Water Resources Board [OWRB], 2012a, Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan 2012 update—Upper Arkansas Watershed Planning Region report: Oklahoma Water Resources Board, 121 p., accessed August 4, 2022, at https://oklahoma.gov/content/dam/ok/en/owrb/documents/ water-planning/ocwp/upper-arkansas-planning-region- report.pdf. Oklahoma Water Resources Board [OWRB], 2012b, Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan—Blue-Boggy Watershed Planning Region report: Oklahoma Water Resources Board, 115 p., accessed April 16, 2025, at https://oklahoma.gov/content/dam/ok/en/owrb/documents/ water-planning/ocwp/blue-boggy-planning-region- report.pdf. Oklahoma Water Resources Board [OWRB], 2012c, Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan—Executive report (updated 2012): Oklahoma Water Resources Board, 151 p., accessed April 16, 2025, at https://oklahoma.gov/ content/dam/ok/en/owrb/documents/water-planning/ocwp/ OCWPExecutiveRpt.pdf. Oklahoma Water Resources Board [OWRB], 2012d, Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan—Southeast Watershed Planning Region report: Oklahoma Water Resources Board, 101 p., accessed April 16, 2025, at https://oklahoma.gov/content/dam/ok/en/owrb/documents/ water-planning/ocwp/southeast-planning-region-report.pdf. Oklahoma Water Resources Board [OWRB], 2015, Produced water reuse in Oklahoma—Regulatory considerations and references: Oklahoma Water Resources Board, 50 p., accessed April 16, 2025, at https://oklahoma.gov/content/ dam/ok/en/owrb/documents/water-planning/pwwg/GWPC- Ok-Produced-Water-Project-Summary-Report.pdf. Oklahoma Water Resources Board [OWRB], 2018, 2018 Oklahoma groundwater report—Beneficial Use Monitoring Program: Oklahoma Water Resources Board, 84 p., accessed April 16, 2025, at https://oklahoma.gov/ content/dam/ok/en/owrb/documents/maps-and-data/water- monitoring/oklahoma-groundwater-monitoring-report.pdf.

References Cited 45 Oklahoma Water Resources Board [OWRB], 2023, Groundwater: Oklahoma Water Resources Board web page (including data and maps), accessed September 8, 2023, at https://www.owrb.ok.gov/maps/pmg/owrbdata_GW.html. Oklahoma Water Resources Board [OWRB], 2024a, Maximum annual yield determinations: Oklahoma Water Resources Board Fact Sheet, 1 p., accessed February 23, 2024, at https://oklahoma.gov/content/dam/ok/en/owrb/ documents/science-and-research/hydrologic-investigations/ maximum-annual-yield-determinations-fact-sheet.pdf. Oklahoma Water Resources Board [OWRB], 2024b, OWRB open data—Permitted wells & dedicated lands: Oklahoma Water Resources Board database, accessed March 6, 2024, at https://oklahoma.gov/owrb/data-and-maps/gis-data.html. Paizis, N.C., and Trevisan, A.R., 2021, Cimarron River alluvial aquifer hydrogeologic framework, water budget, and implications for future water availability in the Pawnee Nation Tribal jurisdictional area, Payne County, Oklahoma, 2016–18: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2021–5073, 49 p., accessed October 17, 2024, at https://doi.org/10.3133/sir20215073. Piper, A.M., 1944, A graphic procedure in the geochemical interpretation of water-analyses: American Geophysical Union Transactions, v. 25, p. 914–923, accessed April 16, 2025, at https://doi.org/10.1029/TR025i006p00914. Rantz, S.E., 1982, Measurement and computation of streamflow—Volume 1. Measurement of stage and discharge: U.S. Geological Survey Water-Supply Paper 2175, 284 p., accessed June 8, 2023, at https://doi.org/ 10.3133/wsp2175. Rogers, I.M.J., Smith, S.J., Gammill, N.C., Gillard, N.J., Lockmiller, K.A., Fetkovich, E.J., Correll, J.S., and Hussey, S.P., 2023, Hydrogeology and simulated groundwater availability in reaches 3 and 4 of the Washita River aquifer, southern Oklahoma, 1980–2017: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2023–5072, 83 p., accessed March 15, 2024, at https://doi.org/10.3133/sir20235072. Ryder, P.D., 1996, Groundwater atlas of the United States— Segment 4, Oklahoma, Texas: U.S. Geological Survey Hydrologic Investigations Atlas 730–E, 30 p., accessed November 21, 2024, at https://doi.org/10.3133/ha730E. Ryter, D.W., and Correll, J.S., 2016, Hydrogeological framework, numerical simulation of groundwater flow, and effects of projected water use and drought for the Beaver-North Canadian River alluvial aquifer, northwestern Oklahoma (ver.1.1, February 2016): U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2015–5183, 63 p., accessed March 15, 2024, at https://doi.org/10.3133/sir20155183.

Smith, S.J., Ellis, J.H., Paizis, N.C., Becker, C.J., Wagner, D.L., Correll, J.S., and Hernandez, R.J., 2021, Hydrogeology and model-simulated groundwater availability in the Salt Fork Red River aquifer, southwestern Oklahoma, 1980–2015: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2021–5003, 85 p., accessed March 15, 2024, at https://doi.org/10.3133/sir20215003. Smith, S.J., Ellis, J.H., Wagner, D.L., and Peterson, S.M., 2017, Hydrogeology and simulated groundwater flow and availability in the North Fork Red River aquifer, southwest Oklahoma, 1980–2013: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2017–5098, 107 p., accessed March 15, 2024, at https://doi.org/10.3133/sir20175098. Stoeser, D.B., Green, G.N., Morath, L.C., Heran, W.D., Wilson, A.B., Moore, D.W., and Van Gosen, B.S., 2005, Preliminary integrated geologic map databases for the United States—Central States—Montana, Wyoming, Colorado, New Mexico, North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, Kansas, Oklahoma, Texas, Iowa, Missouri, Arkansas, and Louisiana: U.S. Geological Survey OpenFile Report 2005–1351, accessed March 11, 2024, at https://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2005/1351/. Tartakovsky, G.D., and Neuman, S.P., 2007, Three-dimensional saturated-unsaturated flow with axial symmetry to a partially penetrating well in a compressible unconfined aquifer: Water Resources Research, v. 43, no. 1, W01410, accessed November 14, 2024, at https://doi.org/ 10.1029/2006WR005153. Texas Water Development Board [TWDB], 2023, Groundwater database reports and downloads: Texas Water Development Board database, accessed September 21, 2023, at https://www.twdb.texas.gov/groundwater/data/ gwdbrpt.asp. Thompson, G.L., 1972, Groundwater resources of Navarro County, Texas: Texas Water Development Board Report 160, 63 p., accessed November 25, 2024, at https://www. twdb.texas.gov/publications/reports/numbered_reports/doc/ R160/R160.pdf. Thornthwaite, C.W., and Mather, J.R., 1957, Instructions and tables for computing potential evapotranspiration and the water balance—Centerton, N.J., Drexel Institute of Technology, Laboratory of Climatology: Publications in Climatology, v. 10, no. 3, p. 185–311, accessed November 14, 2024, at https://www.wrc.udel.edu/ wp-content/publications/ThornthwaiteandMather 1957Instructions_Tables_ComputingPotential Evapotranspiration_Water%20Balance.pdf.

46 Hydrogeologic Framework and Conceptual Model, Red River Alluvial Aquifer, Lake Texoma, Oklahoma, 1980–2022 Thornton, M.M., Shrestha, R., Wei, Y., Thornton, P.E., Kao, S., and Wilson, B.E., 2020, Daymet—Daily surface weather data on a 1-km grid for North America, version 4: Oak Ridge, Tenn., Oak Ridge National Laboratory Distributed Active Archive Center database, accessed February 23, 2024, at https://doi.org/10.3334/ORNLDAAC/1840. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 2024, HGLO2—Hugo Lake: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers web page, accessed March 29, 2024, at https://www.swt-wc.usace.army.mil/ HUGO.lakepage.html. U.S. Department of Agriculture [USDA], 2021, Gridded Soil Survey Geographic (GSSURGO) database for the conterminous United States: Natural Resources Conservation Service database, accessed December 15, 2023, at https://gdg.sc.egov.usda.gov/. U.S. Department of Agriculture [USDA], 2023, National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS), 20240131, Cropland data layer: Washington, D.C., USDA NASS Marketing and Information Services Office, accessed April 16, 2025, at https://croplandcros.scinet.usda.gov/. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2017, Drinking water regulations and contaminants: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency web page, accessed April 16, 2025, at https://www.epa.gov/sdwa/drinking-water-regulations-and- contaminants. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2023, National Wetlands Inventory—Download seamless wetlands data by State: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service database, accessed April 4, 2024, at https://www.fws.gov/program/national-wetlands- inventory/download-state-wetlands-data. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2024, Wetlands data limitations, exclusions and precautions: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service web page, accessed November 21, 2024, at https://www.fws.gov/node/264582. U.S. Geological Survey [USGS], 2015, National Elevation Dataset (NED) 1/3 arc-second DEM: U.S. Geological Survey database, accessed April 27, 2023, at https://apps. nationalmap.gov/downloader/#/10/34.77438352431586/ -97.66967773437258/usgs_topo/elevation-products- three-dep/. U.S. Geological Survey [USGS], 2024, USGS water data for Oklahoma in USGS water data for the Nation: U.S. Geological Survey National Water Information System database, accessed December 15, 2023, at https://waterdata. usgs.gov/nwis. [State water data directly accessible at https://waterdata.usgs.gov/ok/nwis.]

Wahl, K.L., and Wahl, T.L., 1995, Determining the flow of Comal Springs at New Braunfels, Texas, in Texas Water ‘95—A Component Conference of the First International Conference on Water Resources Engineering, San Antonio, Texas, August 16–17, 1995, [Proceedings]: American Society of Civil Engineers, p. 77–86, accessed October 17, 2024, at https://www.usbr.gov/tsc/techreferences/ hydraulics_lab/pubs/PAP/PAP-0708.pdf. Wentworth, C.K., 1922, A scale of grade and class terms for clastic sediments: The Journal of Geology, v. 30, no. 5, p. 377–392, accessed April 16, 2025, at https://doi.org/ 10.1086/622910. Westenbroek, S.M., Kelson, V.A., Dripps, W.R., Hunt, R.J., and Bradbury, K.R., 2010, SWB—A modified Thornthwaite-Mather Soil-Water-Balance code for estimating groundwater recharge: U.S. Geological Survey Techniques and Methods, book 6, chap. A31, 60 p., accessed June 6, 2023, at https://doi.org/10.3133/tm6A31. White, W.N., 1932, A method of estimating ground-water supplies based on discharge by plants and evaporation from soil—Results of investigations in Escalante Valley, Utah: U.S. Geological Survey Water-Supply Paper 659–A, 105 p., accessed February 22, 2024, at https://doi.org/ 10.3133/wsp659A. Wilkins, K., 1998, Hydrologic report of the Woodbine, Marietta, and Texoma minor bedrock groundwater basins and the Haworth terrace and Little River alluvial and terrace minor groundwater basins: Oklahoma Water Resources Board Planning & Management Division Technical Report 99–2, 26 p., accessed July 25, 2024, at https://oklahoma. gov/content/dam/ok/en/owrb/documents/science-and- research/hydrologic-investigations/woodbine-marietta- texoma-1999.pdf. Winter, T.C., 1995, Recent advances in understanding the interaction of groundwater and surface water: Reviews of Geophysics, v. 33, no. S2, p. 985–994, accessed March 29, 2024, at https://doi.org/10.1029/95RG00115. Young, K., 1965, A revision of Taylor nomenclature, Upper Cretaceous, central Texas: Austin, Tex., University of Texas, Bureau of Economic Geology Geological Circular, no. 65–3, 10 p., accessed November 25, 2024, at https:// ngmdb.usgs.gov/Geolex/UnitRefs/TaylorRefs_6230.html.

For more information about this publication, contact Director, Oklahoma-Texas Water Science Center U.S. Geological Survey 1505 Ferguson Lane Austin, TX 78754–4501 For additional information, visit https://www.usgs.gov/centers/ot-water Publishing support provided by Lafayette Publishing Service Center

Codner and others—Hydrogeologic Framework and Conceptual Model, Red River Alluvial Aquifer, Lake Texoma, Oklahoma, 1980–2022—SIR 2025–5054

ISSN 2328-0328 (online) https://doi.org/10.3133/sir20255054

Hydrogeologic Framework and Conceptual Model of the Red River Alluvial Aquifer East of Lake Texoma, Southeastern Oklahoma, 1980–2022

Related documents