Creating a Generalized Hydrologic Water Budget for Cache Valley, UT/ID

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Hydrology Rainfall - Runoff Modeling (I)
Advertisements

Watersheds and the Hydrologic Cycle
Michael J. Brayton MD/DE/DC Water Science Center Hydrologic Controls on Nutrient and Pesticide Transport through a Small Agricultural Watershed, Morgan.
Groundwater Resources of Parowan Valley Tom M. Marston, U. S. Geological Survey In cooperation with the Utah Division of Water Rights.
Continuous Hydrologic Simulation of Johnson Creek Basin and Assuming Watershed Stationarity Rick Shimota, P.E. Hans Hadley, P.E., P.G. The Oregon Water.
Cedar Valley, Utah County, Utah Cedar Valley Water Rights Management Plan Status and Review March 7, 2013 Teresa Wilhelmsen, P.E. UL/JR Regional Engineer.
Idaho Water Resources Research Institute
Engineering Hydrology (ECIV 4323)
Application of Stage IV Precipitation Data to Estimate Spatially Variable Recharge for a Groundwater Flow Model Heather Moser Mentor: Dr. William Simpkins.
Jefferson High School Compton Creek Research Project UCLA and Los Angeles Waterkeeper Funded by the Environmental Protection Agency.
Impact of Climate Change on Flow in the Upper Mississippi River Basin
EEOS 350: Quantitative hydrogeology Lecture 2 Water balance.
Great Valley Water Resources Science Forum
Integrated Water Management Modeling Framework in Nebraska Association of Western State Engineers Spring Workshop Salt Lake City, Utah June 9, 2015 Mahesh.
U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey Sustainability of Ground-Water Use in the San Pedro River Basin, Cochise County, Arizona James Leenhouts,
Klamath Basin Water Distribution Model Workshop. OUTLINE Brief Description of Water Distribution Models Model Setups Examples of networks and inputs Demand.
Flow Estimation in the Wood River Sub-Basin. Study Motivation To estimate an historical record at the mouth of the Wood River. –Enables comparison of.
Watershed Management Water Budget, Hydrograph Analysis
Moab/Spanish Valley Public Meeting April 16, 2014.
These notes are provided to help you pay attention IN class. If I notice poor attendance, fewer notes will begin to appear on these pages 1.
 These slides were presented to the Hood River Basin Water Planning Group on May 1, 2013 by Jon Rocha and Jennifer Johnson.  Slides contain animations.
CE 424 HYDROLOGY 1 Instructor: Dr. Saleh A. AlHassoun.
Engineering Hydrology (ECIV 4323)
Studying the effects of an irrigation/drainage network on groundwater table fluctuations using 3D groundwater flow modeling Mohammad Zare Manferd Koch.
U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey Groundwater Study For Malad and Bear Rivers Drainages, Box Elder County Bear River Water Conservancy.
Adjustment of Global Gridded Precipitation for Orographic Effects Jennifer Adam.
Stream flow estimation. Why try to estimate it? Gauges don’t exist on every stream Important for water quality modeling Permitting discharge sites Biological.
Review of SWRCB Water Availability Analysis Emphasis on Dry Creek Water Availability Analysis.
South Platte Decision Support System Colorado Water Conservation Board and Division of Water Resources.
Groundwater response to stream stage fluctuations in a regulated stream, New Martinsville, WV Madan Maharjan Joe Donovan West Virginia University.
Ogallala Formation (containing High Plains Aquifer): Deposited over 10 million years ago Coarse-grained sand, gravel, fine clay, silt, and sand 174,000.
Hydrology and application of the RIBASIM model SYMP: Su Yönetimi Modelleme Platformu RBE River Basin Explorer: A modeling tool for river basin planning.
CONEWAGO CREEK GROUND WATER STUDY Base Flow and Impervious Cover November 7, 2007 Watershed Alliance of Adams County Joe McNally, P.G. GeoServices, Ltd.
A GIS approach to understanding groundwater – surface water interactions in the Logan River and Red Butte Creek, Utah Trinity Stout CEE 6440.
CE 3354 Engineering Hydrology Lecture 2: Surface and Groundwater Hydrologic Systems.
Hydrology and application of the RIBASIM model SYMP: Su Yönetimi Modelleme Platformu RBE River Basin Explorer: A modeling tool for river basin planning.
Sanitary Engineering Lecture 4
Water Availability 1996 Texas drought –Governor Bush asks “how much water do we have? How much are we using? How much do we need?” -- Ooops. No good answers!
Runoff.
Final Presentation of GIS in Water Resources
Modeling Source-water Contributions to Streamflow
Aquifer Test Analysis Carter Lake, Iowa
Precipitation, Streamflow and a Look at Little Bear River Contaminants
Overview of Spokane- Coeur d’Alene Hydrology
Precipitation-Runoff Modeling System (PRMS)
Streamflow Forecasting for Environmental Purpose at
Klamath ADR Hydrology Report
Engineering Hydrology (ECIV 4323)
Estimation of Runoff & nonpoint source pollution using GIS techniques
Water Budget & Bank Storage
Presented by Bryan Kimball
DEVELOPING A WATER BUDGET FOR MORGAN VALLEY, MORGAN COUNTY, UTAH
Image courtesy of NASA/GSFC
CEE 6640:GIS for Water Resources 11/23/2010 Naho Orita
Beta Release of Delta Channel Depletion Model (DCD v1
Little Bear River 100-Year Storm Flood
Recharge to the Edwards Aquifer in the Nueces Basin
SWAT – Land Phase of the Hydrologic Cycle
Hydrology CIVL341.
Hydrology CIVL341 Introduction
Hydrology CIVL341 Introduction
Engineering Hydrology (ECIV 4323)
WRE-1 BY MOHD ABDUL AQUIL CIVIL ENGINEERING.
EVAPORATION MEASURMENTS EVAPORATION MEASURMENTS.
EVAPORATION MEASURMENTS EVAPORATION MEASURMENTS.
Hydrology CIVL341 Introduction
Chapter 5 Sources and Sinks
Engineering Hydrology (ECIV 4323)
Chapter Four RUNOFF When a storm occurs, a portion of rainfall infiltrates into the ground and some portion may evaporate. The rest flows as a thin sheet.
Systems and Components – A Process for Developing the Total Water Budget Handbook for Water Budget Development - With or Without Models CWEMF 2019 Annual.
Presentation transcript:

Creating a Generalized Hydrologic Water Budget for Cache Valley, UT/ID Presented by Tom Nelson November 29, 2007 GIS-Water Resources Final Project

Background Groundwater flow model developed for Cache Valley by Kariya et al, but does not account for subsurface inflow As a result, unrealistic boundary conditions applied to achieve model calibration

Background Karst Topography Landscape shaped by the dissolution of carbonate rocks (e.g. limestone) Interconnected subsurface channels that allow for rapid water transport

Objectives 1) Find the storage flux of Cache Valley aquifers by creating a generalized hydrologic budget for the watersheds that contain Cache Valley, UT/ID using the following equation: Aquifer Storage Flux = Stream Outflow + Evapotranspiration + Well Discharge – Stream/Spring Inflow - Precipitation 2) Compare results with water budget generated by Kariya et al model

Methods Obtain stream discharge data to determine stream inflow/outflow Determine area of Cache Valley watersheds using GIS analysis Download and correct annual precipitation data Add precipitation gage points onto map to perform a spatial analysis Estimate an appropriate evapotranspiration rate for the valley Obtain well discharge records for Cache Valley

Stream Inflow/Outflow Cache Valley is contained within two watersheds: 1) Middle Bear Watershed (northern half of valley) 2) Middle Bear-Logan Watershed (southern half of valley) Stream flow (Bear River) into the valley through the Alexander Dam Stream flow (Bear River) out of the valley through the Cutler Dam

Inflow at the Alexander Dam 19 years worth of Bear River daily discharge data available from Idaho Dept. of Water Resources Average annual discharge of 1.4687x10^11 cubic meters

Outflow at Cutler Dam Stream flow leaves Cache Valley through Cutler Dam Discharge of Bear River measured approximately 0.25 miles downstream from Cutler Dam at 3 gages near Collinston, UT 4-10 years of daily discharge data available Combined Annual Discharge of 3.02295x10^11 cubic meters

Precipitation Daily precipitation measurements from 9 stations in or near the Cache Valley watersheds Correction factor applied due to missing data points in the data sets A=(sum of existing values)/(total days of existing values) Yearly Average=(A*total days in data set)/(total years in data set)

Precipitation Precipitation stations added to GIS map as a feature dataset Spatial Analysis performed using kriging interpolation method Mean precipitation value of 19.4792 inches across the watersheds Analysis of combined watershed drainage area gives an area of 5872.8 kilometers squared Therefore, average annual precipitation in Bear Watersheds = 2.905708 x 10^9 cubic meters

Evapotranspiration Monthly reference evapotranspiration data available for 2006-2007 from a climate station in North Logan Estimating actual evapotranspiration: Actual ET = (Multiplier) x (Sum of Reference Evapotranspiration for non-winter months (April-November)) Actual ET = (0.5) x (0.870966 meters) = 0.435483 meters/year Total annual volume = (Actual ET) x (Area) = 2.5575 x 10^9 cubic meters

Well Discharge Utah annual well discharge from Cache Valley 1994-2005 average annual well discharge = 3.3304 x 10^7 cubic meters (Burden, C.B., et al) Idaho annual well discharge from Cache Valley Year 2000 annual well discharge = 3.10628 x 10^8 cubic meters (http://id.water.usgs.gov) Combined annual well discharge from Cache Valley = 3.43919 x 10^8 cubic meters

Final Hydrologic Budget Aquifer Storage Flux = Stream Outflow + Evapotranspiration + Well Discharge – Stream/Spring Inflow – Precipitation Aquifer Storage Flux = Subsurace Inflow – Subsurface Outflow Annual Cache Valley Aquifer Storage Flux = 1.539017 x 10^11 cubic meters per year

Comparison with Kariya et al Groundwater Model Kariya’s model assumes that nearly all of the aquifer recharge is due to seepage from irrigation canals and precipitation This causes a lack of recharge into the valley, and as a result, the annual aquifer recharge is only 65% that of the annual aquifer discharge In 2003, Myers showed that aquifer recharge from streams is negligible From estimated water budget: Precipitation – Evapotranspiration = 1.868558E+09 cubic meters Assuming 50% runoff and 50% infiltration: Infiltration from precipitation = 9.34279E+08 cubic meters If parameters of Kariya’s model were followed in this case, there would be a recharge discrepancy of 1.52967E+11 cubic meters

Conclusions The average annual storage flux for the aquifers of Cache Valley is approximately 1.539 x 10^11 cubic meters per year, although a more intensive study would have to be conducted to obtain a truly reliable value The assumption of Kariya et al’s groundwater model for the valley, that the aquifers are recharged primarily through seepage from canals and precipitation, appears to significantly underestimate the volume and source of recharge

References Burden, C.B., et al, 2006.Ground-Water Conditions in Utah, Spring 2006: Utah Department of Natural Resources, Water Resources Division, Report 47. Kariya, K.A., Roark, D.M., Hanson, K.K.. Hydrology of Cache Valley, Cache County, Utah, and Adjacent Part of Idaho, with Emphasis on Groundwater. USGS Technical Pub. No. 108. 1994. Myers, Barry. Simulation of Groundwater Flow in Cache Valley, Utah and Idaho. Utah State University Master’s Thesis. 2003. http://climate.usurf.usu.edu/products/data.php http://www.conservewater.utah.gov/et/etsite/default.asp?NorthLoganGreenvilleFarm.htm http://id.waterusgs.gov/public/water.use.2000.xls http://www.idwr.idaho.gov/gisdata/mapserver.htm http://www.waterrights.utah.gov/cgi-bin/gageview.exe?Startup