Response of selenium concentrations in groundwater to seasonal canal leakage, lower Gunnison River Basin, Colorado, 2013

J.I. Linard; P.B. McMahon; L. R. Arnold; J.C. Thomas

doi:10.3133/sir20165047

Home/Archive/USGS

USGS · sir20165047

Response of selenium concentrations in groundwater to seasonal canal leakage, lower Gunnison River Basin, Colorado, 2013

J.I. Linard·P.B. McMahon·L. R. Arnold·J.C. Thomas

View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

Selenium is a water-quality concern in the lower Gunnison River Basin because irrigation water interacting with seleniferous soils derived from the Mancos Shale Formation has mobilized selenium and increased its concentrations in surface water. Understanding the occurrence of elevated selenium concentrations in groundwater is necessary because groundwater discharge is an important source of selenium in surface water in the basin. In 2013, the U.S. Geological Survey, in cooperation with the Bureau of Reclamation and the Colorado Water Conservation Board, began a study to understand how changes in groundwater levels attributed to canal leakage affected the concentrations and speciation of dissolved selenium in groundwater. The purpose of this report is to characterize the groundwater adjacent to an unlined leaky canal. Two locations, near the East Canal (W-N1 and W-N2) and farther from the East Canal (W-M1 and W-M2), were selected for nested monitoring well installations. The pressure exerted by changes in canal stage was more readily transferred to the deep groundwater measured in the W-N1 near the canal than the shallow groundwater at the W-N2 well. No definitive relation could be made between canal water-level elevation and water-level elevations in monitoring wells farther from the canal (W-M1 and W-M2). Water flowing through the East Canal before the irrigation season had much higher selenium concentrations (140 micrograms per liter) than water in the canal during the irrigation season (3.02 micrograms per liter). Total selenium concentrations in the monitoring wells near the canal initially increased to 51.8 micrograms per liter in W-N1 and 1.66 micrograms per liter in W-N2. The initial increase in groundwater selenium concentrations presumably resulted from the dissolution of salts in the unsaturated zone by rising groundwater levels associated with canal leakage. The subsequent decrease in total selenium concentrations resulted from a combination of dilution by canal leakage and selenium reduction processes. Total selenium concentrations in monitoring wells located farther from the canal were not directly affected by canal leakage. Selenite/total selenium mass ratios in the East Canal samples ranged from about 0.02 to 0.13, indicating that about 2 to 13 percent of the total selenium in canal samples was composed of selenite. The increase in total selenium at W-N1 from before the irrigation season to the early irrigation season was accompanied by a decrease in the percentage of selenite from about 10 to 1 percent, indicating that selenate was added to the groundwater. A nitrate pulse occurred with the selenate pulse in W-N1 at the beginning of the irrigation season but apparently dissipated to a low enough concentration during the irrigation season to allow for selenate reduction to occur, as indicated by the relatively high percentages of selenite in W-N1 during the late irrigation season. W-N2 generally contained higher percentages of selenite than W-N1. Percentages of selenite in W-M1 did not change in response to filling the canal and generally composed less than 1 percent of the total selenium in that well. The predominance of selenate in W-M1, and apparent lack of selenate reduction, cannot be explained by a lack of anoxic conditions in the groundwater because all the available dissolved-oxygen data indicate that concentrations were less than 0.5 milligrams per liter. The most likely explanation for the lack of selenate reduction in W-M1 is that the exceptionally high concentrations of nitrate in the groundwater (about 340 to 390 milligrams per liter as nitrogen) inhibited selenate reduction. These high nitrate concentrations presumably come from the Mancos Shale and its weathering products because there was no evidence for a human source of nitrate at the lower Gunnison River Basin wetland. The high concentrations of selenate in W-M1 may persist and eventually discharge to surface water unless nitrate concentrations are reduced to low enough levels to permit substantial selenate reduction to occur. Well W-M2 contained relatively low concentrations of total selenium and high percentages of selenite before and at the onset of the irrigation season. An increase in total selenium concentration associated with a drying and wetting period later in the summer was accompanied by a decrease in the percentage of selenite to near 0 percent, indicating that selenate was added to the groundwater. This pattern is consistent with the examples of increasing concentrations of total selenium in the other wells and presumably resulted from the dissolution of selenate-bearing salts in the unsaturated zone by rising water levels in W-M2.

Explore related subjects

Scientific Investigations Report Report

Source-reported bounding extent: 38.65° to 38.6542° latitude; -107.9583° to -107.9514° longitude. This indicates report coverage, not an exact sampling location. View area on OpenStreetMap.

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeX RIS

J.I. Linard, P.B. McMahon, L. R. Arnold, J.C. Thomas. 2016-05-23. Response of selenium concentrations in groundwater to seasonal canal leakage, lower Gunnison River Basin, Colorado, 2013. https://doi.org/10.3133/sir20165047

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

KEEP EXPLORING

Related USGS reports

USGS2026

Analysis of groundwater geochemistry in the Lansing, Michigan, area

Groundwater resources in the Lansing, Michigan, area are protected by a wellhead protection plan, but previous studies have indicated that groundwater in this area may be susceptible to surface contamination. The U.S. Geological Survey, in cooperation with the Lansing Board of Water & Light, analyzed geochemical and aquifer characteristics to assess the potential for contamination of groundwater resources. Recharge age categories were determined from tritium concentrations for some wells, and by using ternary diagrams and principal component analysis for other wells. These age classifications, combined with hydrogeologic and geochemical data, were analyzed by using statistical methods to identify trends that may indicate areas of increased groundwater susceptibility. Wells with modern recharge tended to have higher sodium, chloride, and chloride:bromide ratios than did wells with mixed recharge, suggesting greater surface connectivity and potential influence from anthropogenic sources such as road salt. In contrast, wells in the mixed age category exhibited more stable geochemistry and lower constituent concentrations. Classification and regression tree models identified aquifer geometry—particularly the thickness of the uppermost bedrock unit and presence of confining layers—as key predictors of recharge age and geochemical indicators. The trends identified from these analyses could help to reveal locations in the Lansing area that are among the most susceptible to contamination.

Scientific Investigations Report↗

USGS2026

Evaluating the number of realizations (train-test splits) necessary to ensure robust estimates of conventional hydrothermal resource favorability using Monte Carlo cross-validation, the Great Basin, Western USA

Supervised machine learning approaches used to produce favorability maps in resource assessments commonly partition an input dataset into training and testing subsets (that is, through train-test splits). However, if a single split is not representative of underlying resource conditions, the resulting favorability map may be biased, particularly with sparse or heterogeneous datasets. To mitigate the potential for unrepresentative favorability maps, recent works by U.S. Geological Survey researchers have used Monte Carlo cross-validation to implement a large number ( n) of randomized train-test splits to produce n realizations. The realizations are then aggregated using cell-wise median predictions to produce the resulting final favorability map, recognizing that the median will remove extreme values that might have been estimated from a comparatively few unrepresentative realizations. Theoretically, the median prediction at every cell converges to a single estimate as n approaches infinity, and the question addressed herein is: How many realizations are necessary to get a robust estimate (that is, an estimate unaffected by additional realizations)? Therefore, convergence metrics are described to identify the number of train-test splits and realizations needed to make a reliable map using the data and supervised machine learning workflow for conventional hydrothermal resource assessment of the Great Basin of the Western United States. For this study, robust prediction occurs with n approximately equal to 600 realizations, and smaller ensembles (for example, n is approximately equal to 200 or even 100) may be suitable during preliminary or exploratory analyses. Although the resulting threshold numbers will vary depending on the data and modeling approach used, the convergence metrics proposed and applied herein are applicable to other supervised machine learning studies that use Monte Carlo cross-validation.

California, Idaho, Nevada, Oregon, Utah↗

USGS2026

Groundwater budget for the Portneuf River Basin, southeastern Idaho

The U.S. Geological Survey, in cooperation with the Idaho Department of Water Resources, developed the first groundwater budget for the upper Portneuf River Basin in southeastern Idaho, a tributary of the Snake River. A groundwater budget for the Portneuf River Basin supports water resource and administrative management decisions within the basin and for downstream users of the eastern Snake River Plain aquifer. The analysis quantifies inflows, outflows, and residuals for an aquifer system defined by the Idaho Department of Water Resources under three recent precipitation conditions: an average year (2016), a dry year (2021), and a wet year (2023). The budget was calculated for the basin and for two subbasins delineated by the U.S. Geological Survey streamgage Portneuf River at Topaz, Idaho (13073000): the above Topaz subbasin, which includes the Portneuf-Gem valley, and the below Topaz subbasin, which includes Marsh Valley. Aquifer inflows include mountain-front recharge; areal recharge; recharge from applied water, including recharge from irrigation, canal seepage, and effluent returns; groundwater flow into the basin; and reservoir seepage. Outflows include groundwater pumping for agricultural, municipal, and domestic uses; subsurface outflow through the Portneuf gap; and discharge to streams as base flow. Estimated annual inflows for the full basin ranged from 116,880 acre-feet in 2021 to 154,880 acre-feet in 2023, and outflows ranged from 132,190 acre-feet in 2016 to 158,490 acre-feet in 2023. Basinwide residuals, the change in storage plus uncertainty, were −2,410 acre-feet in 2016, −18,410 acre-feet in 2021, and −3,610 acre-feet in 2023, and each subbasin had a mixture of negative and positive residuals. These basinwide results, interpreted as change in storage plus water-budget uncertainty, indicate minor net losses that increase with dry conditions, consistent with well depth-to-water measurements indicating gradual multi-decadal declines. Patterns in subbasin residuals are driven by irrigation practices and surface-water management; for example, the above Topaz subbasin relies more on groundwater for irrigation, resulting in more negative residuals during dry years. In contrast, the below Topaz subbasin depends more on surface water, producing positive residuals during dry years because of irrigation losses and canal seepage. The analyses for both subbasins indicate decades-long groundwater declines, which agree with the overall negative residuals calculated. The largest sources of uncertainty include climate inputs (precipitation and evapotranspiration) and poorly constrained components such as groundwater inflow and tributary stream infiltration. These findings provide insight into how climatic variables and irrigation practices affect groundwater inflows and outflows within the Portneuf River Basin.

Idaho↗