Expansion and Update of the City of Spokane and SAJB Spokane Valley Rathdrum Prairie Aquifer Model...

Post on 17-Dec-2015

229 views 4 download

Tags:

transcript

Expansion and Update of the City of Spokane and SAJB Spokane

Valley Rathdrum Prairie Aquifer Model

Doug GreenlundCity of SpokaneMarch 26, 2013

2013 Spokane River Conference

Made Possible by

• Grant Funding from the Washington State Department of Health

Source Water Protection Program

• Funding from the Spokane Aquifer Joint Board

• City of Spokane Utilities Division

• GSI Water Solutions: John Porcello (hydrogeology and modeling lead), Matt Kohlbecker (stormwater and pollutant transport), Ari Petrides (modeling, GIS)

Outline

• Description of MicroFEM®

• Similarities and differences with the Bi-State Model

• Similarities and differences with the previous model

• Examples of outputs

The Model

• MicroFEM®

• Steady State

• Finite Element mesh

• Uses annual averages for pumping, recharge, boundary conditions

Model Development History

• 1994 City of Spokane worked with CH2MHill to develop Wellhead Protection and finite element model

• 2000 SAJB version of the model

The Project

• Expand the Model to avoid truncation of capture zones at the state line

• Update the model with current information

New Aquifer Boundary

• Original model ended at the state line. Key element of entire project

• New model based on Bi-State boundary but includes Hoodoo Valley and lower Hangman Creek

• Removed Green Street Knoll

Model Boundary Comparison

Developed New Grid

• Mesh on 550 foot centers

• 80 to 100 nodes per square mile

• Bi-State model is 16 grids per square mile

• Original model has about 25 nodes per square mile

• 44,703 nodes in model

• Tighter spacing around wells

Comparison of Grid and Mesh near Consolidated Irrigation District Well 2

Bi-State Model Square Grid Cells (Black) MODFLOW

Finite Difference

¼ mile

City/ SAJB ModelFlexible mesh (Blue)( Micro FEM®)Finite Element

2C 2A

2B

Aquifer Base and Aquifer Level

• Developed the base of the aquifer and assigned a value to each node

• Used contour maps to develop the aquifer surface elevation

Model Groundwater Elevations

Aquifer Thickness

• This is the difference between the base elevation and the average surface level

• Model has three layers– First layer down to 100 feet

– Second layer 100 to 200 feet

– Third layer below 200 feet

Thickness and Bedrock

• Uses three layers to simulate groundwater flow

– The USGS Bi-State model used just one layer, except in Hillyard Trough (3 layers north of Spokane city limits)

– Pain-staking effort to resolve issues with Bi-State model files

• Electronic files: Too thick just east of state line,

and too thin between state line and City of Spokane

• Published maps: Found internal inconsistencies

(saturated thickness did not match water table and basement)

• Localized change to USGS representation of basement bedrock and SVRP thickness near downtown Spokane (per City and Ecology)

Transmissivity and Vertical Resistivity

• Used original data on the Washington portion

• Bi-State model in Idaho

• Transmissivity used to define internal boundaries such as Pines Road Knoll

• Vertical Resistivity used to create layers

Boundary Conditions• Annual Averages

• Set a fixed groundwater elevation for Long Lake based on the average from the Bi-State Model

• Tributary inflow from 37 areas in Washington and 37 in Idaho

• Stage elevations for Spokane River from the original MicroFEM model.

• Stage elevations for the Little Spokane River and Lake Pend Oreille are from the Bi-State Model

Pumping Rates

• Used existing model data for Washington with updates from purveyors

• Extracted data from Bi-State model and information from USGS for certain wells in Idaho

• Idaho well locations provided by Idaho DEQ

Pumpage and Recharge

Pumping and areal recharge are now separated!– Lumped together into single term in Bi-State model

Bi-State model pumping =(1) Actual pumping minus(2) Septic system infiltration minus(3) 40% of outdoor-applied water in urban areas minus(4) 40% of outdoor-applied water on irrigated fields

– Difficult to change pumping in Bi-State model: requires decisions about whether (and how) to change recharge– Difficult and time-consuming to separate, but GSI Water Solutions did it!

Wellhead Protection Areas

• Backward Particle tracking

• Based on Purveyor supplied pumping rates

• Times of travel provided by purveyors

• There are Special Wellhead Protection Areas for 115 wells

Flowline Input Box

City of Spokane Ray Street 2 Month Time of Travel

Interstate 90

Thor Freya

City of Spokane Ray Street 2 Year Time of Travel in Blue

Argonne

Special Wellhead Protection Areas in ArcGIS

Infiltration

• MicroFEM®

is well suited to analyze infiltration such as stormwater

• Forward particle tracking

• The model has areas with nodes spaced with infiltration in mind

SAJB and Bi-State Model Grids at Chester Creek

27

Chester Creek Recharge Basins

Model ID #3

Model ID #7

WD#3 Browns Park

Modern Electric #9

Model ID #5

Model ID #1 and #6

WD#3 20th & Balfour

Influence of 25-Year Infiltration Events at the Chester Creek And Saltese Recharge Basins

Saltese Flats / Shelly Lake Recharge Basin

Chester Creek Recharge Basins

25-Year Event Infiltration Rates

42,941 gpm (95.7 cfs) Chester Creek

65,045 gpm (144.9 cfs)Saltese Flats / Shelly Lake

28

1 Year1 Year

Influence of 25-Year Infiltration Events at the Chester Creek And Saltese Recharge Basins

Saltese Flats / Shelly Lake Recharge Basin

Chester Creek Recharge Basins

29

2 Years2 Years25-Year Event

Infiltration Rates

42,941 gpm (95.7 cfs) Chester Creek

65,045 gpm (144.9 cfs)Saltese Flats / Shelly Lake

Influence of 25-Year Infiltration Events at the Chester Creek And Saltese Recharge Basins

Saltese Flats / Shelly Lake Recharge Basin

Chester Creek Recharge Basins

30

3 Years3 Years25-Year Event

Infiltration Rates

42,941 gpm (95.7 cfs) Chester Creek

65,045 gpm (144.9 cfs)Saltese Flats / Shelly Lake

Influence of 25-Year Infiltration Events at the Chester Creek And Saltese Recharge Basins

Saltese Flats / Shelly Lake Recharge Basin

Chester Creek Recharge Basins

31

5 Years5 Years25-Year Event

Infiltration Rates

42,941 gpm (95.7 cfs) Chester Creek

65,045 gpm (144.9 cfs)Saltese Flats / Shelly Lake

Influence of 25-Year Infiltration Events at the Chester Creek And Saltese Recharge Basins

Saltese Flats / Shelly Lake Recharge Basin

Chester Creek Recharge Basins

32

7 Years7 Years25-Year Event

Infiltration Rates

42,941 gpm (95.7 cfs) Chester Creek

65,045 gpm (144.9 cfs)Saltese Flats / Shelly Lake

Influence of 25-Year Infiltration Events at the Chester Creek And Saltese Recharge Basins

Saltese Flats / Shelly Lake Recharge Basin

Chester Creek Recharge Basins

33

8 Years8 Years25-Year Event

Infiltration Rates

42,941 gpm (95.7 cfs) Chester Creek

65,045 gpm (144.9 cfs)Saltese Flats / Shelly Lake

Influence of 25-Year Infiltration Events at the Chester Creek And Saltese Recharge Basins

Saltese Flats / Shelly Lake Recharge Basin

Chester Creek Recharge Basins

34

10 Years10 Years25-Year Event

Infiltration Rates

42,941 gpm (95.7 cfs) Chester Creek

65,045 gpm (144.9 cfs)Saltese Flats / Shelly Lake

Resources

• Technical Memorandums for the entire project are on line at greenspokane.org

• John Porcello will be presenting at the 9th Washington Hydrogeology Symposium “Wellhead Protection and Stormwater Recharge in the Washington Portion of the Spokane Valley - Rathdrum Prairie Sole Source Aquifer”

Conclusions• Differs Functionally from Bi-State Model– Steady State

– Pumping and Recharge are Separate

– Finer grid

• Improvements from 2000 version– Expanded Boundary

– Finer mesh

– Different Boundary Conditions

Doug Greenlund

March 26, 2013

Thank You

Expansion and Update of the City of Spokane and SAJB Spokane

Valley Rathdrum Prairie Aquifer Model