Geology topics
Publications and source records attributed to Malek Abu Rumman.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Pond-aquifer flow and water availability at excavated seepage pond sites in Glynn County and in southern Bulloch County, Georgia, were evaluated to determine their potential as sources of water supply for irrigation. Excavated seepage ponds derive water primarily from ground water seeping into the pond, in a manner similar to a dug well completed in a surficial aquifer. The availability of water from seepage ponds is controlled by the permeability of surficial deposits, the amount of precipitation recharging the ground-water system, and the volume of water stored in the pond. The viability of seepage ponds as supplies for irrigation is limited by low seepage rates and high dependence on climatic conditions. Ponds will not refill unless there is adequate precipitation to recharge the surficial aquifer, which subsequently drains (seeps) into the pond. Ground-water seepage was estimated using a water-budget approach that utilized on-site climatic and hydrologic measurements, computing pond-volume changes during pond pumping tests, and by digital simulation using steady-state and transient ground-water flow models. From August 1999 to May 2000, the Glynn County pond was mostly losing water (as indicated by negative net seepage); whereas from October 2000 to June 2001, the Bulloch County pond was mostly gaining water. At both sites, most ground-water seepage entered the pond following major rainfall events that provided recharge to the surficial aquifer. Net ground-water seepage, estimated using water-budget analysis and simulation, ranged from -11.5 to 15 gallons per minute (gal/min) at the Glynn County pond site and from -55 to 31 gal/min at the Bulloch County pond site. Simulated values during pumping tests indicate that groundwater seepage to both ponds increases with decreased pond stage. At the Glynn County pond, simulated net ground-water seepage varied between 7.8 gal/min at the beginning of the test (high pond stage and low hydraulic gradient) and 103 gal/min at the end of the test (low pond stage and high hydraulic gradient). At the Bulloch County pond site, values ranged from -17.7 gal/min at the beginning of the test to 15 gal/min at the end of the test. Results at the two pond sites indicate that the use of excavated seepage ponds as sources for irrigation supply is limited by pond-storage volume and low net ground-water seepage rates during periods of low precipitation. Pumps withdrawing 1,000 gal/min for 10 hours per dayunder climatic and hydrologic conditions similar to those observed during pond pumping tests at each sitewould drain the Glynn County pond within 30 days and the Bulloch County pond within 3.5 days. Because the two pond sites are considered to represent the extremes of likely conditions to be encountered in the coastal Georgia area, it is likely that other seepage ponds would have similar storage-depletion rates.
A digital model was developed to simulate steady-state ground-water flow in a 42,155-square-mile area of coastal Georgia and adjacent parts of South Carolina and Florida. The model was developed to (1) understand and refine the conceptual model of regional ground-water flow, (2) serve as a framework for the development of digital subregional ground-water flow and solute-transport models, and (3) serve as a tool for future evaluations of hypothetical pumping scenarios used to facilitate water management in the coastal area. Single-density ground-water flow was simulated using the U.S. Geological Survey finite-difference code MODFLOW-2000 for mean-annual conditions during predevelopment (pre?1900) and the years 1980 and 2000. The model comprises seven layers: the surficial aquifer system, the Brunswick aquifer system, the Upper Floridan aquifer, the Lower Floridan aquifer, and the intervening confining units. A combination of boundary conditions was applied, including a general-head boundary condition on the top active cells of the model and a time-variable fixed-head boundary condition along part of the southern lateral boundary. Simulated heads for 1980 and 2000 conditions indicate a good match to observed values, based on a plus-or-minus 10-foot (ft) calibration target and calibration statistics. The root-mean square of residual water levels for the Upper Floridan aquifer was 13.0 ft for the 1980 calibration and 9.94 ft for the 2000 calibration. Some spatial patterns of residuals were indicated for the 1980 and 2000 simulations, and are likely a result of model-grid cell size and insufficiently detailed hydraulic-property and pumpage data in some areas. Simulated potentiometric surfaces for predevelopment, 1980, and 2000 conditions all show major flow system features that are indicated by estimated peotentiometric maps. During 1980?2000, simulated water levels at the centers of pumping at Savannah and Brunswick rose more than 20 ft and 8 ft, respectively, in response to decreased pumping. Simulated drawdown exceeded 10 ft in the Upper Floridan aquifer across much of the western half of the model area, with drawdown exceeding 20 ft along parts of the western, northern, and southern boundaries where irrigation pumping increased during this period. From predevelopment to 2000 conditions, the simulated water budget showed an increase in inflow from, and decrease in outflow to, the general-head boundaries, and a reversal from net seaward flow to net landward flow across the coastline. Simulated changes in recharge and discharge distribution from predevelopment to 2000 conditions showed an increase in extent and magnitude of net recharge cells in the northern part of the model area, and a decrease in discharge or change to recharge in cells containing major streams and beneath major pumping centers. The model is relatively sensitive to pumping and the controlling head at the fixed-head boundary and less sensitive to the distribution of aquifer properties in general. Model limitations include: (1) its spatial scale and discretization, (2) the extent to which data are available to physically define the flow system, (3) the type of boundary conditions and controlling parameters used, (4) uncertainty in the distribution of pumping, and (5) uncertainty in field-scale hydraulic properties. The model could be improved with more accurate estimates of ground-water pumpage and better characterization of recharge and discharge.