Minutes

February 11, 1999

University of Idaho - McClure Hall # 304

Calvin C. Warnick Hydrogeological Library

 

 

MEMBERS PRESENT:

Craig Benjamin (WSU), Steve Gill (Executive Secretary), Sue Hinz (Pullman), Don Huskey (UI), Derek Pohle (Whitman County), Larry Kirkland, Vice Chair. (UI), Gary Presol (Moscow), Tom Townsend, Chair. (Latah County), Mark Workman (Pullman).

MEMBERS Absent:

Jay Becker (WSU), Pam Palmer (Moscow), Loreca J. Stauber (Latah County), Les Wigen (Whitman County).

VISITORS:

Kent R. Johnson, Ph.D., P.G. (Aquila Geosciences, Inc.), Ron Cooper (Pullman), Debbie Ellard (City of Moscow, Conservation Officer), Bob Haynes (Idaho Department of Water Resources), Tom Lamar (PCEI), Kathleen Warnick.

Call to Order

The meeting was called to order by PBAC Chairman Tom Townsend at 8:43 a.m.

Approval of Minutes

Minutes from the November 12, 1998 and January 14, 1999 meeting were unanimously approved (D. Huskey motioned, M. Workman seconded).

GeoTechnical Presentation:

Kent R. Johnson, Ph.D., P.G. is a Geologist/Geophysicist with the firm AQUILA GEOSCIENCES, INC.  Mr. Johnson has owned and operated AQUILA for the past twelve years, prior to AQUILA he had an extensive background in the oil industry. 

 

Since 1992, Mr. Johnson has been working with the City/County of Los Angeles on the Owens Lake Project.  At present his firm has run over 139 miles of geophysical lines in an attempt to characterize the ground water potential beneath the dry lakebed of Owens Lake. Mr. Johnson began:

Geophysics is a method of remote sensing.  Basically, a blackbox derives a number that is then interpreted by a geophysicist through a computer program which allows the geophysicist to translate the data into an approximation of the earth’s subsurface.  Geophysics is often used in conjunction with the drilling of a new well but is more often employed after the well has been drilled and the data does not fit with the assumed geologic cross-section.

Problems arise when contrasts in geologic materials are very similar and interpretation of the data is vague and possible subject to each individual geophysicist opinion.  There are several geophysics techniques that could be employed to find the shape of the Palouse ground water basin; however, some of the techniques would not work well due to the amount of ambiguity in the method.

Seismic Geophysics: the problem with this method is that the basalt and underlying basement rock are too similar in their density.

Magnetic Geophysics: this method might give false data due to the magnetic properties within basalt.

Gravity Geophysics: this method could be employed with good results.  Gravity geophysics looks at the density contrasts between rocks.  Problems might arise in the interpretation of the data 1) without accurate elevation information, 2) in areas next to hills versus valley floor, and 3) dependant on the thickness and composition of interbeds between the basalt flows.

Time-delay Electromagnetic Geophysics: this method uses a pulsing electric current below transmitter wire that is a very accurate on the ground method but, it is extremely time consuming for a basin-wide survey.

Magnetotelluric Geophysics: this method uses natural currents within the Earth and measures these currents over time using real-time data.  A common problem with magnetotelluric is aliasing – which is best described as the effect you get when watching the wheels of a stagecoach in a movie and the wheels appear to be going in backwards.  By not sampling frequently enough the data will be false.  Setting each measuring station close enough to prevent aliasing can reduce this problem.  Advantages of magnetotellurics include 1) since it is uses real-time data results can be collected, interpreted and presented usually within 24 hours, 2) magnetotellurics can be interfaced with Gravity geophysical data, and 3) it is a very cost-effective method.  

D. Pohle asked whether an aerial gravity geophysics survey might work better?

Mr. Johnson replied that there might be a problem with the resolution of the data.

What is the cost of the different geophysics methods asked G. Presol?

Mr. Johnson replied that Gravity geophysics will usually run between $50 and $60 per station; however, the stations would need to be on the order of 1000 feet apart across the basin.  Commercially, this would be a very expensive survey,

The cost of magnetotellurics is variable and can run between $125 and $1,250 per station.  Karen Kristofferson, a geophysicist out of Colorado, places the cost for a study at $350 to $450 per station with a mobilization/demobilization cost for the geophysics crew of about $7,500.   If the crew ran a survey of similar scope to the Klein and others (1987) study done for the USGS model (Lum and others, 1990) the cost would be:

[40 stations x $450 + Mob/Demob $7,500 = $25,000 to $30,000]

Reprocessing of Existing Data: Mr. Johnson notes that today’s technology has improved substantially from that of the mid-1980’s.  He suggests that the first step the PBAC might employ is to reprocess and reinterpret the existing data set from the Klein and others (1987) study. 

S. Gill stated that there is a substantial amount of geophysical data that was collected from the 1960’s through the early-1980’s by Dr, Crosby, WSU.  Dr. Crosby used down-hole geophysics on many private rural wells on the Palouse.  His untimely death resulted in the data never being processed or interpreted.  His office, on the WSU campus, still has the unprocessed data.  This existing data could be used in conjunction with the Klein and others (1987) to gain a better understanding of the shape of the basin.

Project Management: Mr. Johnson pointed out that before any project is undertaken that the project management must be in order.  If the PBAC wants to use the data to direct their future management decisions it will require full-time management of the data including 1) proper data collection, 2) timely incorporation of that data into the model, and 3) aggressive analysis of the model to base future management decisions.            

Tom Townsend, on behalf of the PBAC, thanked Mr. Johnson for his time and unique insight.

Reports and Announcements:

PBAC Aquifer Recharge Subcommittee:   L. Kirkland stated that he has been in contact with both Representative Trail and Dr. Christian Petrich, IWWRI, concerning the revision of artificial recharge language for the State of Idaho.  S. Gill offered to follow-up and contact Dr. Petrich for an update on the progress.  

PBAC Personnel Discussion: Hydrologic Technician, Conservation Coordinator, and Executive Secretary:   T. Townsend organized a subcommittee to decide on the future PBAC personnel.  Members include: C. Benjamin, S. Hinz, G. Presol, T. Townsend, and M. Workman.  The subcommittee will report at the March PBAC meeting.

New Business

New Water Conservation Coordinator for the City of Moscow:  G. Presol introduce Debbie Ellard, a long-time employee of the City of Moscow Water Treatment Facility, as the new Water Conservation Coordinator for the City of Moscow.  Debbie will be promoting water conservation education in schools and public outreach.    

Adjournment

The meeting was adjourned at approximately 11:15 A.M.

Next Meeting

8:00 am Wednesday

March 31, 1999

University of Idaho McClure Hall # 304

 

 

Respectfully Submitted,

 

Steve W. Gill, PBAC Executive Secretary/Technical Advisor