Kansas Geological Survey DISTRIBUTION OF THE PERMEABLE FRACTION AND PRACTICAL SATURATED THICKNESS IN THE OGALLALA PORTION OF THE HIGH PLAINS AQUIFER IN THE SOUTHWEST KANSAS GROUNDWATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT 3 by P. Allen Macfarlane and Nicholas Schneider Permeable Fraction Kansas Geological Survey Open-file Report 2007-28 December 2007 The University of Kansas, Lawrence, KS 66047 (785) 864-3965; www.kgs.ku.edu KANSAS GEOLOGICAL SURVEY OPEN-FILE REPORTS >>>>>>>>>>>NOT FOR RESALE<<<<<<<<<< Disclaimer The Kansas Geological Survey made a conscientious effort to ensure the accuracy of this report. However, the Kansas Geological Survey does not guarantee this document to be completely free from errors or inaccuracies and disclaims any responsibility or liability for interpretations based on data used in the production of this document or decisions based thereon. This report is intended to make results of research available at the earliest possible date, but is not intended to constitute final or formal publication. Table of Contents Executive Summary....................................................................................................................1 Introduction.................................................................................................................................3 Previous Work ............................................................................................................................4 The Study Area ...........................................................................................................................4 Extent ..............................................................................................................................4 Stratigraphy and Lithic Composition of Cenozoic Sediments........................................4 Cenozoic Geologic History.............................................................................................4 Methodology...............................................................................................................................5 Data Sources...................................................................................................................5 Log Selection..................................................................................................................6 Georeferencing Well/Testhole Locations .......................................................................6 Estimation of land surface elevation for each data point................................................6 Field Checking of Drillers’ Log Quality.........................................................................6 Estimation of Total Thickness and Fraction of Permeable Sediments ...........................8 Mapping Permeable Thickness and Fraction in 2- and 3-D ...........................................9 Distribution of Permeable Zones in the Cenozoic Deposits .....................................................12 Statistical Characteristics of Total Permeable Fraction Values in GMD 3 ..................12 Regional Distribution of the Total Thickness and Fraction of Permeable Deposits.....12 Haskell Co. Index Monitoring Well..............................................................................16 The Northeast Haskell Area..........................................................................................22 The Central GMD 3 Subregion.....................................................................................27 The Strip Subregion ......................................................................................................30 Changes in PST from Pre-development to 2006...........................................................46 Discussion.................................................................................................................................52 REFERENCES CITED.............................................................................................................58 APPENDIX A: 2-D MODEL ERROR DISTRIBUTIONS.....................................................61 i List of Figures Figure 1. Profile showing the vertical distribution of the permeable fraction in the Cenozoic deposits based on the descriptions provided in the accompanying driller’s log and using the interpretation of driller’s log entries in Table 2.........................................................................................11 Figure 2. Subareas of investigation for 2-D and 3-D mapping ........................................12 Figure 3. Cumulative distribution of the total permeable fraction in Cenozoic deposits, southwest Kansas...............................................................................13 Figure 4. The mean and variability of the permeable fraction in relation to Cenozoic sediment thickness (by depth interval) in southwest Kansas............13 Figure 5. Thickness of permeable sediment in Cenozoic deposits in GMD 3 .................14 Figure 6. Permeable sediment fraction of Cenozoic deposits in GMD 3.........................15 Figure 7. Location of the northeast Haskell County index monitoring well plotted on a map of the elevation of the bedrock surface and shown as a red dot.............................................................................................................17 Figure 8. Comparison of the gamma-ray and simplified driller’s and sample logs of the open borehole for the northeast Haskell County index well in SW SE NW Sec. 36, T. 27 S., R. 31 W ................................................21 Figure 9. Thickness of Cenozoic deposits in the northeast Haskell study area derived using the default kriging algorithm to compute model grid values in RockWorks® 2004 .............................................................................23 Figure 10. Thickness of permeable deposits within the Cenozoic sequence in the northeast Haskell study area derived using the default Kriging algorithm to compute model grid values in RockWorks® 2004 .......................23 Figure 11. Permeable fraction of the Cenozoic sequence in the northeast Haskell study area derived using the default kriging algorithm to compute model grid values in RockWorks® 2004............................................24 Figure 12. NW-SE panel of the fence diagram for the northeast Haskell area centered on the northeast Haskell County index monitoring well in NW Sec. 36, T. 31 S., R. 26 W.....................................................................25 Figure 13. NE-SW panel of the fence diagram for the small study area centered on the northeast Haskell County index monitoring well in NW Sec. 36, T. 31 S., R. 26 W.........................................................................26 ii Figure 14. Elevation of the bedrock surface in the central GMD 3 subregion with the dashed line showing approximate updig edge of the Greenhorn Limestone (Macfarlane et al., 1993)...............................................28 Figure 15. Thickness of Cenozoic deposits in the central GMD 3 subregion derived using the default kriging algorithm to compute model grid values in RockWorks® 2004......................................................................28 Figure 16. Thickness of permeable Cenozoic deposits in the central GMD 3 subregion derived using the default kriging algorithm to compute model grid values in RockWorks® 2004...........................................................29 Figure 17. Permeable fraction of the Cenozoic sequence in the central GMD 3 subregion derived using the default kriging algorithm to compute model grid values in RockWorks® 2004...........................................................29 Figure 18A. Distribution of the permeable fraction in Cenozoic deposits that underlie the central GMD 3 subregion as revealed by north-south and east-west fence diagrams..................................................................................31 Figure 18B. Distribution of the permeable fraction in Cenozoic deposits that underlie the central GMD 3 subregion as revealed by north-south and east-west fence diagrams..................................................................................32 Figure 18C. Distribution of the permeable fraction in Cenozoic deposits that underlie the central GMD 3 subregion as revealed by north-south and east-west fence diagrams..................................................................................33 Figure 18D. Distribution of the permeable fraction in Cenozoic deposits that underlie the central GMD 3 subregion as revealed by north-south and east-west fence diagrams..................................................................................34 Figure 18E. Distribution of the permeable fraction in Cenozoic deposits that underlie the central GMD 3 subregion as revealed by north-south and east-west fence diagrams..................................................................................35 Figure 19. Elevation of the bedrock surface beneath the Cenozoic sequence in the strip subregion derived using the default kriging algorithm to compute model grid values in RockWorks® 2004............................................38 Figure 20. Thickness of Cenozoic deposits in feet within the strip subregion derived using the default kriging algorithm to compute model grid values in RockWorks® 2004......................................................................39 iii Figure 21. Thickness of permeable Cenozoic deposits in feet within the strip subregion derived using the default kriging algorithm