JD Stednick

Watershed Science Program

Colorado State University

The use of alternative

methods to quantify

groundwater movement in

conjunctive use

Colorado Aquifer Management: Groundwater and river flow connections

28 November 2012

Acknowledgements

Dept. of Geosciences

Bill Sanford, Dennis Harry, Mike Ronanye

Graduate Students:

Yusef Kazbekov

Nate Beckman

Jessica Poceta

Carter Gehman

Erin Donnelly

Reece Lonsert

Jason Roudebush

Water Quality Monitoring

Physical

measurements

Chemical

measurements

Determine end

members

Example: sulfate

DOW

5

DOW

4

T13D

T5 T12SPR

2

Stations

0

180

360

540

720

900

SO

4 (

mg/l)

Legend

75 perc.

Median

25 perc.

90 perc..

10 perc.

Groundwater

Surface water

Beckman 2005

Piper diagram

80

60

40

20

20

40

60

80

20

40

60

80

20

40

60

80

20

40

60

80

20

40

60

80

Ca Na+K HCO3 Cl

Mg SO4

<=C

a +

Mg

Cl +

SO

4=>

Piper Plot

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

C

C

C

C

C

C

C

C

C

C

C

C

C

C

C

C

C

C

C

C

C

C

C

C

C

C

C

C

C

C

E

E

E

E

E

E

E

E

E

E

E

E

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

J

J

J

J

J

J

J

J

J

J

J

J

J

J

J

J

J

J

J

J

J

J

J

J

J

J

J

J

J

J

J

J

J

J

J

J

LegendLegend

A Crook Bridge

C DOW5

E Red Lion

I SPR1

J SPR2

Groundwater

Surface water

Beckman 2005

Receiving water

Beckman 2005

Modeling MT3D

x – coordinates (meters)

Recharge Pondy –

co

ord

ina

tes (

me

ters

)

N

Monitoring Well

(deep)

Monitoring Well

(other)

Pumping Well

Water Table

Contours – Natural

Gradient

DOW 4

Beckman 2005

Recharge pond

Monitoring well

Pumping well

Legend

Tamarack monitoring sites

Streamflow

Upstream

average

Downstream

average p-value Significant?

Average 2.64 2.66 0.9492 No

Average streamflow values (cubic meters per second) over measuring dates

Streamflow measurements

Instantaneous rates agree with CDWR

gage at Crook Bridge

Safely wade up to 200cfs (5.6cms) limits

access

Annual streamflow for 2012 was 274KAF

Conjunctive use 5.7KAF

Practical quantiation limits? (PQLs)

Channel morphology

Surveyed cross-sections during periods

with and without flow augmentation to

measure changes in channel morphology.

Channel morphology

99

99.5

100

100.5

101

5010 5015 5020 5025 5030 5035 5040

14-Oct 28-Oct 4-Nov

98

98.5

99

99.5

100

100.5

5000 5005 5010 5015 5020 5025 5030

14-Oct

28-Oct

4-Nov

18-Nov

99

99.5

100

100.5

5000 5005 5010 5015 5020 5025

7-Oct

14-Oct

28-Oct

4-Nov

98.5

99

99.5

100

5000 5005 5010 5015 5020 5025 5030 5035 5040

7-Oct

14-Oct

28-Oct

4-Nov

18-Nov

Rela

tive e

levation (

m)

1112

1114

1116

1118

1120

1122

1124

1126

1128

1130

1132

6/9/2011 7/4/2011 7/29/2011 8/23/2011 9/17/2011

Head

(m

)

Date

XS 1

XS 2

XS 3

XS 4

1126

1127

1128

1129

1130

1131

1132

5/3/2011 5/13/2011 5/23/2011 6/2/2011 6/12/2011 6/22/2011

Head

(m

)

Date

T13s

T13d

T16

T17d

T18d

T19

1125

1126

1127

1128

1129

1130

1131

1132

5/19/2011 5/29/2011 6/8/2011 6/18/2011 6/28/2011 7/8/2011

Head

(m

)

Date

T5

T7

T8

T12

T15

Comparison of water table

elevations with pumps off and on

687600 687700 687800 687900 688000 688100 688200 688300

x - coordinates (meters)

4522700

4522800

4522900

4523000

4523100

4523200

4523300

4523400

4523500

4523600

4523700

4523800

y -

co

ord

inate

s (

mete

rs)

PW1

T3

T4 T5

T6

T9

T12

T13-DT13-S

T15

T16T17-DT17-S

T18-S T18-DT19

1123 meters

1124 meters

1125 meters

1126 meters

1127 meters

1128 meters

1129 meters

1130 meters

1131 meters

1132 meters

1133 meters

1134 meters

1135 meters

1136 meters

1137 meters

1138 meters

1139 meters

1140 meters

1141 meters

Monitoring Well

Pumping Well

Recharge Pond

687600 687700 687800 687900 688000 688100 688200 688300

x - coordinates (meters)

4522700

4522800

4522900

4523000

4523100

4523200

4523300

4523400

4523500

4523600

4523700

4523800

y -

co

ord

inate

s (

mete

rs)

T3

T4 T5

T9

T13-D

T17-DT18-D

PW1

1123 meters

1124 meters

1125 meters

1126 meters

1127 meters

1128 meters

1129 meters

1130 meters

1131 meters

1132 meters

1133 meters

1134 meters

1135 meters

1136 meters

1137 meters

1138 meters

1139 meters

1140 meters

1141 meters

Monitoring Well

Pumping Well

Recharge Pond

Groundwater flow

Water table elevations were collected from

a matrix of piezometers over time to

determine flow direction

Three nested piezometers were installed

near each cross section to determine

vertical hydraulic gradient

http://www.co.portage.wi.us/groundwater/undrstnd/gwmove2.htm

http://www.co.portage.wi.us/groundwater/undrstnd/gwmove2.htm

96

97

98

99

100

101

102

4/2/2011 6/1/2011 7/31/2011 9/29/2011 11/28/2011 1/27/2012 3/27/2012 5/26/2012

Rela

tiv

e e

lev

ati

on

(m

)

Date

River stage

Shallow

Medium

Deep

96

97

98

99

100

101

102

4/2/2011 6/1/2011 7/31/2011 9/29/2011 11/28/2011 1/27/2012 3/27/2012 5/26/2012

Rela

tiv

e e

lev

ati

on

(m

)

Date

River stage

Shallow

Medium

Deep

96

97

98

99

100

101

102

4/2/2011 6/1/2011 7/31/2011 9/29/2011 11/28/2011 1/27/2012 3/27/2012 5/26/2012

Rela

tiv

e e

lev

ati

on

(m

)

Date

River stage

Shallow

Medium

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

-0.18

-0.15

-0.12

-0.09

-0.06

-0.03

0

0.03

0.06

4/2/2011 6/11/2011 8/20/2011 10/29/2011 1/7/2012 3/17/2012 5/26/2012

Dis

ch

arg

e (

cm

s)

Vert

ical

hyd

rau

lic g

rad

ien

t

Date

Vertical hydraulic gradient

Discharge

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

-0.18

-0.15

-0.12

-0.09

-0.06

-0.03

0

0.03

0.06

4/2/2011 6/11/2011 8/20/2011 10/29/2011 1/7/2012 3/17/2012 5/26/2012

Dis

ch

arg

e (

cm

s)

Vert

ical

hyd

rau

lic g

rad

ien

t

Date

Vertical hydraulic gradient

Discharge

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

-0.18

-0.15

-0.12

-0.09

-0.06

-0.03

0

0.03

0.06

4/2/2011 6/1/2011 7/31/2011 9/29/2011 11/28/2011 1/27/2012 3/27/2012 5/26/2012

Dis

ch

arg

e (

cm

s)

Vert

ical

hyd

rau

lic g

rad

ien

t

Date

Vertical hydraulic gradient

Discharge

Geologic cross-section along the western edge of

Tamarack site (adapted from Schneider and Hull).

Poceta 2006

Resisitivity measurement

Poceta, 2005

Gravity Difference Map = Phase I (pumping) – Phase II (no pumping)

P2

P5

P1

P6

P3

P7

P8

Distance in meters

microGal

C.I. = 10 microGal

T9

0 250 500

-40

-20

0

20

40

60

80

F3

F2

F1

Pumping well

Gravity station

Recharge pond

F pond (clay-lined)

Gehman 2006

Estimated groundwater

Volume estimated by gravity

data:

Total volume pumped:

5.1 x 105 m3

6.3 x 105 m3

Gehman et al. WRR 2009

Approx. 80% of water “accounted”.

Groundwater tracer

Tracer results

Piezometer Distance Peak

travel

time

Average

velocity

(m/d)

Range of

Kh (m/d)

Darcy flux

(m/d)

T13s 190 2 95 300-323 19.0

T17d 206 2 103 349-462 20.6

T18d 238 4 60 235-291 11.9

T5 568 16 36 362-374 10.7

T12 891 25 36 311-325 10.7

Mean 66 331 14.6

Groundwater movement

Electrical resistivity tomography

Dataset 1 5 2D profiles trend NW-SE

Distance of 380 to 710 m

Observations:

Water table (sharp contours)

related to pumping cone of

depression

(dry sediment = higher resistivity)

Resistivities indicate saturated

alluvium within local flow field

(20-120 ohm-m)

Confining unit topography

(shale,

Conclusions

Water quality

Chemical differences may provide mixing insight

Streamflow

No significant increase in streamflow in

downstream cross sections

Channel morphology

Increase in depth with no lateral expansion

Conclusions

Groundwater tracer

May be useful for timing and direction of

groundwater flow

Hydrogephysics

Useful in characterizing subsurface and relate to

groundwater models

Need standardized procedure for measuring

effectiveness of small-scale augmentation

plans

Questions?