Spokane Valley- Rathdrum Prairie Aquifer Augmentation Study Results Mr. Colt Shelton 1 , Mr. Matt McDonald 1 , Dr. Michael Barber 2 , Dr. Akram Hossain 3 , Dr. Cara Poor 1 1 Civil and Environmental Engineering, WSU 2 State of Washington Water Research Center, WSU 3 Environmental Engineering, WSU-Tri Cities 1
26
Embed
Spokane Valley-Rathdrum Prairie Aquifer Augmentation Study Results Mr. Colt Shelton 1, Mr. Matt McDonald 1, Dr. Michael Barber 2, Dr. Akram Hossain 3,
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
Spokane Valley-Rathdrum Prairie Aquifer Augmentation Study Results
Mr. Colt Shelton1, Mr. Matt McDonald1, Dr. Michael Barber2, Dr. Akram Hossain3,
Dr. Cara Poor1
1Civil and Environmental Engineering, WSU2State of Washington Water Research Center, WSU
3Environmental Engineering, WSU-Tri Cities
May 23, 2011 1
Presentation Outline
• Problem Overview• Project Objective• Study/Project Area• Discussion of Results
• MODFLOW• EPANET• CE-QUAL-W2• ECONOMIC ANALYSIS
• Conclusions
2
Problem Overview
Declining low flows in late summer and early fall and project regional growth in demand. 3
Use bi-state MODFLOW model to investigate alternatives associated with aquifer storage and natural recovery in the SVRP including examining:
1) raw water source,
2) location of extraction and injection points,
3) pipeline routes, and
4) costs
with ultimate goal of increasing low flow river conditions.
.
Project Objective
4
Project Area
5
Lake Pend Oreille
Raw Water Sources
• Spokane River
• Spokane Well Field
• Lake Pend Oreille Well Field
0
10,000
20,000
30,000
40,000
50,000
60,000
70,000
80,000
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Time
Dis
ch
arg
e (ft
^3/s
)
prior to dam
since dam completion
Pend Oreille River
6
MODFLOW ANALYSIS
Converted model to Visual MODFLOW
• Conducted 275 runs to examine:• Extraction well location• Injection well location• Pumping rate• Pumping duration• Impact on river flows (quantity & timing)
77
Extraction/Diversion Location
Spokane River1. Expensive water treatment needed although pipeline costs
were less. Overall, too costly.
Lake Pend Oreille well field1. Realistic costs and water supply
Spokane River well field1. Created too big a “hole” and stole water from river
8
MODFLOW Results
9
LocationStarting Month
Rate(ft3/s)
Length of Injection (Months)
Peak Monthly Return (ft3/s)
Peak Monthly %
ReturnAverage
Yearly Return Max
Month 2nd Highest 3rd Highest
NR1 Jan 25 3 3.26 4.49% 47.35% August July October
NR1 Feb 25 3 3.52 4.86% 51.56% August October July
NR1 Mar 25 3 3.37 4.45% 47.15% October August July
NR1 Apr 25 3 3.26 4.44% 46.98% October December August
NR1 May 25 3 3.26 4.39% 46.88% December N/A N/A
NR1 Dec 25 3 3.27 4.50% 47.40% July August May
NR1 Jan 50 3 6.53 4.50% 47.33% August July October
NR1 Jan 75 3 9.82 4.51% 47.37% August August October
NR1 Jan 100 3 13.11 4.51% 47.37% July August October
NR1 Jan 150 3 19.69 4.52% 47.34% July August October
NR1 Jan 200 3 26.27 4.52% 47.32% July August October
NR1 Jan 300 3 40.67 4.67% 48.71% July August October
3 Possible Pipeline Routes – NR, PL, SR
11
Close-up of Routes & Injection Points
12
EPANET Analysis
Pipeline and Injection Well Size versus Head Loss
13
PL3 Head versus Size
Pipe Diameter(inches)
InjectionWell
Diameter(inches)
Flow Rate to PL3 Location(ft3/s)
25 50 75 100 150 200 300
24 121824
915.9842.2833.2
30 121824
365.6291.9282.9
1,096.41,022.71,013.8
36 121824
200.8127.1118.1
501.5427.8418.8
966.9893.2884.2
1,504.2
48 121824
105.4302.6228.9220.0
455.4381.6372.7
869.1795.4786.4
1346.71337.8
60 121824
136.6127.6
349.8276.1267.2
535.8462.0
1,039.5965.8
72 121824
111.6 188.2478.1404.4395.4 14
Examined Infiltration v. Injection
15
Used HYDRUS2D/3D Model
High Hydraulic Conductivity throughout aquifer
very large surface area required for significant lag