Groundwater in Clarkdale today and in the future al Consulting cher - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

▶
groundwater in clarkdale today and in the future
SMART_READER_LITE
LIVE PREVIEW

Groundwater in Clarkdale today and in the future al Consulting cher - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Dec 04, 2022 198 likes •535 views

Groundwater in Clarkdale today and in the future al Consulting cher Hydrologica La 1 Water Resources Management Program Water Resources Management Program Hydrologic Problem Statement Regional to Clarkdale Specific Model al Consulting

slide-1
SLIDE 1

Groundwater in Clarkdale— today and in the future

al Consulting cher Hydrologica 1 La

slide-2
SLIDE 2

Water Resources Management Program Water Resources Management Program

Hydrologic Problem Statement Regional to Clarkdale‐Specific Model

al Consulting

Options for Clarkdale’s Water

cher Hydrologic

Management Program

La 2

slide-3
SLIDE 3

How Does Pumping Groundwater Affect the Verde River?

al Consulting cher Hydrologic La 3

slide-4
SLIDE 4

Natural Conditions: RECHARGE = DISCHARGE

Pumping = Aquifer Storage + Capture AQUIFER AQUIFER RECHARGE DISCHARGE

al Consulting cher Hydrologic

Capture: I d RECHARGE D d DISCHARGE

Baseflow and Evapotranspiration (ET)

La

Increased RECHARGE + Decreased DISCHARGE

4

slide-5
SLIDE 5

Effects of Pumping May Continue for a Long, Long Time... Even After Pumping Stops

Si l t d Ch i St C t f 2005

Simulated Baseflow Capture Due to Pumping in

Even After Pumping Stops

1200 1400 1600 8.00 10.00

Simulated Change in Stream Capture from 2005 Pumping at Fort Huachuca

Simulated Baseflow Capture Due to Pumping in a Distant Well in a Single Year (2005)

600 800 1000 1200 2.00 4.00 6.00 Pumping (AFY) ream Capture (AFY)

al Consulting

200 400 ‐2.00 0.00 Str

2032

cher Hydrologic

Year Pumping Stream Capture

La 5

slide-6
SLIDE 6

GROUNDWATER MODELS

Hydrologic Tools for Understanding Water Systems

al Consulting

GROUNDWATER MODELS

cher Hydrologic 6 La

slide-7
SLIDE 7

MODEL: A Description or Analogy Used to Help Visualize Something that Cannot be Directly Observed Something that Cannot be Directly Observed.

‐‐ Merriam‐Webster Dictionary definition no. 11 al Consulting cher Hydrologic La 7

slide-8
SLIDE 8

GROUNDWATER MODEL: A Computer Program that Uses Flow Equations to Make Sense of Uses Flow Equations to Make Sense of a Complex Natural System.

Numerical Model

Evaporation

OUTPUT

S

Pumping, Stream Diversions, Groundwater Conditions, Baseflow, E i

INPUT OUTPUT

al Consulting Aquifers Streams

Evaporative Demand Evaporative Consumption

Flow Equations

cher Hydrologic

Flow Equations

La 8

slide-9
SLIDE 9

Why Use a Groundwater Model? Why Use a Groundwater Model?

  • To test the outcome of actions that can’t

To test the outcome of actions that can t easily be tested in real life:

– future changes in pumping – future changes in pumping – new wells changing climate – changing climate – new recharge projects

al Consulting cher Hydrologic 9 La

slide-10
SLIDE 10

al Consulting cher Hydrologic La 10

slide-11
SLIDE 11

What We Know About Our System

Geology Streamflow Evaporative Demand

al Consulting

Groundwater Levels Pumping Evaporative Demand

cher Hydrologica La

Source: SIR 2013‐5029

11

slide-12
SLIDE 12

Source: SIR 2013‐5029 al Consulting cher Hydrologica Source: SIR 2010‐5180 La Source: SIR 2010 5180 12

slide-13
SLIDE 13

MODELING THE CLARKDALE AREA

al Consulting

MODELING THE CLARKDALE AREA

cher Hydrologic 13 La

slide-14
SLIDE 14

al Consulting cher Hydrologic La

1km grid squares

14

slide-15
SLIDE 15

Future Simulation (2006 to 2076) Future Simulation (2006 to 2076)

  • No Change in Pumping from 2006‐2076*

No Change in Pumping from 2006 2076

* Clarkdale pumping updated 2006‐2012, then constant to 2076.

  • Repeat Historic (1910‐1970) Recharge 2016 to

2076

al Consulting cher Hydrologic 15 La

slide-16
SLIDE 16

16

slide-17
SLIDE 17

Simulated Recharge Factor

1.6 1.8 2

(Relative to 1940)

repeat 1910‐1970 pattern

0 6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1910‐2006 AVG 1910‐2076 AVG

9% Difference al Consulting

0.2 0.4 0.6

cher Hydrologic La 17

slide-18
SLIDE 18

Simulated Heads and Flow Paths – 1910 (Predevelopment)

contour interval = 50 ft.

ft amsl

5900 5750 5500 5250 5000

3800

4750 4500 4250 4000 3750 3500 3250 3000

al Consulting cher Hydrologic La 18

slide-19
SLIDE 19

Simulated Heads and Flow Paths – 2006

contour interval = 50 ft.

ft amsl

5900 5750 5500 5250 5000

3800

4750 4500 4250 4000 3750 3500 3250 3000

Haskell Springs/SW Clarkdale Area

al Consulting 2920 cher Hydrologic La 19

slide-20
SLIDE 20

Simulated Heads and Flow Paths – 2030

contour interval = 50 ft.

ft amsl

5900 5750 5500 5250 5000

3800

4750 4500 4250 4000 3750 3500 3250 3000

al Consulting 2706 cher Hydrologic La 20

slide-21
SLIDE 21

Simulated Heads and Flow Paths – 2076

contour interval = 50 ft. 3800

ft amsl

5900 5750 5500 5250 5000 4750 4500 4250 4000 3750 3500 3250

5620 5640 5660 5680 5700 5720 5740 5760 Feet

Head in Aquifer ‐ Mingus Mountain

3500

Head in Aquifer ‐ Clarkdale Town Hall

3000

5560 5580 5600 5620 Year 3300 3320 3340 3360 3380 3400 3420 3440 3460 3480 3500 Feet

al Consulting 3054

3300 Year

cher Hydrologic La 21

slide-22
SLIDE 22

Simulated Head Change 1910 to 1970

contour interval = 10 ft.

f 150 110 70 30 ‐10 50 feet ‐50 ‐90 ‐120 ‐160 ‐200 ‐240 ‐280 ‐320

al Consulting cher Hydrologic La 22

slide-23
SLIDE 23

Simulated Head Change 1910 to 2006

contour interval = 10 ft.

150 110 70 30 ‐10 feet ‐50 ‐90 ‐120 ‐160 ‐200 ‐240 280 ‐280 ‐320 Jerome Wastewater Treatment Facility

al Consulting ‐770 ‐60 ‐150 203 cher Hydrologic ‐ La 23

slide-24
SLIDE 24

Simulated Head Change 1910 to 2030

contour interval = 10 ft.

150 110 70 30 ‐10 feet ‐50 ‐90 ‐120 ‐160 ‐200 ‐240 280 ‐280 ‐320

‐10 al Consulting ‐984 ‐21 160 cher Hydrologic 10 ‐150 La 24

slide-25
SLIDE 25

Simulated Head Change 1910 to 2076

contour interval = 10 ft.

150 110 70 30 ‐10 feet ‐50 ‐90 ‐120 ‐160 ‐200 ‐240 280 ‐280 ‐320

al Consulting ‐636 106 cher Hydrologic ‐210 La 25

slide-26
SLIDE 26

Simulated Change in Baseflow ‐ 1910 to 2006

contour interval = 1 cubic‐foot per second (cfs)

‐9.6 cfs (‐8%) [Q2006=108 cfs]

cfs ‐7 ‐14 ‐21 ‐28 ‐35 ‐42 ‐49 49 ‐56 ‐63 ‐70 ‐77 ‐84

al Consulting cher Hydrologic La 26

slide-27
SLIDE 27

Simulated Change in Baseflow ‐ 1910 to 2030

contour interval = 1 cubic‐foot per second (cfs)

‐15 cfs (‐13%) [Q2030=103 cfs]

cfs ‐7 ‐14 ‐21 ‐28 ‐35 ‐42 ‐49

1

49 ‐56 ‐63 ‐70 ‐77 ‐84

al Consulting 2 3 cher Hydrologic 4 La 27

slide-28
SLIDE 28

Simulated Change in Baseflow ‐ 1910 to 2076

contour interval = 1 cubic‐foot per second (cfs)

‐21 cfs (‐18%) [Q2076=97 cfs]

cfs ‐7 ‐14 ‐21 ‐28 ‐35 ‐42 ‐49

1

49 ‐56 ‐63 ‐70 ‐77 ‐84

al Consulting 2 3 cher Hydrologic 4 La 28

slide-29
SLIDE 29

Simulated Baseflow

250 300 350 400 cfs)

Simulated Baseflow

Clarkdale GS

3 4

50 100 150 200 250 Baseflow (c Clarkdale GS Tuzigoot Bridge 1 Mile Below Tuzigoot Bridge 2 Miles Above Oak Cr Confluence

1 2 3 al Consulting

1900 1950 2000 2050 2100 Year

cher Hydrologic La 29

slide-30
SLIDE 30

Simulated Recharge Factor (Relative to 1940) and Simulated % Change in Baseflow (Relative to 1910)

0% 5% 1.6 1.8 2 Recharge Factor Repeat Historic ‐15% ‐10% ‐5% 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 Recharge Factor ‐ Repeat Historic Pattern After 2016 1910‐2006 AVG Recharge Factor 1910‐2076 AVGRecharge Factor Recharge Factor Baseflow % Ch

al Consulting

‐25% ‐20% 15% 0.2 0.4 0.6 1910 2076 AVG Recharge Factor % Change in Baseflow ange

cher Hydrologic

Years

La 30

slide-31
SLIDE 31

Take‐Aways Take Aways

  • Baseflows in the middle Verde have declined

Baseflows in the middle Verde have declined by about 8% over the past century and are likely to decline at least 10% more by 2076.

  • Baseflows are sensitive to recharge and

pumping, but pumping impacts will become more significant in the future (even without increased pumping).

  • Haskell Springs/SW Clarkdale area is

hydrologically sensitive.

31

slide-32
SLIDE 32

Thank you! Thank you!

al Consulting cher Hydrologic La 32