DOCSLIB.ORG

Bedrock Hydrogeology – Groundwater Flow Modelling – Site Investigation

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Bedrock Hydrogeology – Groundwater Flow Modelling – Site Investigation R-11-10 Bedrock Hydrogeology – Groundwater flow modelling Site investigation SFR Johan Öhman, Geosigma AB Sven Follin, SF GeoLogic AB Magnus Odén, SKB May 2013 Svensk Kärnbränslehantering AB Swedish Nuclear Fuel and Waste Management Co Box 250, SE-101 24 Stockholm Phone +46 8 459 84 00 ISSN 1402-3091 Tänd ett lager: SKB R-11-10 P, R eller TR. ID 1288394 Bedrock Hydrogeology – Groundwater flow modelling Site investigation SFR Johan Öhman, Geosigma AB Sven Follin, SF GeoLogic AB Magnus Odén, SKB May 2013 Keywords: Kravdatabas SFR-utbyggnad (N2-273). A pdf version of this document can be downloaded from www.skb.se. Abstract The hydrogeological model developed for the SFR extension project (PSU) consists of 40 geologically modelled deformation zones (DZ) and 8 sub-horizontal structural-hydraulic features, called SBA- structures, not defined in the geological model. However, some of the SBA-structures coincide with what is defined as unresolved possible deformation zones (Unresolved PDZ) in the geological model- ling. In addition, the hydrogeological model consists of a stochastic discrete fracture network (DFN) model intended for the less fractured rock mass volumes (fracture domains) between the zones and the SBA-structures, and a stochastic fracture model intended to handle remaining Unresolved PDZs in the geological modelling not modelled as SBA-structures in the hydrogeological modelling. The four structural components of the bedrock in the hydrogeological model, i.e. DZ, SBA, Unresolved PDZ and DFN, are assigned hydraulic properties in the hydrogeological model based on the transmissivities interpreted from single-hole hydraulic tests. The main objective of the present work is to present the characteristics of the hydrogeological model with regard to the needs of the forthcoming safety assessment SR-PSU. In concrete words, simulated data are compared with measured data, i.e. hydraulic heads in boreholes and tunnel inflow to the existing repository (SFR). The calculations suggest that the available data for flow model calibration cannot be used to motivate a substantial adjustment of the initial hydraulic parameterisation (assignment of hydraulic properties) of the hydrogeological model. It is suggested that uncertainties in the hydrogeological model are studied in the safety assessment SR-PSU by means of a large number of calculation cases. These should address hydraulic heterogeneity of deterministic structures (DZ and SBA) and realisations of stochastic fractures/fracture networks (Unresolved PDZ and DFN) within the entire SFR Regional model domain. SKB R-11-10 3 Sammanfattning En hydrogeologisk modell har tagits fram inom Projektet SFR Utbyggnad (PSU). Modellen består av 40 geologiskt modellerade deformationszoner (DZ), samt 8 subhorisontella strukturer, så kallade SBA-strukturer (Eng. Shallow Bedrock Aquifer structures), vilka inte ingår i den geologiska modellen. Några av SBA strukturerna sammanfaller emellertid med det som kallas för PDZ-intervall i den geologiska modellen (Eng. Unresolved Possible Deformation Zones). Vidare består den hydro- geologiska modellen av en stokastisk spricknätverksmodell (Eng. Discrete Fracture Network model; DFN), som är avsedd för att beskriva/modellera grundvattenflödet i berg massan mellan deformation- szoner och SBA-strukturer, samt en stokastisk sprickmodell för att hantera de PDZ-intervall som inte modelleras som SBA-strukturer. De fyra byggstenarna för att beskriva/modellera bergets egenskaper, dvs DZ, SBA, Unresolved PDZ och DFN, har i den hydro geologiska modellen tilldelats hydrauliska egenskaper baserat på de transmissivitetsdata som tolkats från hydrotester. Huvudsyftet med föreliggande rapport är att redovisa den hydrogeologiska modellens egenskaper med tanke på behoven i den kommande säkerhetsredovisningen SR-PSU. Resultat från olika flödesmodellberäkningar jämförs i denna rapport med uppmätta grundvattennivåer i borrhål och tunnelinflöden till befintligt förvar (SFR). Beräkningarna visar att befintliga mätdata för modellkalibrering inte kan åberopas för en justering av den hydrogeologiska modellens initiala parameterisering (tilldelning av hydrauliska egenskaper). För att hantera osäkerheter av strukturell-hydraulisk karaktär i den kommande säkerhetsanalysen SR-PSU föreslås därför att ett stort antal beräkningsfall studeras i syfte att identifiera tänkbara ytterlighetsfall. Beräkningsfallen bör studera hydraulisk heterogenitet hos determiniskt modellerade strukturer (DZ och SBA) samt realiseringar av stokastiska sprickor/spricknätverk (Unresolved PDZ och DFN) inom SFR:s regionaldomän. 4 SKB R-11-10 Contents 1 Introduction 7 1.1 Context 7 1.2 Scope of SDM-PSU and role the hydrogeological model 8 1.3 Objectives and strategy 8 1.4 Scales and volumes 8 1.5 Data used 10 1.6 Modelling tools 11 1.6.1 FracMan 11 1.6.2 DarcyTools 12 1.7 This report 12 1.7.1 Nomenclature 12 2 Methodology and assumptions made 15 2.1 Geology 15 2.2 Systems approach 15 2.3 Approach 16 2.3.1 Model Exercises investigating model performance 17 2.3.2 Transient simulation of interference tests 17 2.4 Alternative parameterisation methods 18 2.4.1 Tunnel inflow calibration 18 2.4.2 Borehole data parameterisation 18 2.5 Skin factor 19 2.6 Groundwater levels, heads and uniform-density flow 20 2.7 Overview of constraining head and inflow data 20 2.7.1 Measured head and evolution over time 21 2.7.2 Measured inflow over time 21 2.8 Hypotheses on transient coupled decreasing inflow and head 23 2.8.1 Estimation of initial inflow 24 3 Parameterisation of hydraulic model domains 25 3.1 Hydraulic Soil Domain (HSD) 25 3.1.1 HSD implementation in DarcyTools 26 3.2 Hydraulic Conductor Domain (HCD) 28 3.2.1 Merging the geological models for Forsmark-Lens and Forsmark-SFR 28 3.2.2 Data-based HCD parameterisation 28 3.2.3 HCD depth trend 29 3.2.4 Depth trend in ZFM871 32 3.2.5 Local borehole conditioning 32 3.3 Hydraulic Rock mass Domain (HRD) 34 3.3.1 Average HRD conductivity, KCPM 34 3.3.2 Upscaled HRD conductivity, KECPM 35 3.3.3 Hydro-DFN inside the SFR Regional domain 35 3.3.4 Hydro-DFN outside the SFR Regional domain 37 3.4 Specifically modelled structures 38 3.4.1 Sheet joints in the Forsmark lens 39 3.4.2 Truncation of the sheet joint structures 39 3.4.3 SBA (Shallow Bedrock Aquifer) structures in the SFR Regional domain 40 3.4.4 Unresolved Possible Deformation Zones 41 4 Numerical model setup in DarcyTools 45 4.1 Boundary conditions of the flow model domain 45 4.1.1 Vertical boundaries 45 4.1.2 Bottom boundary 45 4.1.3 Tunnels 45 4.2 Discretisation in DarcyTools 46 SKB R-11-10 5 4.3 Orientation of computational mesh in DarcyTools 46 4.4 Implementation of constraining data in DarcyTools 47 4.4.1 Spatial differentiation of tunnel inflow 48 4.4.2 Evaluation of simulated head 49 5 Model Exercises 51 5.1 M0: Average HRD conductivity (no HCD, HSD, or skin) 54 5.1.1 Observations 55 5.2 M1: HRD anisotropy (no HCD or skin) 56 5.2.1 Observations 57 5.3 M2: Anisotropy with HCD (no skin) 57 5.3.1 Observations 58 5.4 M3: Conditioning HCD and introducing skin 58 5.5 M4: Significance of SBAs for existing SFR 60 5.5.1 Observations 60 5.6 M5: Various modifications of M4b 60 5.6.1 Observations 60 5.7 M6: Optimisation of main flow paths 61 5.7.1 Outcome 63 5.8 M7: Stochastic SBA-structures in areas outside borehole coverage 64 5.9 Simulating initial tunnel inflow 64 6 Interference tests 67 6.1 Context and objectives 67 6.1.1 Hydraulic response measures 68 6.2 Presentation of data 68 6.2.1 Initial state 69 6.2.2 The HFR101 interference test 69 6.2.3 The KFR105 interference test 73 6.2.4 Data noise filtering 77 6.2.5 Structural inference 77 6.3 Model setup in FracMan 80 6.3.1 Modelled structures 81 6.3.2 Boundary conditions and parameterisation 83 6.3.3 Modifications to structure parameterisation 84 6.3.4 Simulated transient head decrease 85 6.4 Simulations 86 6.4.1 Initial state 86 6.4.2 The HFR101 test 87 6.4.3 The KFR105 test 89 6.5 Results 91 6.5.1 The HFR101 test 92 6.5.2 The KFR105 test 94 7 Flow for two different flow regimes 97 7.1 Model setup 98 7.2 Unsaturated conditions 98 7.3 Saturated conditions 103 8 Summary and conclusions 107 8.1 Model Exercises M0 to M7 107 8.2 Interference-test simulations 109 8.3 Recharge and discharge areas for two different flow regimes 109 8.4 Concluding remarks 110 References 111 Appendix A Revised transmissivity evaluation of HCD intercepts 113 Appendix B Stochastic representation of SBA-structures 123 Appendix C Presentation of Model Exercise results, M0 to M7 133 Appendix D Geometric input for DarcyTools model setups 163 6 SKB R-11-10 1 Introduction 1.1 Context The first stage of the underground facility SFR (final repository for low and intermediate level radioactive operational waste) was constructed and taken into operation in 1987. During 2008, SKB (the Swedish Nuclear Fuel and Waste Management Company) initiated an investigation programme for a future exten- sion of the existing SFR. The project managing the activities associated with extension of SFR is referred to as PSU. The extension of SFR is necessitated by the pending decommissioning of the closed nuclear reactors Barsebäck, Studsvik, and Ågesta, the additional amounts of operational waste associated with the extended operating time of the remaining nuclear power plants, as well as the future decommission of running nuclear power plants Oskarshamn, Forsmark, and Ringhals (SKB 2008). The overall purpose of the recent site investigation is to develop a Site Descriptive Model (SDM-PSU) for the bedrock volume hosting both the existing SFR as well as the planned extension (Figure 1-1).
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Study of Morphotectonics and Hydrogeology for Groundwater
    STUDY OF MORPHOTECTONICS AND HYDROGEOLOGY FOR GROUNDWATER PROSPECTING USING REMOTE SENSING AND GIS IN THE NORTH WEST HIMALAYA, DISTRICT SIRMOUR, HIMACHAL PRADESH, INDIA Thapa, R1, Kumar Ravindra2and Sood, R.K1 1Remote Sensing Centre, Science Technology & Environment, 34-SDA Complex, Kasumpti, Shimla, Himachal Pradesh, India 171 009 India - [email protected], [email protected] 2Centre of Advanced Study in Geology,Panjab University Chandigarh,160 014 India - [email protected]. KEY WORDS: Satellite Imageries, Neo-Tectonics,GPS, Hydrogeology, Morphometric Analysis, Weightage, GIS, Ground Water Potential. ABSTRACT: The study of aerial photographs, satellite images topographic maps supported by ground truth survey reveals that the study area has a network of interlinked subsurface fractures. The features of neo-tectonic activities in the form of faults and lineaments has a definite control on the alignment of many rivers and their tributaries. Geology and Morphotectonics describes the regional geology and its correlation with major and minor geological structures. The study of slopes, aspects, drainage network represents the hydrogeology and helps in categorization of the land forms into different hydro-geomorphological classes representing the relationship of the geological structures vis-à-vis the ground water occurrence. Data integration and ground water potential describes the designing of data base for ground water analysis in GIS platform and the use of hydro-geomorphological models based on satellite imageries
    [Show full text]
  • Paleoclimatic Implications of the Spatial Patterns of Modern and LGM European Land-Snail Shell Δ18o
    ARTICLE IN PRESS YQRES-03085; No. of pages: 11; 4C: Quaternary Research xxx (2010) xxx–xxx Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Quaternary Research journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/yqres Paleoclimatic implications of the spatial patterns of modern and LGM European land-snail shell δ18O Natalie M. Kehrwald a,⁎, William D. McCoy b, Jeanne Thibeault c, Stephen J. Burns b, Eric A. Oches d a University of Venice, IDPA-CNR, Calle Larga S. Marta 2137, I-30123 Venice, Italy b Department of Geosciences, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, MA 01003, USA c Department of Geography, University of Connecticut, Storrs, CT 06269, USA d Department of Natural and Applied Sciences, Bentley University, Waltham, MA 02452, USA article info abstract Article history: The oxygen isotopic composition of land-snail shells may provide insight into the source region and Received 27 March 2009 trajectory of precipitation. Last glacial maximum (LGM) gastropod shells were sampled from loess from Available online xxxx 18 Belgium to Serbia and modern land-snail shells both record δ O values between 0‰ and −5‰. There are significant differences in mean fossil shell δ18O between sites but not among genera at a single location. Keywords: Therefore, we group δ18O values from different genera together to map the spatial distribution of δ18Oin Land snails shell carbonate. Shell 18O values reflect the spatial variation in the isotopic composition of precipitation and Oxygen isotopes δ 18 LGM incorporate the snails' preferential sampling of precipitation during the warm season. Modern shell δ O Climate decreases in Europe along a N–S gradient from the North Sea inland toward the Alps.
    [Show full text]
  • Magnetotelluric Data Collected to Characterize Aquifers in the San Luis Basin, New Mexico
    Magnetotelluric Data Collected to Characterize Aquifers in the San Luis Basin, New Mexico By Chad E. Ailes and Brian D. Rodriguez Open-File Report 2014–1248 U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey U.S. Department of the Interior SALLY JEWELL, Secretary U.S. Geological Survey Suzette M. Kimball, Acting Director U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia: 2015 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 Suggested citation: Ailes, C.E., and Rodriguez, B.D., 2015, Magnetotelluric data collected to characterize aquifers in the San Luis Basin, New Mexico: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2014–1248, 9 p., http://dx.doi.org/10.3133/ofr20141248. 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. ISSN 2331-1258 (online) ii Contents Abstract ........................................................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Reinhard Kirsch Groundwater Geophysics a Tool for Hydrogeology
    Reinhard Kirsch Groundwater Geophysics A Tool for Hydrogeology Reinhard Kirsch Groundwater Geophysics A Tool for Hydrogeology With 300 Figures EDITOR DR. REINHARD KIRSCH LANDESAMT FÜR NATUR UND UMWELT DES LANDES SCHLESWIG-HOLSTEIN HAMBURGER CHAUSSEE 25 24220 FLINTBEK GERMANY E-mail: [email protected] ISBN 10 3-540-29383-3 Springer Berlin Heidelberg New York ISBN 13 978-3-540-29383-5 Springer Berlin Heidelberg New York Library of Congress Control Number: 2005938216 This work is subject to copyright. All rights are reserved, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broad- casting, reproduction on microfilm or in any other way, and storage in data banks. Duplication of this publication or parts thereof is permitted only under the provisions of the German Copyright Law of September 9, 1965, in its current version, and permission for use must always be obtained from Springer-Verlag. Violations are liable to prosecution under the German Copyright Law. Springer is a part of Springer Science+Business Media springeronline.com © Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2006 Printed in Germany The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, etc. in this publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant pro- tective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use. Cover design: E. Kirchner, Heidelberg Production: A. Oelschläger Typesetting: Camera-ready by the Editor Printed on acid-free paper 30/2132/AO 543210 V Groundwater Geophysics – a Tool for Hydrogeology Access to clean water is a human right and a basic requirement for eco- nomic development.
    [Show full text]
  • WHY I HATE HYDROGEOLOGY Keynote Address to GRA Fifth Annual Meeting 1996 (Slightly Expurgated for Public Consumption) by Joseph H
    Untitled WHY I HATE HYDROGEOLOGY Keynote Address to GRA Fifth Annual Meeting 1996 (Slightly Expurgated for Public Consumption) by Joseph H. Birman, President Geothermal Surveys, Inc. (dba GSi/water) INTRODUCTION Thank you, Ladies and Gentlemen. I am especially honored to have been invited to give a keynote address to this highly respected organization. In return, by the time this talk is finished, I will probably have insulted everybody in this room. I will try to do this fairly, with no regard to religion, race, or technical persuasion. I consider myself an equal-opportunity offender. I will start by insulting myself. I am a hypocrite, as I will explain to you later. This conference is titled Multidisciplinary Solutions for California Ground Water Issues. In that context, I would like to identify that discipline that I consider to be the most important, the most powerful, and the most crucial for investigating ground water and providing solutions to California's ground water issues. Boy, have I got a discipline for you! For many years, the discipline has been in operational limbo. The hydrogeological profession provides it little shrift, often treats it with disdain, and sometimes ignores it completely. Yet, the discipline is fundamental to the proper use and integration of all the other disciplines that you will examine in this conference. When that discipline is properly used, it gets us ninety percent of what we need to know in understanding ground water and what controls it. And it does this at far less than the costs of the other disciplines those that get us a part of that last ten percent.
    [Show full text]
  • Earth Sciences Ph.D. Department of Earth Sciences College of Science and Engineering
    Twin Cities Campus Earth Sciences Ph.D. Department of Earth Sciences College of Science and Engineering Link to a list of faculty for this program. Contact Information: Department of Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of Minnesota, John T. Tate Hall-Suite 150, 116 Church St. SE, Minneapolis, MN 55455 (612-624-1333; fax: 612-625-3819) Email: [email protected] Website: http://www.esci.umn.edu/programs/graduate •Program Type: Doctorate •Requirements for this program are current for Spring 2021 •Length of program in credits: 48 •This program does not require summer semesters for timely completion. •Degree: Doctor of Philosophy Along with the program-specific requirements listed below, please read the General Information section of the catalog website for requirements that apply to all major fields. The modern earth sciences are a remarkable synthesis of the physical and biological sciences. They are at the forefront of inquiry into and solutions of most of the major issues involving the global environment: climate, oceans, freshwater in all its forms, natural resources, and natural disasters. Like no other field, they integrate all the systems, from surface to great depth, from physics to chemistry to biology, and over all of geologic time and all geographic scales. The program includes the fields of structural geology, tectonics, petrology, hydrogeology, geomorphology, sedimentology, surface processes, geochemistry, geobiochemistry, geobiology, paleontology and paleobiology, chemical oceanography, mineralogy, mineral and rock magnetism, rock and mineral physics, geodynamics, seismology, geostatistics, planetary geology, and geophysics and applied geophysics. Students complete one of the following tracks: Geology, Geophysics, Biogeology, Hydrogeology, or Earth Sciences. Program Delivery This program is available: •via classroom (the majority of instruction is face-to-face) Prerequisites for Admission The preferred undergraduate GPA for admittance to the program is 3.00.
    [Show full text]
  • On Uncertainty Quantification in Hydrogeology and Hydrogeophysics
    Advances in Water Resources 110 (2017) 166–181 Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Advances in Water Resources journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/advwatres On uncertainty quantification in hydrogeology and hydrogeophysics T ⁎ Niklas Linde ,a, David Ginsbourgerb,c, James Irvinga, Fabio Nobiled, Arnaud Doucete a Environmental Geophysics Group, Institute of Earth Sciences, University of Lausanne, Lausanne 1015, Switzerland b Uncertainty Quantification and Optimal Design group, Idiap Research Institute, Centre du Parc, Rue Marconi 19, PO Box 592, Martigny 1920, Switzerland c Institute of Mathematical Statistics and Actuarial Science, Department of Mathematics and Statistics, University of Bern, Alpeneggstrasse 22, Bern 3012, Switzerland d Calcul Scientifique et Quantification de l’Incertitude, Institute of Mathematics, Ecole polytechnique fédérale de Lausanne, Station 8, CH 1015, Lausanne, Switzerland e Department of Statistics, Oxford University, 24-29 St Giles’, Oxford, OX1 3LB, United Kingdom ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT Keywords: Recent advances in sensor technologies, field methodologies, numerical modeling, and inversion approaches Uncertainty quantification have contributed to unprecedented imaging of hydrogeological properties and detailed predictions at multiple Hydrogeology temporal and spatial scales. Nevertheless, imaging results and predictions will always remain imprecise, which Hydrogeophysics calls for appropriate uncertainty quantification (UQ). In this paper, we outline selected methodological devel- Inversion opments together
    [Show full text]
  • Hydrogeology Journal Official Journal of the International Association of Hydrogeologists Executive Editor: C.I
    Hydrogeology Journal Official Journal of the International Association of Hydrogeologists Executive Editor: C.I. Voss ▶ Official Journal of the International Association of Hydrogeologists (IAH) ▶ Executive Editor: Dr. Clifford I. Voss, International Association of Hydrogeologists (IAH) ▶ Publishes research integrating subsurface hydrology and geology with supporting disciplines ▶ Explores theoretical and applied aspects of hydrogeologic science ▶ Offers subscription-based publication (no publication fee) or Open Choice and IAH members enjoy a substantial fee discount when publishing their article with open access ▶ Provides English language editing for accepted manuscripts by an IAH-appointed hydrogeologist at no cost to the author 8 issues/year ▶ All articles are peer-reviewed and receive their initial publication Electronic access decision on average within 3 months of submittal ▶ No page fees (but there is guidance on article length, see author ▶ link.springer.com instructions) Subscription information ▶ 98% of authors who answered a survey reported that they would publish in this journal again ▶ springer.com/librarians Hydrogeology Journal was founded in 1992 to foster understanding of hydrogeology; to describe worldwide progress in hydrogeology; and to provide an accessible forum for scientists, researchers, engineers, and practitioners in developing and industrialized countries. Since then, the journal has earned a large worldwide readership. Its peer-reviewed research articles integrate subsurface hydrology and geology with supporting disciplines, such as: geochemistry, geophysics, geomorphology, geobiology, surface-water hydrology, tectonics, numerical modeling, economics, and sociology. Articles explore theoretical and applied aspects of hydrogeologic science, including studies ranging from local areas and short time periods to global problems and geologic time; innovative instrumentation; water-resource and mineral-resource evaluations; and overviews of hydrogeologic systems of interest in various regions.
    [Show full text]
  • The Hydrogeology Challenge: Water for the World TEACHER’S GUIDE
    The Hydrogeology Challenge: Water for the World TEACHER’S GUIDE Why is learning about groundwater important? • 95% of the water used in the United States comes from groundwater. • About half of the people in the United States get their drinking water from groundwater. In the future, the water industry will need leaders that can understand, interpret and manipulate groundwater models to make informed decisions. Geologists, agricultural scientists, petroleum engineers, civil engineers, and environmental engineers play an important role in deciding how to use and protect groundwater. The Hydrogeology Challenge introduces students to groundwater modeling and the role it plays in groundwater management. It challenges students to use an interactive computer model to think critically about groundwater resources. The Hydrogeology Challenge has been successfully utilized in educational settings including as a Division C Science Olympiad event and a complement to standard lessons. INTRODUCTION The Hydrogeology Challenge introduces groundwater characteristics in a fun and easy to understand way. It leads students step-by-step through a series of simple calculations that reveal information about how groundwater moves. The Hydrogeology Challenge can be used in a variety of ways in the classroom: • a teacher-led activity • an independent student activity • a team activity This instruction guide demonstrates key principles of the computer program so you can comfortably use the Hydrogeology Challenge in your classroom. Additional features to enhance student learning are available (information on page 6). KEY TOPICS: Aquifer, Contamination/pollution prevention, Earth science/geology, Groundwater, Water use GRADE LEVEL: High School, Undergraduate DURATION: 20 consecutive minutes to complete the challenge, variable for application OBJECTIVES: Understand basic groundwater modeling | Determine groundwater characteristics through basic calculations | Understand assumptions of the computer model.
    [Show full text]
  • Basic Concepts of Groundwater Hydrology
    PUBLICATION 8083 FWQP REFERENCE SHEET 11.1 Reference: Basic Concepts of Groundwater Hydrology THOMAS HARTER is UC Cooperative Extension Hydrogeology Specialist, University of California, Davis, and Kearney Agricultural Center. UNIVERSITY OF Life depends on water. Our entire living world—plants, animals, and humans—is CALIFORNIA unthinkable without abundant water. Human cultures and societies have rallied around water resources for tens of thousands of years—for drinking, for food produc- Division of Agriculture tion, for transportation, and for recreation, as well as for inspiration. and Natural Resources http://anrcatalog.ucdavis.edu Worldwide, more than a third of all water used by humans comes from ground water. In rural areas the percentage is even higher: more than half of all drinking In partnership with water worldwide is supplied from ground water. In California, rural areas’ dependence on ground water is even greater. California has 8,700 public water supply systems. Of these, 7,800 rely on ground water, drawing from more than 15,000 wells. In addition, there are tens of thousands of privately owned wells used for domestic water supply within the state. Although sufficient aquifers for this sort of use underlie much of California (Figure 1), the large metro- politan areas in Southern California and the San Francisco Bay Area rely primarily on http://www.nrcs.usda.gov surface water for their drinking water supplies. Overall, ground water supplies one- third of the water used in California in a typical year, in drought years as much as Farm Water one-half. Quality Planning WHAT IS GROUND WATER? A Water Quality and Technical Assistance Program Despite our heavy reliance on ground water, its nature remains a mystery to many for California Agriculture people.
    [Show full text]
  • GSA TODAY North-Central, P
    Vol. 9, No. 10 October 1999 INSIDE • 1999 Honorary Fellows, p. 16 • Awards Nominations, p. 18, 20 • 2000 Section Meetings GSA TODAY North-Central, p. 27 A Publication of the Geological Society of America Rocky Mountain, p. 28 Cordilleran, p. 30 Refining Rodinia: Geologic Evidence for the Australia–Western U.S. connection in the Proterozoic Karl E. Karlstrom, [email protected], Stephen S. Harlan*, Department of Earth and Planetary Sciences, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, NM 87131 Michael L. Williams, Department of Geosciences, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, MA, 01003-5820, [email protected] James McLelland, Department of Geology, Colgate University, Hamilton, NY 13346, [email protected] John W. Geissman, Department of Earth and Planetary Sciences, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, NM 87131, [email protected] Karl-Inge Åhäll, Earth Sciences Centre, Göteborg University, Box 460, SE-405 30 Göteborg, Sweden, [email protected] ABSTRACT BALTICA Prior to the Grenvillian continent- continent collision at about 1.0 Ga, the southern margin of Laurentia was a long-lived convergent margin that SWEAT TRANSSCANDINAVIAN extended from Greenland to southern W. GOTHIAM California. The truncation of these 1.8–1.0 Ga orogenic belts in southwest- ern and northeastern Laurentia suggests KETILIDEAN that they once extended farther. We propose that Australia contains the con- tinuation of these belts to the southwest LABRADORIAN and that Baltica was the continuation to the northeast. The combined orogenic LAURENTIA system was comparable in
    [Show full text]
  • Report 360 Aquifers of the Edwards Plateau Chapter 4
    Chapter 4 Hydrogeology of Edwards–Trinity Aquifer of Texas and Coahuila in the Border Region Radu Boghici1 Introduction Since 1994, and in cooperation with the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, the Mexican and American Sections of the International Boundary and Water Commission, and Comision Nacional del Agua, the Texas Water Development Board (TWDB) has been working to (1) identify and characterize the groundwater resources shared by Mexico and the United States along their transboundary extent; (2) to identify any environmental and water-quality problems in the aquifers; and (3) to collate binational data into one geographic information system (GIS) database. This work has resulted in the delineation and characterization of several binational aquifers (Hibbs and others, 1997; Boghici, 2002). One of the binational aquifers delineated and characterized was the Edwards–Trinity aquifer. The states of Texas and Coahuila share the water resources of this carbonate aquifer that spans the international border. This paper presents the results of hydraulic-head mapping, describes the quality of groundwater and the mechanisms of aquifer recharge and discharge, and estimates the recoverable quantities of groundwater. Location and Extent The segment of the Edwards–Trinity aquifer discussed in this paper underlies an area of 31,050 km2, of which 16,000 km2 are located in Mexico. The limits of the study region at the northeast, northwest, and southwest are also the aquifer limits (Figure 4-1). The eastern boundary of the system in the study region is the "bad-water line", or the line of 1,000 mg/l line of total dissolved solids (TDS) concentration (Maclay and others, 1980).
    [Show full text]