Skip to main content
Product

GROUNDWATER BIG LOST RIVER BASIN, ID

$16.00
Available

Product Details

Product Number
534246
Series
SIR-2021-5078-C
Scale
NO SCALE
Alternate ID
SIR-2021-5078-C
Authors
BY: ALEXIS CLARK
Version Date
01/01/2021
Countries
USA
Media
Paper
Format
Bound

Additional Details

Description
Groundwater Budgets for the Big Lost River Basin, South-Central Idaho, 2000–19

Scientific Investigations Report 2021-5078-C

Prepared in cooperation with the Idaho Department of Water Resources

By: Alexis Clark

Edited by: Lauren M. Zinsser

https://doi.org/10.3133/sir20215078C

First posted November 9, 2022

For additional information, contact:

Director , Idaho Water Science Center

https://www.usgs.gov/centers/idaho-water-science-center

U.S. Geological Survey

230 Collins Road

Boise, Idaho 83702-4520

Abstract

The Big Lost River Basin, located in parts of Butte and Custer Counties in south-central Idaho, supports the communities surrounding the cities of Arco, Leslie, Mackay, and Moore and provides for agricultural resources that depend on a sustainable supply of surface water from the Big Lost River and its tributaries and groundwater from an unconfined aquifer. The aquifer, situated in a structurally controlled intermontane valley, is composed of unconsolidated alluvium, consolidated sedimentary and volcanic rocks, and younger interbedded volcanic rocks.

This report presents two separate groundwater budgets for the aquifer, one above and one below Mackay Dam, as well as a combined groundwater budget for the aquifer within the entire Big Lost River Basin. The budgets span a 20-year period (2000–19), characterizing average conditions, a dry year (2014), and a wet year (2017). The groundwater budgets will help address questions regarding the availability of groundwater supply in the Big Lost River Basin and inform future groundwater modeling. The Idaho Geological Survey has prepared the groundwater budgets as part of a larger hydrogeologic investigation completed by the U.S. Geological Survey and the Idaho Geological Survey in cooperation with the Idaho Department of Water Resources during 2018–21. Other reports describe the hydrogeologic framework and several streamflow-measurement events to evaluate gains and losses on the Big Lost River. Collectively, these reports provide an updated characterization of groundwater resources in the Big Lost River Basin which will help address water resources challenges.

A groundwater budget is a conceptual and numerical accounting of inflow (recharge) to groundwater and outflow (discharge) from groundwater. The predominant sources of recharge to the aquifer include losing river reaches (33 percent), areal recharge (as precipitation less evapotranspiration and surface runoff, comprising about 23 percent of the total inflow), tributary canyon underflow from higher altitudes (20 percent), canal seepage (13 percent), recharge through applied irrigation on fields below the root zone and other minor sources (11 percent), and Mackay Reservoir seepage (less than 1 percent). The primary sources of discharge from the aquifer are groundwater pumpage to meet irrigation demand, domestic supply, and municipal supply (76 percent) and gaining river reaches (24 percent).

The positive or negative difference between the sum of all inflows and outflows is regarded as the residual, representing the change in groundwater storage, groundwater outflow from the basin or subbasins, and uncertainty and errors in the budget. In the Big Lost River Basin, groundwater outflow is at the mouth of the basin below Arco into the eastern Snake River Plain aquifer.

The total mean annual estimated recharge to the Big Lost River Basin was 439,100 acre-feet per year (acre-ft/yr; 607 cubic feet per second [ft3/s]) for 2000–19, 373,900 acre-ft/yr (516 ft3/s) in 2014, and 762 ,100 acre-ft/yr (1,053 ft3/s) in 2017. The mean annual estimated groundwater discharge from the aquifer was about 112,300 acre-ft/yr (155 ft3/s) for 2000–19, 153,500 acre-ft/yr (212 ft3/s) in 2014, and 53,400 acre-ft/yr (74 ft3/s) in 2017. The estimated mean annual groundwater residual was 326,800 acre-ft/yr (451 ft3/s) for 2000–19, 220,400 acre-ft/yr (304 ft3/s) in 2014, and 708,700 acre-ft/yr (979 ft3/s) in 2017. The mean annual residual above Mackay Dam was 100,400 acre-ft/yr (2000-19), 96,700 acre-ft (2014), and 248,300 acre-ft (2017). The mean annual residual contribution below Mackay Dam, minus any groundwater-flow above Mackay Dam, was 226,400 acre-ft/yr (2000-19), 123 ,700 acre-ft (2014), and 460,400 acre-ft (2017).

These results are highly sensitive to assumptions about certain budget inflow parameters. In particular, the magnitude of the budget residuals during especially dry and wet periods is amplified by the groundwater-budget terms tributary streamflow and tributary underflow that contribute appreciable recharge but also have high uncertainty.

The results of the groundwater-budget evaluation describe an interconnected and complex hydrologic response throughout the basin to various climatic and water-use trends. The part of the basin above Mackay Dam typically has a positive groundwater residual derived from snowmelt recharge to tributary canyons and areal recharge in excess of groundwater pumpage for irrigation demand. This supply is used to meet irrigation demand above Mackay Dam and to provide for water supply below Mackay Dam. On average, groundwater inflow from above Mackay Dam to below Mackay Dam, assuming negligible reservoir storage effects, accounts for about 25 percent of the total groundwater recharge below Mackay Dam. Considerable recharge to groundwater below Mackay Dam occurs through seepage from the Big Lost River and canals and ditches. Most groundwater discharge from the aquifer is through irrigation pumping. The water supply below Mackay Dam is highly dependent on available upstream surface-water flows, the magnitude of the groundwater residual from above Mackay Dam, and annual variability in local groundwater conditions.

Print Date
2021
Height In Inches
11.000
Length In Inches
8.500
Two Sided
Yes
Pieces
1
Languages
English
Related Items
CHARACTERIZATION GROUNDWATER QUALITY, CO
<p> Characterization of and Temporal Changes in Groundwater Quality of the Upper Black Squirrel Creek Basin, El Paso County, Colorado, 2018–20 <p> <p> First posted June 30, 2022 <p> <p> For additional information, contact: Director, Colorado Water Science Center U.S. Geological Survey Box 25046, MS-415 Denver, CO 80225 <p> <p> Abstract <p> <p> In 2018–20, the U.S. Geological Survey, in cooperation with Upper Black Squirrel Creek Ground Water Management District, sampled 48 wells for Phase III of a multiphase plan investigating groundwater quality in the alluvial aquifer of the Upper Black Squirrel Creek Basin (UBSB), El Paso County, Colorado. Results for samples collected from October to December each year were used to assess spatial and temporal changes in groundwater quality and to differentiate sources of nitrate. Groundwater was predominantly classified as mixed-cation and mixed-anion water type in the aquifer, with variable chemistry along the periphery. Concentrations of constituents in groundwater were generally less than regulatory standards, except for nitrate in four wells. Isotopes of nitrogen and oxygen in nitrate identified four different potential sources or processes affecting nitrate in the alluvial aquifer: naturally occurring nitrate from soils, nitrate from animal and (or) human waste, and an unknown source, along with evidence of denitrification. Pharmaceutical compounds and personal-care products were detected in seven wells, with three wells having multiple detections. Stable isotopes of water indicated variability in seasonality of recharge throughout the UBSB alluvial aquifer. Nitrate concentrations from the 1984 study and the 1996 study were compared to the more recent concentrations in the 2013 study and the 2018–20 study. The northern one-third of the UBSB alluvial aquifer had a statistically significant increase in nitrate concentration from the 2013 study to the 2018–20 study, but no change was shown from the 1984 study to the 1996 study. The opposite was found true for the southern two-thirds of the UBSB alluvial aquifer with no statistically significant difference in nitrate concentration from the 2013 study to the 2018–20 study. Analysis of temporal changes indicated an increase in median and maximum nitrate concentrations from the 2013 study to the 2018–20 study throughout the UBSB alluvial aquifer. Continued sampling of wells in the UBSB would be beneficial to better determine temporal changes in groundwater quality, characterize human effects on water quality, and understand characteristics of the alluvial aquifer pertaining to sustainability of the resource. <p>
GROUNDWATER QUALITY, PICEANCE BASIN, CO
Prepared in cooperation with (in alphabetical order): Antero Resources, Bureau of Land Management, Bureau of Reclamation, Chevron Corporation, Cities of Grand Junction and Rifle, Colo., Colorado Department of Agriculture, Colorado Department of Natural Resources, Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment, Colorado Division of Wildlife—River Watch, Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission, Colorado River Water Conservation District, Delta County, Colo., EnCana Oil & Gas (USA) Inc., Garfield County, Colo., Gunnison Energy Corp., National Park Service, Natural Soda, Inc., North Fork River Improvement Association, Oxy Petroleum Corporation, Petroleum Development Corp., Rio Blanco County, Shell Oil Company, Solvay Chemicals, Towns of Carbondale, De Beque, Palisade, Parachute, Rangely, and Silt, Colo., U.S. Forest Service, West Divide Water Conservancy District, and Williams Companies, Inc. <p> <p> Overview of Groundwater Quality in the Piceance Basin, Western Colorado, 1946–2009 <p>
HYDROGEOLOGY, KARST, GROUNDWATER, WV
Hydrogeology, Karst, and Groundwater Availability of Monroe County, West Virginia <p> <p> Scientific Investigations Report 2023-5121 <p> Prepared in cooperation with the West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection, the West Virginia Department of Health & Human Resources, and the Monroe County Commission <p> <p> By: Mark D. Kozar, Daniel H. Doctor, William K. Jones, Nathan Chien, Cheyenne E. Cox, Randall C. Orndorff, David J. Weary, Mitchell R. Weaver, Mitchell A. McAdoo, and Mercer Parker <p> <p> https://doi.org/10.3133/sir20235121 <p> <p> First posted December 14, 2023 <p> For additional information, contact: <p> Director, Virginia and West Virginia Water Science Center <p> https://www.usgs.gov/centers/va-wv-water <p> <p> U.S. Geological Survey <p> 1730 East Parham Road <p> Richmond, Virginia 23228 <p> <p> Abstract <p> <p> Monroe County is in southeastern West Virginia, encompassing an area of 474 square miles. The area consists of karst and siliciclastic aquifers of Ordovician, Silurian, Devonian, and Mississippian age and is in parts of two physiographic provinces: the Valley and Ridge Province to the east of Peters Mountain, and the Appalachian Plateau Province to the west of Peters Mountain. This study was developed in response to inquiries from the Monroe County Commission requesting assessment of the water resources of the county to better understand the quantity of the county’s groundwater resources, for both current [2023] and future demand, and to provide information to support protection and management of the county’s valuable groundwater resources. <p> <p> Various products were developed for this study that provide knowledge with respect to water availability and contamination susceptibility of the karst aquifers within the county. U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) geologists conducted extensive geologic mapping in support of the project, producing (1) a countywide bedrock geologic map, (2) a countywide hydrogeologic map, and (3) a light detection and ranging (lidar)-derived countywide digital elevation model and associated sinkhole map. A significant part of this work was to map in detail the Greenbrier Group at the formation level, which prior to this study had only partially been completed. The report also includes (4) a description of the lithologic units identified as part of the geologic mapping process. <p> <p> U.S. Geological Survey hydrologists completed several additional products for the hydrology part of the effort, including development of (1) a countywide potentiometric surface (water-table) map, (2) a countywide base-flow stream assessment, (3) countywide water-budget estimates, (4) well log surveys for 15 wells to better understand subsurface controls on groundwater flow within the study area, (5) two groundwater tracer tests to better refine the groundwater divide from the northern and southern parts of the karst aquifer in Monroe County; and finally, based on all available data collected for the study including the potentiometric surface map, geologic map, current [2023] and legacy fluorometric groundwater tracer tests, and base-flow stream assessments, (6) groundwater-basin delineations were reassessed for principal groundwater basins within the Greenbrier aquifer. <p> <p> In Monroe County, four principal hydrogeologic settings produce large yields of water for residential, agricultural, and other uses. The most relied upon water-bearing zone with respect to current [2023] public water supply is from springs along Peters Mountain. These springs are derived from intervals of fractured sandstone and resultant alluvial deposits. Groundwater flows downslope through these permeable alluvial deposits and discharges at the contact with less permeable strata, such as the Reedsville Shale. The second most relied upon water-bearing zone in Monroe County is within the karstic Greenbrier Group aquifer, in which the basal Hillsdale Limestone overlies the less permeable Maccrady Shale. This geologic contact between the Hillsdale Limestone and Maccrady Shale is not only targeted as a source of water for agricultural supply but also is targeted as a source of water for residential supply. The third most relied upon water-bearing zone is composed of shallow perched aquifers within the Greenbrier Group. The discontinuous nature of these perched aquifers makes mapping their extent impossible, but they are related to permeable geologic strata, such as karstified limestones with solutionally enhanced permeability that overlies less permeable shale or chert bedrock. During geologic mapping of the county, several of these perched aquifers were documented in the Pickaway, Union, and Alderson Limestones. A fourth zone consists of springs from Ordovician carbonates at the base of Peters Mountain, which are influenced by sinking streams as well as upwelling along faults. In terms of water quantity, the most sustainable springs are those having deeper-sourced flows. <p> <p> Public supplies are a principal source of water used for residential and commercial supply in the region, accounting for 0.49 million gallons per day (Mgal/d) of fresh-water withdrawals (0.14 Mgal/d of groundwater and 0.35 Mgal/d of surface water) for residential and commercial use and serving 6,645 individuals (49.2 percent of the population). An estimated 6,861 people, (50.8 percent of the population) primarily rely on private wells or other unregulated sources, such as springs, and withdraw 0.55 Mgal/d of groundwater for their residential use. Public water supply in the region is primarily (71.4 percent) derived from springs and augmented by stream withdrawals (backup sources mainly during low-flow periods), with the remaining portion (28.6 percent) derived from groundwater withdrawals from wells. For rural residents, however, 100 percent of their withdrawals are derived from groundwater (wells or springs). <p>