Geology Reports⌕ Search

Geology topics

Alden M. Provost

Publications and source records attributed to Alden M. Provost.

At least 19 recordsLinked to original sources
USGS2025

A new groundwater energy transport model for the MODFLOW hydrologic simulator

Heat transport in the subsurface is an important aspect of research related to the effects of a warming climate on ecological services (i.e., cold-water refugia); the development of geothermal resources for energy banking schemes (i.e., aquifer thermal energy storage [ATES]); and the effects of temperature on other aspects of groundwater quality, such as nutrient cycling. Historically, simulation of heat transport using the MODFLOW groundwater simulator and related codes was performed by scaling the input parameters of a solute-transport model to emulate heat transport. However, that approach required additional pre- and post-processing of input and output and could not account for the variation in effective thermal storage and transport properties during transient, unsaturated flow, for example. True heat-transport capabilities in the context of MODFLOW were first introduced in a variant called USG-Transport. More recently, a new groundwater energy-transport (GWE) model type has been added to MODFLOW 6, the core version of the MODFLOW hydrologic simulator. GWE supports the simulation of heat transport on structured or unstructured grids as well as within and between features of advanced packages that represent streams, lakes, multi-aquifer wells, and the unsaturated zone. GWE is integrated within MODFLOW 6 and is accessible through the FloPy Python package and the MODFLOW 6 application programming interface (API). An example simulation demonstrates conduction between grid cells through both the water and the solid aquifer material, including thermal bleeding from saturated overburden cells into a groundwater flow field.

Groundwater↗
USGS2025

Accurate simulation of flow through dipping aquifers with MODFLOW 6 using enhanced cell connectivity

In simulations of groundwater flow through dipping aquifers, layers of model cells are often “deformed” to follow the top and bottom elevations of the aquifers. When this approach is used in MODFLOW, adjacent cells within the same model layer are vertically offset from one another, and the standard conductance-based (two-point) formulation for flow between cells does not rigorously account for these offsets. The XT3D multi-point flow formulation in MODFLOW 6 is designed to account for geometric irregularities in the grid, including vertical offsets, and to provide accurate results for both isotropic and anisotropic groundwater flow. A recent study evaluated the performance of the standard formulation and XT3D using a simple, synthetic benchmark model of a steeply dipping aquifer. Although XT3D generally improved the accuracy of flow simulations relative to the standard formulation as expected, neither formulation produced accurate flows in cases that involved large vertical offsets. In this paper, we explain that the inability of XT3D to produce accurate flows in the steeply dipping aquifer benchmark was not due to an inherent limitation of the flow formulation, but rather to the limited cell connectivity inherent in the most commonly used discretization packages in MODFLOW 6. Furthermore, we demonstrate that XT3D is able to produce the expected accuracy when adequate cell connectivity is introduced using MODFLOW's unstructured grid type and the aquifer is discretized vertically using at least two model layers.

Groundwater↗
USGS2024

SUTRA— A code for simulation of saturated-unsaturated, variable-density groundwater flow with solute or energy transport—Documentation of the version 4.0 enhancements—Freeze-thaw capability, saturation and relative-permeability relations, spatially varying properties, and enhanced budget and velocity outputs

Version 4.0 of the Saturated-Unsaturated Transport (SUTRA) software code provides the capability to simulate the freezing and thawing of groundwater during energy transport simulations under saturated and unsaturated conditions. In addition to the types of hydrogeologic processes that SUTRA has been able to simulate in the past, this version can be used to study the effects of the freeze-thaw process on the flow and energy dynamics of hydrogeologic systems. The freeze-thaw simulation capability accounts for the latent heat of fusion and allows thermal property values to vary with changing total-water saturation, liquid-water saturation, and ice saturation. It allows the effective permeability of the porous medium to change as a result of freezing and thawing. This version also provides several user-selectable relations for the dependence of total-water saturation on fluid pressure, the dependence of liquid-water saturation on temperature during freezing and thawing, and the dependence of relative permeability on liquid saturation, as well as three user-selectable formulae for defining the bulk thermal conductivity of a mixture of solid grains, liquid water, ice, and air. For unsaturated simulations without freezing, the selectable total-water saturation relations eliminate the need for the user to program these and their associated relative-permeability functions, as had been required in previous SUTRA versions. Optional nonlinear dependence of fluid density on temperature, which covers the range from supercooled (about −50 degrees Celsius) to superheated (about 400 degrees Celsius), is also provided. Additionally, this version makes it possible to spatially vary parameters that, in previous versions of SUTRA, were required to be spatially uniform: solid-matrix properties, adsorption parameters, and parameters for production of solute mass or energy. Spatial variation is also allowed for the newly included freeze-thaw process parameters. Additional enhancements provide (1) output of water-mass and energy budgets that include values of all component terms in the governing balance equations, and (2) output of Darcy velocities (fluid fluxes), in addition to the velocity output provided by previous SUTRA versions. These enhanced outputs allow fuller interpretation of simulation results, especially for freeze-thaw phenomena. The set of processes simulated by this version of SUTRA are useful for studying a wide range of hydrogeologic system types, conditions, and questions. For cryohydrogeologic simulations, however, this version of the code is limited in that (1) it does not simulate thermomechanical effects of freeze-thaw, (2) pressure changes due to water density change during freezing are neglected, (3) ice saturation cannot exceed the initial porosity of the simulated medium, and (4) cryosuction, the migration of liquid water toward freezing fronts, is neglected. Furthermore, this version does not account for air flow or for water vaporization and sublimation under unsaturated conditions.

Techniques and Methods↗
USGS2023

MODFLOW as a configurable multi-model hydrologic simulator

MODFLOW 6 is the latest in a line of six “core” versions of MODFLOW released by the U.S. Geological Survey. The MODFLOW 6 architecture supports incorporation of additional hydrologic processes, in addition to groundwater flow, and allows interaction between processes. The architecture supports multiple model instances and multiple types of models within a single simulation, a flexible approach to formulating and solving the equations that represent hydrologic processes, and recent advances in interoperability, which allow MODFLOW to be accessed and controlled by external programs. The present version of MODFLOW 6 consolidates popular capabilities available in MODFLOW variants, such as the unstructured grid support in MODFLOW-USG, the Newton-Raphson formulation in MODFLOW-NWT, and the support for partitioned stress boundaries in MODFLOW-CDSS. The flexible multi-model capability allows users to configure MODFLOW 6 simulations to represent the local-grid refinement (LGR) capabilities available in MODFLOW-LGR, the multi-species transport capabilities in MT3DMS, and the coupled variable-density capabilities available in SEAWAT. This paper provides a new, holistic and integrated overview of simulation capabilities made possible by the MODFLOW 6 architecture, and describes how ongoing and future development can take advantage of the program architecture to integrate new capabilities in a way that is minimally invasive and automatically compatible with the existing MODFLOW 6 code.

Groundwater↗
USGS2022

Possible effects of multiphase methane evolution during a glacial cycle on underpressure development in sedimentary basins: An analysis with application to the northeast Michigan Basin

In low-permeability systems, groundwater may be accompanied by separate-phase fluids, and measured pore water pressures may deviate from those expected in steady-state, single-phase systems. These same systems may be of interest for storage of nuclear waste in Deep Geologic Repositories. Therefore, it is important to understand the relationship between the presence of a separate phase and anomalous pressure development. At the Bruce site in Southern Ontario, a significant underpressure was observed, and there is evidence for the presence of gas-phase methane in situ. This study used a one-dimensional (vertical) numerical model of the subsurface down to a depth of 844 m beneath the Bruce site to evaluate possible effects of hydromechanical coupling with multiphase flow on pressure evolution during glacial loading and unloading. The simulated pressure conditions were affected strongly by the amount of methane initially present in the system, and the maximum simulated underpressure varied nonmonotonically with increasing initial methane content. When the initial methane content was below the solubility limit, exsolution led to underpressures that briefly exceeded those that formed in the single-phase case. At intermediate initial methane contents (sufficient to produce an immobile gas phase), the gas phase dampened the hydromechanical effects of the glacial cycle. At large initial methane contents (when a mobile gas phase was present), gas migration caused a large decrease in relative liquid permeability, which further contributed to underpressure development in the pore water. Multiple scenarios that spanned a range of initial methane contents yielded underpressures like those observed at the Bruce site.

Journal of Geophysical Research - Solid Earth↗
USGS2022

Documentation for the MODFLOW 6 Groundwater Transport Model

This report documents a new Groundwater Transport (GWT) Model for MODFLOW 6. The GWT Model simulates three-dimensional transport of a single chemical species in fowing groundwater based on a generalized control-volume fnite-difference approach. Although each GWT Model is only able to represent a single chemical species, multiple GWT Models may be invoked within a single MODFLOW 6 simulation to represent solute transport of multiple non-interacting chemical species. The GWT Model is designed to work with the Groundwater Flow (GWF) Model for MODFLOW 6, which simulates transient, three-dimensional groundwater fow. The version of the GWT model documented here must use the same spatial discretization used by the GWF Model; however, that spatial discretization can be represented by regular MODFLOW grids consisting of layers, rows, and columns, or by more general unstructured grids. The GWT Model simulates (1) advective transport, (2) the combined hydrodynamic dispersion processes of velocity-dependent mechanical dispersion and molecular diffusion, (3) adsorption and absorption (collectively referred to as sorption) of solutes by the aquifer matrix, (4) transfer between the mobile domain and one or more immobile domains, (5) frst-or zero-order solute decay or production, (6) mixing from groundwater sources and sinks, and (7) direct addition of solute mass. The GWT Model can also represent advective solute transport through advanced package features, such as streams, lakes, multi-aquifer wells, and the unsaturated zone. If the GWF Model application uses the Water Mover (MVR) Package to connect fow packages, then solute transport between these packages can also be represented. The transport processes described in this report have been implemented in a fully implicit manner and are solved in a system of equations using iterative numerical methods. The present version of the GWT Model for MODFLOW 6 does not have an option to calculate steady-state transport solutions; if a steady-state solution is required, then transient evolution of the solute must be represented using multiple time steps until no further changes in solute concentrations are detected.

Techniques and Methods↗
USGS2019

SUTRA, a model for saturated-unsaturated, variable-density groundwater flow with solute or energy transport—Documentation of generalized boundary conditions, a modified implementation of specified pressures and concentrations or temperatures, and the lake capability

Version 3.0 of the SUTRA groundwater modeling program offers three new capabilities: generalized boundary conditions, a modified implementation of specified pressures and concentrations or temperatures, and lakes. Two new types of “generalized” boundary conditions facilitate simulation of a wide range of hydrologic processes that interact with the groundwater model, such as rivers, drains, and evapotranspiration. For generalized-flow boundary conditions, gain (inflow) or loss (outflow) of fluid mass varies linearly with pressure, subject to optional upper and lower limits on flow and (or) pressure. For generalized-transport boundary conditions, gain or loss of solute mass or energy varies linearly with concentration or temperature, respectively. Two of the original types of SUTRA boundary conditions—specified-pressure and specified-concentration or temperature—have been modified such that user-specified, conductance-like factors (known as GNUP and GNUU in previous versions of SUTRA) are no longer required. The new lake capability works with all types of SUTRA boundary conditions, including the new generalized boundary conditions, to enable simulation of the interaction of groundwater flow and transport with lake water “ponded” on the surface of a three-dimensional model. SUTRA uses the topography of the top surface of the model, or, optionally, user-specified lake-bottom elevations, to identify potential lakes automatically. Increases and decreases in lake stage can cause lakes to coalesce and divide, respectively. The lake capability may be used with saturated or unsaturated flow and solute or energy transport.

Techniques and Methods↗
USGS2018

Rebuttal to “The case of the Biscayne Bay and aquifer near Miami, Florida: density-driven flow of seawater or gravitationally driven discharge of deep saline groundwater?” by Weyer (Environ Earth Sci 2018, 77:1–16)

A recent paper by Weyer (Environ Earth Sci 2018, 77:1–16) challenges the widely accepted interpretation of groundwater heads and salinities in the coastal Biscayne aquifer near Miami, Florida, USA. Weyer (2018) suggests that the body of saltwater that underlies fresh groundwater just inland of the coast is not a recirculating wedge of seawater, but results instead from upward migration of deep saline groundwater driven by regional flow. Perhaps more significantly, Weyer (2018) also asserts that established hydrologic theory is fundamentally incorrect with respect to buoyancy. Instead of acting along the direction of gravity (that is, vertically), Weyer (2018) claims, buoyancy acts instead along the direction of the pressure gradient. As a result, Weyer (2018) considers currently available density-dependent groundwater flow and transport modeling codes, and the analyses based on them, to be in error. In this rebuttal, we clarify the inaccuracies in the main points of Weyer’s (2018) paper. First, we explain that Weyer (2018) has misinterpreted observed equivalent freshwater heads in the Biscayne aquifer and that his alternative hypothesis concerning the source of the saltwater does not explain the observed salinities. Then, we review the established theory of buoyancy to identify the problem with Weyer’s (2018) alternative theory. Finally, we present theory and cite successful benchmark simulations to affirm the suitability of currently available codes for modeling density-dependent groundwater flow and transport.

Environmental Earth Sciences↗
USGS2017

Documentation for the MODFLOW 6 Groundwater Flow Model

This report documents the Groundwater Flow (GWF) Model for a new version of MODFLOW called MODFLOW 6. The GWF Model for MODFLOW 6 is based on a generalized control-volume finite-difference approach in which a cell can be hydraulically connected to any number of surrounding cells. Users can define the model grid using one of three discretization packages, including (1) a structured discretization package for defining regular MODFLOW grids consisting of layers, rows, and columns, (2) a discretization by ver­tices package for defining layered unstructured grids consisting of layers and cells, and (3) a general unstruc­tured discretization package for defining flexible grids comprised of cells and their connection properties. For layered grids, a new capability is available for removing thin cells and vertically connecting cells overlying and underlying the thin cells. For complex problems involving water-table conditions, an optional Newton-Raphson formulation, based on the formulations in MODFLOW-NWT and MODFLOW-USG, can be acti­vated. Use of the Newton-Raphson formulation will often improve model convergence and allow solutions to be obtained for difficult problems that cannot be solved using the traditional wetting and drying approach. The GWF Model is divided into “packages,” as was done in previous MODFLOW versions. A package is the part of the model that deals with a single aspect of simulation. Packages included with the GWF Model include those related to internal calculations of groundwater flow (discretization, initial conditions, hydraulic conduc­tance, and storage), stress packages (constant heads, wells, recharge, rivers, general head boundaries, drains, and evapotranspiration), and advanced stress packages (streamflow routing, lakes, multi-aquifer wells, and unsaturated zone flow). An additional package is also available for moving water available in one package into the individual features of the advanced stress packages. The GWF Model also has packages for obtaining and controlling output from the model. This report includes detailed explanations of physical and mathematical concepts on which the GWF Model and its packages are based. Like its predecessors, MODFLOW 6 is based on a highly modular structure; however, this structure has been extended into an object-oriented framework. The framework includes a robust and generalized numeri­cal solution object, which can be used to solve many different types of models. The numerical solution object has several different matrix preconditioning options as well as several methods for solving the linear system of equations. In this new framework, the GWF Model itself is an object as are each of the GWF Model packages. A benefit of the object-oriented structure is that multiple objects of the same type can be used in a single sim­ulation. Thus, a single forward run with MODFLOW 6 may contain multiple GWF Models. GWF Models can be hydraulically connected using GWF-GWF Exchange objects. Connecting GWF models in different ways permits the user to utilize a local grid refinement strategy consisting of parent and child models or to couple adjacent GWF Models. An advantage of the approach implemented in MODFLOW 6 is that multiple models and their exchanges can be incorporated into a single numerical solution object. With this design, models can be tightly coupled at the matrix level.

Techniques and Methods↗
USGS2017

Documentation for the “XT3D” option in the Node Property Flow (NPF) Package of MODFLOW 6

This report describes the “XT3D” option in the Node Property Flow (NPF) Package of MODFLOW 6. The XT3D option extends the capabilities of MODFLOW by enabling simulation of fully three-dimensional anisotropy on regular or irregular grids in a way that properly takes into account the full, three-dimensional conductivity tensor. It can also improve the accuracy of groundwater-flow simulations in cases in which the model grid violates certain geometric requirements. Three example problems demonstrate the use of the XT3D option to simulate groundwater flow on irregular grids and through three-dimensional porous media with anisotropic hydraulic conductivity. Conceptually, the XT3D method of estimating flow between two MODFLOW 6 model cells can be viewed in terms of three main mathematical steps: construction of head-gradient estimates by interpolation; construction of fluid-flux estimates by application of the full, three-dimensional form of Darcy’s Law, in which the conductivity tensor can be heterogeneous and anisotropic; and construction of the flow expression by enforcement of continuity of flow across the cell interface. The resulting XT3D flow expression, which relates the flow across the cell interface to the values of heads computed at neighboring nodes, is the sum of terms in which conductance-like coefficients multiply head differences, as in the conductance-based flow expression the NPF Package uses by default. However, the XT3D flow expression contains terms that involve “neighbors of neighbors” of the two cells for which the flow is being calculated. These additional terms have no analog in the conductance-based formulation. When assembled into matrix form, the XT3D formulation results in a larger stencil than the conductance-based formulation; that is, each row of the coefficient matrix generally contains more nonzero elements. The “RHS” suboption can be used to avoid expanding the stencil by placing the additional terms on the right-hand side of the matrix equation and evaluating them at the previous iteration or time step. The XT3D option can be an alternative to the Ghost-Node Correction (GNC) Package. However, the XT3D formulation is typically more computationally intensive than the conductance-based formulation the NPF Package uses by default, either with or without ghost nodes. Before deciding whether to use the GNC Package or XT3D option for production runs, the user should consider whether the conductance-based formulation alone can provide acceptable accuracy for the particular problem being solved.

Techniques and Methods↗
USGS2014

Ice sheet load cycling and fluid underpressures in the Eastern Michigan Basin, Ontario, Canada

Strong fluid underpressures have been detected in Paleozoic strata in the eastern Michigan Basin, with hydraulic heads reaching ~400 m below land surface (~4 MPa underpressure) and ~200 m below sea level in strata where unusually low permeabilities (~10 −20 –10 −23  m 2 ) were measured in situ. Multiple glaciations, including three with as much as 3 km of ice cover at the site in the last 120 ka, suggest a causal link with the underpressures. We examined this possibility using a one-dimensional groundwater flow model incorporating mechanical loading from both ice weight and lithospheric flexure. Because hydrologic and mechanical changes during glaciation are not well characterized and subsurface properties are imperfectly known, the model was used inversely to estimate flexural loads and loosely constrained permeabilities by matching observed pressures. Acceptable matches were obtained for a surprisingly wide range of scenarios with permeabilities close to measured values and plausible flexural loads. Matches were not obtained when too many parameters were preselected, or when permeabilities were constrained to be significantly larger than measured values. In successful model runs groundwater expulsion under glacial-mechanical loads caused the underpressuring, and flexural loads were important if aquifer and sub-glacial pressures were significantly elevated during glaciation. Simulated fluid pressures in the low-permeability strata fluctuated by 30–40 MPa during glacial cycles but resulted in advective transport of only tens of meters or less. Although other mechanisms cannot be ruled out, we conclude that glacial-mechanical forcing of a water-saturated system can explain the observed underpressures.

Ontario↗
USGS2014

Simulation of water-table aquifers using specified saturated thickness

Simulating groundwater flow in a water-table (unconfined) aquifer can be difficult because the saturated thickness available for flow depends on model-calculated hydraulic heads. It is often possible to realize substantial time savings and still obtain accurate head and flow solutions by specifying an approximate saturated thickness a priori, thus linearizing this aspect of the model. This specified-thickness approximation often relies on the use of the “confined” option in numerical models, which has led to confusion and criticism of the method. This article reviews the theoretical basis for the specified-thickness approximation, derives an error analysis for relatively ideal problems, and illustrates the utility of the approximation with a complex test problem. In the transient version of our complex test problem, the specified-thickness approximation produced maximum errors in computed drawdown of about 4% of initial aquifer saturated thickness even when maximum drawdowns were nearly 20% of initial saturated thickness. In the final steady-state version, the approximation produced maximum errors in computed drawdown of about 20% of initial aquifer saturated thickness (mean errors of about 5%) when maximum drawdowns were about 35% of initial saturated thickness. In early phases of model development, such as during initial model calibration efforts, the specified-thickness approximation can be a very effective tool to facilitate convergence. The reduced execution time and increased stability obtained through the approximation can be especially useful when many model runs are required, such as during inverse model calibration, sensitivity and uncertainty analyses, multimodel analysis, and development of optimal resource management scenarios.

Ground Water↗
USGS2011

Comment on “An unconfined groundwater model of the Death Valley Regional Flow System and a comparison to its confined predecessor” by R.W.H. Carroll, G.M. Pohll and R.L. Hershey [Journal of Hydrology 373/3–4, pp. 316–328]

Carroll et al. (2009) state that the United States Geological Survey (USGS) Death Valley Regional Flow System (DVRFS) model, which is based on MODFLOW, is “conceptually inaccurate in that it models an unconfined aquifer as a confined system and does not simulate unconfined drawdown in transient pumping simulations.” Carroll et al. (2009) claim that “more realistic estimates of water availability” can be produced by a SURFACT-based model of the DVRFS that simulates unconfined groundwater flow and limits withdrawals from wells to avoid excessive drawdown. Differences in results from the original MODFLOW-based model and the SURFACT-based model stem primarily from application by Carroll et al. (2009) of head limits that can also be applied using the existing MODLOW model and not from any substantial difference in the accuracy with which the unconfined aquifer is represented in the two models. In a hypothetical 50-year predictive simulation presented by Carroll et al. (2009), large differences between the models are shown when simulating pumping from the lower clastic confining unit, where the transmissivity is nearly two orders of magnitude less than in an alluvial aquifer. Yet even for this extreme example, drawdowns and pumping rates from the MODFLOW and SURFACT models are similar when the head-limit capabilities of the MODFLOW MNW Package are applied. These similarities persist despite possible discrepancies between assigned hydraulic properties. The resulting comparison between the MODFLOW and SURFACT models of the DVRFS suggests that approximating the unconfined system in the DVRFS as a constant-saturated-thickness system (called a “confined system” by Carroll et al., 2009) performs very well.

Death Valley↗
USGS2009

U.S. Geological Survey Groundwater Modeling Software: Making Sense of a Complex Natural Resource

Computer models of groundwater systems simulate the flow of groundwater, including water levels, and the transport of chemical constituents and thermal energy. Groundwater models afford hydrologists a framework on which to organize their knowledge and understanding of groundwater systems, and they provide insights water-resources managers need to plan effectively for future water demands. Building on decades of experience, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) continues to lead in the development and application of computer software that allows groundwater models to address scientific and management questions of increasing complexity.

Fact Sheet↗
USGS2008

User Guide for HUFPrint, A Tabulation and Visualization Utility for the Hydrogeologic-Unit Flow (HUF) Package of MODFLOW

This report documents HUFPrint, a computer program that extracts and displays information about model structure and hydraulic properties from the input data for a model built using the Hydrogeologic-Unit Flow (HUF) Package of the U.S. Geological Survey's MODFLOW program for modeling ground-water flow. HUFPrint reads the HUF Package and other MODFLOW input files, processes the data by hydrogeologic unit and by model layer, and generates text and graphics files useful for visualizing the data or for further processing. For hydrogeologic units, HUFPrint outputs such hydraulic properties as horizontal hydraulic conductivity along rows, horizontal hydraulic conductivity along columns, horizontal anisotropy, vertical hydraulic conductivity or anisotropy, specific storage, specific yield, and hydraulic-conductivity depth-dependence coefficient. For model layers, HUFPrint outputs such effective hydraulic properties as horizontal hydraulic conductivity along rows, horizontal hydraulic conductivity along columns, horizontal anisotropy, specific storage, primary direction of anisotropy, and vertical conductance. Text files tabulating hydraulic properties by hydrogeologic unit, by model layer, or in a specified vertical section may be generated. Graphics showing two-dimensional cross sections and one-dimensional vertical sections at specified locations also may be generated. HUFPrint reads input files designed for MODFLOW-2000 or MODFLOW-2005.

Techniques and Methods↗
USGS2006

Simulation of saltwater movement in the Upper Floridan aquifer in the Savannah, Georgia-Hilton Head Island, South Carolina, area, predevelopment-2004, and projected movement for 2000 pumping conditions

A digital model was developed to simulate ground-water flow and solute transport for the Upper Floridan aquifer in the Savannah, Georgia–Hilton Head Island, South Carolina, area. The model was used to (1) simulate trends of saltwater intrusion from predevelopment to the present day (1885–2004), (2) project these trends from the present day into the future, and (3) evaluate the relative influence of different assumptions regarding initial and boundary conditions and physical properties. The model is based on a regional, single-density ground-water flow model of coastal Georgia and adjacent parts of South Carolina and Florida. Variable-density ground-water flow and solute transport were simulated using the U.S. Geological Survey finite-element, variable-density solute-transport simulator SUTRA, 1885–2004. The model comprises seven layers: the surficial aquifer system, the Brunswick aquifer system, the Upper Floridan aquifer, the Lower Floridan aquifer, and the intervening confining units. The model was calibrated to September 1998 water levels, for single-density freshwater conditions, then refined using variable density and chloride concentration to give a reasonable match to the trend in the chloride distribution in the Upper Floridan aquifer inferred from field measurements of specific conductance made during 2000, 2002, 2003, and 2004. The model was modified to simulate solute transport by allowing saltwater to enter the system through localized areas near the northern end of Hilton Head Island, at Pinckney Island, and near the Colleton River, and was calibrated to match chloride concentrations inferred from field measurements of specific conductance. This simulation is called the "Base Case." Water-level residuals ranged from –5.3 to 23.4 feet for September 1998 conditions and single-density freshwater conditions. When chloride transport was simulated, water-level residuals ranged from –12.5 to 23.3 feet. The simulated chloride distribution captures the general trends in the field data. Chloride transport is sensitive to the permeabilities assigned to the confining units in the source areas and the porosity assigned to the Upper Floridan aquifer. Results of the study indicate that if present-day (year 2000) pumping conditions are maintained, plumes of saltwater in the Upper Floridan aquifer will continue to expand and move toward Savannah and across Hilton Head Island; the rate of movement of the 250-mg/L (milligram per liter) isochlor toward Savannah is between 144 feet per year and 190 feet per year and that the 250-mg/L isochlor could reach the pumping center at Savannah in 800 years; if effective porosities are lower than those used in the model, as is likely, higher rates of solute transport would result; and plumes may have occurred along the northern shore of Hilton Head Island before substantial development began in the mid-1960s, and lesser amounts of intrusion may have already occurred prior to the onset of pumping during 1885. Model limitations include uncertainty in (1) field data, (2) the conceptual model, (3) the physical properties and representation of the hydrogeologic framework, and (4) uncertainty in the boundary and initial conditions. Results of simulations projected far into the future must be interpreted with caution because they are based on an assumed future pumping distribution and fixed boundary conditions, and because these conditions may differ substantially from those for which the model is calibrated.

South Carolina↗