1 / 34

Read Me

Read Me. These slides were presented to the Hood River Basin Water Planning Group on Dec 4, 2013 by Jon Rocha and Jennifer Johnson. Slides contain animations that rely on mouse clicks for proper display and presentation timing.

olympe
Download Presentation

Read Me

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Read Me • These slides were presented to the Hood River Basin Water Planning Group on Dec 4, 2013 by Jon Rocha and Jennifer Johnson. • Slides contain animations that rely on mouse clicks for proper display and presentation timing. • Slides are also heavy on graphics which may not make sense without the presenters talking through the evolution of the presentation. • Direct questions to • Jon Rocha • Civil Engineer • U.S. Bureau of Reclamation • 1150 N. Curtis Rd. • Boise, ID 83706 • Work: (208) 378-5202 • jrocha@usbr.gov

  2. Hood River Basin Study Groundwater Modeling 4DEC2013

  3. Outline • Model calibration and results • Modeling scenario definitions and results

  4. Model Purpose • Modeling was used to address the following questions: • How will hydrologic changes due to climate change impact groundwater conditions? • How will new development impact groundwater conditions in the basin including discharge to streams? • Is managed recharge a viable option for improving stream flow? • Can the basin aquifer be used for aquifer storage and recovery?

  5. Model Calibration: Steady State

  6. Head Comparison: Steady State

  7. Model Calibration: Transient

  8. Head Comparison: Transient

  9. Head Comparison: Transient

  10. Head Comparison: Transient

  11. Modeling Scenarios

  12. Model Scenarios • Scenarios were formulated to answer the following questions: • How will hydrologic changes due to climate change impact groundwater conditions? • How will new development impact groundwater conditions in the basin including discharge to streams? • Is managed recharge a viable option for improving stream flow? • Can the basin aquifer be used for aquifer storage and recovery?

  13. Model Scenarios • Conditions: • Current conditions • Climate change conditions • Scenarios: • Increased pumping • Aquifer injection • Two underlying conditions each with two different scenarios Climate Change Current Conditions Increased Pumping Aquifer Injection

  14. Current Conditions

  15. Scenario: Increased Pumping • Maintain DMCI use • ~ 1% Domestic & Municipal, ~29% Commercial & Industrial, 70% Irrigation • Increase irrigation use based on available irrigable acreage Source: http://www.co.hood-river.or.us/vertical/Sites/%7B4BB5BFDA-3709-449E-9B16-B62A0A0DD6E4%7D/uploads/%7B1A759675-F44C-4224-A1E2-311BC2003587%7D.PDF

  16. Scenario: Increased Pumping • Pumps added to irrigate prime farmlands within ID boundaries that are currently not irrigated

  17. Scenario: Increased Pumping • Greatest head difference between Baseline and the scenario shown here • End of summer Year 5 for the given well configuration Head Decrease (ft) 1.0 - 2.5 2.5 – 5.0 5.0 – 7.5 7.5 – 10.0 10.0 – 12.5 12.5 – 15.0 15.0 – 26.28

  18. Scenario: Aquifer Injection • Injection wells were iteratively added to each model cell and response for the entire model domain was evaluated and compared to the Baseline. • One-time fall and winter injection of 10cfs for both periods ASR for Streamflow Augmentation ASR for Irrigation Withdrawal

  19. Scenario: Injection for Streamflow Augmentation Discharge Difference (cfs) • The difference in stream gains for the Hood River at Tucker Bridge is mapped Oct - Dec Apr - Jun Jul - Sep Jan - Mar

  20. Scenario: Injection for Irrigation Withdrawal Stored Fraction • The volume of injected water that is retained within the model domain is mapped Oct - Dec Apr - Jun Jul - Sep Jan - Mar

  21. Climate Change Conditions

  22. Climate Change Conditions • Simulation of climate change conditions mimic procedures and strategies used in other Reclamation studies. • Selected climate change conditions • More Warming – Drier • Median • Less Warming – Wetter

  23. Recharge: Wet Conditions -0.3” -1.2” Precipitation Adjustment Factor +3.5” +3.0” Jan - Mar Apr - Jun Jul - Sep Oct - Dec Average Precip (inches) 32.3 16.7 6.11 33.0 Quarterly Recharge

  24. Recharge: Median Conditions -0.2” -1.0” +1.0” +1.7” Precipitation Adjustment Factor Jan - Mar Apr - Jun Jul - Sep Oct - Dec Average Precip (inches) 32.3 16.7 6.11 33.0

  25. Recharge: Dry Conditions -0.6” -0.3” -1.2” +1.0” Precipitation Adjustment Factor Jan - Mar Apr - Jun Jul - Sep Oct - Dec Average Precip (inches) 32.3 16.7 6.11 33.0

  26. Scenario: Increased Pumping • Additional pumping demand from 2 sources • Increase in modeled Potential Evapotranspiration – direct percentage increase in GW pumping demand • Decrease in modeled stream flows – assumed GW pumping increase equivalent to 50% of modeled decrease in stream flows • Increase in pumping demand due to climate change is assessed at current irrigation wells

  27. Scenario: Increased Pumping • Median condition, end of summer, year 30 shown here Modeled Irrigation Wells

  28. Scenario: Increased Pumping MW-D: More Warming – Dry MED: Median LW-W: Less Warming – Wet

  29. Scenario: Injection for Streamflow Augmentation Discharge Difference (cfs) • The difference in stream gains for the Hood River at Tucker Bridge is mapped Jul – Sep Current Conditions Apr – Jun Current Conditions Oct - Dec Apr - Jun Jul - Sep Jan - Mar

  30. Scenario: Injection for Irrigation Withdrawal Stored Fraction • The volume of injected water that is retained within the model domain is mapped Jul – Sep Current Conditions Apr – Jun Current Conditions Oct - Dec Apr - Jun Jul - Sep Jan - Mar

  31. Model Answers • How will hydrologic changes due to climate change impact groundwater conditions? • - Climate change conditions can be simulated by the model along with changing groundwater management considerations. • How will new development impact groundwater conditions in the basin? • - Drawdowns can be simulated by the model based on the new development scenario. • Is managed recharge a viable option for improving stream flow? • - Depends on the definition of viable. A return of less than 10% in the summer due to direct injection . • - There might be some potential in using infiltration ponds. • Can the basin aquifer be used for aquifer storage and recovery? • - There is some potential at select locations.

  32. Ongoing Efforts • Documentation • Packaging

  33. Acknowledgements • Marshall Gannet, Erick Burns, & Terrence Conlon (USGS) • Niklas Christensen • Mattie Bossler

  34. Questions

More Related