Post on 23-Mar-2018
S p ok ane In d ian R e s er va t ion
118°15' 118° 117°45'
48°10'
48°
47°50'
0 5 15 MILES10
0 105 15 KILOMETERS
MILL
CANYO
N
Fall s Creek
Coyote Creek
Jerre
d
Cre
ek
Wilm
ont Creek
Nez Perce Creek
Sixmile Creek
Welsh Creek
Harvey C
reek
N. F
k.
Hunters Creek
Alder Creek
N. Fk. Chamokane Creek
Sw amp Cr.
S. Fk. Chamokane Creek
Middle Fork
Blue
Creek
Sand Creek
Little Chamokane CreekWell
pinit Creek
Spring Cr eek
Cham
okan
e
Cre
ek
Deer Creek
No. Fk. Deer Creek
Indian Creek
Hawk Creek
Columbia
Riv
er
Columbia
Riv
er
Fra
nklin
D
.
Roo
sevelt
Lake
STEVENS
FERRY
LINCOLN
SPOKANE
COUNTY
COUNTY
COUNTY
COUNTY
WellpinitFord
Springdale
WALK
ERS
PRAIRIE
CAMAS
VALLEY
ICE BOXCANYON
CHAMOKA
NE VA
LLEY
HUCKLE
BERRY
MOUNTA
INS
Colvi
l le
Riv
er
Grouse C
reek
Sp
okane River
USGS streamflowgage 12433200
Figure location
WASHINGTON
W E
EXPLANATION
Upper outwash aquifer
Landslide unit
Valley confining unit
Lower aquifer
Basalt or bedrock
Bedrock
VERTICAL EXAGGERATION x 5
500 1,000 1,500 METERS
0
0
1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 FEET1,000
1,600
1,400
1,200
1,800
2,400
2,200
2,000
FEETD
1,000
1,600
1,400
1,200
1,800
2,400
2,200
2,000
FEET
500
450
400
300
350
650
600
550
METERS700
D'
1,500
1,700
1,900
2,100
2,300
2,500
2,700
1,500 1,700 1,900 2,100 2,300 2,500 2,700
Mea
sure
d gr
ound
wat
er le
vel,
in fe
et
Simulated groundwater level, in feet
Preliminary results
UALUVCLABT/BR
EXPLANATION
EXPLANATION2007 AET, in inches
High : 28.5
Low : 10.3
117°45'118°
48°
EXPLANATIONGSFLOW model grid
Active model domain
Streamflow-routing cells
D - D' cross section
DD'
Gravity drainage
Groundwater discharge
Head-dependent flow
Leakage
Groundwater discharge
Plant canopy, snowpack,surface-depression storage,
and soil zone (PRMS)
Region 1
Streams and lakes(MODFLOW-2005)
Region 2
Region 3
Subsurface(unsaturated and saturated
zones) beneath soil zone(MODFLOW-2005)
Soil-moisturedependent flow
Soil-moisture orhead-dependent flow
Surface runoffInterflow
BR
BT
LA
VC
LU
UA
EXPLANATIONHydrogeological Unit
(Preliminary, subject to review)
Lower aquifer
Basalt
Bedrock
Landslide unit
Valley confining unit
1,200
1,400400
550
500
450
METERS
700
650
600
750
1,400
2,000
1,800
1,600
2,400
2,200
2,600
1,200
FEETD'E
2,000
1,800
1,600
2,400
2,200
2,600FEET
DW
10.5
0.5
0 1.5 MILES
10 1.5 KILOMETERS
North American Vertical Datumof 1988 (NAVD 88)
VERTICAL EXAGGERATION x 10
Cham
bers
Cre
ek
SECT
ION
I–I'
29N
/40E
-26C
0229
N/4
0E-2
6D02
29N
/40E
-26D
01
29N
/40E
-22Q
01
29N
/40E
-22P
01
29N
/40E
-26C
03
BT
LA
LUUA
VC BR
BR
Upper outwash aquifer with fine-grained lens
Cham
okan
e Cr
eek
MODFLOW-NWT, A Newton Formulation for MODFLOW-2005
Chapter 37 of Section A, Groundwater Book 6, Modeling Techniques
Techniques and Methods 6–A37
Groundwater Resources Program
U.S. Department of the InteriorU.S. Geological Survey
02,000
4,0006,000
8,000
0
2,000
4,000
6,000
8,000
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
Distance along columns, in meters
Distance along rows, in meters
Alti
tude
, in
met
ers
Location of 3 constant-head cells
200820072006200520042003200220012000 2009Water year
Preliminary results
1
10
100
1,000
10,000
Daily
mea
n st
ream
flow
, in
cubi
c fe
et p
er s
econ
d
EXPLANATIONSimulatedMeasured
U.S. Department of the InteriorU.S. Geological Survey
Groundwater and Surface-Water Flow Modeling of Chamokane Creek Basin, Stevens County, WashingtonBy Matt Ely and Sue Kahle, U.S. Geological Survey, Washington Water Science Center, Tacoma, Washington
Prepared in cooperation with theBUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS andWASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY
B.A.
B.
A.
STEVENS COUNTYLINCOLN COUNTY
SPOKANE COUNTY
Spokane River
Long L ake
Long Lake
Spokane River
Franklin D. Roosevelt Lake
North Fork
Little Chamokane Creek
Dee
r
Creek
Ch
amokane Creek Loon Lake
Middle Fork
South Fork
Cham
okan
e
Cre
ek
Sheep
Creek
JumpoffJoe Lake
C
olvi
lle
Rive
r
Unnamed Tributary
Unnam
ed Tributary
Unnamed Tributary
Unn
amed
Trib
utar
y
Unnamed Tributary
U
nnamed Tributary
Unnamed Tributary
Unn
amed
Tr
ibut
ary
Unnamed Tributary
Unna
med T
ribut
ary
GalbraithSprings
ChamokaneFalls
Walkers
Prairie
SorensonCanyon
Lyons
Hill
Happ
y H
ill
AhrenMeadow
Ice Box
Canyon
Springdale
Ford
Ford-
CraneyHill
N egro Creek
Thomas Creek
Rail Cre ek
Swam
p Creek
Sams C
reek
Moses Creek
Wellpinit
WellpinitBrigmanSprings
Camas
Valley
AgriMetStationAgriMetStation
3210 54 6 MILES
543210 6 KILOMETERS
48°
47°50'
R. 37 E.
118° 117°45'
T.30N.
T.29N.
T.28N.
T.27N.
R. 41 E.R. 40 E.R. 39 E.R. 38 E.
Spokane Indian Reservation
Spokane IndianReservation
SR231
SR231
SR291
SR231
SR231
SR231
SR292
Road
Springdale-
Hunters
Road
US395
US395
Springdale-
Hunters
Road
Hydrogeologic Unit and location of well
Bedrock (BR)Basalt (BT)
Multiple units
Lower aquifer (LA)
Upper outwash aquifer (UA)
Valley confining unit (VC)Landslide unit (LU)
Spokane Indian Reservation boundary
EXPLANATION
Surface-water gaging site
Monthly well networkMonthly well with transducer
Spring
Drainage basin boundary
Gaging station on Chamokane Creek below Chamokane Falls (USGS gage 12433200)
D'DD 26D02
26D0126C03
22Q0122P01
26C02
D'
Cha
mok
ane
Cre
ek
IntroductionChamokane Creek basin is a 179 square-mile area
that borders and partially overlaps the Spokane Indian Reservation in northeastern Washington State (fig. 1). Primary aquifers within the basin are part of a sequence of glaciofluvial and glaciolacustrine fill within an ancient paleochannel eroded into Miocene basalt and Cretaceous to Eocene granite. The mean annual streamflow of Chamokane Creek is 62.5 cubic feet per second.
In 1979, most water rights in the Chamokane Creek basin were adjudicated by the United States District Court requiring regulation in favor of the Spokane Tribe of Indian’s senior water right. A court-appointed Water Master regulates junior water rights and the basin is closed to further groundwater or surface-water appropriation, with the exception of permit-exempt uses of groundwater.
The Spokane Tribe and senior right holders are concerned about the effects of future groundwater development in the basin and the potential effects of this growth on Chamokane Creek. To evaluate these concerns, the U.S. Geological Survey is using a coupled groundwater and surface-water flow model (GSFLOW) to investigate the aquifer-creek interactions and simulate the effects of current and potential groundwater withdrawals on Chamokane Creek. In addition to measured streamflow and water levels, the model is constrained by snow course data and evapotranspiration estimated from an automated agricultural weather station and derived from a coupled remote sensing and Simplified Surface Energy Balance approach.
Figure 1. Location of the Chamokane Creek basin, Stevens County, Washington.
Methods
A two-part (Phases 1 and 2) investigation was designed (1) to characterize the hydrogeologic setting and groundwater and surface-water interactions in the basin, and to obtain hydrologic data sets to support subsequent computer modeling (Kahle and others, 2010), and (2) to build and apply a coupled groundwater and surface-water flow model in order to evaluate the possible regional effects of different groundwater-use alternatives on the surface-water system.
Hydrogeologic Framework
Figure 2. Hydrogeologic section D-D’. Section five times map scale.
Six hydrogeologic units were identified in the basin using well logs, geologic mapping, and field observations (figs. 2 and 3). The Upper outwash aquifer is an unconfined aquifer along the valley floors of the study area, and consists mostly of sand, gravel, and cobbles. The Landslide unit is composed of poorly sorted deposits of broken basalt and sedimentary interbeds along the basalt bluffs in Walkers Prairie. The Valley confining unit mostly is a low-permeability unit consisting of glaciolacustrine silt and clay at depth throughout the valley bottoms of the study area. The Lower aquifer is a confined aquifer consisting of sand and gravel at depth below the Valley confining unit. The Basalt unit is composed of Columbia River Basalt and sedimentary interbeds. Water is contained in cracks and fractures and from zones between lava flows. The Bedrock unit includes rocks older than the Columbia River Basalt and commonly includes granite and quartzite with small and often unreliable yields.
Figure 3. Location of project wells with hydrogeologic unit, surface-water measurement sites, and Agrimet station; graphs showing water levels in wells, precipitation measured at the Agrimet station, and discharge data from USGS streamflow-gaging station 12433200; Chamokane Creek basin, Stevens County, Washington.
GSFLOW Model Description
The USGS coupled groundwater and surface-water flow model (GSFLOW; Markstrom and others, 2008) is an integration of the USGS Precipitation-Runoff Modeling System (PRMS) with the 2005 version of the USGS Modular Groundwater Flow Model (MODFLOW-2005). GSFLOW simulates flow within and among three regions (fig. 4; Markstrom and others, 2008). The first region is bounded on top by the plant canopy and on the bottom by the lower limit of the soil zone; the second region consists of all streams and lakes; and the third region is the subsurface zone beneath the soil zone. PRMS is used to simulate hydrologic responses in the first region and MODFLOW-2005 is used to simulate hydrologic processes in the second and third regions. Figure 4. Schematic diagram of the exchange of flow among the
three regions in GSFLOW (from Markstrom and others, 2008).
A new package and solver for MODFLOW-2005 is utilized in the Chamokane Creek model. The Upstream Weighting (UPW) Package is an internal flow package for MODFLOW-2005 intended to be used with the Newton Solver (NWT) for problems involving drying and rewetting nonlinearities of the unconfined groundwater flow equation (Niswonger and others, 2011).
The UPW Package calculates inter-cell conductances in a different manner from the Block-Centered Flow (BCF), Layer Property Flow (LPF) or Hydrogeologic-Unit Flow (HUF) Packages. The UPW Package treats nonlinearities of cell drying and rewetting by use of a continuous function rather than the discrete approach of drying and rewetting that is used by the BCF, LPF and HUF Packages. This further enables application of the Newton solution method for unconfined groundwater flow problems because conductance derivatives required by the Newton method are smooth over the full range of head for a model cell.
Chamokane Creek ModelGSFLOW is being used to investigate the aquifer-creek
interactions, provide water budgets, and simulate the effects of groundwater and surface-water withdrawals on Chamokane Creek. The model is constructed using the hydrogeologic framework, stream geometry, and water-use estimates from Phase I (fig. 5). The model consists of a horizontal grid of 106 columns and 102 rows that are a uniform 1,000 feet per side. Vertically, the model domain was subdivided into 8 model layers.
Measured precipitation and air temperature are the major factors used to compute evaporation, transpiration, sublimation, snowmelt, surface runoff, and infiltration.
Figure 5. Extent of the GSFLOW model, location of streamflow-routing cells (A), and simplified model cross section (B), for the Chamokane Creek basin, Stevens County, Washington.
Initial Model ResultsThe model is being calibrated to the transient conditions for
the 31-year period from October 1979 through September 2010 using the iterative parameter estimation software package PEST (Doherty, 2010). The model is constrained by streamflow values measured at the USGS streamflow-gaging station and a series of synoptic streamflow measurements, and miscellaneous, monthly, and continuous water levels (fig. 3). Evapotranspiration was estimated independently from an automated agricultural weather station (figs. 3 and 6) and derived from a coupled remote sensing and Simplified Surface Energy Balance approach (fig. 7; Senay and others, 2009).
Figure 8 shows initial model fit from the automated calibration process. The final calibrated model will be used to assess the potential effects of water resource management strategies.
Figure 6. Agrimet station located in Chamokane Creek Basin. Figure 7. Estimates of actual evapotranspiration
(AET) for 2007 from the Simplified Surface Energy Balance approach.
Figure 8. Initial results of model calibration for (A) groundwater levels and (B) streamflow.
References CitedDoherty, J.E., 2010, PEST, Model-independent parameter estimation—User
manual (5th ed., with slight additions): Brisbane, Australia, Watermark Numerical Computing.
Kahle, S.C., Taylor, W.A., Lin, Sonja, Sumioka, S.S., and Olsen, T.D. 2010, Hydrogeologic framework, groundwater and surface-water systems, land use, pumpage, and water budget of the Chamokane Creek basin, Stevens County, Washington: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2010-5165, 60 p.
Markstrom, S.L., Niswonger, R.G., Regan, R.S., Prudic, D.E., and Barlow, P.M., 2008, GSFLOW-coupled ground-water and surface-water FLOW model based on the integration of the Precipitation-Runoff Modeling System (PRMS) and the Modular Ground-Water Flow Model (MODFLOW-2005): U.S. Geological Survey Techniques and Methods 6-D1, 240 p. (Also available at http://water.usgs.gov/nrp/gwsoftware/gsflow/gsflow.html).
Niswonger, R.G., Panday, Sorab, and Ibaraki, Motomu, 2011, MODFLOW-NWT, A Newton formulation for MODFLOW-2005: U.S. Geological Survey Techniques and Methods 6–A37, 44 p.
Senay, G.B., Budde, M.E., Morgan, D., and Dinicola, R., 2009, Characterizing landscape evapotranspiration dynamics in the Columbia Plateau using remotely sensed data and global weather datasets, in Proceedings of the 8th Biennial USGS Pacific Northwest Science Conference Integrating Science for a Changing Pacific Northwest, Portland, Oregon, March 3-5, 2009.
ContactsMatt Ely - mely@usgs.gov, 253-552-1622Sue Kahle - sckahle@usgs.gov, 253-552-1616