San Simon Sub-Basin - Arizona Department of Environmental Quality

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Groundwater in the SS was characterized by assessing the spatial variation of groundwater quality among water-bearing units and rock types. Aquifer Comparison – In a very simplified model, the SS can be divided into four water-bearing units: the alluvial aquifer, the upper aquifer, the lower aquifer, and mountain bedrock. Analytical results were compared between these four water-bearing units to identify significant differences in concentrations of groundwater quality constituents. Many significant differences were found, such as with TDS, illustrated in Figure 16. The results are provided in Table 7 (ANOVA test with Tukey option, p ≤ 0.05). The 95% confidence intervals for constituent concentrations for each SS water-bearing unit found to be significantly different are in Table 8. Aquifer-Watershed Comparison – In another very simplified model, the SS can be further divided into seven hydrologic units for comparison purposes by subdividing the mountain bedrock into four ranges: Chiricahua, Dos Cabezas, Peloncillo and Pinaleno. Analytical results were compared between these seven hydrologic units to identify significant differences in concentrations of groundwater quality constituents. Many significant differences were found and are listed in Table 9 (ANOVA test with Tukey option, p ≤ 0.05). The 95% confidence intervals for constituent concentrations for each SS water-bearing unit found to be significantly different are in Table 10. Geological Comparison - The SS can be divided into five geologic classifications: alluvium, basaltic, granite, sedimentary, and volcanic (Map 2). 26 Analytical results were examined for differences in concentrations of groundwater quality constituents among the five geologic classifications. Many significant patterns were revealed with this geological comparison, such as with gross alpha (Figure 16). Data are provided in Table 11 (ANOVA test with the Tukey test, p ≤ 0.05). The 95% confidence intervals for constituent concentrations for each SS water-bearing unit found to be significantly different are in Table 12. Constituent Covariation with Groundwater Depth The constituent concentrations of the sample sites were compared to the corresponding groundwater depth for each SS sample site. Depth was determined using a sounder in the field or data from ADWR well registration records. Comparisons were made using three distinct methods: a linear model, an exponential model, and a biphasic model. The linear model compares constituent concentrations to groundwater depth, the exponential model compares the logtransformed constituent concentrations to groundwater depth, and the biphasic model compares the log-transformed constituent concentrations to logtransformed groundwater depth. The overall results indicate that 9 of the 27 groundwater quality constituents examined had one or more mathematical equations significantly relating constituent concentrations to groundwater depth (regression analysis, p ≤ 0.05). Of these significant relationships, most constituents (TDS, SC, bicarbonate, sodium, sulfate, fluoride, boron, and zinc) had concentrations decreasing with increasing groundwater depth below land surface (bls). In contrast, only temperature increased with increasing groundwater depth bls. Patterns involving groundwater depth and constituent concentrations were also examined for the alluvial aquifer. Of the 27 groundwater quality constituents examined, four (temperature, bicarbonate, potassium, and oxygen-18) significantly increased with increasing groundwater depth (regression analysis, p ≤ 0.05). Constituent Co-variation with Well Depth The constituent concentrations of the sample sites were compared to the corresponding well depth for each SS sample site. Depth was determined using data from ADWR well registration records. As with groundwater depth, comparisons were made using three distinct methods: a linear model, an exponential model, and a biphasic model. The overall results indicate that 13 of the 27 groundwater quality constituents examined had one or more mathematical equations significantly relating constituent concentrations to groundwater depth (regression analysis, p ≤ 0.05). Of these significant relationships, most constituents (TDS, SC, bicarbonate, calcium, magnesium, hardness, sulfate, fluoride, nitrate, and arsenic) had concentrations decreasing with increasing well depth bls. In contrast, only temperature, pH-field, and pH-lab increased with increasing well depth bls. 30
Figure 16. TDS and Gross Alpha Concentrations Relative to Aquifers and Geology TDS (mg/L) 5000 4000 3000 2000 1000 0 Alluvial Bedrock Lower Aquifer Upper This boxplot illustrates the variation in total dissolved solids (TDS) concentrations between four SS water-bearing units. TDS concentrations are highest in the upper aquifer and decrease respectively in the lower aquifer, bedrock, and alluvial aquifer. However, statistics indicate that some of these differences may be by chance. Significant differences only occur with higher concentrations in the upper aquifer compared to the bedrock or alluvial aquifer and the lower aquifer compared to the alluvial aquifer (ANOVA with Tukey test, p≤ 0.01). These TDS patterns appear to be the result of recharge sources and dissolution reactions as groundwater moves downgradient 28 Gross Alpha (piC/L) 40 30 20 10 0 AL BAS GR SED VOL Geology This boxplot illustrates the variation in gross alpha concentrations between five SS waterbearing units. Radiochemistry samples were collected at 23 of the 77 sites. The highest gross alpha concentrations, often over the health-based standard of 15 pCi/L, are found in sites located in granite (GR) geology. 34 Statistical tests indicate that gross alpha concentrations in granite geology are significantly higher than those in either alluvial (AL) or sedimentary (SED) geology (ANOVA with Tukey test, p≤ 0.05). Previous studies indicate radiochemistry concentrations are generally higher in lowyield wells located in granite. 23 In the San Simon sub-basin, granite rock generally occurs in the Dos Cabezas and Pinaleno Mountains. 26 31
Page 2 and 3: Ambient Groundwater Quality of the
Page 5 and 6: Table of Contents Abstract ........
Page 7 and 8: Tables Table 1. Well log of BLM Hot
Page 9: “One August night in the early 18
Page 12: INTRODUCTION Purpose and Scope The
Page 15 and 16: Figure 2. The San Simon sub-basin e
Page 17 and 18: thought. 44 An excellent example of
Page 20 and 21: Figure 5. Jason Mahalic samples an
Page 22 and 23: Groundwater Movement, Storage and L
Page 24: Figure 11. A 1957 Buick is permanen
Page 29: Table 3. SS Sites Exceeding Aesthet
Page 32 and 33: Table 5. Summary Statistics for SS
Page 34: GROUNDWATER COMPOSITION Groundwater
Page 37 and 38: Table 6. Correlations Among Groundw
Page 39: Aquifer Constituent Co-variation Al
Page 43 and 44: Table 8. Summary Statistics (95% Co
Page 45 and 46: Table 10. Summary Statistics (95% C
Page 47 and 48: Table 12. Summary Statistics (95% C
Page 49 and 50: CONCLUSIONS Groundwater Suitability
Page 51 and 52: levels may be elevated to the exten
Page 53 and 54: REFERENCES 1 Arizona Department of
Page 55 and 56: Appendix A. Basic Data on Sample Si
Page 57 and 58: Appendix A. Basic Data on Sample Si
Page 59 and 60: Appendix B. Groundwater Quality Dat
Page 77 and 78: APPENDIX C. INVESTIGATION METHODS V
Page 79 and 80: Table 13. ADHS/Del Mar Laboratory M
Page 81 and 82: APPENDIX D. DATA EVALUATION Quality
Page 83 and 84: The maximum difference between dupl
Page 85 and 86: Table 16. Summary Results of 1997/2
Page 87: Constituent Concentration Correlati

San Simon Sub-Basin - Arizona Department of Environmental Quality

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?