Groundwater Flow
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Chapter C: Groundwater Flow By Donald S. Sweetkind, Melissa D. Masbruch, Victor M. Heilweil, and Susan G. Buto Chapter C of Conceptual Model of the Great Basin Carbonate and Alluvial Aquifer System Edited by Victor M. Heilweil and Lynette E. Brooks Scientific Investigations Report 2010–5193 U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey U.S. Department of the Interior KEN SALAZAR, Secretary U.S. Geological Survey Marcia K. McNutt, Director U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia: 2011 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 http://www.usgs.gov or call 1-888-ASK-USGS For an overview of USGS information products, including maps, imagery, and publications, visit http://www.usgs.gov/pubprod To order this and other USGS information products, visit http://store.usgs.gov Any use of trade, product, or firm names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the U.S. Government. Although this report is in the public domain, permission must be secured from the individual copyright owners to reproduce any copyrighted materials contained within this report. Suggested citation: Heilweil, V.M., and Brooks, L.E., eds., 2011, Conceptual model of the Great Basin carbonate and alluvial aquifer system: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2010-5193, 188 p. iii Contents Hydrographic Areas and Regional Groundwater Flow Systems ......................................................... 1 Groundwater Movement ............................................................................................................................. 2 Potentiometric-Surface Map ............................................................................................................. 3 Data and Construction of Potentiometric-Surface Map ...................................................... 4 Analysis of Potentiometric-Surface Map ............................................................................... 6 Geologic Controls Affecting Groundwater Flow ..................................................................................... 7 Structural Belts, Transverse Zones, and Mineral Belts ................................................................ 8 Calderas ................................................................................................................................................ 9 Extension .............................................................................................................................................. 9 Faults as Hydrogeologic Features .................................................................................................. 10 Aquifer Storage Volumes ................................................................................................................. 11 Likelihood of Hydraulic Connection Across Hydrographic Area Boundaries ......................... 14 Limitations .................................................................................................................................................... 17 Summary ...................................................................................................................................................... 17 References Cited ........................................................................................................................................ 18 Figures C–1 Schematic diagram showing conceptualized groundwater flow in the Great Basin carbonate and alluvial aquifer system study area .......................................... 3 C–2 Cross section showing the modeled hydrogeologic framework, potentiometric surface, and likelihood of hydraulic connections across hydrographic area boundaries and groundwater-flow systems in the Great Basin carbonate and alluvial aquifer system study area .................................................................................... 6 C–3 Schematic diagram showing conceptualized juxtaposition of hydrogeologic units (HGUs) by different types of structures ......................................................................... 8 C–4 Estimated volume of water stored within Cenozoic hydrogeologic units in the 17 groundwater-flow systems of the Great Basin carbonate and alluvial aquifer system study area ....................................................................................................... 14 Tables C–1 Previously reported estimates of specific yield for Cenozoic hydrogeologic units within the Great Basin carbonate and alluvial aquifer system study area ...........12 C–2 Likelihood of hydraulic connection across hydrographic area boundaries within the Great Basin carbonate and alluvial aquifer system study area ......................15 iv Conversion Factors Inch/Pound to SI Multiply By 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) square mile (mi2) 2.590 square kilometer (km2) Volume gallon (gal) 3.785 liter (L) gallon (gal) 0.003785 cubic meter (m3) gallon (gal) 3.785 cubic decimeter (dm3) cubic foot (ft3) 28.32 cubic decimeter (dm3) cubic foot (ft3) 0.02832 cubic meter (m3) acre-foot (acre-ft) 1,233 cubic meter (m3) acre-foot (acre-ft) 0.001233 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) foot per year (ft/yr) 0.3048 meter per year (m/yr) cubic foot per second (ft3/s) 0.02832 cubic meter per second (m3/s) cubic foot per day (ft3/d) 0.02832 cubic meter per day (m3/d) gallon per minute (gal/min) 0.06309 liter per second (L/s) Hydraulic conductivity foot per day (ft/d) 0.3048 meter per day (m/d) inch per day (in./d) 25.38 millimeter per day (mm/d) Transmissivity* foot squared per day (ft2/d) 0.09290 meter squared per day (m2/d) Note: The conversion factors given above are for the entire report. Not all listed conversion factors will be in any given chapter of this report. Temperature in degrees Celsius (°C) may be converted to degrees Fahrenheit (°F) as follows: °F=(1.8×°C)+32 Temperature in degrees Fahrenheit (°F) may be converted to degrees Celsius (°C) as follows: °C=(°F-32)/1.8 Temperature in kelvin (K) may be converted to degrees Fahrenheit (°F) as follows: °F=1.8K-459.67 Temperature in kelvin (K) may be converted to degrees Celsius (°C) as follows: °C=K-273.15 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. *Transmissivity: The standard unit for transmissivity is cubic foot per day per square foot times foot of aquifer thickness [(ft3/d)/ft2]ft. In this report, the mathematically reduced form, foot squared per day (ft2/d), is used for convenience. Chapter C: Groundwater Flow By Donald S. Sweetkind, Melissa D. Masbruch, Victor M. Heilweil, Susan G. Buto The Great Basin carbonate and alluvial aquifer system 2. Death Valley (HA 243 in the current study) is extended (GBCAAS) study area includes a vast climatologically and slightly to the southwest from the original RASA boundary geologically diverse part of the western United States. This to match the Death Valley regional flow system (DVRFS) chapter further develops the conceptual understanding of study area boundary (Belcher, 2004); it is divided into two groundwater flow in the GBCAAS by (1) subdividing the valleys by Cardinalli and others (1968): Grapevine Canyon study area into smaller regions of hydrographic areas (HAs) (HA 231) and Oriental Wash (HA 232). and groundwater flow systems, (2) presenting a regional 3. Beryl-Enterprise Area (HA 280) is referred to by Cardinalli potentiometric-surface map that can be used to determine and others (1968) as the Escalante Desert (HA 197). generalized groundwater flow directions, (3) integrating 4. Tenmile Creek Area (HA 48 in the current study) is re- geologic constraints along the boundaries of the HAs in ferred to by Cardinalli and others (1968) as Dixie Creek- the regional potentiometric-surface map, and (4) further Tenmile Creek area (HA 48). interpreting geologic controls on the flow of groundwater. 5. Great Salt Lake Desert West Part (HA 261A in the current Because of the large size of the study area and sparsity of study) is referred to by Cardinalli and others (1968) as water-level data in many areas, the potentiometric-surface map Great Salt Lake Desert (HA 192). depicts a simplified representation of groundwater conditions best suited for evaluating groundwater flow in a regional 6. Pilot Valley (HA 252 in the current study) is included by context. Cardinalli and others (1968) as part of the Great Salt Lake Desert (HA 192). 7. Grouse Creek Valley (HA 251 in the current study) is re- Hydrographic Areas and Regional ferred to by Cardinalli and others (1968) as Grouse Creek Valley (HA 190) and has a significantly different south- Groundwater Flow Systems western boundary. The GBCAAS study area comprises 165 individual HAs 8. Deep Creek Valley (HA 253 in the current study) is (pl. 1). HAs in Nevada were delineated systematically by referred to by Cardinalli and others (1968) as Deep Creek the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) and Nevada Division of Valley (HA 193). Water Resources (NDWR)