Search USGSSearch

USGS · pp1837D

Evaluation of hydrologic processes in the eastern Snake River Plain aquifer using uranium and strontium isotopes, Idaho National Laboratory, eastern Idaho

Abstract

Waste constituents discharged to the eastern Snake River Plain aquifer at the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Idaho National Laboratory (INL) pose risks to the water quality of the aquifer. To understand these risks, the U.S. Geological Survey, in cooperation with the DOE, is conducting geochemical studies to better understand the hydrologic processes at the INL that affect the movement of groundwater and waste constituents. In this study, we used natural uranium ( 234 U/ 238 U) and strontium ( 87 Sr/ 86 Sr) isotope ratios of surface water and groundwater to identify the sources of water, the mixing of different source waters, and the flow directions in the shallow part (upper 250 feet) of the aquifer at the INL. Samples were collected from 17 sites at and near the INL that represent the source-water contributions to the aquifer. These source-water sites included surface water, regional groundwater, and springs. Groundwater samples from 63 sites were collected at and near the INL. For all sites, sample collection dates ranged from 1979 to 2019, but groundwater samples collected at the INL are representative of wet climate cycles when the Big Lost River (BLR) was flowing onto the INL. The 234 U/ 238 U activity ratios and 87 Sr/ 86 Sr from groundwater at the INL were plotted on graphs within ternary mixing webs in which the three end members of the mixing web represented specific sources of recharge. The large number of sources of recharge required numerous mixing webs, representing various geographic locations at the INL, so that each mixing web represented an area with just three sources of recharge. Considerations for determining the sources of recharge to groundwater sites included chemical signatures in addition to 234 U/ 238 U and 87 Sr/ 86 Sr, hydrologic context, and geographic location. The mixing webs were used to estimate the percentage of recharge from specific sources to groundwater at wells. The results of this study identified groundwater from the Lemhi Range as a source of recharge to the INL, which was a previously unsuspected source of recharge. The estimated spatial distribution of recharge from the BLR and groundwater from the Lost River Range also decreased and increased, respectively, relative to the spatial distribution estimated from an earlier study. Upwelling geothermal water was identified at only one well, which indicates that the upward movement of deep groundwater to the shallow part of the aquifer is largely nonexistent. Mixing between surface water and groundwater, different groundwater recharge sources, or both is ubiquitous at the INL. Mixing of water fully explains the distribution of 234 U/ 238 U and 87 Sr/ 86 Sr in groundwater at the INL and thus renders unnecessary the hypothesis that fast and slow flow zones at the INL are required to explain the distribution of 234 U/ 238 U and 87 Sr/ 86 Sr.

Explore related subjects

90° N90° S · 180° W ← longitude → 180° E
Source-reported bounding extent: 43.235490275196184° to 44.2273523624917° latitude; -113.73997601464795° to -112.19156981148207° longitude. This indicates report coverage, not an exact sampling location. View area on OpenStreetMap.

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Gordon W. Rattray, James B. Paces. 2023-04-14. Evaluation of hydrologic processes in the eastern Snake River Plain aquifer using uranium and strontium isotopes, Idaho National Laboratory, eastern Idaho. https://doi.org/10.3133/pp1837d

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

KEEP EXPLORING

Related USGS reports

Resurvey of the Marble Canyon and Bridge Canyon dam sites in Grand Canyon National Park—Changes in sediment storage and evidence supporting the occurrence of bedrock incision through the mid-20th century

The Bureau of Reclamation developed an extensive plan for a network of dams, water tunnels, and hydropower plants in and around Grand Canyon, Arizona, in the 1940s through 1960s. The two largest of these planned dams were the Marble Canyon and Bridge Canyon Dams on the Colorado River. Though these dams were ultimately never built, Reclamation conducted extensive topographic, bathymetric, and subsurface exploration work at the sites proposed for these dams in the 1940s and 1950s. Resurveys of these dam sites were conducted between 1998 and 2021 to determine the changes in sediment storage at these dam sites caused by the upstream construction and operation of Glen Canyon Dam and by the recession of Lake Mead, the reservoir impounded by Hoover Dam. The resurveys of the Marble Canyon dam sites indicate that the post-1950s changes in sediment storage at these dam sites are broadly consistent with flux-based estimates of voluminous sand erosion from Marble Canyon since the 1963 closure of Glen Canyon Dam. These resurveys also suggest that the pre-dam longitudinal variation in sediment thickness over bedrock played a key role in determining the locations of the sand erosion induced by Glen Canyon Dam; more sand eroded from locations where more sand was present in the 1950s. The resurvey of the Bridge Canyon dam sites indicates that the Colorado River’s incision of the Lake Mead delta is regulated both by bed-sediment grain size and downstream hydraulic controls. Finally, analyses of bed-sediment thickness and sedimentological data at the dam sites, and observations of bed scour and gravel transport, suggest that sufficient bedrock was exposed to allow bedrock incision during commonly recurring pre-dam snowmelt floods that entrained small boulders into transport.

Arizona

The eruptive behavior of distributed volcanism forming low shield edifices—A case study of Sentinel-Arlington volcanic field, U.S.A.

Distributed volcanic fields are present in various tectonic settings worldwide, and their characteristics reflect differing influences from magmatic and tectonic processes. In the southwestern United States alone, there are 37 Quaternary distributed volcanic fields. After the primary period of extensional tectonics in the southern Basin and Range 15–5 million years ago, the Sentinel-Arlington volcanic field developed in southwestern Arizona between 4 and 1 million years ago. The Sentinel-Arlington volcanic field consists primarily of low relief shield volcanoes, a type of distributed volcanism with poorly understood temporal evolution. The Sentinel-Arlington volcanic field is less than 200 kilometers (km) from the Colorado Plateau, Gulf of California, and southern San Andreas Fault system. This work identifies and examines controls on the emplacement of the Sentinel-Arlington volcanic field by documenting shallow and surficial structures as well as eruption characteristics and style through time. The Sentinel-Arlington volcanic field consists of 21 volcanoes with a total of 33 vents over an area of about 770 square kilometers (km 2 ). The prominence of low relief shield volcanoes may be explained by ascent of basaltic magmas through thin Basin and Range crust, without much crustal contamination, and low viscosities common to mafic compositions. Typical eruption characteristics involve the construction of low relief shield volcanoes followed by Strombolian fissure eruptions at the summits or near-summit medial areas that produce scoria lapilli, which may weld to form agglomerate. The total lifetime erupted volume of about 4.3 cubic kilometers (km 3 ) represents an average eruptive flux of approximately 2x10 -3 km 3 per thousand years (k.y.). This erupted volume is low relative to Neogene basaltic intraplate distributed volcanic fields worldwide, which typically range from 10 -3 to 1 km 3 k.y. -1 . Sentinel-Arlington volcanic field eruptions were likely triggered by intermittent rejuvenation of transient magmatic zones that exist in thinned crust. Instantaneous flux from point sources feeding the lava flows is estimated to be on the order of 10 -1 to 10 cubic meters per second.

Arizona

Capitalization of positional (Lower/Middle/Upper) and temporal (Early/Middle/Late) adjectives in the names of formal chronostratigraphic and geochronologic units of the Phanerozoic

Many authors are understandably confused about the capitalization of the words “lower,” “middle,” “upper,” “early,” and “late.” Where these words are used simply as descriptive adjectives, they should be in lowercase; where they form the first word of a formal chronostratigraphic or geochronologic unit name, they should be in uppercase.

Professional Paper