Geology Reports⌕ Search

Geology topics

Christina L. Stamos

Publications and source records attributed to Christina L. Stamos.

25 records · Page 2Linked to original sources
USGS2004

Regional water table (2004) and water-level changes in the Mojave River and Morongo ground-water basins, Southwestern Mojave Desert, California

The Mojave River and Morongo ground-water basins are in the southwestern part of the Mojave Desert in southern California. Ground water from these basins supplies a major part of the water requirements for the region. The continuous population growth in this area has resulted in ever-increasing demands on local ground-water resources. The collection and interpretation of ground-water data helps local water districts, military bases, and private citizens gain a better understanding of the ground-water flow systems, and consequently, water availability. During March and April 2004, the U.S. Geological Survey and other agencies made almost 900 water-level measurements in about 740 wells in the Mojave River and Morongo ground-water basins. These data document recent conditions and, when compared with historical data, changes in ground-water levels. A water-level contour map was drawn using data from 500 wells, providing coverage for most of the basins. In addition, 26 long-term (as much as 74 years) hydrographs were constructed which show water-level conditions throughout the basins, 9 short-term (1992 to 2004) hydrographs were constructed which show the effects of recharge and discharge along the Mojave River, and a water-level-change map was compiled to compare 2002 and 2004 water levels throughout the basins. The water-level change data show that in the Mojave River ground-water basin, more than one half (102) of the wells had water-level declines of 0.5 ft or more and almost one fifth (32) of the wells had declines greater than 5 ft. between 2002 and 2004. The water-level change data also show that about one tenth (17) of the wells compared in the Mojave River ground-water basin had water level increases of 0.5 ft or more. Most of the water-level increases were the result of stormflow in the Mojave River during March 2004, which resulted in recharge to wells in the floodplain aquifer mainly along the river in the Alto subarea and the Transition zone, and along the river east of Barstow. In the Morongo ground-water basin, nearly one half (55) of the wells had water-level declines of 0.5 ft or more, and about one tenth (13) of the wells had declines greater than 5 ft. The Warren subbasin, where artificial-recharge operations in Yucca Valley (pl. 1) have caused water levels to rise, had water-level increases of as much as about 97 ft since 2002.

California↗
USGS2003

Geologic Setting, Geohydrology, and Ground-Water Quality near the Helendale Fault in the Mojave River Basin, San Bernardino County, California

The proximity of the Mojave River ground-water basin to the highly urbanized Los Angeles region has resulted in rapid population growth and, consequently, an increase in the demand for water. The Mojave River, the primary source of surface water for the region, normally is dry--except for periods of flow after intense storms; therefore, the region relies almost entirely on ground water to meet its agricultural and municipal needs. The area where the Helendale Fault intersects the Mojave River is of particular hydrogeologic interest because of its importance as a boundary between two water-management subareas of the Mojave Water Agency. The fault is the boundary between the upper Mojave River Basin (Oeste, Alto, and Este subareas) and the lower Mojave River Basin (Centro and Baja subareas); specifically, the fault is the boundary between the Alto and the Centro subareas. To obtain the information necessary to help better understand the hydrogeology of the area near the fault, multiple-well monitoring sites were installed, the surface geology was mapped in detail, and water-level and water-quality data were collected from wells in the study area. Detailed surficial geologic maps and water-level measurements indicate that the Helendale Fault impedes the flow of ground water in the deeper regional aquifer, but not in the overlying floodplain aquifer. Other faults mapped in the area impede the flow of ground water in both aquifers. Evidence of flowing water in the Mojave River upgradient of the Helendale Fault exists in the historical record, suggesting an upward gradient of ground-water flow. However, water-level data from this study indicate that pumping upstream of the Helendale Fault has reversed the vertical gradient of ground-water flow since predevelopment conditions, and the potential now exists for water to flow downward from the floodplain aquifer to the regional aquifer. Sixty-seven ground-water samples were analyzed for major ions, nutrients, and stable isotopes of oxygen and hydrogen from 34 wells within the study area between May 1990 and November 1999. Dissolved-solids concentrations in water samples from 14 wells in the floodplain aquifer ranged from 339 to 2,330 milligrams per liter (mg/L) with a median concentration of 825 mg/L. Concentrations in water from 11 of these wells exceeded the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) Secondary Maximum Contaminant Level (SMCL) of 500 mg/L. Dissolved-solids concentrations of water from nine wells sampled in the regional aquifer ranged from 479 to 946 mg/L with a median concentration of 666 mg/L. Concentrations in at least one sample of water from each of the wells in the regional aquifer exceeded the USEPA SMCL for dissolved solids. Arsenic concentrations in water from 14 wells in the floodplain aquifer ranged from less than the detection limit of 2 micrograms per liter (?g/L) to a maximum of 34 ?g/L with a median concentration of 6 ?g/L. Concentrations in water from six of the 14 wells exceeded the USEPA Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) for arsenic of 10 ?g/L. Arsenic concentrations in water from nine wells in the regional aquifer ranged from less than the detection limit of 2 to 130 ?g/L with a median concentration of 11 ?g/L. Concentrations in water from five of these nine wells exceeded the USEPA MCL for arsenic. Dissolved-solids concentrations in water from seven wells completed in the igneous and metamorphic basement rocks that underlie the floodplain and regional aquifers ranged from 400 to 3,190 mg/L with a median concentration of 1,410 mg/L. Concentrations in water from all but one of the seven wells sampled exceeded the USEPA SMCL for dissolved solids. Concentrations in water from the basement rocks exceeded the USEPA SMCL for arsenic of 10 ?g/L in five of the seven wells. The high concentrations of arsenic, dissolved solids, and other constituents probably occur naturally. Stable isotopes of oxygen and hydrogen indicate that before pumping began in

Water-Resources Investigations Report↗
USGS2002

Evaluation of artificial recharge in the Mojave River Ground-Water Basin, California

The Mojave River Basin relies almost entirely on ground water to meet the needs of its growing population and agriculture, which has resulted in overdraft conditions. Some of the ground-water management alternatives being proposed to mitigate the effects of overdraft include artificial recharge using water from the California State Water Project (SWP) and using SWP water in lieu of ground-water pumpage. A calibrated ground-water flow model was used to evaluate six proposed water-management alternatives using SWP water during a 20-year simulation period, 2000-2019, using constant rates from 1999 for recharge and pumpage (with the exception of recharge derived from Mojave River streamflows which were variable). The measured streamflow for the period of 1970-1989 was used to simulate the Mojave River streamflow. Water-management alternative 1 assumed that none of the Mojave Water Agency allocation of SWP water was available for mitigation measures and resulted in increases in hydraulic head in the floodplain aquifer in years of above-average streamflow (2008-2010, 2013) and decreases in years of below average streamflow. In general, simulated hydraulic heads in the regional aquifer declined with the exception of the El Mirage and Harper Lake areas. Also, average storage depletion for the entire ground-water basin over the 20-year simulation was 40,940 acre-feet per year. Water-management alternative 2 assumed that 30,000 acre-feet per year of SWP water was artificially recharged at Rock Springs Road Outlet (RSO). By 2019, the simulated hydraulic heads were as much as 75 feet higher in the Alto at the recharge site, 24 feet higher in the Transition zone, 15 feet higher in the Centro, and 17 feet higher in the Baja model subareas than the hydraulic heads resulting from water-management alternative 1. Water-management alternative 2 affected simulated hydraulic heads by as much as 5 feet in an area totalling 290 square miles; most of the change occurred in the Alto and Baja model subareas. Average storage depletion for water-management alternative 2 for the entire ground-water basin for the 20-year simulation period was 15,880 acre-feet per year, 25,060 acre-feet per year less than water-management alternative 1. Also, water-management alternative 2 indicated that the artificial recharge at RSO resulted in less simulated ground-water recharge from stream leakage in the Alto model subarea, which led to greater streamflow at the Lower Narrows, Barstow, and Afton Canyon streamflow gages. This increased streamflow resulted in an increase in simulated ground-water recharge from stream leakage, primarily in the Centro and Baja model subareas. Water-management alternative 3 assumed that 4,000 acre-feet per year of SWP water was artificially recharged at Manzanita and Oro Grande Washes (a total of 8,000 acre-feet per year) in the Alto model subarea. By 2019, the simulated hydraulic heads beneath the recharge sites were as much as 278 feet higher than heads resulting from water-management alternative 1. Changes in simulated hydraulic head greater than 5 feet covered almost 138 square miles in the Alto model subarea. Water-management alternative 3 had little effect on simulated hydraulic heads in the other model subareas. Model results indicated that the average storage depletion for the entire ground-water basin during the 20-year simulation was 32,940 acre-feet per year, about 8,000 acre-feet per year less than water-management alternative 1. Water-management alternative 3 had essentially no effect on simulated streamflows during the 20-year simulation period and, therefore, little effect on simulated net stream leakage. Water-management alternative 4 assumed 10,000 acre-feet per year of SWP water was artificially recharged near Newberry Springs in the Baja subarea. By 2019, the simulated hydraulic heads beneath the recharge site were as much as 193 ft higher in the Baja model subarea than the hydraulic heads resulting from water-management alternative 1. Increases in simulated hydraulic heads greater than 5 feet extended about 5 miles east of the Calico-Newberry Fault and affected about 71 square miles east of the Calico-Newberry Fault. Water-management alternative 4 had no effect on simulated hydraulic heads in the other model subareas. Model results indicated that the average storage depletion for the entire ground-water basin over the 20-year simulation period was 30,860 acre-feet per year, about 10,000 acre-feet per year less than water-management 1. Water-management alternative 4 had little effect on simulated streamflows during the 20-year simulation period and, therefore, essentially no effect on simulated net stream leakage. Water-management alternative 5 assumed 23,800 acre-feet per year of SWP water was delivered directly to municipal water districts in lieu of pumpage in the Alto model subarea. By 2019, the simulated hydraulic heads were as much as 98 feet higher in the Alto and 7 feet higher in the Centro and Baja model subareas than hydraulic heads resulting from water-management alternative 1. Changes in simulated hydraulic head were greater than 5 feet in an area of almost 245 square miles. Most of the change in simulated hydraulic heads occurred in the regional aquifer west of the Mojave River in the Alto model subarea. Average storage depletion for the entire ground-water basin over the 20-year simulation period was 19,170 acre-feet per year, 21,770 acre-feet per year less than water-management alternative 1. Results from water-management alternative 5 were similar to those of water-management alternative 2 in that they indicated that the in lieu replacement of ground water resulted in less simulated ground-water recharge from stream leakage in the Alto model subarea, and thereby streamflow at the Lower Narrows and Barstow gages. This increased streamflow resulted in an increase in simulated ground-water recharge from stream leakage primarily in the Baja model subarea. Water-management alternative 6 assumed 3,800 acre-feet per year of SWP water was delivered directly to municipal water districts in lieu of pumpage in the Transition zone model subarea. By 2019, the simulated hydraulic heads were as much as 30 feet higher in the Transition zone model subarea than the hydraulic heads resulting from water-management alternative 1. Changes in simulated hydraulic head were greater than 5 feet in an area of almost 16 square miles in the Transition zone model subarea. Water-management alternative 6 had little effect on simulated hydraulic heads in the other model subareas. Average storage depletion for the entire ground-water basin over the 20-year simulation period was 38,090 acre-feet per year, 2,850 acre-feet per year less than water-management alternative 1. Also, simulation of water-management alternative 6 indicated in-lieu replacement of ground water resulted in less ground-water recharge from stream leakage in the Alto, Transition zone, and Centro model subareas, and thereby greater streamflow at the Barstow gage. This increased streamflow resulted in an increase in simulated ground-water recharge from stream leakage, primarily in the Baja model subarea.

Open-File Report↗
USGS2001

Water Supply in the Mojave River Ground-Water Basin, 1931-99, and the Benefits of Artificial Recharge

The Mojave River and the associated aquifer system are important water supplies in the Mojave Desert of southern California. The river and aquifer system are in hydraulic connection in many areas, and when flow conditions change in one, the other usually is affected. The river is an unpredictable source of water; therefore, residents of the basin rely almost entirely on ground water for their water supply. This reliance on ground water has resulted in overdraft conditions that have caused water-level declines, changes in the quantity and spatial distribution of recharge from the Mojave River, and loss of riparian habitat. The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), in cooperation with the Mojave Water Agency (MWA), has completed several studies to determine the likely effects of overdraft on the ground-water and surface-water relations along the Mojave River. This report summarizes those studies, highlighting some of the simulation results from a ground-water flow model, and describes the ground-water and surface-water conditions of the Mojave River Basin.

Fact Sheet↗
USGS2001

Simulation of ground-water flow in the Mojave River basin, California

The proximity of the Mojave River ground-water basin to the highly urbanized Los Angeles region has led to rapid growth in population and, consequently, to an increase in the demand for water. The Mojave River, the primary source of surface water for the region, normally is dry-except for a small stretch of perennial flow and periods of flow after intense storms. Thus, the region relies almost entirely on ground water to meet its agricultural and municipal needs. Ground-water withdrawal since the late 1800's has resulted in discharge, primarily from pumping wells, that exceeds natural recharge. To better understand the relation between the regional and the floodplain aquifer systems and to develop a management tool that could be used to estimate the effects that future stresses may have on the ground-water system, a numerical ground-water flow model of the Mojave River ground-water basin was developed, in part, on the basis of a previously developed analog model. The ground-water flow model has two horizontal layers; the top layer (layer 1) corresponds to the floodplain aquifer and the bottom layer (layer 2) corresponds to the regional aquifer. There are 161 rows and 200 columns with a horizontal grid spacing of 2,000 by 2,000 feet. Two stress periods (wet and dry) per year are used where the duration of each stress period is a function of the occurrence, quantity of discharge, and length of stormflow from the headwaters each year. A steady-state model provided initial conditions for the transient-state simulation. The model was calibrated to transient-state conditions (1931-94) using a trial-and-error approach. The transient-state simulation results are in good agreement with measured data. Under transient-state conditions, the simulated floodplain aquifer and regional aquifer hydrographs matched the general trends observed for the measured water levels. The simulated streamflow hydrographs matched wet stress period average flow rates and times of no flow at the Barstow and Afton Canyon gages. Steady-state particle-tracking was used to estimate travel times for mountain-front and streamflow recharge. The simulated travel times for mountain-front recharge to reach the area west of Victorville were about 5,000 to 6,000 years; this result is in reasonable agreement with published results. Steady-state particle-tracking results for streamflow recharge indicate that in most subareas along the river, the particles quickly leave and reenter the river. The complaint that resulted in the adjudication of the Mojave River ground-water basin alleged that the cumulative water production upstream of the city of Barstow had overdrafted the ground-water basin. In order to ascertain the effect of pumping on ground-water and surface-water relations along the Mojave River, two pumping simulations were compared with the 1931-90 transient-state simulation (base case). The first simulation assumed 1931-90 pumping in the upper region (Este, Oeste, Alto, and Transition zone model subareas) but with no pumping in the remainder of the basin, and the second assumed 1931-90 pumping in the lower region (Centro, Harper Lake, Baja, Coyote Lake, and Afton Canyon model subareas) but with no pumping in remainder of the basin. In the upper region, assuming pumping only in the upper region, there was no change in storage, recharge from the Mojave River, ground-water discharge to the Mojave River, or evapotranspiration when compared with the base case. In the lower region, assuming pumping only in the upper region, there was storage accretion, decreased recharge from the Mojave River, increased ground-water discharge to the Mojave River, and increased evapotranspiration when compared with the base case. In the upper region, assuming pumping only in the lower region, there was storage accretion, decreased recharge from the Mojave River, increased ground-water discharge to the Mojave River, and increased evapotranspiration when compared with the base case. In the lower region, assuming pumping only in the lower region, there was less storage depletion, increased recharge from the Mojave River, increased ground-water discharge to the Mojave River, and increased evapotranspiration when compared with the base case. Overall, pumping in the lower region does not negatively affect the upper region; however, pumping in the upper region negatively affects the lower region by decreasing recharge from the Mojave River. Streamflow, pumpage, and water-level data from calendar years 1995-99 were used to validate the calibrated ground-water flow model, that is, to test that the ground-water flow model will duplicate measured data for a noncalibration period without modification of the model parameters. In general, the simulated results are in good agreement with the measured data, and the simulated hydrographs for wells in the floodplain and regional aquifers follow the measured water-level trends. Simulated streamflow data for the 1995-99 wet and dry stress periods at the Lower Narrows, Barstow, and Afton Canyon were compared with the measured data for average streamflow for the same periods; in general, the model reflects 1995-99 streamflow conditions. The simulation results also indicate that the streambed conductance values calibrated to the 1931-94 conditions reasonably simulate the 1995-99 conditions and therefore can be used for predictive purposes. To visualize the magnitude, spatial distribution, and timing of water-level changes in the basin through time, simulated hydraulic heads for 1932-99 were compared with simulated hydraulic heads for 1931. Greater than average annual inflows to the Mojave River from the headwaters during the late 1930's and throughout much of the 1940's resulted in simulated hydraulic heads that were higher than the 1931 hydraulic heads along the Mojave River in most model subareas. Parts of the Baja and Harper Lake model subareas had declines in the simulated hydraulic head because of the increase in agricultural pumpage. By 1960, the simulated hydraulic heads were lower than the simulated hydraulic heads for 1931 in all model subareas of the floodplain and the regional aquifers because of pumpage. After 1960, the size and the magnitude of the areas of the regional aquifer for which simulated hydraulic heads were lower than those for 1931 continued to increase until the end of the simulation (1999). Along the Mojave River, hydraulic heads fluctuated in the floodplain aquifer in response to recharge during years with large inflows with little apparent effect on the simulated hydraulic heads in the regional aquifer. Three water-management alternatives were evaluated to determine their effect on ground-water resources using the calibrated ground-water flow model. The water-management alternatives consider the artificial recharge of imported water allocated to the Mojave Water Agency (MWA): the first assumes that zero percent of the MWA allocation is available (alternative 1), the second assumes that 50 percent of the MWA allocation is available (alternative 2), and the third assumes that 100 percent of the MWA allocation is available (alternative 3). Each of the three water-management alternatives were evaluated for a 20-year drought. Streamflow conditions were simulated using the 20-year drought of 1945-64 with associated calibrated stream parameters. Management alternative 1 results in a reduction in ground-water recharge from the Mojave River compared with average recharge for 1995-99; this reduction is reflected in simulated hydraulic-head declines between 1999 and 2019 of as much as 45 feet. Management alternatives 2 and 3 result in no change in recharge from the Mojave River for management alternative 2 and a small increase for management alternative 3 when compared with recharge for management alternative 1. The artificial recharge of imported water causes increases in simulated hydraulic head for both management alternatives at each of the artificial-recharge sites. Some of the increases are related to water that recharges into areas of low transmissivity which implies that the recharge operations may benefit from being distributed over a larger area.

California↗
USGS1992

Use of D-C resistivity to map saline ground water

It has been estimated in previous studies that 23 square miles of the Oxnard aquifer, a member of a multi-layered aquifer system beneath the Oxnard plain in Ventura County, California, has been contaminated as a result of seawater intrusion. To investigate this and other potential sources of saline water, a direct-current resistivity survey was made as an alternative to the costly and time-consuming method of well drilling in the part of the Oxnard plain where ground water is believed to be most affected by seawater. Findings from this survey and water-quality data collected from wells as part of this study suggest that the extent of seawater intrusion is much less than reported. A field inventory of the current monitoring-well network utilized by managing agencies suggests that the integrity of most of the well casings is questionable. Leakage of saline water from an unconfined `perched zone' through these and other failed or corroded well casings is a possible source of increasing chloride concentration in the underlying Oxnard aquifer. Saline water also may be present in fine-grained deposits along the eastern limit of the Oxnard aquifer. Pumping near this area could induce the lateral migration of saline water from these deposits.

California↗