Victor M. Heilweil

Continuous estimation of baseflow in snowmelt‐dominated streams and rivers in the Upper Colorado River Basin: A chemical hydrograph separation approach

Effective science-based management of water resources in large basins requires a qualitative understanding of hydrologic conditions and quantitative measures of the various components of the water budget, including difficult to measure components such as baseflow discharge to streams. Using widely available discharge and continuously collected specific conductance (SC) data, we adapted and applied a long established chemical hydrograph separation approach to quantify daily and representative annual baseflow discharge at 14 streams and rivers at large spatial (> 1000 km2 watersheds) and temporal (up to 37 years) scales in the Upper Colorado River Basin. On average, annual baseflow was 21–58% of annual stream discharge, 13–45% of discharge during snowmelt, and 40–86% of discharge during low-flow conditions. Results suggest that reservoirs may act to store baseflow discharged to the stream during snowmelt and release that baseflow during low-flow conditions, and that irrigation return flows may contribute to increases in fall baseflow in heavily irrigated watersheds. The chemical hydrograph separation approach, and associated conceptual model defined here provide a basis for the identification of land use, management, and climate effects on baseflow.

Stream Measurements Locate Thermogenic Methane Fluxes in Groundwater Discharge in an Area of Shale-Gas Development

The environmental impacts of shale-gas development on water resources, including methane migration to shallow groundwater, have been difficult to assess. Monitoring around gas wells is generally limited to domestic water-supply wells, which often are not situated along predominant groundwater flow paths. A new concept is tested here: combining stream hydrocarbon and noble-gas measurements with reach mass-balance modeling to estimate thermogenic methane concentrations and fluxes in groundwater discharging to streams and to constrain methane sources. In the Marcellus Formation shale-gas play of northern Pennsylvania (U.S.A.), we sampled methane in 15 streams as a reconnaissance tool to locate methane-laden groundwater discharge: concentrations up to 69 μg L(-1) were observed, with four streams ≥ 5 μg L(-1). Geochemical analyses of water from one stream with high methane (Sugar Run, Lycoming County) were consistent with Middle Devonian gases. After sampling was completed, we learned of a state regulator investigation of stray-gas migration from a nearby Marcellus Formation gas well. Modeling indicates a groundwater thermogenic methane flux of about 0.5 kg d(-1) discharging into Sugar Run, possibly from this fugitive gas source. Since flow paths often coalesce into gaining streams, stream methane monitoring provides the first watershed-scale method to assess groundwater contamination from shale-gas development.

A stream-based methane monitoring approach for evaluating groundwater impacts associated with unconventional gas development.

Gaining streams can provide an integrated signal of relatively large groundwater capture areas. In contrast to the point-specific nature of monitoring wells, gaining streams coalesce multiple flow paths. Impacts on groundwater quality from unconventional gas development may be evaluated at the watershed scale by the sampling of dissolved methane (CH4 ) along such streams. This paper describes a method for using stream CH4 concentrations, along with measurements of groundwater inflow and gas transfer velocity interpreted by 1-D stream transport modeling, to determine groundwater methane fluxes. While dissolved ionic tracers remain in the stream for long distances, the persistence of methane is not well documented. To test this method and evaluate CH4 persistence in a stream, a combined bromide (Br) and CH4 tracer injection was conducted on Nine-Mile Creek, a gaining stream in a gas development area in central Utah. A 35% gain in streamflow was determined from dilution of the Br tracer. The injected CH4 resulted in a fivefold increase in stream CH4 immediately below the injection site. CH4 and δ(13) CCH4 sampling showed it was not immediately lost to the atmosphere, but remained in the stream for more than 2000 m. A 1-D stream transport model simulating the decline in CH4 yielded an apparent gas transfer velocity of 4.5 m/d, describing the rate of loss to the atmosphere (possibly including some microbial consumption). The transport model was then calibrated to background stream CH4 in Nine-Mile Creek (prior to CH4 injection) in order to evaluate groundwater CH4 contributions. The total estimated CH4 load discharging to the stream along the study reach was 190 g/d, although using geochemical fingerprinting to determine its source was beyond the scope of the current study. This demonstrates the utility of stream-gas sampling as a reconnaissance tool for evaluating both natural and anthropogenic CH4 leakage from gas reservoirs into groundwater and surface water.

Innovative Environmental Tracer Techniques for Evaluating Sources of Spring Discharge from a Carbonate Aquifer Bisected by a River

Littlefield Springs discharge about 1.6 m³ /s along a 10-km reach of the Virgin River in northwestern Arizona. Understanding their source is important for salinity control in the Colorado River Basin. Environmental tracers suggest that Littlefield Springs are a mixture of older groundwater from the regional Great Basin carbonate aquifer and modern (post-1950s) seepage from the Virgin River. While corrected ¹⁴C apparent ages range from 1 to 9 ka, large amounts of nucleogenic ⁴He and low ³He/⁴He ratios suggest that the carbonate aquifer component is likely even older Pleistocene recharge. Modeled infiltration of precipitation, hydrogeologic cross sections, and hydraulic gradients all indicate recharge to the carbonate aquifer likely occurs in the Clover and Bull Valley Mountains along the northern part of the watershed, rather than in the nearby Virgin Mountains. This high-altitude recharge is supported by relatively cool noble-gas recharge temperatures and isotopically depleted δ²H and δ¹⁸O. Excess (crustal) SF₆ and ⁴He precluded dating of the modern component of water from Littlefield Springs using SF₆ and ³H/³He methods. Assuming a lumped-parameter model with a binary mixture of two piston-flow components, Cl⁻ /Br⁻, Cl⁻ /F⁻, δ²H, and CFCs indicate the mixture is about 60% Virgin River water and 40% groundwater from the carbonate aquifer, with an approximately 30-year groundwater travel time for Virgin River seepage to re-emerge at Littlefield Springs. This suggests that removal of high-salinity sources upstream of the Virgin River Gorge would reduce the salinity of water discharging from Littlefield Springs into the Virgin River within a few decades.

Evaluation of baseline ground-water conditions in the Mosteiros, Ribeira Paul, and Ribeira Faja Basins, Republic of Cape Verde, West Africa, 2005-06

...........................................................................................................................................................

Comment on “The role of interbasin groundwater transfers in geologically complex terranes, demonstrated by the Great Basin in the western United States”: report published in Hydrogeology Journal (2014) 22:807–828, by Stephen T. Nelson and Alan L. Mayo

The subject article (Nelson and Mayo 2014) presents an overview of previous reports of interbasin flow in the Great Basin of the western United States. This Comment is presented by authors of a cited study (comprising chapters in one large report) on the Great Basin carbonate and alluvial aquifer system (GBCAAS; Heilweil and Brooks 2011; Masbruch et al. 2011; Sweetkind et al. 2011a, b), who agree that water budget imbalances alone are not enough to accurately quantify interbasin flow; however, it is proposed that statements made in the subject article about the GBCAAS report are inaccurate. The Comment authors appreciate the opportunity to clarify some statements made about the work. There are two statements in the subject article (Nelson and Mayo 2014) that misrepresent the findings of the GBCAAS study. The first statement is: For example, Heilweil and Brooks (2011) recently contended that “most” groundwater in the GBCAAS was considered to discharge in valleys adjacent to mountainous recharge areas, and their water budgets did not quantitatively estimate interbasin transfers. However, this conclusion is a great departure from prior studies.