USGS Science⌕ Search

USGS · sir20095207

Water Levels and Selected Water-Quality Conditions in the Sparta-Memphis Aquifer (Middle Claiborne Aquifer) in Arkansas, Spring-Summer 2007

Abstract

The U.S. Geological Survey in cooperation with the Arkansas Natural Resources Commission and the Arkansas Geological Survey has monitored water levels in the Sparta Sand of Claiborne Group and Memphis Sand of Claiborne Group (herein referred to as the Sparta Sand and the Memphis Sand, respectively), since the 1920s. Groundwater withdrawals have increased while water levels have declined since monitoring was initiated. Herein, aquifers in the Sparta Sand and Memphis Sand will be referred to as the Sparta-Memphis aquifer throughout Arkansas. During the spring of 2007, 309 water levels were measured in wells completed in the Sparta-Memphis aquifer. During the summer of 2007, 129 water-quality samples were collected and measured for temperature and specific conductance and 102 were collected and analyzed for chloride from wells completed in the Sparta-Memphis aquifer. Water-level measurements collected in wells screened in the Sparta-Memphis aquifer were used to produce a regional potentiometric-surface map. The regional direction of groundwater flow in the Sparta-Memphis aquifer is generally to the south-southeast in the northern half of Arkansas and to the east and south in the southern half of Arkansas, away from the outcrop area except where affected by large ground-water withdrawals. The highest water-level altitude measured in the Sparta-Memphis aquifer was 326 feet above National Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1929, located in Grant County in the outcrop at the western boundary of the study area; the lowest water-level altitude was 161 feet below National Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1929 in Union County near the southern boundary of the study area. Eight cones of depression (generally represented by closed contours) are located in the following counties: Bradley, Drew, and Ashley; Calhoun; Cleveland; Columbia; Crittenden; Arkansas, Jefferson, and Lincoln; Cross and Poinsett; and Union. Two large depressions are shown on the 2007 potentiometric-surface map, centered in Jefferson and Union Counties, as a result of large withdrawals for industrial and public supplies. The depression centered in Jefferson County deepened and expanded in recent years into Arkansas and Prairie Counties as a result of large withdrawals for irrigation and public supply. The area enclosed within the 40-foot contour has expanded on the 2007 potentiometric-surface map when compared with the 2005 potentiometric-surface map. In 2003, the depression in Union County was elongated east and west and beginning to coalesce with the depression in Columbia County. The deepest measurement during 2007 in the center of the depression in Union County has risen 38 feet since 2003. The area enclosed by the deepest contour, 160 feet below National Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1929, on the 2007 potentiometric-surface map is less than 10 percent of the area on the 2005 potentiometric-surface map. A broad depression in western Poinsett and Cross Counties was first shown in the 1995 potentiometric-surface map caused by withdrawals for irrigation extending north to the Poinsett-Craighead County line, and south into Cross County. A water-level difference map was constructed using the difference between water-level measurements made during 2003 and 2007 from 283 wells. The difference in water level between 2003 and 2007 ranged from -49.8 to 60.0 feet. Areas with a general rise in water levels are shown in northern Arkansas, Columbia, southern Jefferson, and most of Union Counties. In the area around west-central Union County, water levels rose as much as 60.0 feet with water levels in 15 wells rising 20 feet or more, which is an average annual rise of 5 feet or more. Water levels generally declined throughout most of the rest of Arkansas. Hydrographs from 157 wells were constructed with a minimum of 25 years of water-level measurements. During the period 1983-2007, the county mean annual water level rose in Calhoun, Columbia, Hot Spring, and Lafayette Counties. Mean an

Explore related subjects

90° N90° S · 180° W ← longitude → 180° E
Source-reported bounding extent: 32.5° to 37° latitude; -95° to -89.5° longitude. This indicates report coverage, not an exact sampling location. View area on OpenStreetMap.

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

T. P. Schrader. 2009. Water Levels and Selected Water-Quality Conditions in the Sparta-Memphis Aquifer (Middle Claiborne Aquifer) in Arkansas, Spring-Summer 2007. https://doi.org/10.3133/sir20095207

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related USGS reports

Baseline water-quality inventory and summary for the Paterson Great Falls National Historical Park, New Jersey

The Paterson Great Falls National Historical Park (PAGR), established in 2011 in the City of Paterson, New Jersey, contains many cultural, historical, and natural resources. Because of the PAGR’s young age and limited resources, a long record of natural resource data is not available for use to guide future park management and planning decisions. A detailed natural resource inventory was identified as an immediate need in the “Foundation Document—Paterson Great Falls National Historical Park,” given the history of extensive industrial activity throughout the PAGR and the Passaic River Basin. The U.S. Geological Survey, in cooperation with the National Park Service and the Urban Waters Federal Partnership for the Lower Passaic River, inventoried water-quality monitoring efforts and compiled historical water-quality data from secondary data sources to define baseline conditions in the PAGR and the surrounding study area. This report documents the methods used to harmonize water-quality data aggregated from multiple sources for the PAGR study area. Procedures implemented during data harmonization include compiling data from multiple sources, assessing the dataset for completeness, addressing metadata concerns, and creating a consistent and quality-assured dataset for future analysis. The harmonized dataset contains 14 aggregated surface-water sites, 1,103 individual sampling days, and 32,000 water-quality records throughout the period of record defined for this study (1952–2021). Summary statistics and comparison to water-quality criteria are provided for focus parameters that can support PAGR management, including field properties, suspended material, total dissolved solids, specific conductance, chloride, sulfate, Escherichia coli, nutrients, contaminants of concern related to fish consumption advisories, and litter and floatable debris. A spatial data gap was identified for the recreational area near the base of the Great Falls and immediately downstream from a known combined sewer overflow discharge location. Analytic data gaps were identified for continuous streamflow and water-quality parameters, floatable debris characterization, and harmful algal blooms identification. Continuous collection of contaminants of concern was identified as a temporal data gap, as these parameters were not consistently collected within the study area. The water-quality data synthesis and summary presented in this report can assist PAGR staff in understanding the complex baseline water resources within the study area and can serve as a baseline to design future water-quality monitoring efforts and evaluate changes in water quality over time. The harmonized dataset, as well as future New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection and New Jersey Harbor Discharge Group monitoring data and assessments, can also be used to examine the status and trends in surface-water quality, support compliance with the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and further investigate changes to park water resources that can affect ecological and human health.

New Jersey↗

Slip tendency and dilation tendency of Quaternary faults in the Great Basin region, Arizona, California, Idaho, Nevada, Oregon, Utah, and Wyoming

This report presents the results of slip tendency and dilation tendency analysis of Quaternary faults in the Great Basin region, in the states of Arizona, California, Idaho, Nevada, Oregon, Utah, and Wyoming. This effort was undertaken as part of two studies: the U.S. Department of Energy Geothermal Technologies Office-funded Innovative Geothermal Exploration through Novel Investigations of Undiscovered Systems (INGENIOUS) project, which is a multidisciplinary, multi-institution effort to develop new methodologies and best practices to accelerate the discovery of new, commercially viable hydrothermal resources; and the U.S. Geological Survey Geothermal Resources Investigations Project. The goal of this work is to identify faults and fault segments that are appropriately oriented to be stress-loaded for slip or to dilate under the ambient stress conditions. Both conditions may make such faults more likely to host permeability and fluid flow relative to other faults in the region. Slip tendency and dilation tendency were calculated for all fault segments in the study area from the U.S. Geological Survey Quaternary Fault and Fold Database. Results demonstrate that faults with high slip tendency and dilation tendency are common in the Great Basin region. The areas containing many high slip tendency and dilation tendency fault segments are associated with high strain rates. These areas also host a relatively high proportion of the known hydrothermal systems. This indicates that faults with high slip tendency and dilation tendency in areas with high strain-rate are potentially most prospective for hosting hydrothermal systems. The database published in coordination with this report contains the slip tendency and dilation tendency results data, including the fault geometry and stress data used to calculate these quantities, for both the Great Basin study area and the smaller INGENIOUS study area.

Arizona, California, Idaho, Nevada, Oregon, Utah, ↗

A spatial analysis of the groundwater emergence flood hazard in Long Island, New York, and coastal areas surrounding Long Island Sound in New York, Connecticut, and Rhode Island

Long Island, New York, and nearby coastal areas surrounding Long Island Sound are densely populated and, like other coastal areas, are susceptible to flooding from several potential sources, including stormwater from precipitation events, tidal flooding and storm surge, and groundwater emergence flooding. Groundwater emergence fooding refers to the intersection of a rising water table with land surface or critical infrastructure. Many studies of flood drivers either neglect or only briefly discuss how shallow groundwater conditions may contribute to or exacerbate flood conditions. As a part of a comprehensive study of compound flood hazards in the coastal areas of Long Island and Long Island Sound, a spatial analysis was completed by the U.S. Geological Survey, in cooperation with the Environmental Protection Agency’s Long Island Sound Partnership, formerly called the Long Island Sound Study, using available regional datasets to characterize the potential hazard for groundwater emergence flooding. The approximately 3,100 square mile study area was subdivided into 11,407 grid cells that were 900 meters by 900 meters (approximately 3,000 feet by 3,000 feet), for the purpose of integrating the spatial datasets to calculate and map the groundwater emergence flood hazard. The depth to the water table, hydrologic soil groups, and National Land Cover Database were harmonized to the common grid. A groundwater emergence flood hazard score was calculated for each grid cell for current average conditions following a set of rules accounting for the depth to the water table and the percentage of area within each cell with slow infiltrating soils. A scenario with a higher sea-level position was also calculated for the Long Island part of the study area. The calculated groundwater emergence flood hazard score was reviewed in conjunction with the National Land Cover Database to identify developed areas and associated infrastructure that may be at risk of potential groundwater emergence flooding. Study results indicate that the groundwater emergence flood hazard is highest in coastal areas and near surface water where the water table is close to ground surface. Inland areas away from surface waterbodies are not likely to be exposed to groundwater emergence flooding. For Long Island, in the scenario with higher sea-level position, a greater groundwater emergence flood hazard is calculated for some locations closer to the coast and where land is submerged. Away from the coast and surface-water drainage, the groundwater emergence flood hazard is similar between the current average sea-level condition and the higher sea-level position scenario.

Connecticut, New York, Rhode Island↗