Death Valley Regional Ground-Water
Flow System,
Nevada and California—
Hydrogeologic Framework and Transient
Ground-Water Flow Model
Edited by Wayne R. Belcher
This document is available in pdf format:
(Requires Adobe
Acrobat Reader)
Scientific Investigations Report 2004–5205--ONLINE
ONLY
This publication has been superseded by Belcher, W.R., and Sweetkind, D.S., eds., 2010, Death Valley regional groundwater flow system, Nevada and California-Hydrogeologic framework and transient groundwater flow model: U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 1711, 398 p. (Also available at https://pubs.usgs.gov/pp/1711/.)
Cover (pdf
322 KB)
Table of Contents (pdf 55 KB)
Abstract (pdf
1.39 MB)
Chapter A (pdf
5.23 MB)
Introduction
By Wayne R. Belcher, Frank A. D'Agnese, and Grady M. O'Brien
Chapter B (pdf 34.4
MB)
Geology and Hydrogeology
By Donald S. Sweetkind, Wayne R. Belcher, Claudia C. Faunt, and Christopher
J. Potter
Chapter C (pdf 3.9
MB)
Hydrologic Components for Model Development
By Carma A. San Juan, Wayne R. Belcher, Randell J. Laczniak, and Heather
M. Putnam
Chapter D (pdf 5.07
MB)
Hydrology
By Claudia C. Faunt, Frank A. D'Agnese, and Grady M. O'Brien
Chapter E (pdf 40.1
MB)
Three-Dimensional Hydrogeologic Framework Model
By Claudia C. Faunt, Donald S. Sweetkind, and Wayne R. Belcher
Chapter F (pdf 30.8
MB)
Transient Numerical Model
By Claudia C. Faunt, Joan B. Blainey, Mary C. Hill, Frank A. D'Agnese,
and Grady M. O'Brien
Appendix 1 (pdf 534
KB)
Regional Potential for Interbasin Flow of Ground Water
By M.S. Bedinger and J.R. Harrill
Appendix 2 (pdf 2.11
MB)
Estimated Model Boundary Flows
By J.R. Harrill and M.S. Bedinger
Plate 1 (pdf
6.76 MB)
Regional potential for interbasin flow of ground water in the
Death Valley regional ground-water flow system area, Nevada and California
By M.S. Bedinger and J.R. Harrill
Plate 2 (pdf 12.3 MB)
Simulated ground-water response to pumping in the Death Valley
regional ground-water flow system area, Nevada and California
By Claudia C. Faunt, Joan B. Blainey, Mary C. Hill, Frank A. D'Agnese,
and Grady M. O'Brien
Geospatial data sets and on-line viewer
Note to users with visual disabilities:
The Plate PDF files presented here have not been optimized for use with
screen readers that support this format. Users with visual disabilities
are encouraged to contact Wayne R. Belcher, (702) 564-4609, for assistance
in using the data presented in the report. You may also want to visit the
Adobe Systems Accessibility Website, which offers conversion tools and information
to help make PDF files accessible. Model
archive
The citation for this report, in USGS format, is as follows:
Belcher, W.R., ed., 2004, Death Valley regional ground-water flow system,
Nevada and California—Hydrogeologic framework and transient ground-water
flow model: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2004-5205,
408 p.
Abstract
A numerical three-dimensional (3D) transient ground-water
flow model of the Death Valley region was developed by the U.S. Geological
Survey for the U.S. Department of Energy programs at the Nevada Test Site
and at Yucca Mountain, Nevada. Decades of study of aspects of the ground-water
flow system and previous less extensive ground-water flow models were
incorporated and reevaluated together with new data to provide greater
detail for the complex, digital model.
A 3D digital hydrogeologic framework model (HFM) was developed
from digital elevation models, geologic maps, borehole information, geologic
and hydrogeologic cross sections, and other 3D models to represent the
geometry of the hydrogeologic units (HGUs). Structural features, such
as faults and fractures, that affect ground-water flow also were added.
The HFM represents Precambrian and Paleozoic crystalline and sedimentary
rocks, Mesozoic sedimentary rocks, Mesozoic to Cenozoic intrusive rocks,
Cenozoic volcanic tuffs and lavas, and late Cenozoic sedimentary deposits
of the Death Valley Regional Ground-Water Flow System (DVRFS) region in
27 HGUs.
Information from a series of investigations was compiled
to conceptualize and quantify hydrologic components of the ground-water
flow system within the DVRFS model domain and to provide hydraulic-property
and head-observation data used in the calibration of the transient-flow
model. These studies reevaluated natural ground-water discharge occurring
through evapotranspiration and spring flow; the history of ground-water
pumping from 1913 through 1998; ground-water recharge simulated as net
infiltration; model boundary inflows and outflows based on regional hydraulic
gradients and water budgets of surrounding areas; hydraulic conductivity
and its relation to depth; and water levels appropriate for regional simulation
of prepumped and pumped conditions within the DVRFS model domain. Simulation
results appropriate for the regional extent and scale of the model were
provided by acquiring additional data, by reevaluating existing data using
current technology and concepts, and by refining earlier interpretations
to reflect the current understanding of the regional ground-water flow
system.
Ground-water flow in the Death Valley region is composed
of several interconnected, complex ground-water flow systems. Ground-water
flow occurs in three subregions in relatively shallow and localized flow
paths that are superimposed on deeper, regional flow paths. Regional ground-water
flow is predominantly through a thick Paleozoic carbonate rock sequence
affected by complex geologic structures from regional faulting and fracturing
that can enhance or impede flow. Spring flow and evapotranspiration (ET)
are the dominant natural ground-water discharge processes. Ground water
also is withdrawn for agricultural, commercial, and domestic uses.
Ground-water flow in the DVRFS was simulated using MODFLOW-2000,
a 3D finite-difference modular ground-water flow modeling code that incorporates
a nonlinear least-squares regression technique to estimate aquifer parameters.
The DVRFS model has 16 layers of defined thickness, a finite-difference
grid consisting of 194 rows and 160 columns, and uniform cells 1,500 m
on each side.
Prepumping conditions (before 1913) were used as the initial
conditions for the transient-state calibration. The model uses annual
stress periods with discrete recharge and discharge components. Recharge
occurs mostly from infiltration of precipitation and runoff on high mountain
ranges and from a small amount of underflow from adjacent basins. Discharge
occurs primarily through ET and spring discharge (both simulated as drains)
and water withdrawal by pumping and, to a lesser amount, by underflow
to adjacent basins, also simulated by drains. All parameter values estimated
by the regression are reasonable and within the range of expected values.
The simulated hydraulic heads of the final calibrated transient model
generally fit observed heads reasonably well (residuals with absolute
values less than 10 m) with two exceptions: in most areas of nearly flat
hydraulic gradient the fit is considered moderate (residuals with absolute
values of 10 to 20 m), and in areas of steep hydraulic gradient, such
as Indian Springs, western Yucca Flat, and the southern part of the Bullfrog
Hills, the fit is poor (residuals with absolute values greater than 20 m).
Ground-water discharge residuals are fairly random, with as many areas
where simulated flows are less than observed flows as areas where simulated
flows are greater. The highest unweighted ground-water discharge residuals
occur at Death Valley and Ash Meadows. High weighted discharge residuals
were computed in the Pahrump Valley, near Manse Spring in particular,
possibly indicating a poor definition of hydraulic properties or discharge
estimates in that area.
The model represents the large and complex ground-water
flow system of the Death Valley region at a greater degree of refinement
and accuracy than has been possible previously. The representation of
detail provided by the 3D digital hydrogeologic framework model and the
numerical ground-water flow model enabled greater spatial accuracy in
every model parameter. The lithostratigraphy and structural effects of
the hydrogeologic framework; recharge estimates from simulated net infiltration;
discharge estimates from ET, spring flow, and pumping; and boundary inflow
and outflow estimates all were reevaluated, some additional data were
collected, and accuracy was improved. Uncertainty in the results of the
flow model simulations can be reduced by improving on the quality, interpretation,
and representation of the water-level observations used to calibrate the
model and improvements of the representation of the HGU geometries, the
spatial variability of HGU material properties, the flow model physical
framework, and the hydrologic conditions.
Back to top
|