Hydrogeologic framework and selected components of the groundwater budget for the upper Umatilla River Basin, Oregon

Nora B. Herrera; Kate Ely; Smita Mehta; Adam J. Stonewall; John C. Risley; Stephen R. Hinkle; Terrence D. Conlon

doi:10.3133/sir20175020

Home/Archive/USGS

USGS · sir20175020

Hydrogeologic framework and selected components of the groundwater budget for the upper Umatilla River Basin, Oregon

Nora B. Herrera·Kate Ely·Smita Mehta·Adam J. Stonewall·John C. Risley·Stephen R. Hinkle·Terrence D. Conlon

View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

Executive Summary This report presents a summary of the hydrogeology of the upper Umatilla River Basin, Oregon, based on characterization of the hydrogeologic framework, horizontal and vertical directions of groundwater flow, trends in groundwater levels, and components of the groundwater budget. The conceptual model of the groundwater flow system integrates available data and information on the groundwater resources of the upper Umatilla River Basin and provides insights regarding key hydrologic processes, such as the interaction between the groundwater and surface water systems and the hydrologic budget. The conceptual groundwater model developed for the study area divides the groundwater flow system into five hydrogeologic units: a sedimentary unit, three Columbia River basalt units, and a basement rock unit. The sedimentary unit, which is not widely used as a source of groundwater in the upper basin, is present primarily in the lowlands and consists of conglomerate, loess, silt and sand deposits, and recent alluvium. The Columbia River Basalt Group is a series of Miocene flood basalts that are present throughout the study area. The basalt is uplifted in the southeastern half of the study area, and either underlies the sedimentary unit, or is exposed at the surface. The interflow zones of the flood basalts are the primary aquifers in the study area. Beneath the flood basalts are basement rocks composed of Paleogene to Pre-Tertiary sedimentary, volcanic, igneous, and metamorphic rocks that are not used as a source of groundwater in the upper Umatilla River Basin. The major components of the groundwater budget in the upper Umatilla River Basin are (1) groundwater recharge, (2) groundwater discharge to surface water and wells, (3) subsurface flow into and out of the basin, and (4) changes in groundwater storage. Recharge from precipitation occurs primarily in the upland areas of the Blue Mountains. Mean annual recharge from infiltration of precipitation for the upper Umatilla River Basin during 1951–2010 is about 9.6 inches per year (in/yr). Annual recharge from precipitation for water year 2010 ranged from 3 in. in the lowland area to about 30 in. in the Blue Mountains. Using Kahle and others (2011) data and methods from the Columbia Plateau regional model, average annual recharge from irrigation is estimated to be about 2.2 in/yr for the 13 square miles of irrigated land in the upper Umatilla River Basin. Groundwater discharges to streams throughout the year and is a large component of annual streamflow in the upper Umatilla River Basin. Upward vertical hydraulic gradients near the Umatilla River indicate the potential for groundwater discharge. Groundwater discharge to the Umatilla River generally occurs in the upper part of the basin, upstream from the main stem. Groundwater development in the upper Umatilla River Basin began sometime after 1950 (Davies-Smith and others, 1988; Gonthier and Bolke, 1991). By water year 2010, groundwater use in the upper Umatilla River Basin was approximately 11,214 acre-feet (acre-ft). Total groundwater withdrawals for the study area were estimated at 7,575 acre-ft for irrigation, 3,173 acre-ft for municipal use, and 466 acre-ft for domestic use. Total groundwater flow into or from the study area depends locally on geology and hydraulic head distribution. Estimates of subsurface flow were calculated using the U.S. Geological Survey Columbia Plateau regional groundwater flow model. Net flux values range from 25,000 to 27,700 acre-ft per year and indicate that groundwater is moving out of the upper Umatilla River Basin into the lower Umatilla River Basin. Water level changes depend on storage changes within an aquifer, and storage changes depend on the storage properties of the aquifer, as well as recharge to or discharge from the aquifer. Groundwater level data in the upper Umatilla River Basin are mostly available from wells in Columbia River basalt units, which indicate areas of long-term water level declines in the Grande Ronde basalt unit near Pendleton and Athena, Oregon. Groundwater levels in the Wanapum basalt unit do not show long-term declines in the upper Umatilla River Basin. Because of pumping, some areas in the upper Umatilla River Basin have shown a decrease, or reversal, in the upward vertical head gradient. Key data needs are improvement of the spatial and temporal distribution of water-level data collection and continued monitoring of streamflow gaging sites. Additionally, refinement of recharge estimates would enhance understanding of the processes that provide the groundwater resources in the upper Umatilla River Basin.

Explore related subjects

Scientific Investigations Report Report

Source-reported bounding extent: 45.35° to 45.93° latitude; -118.9° to -118° longitude. This indicates report coverage, not an exact sampling location. View area on OpenStreetMap.

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeX RIS

Nora B. Herrera, Kate Ely, Smita Mehta, Adam J. Stonewall, John C. Risley, Stephen R. Hinkle, Terrence D. Conlon. 2017-05-31. Hydrogeologic framework and selected components of the groundwater budget for the upper Umatilla River Basin, Oregon. https://doi.org/10.3133/sir20175020

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

KEEP EXPLORING

Related USGS reports

USGS2026

Monitoring recreation on federally managed lands and waters—Aspects of visitor use

Federally managed public lands and waters receive around 1 billion recreational visits each year. Data on these visitors can aid in guiding policy decisions, managing resources effectively, and communicating the economic contributions of lands and waters. This report explores the methods used by agencies to collect data on aspects of recreational visitor use to Federal lands and waters (apart from visitation numbers, which are the focus of a companion publication). Aspects of recreational visitor use include visitor demographics, recreational activity participation, visitor satisfaction, visitor attitudes and experiences, trip characteristics, and economic contributions. We review practices used to understand aspects of visitor use across seven Federal agencies, revealing similarities such as the use of visitor intercept surveys and coverage of similar topic areas, and differences in how survey programs are operationalized and how specific questions on visitor surveys are worded. We also evaluate emerging technologies, such as geolocated social media and mobile device location data, for their potential to aid in understanding aspects of visitor use. This report concludes with potential opportunities to enhance data collection and coordination, ensuring cost-effective data collection and informed decision making.

Scientific Investigations Report↗

USGS2026

Evaluation of best management practices at an edge-of-field site in the Eagle Creek watershed, Ohio, 2012–20

In 2010, the U.S. Geological Survey worked in partnership with the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative and the Natural Resources Conservation Service to identify farm fields in priority watersheds—watersheds critically important to Great Lake health. Intensive best management practices were implemented in five States to test the efficacy of best management practices, also referred to as agricultural conservation practices, to reduce sediment and nutrient runoff on agricultural fields. These fields were chosen as representatives of the priority watersheds because their farming practices and geographical conditions were common among farms in those watersheds. A farm site located near Findlay, Ohio, in the Eagle Creek watershed used two conservation practices, cover crop (Natural Resources Conservation Service practice standard 340) and variable rate technology (VRT; Natural Resources Conservation Service practice standard 590), which represent common practices in the Maumee priority watershed. This study monitored surface runoff and subsurface tile runoff at the Eagle Creek watershed site. The effects of cover crop and VRT nutrient application on sediment and nutrient runoff were assessed from October 2012 to September 2020. Cover crops were applied in fall of 2016, 2017, and 2018, coinciding with VRT applications. The following parameters were analyzed as part of the study: runoff discharge; peak discharge; and concentrations and loads of total phosphorus, particulate phosphorus, dissolved reactive phosphorus, and suspended sediment. High peak runoff events disproportionally affected nutrient concentrations and loads in runoff. A threshold of the 85th percentile of the peak discharge was chosen to assess the effect of cover crop and VRT nutrient application on nutrient mitigation at each gage. Runoff events below the 85th percentile were considered small, and runoff events over the 85th percentile were considered large. Concentrations from collected water-quality samples were used for the analysis; estimated concentrations were excluded from the statistical evaluation. All surface runoff parameters during small runoff events, except surface runoff volume, were significantly lower in the period with cover crops and VRT implementation. Contrarily, subsurface runoff parameters during small events were not statistically different between the periods with and without cover crops and VRT implementation. Surface and subsurface parameters during large events were also not statistically different between the periods with and without cover crops and VRT implementation. These results indicate cover crops and VRT may improve water quality during small runoff events, but additional best management practices that mitigate large runoff events may lead to greater water-quality improvement given the contribution of large events to overall losses.

Ohio↗

USGS2026

Continuous monitoring and temporal variability of fluorescence of dissolved organic matter in karst groundwater of the Edwards aquifer, south-central Texas, 2019–24

Widespread urbanization on the Edwards aquifer recharge zone in south-central Texas has prompted the development of new approaches and tools for evaluating the current and future status of water quality in the San Antonio and Barton Springs segments of the Edwards aquifer. The U.S. Geological Survey, in cooperation with the San Antonio Water System and the City of Austin, applied continuous monitoring of fluorescence of dissolved organic matter (fDOM) to characterize the sources and transport of dissolved organic matter and associated constituents in the Edwards aquifer. Continuous fDOM time-series data were adjusted using empirically derived temperature, turbidity, and inner-filter-effect correction factors prior to analysis and interpretation. Fully corrected fDOM time-series data from the study sites were evaluated for short- and long-term temporal variability in fDOM in the context of the hydrologic and climatic conditions that occurred during the 5-year study period to understand vulnerability of the aquifer to potential contaminants in recharge. Study results indicate that fDOM is an effective proxy for dissolved organic carbon that, in turn, is indicative of the influx of recent surface water and associated contaminants, and thus, aquifer vulnerability to those contaminants. Although other continuously monitored water-quality parameters provide insights into changes in water quality in response to varying hydrologic conditions, the quantitative relation between fDOM and dissolved organic carbon directly indicates the timing and magnitude of pulses of organic constituents derived from the land surface, whereas other water-quality parameters do not.

Texas↗