SEARCH · USGS Science

Results for “Outcrop”

Search indexed USGS publications on groundwater, aquifers, geologic maps, mineral resources and earthquakes. Explore source records by subject and place.

SourceResearch connectionFrom yearThrough year

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 235 records · Page 13Linked to original sources

USGS2002

The Sparta Aquifer: A Sustainable Water Resource?

Introduction The Sparta aquifer is an aquifer of regional importance within the Mississippi embayment aquifer system. It consists of varying amounts of unconsolidated sand, inter-stratified with silt and clay lenses within the Sparta Sand of the Claiborne Group. It extends from south Texas, north into Louisiana, Arkansas, and Tennessee, and eastward into Mississippi and Alabama (fig. 1). On both the west and east sides of the Mississippi embayment, the Sparta aquifer is exposed at the surface (outcrops) and is locally unconfined; it becomes confined as it dips toward the axis of the embayment, (generally corresponding with the Mississippi River) and southward toward the Gulf of Mexico where it is deeply buried in the subsurface (Hosman, 1968). Generalized ground-water flow in the Sparta aquifer is from the outcrop areas to the axis (center) of the embayment (fig. 2). In Arkansas, the Sparta aquifer outcrops parallel to the Fall Line at the western extreme of the Mississippi embayment (the Fall Line is a line dividing the mountainous highlands of Arkansas from the lowland area); and the formation dips from its outcrop area to the southeast. The Sparta aquifer supplies water for municipalities, industries such as paper production, and to a lesser degree, irrigation of agricultural crops (fig. 3). This report highlights hydrologic conditions of the aquifer in Arkansas County as an example of how water use is affecting water levels.

Fact Sheet↗

USGS1992

Map showing sediment isopachs in the deep-sea basins of the Pacific continental margin, Point Conception to Point Loma

The U.S. Geological Survey conducted a series of cruises, EEZSCAN 84 (EEZ-SCAN 84 Scientific Staff, 1986), to collect reconnaissance data on the newly proclaimed Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ), the area out to 200 nautical miles from the coastline of the United States. The cruises systematically surveyed the entire conterminous United States west coast EEZ using the Geological Long-Range Inclined Asdic (GLORIA) side-scan sonar, a 160-in 3 airgun seismic-reflection profiler, a 3.5-kHz high-resolution seismic-reflection profiler, a 10-kHz echo sounder, and a proton-precession magnetometer. The nominal trackline spacing throughout the survey was 30 km. Derivative maps of sediment thickness (I-2089-A, I-2090-A, I-2091-A) and depth to basement (I-2089-B, I-2090-B, I-2091-B) in the basins of the west coast EEZ were compiled from both the sonar-image dala and the deep-penetration seismic data obtained on these cruises. Only EEZ-SCAN 84 data were used for the map compilations because available data from other cruises in this region are sparsely located, have poor navigational control, or were obtained with seismic systems that were not powerful enough to resolve oceanic basement. For this map series, sediment thickness and depth to basement were determined only in the deep-ocean basin regions because the seismic system used on the EEZ-SCAN 84 cruises could not resolve oceanic basement beneath the thick sediments of the continental slope. All the data used to compile the maps are presented in the "Atlas of the Exclusive Economic Zone, Western Conterminous United States" (EEZ-SCAN 84 Scientific Staff, 1986). Basement Outcrops GLORIA imagery was used to locate areas of basement outcrop throughout the region. Where possible, sediment thickness on and immediately adjacent to basement outcrops was measured from seismic data. Where there was no bathymetric or seismic control, a seamount peak was assumed to have no sediment cover. A pattern is used on the map to indicate all basement outcrops. Data Reduction Acoustic basement in the basins, invariably oceanic Layer 2, was observed on all of the seismic records. One-way traveltime was measured from the sea floor to acoustic basement. Because the trackline spacing of about 30 km is relatively large compared to the data density along track, we chose to measure the sediment thickness every 0.5 hour or at an interval of approximately 7.5 km. Water depth was measured with a 10-kHz profiler. Depth to basement was calculated using the sea surface as the zero datum and adding the corrected water depth (Carter, 1980) to the sediment thickness. Acoustic travel times were converted to depths by first calculating a regression equation from the interval velocity versus depth data of Connard and others (1984). Their data base comprises a compilation of all available Deep Sea Drilling Project data plus wide-angle refraction data, which were collected in Cascadia Basin west of Oregon and represents the best data set available for the United States west coast EEZ. The regression equation was integrated to determine sediment thickness as a function of one-way traveltime . The resulting equation is z = 1400t + 0 .5t 2 where z is sediment thickness in meters, and t is one-way traveltime in seconds. Sediment thicknesses calculated using this equation were compared to values calculated from the general equation of Carlson and others (1986). Values for sediment thickness calculated by the two equations differed by no greater than 10 percent throughout the range of travel times. Bathymetry The bathymetry is from Chase and others (1981). The bathymetric data were compiled from a variety of sources, and data quality is inconsistent. Because of differences in navigational precision and density of coverage, the bathymetric contours of a feature may be at a different location than the corresponding isopleths derived from the EEZ-SCAN 84 data, or a feature may not be indicated on the bathymetry at all. These situations occur because either the feature is poorly located in the bathymetric data set or, especially in the outer EEZ, the bathymetric data are too sparse to have defined the existence of a feature. Acknowledgments Topographic digital data bases were corrected and verified by Christina Lief. Gerald Evenden developed the computer software system MAPGEN, used to compose this map. Reviews, suggestions, and technical contributions from Edward C. Escowitz and Florence Wong and advice about cartographic design from Will Stettner substantially improved the quality of this map. References Cited Carlson, R.L., Gangi, A.F., and Snow, K.R., 1986, Empirical reflection-traveltime/ depth and velocity/depth functions for the deep-sea sediment column: Journal of Geophysical Research, v. 91, no. B8, p. 8249-8266. Carter, D.J.T., 1980, Echo-sounding correction tables: Taunton, United Kingdom, Hydrographic Department, Ministry of Defence, 150 p. Chase, T.E., Wilde, Pat, Normark, W.R, Miller, C.P., Seekins, B.A., and Young, J.D., 1981, Offshore topography of the Western United States between 32° and 49° North latitudes: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 81-443, scale 1:864,518 at 38° latitude, 2 sheets. Connard, G., Couch, R., Keeling , K., Roy, J., and Troseth, S., 1984, Abyssal plain and continental net-objective sedimentary thicknesses, in Kulm, L.D., and others, eds., Western North America continental margin and adjacent ocean floor off Oregon and Washington, Atlas 1 of Regional Atlas Series, Ocean Margin Drilling Program: Woods Hole, Mass., Marine Science International, sheet 7. EEZ-SCAN 84 Scientific Staff, 1986, Atlas of the Exclusive Economic Zone, Western Conterminous United States: U.S. Geological Survey Miscellaneous Investigations Series I-1792, scale 1:500,000, 152 p. index map for I-2089-A See Also "U.S. Pacific West Coast Field Activities" (Paskevich and others, 2011; http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2010/1332/htmldocs/pc/pc_overview.html). Paskevich, V.F., Wong, F.L., O?Malley, J.J., Stevenson, A.J., and Gutmacher, C.E., 2011, GLORIA sidescan-sonar imagery for parts of the U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone and adjacent areas: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2010?1332, available at http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2010/1332/.

IMAP↗

USGS1992

Executive Summary As a part of the Texas Water Development Board groundwater availability modeling program, the U.S. Geological Survey developed the Gulf Coast Land Subsidence and Groundwater-Flow model (hereinafter, the “GULF model”) and ensemble to simulate groundwater flow and land-surface subsidence in the northern part of the Gulf Coast aquifer system (the study area) in Texas from predevelopment (1897) through 2018. Since the publication of a previous groundwater model for the greater Houston area in 2012, there have been changes to the distribution of groundwater withdrawals and advances in modeling tools. To reflect these changes and to simulate more recent conditions, the GULF model was developed in cooperation with the Harris-Galveston and Fort Bend Subsidence Districts to provide an updated Groundwater Availability Model. Since the early 1900s, most of the groundwater withdrawals in the study area have been from three of the hydrogeologic units that compose the Gulf Coast aquifer system—the Chicot, Evangeline, and Jasper aquifers and, more recently, from the Catahoula confining unit. Withdrawals from these hydrogeologic units are used for municipal supply, commercial and industrial use, and irrigation purposes. Withdrawals of large quantities of groundwater in the greater Houston area have caused widespread groundwater-level declines in the Chicot, Evangeline, and Jasper aquifers of more than 300 feet (ft). Early development of the aquifer system, which began before 1900, resulted in nearly 50 percent of the eventual historical groundwater-level minimums having been reached as early as 1946 in some areas. These groundwater-level declines led to more than 9 ft of land-surface subsidence—historically in central and southeastern Harris County and Galveston County, but more recently in northern, northwestern, and western Harris County, Montgomery County, and northern Fort Bend County—from depressurization and compaction of clay and silt layers interbedded in the aquifer sediments. In a generalized conceptual model of the Gulf Coast aquifer system, water enters the groundwater system in topographically high outcrops of the hydrogeologic units in the northwestern part of the aquifer system. Groundwater that does not discharge to streams flows to intermediate and deep zones of the aquifer system southeastward of the outcrop areas where it is discharged by wells and by upward leakage in topographically low areas near the coast. The uppermost parts of the aquifer system, which include outcrop areas, are under water-table (unconfined) conditions where the groundwater is not confined under pressure. As depth increases in the aquifer system and interbedded clay and silt layers accumulate, water-table conditions evolve into confined conditions where the groundwater is under pressure. Groundwater flow and land-surface subsidence in the GULF model and ensemble were simulated by using MODFLOW 6 with the Skeletal Storage, Compaction, and Subsidence package. The model consists of six layers, one for each of the five hydrogeologic units in the northern part of the Gulf Coast aquifer system and a surficial top layer that includes part of each hydrogeologic unit. Transient groundwater flow was simulated during 1897–2018 by using a combination of multiyear, annual, and monthly stress periods. An initial steady-state stress period was configured to represent predevelopment mean annual inflows and outflows. The subsidence package used in the GULF model and ensemble uses a head-based subsidence formulation that simulates the delayed drainage response from clay and silt sediment to changes in groundwater levels. The GULF model and ensemble were history matched to groundwater-level observations at selected wells, land-surface subsidence at benchmarks, aquifer compaction at borehole extensometers, and vertical displacement from Global Positioning System stations. A Bayesian framework was used to represent uncertainty in modeled parameters and simulated outputs of interest. History matching and uncertainty quantification were performed by using a Monte Carlo approach enabled through iterative ensemble smoother software to produce an ensemble of models fit to historical data. The iterative ensemble smoother substantially reduced the computational demand of parameter estimation by approximating the first-order relation between model inputs and outputs, thereby allowing 183,207 adjustable parameters to be used for history matching at a relatively low computational and time cost. The history-matched parameter values are within the ranges of previously published values and agree with the current understanding of the spatial and temporal patterns of parameter uncertainty for the Gulf Coast aquifer system. A good agreement between the observed (or estimated) and simulated groundwater levels, land-surface subsidence, compaction, and vertical displacement was obtained across the modeled area based on qualitative and quantitative comparisons. Ensemble mean annual groundwater-flow rates to the Chicot, Evangeline, Jasper aquifers and Catahoula confining unit were 0.0–0.49 inch (in.), 0.09–0.33 in., 0.01–0.07 in., and 0.01–0.05 in., respectively. GULF model mean annual groundwater-flow rates to the Chicot, Evangeline, and Jasper aquifers and Catahoula confining unit were 0.31 in., 0.19 in., 0.03 in., and 0.03 in., respectively. The GULF-model-simulated recharge to the outcrop area was the largest inflow (75 percent), and recharge to other areas was 25 percent of the model inflow. The simulated outflows included (1) net surface-water/groundwater exchange with study area streams (50 percent), (2) groundwater use (49 percent), and (3) net surface-water/groundwater exchange with the Gulf of Mexico (1 percent). The sum of the simulated values of the outflows (1,041,973 acre-feet per year [acre-ft/yr]) and the elastic expansion of the fine-grained sediment and numerical solver error (339 acre-ft/yr) minus the inflows (654,172 acre-ft/yr) represents the reduction of storage from the Gulf Coast aquifer system (388,140 acre-ft/yr). Most of the storage depletion is caused by the long-term groundwater-level declines that have resulted primarily in inelastic compaction. The GULF model was used to estimate Jasper aquifer compaction at selected benchmarks in Montgomery County and northern Harris County, which are the primary locations of Jasper aquifer groundwater use. Simulated Jasper aquifer compaction in northern Harris County was between 0.2 and 0.5 ft, or between about 5 and 16 percent of simulated subsidence at the benchmark locations. Simulated Jasper aquifer compaction in Montgomery County was between 0.8 and 1.2 ft, or between about 33 and 57 percent of simulated subsidence at the benchmark locations.

Texas↗