23
Groundwater Resources in the Piedmont and Shenandoah Valley: A Comparison of Geologic Controls on Groundwater Quality and Sustainability PART I: Shenandoah Valley Enhanced Understanding for Aquifer Health Mark D. Kozar, USGS Washington WSC, Tacoma WA Dick Yager, USGS New York WSC, Ithaca NY Kurt J. McCoy, George Harlow, and Dave Nelms USGS Virginia WSC, Richmond VA

Groundwater Resources in the Piedmont and Shenandoah Valley: A Comparison of Geologic Controls on Groundwater Quality and Sustainability PART I: Shenandoah

Embed Size (px)

Citation preview

Page 1: Groundwater Resources in the Piedmont and Shenandoah Valley: A Comparison of Geologic Controls on Groundwater Quality and Sustainability PART I: Shenandoah

Groundwater Resources in the Piedmont and Shenandoah Valley: A Comparison of Geologic Controls

on Groundwater Quality and Sustainability

PART I: Shenandoah ValleyEnhanced Understanding for Aquifer Health

Mark D. Kozar, USGS Washington WSC, Tacoma WA

Dick Yager, USGS New York WSC, Ithaca NY

Kurt J. McCoy, George Harlow, and Dave NelmsUSGS Virginia WSC, Richmond VA

Page 2: Groundwater Resources in the Piedmont and Shenandoah Valley: A Comparison of Geologic Controls on Groundwater Quality and Sustainability PART I: Shenandoah

http://www.swarpa.net/~danforth/photos/caves/wn_weddingcake.jpg

Whitings Neck Cave

CAVES OF THE EASTERN PANHANDLE

•Not that many caves–42 known caves in Jefferson County–48 known caves in Berkeley County

•Most are short and not of hydrological interest

Karst Continuum Model

Page 3: Groundwater Resources in the Piedmont and Shenandoah Valley: A Comparison of Geologic Controls on Groundwater Quality and Sustainability PART I: Shenandoah

3,300 mi2 300 mi2 10 mi2

Outline – Nested ModelingWhat is important for aquifer health depends on scale

Shenandoah Valley (Yager et al, 2009)

Opequon Creek(Kozar and Weary, 2009)

Leetown Science Center

(Kozar et al, 2007)

Page 4: Groundwater Resources in the Piedmont and Shenandoah Valley: A Comparison of Geologic Controls on Groundwater Quality and Sustainability PART I: Shenandoah

StructureShenandoah Valley Model

3,300 mi2

Yager, RM, Voss, CI, Southworth, S, 2009, Comparison of alternative representations of hydraulic-conductivity anisotropy in folded fractured-sedimentary rock: modeling groundwater flow in the Shenandoah Valley (USA): Hydrogeology Journal, v. 17, p. 1111-1131.

Page 5: Groundwater Resources in the Piedmont and Shenandoah Valley: A Comparison of Geologic Controls on Groundwater Quality and Sustainability PART I: Shenandoah

Shenandoah Valley Regional Conceptual

Model

(Yager et al., 2009)

Page 6: Groundwater Resources in the Piedmont and Shenandoah Valley: A Comparison of Geologic Controls on Groundwater Quality and Sustainability PART I: Shenandoah

Numerical RepresentationOf Regional

Scale Anisotropy

(Yager et al., 2009)

Groundwater flows along preferential

paths

Page 7: Groundwater Resources in the Piedmont and Shenandoah Valley: A Comparison of Geologic Controls on Groundwater Quality and Sustainability PART I: Shenandoah

Well Capture zones – Influence of Anisotropy

Page 8: Groundwater Resources in the Piedmont and Shenandoah Valley: A Comparison of Geologic Controls on Groundwater Quality and Sustainability PART I: Shenandoah

Meso Scale - Opequon Creek Model

Page 9: Groundwater Resources in the Piedmont and Shenandoah Valley: A Comparison of Geologic Controls on Groundwater Quality and Sustainability PART I: Shenandoah

Meso-Scale (300 mi2) Conceptual Model

Epikarst

Fractured Karst

Fractured Rock

Photo courtesy of Craig Wagnell (portaec.net)

Photo by Wil Orndorff

Page 10: Groundwater Resources in the Piedmont and Shenandoah Valley: A Comparison of Geologic Controls on Groundwater Quality and Sustainability PART I: Shenandoah

Influence of Lithology – ALL ROCKS ARE NOT ALIKE

Page 11: Groundwater Resources in the Piedmont and Shenandoah Valley: A Comparison of Geologic Controls on Groundwater Quality and Sustainability PART I: Shenandoah
Page 12: Groundwater Resources in the Piedmont and Shenandoah Valley: A Comparison of Geologic Controls on Groundwater Quality and Sustainability PART I: Shenandoah
Page 13: Groundwater Resources in the Piedmont and Shenandoah Valley: A Comparison of Geologic Controls on Groundwater Quality and Sustainability PART I: Shenandoah
Page 14: Groundwater Resources in the Piedmont and Shenandoah Valley: A Comparison of Geologic Controls on Groundwater Quality and Sustainability PART I: Shenandoah
Page 15: Groundwater Resources in the Piedmont and Shenandoah Valley: A Comparison of Geologic Controls on Groundwater Quality and Sustainability PART I: Shenandoah
Page 16: Groundwater Resources in the Piedmont and Shenandoah Valley: A Comparison of Geologic Controls on Groundwater Quality and Sustainability PART I: Shenandoah
Page 17: Groundwater Resources in the Piedmont and Shenandoah Valley: A Comparison of Geologic Controls on Groundwater Quality and Sustainability PART I: Shenandoah

Leetown Ground-Water Flow Model

Three layer model

Tectonic Deformation

KARST Vertical permeability

contrast

Fault Orientation

Page 18: Groundwater Resources in the Piedmont and Shenandoah Valley: A Comparison of Geologic Controls on Groundwater Quality and Sustainability PART I: Shenandoah

Fracture Orientations in the Leetown Area, WV

• Major fractures occur parallel to regional strike N. 20o E. and perpendicular to strike.

• Thrust faults parallel to strike and cross strike faults are especially important controls on ground-water flow.

Fractures mapped by a) Jones and Deike, 1981 and b) McCoy and others, 2005

Page 19: Groundwater Resources in the Piedmont and Shenandoah Valley: A Comparison of Geologic Controls on Groundwater Quality and Sustainability PART I: Shenandoah

Faults

Fold Hinges or Lithologic Contacts

Fracture-Flow

Deform

ation

Ort

hogo

nal F

ract

urin

gBed-limited permeability

Karst zones

Page 20: Groundwater Resources in the Piedmont and Shenandoah Valley: A Comparison of Geologic Controls on Groundwater Quality and Sustainability PART I: Shenandoah

Gradient

Page 21: Groundwater Resources in the Piedmont and Shenandoah Valley: A Comparison of Geologic Controls on Groundwater Quality and Sustainability PART I: Shenandoah

Leetown Surface Geophysics – AMT

Plan View

X-Sect View

Page 22: Groundwater Resources in the Piedmont and Shenandoah Valley: A Comparison of Geologic Controls on Groundwater Quality and Sustainability PART I: Shenandoah

Scale-Related Evolution of Conceptual Models

Primary Deposition

Heterogeneity Tectonic Deformation

3,300 mi2 300 mi2 10 mi2

Page 23: Groundwater Resources in the Piedmont and Shenandoah Valley: A Comparison of Geologic Controls on Groundwater Quality and Sustainability PART I: Shenandoah

Conclusions

Nested Models – Scale Dependent Controls on Flow

Basin Geometry

Orderly Preferential Flow Paths

Carbonate Heterogeneity

Not All Rocks are Alike

Fault Zone Hydrology

Important Routes to Drain The Aquifer