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

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 Options for Clarkdale’s Water Management cher Hydrologic Program La 2

How Does Pumping Groundwater Affect the Verde River? al Consulting cher Hydrologic La 3

Natural Conditions: RECHARGE = DISCHARGE Pumping = Aquifer Storage + Capture AQUIFER AQUIFER RECHARGE DISCHARGE al Consulting cher Hydrologic Baseflow and Capture: Evapotranspiration (ET) Increased RECHARGE + Decreased DISCHARGE I d RECHARGE D d DISCHARGE La 4

Effects of Pumping May Continue for a Long, Long Time... Even After Pumping Stops Even After Pumping Stops Simulated Baseflow Capture Due to Pumping in Simulated Baseflow Capture Due to Pumping in Simulated Change in Stream Capture from 2005 Si l t d Ch i St C t f 2005 a Distant Well in a Single Year (2005) Pumping at Fort Huachuca 10.00 1600 1400 8.00 1200 1200 ream Capture (AFY) 6.00 Pumping (AFY) 1000 4.00 800 600 2.00 Str 2032 400 al Consulting 0.00 200 ‐ 2.00 0 cher Hydrologic Year Pumping Stream Capture La 5

al Consulting Hydrologic Tools for Understanding Water Systems GROUNDWATER MODELS GROUNDWATER MODELS cher Hydrologic La 6

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

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 OUTPUT INPUT Groundwater Conditions, Pumping, Baseflow, Stream Diversions, S Streams E Evaporative i Evaporative al Consulting Consumption Demand Aquifers Flow Equations Flow Equations cher Hydrologic La 8

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 al Consulting – new recharge projects cher Hydrologic La 9

La cher Hydrologic al Consulting 10

What We Know About Our System Geology Streamflow Evaporative Demand Evaporative Demand Groundwater Levels al Consulting Pumping cher Hydrologica La Source: SIR 2013 ‐ 5029 11

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

al Consulting MODELING THE CLARKDALE AREA MODELING THE CLARKDALE AREA cher Hydrologic La 13

La cher Hydrologic al Consulting 1km grid squares 14

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 La 15

16

Simulated Recharge Factor (Relative to 1940) 2 repeat 1910 ‐ 1970 pattern 1.8 1.6 1910 ‐ 2006 AVG 1.4 9% Difference 1.2 1910 ‐ 2076 AVG 1 0.8 0 6 0.6 0.4 al Consulting 0.2 0 cher Hydrologic La 17

Simulated Heads and Flow Paths – 1910 (Predevelopment) contour interval = 50 ft. ft amsl 5900 5750 5500 3800 5250 5000 4750 4500 4250 4000 3750 3500 3250 3000 al Consulting cher Hydrologic La 18

Simulated Heads and Flow Paths – 2006 contour interval = 50 ft. ft amsl 5900 5750 5500 3800 5250 5000 4750 4500 4250 4000 3750 3500 3250 3000 Haskell Springs/SW Clarkdale Area al Consulting 2920 cher Hydrologic La 19

Simulated Heads and Flow Paths – 2030 contour interval = 50 ft. ft amsl 5900 5750 5500 3800 5250 5000 4750 4500 4250 4000 3750 3500 3250 3000 al Consulting 2706 cher Hydrologic La 20

Simulated Heads and Flow Paths – 2076 contour interval = 50 ft. ft amsl 5900 5750 5500 3800 5250 5000 4750 Head in Aquifer ‐ Mingus Mountain 4500 4250 5760 5740 4000 5720 3750 5700 5680 3500 Feet Head in Aquifer ‐ Clarkdale Town Hall 5660 3250 5640 5620 5620 3500 3500 3000 5600 3480 3460 5580 5560 3440 3420 Feet 3400 3380 Year 3360 3340 3320 3300 3300 al Consulting Year 3054 cher Hydrologic La 21

Simulated Head Change 1910 to 1970 contour interval = 10 ft. f feet 150 110 70 30 ‐ 10 ‐ 50 50 ‐ 90 ‐ 120 ‐ 160 ‐ 200 ‐ 240 ‐ 280 ‐ 320 al Consulting cher Hydrologic La 22

Simulated Head Change 1910 to 2006 contour interval = 10 ft. feet 150 110 70 30 ‐ 10 ‐ 50 ‐ 90 ‐ 120 ‐ 160 ‐ 200 ‐ 240 ‐ 280 280 Jerome Wastewater ‐ 320 Treatment Facility al Consulting 203 ‐ 150 ‐ 770 ‐ 60 ‐ 0 cher Hydrologic La 23

Simulated Head Change 1910 to 2030 contour interval = 10 ft. feet 150 110 70 30 ‐ 10 ‐ 50 ‐ 90 ‐ 120 ‐ 160 ‐ 200 ‐ 240 ‐ 280 280 ‐ 320 ‐ 10 al Consulting 160 ‐ 984 ‐ 21 10 cher Hydrologic ‐ 150 La 24

Simulated Head Change 1910 to 2076 contour interval = 10 ft. feet 150 110 70 30 ‐ 10 ‐ 50 ‐ 90 ‐ 120 ‐ 160 ‐ 200 ‐ 240 ‐ 280 280 ‐ 320 al Consulting 106 ‐ 636 cher Hydrologic ‐ 210 La 25

Simulated Change in Baseflow ‐ 1910 to 2006 contour interval = 1 cubic ‐ foot per second (cfs) ‐ 9.6 cfs ( ‐ 8%) [Q 2006 =108 cfs] cfs 0 ‐ 7 ‐ 14 ‐ 21 ‐ 28 ‐ 35 ‐ 42 ‐ 49 49 ‐ 56 ‐ 63 ‐ 70 ‐ 77 ‐ 84 al Consulting cher Hydrologic La 26

Simulated Change in Baseflow ‐ 1910 to 2030 contour interval = 1 cubic ‐ foot per second (cfs) ‐ 15 cfs ( ‐ 13%) [Q 2030 =103 cfs] cfs 0 ‐ 7 1 ‐ 14 ‐ 21 ‐ 28 ‐ 35 ‐ 42 ‐ 49 49 ‐ 56 ‐ 63 ‐ 70 ‐ 77 ‐ 84 2 3 al Consulting cher Hydrologic 4 La 27

Simulated Change in Baseflow ‐ 1910 to 2076 contour interval = 1 cubic ‐ foot per second (cfs) ‐ 21 cfs ( ‐ 18%) [Q 2076 =97 cfs] cfs 0 ‐ 7 1 ‐ 14 ‐ 21 ‐ 28 ‐ 35 ‐ 42 ‐ 49 49 ‐ 56 ‐ 63 ‐ 70 ‐ 77 ‐ 84 2 3 al Consulting cher Hydrologic 4 La 28

Simulated Baseflow Simulated Baseflow 400 350 4 300 cfs) 3 3 Clarkdale GS Clarkdale GS 250 250 Baseflow (c 200 Tuzigoot Bridge 150 2 1 Mile Below Tuzigoot Bridge 100 1 50 2 Miles Above Oak Cr Confluence 0 al Consulting 1900 1950 2000 2050 2100 Year cher Hydrologic La 29

Simulated Recharge Factor (Relative to 1940) and Simulated % Change in Baseflow (Relative to 1910) 2 5% 1.8 0% 1.6 Recharge Factor ‐ Repeat Historic Recharge Factor Repeat Historic 1.4 Recharge Factor ‐ 5% Pattern After 2016 Baseflow % Ch 1.2 1910 ‐ 2006 AVG Recharge Factor 1 ‐ 10% 0.8 ‐ 15% 15% 1910 2076 AVG Recharge Factor 1910 ‐ 2076 AVGRecharge Factor ange 0.6 al Consulting 0.4 ‐ 20% % Change in Baseflow 0.2 0 ‐ 25% cher Hydrologic Years La 30

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

La cher Hydrologic al Consulting Thank you! Thank you! 32