1 / 32

by Mike Lowe, Janae Wallace, and Stefan Kirby Utah Geological Survey and Charles Bishop 2007

THE HYDROGEOLOGY OF MOAB-SPANISH VALLEY, SOUTHEASTERN UTAH, WITH EMPHASIS ON MAPS FOR WATER-RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND LAND-USE PLANNING. by Mike Lowe, Janae Wallace, and Stefan Kirby Utah Geological Survey and Charles Bishop 2007. Funding provided by: Utah Division of Water Rights

lonato
Télécharger la présentation

by Mike Lowe, Janae Wallace, and Stefan Kirby Utah Geological Survey and Charles Bishop 2007

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. THE HYDROGEOLOGY OF MOAB-SPANISH VALLEY, SOUTHEASTERN UTAH, WITH EMPHASIS ON MAPS FOR WATER-RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND LAND-USE PLANNING by Mike Lowe, Janae Wallace, and Stefan Kirby Utah Geological Survey and Charles Bishop 2007 • Funding provided by: • Utah Division of Water Rights • U.S. Environmental Protection Agency • Grand County • Utah School and Institutional Trust Lands Administration • Utah Geological Survey Funded by: U.S. PA through Utah Division of Water Quality http://geology.utah.gov/online/ss/ss-120/ss-120.pdf

  2. 14 X 1.25, 18 square miles

  3. BACKGROUND • Moab-Spanish Valley is a semi-rural area in Grand and San Juan Counties that is experiencing an increase in residential development • Development in Grand County is on a community sewer system, but development in San Juan County uses septic-tank systems • Nitrate contamination in the valley-fill aquifer is a potential threat • Water-resource managers need a better understanding of ground-water conditions to better appropriate and manage water rights • Local government officials desire land-use management tools to help preserve water quality

  4. PURPOSE • Characterize the relationship of geology to ground-water conditions in the Glen Canyon and unconsolidated valley-fill aquifers • Map ground-water recharge and discharge areas for the valley-fill aquifer – vulnerability to surface sources of pollution • Classify the ground-water quality of the Glen Canyon (east of valley only) and valley-fill aquifers – baseline water quality/beneficial uses • Using a ground-water flow model to apply a mass-balance approach, provide septic-tank density/lot-size recommendations to protect water quality

  5. RELATION OF GEOLOGY TO GROUND_WATER CONDITIONS SW NE Spanish Valley Purpose • Glen Canyon geometry and extent • Fault and fracture characteristics of Glen Canyon aquifer relating to ground-water occurrence and movement • Valley-fill aquifer geometry and sediment types • Geologic framework data to be used to construct new ground-water flow model, which includes Glen Canyon aquifer, and assist with resource management • Salt Tectonics • Major faults and folds • Uplift and erosion • Dissolution and collapse • Valley fill deposition After Doelling (1988)

  6. Hydrostratigraphy Scan-line Survey • Glen Canyon Group (Lower Jurassic)-dual permeablity aquifer • Wingate Sandstone, Kayenta Formation, and Navajo Sandstone • Mostly eolian sandstones, some fluvial (Kayenta) • Navajo rock properties • Unfractured K = 0.004 to 5 ft/day (Hood and Patterson, 1984; Freethey and Cordy, 1991) • Fractured K up to 88 ft/day (Freethey and Cordy, 1991) • Thickness (Doelling, 2001, 2004) • Jn up to 800 ft • Jk 100–300 ft • Jw 250-450 ft • Total Jgc ~ 1200 ft

  7. Glen Canyon Aquifer • Outcrop extent • Recharge from the La Sals (Sumsion, 1971; Blanchard, 1990) • Major local recharge from Mill Creek and Pack Creek (Sumsion, 1971; Blanchard, 1990) • This type of map helps to map lineaments

  8. GEOLOGY • Valley margin faults, due to gouge, may act as barriers to flow perpendicular to valley • There are two structural ground-water compartments due to offset along the Moab fault

  9. Structure Contour • The Glen Canyon Group ranges in thickness from about 330 feet south and southeast of Moab to about 1300 feet beneath southeastern Moab-Spanish Valley • Glen Canyon Group is absent in the subsurface near Moab

  10. Outcrop Joint Data Lineament Domains • Based on color-Orthophotos • Unimodal orientation • NW trending except in SE • Density variation • Examined at outcrop along NE margin of valley 25 sites, ~1300 joints measured • Principal (NW-striking) and secondary (NE-striking) joint sets • Variety of trace lengths, terminations • Open or partially infilled -calcite most common • Fracture density varies

  11. The valley fill of Moab-Spanish Valley consists mainly of stream, alluvial-fan, mass-movement, and wind-blown deposits, and generally lacks extensive fine-grained layers.

  12. The valley fill is more than 400 feet thick near the Colorado River northwest of Moab. The valley fill thins to about 100 feet over a concealed bedrock high southeast of Moab and then thickens to more than 300 feet beneath southeastern Moab-Spanish Valley. Moab

  13. Based on 165 drillers’ logs of water wells

  14. No GCG • 72 WELLS SAMPLED 1968-2004 • TDS RANGE: 140 – 1818 mg/L; AVERAGE TDS 687 mg/L • NITRATE RANGE: 0.06 – 7.37 mg/L; AVERAGE NITRATE 2.2 mg/L • MOST WELLS NO3 <1 mg/L () • 3 WELLS EXCEEDED PRIMARY WATER QUALITY STANDARD FOR RADIONUCLIDES; 1 SECONDARY FOR IRON; 15 FOR SULFATE

  15. GROUND-WATER QUALITY CLASSIFICATION Sole Source Aquifer designation, 2002 18% PRISTINE 82% DRINKING-WATER QUALITY

  16. MASS-BALANCE APPROACH(Key parameters) • Domain Acreage • Background nitrate concentration • Current number of septic tanks • Ground water available for mixing • Nitrogen loading from septic tanks

  17. SITE SPECIFIC SEPTIC-TANK DENSITY VS. WATER QUALITY DEGRADATION STUDIES (CALCULATIONS) Q=TLI (VOLUME of Discharge= Transmissivity x Length of flow x Hydraulic Gradient) Background N mass + N mass from new septic tanks Volume of discharge through aquifer + Waste-water volume

  18. Two layers (valley fill • and bedrock) • 216 rows, 82 columns • Cell size ranges from 140 x 160 feet to 500 x 500 feet Downs and Kovacs, 2000

  19. 1.08 cfs 2.1cfs 2.8 cfs

  20. Nitrogen Loading Septic-tank discharge of 242 gallons/day percapita indoor usage – 70 gallons/day – Utah Division of Water Resources, 2001 San Juan County’s average 3.46 person household – U.S. Census Bureau, 2002 Estimated nitrogen loading of 54.4 mg/L average nitrogen loading – 17 g N per capita per day (Kaplan, 1988) San Juan County’s average 3.46 person household – U.S. Census Bureau, 2002 15 percent retainment of nitrogen in tank (later removed during pumping) (Andreoli and others, 1979)

  21. Parameters used to perform a mass-balance analysis for different ground-water flow domains in Moab-Spanish Valley, Grand and San Juan Counties, Utah. *data were derived using ground-water flow computer model . +septic systems were estimated by the Southeast Utah Health Department (Jim Adamson, 2002, written communication; Lance Christie 2003, verbal communication).

  22. Projected septic-tank density versus nitrate concentration for domain 1 in Moab-Spanish Valley, Grand and San Juan Counties, Utah, based on 74 existing septic tanks

  23. Results of the mass-balance analysis using the best-estimate nitrogen loading of 54 mg N/L* for different ground-water flow domains in Moab-Spanish Valley, Grand and San Juan Counties, Utah. *best-estimate calculation is based on a nitrogen load of 17 g N per capita per day (from Kaplan, 1988) for a 3.46-person household and 242 gallons per capita as the amount of water generated per household based on the 2001 Utah State Water Plan (Utah Division of Water Resources, 2001a). **second number after/ corresponds to the calculated lot-size recommendation based on an allowable degradation of overall nitrate concentration to be 5 and 3 mg/L, respectively, for domains 2 and 3.

  24. Conclusions • Movement of water in the Glen Canyon aquifer controlled by fracture characteristics • Glen Canyon aquifer lies directly beneath valley-fill along much of Spanish Valley, but is absent in subsurface near Moab • Glen Canyon aquifer lineaments (usually joint zones) increase regional permeability parallel to valley axis • Outcrop scale joints more complex, generally increase permeability parallel to valley axis • Valley margin normal faults (where present) may decrease permeability perpendicular to valley axis • The valley-fill generally lacks confining beds, and is mostly primary recharge area; it is considered vulnerable to surface sources of pollution • Overall ground-water quality is good: 18% Pristine; 82% Drinking-water quality • Poorest quality water in valley-fill aquifer is where Glen Canyon Group is absent in subsurface • Based on our ground-water modeling using the mass-balance there are three ground-water flow domains in the valley-fill aquifer; to be protective of ground-water quality lot sizes for development using septic-tank systems should be no smaller than 10 or 20 acres, depending on domain

  25. RECHARGE-acre-ft/yr Estimated: Subsurface inflow-12,300 Infiltration ppt-730 Seepage-Kens Lake- 3300 Total Recharge=17,330 Steady-state calibration: Subsurface inflow-12,765 Infiltration ppt-728 Seepage-Kens Lake- 3157 Total Recharge=16,650 DISCHARGE-acre-ft/yr Estimated: Seepage to streams-1140 Withdrawal wells/springs -6400 Seepage to Colo. Riv. - 9530 Total Discharge=17,330 Steady-state calibration: Seepage to streams-1099 Withdrawal wells/springs - 6398 Seepage to Colo. Riv. - 9153 Total Discharge=16,650 Ground-Water Budget

More Related