Search USGS⌕ Search

Geology topics

Stanley A. Leake

Publications and source records attributed to Stanley A. Leake.

At least 19 recordsLinked to original sources
USGS2022

Documentation for the Skeletal Storage, Compaction, and Subsidence (CSUB) Package of MODFLOW 6

This report describes the skeletal storage, compaction and subsidence (CSUB) package of MODFLOW 6. The CSUB package simulates the vertical compaction of compressible sediments and land subsidence. The package simulates groundwater storage changes and elastic compaction in coarse-grained aquifer sediments. The CSUB package also simulates groundwater storage changes and elastic and inelastic compaction in fne-grained, compressible interbeds, or in extensive confning units. The package can account for effective stress-dependent changes in storage properties. The CSUB package can also explicitly account for the contribution of water compressibility to groundwater storage changes. Compaction of compressible sediments is formulated using Terzaghi’s elastoplastic model and assumes the total compaction is a small fraction of the total initial thickness of compressible sediments. Compaction is controlled by head or pore-pressure changes and overburden stress changes associated with water-table changes, and thus by effective stress changes within coarse-and fne-grained compressible sediments. If the stress in a compressible unit is less than the preconsolidation stress, compaction is elastic (recoverable). If the stress in a compressible sediment is greater than the preconsolidation stress, compaction is inelastic (irrecoverable) and permanent land subsidence occurs. The propagation of head changes within fne-grained, compressible interbeds is represented numerically using a transient, one-dimensional (vertical) groundwater fow equation. This equation accounts for delayed release of water from storage or uptake of water into storage in the interbeds. Vertical hydraulic conductivity, elastic and inelastic skeletal specifc storage, and interbed thickness control the timing of interbed storage changes. Interbeds that are thin, have a relatively large vertical hydraulic conductivity, or relatively small specifc-storage values equilibrate quickly with heads/pore pressures in surrounding coarse-grained sediments and can be represented as no-delay interbeds that use the simulated groundwater head in a cell to calculate interbed compaction and do not need to be solved numerically using a vertically discretized interbed and the vertical groundwater fow equation. In addition to the applicability to confned groundwater fow systems, several features of the CSUB package make it applicable to shallow, unconfned groundwater fow systems. Geostatic stress can be treated as a function of water-table elevation, and compaction is a function of computed changes in effective stress. The porosity, void ratio, and thickness of shallow and deep coarse-grained aquifer sediments, fne-grained interbeds, and extensive confning units can vary in time based on calculated strain.

Techniques and Methods↗
USGS2018

Capture versus capture zones: Clarifying terminology related to sources of water to wells

The term capture, related to the source of water derived from wells, has been used in two distinct yet related contexts by the hydrologic community. The first is a water‐budget context, in which capture refers to decreases in the rates of groundwater outflow and (or) increases in the rates of recharge along head‐dependent boundaries of an aquifer in response to pumping. The second is a transport context, in which capture zone refers to the specific flowpaths that define the three‐dimensional, volumetric portion of a groundwater flow field that discharges to a well. A closely related issue that has become associated with the source of water to wells is streamflow depletion , which refers to the reduction in streamflow caused by pumping, and is a type of capture. Rates of capture and streamflow depletion are calculated by use of water‐budget analyses, most often with groundwater‐flow models. Transport models, particularly particle‐tracking methods, are used to determine capture zones to wells. In general, however, transport methods are not useful for quantifying actual or potential streamflow depletion or other types of capture along aquifer boundaries. To clarify the sometimes subtle differences among these terms, we describe the processes and relations among capture, capture zones, and streamflow depletion, and provide proposed terminology to distinguish among them.

Arizona↗
USGS2016

Hydrologic analyses in support of the Navajo Generating Station–Kayenta Mine Complex environmental impact statement

Introduction The U.S. Department of Interior’s Bureau of Reclamation, Lower Colorado Region (Reclamation) is preparing an environmental impact statement (EIS) for the Navajo Generating Station-Kayenta Mine Complex Project (NGS-KMC Project). The proposed project involves various Federal approvals that would facilitate continued operation of the Navajo Generating Station (NGS) from December 23, 2019 through 2044, and continued operation of the Kayenta Mine and support facilities (collectively called the Kayenta Mine Complex, or KMC) to supply coal to the NGS for this operational period. The EIS will consider several project alternatives that are likely to produce different effects on the Navajo (N) aquifer; the N aquifer is the principal water resource in the Black Mesa area used by the Navajo Nation, Hopi Tribe, and Peabody Western Coal Company (PWCC). The N aquifer is composed of three hydraulically connected formations—the Navajo Sandstone, the Kayenta Formation, and the Lukachukai Member of the Wingate Sandstone—that function as a single aquifer. The N aquifer is confined under most of Black Mesa, and the overlying stratigraphy limits recharge to this part of the aquifer. The N aquifer is unconfined in areas surrounding Black Mesa, and most recharge occurs where the Navajo Sandstone is exposed in the area near Shonto, Arizona. Overlying the N aquifer is the D aquifer, which includes the Dakota Sandstone, Morrison Formation, Entrada Sandstone, and Carmel Formation. The aquifer is named for the Dakota Sandstone, which is the primary water-bearing unit. The NGS is located near Page, Arizona on the Navajo Nation. The KMC, which delivers coal to NGS by way of a dedicated electric railroad, is located approximately 83 miles southeast of NGS (about 125 miles northeast of Flagstaff, Arizona). The Kayenta Mine permit area is located on about 44,073 acres of land leased within the boundaries of the Hopi and Navajo Indian Reservations. KMC has been conducting mining and reclamation operations within the Kayenta Mine permit boundary since 1973. The KMC part of the proposed project requires approval by the Office of Surface Mining (OSM) of a significant revision of the mine’s permit to operate in accordance with the Surface Mine Control and Reclamation Act (Public Law 95-87, 91 Stat. 445 [30 U.S.C. 1201 et seq. ]) . The revision will identify coal resource areas that may be used to continue extracting coal at the present rate of approximately 8.2 million tons per year. The Kayenta Mine Complex uses water pumped from the D and N aquifers beneath PWCC’s leasehold to support mining and reclamation activities. Prior to 2006, water from the PWCC well field also was used to transport coal by way of a coal-slurry pipeline to the now-closed Mohave Generating Station. Water usage at the leasehold was approximately 4,100 acre-feet per year (acre-ft/yr) during the period the pipeline was in use, and declined to an average 1,255 acre-ft/yr from 2006 to 2011. The Probable Hydrologic Consequences (PHC) section of the mining and reclamation permit must be modified to project the consequences of extended water use by the mine for the duration of the KMC part of the project, including a post-mining reclamation period. Since 1971, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) has conducted the Black Mesa Monitoring Program, which consists of monitoring water levels and water quality in the N aquifer, compiling information on water use by PWCC and tribal communities, maintaining several stream-gaging stations, measuring discharge at selected springs, conducting special studies, and reporting findings. These data are useful in evaluating the effects on the N aquifer from PWCC and community pumping, and the effects of variable precipitation. The EIS will assess the impacts of continued pumping on the N aquifer, including changes in storage, water quality, and effects on spring and baseflow discharge, by proposed mining through 2044, and during the reclamation process to 2057. Several groundwater models exist for the area and Reclamation concluded it would conduct a peer review of the groundwater flow model that will be used to assess the direct, reasonably foreseeable indirect, and cumulative effects of future groundwater withdrawals on the D and N aquifers in the Black Mesa area. Reclamation made this determination because of the level of controversy around the effects of continued water use and the comments received from the 2014 draft EIS scoping meetings. Reclamation requested assistance from the USGS in evaluating existing groundwater flow models of the Black Mesa Basin that can be used to predict the effects of different project alternatives on the D and N aquifers.

Arizona↗
USGS2016

Regional land subsidence caused by the compaction of susceptible aquifer systems accompanying groundwater extraction

Land subsidence includes both gentle downwarping and sudden sinking of segments of the land surface. Major anthropogenic causes of land subsidence are extraction of fluids including water, oil, and gas. Measurement and detec- tion of land subsidence include both ground-based and remotely sensed air- borne and space-based methods. Methods for measurement of subsidence at points include differential leveling, global positioning system surveys, and extensometers. Satellite-borne differential interferometric synthetic aperture radar and airborne LiDAR techniques can detect land-surface movement over wide areas of interest. Aquifer-system compaction and subsidence owing to groundwater extraction typically occurs in areas of unconsolidated alluvial or basin-fill aquifer systems comprising aquifers and aquitards. Approaches to analyzing and modeling deformation of aquifer systems follow from the basic relations between head, stress, compressibility, and groundwater flow. Analysis and simulation of aquifer-system compaction have been addressed primarily using either an approach based on conventional groundwater flow theory or an approach based on linear poroelasticity theory. Both approaches rely on the principle of effective stress outlined by Karl Terzaghi in 1925. In the approach based on conventional groundwater flow theory, an aquitard drainage model explains the compaction of fine grained material using the principle of effective stress and theory of hydrodynamic lag. Packages for the widely-used MODFLOW groundwater model are available to simulate aqui- fer-system compaction and land subsidence using the aquitard-drainage approach. Poroelasticity theory describes the more fully coupled processes of groundwater flow and three-dimensional deformation of aquifer systems. The general theory accounts for compressible fluid, porous matrix and solid grains. Simulation codes using the poroelastic theory include some commer- cial software products and a few research codes.

Book chapter↗
USGS2014

Depletion and capture: revisiting “The source of water derived from wells"

A natural consequence of groundwater withdrawals is the removal of water from subsurface storage, but the overall rates and magnitude of groundwater depletion and capture relative to groundwater withdrawals (extraction or pumpage) have not previously been well characterized. This study assesses the partitioning of long-term cumulative withdrawal volumes into fractions derived from storage depletion and capture, where capture includes both increases in recharge and decreases in discharge. Numerical simulation of a hypothetical groundwater basin is used to further illustrate some of Theis' (1940) principles, particularly when capture is constrained by insufficient available water. Most prior studies of depletion and capture have assumed that capture is unconstrained through boundary conditions that yield linear responses. Examination of real systems indicates that capture and depletion fractions are highly variable in time and space. For a large sample of long-developed groundwater systems, the depletion fraction averages about 0.15 and the capture fraction averages about 0.85 based on cumulative volumes. Higher depletion fractions tend to occur in more arid regions, but the variation is high and the correlation coefficient between average annual precipitation and depletion fraction for individual systems is only 0.40. Because 85% of long-term pumpage is derived from capture in these real systems, capture must be recognized as a critical factor in assessing water budgets, groundwater storage depletion, and sustainability of groundwater development. Most capture translates into streamflow depletion, so it can detrimentally impact ecosystems.

Groundwater↗
USGS2014

The Effect of modeled recharge distribution on simulated groundwater availability and capture

Simulating groundwater flow in basin-fill aquifers of the semiarid southwestern United States commonly requires decisions about how to distribute aquifer recharge. Precipitation can recharge basin-fill aquifers by direct infiltration and transport through faults and fractures in the high-elevation areas, by flowing overland through high-elevation areas to infiltrate at basin-fill margins along mountain fronts, by flowing overland to infiltrate along ephemeral channels that often traverse basins in the area, or by some combination of these processes. The importance of accurately simulating recharge distributions is a current topic of discussion among hydrologists and water managers in the region, but no comparative study has been performed to analyze the effects of different recharge distributions on groundwater simulations. This study investigates the importance of the distribution of aquifer recharge in simulating regional groundwater flow in basin-fill aquifers by calibrating a groundwater-flow model to four different recharge distributions, all with the same total amount of recharge. Similarities are seen in results from steady-state models for optimized hydraulic conductivity values, fit of simulated to observed hydraulic heads, and composite scaled sensitivities of conductivity parameter zones. Transient simulations with hypothetical storage properties and pumping rates produce similar capture rates and storage change results, but differences are noted in the rate of drawdown at some well locations owing to the differences in optimized hydraulic conductivity. Depending on whether the purpose of the groundwater model is to simulate changes in groundwater levels or changes in storage and capture, the distribution of aquifer recharge may or may not be of primary importance.

Arizona↗
USGS2014

Feedback of land subsidence on the movement and conjunctive use of water resources

The dependency of surface- or groundwater flows and aquifer hydraulic properties on dewatering-induced layer deformation is not available in the USGS's groundwater model MODFLOW. A new integrated hydrologic model, MODFLOW-OWHM, formulates this dependency by coupling mesh deformation with aquifer transmissivity and storage and by linking land subsidence/uplift with deformation-dependent flows that also depend on aquifer head and other flow terms. In a test example, flows most affected were stream seepage and evapotranspiration from groundwater (ET gw ). Deformation feedback also had an indirect effect on conjunctive surface- and groundwater use components: Changed stream seepage and streamflows influenced surface-water deliveries and returnflows. Changed ET gw affected irrigation demand, which jointly with altered surface-water supplies resulted in changed supplemental groundwater requirements and pumping and changed return runoff. This modeling feature will improve the impact assessment of dewatering-induced land subsidence/uplift (following irrigation pumping or coal-seam gas extraction) on surface receptors, inter-basin transfers, and surface-infrastructure integrity.

Environmental Modelling and Software↗
USGS2014

One-Water Hydrologic Flow Model (MODFLOW-OWHM)

The One-Water Hydrologic Flow Model (MF-OWHM) is a MODFLOW-based integrated hydrologic flow model (IHM) that is the most complete version, to date, of the MODFLOW family of hydrologic simulators needed for the analysis of a broad range of conjunctive-use issues. Conjunctive use is the combined use of groundwater and surface water. MF-OWHM allows the simulation, analysis, and management of nearly all components of human and natural water movement and use in a physically-based supply-and-demand framework. MF-OWHM is based on the Farm Process for MODFLOW-2005 (MF-FMP2) combined with Local Grid Refinement (LGR) for embedded models to allow use of the Farm Process (FMP) and Streamflow Routing (SFR) within embedded grids. MF-OWHM also includes new features such as the Surface-water Routing Process (SWR), Seawater Intrusion (SWI), and Riparian Evapotrasnpiration (RIP-ET), and new solvers such as Newton-Raphson (NWT) and nonlinear preconditioned conjugate gradient (PCGN). This IHM also includes new connectivities to expand the linkages for deformation-, flow-, and head-dependent flows. Deformation-dependent flows are simulated through the optional linkage to simulated land subsidence with a vertically deforming mesh. Flow-dependent flows now include linkages between the new SWR with SFR and FMP, as well as connectivity with embedded models for SFR and FMP through LGR. Head-dependent flows now include a modified Hydrologic Flow Barrier Package (HFB) that allows optional transient HFB capabilities, and the flow between any two layers that are adjacent along a depositional or erosional boundary or displaced along a fault. MF-OWHM represents a complete operational hydrologic model that fully links the movement and use of groundwater, surface water, and imported water for consumption by irrigated agriculture, but also of water used in urban areas and by natural vegetation. Supply and demand components of water use are analyzed under demand-driven and supply-constrained conditions. From large- to small-scale settings, MF-OWHM has the unique set of capabilities to simulate and analyze historical, present, and future conjunctive-use conditions. MF-OWHM is especially useful for the analysis of agricultural water use where few data are available for pumpage, land use, or agricultural information. The features presented in this IHM include additional linkages with SFR, SWR, Drain-Return (DRT), Multi-Node Wells (MNW1 and MNW2), and Unsaturated-Zone Flow (UZF). Thus, MF-OWHM helps to reduce the loss of water during simulation of the hydrosphere and helps to account for “all of the water everywhere and all of the time.” In addition to groundwater, surface-water, and landscape budgets, MF-OWHM provides more options for observations of land subsidence, hydraulic properties, and evapotranspiration (ET) than previous models. Detailed landscape budgets combined with output of estimates of actual evapotranspiration facilitates linkage to remotely sensed observations as input or as additional observations for parameter estimation or water-use analysis. The features of FMP have been extended to allow for temporally variable water-accounting units (farms) that can be linked to land-use models and the specification of both surface-water and groundwater allotments to facilitate sustainability analysis and connectivity to the Groundwater Management Process (GWM). An example model described in this report demonstrates the application of MF-OWHM with the addition of land subsidence and a vertically deforming mesh, delayed recharge through an unsaturated zone, rejected infiltration in a riparian area, changes in demand caused by deficiency in supply, and changes in multi-aquifer pumpage caused by constraints imposed through the Farm Process and the MNW2 Package, and changes in surface water such as runoff, streamflow, and canal flows through SFR and SWR linkages.

Techniques and Methods↗
USGS2013

Water resources in the desert southwest

As the old saying goes, there is nothing more precious than water in the desert. The Ancestral Puebloans, Hohokam, and other pre-Columbian cultures knew this and built their civilizations near guaranteed water supplies. When the Spaniards arrived in present-day Arizona, they found that the Tohono O’odham and Piman cultures had settled in prime riverine sites, turning perennial flow through lush riparian ecosystems into irrigation water for productive agriculture. The Spaniards followed suit, building their missions along perennial reaches of the Santa Cruz River, including at one place aptly named “Punta de Agua” (Point of Water) south of Tucson. When the Mormons spread southward from Utah in the 1870s, their destinations were riverside settings on the Little Colorado, Salt, and San Pedro Rivers (Figure 4.1).

Arizona, California, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico,↗
USGS2013

Understanding and managing the effects of groundwater pumping on streamflow

Groundwater is a critical resource in the United States because it provides drinking water, irrigates crops, supports industry, and is a source of water for rivers, streams, lakes, and springs. Wells that pump water out of aquifers can reduce the amount of groundwater that flows into rivers and streams, which can have detrimental impacts on aquatic ecosystems and the availability of surface water. Estimation of rates, locations, and timing of streamflow depletion due to groundwater pumping is needed for water-resource managers and users throughout the United States, but the complexity of groundwater and surface-water systems and their interactions presents a major challenge. The understanding of streamflow depletion and evaluation of water-management practices have improved during recent years through the use of computer models that simulate aquifer conditions and the effects of pumping groundwater on streams.

Arizona, Sonora↗
USGS2013

Potential depletion of surface water in the Colorado River and agricultural drains by groundwater pumping in the Parker-Palo Verde-Cibola area, Arizona and California

Water use along the lower Colorado River is allocated as “consumptive use,” which is defined to be the amount of water diverted from the river minus the amount that returns to the river. Diversions of water from the river include surface water in canals and water removed from the river by pumping wells in the aquifer connected to the river. A complication in accounting for water pumped by wells occurs if the pumping depletes water in drains and reduces measured return flow in those drains. In that case, consumptive use of water pumped by the wells is accounted for in the reduction of measured return flow. A method is needed to understand where groundwater pumping will deplete water in the river and where it will deplete water in drains. To provide a basis for future accounting for pumped groundwater in the Parker-Palo Verde-Cibola area, a superposition model was constructed. The model consists of three layers of finite-difference cells that cover most of the aquifer in the study area. The model was run repeatedly with each run having a pumping well in a different model cell. The source of pumped water that is depletion of the river, expressed as a fraction of the pumping rate, was computed for all active cells in model layer 1, and maps were constructed to understand where groundwater pumping depletes the river and where it depletes drains. The model results indicate that if one or more drains exist between a pumping well location and the river, nearly all of the depletion will be from drains, and little or no depletion will come from the Colorado River. Results also show that if a well pumps on a side of the river with no drains in the immediate area, depletion will come from the Colorado River. Finally, if a well pumps between the river and drains that parallel the river, a fraction of the pumping will come from the river and the rest will come from the drains. Model results presented in this report may be considered in development or refinement of strategies for accounting for groundwater pumping in the river aquifer connected to the Colorado River in the study area.

Arizona;California↗
USGS2012

Streamflow depletion by wells--Understanding and managing the effects of groundwater pumping on streamflow

Groundwater is an important source of water for many human needs, including public supply, agriculture, and industry. With the development of any natural resource, however, adverse consequences may be associated with its use. One of the primary concerns related to the development of groundwater resources is the effect of groundwater pumping on streamflow. Groundwater and surface-water systems are connected, and groundwater discharge is often a substantial component of the total flow of a stream. Groundwater pumping reduces the amount of groundwater that flows to streams and, in some cases, can draw streamflow into the underlying groundwater system. Streamflow reductions (or depletions) caused by pumping have become an important water-resource management issue because of the negative impacts that reduced flows can have on aquatic ecosystems, the availability of surface water, and the quality and aesthetic value of streams and rivers. Scientific research over the past seven decades has made important contributions to the basic understanding of the processes and factors that affect streamflow depletion by wells. Moreover, advances in methods for simulating groundwater systems with computer models provide powerful tools for estimating the rates, locations, and timing of streamflow depletion in response to groundwater pumping and for evaluating alternative approaches for managing streamflow depletion. The primary objective of this report is to summarize these scientific insights and to describe the various field methods and modeling approaches that can be used to understand and manage streamflow depletion. A secondary objective is to highlight several misconceptions concerning streamflow depletion and to explain why these misconceptions are incorrect.

Circular↗
USGS2012

Evaluation of simulations to understand effects of groundwater development and artificial recharge on the surface water and riparian vegetation Sierra Vista subwatershed, Upper San Pedro Basin, Arizona

In 2007, the U.S. Geological Survey documented a five-layer groundwater flow model of the Sierra Vista and Sonoran subwatersheds of the Upper San Pedro Basin. The model has been applied by a private consultant to evaluate the effects of projected groundwater pumping through 2105 and effects of artificial recharge at three near-stream sites for 2012-2111. The main concern regarding simulations of long-term groundwater pumping is the effect of artificial model boundaries on modeled response, particularly for pumping near Cananea, Sonora, Mexico, which is adjacent to an artificial no-flow boundary. Concerns regarding the simulations of the effects of artificial recharge near streams include the resolution of the model and the representation of the model properties at the site scale; a possible limited ability of the model to correctly apportion recharge response between increased streamflow and increased evapotranspiration; a limited ability of the model to simulate detailed geometries of artificial recharge areas and evapotranspiration areas; and stream locations with the 820-foot grid spacing of the basin-scale model. In spite of these concerns, use of the U.S. Geological Survey five-layer groundwater flow model by the consultant are reasonable and valid.

Arizona↗
USGS2011

Regional groundwater-flow model of the Redwall-Muav, Coconino, and alluvial basin aquifer systems of northern and central Arizona

A numerical flow model (MODFLOW) of the groundwater flow system in the primary aquifers in northern Arizona was developed to simulate interactions between the aquifers, perennial streams, and springs for predevelopment and transient conditions during 1910 through 2005. Simulated aquifers include the Redwall-Muav, Coconino, and basin-fill aquifers. Perennial stream reaches and springs that derive base flow from the aquifers were simulated, including the Colorado River, Little Colorado River, Salt River, Verde River, and perennial reaches of tributary streams. Simulated major springs include Blue Spring, Del Rio Springs, Havasu Springs, Verde River headwater springs, several springs that discharge adjacent to major Verde River tributaries, and many springs that discharge to the Colorado River. Estimates of aquifer hydraulic properties and groundwater budgets were developed from published reports and groundwater-flow models. Spatial extents of aquifers and confining units were developed from geologic data, geophysical models, a groundwater-flow model for the Prescott Active Management Area, drill logs, geologic logs, and geophysical logs. Spatial and temporal distributions of natural recharge were developed by using a water-balance model that estimates recharge from direct infiltration. Additional natural recharge from ephemeral channel infiltration was simulated in alluvial basins. Recharge at wastewater treatment facilities and incidental recharge at agricultural fields and golf courses were also simulated. Estimates of predevelopment rates of groundwater discharge to streams, springs, and evapotranspiration by phreatophytes were derived from previous reports and on the basis of streamflow records at gages. Annual estimates of groundwater withdrawals for agriculture, municipal, industrial, and domestic uses were developed from several sources, including reported withdrawals for nonexempt wells, estimated crop requirements for agricultural wells, and estimated per capita water use for exempt wells. Accuracy of the simulated groundwater-flow system was evaluated by using observational control from water levels in wells, estimates of base flow from streamflow records, and estimates of spring discharge. Major results from the simulations include the importance of variations in recharge rates throughout the study area and recharge along ephemeral and losing stream reaches in alluvial basins. Insights about the groundwater-flow systems in individual basins include the hydrologic influence of geologic structures in some areas and that stream-aquifer interactions along the lower part of the Little Colorado River are an effective control on water level distributions throughout the Little Colorado River Plateau basin. Better information on several aspects of the groundwater flow system are needed to reduce uncertainty of the simulated system. Many areas lack documentation of the response of the groundwater system to changes in withdrawals and recharge. Data needed to define groundwater flow between vertically adjacent water-bearing units is lacking in many areas. Distributions of recharge along losing stream reaches are poorly defined. Extents of aquifers and alluvial lithologies are poorly defined in parts of the Big Chino and Verde Valley sub-basins. Aquifer storage properties are poorly defined throughout most of the study area. Little data exist to define the hydrologic importance of geologic structures such as faults and fractures. Discharge of regional groundwater flow to the Verde River is difficult to identify in the Verde Valley sub-basin because of unknown contributions from deep percolation of excess surface water irrigation.

Scientific Investigations Report↗
USGS2011

Water availability and use pilot: Methods development for a regional assessment of groundwater availability, southwest alluvial basins, Arizona

Executive Summary: Arizona is located in an arid to semiarid region in the southwestern United States and is one of the fastest growing States in the country. Population in Arizona surpassed 6.5 million people in 2008, an increase of 140 percent since 1980, when the last regional U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) groundwater study was done as part of the Regional Aquifer System Analysis (RASA) program. The alluvial basins of Arizona are part of the Basin and Range Physiographic Province and cover more than 73,000 mi 2 , 65 percent of the State's total land area. More than 85 percent of the State's population resides within this area, accounting for more than 95 percent of the State's groundwater use. Groundwater supplies in the area are expected to undergo further stress as an increasing population vies with the State's important agricultural sector for access to these limited resources. To provide updated information to stakeholders addressing issues surrounding limited groundwater supplies and projected increases in groundwater use, the USGS Groundwater Resources Program instituted the Southwest Alluvial Basins Groundwater Availability and Use Pilot Program to evaluate the availability of groundwater resources in the alluvial basins of Arizona. The principal products of this evaluation of groundwater resources are updated groundwater budget information for the study area and a proof-of-concept groundwater-flow model incorporating several interconnected groundwater basins. This effort builds on previous research on the assessment and mapping of groundwater conditions in the alluvial basins of Arizona, also supported by the USGS Groundwater Resources Program. Regional Groundwater Budget: The Southwest Alluvial Basins-Regional Aquifer System Analysis (SWAB-RASA) study produced semiquantitative groundwater budgets for each of the alluvial basins in the SWAB-RASA study area. The pilot program documented in this report developed new quantitative estimates of groundwater budget components using recent (2000-2007) data and methods of data analysis. Estimates of inflow components, including mountain-front recharge, incidental recharge from irrigation of agriculture, managed recharge from recharge facilities, interbasin underflow from upgradient basins, and streamflow losses, are quantified for recent time periods. Mountain-front recharge is the greatest inflow component to the groundwater system and was estimated using two methods: a basin characteristic model and new precipitation information used in a previously developed regression equation. Annual mountain-front recharge for the study area for 1940-2007 estimated by the two methods is 730,000 acre-ft for the basin characteristic model and 643,000 acre-ft for the regression equation, representing 1.5 percent and 1.3 percent of precipitation, respectively. Outflow components, including groundwater withdrawals, evapotranspiration, and interbasin flow to downgradient basins, are also presented for recent time periods. Groundwater withdrawals accounted for the largest share of the water budget, with nearly 2.4 million acre-ft per year withdrawn from the study area in recent years. Evapotranspiration from groundwater was estimated at nearly 1.3 million acre-ft per year for the study area using a newly developed method incorporating vegetation indices from satellite images and land cover information. For water-budget components with temporal variation that could be assessed from available data, estimates for intervening time periods since before development were also developed. An estimate of aquifer storage change, representing both gains to and losses from the groundwater system since before development, was derived for the most developed basins in the study area using available estimates of groundwater-level changes and storage coefficients. An overall storage loss of 74.5 million acre-ft was estimated for these basins within the study area. Demonstration

Arizona↗
USGS2010

Trends in groundwater levels in wells in the active management areas of Arizona, USA

In 1980, the Arizona legislature passed the Groundwater Management Act (GMA), creating the active management areas (AMAs) to protect shared groundwater resources and to control severe overdrafts occurring in many parts of the state. With the 30-year anniversary of the GMA approaching, this article addresses the question: Have there been notable changes in the trends in observed groundwater levels in the AMAs from before enactment of the GMA until present? New tools developed for the US Geological Survey’s National Water Availability and Use Pilot Program are used to analyze and present trends in observed groundwater level data. Trends in groundwater levels in the AMAs were investigated for 10-year time periods from 1970 through 1999 and an 9-year period from 2000–2008. Results indicate that the number of wells with rising trends in water levels increased and the number of wells with falling trends in water levels decreased during the early decades after passage of the GMA in the most-populated Phoenix and heavily agricultural Pinal AMAs. However, these trends in water levels are reversed during the 1995–2004 time period. The value of trend analyses would be improved by consistent groundwater-level monitoring in both developed and undeveloped areas of the region.

Arizona↗
USGS2010

Possible effects of groundwater pumping on surface water in the Verde Valley, Arizona

The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), in cooperation with The Nature Conservancy, has applied a groundwater model to simulate effects of groundwater pumping and artificial recharge on surface water in the Verde Valley sub-basin of Arizona. Results are in two sets of maps that show effects of locations of pumping or recharge on streamflow. These maps will help managers make decisions that will meet water needs and minimize environmental impacts.

Fact Sheet↗