Groundwater and Surface-Water Interactions of a Stream Reach and Proposed Reservoir within the Pascagoula River Basin: George County, MS

Transcription

1 Groundwater and Surface-Water Interactions of a Stream Reach and Proposed Reservoir within the Pascagoula River Basin: George County, MS Courtney Killian Mississippi Water Resources Conference ck695@msstate.edu April 7, 2015

2 Significance 2

3 Significance Momentum for study Year 2000 Remediation Water purchased & release from Okatibbee Reservoir to supply fresh water to Pascagoula Not all water reached destination 3

4 Research Questions What portion of streamflow is composed of baseflow within the stream reach before extraction at Pascagoula, MS? Hypothesis: baseflow is not constant What is the hydraulic conductivity of the rock units at the proposed reservoir construction site? Hypothesis: hydraulic conductivity is high How will the hydraulic conductivity influence the reservoir fill time? Hypothesis: if high hydraulic conductivity, reservoir will fill slow 4

5 Background Groundwater and surface water are one Formerly thought to be separate Groundwater supplies water for streams Groundwater flow is stratified Groundwater movement boundaries differ from surface-water boundaries Watershed divide Directly observable flow-system divide Not directly observable Meinzer, O. E., 1928, Hydrology In Meinzer, O. E., Physics of the Earth, Hydrology: Dover Publications, New York, p Smakhtin, V. U., 2001, Low flow hydrology: a review: Journal of Hydrology, v. 240, p Winter, T. C., Rosenberry, D. O., and LaBaough, J. W., 2003, Where Does the Ground Water in Small Watersheds Come From?: Groundwater, v. 41, no. 7, p

6 Background Different types of streams Seasonal change May change over course of stream reach modified from Winter et al, 1998 (Alley, Reilly, and Frank, 1999) 6

7 Background Baseflow water within a stream not contributed from direct runoff Hydrograph graph of water discharge at a point along a stream as a function of time Quantitative Separate streamflow from baseflow Stream discharge data No one go to method Hydrograph Brodie, R., Sundaram, B., Tottenham, R., Hostetler, S., and Ransley, T., 2007, An Overview of Tools for Assessing Groundwater-Surface Water Connectivity, Bureau of Rural Sciences: Canberra, Australia, 133p. Singh, V. P., 1992, Elementary Hydrology: Upper Saddle River, New Jersey, Prentice Hall, 973 p. 7

8 Background Reservoir Construction Raise surface water level Water moves to bank storage New groundwater table level (equilibrium) Reservoir fill time Singh, V. P., 1992, Elementary Hydrology: Upper Saddle River, New Jersey, Prentice Hall, 973 p. 8

9 Stream Reach 9

10 Stream Reach - Overview Groundwater & Surfacewater Interactions Study Baseflow via hydrograph separation 40 years of data Pascagoula River Basin Okatibbee Lake to Pascagoula Research question: What portion of streamflow is composed of baseflow within the stream reach before extraction at Pascagoula, MS? 10

11 Stream Reach - Methods Hydrograph separation PART WHAT (Web-Based Hydrograph Analysis Tool) USGS continuous monitoring sites 40 years of daily discharge data Site Number Site Name Okatibbee Creek Chickasawhay River Pascagoula River Pascagoula River Site Location Drainage Area (mi 2 ) (km 2 ) Arundel, MS Enterprise, MS Merrill, MS Graham Ferry, MS

12 Stream Reach - Methods Program PART DOS-based USGS Linear Interpolation Streamflow = baseflow Outputs Baseflow Baseflow Index number (BFI) 12

13 Stream Reach - Methods Program PART Advantages USGS Disadvantages Complete year of daily discharge data Drainage area Disk space Software Data 13

14 Stream Reach - Methods WHAT (Web-based Hydrograph Analysis Tool) online resource One Parameter Filter α = (default) α = 0.98 Recursive Digital Filter α = 0.98 (default) BFI max = 0.80 Arnold, J. G., Allen, P. M., Muttiah, R., and Bernhardt, G., 1995, Automated Baseflow Separation and Recession Analysis Techniques, Groundwater, v. 33, no. 2, p Lim, K. J., Engel, B. A., Tang, Z., Choi, J., Kim, K., Muthukrishnan, S., and Tripathy, D., 2005, Automated Web GIS Based Hydrograph Analysis Tool, WHAT, Journal of the American Water Resources Association, p Nathan, R., and McMahon, T., 1990, Evaluation of Automated Techniques for Base Flow and Recession analysis, Water Resources Research, v. 26, no. 7, p Rutledge, A. T., 2005, The Appropriate Use of the Rorabaugh Model to Estimate Ground Water Recharge: Groundwater, v. 43, no. 3, p

15 Stream Reach - Methods WHAT (Web-based Hydrograph Analysis Tool) online resource Advantages No software to install USGS data online Do not need to know drainage area Disadvantages Multiple filters/parameters 15

16 Stream Reach - Results 16

17 Stream Reach - Results USGS Stations Time Period WHAT - One Parameter WHAT - One Parameter 0.98 WHAT - Recursive Filter 0.98 PART Baseflow between 50 and 70% of total streamflow 17

18 Stream Reach - Results 1.00 Base Flow Index PART Base Flow Index Station (Upstream to Downstream) WHAT - One Parameter Filter (0.925) WHAT - One Parameter Filter (0.98) WHAT - Recursive Digital Filter (0.98) 18

19 Stream Reach - Summary Baseflow composes 50 to 70% of streamflow in the main stream reach Okatibbee Lake to Pascagoula Baseflow contribution decreases, then increases before reaching the Gulf of Mexico Water could move to bank storage along the stream reach during low flow 19

20 Proposed Reservoir 20 17

21 Proposed Reservoir - Overview Reservoir footprints George County, MS Research question: What is the hydraulic conductivity of the rock units at the reservoir construction site? Research question: How will the hydraulic conductivity influence the reservoir fill time? 21 17

22 Proposed Reservoir - Methods Borehole samples (13) Pickering Firm, Inc. Geoprobe direct push, hallow stem auger 22

23 Proposed Reservoir - Methods Grain size analysis Sieve set Sieve No. Millimeters Sieve Size Microns phi Description Type Gravel Very coarse sand Coarse sand Medium sand Sand Fine sand Very fine sand Very coarse silt Pan <0.063 <63 NA Silt Sieve sizes used to determine grain size. Descriptive terms based on Udden (1914), Wentworth (1922), Friedman and Sanders (1978) found in Blott and Pye (2001) 23

24 Proposed Reservoir - Methods Grain-size analysis Dried Weighed Sieved Weighed Stored Driscoll, F. G., 1986, Groundwater and Wells, 2nd ed., Johnson Division, St. Paul, Minnesota, 1089 p. 24

25 Proposed Reservoir - Methods Hydraulic conductivity Hazen method k=c(d 10 ) 2 Very fine sand, poorly sorted Fine sand with appreciable fines Medium sand, well sorted Coarse sand, poorly sorted Coarse sand, well sorted, clean Fetter, C. W., 2001, Applied Hydrogeology: Upper Saddle River, New Jersey, Prentice Hall, 598 p. Singh, V. P., 1992, Elementary Hydrology: Upper Saddle River, New Jersey, Prentice Hall, 973 p. 25

26 Proposed Reservoir - Methods Baseflow analysis Cedar Creek Basin Continuous monitoring sites CL-3 & CB-5 Stage height Rainfall 1-4 years of data Flow measurements discharge 26

27 Proposed Reservoir - Methods Baseflow analysis Cedar Creek Basin Stage data vs discharge data to obtain equation Equation applied to stage data to convert to discharge data Lim, K. J., Engel, B. A., Tang, Z., Choi, J., Kim, K., Muthukrishnan, S., and Tripathy, D., 2005, Automated Web GIS Based Hydrograph Analysis Tool, WHAT, Journal of the American Water Resources Association, p

28 Proposed Reservoir - Methods Foote, J. (2014) 28

29 Proposed Reservoir - Results Grain size analysis Unconsolidated sediments (sands, silt, clay) High hydraulic conductivity 29

30 Proposed Reservoir - Results Grain size analysis Cross sections Depth Low High 30

31 Proposed Reservoir - Results 31

32 Proposed Reservoir - Results GC-7 Grain Size K GC-9 Grain Size K GC-10 Grain Size K GC-8 Grain Size K GC-10 Grain Size K Depth Depth Depth Depth Depth Low = 134 m/day Average = m/day High = 1254 m/day Low = 442 m/day Average = m/day High = 936 m/day Low = 43 m/day Average = m/day High = 749 m/day Low = 80 m/day Average = m/day High = 1396 /day Sieve Sizes #10 #18 #35 #60 Low = 37 m/day Average = m/day High = 3359 m/day #120 #230 Pan Vertically exaggerated Blue = water level after reservoir construction 32

33 Proposed Reservoir - Results 33

34 Proposed Reservoir - Results GC-12 Grain Size K GC-1 Grain Size K GC-8 Grain Size K Depth Depth Depth Low = 173 m/day Average = m/day High = 583 m/day Low = 134 m/day Average = m/day High = 1254 m/day Low = 43 m/day Average = m/day High = 749 m/day Sieve Sizes #10 #18 #35 #60 #120 #230 Pan Vertically exaggerated Blue = water level after reservoir construction 34

35 Proposed Reservoir - Results GC-2 Grain Size K Depth GC-3 Grain Size K GC-4 Grain Size K Depth GC-5 Grain Size K GC-13 Grain Size K Depth GC-2 Low = 85 m/day Average = m/day High = 840 m/day GC-3 Low = 73 m/day Average = m/day High = 399 m/day Sieve Sizes Depth GC-4 Low = 43 m/day Average = m/day High = 127 m/day #10 #18 #35 #60 #120 #230 Pan GC-5 Low = 95 m/day Average = m/day High = 452 m/day Depth GC-13 Low = 43 m/day Average = m/day High = 3175 m/day 35

36 Proposed Reservoir - Results Baseflow analysis CL-3 & CB-5 Baseflow between 50 and 80% 1-4 years worth of data 36

37 Proposed Reservoir - Summary Borehole sampling Unconsolidated sediments (sand, silt, clay) Grain size analysis Hydraulic conductivity = hundreds of meters per day Baseflow analysis CL-3 & CB-5 Baseflow between 50 and 80% of total streamflow 37

38 Conclusions Stream Reach Baseflow analysis 40 years of data 50 to 70% total streamflow All methods showed same trend baseflow decreases, then increases before reaching Pascagoula/Gulf of Mexico Suggests water could move to bank storage during low-flow periods Proposed Reservoir Borehole sampling Unconsolidated sediment Grain size analysis High hydraulic conductivity More groundwater storage Reservoir fill time - slow Baseflow analysis 1-4 years of data 50 to 80% total streamflow Similar baseflow percentage 38

39 Conclusions Baseflow analysis Methods Small scale Parameters less important Large scale Parameters important Proposed reservoirs Shorter distance/time for water release 39

40 Acknowledgments Pickering Firm Department of Geosciences MSU USGS Field Methods Seminar NSF - INSPIRE This material is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation under Grant No. DGE at Mississippi State University. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation. 40

41 Questions? 41

42 42

43 43

44 44

45 45

46 46

47 47

48 48

49 49

50 50

51 51

52 52

53 53

54 54

55 55

56 56

57 57