GEOSCAN Search Results: Fastlink


TitleComparing vulnerability mapping methods in two Canadian hydrogeological settings
AuthorMurat, V; Martel, R; Savard, M M; Nastev, M; Paradis, D; Michaud, Y; Lefebvre, R; Therrien, R
SourceProceedings of Geo Quebec 2004: 57th Canadian Geotechnical Conference - 5th Joint CGS/IAH-CNC Conference/Comptes rendus de Géo Québec 2004 : 57ième Congrès canadien de géotechnique - 5ième Congrès conjoint SCG/AIH-CHN; no. 3B2, 2004 p. 1-5
LinksAbstract - Résumé
Alt SeriesGeological Survey of Canada, Contribution Series 20080170
MeetingGéo Québec 2004 : 57ième Congrès canadien de géotechnique - 5ième Congrès conjoint SCG/AIH-CHN / 57th Canadian Geotechnical Conference - 5th Joint CGS/IAH-CNC Conference; Quebec City, QC; CA; October 24-27, 2004
Mediapaper; CD-ROM; digital
AreaQuebec City; Montreal
Subjectshydrogeology; aquifers; groundwater; groundwater resources; groundwater regimes; sustainable yield; hydraulics
AbstractIn order to preserve the quality of the resource, appropriate land management at local and regional scale has to be implemented. The evaluation of the aquifer vulnerability is one of the tools supporting decision making related to aquifer protection. Several vulnerability evaluation methods exist and our study aimed at comparing their relative performance. In the first study, DRASTIC, GOD, Minnesota and Evarisk were used at the 1/100 000 scale to test their relative performance in porous media aquifers west of Québec City. Another study compare DRASTIC and GOD, at the same scale, in a fractured rock aquifer system which is overlain by a complex system of quaternary surficial sediments, northwest of Montreal. Near Québec, three of the four methods gave quite consistent results compatible with the hydrogeological contexts based on the quaternary geology. These methods show that the deltaic sand aquifer is highly vulnerable. Evarisk produces a map quite different from the ones yielded by the other three methods. Near Montreal, DRASTIC provides a map matching the recharge areas identified through detailed mapping as the most vulnerable zones, whereas GOD fails to identify these areas. It is clear through this comparative study that vulnerability maps vary significantly with the selected vulnerability evaluation methods and the type of hydrogeological setting investigated. DRASTIC appears to be the method that provides the best results in both the surficial granular and confined/semiconfined fractured rock contexts studied.