Laramie_doc_b01d1d5bd4 - Public Records Archive

Full Text

Estimation of Casper Aquifer Recharge using the Soil-Water Balance Model July 3, 2008 Prepared by Wittman Hydro Planning Associates, Inc. Bloomington, Indiana ---PAGE BREAK--- Contents 1 Introduction 1 1.1 Regional and local geology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 1.2 Hydrology of the Casper Aquifer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 1.3 Study area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 2 Methodology 5 2.1 SWB model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 2.2 Model assumptions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 2.3 SWB application in the mountain West . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 2.3.1 Modeling recharge into fractured rock aquifers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 2.3.2 Adjusting temperature with elevation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 2.4 Data input . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 2.4.1 Meteorological data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 2.4.2 Land use/land cover . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 2.4.3 Hydrologic soils group . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 2.4.4 Flow direction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 2.4.5 Faults and fractures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 2.4.6 Implementing the climate change scenario . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 2.5 Model calibration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 2.5.1 Current conditions - climate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 2.5.2 Current conditions - land use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 3 Recharge scenarios 24 3.1 Climate change scenario . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 3.2 Urbanization scenario . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 4 Results and implications 27 4.1 Current conditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 4.2 Future conditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 4.2.1 Climate change scenario . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 4.2.2 More intense urbanization scenario . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 5 Conclusions 32 References 33 Appendix A - Model results 34 Appendix B - Run log for SWB calibration run 40 i ---PAGE BREAK--- List of Figures 1 Geology and mapped faults near the City of Laramie. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2 Location of Casper Aquifer Protection Area and modeled area. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 3 Aquifer recharge conceptual model. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 4 Land use/land cover classiﬁcation of the study area. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 5 Hydrologic soils group classiﬁcation within the study area. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 6 Flow direction grid showing direction of runoff ﬂow. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 7 Long term trend of temperature and precipitation change. Source: National Weather Service. 22 8 Modiﬁed land use representing possible future urbanization (more intense urbanization). . . 26 9 Relationship between total annual precipitation, snowfall and recharge (1981 - 2007 mod- eled years). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 10 Recharge from fractures as a percent of the total recharge. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 11 Total recharge under current conditions and the climate change scenario. . . . . . . . . . . 31 ii ---PAGE BREAK--- List of Tables 1 Land use classiﬁcation within the study area, based on Anderson Level II land use classiﬁ- cation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 2 Look-up table for land use curve numbers and maximum recharge used in the model. . . . . 16 3 Look-up table for land use and root zone depth used in the model. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 4 Available water capacity values for each hydrologic soil group. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 5 Flow direction values depending on direction of runoff ﬂow. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 6 Average snowfall differences between the uncorrected single station and the corrected elevation- dependent weather data. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 7 Land use/land cover characteristics of the modeled area. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 8 Values used to represent seasonal effects on climate change parameters. . . . . . . . . . . . 25 9 Results of model using historical climate data (1981-2007). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 10 Average inter-annual (1981-2007) recharge changes inﬂuenced by climate change from his- torical model results. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 11 Changes in recharge due to increase in urbanization. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 12 Results of model using historical climate data (1981-2007). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 13 Recharge changes inﬂuenced by the decrease of 25% of precipitation and increase of 2 ◦F in temperature(1981-2007). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 14 Recharge changes inﬂuenced by the decrease of 25% of precipitation (1981-2007). . . . . . 37 15 Recharge changes inﬂuenced by 2 ◦F increase in temperature (1981-2007). . . . . . . . . . 38 16 Annual results of changes in recharge due to increase in urbanization. . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 iii ---PAGE BREAK--- 1 Introduction The Casper Aquifer is an important component of the City of Laramie’s drinking water supply, especially during drought. The City obtains approximately 60 % of its total drinking water from the Casper Aquifer, with the remaining 40 % coming from the Laramie River. When ﬂow in the Laramie River becomes too low, Laramie residents receive 100 % of their water from the Casper Aquifer. Additionally, county residents whose homes lie above the Casper Aquifer withdraw 100 % of their water from the aquifer. Recharge is the process by which water is added to the zone of saturation to replenish an aquifer. The Casper Aquifer is recharged through drainage and fractures that are expressed at the surface, porous sand- stones, and percolation of runoff through soils. Recharge to the Casper Aquifer occurs primarily in late winter and early spring during snowmelt. The amount of snowpack and the timing of snowmelt are crucial to the amount of recharge occurring. Without sufﬁcient recharge, signiﬁcant withdrawals from the Casper Aquifer are unsustainable. Already the City Utility has seen year to year water levels dropping in municipal wells as the amount of water withdrawn exceeds annual recharge. However, in 1983 water levels in the Casper Aquifer rose signiﬁcantly following a winter of higher than average snowfall. It is clear that understanding of recharge to the Casper Aquifer will be an important part of long-term water supply planning in Laramie. The purpose of this study is to understand how changes in climate and land use may affect recharge in the Casper Aquifer. Climate change may cause changes in the amount and seasonal patterns of precipitation. An overall trend of increasing temperature will change the relative amount of snowfall. Since recharge is closely related to snowpack, the effects of temperature on recharge may be large. Furthermore, land use changes may impact recharge through changes in vegetation and therefore evapotranspiration or changes in the pervious areas which allow water to inﬁltrate into the Aquifer. We used the soil-water balance (SWB) computer code developed by the US Geological Survey (USGS) to estimate recharge into the Casper Aquifer and the effects of change in climate and land use on recharge. The original code was modiﬁed to account for fracture recharge and changes of temperature with elevation. After historical climate data were used to model recharge in the study area, scenarios of climate change and land use change were modeled. Modeled climate change consist of an increase of 2 ◦F and a decrease of 25 % of precipitation over the next 50 years. Modeled land use change consists of increased urbanization levels along the west-central boundary of the model area. 1.1 Regional and local geology The City of Laramie sits within the Laramie basin, a north-plunging asymmetrical bounded by the Medicine Bow Mountains in the west, the Laramie Range on the east, the Front Range on the south, and a series of anticlines to the north. The Laramie Range lies immediately east of the City of Laramie following a north-south direction and a dip to the west of 3 to 5 degrees. The uplifting of the Laramie Range happened during the Laramide Orogeny, between 75 and 50 million years ago. The orogenic stresses that formed the range also created a network of faults and folds, many visible at the surface. In general, faults and folds observed at the surface do not propagate vertically though the entire thickness of the Satanka Shale but 1 ---PAGE BREAK--- there are exceptions like the Sherman Hill and the Laramie Faults. Folds and faults existent near the City of Laramie have been mapped (Figure The major normal faults trend northeast to east-west [WHPA, 2008]. Three important geologic formations that bound and support the Casper Aquifer are the Sherman Gran- ite, the Casper Formation, and the Satanka Shale. The Precambrian Sherman Granite is a igneous rock that is exposed east of the crest of the Laramie Range [WHPA, 2008]. The Permian Casper Formation unconformably overlies the Precambrian rocks and consists of approximately 700 ft of marine and aeolian sandstones (85 % of total thickness) interbedded with limestone and minor amounts of shale [WHPA, 2008]. The Casper Formation is exposed on the west ﬂank of the Laramie Range. The Permian Satanka Shale unconformably overlies the Casper Formation and consists of approximately 250 to 320 ft of red shale with interbedded siltstone and sandstone layers [WHPA, 2008]. The Satanka Shale is exposed along the western foothills of the Laramie Range and near the eastern corporate limits of the City of Laramie. Due to the uplift of the Laramie Range, the units that were originally deposited horizontally over the Precambrian basement rocks dip to the west as shown on the generalized cross section on the bottom of Figure 1 [WHPA, 2008]. 1.2 Hydrology of the Casper Aquifer The three geological formations described above are intrinsic parts of the Casper Aquifer. The Sherman granite has virtually no primary permeability and groundwater movement found in this unit is typiﬁed as conduit ﬂow in faults and fractures, wherever present. Because of the low storing capacity and permeability of the Sherman Granite it is considered the lower boundary of the Casper Aquifer [WHPA, 2008]. The Casper Aquifer Protection Area (CAPA) was designed as part of the Casper Aquifer Protection Plan (CAPP) and was updated in 2008 by Wittman Hydro Planning Associates. The CAPA covers approximately 72mi2, extending from eastern Laramie to the crest of the Laramie Range. The northern and southern boundaries of the CAPA extend approximately 5 and 6mi from the City of Laramie, respectively. Recharge to the Casper Aquifer happens mostly in late winter and early spring as the snow melts and runoff occurs, and water either percolates though the soils, inﬁltrating the porous sandstones of the aquifer, or recharges through the extensive network of faults and fractures existent in the Laramie area. The CAPA covers the area where signiﬁcant recharge to the Casper Aquifer takes place, and is also the area where most of the fractures and faults exist. 1.3 Study area The purpose of the study is to estimate recharge to the Casper Aquifer using the SWB model. The modeled area was delineated to match the outer boundaries of the CAPA, since this area was determined to be the recharge area to the aquifer. The modeled area covers approximately 85mi2 east of Laramie (Figure 2) and is rectangular in shape due to model requirements. Within the study area, elevations range from aproximately 7,220 on the west to around 8,792 ft AMSL on the east. Typical vegetation within the study area includes sagebrush, grassland, and mixed-grass prairie in the intermontane valley on the west side; juniper and mountain mahogany on the foothills; and forest and alpine 2 ---PAGE BREAK--- 3 Figure 1: Geology and mapped faults near the City of Laramie. ---PAGE BREAK--- 4 Figure 2: Location of Casper Aquifer Protection Area and modeled area. ---PAGE BREAK--- meadows in the higher elevations of the Laramie Range on the east side [USEPA, 1998]. Land use within the study area consists of approximately 1.1mi2of urban use, 1.9mi2of open spaces, 0.5mi2of barren land, and the remaining land consisting of grasses (18.4mi2), shrubs (57.0mi2), forest (6.1mi2), cultivated crops and pastures (0.04mi2), and wetlands (0.08mi2). 2 Methodology As stated previously, recharge is the process by which water is added to the zone of saturation to replenish an aquifer. Figure 3 shows the different elements of the hydrologic cycle. As precipitation, both as snow and rain, falls to the earth, several processes may occur. Some of the precipitation will be intercepted by vegetation and eventually evaporate. The rest of the precipitation will reach the ground where it will either become runoff or inﬁltrate. Water that runs off may enter surface water bodies or inﬁltrate at a down- gradient location. The runoff which reaches a surface water body will either move out of the aquifer area or be evaporated and therefore lost to the groundwater system. Water that inﬁltrates either through soils or through fractures, may be transpirated, evaporated, or become recharge to the aquifer. 2.1 SWB model The SWB model [Westenbroek et al., 1998] calculates spatial and temporal variations in groundwater recharge using publicly available geographical information system (GIS) data layers and daily climatological data, in a tabular format. Components of the soil-moisture balance are calculated over a rectangular grid. The model provides an annual recharge estimate for the modeled area, including the distribution of recharge over the model domain. The SWB code uses a modiﬁed soil moisture accounting method to calculate recharge; recharge is calculated separately for each grid cell in the model domain. Sources and sinks of water within each grid cell are determined based on the input climate data and landscape characteristics; recharge is calculated as the difference between the change in soil moisture and moisture sources (precipitation, snowmelt, and inﬂow) and sinks (interception, outﬂow, and evapotranspiration) (equation R = (P+S+IN)−(I +OUT +ET)−△SM where : R= recharge, P= precipitation, S =snowmelt, IN = inﬂow, I = interception, OUT = outﬂow, ET = evapotranspiration, △SM = change in soil moisture. Speciﬁc water-balance components are discussed brieﬂy below. 5 ---PAGE BREAK--- 6 Figure 3: Aquifer recharge conceptual model. ---PAGE BREAK--- precip Precipitation data are input on a daily basis, in inches. snowmelt Snow is allowed to accumulate and/or melt on a daily basis. The daily mean, maximum and minimum air temperatures are used to determine whether precipitation takes the form of rain or snow. Precipitation that falls on a day when the mean temperature minus one-third the difference between the daily high and low temperatures is less than or equal to 32F is considered to fall as snow. Snowmelt takes place based on a temperature-index method. In the SWB code it is assumed that 1.5mm (0.059in) of water- equivalent snow melts per day per average degree Celsius that the daily maximum temperature is above the freezing point. inﬂow Inﬂow is calculated using a ﬂow direction grid derived from a digital elevation model to route outﬂow (surface runoff, see below) to adjacent downslope grid cells. Inﬂow is considered to be zero if ﬂow routing is turned off. interception Interception is treated simply using a “bucket” model approach—a speciﬁc amount of rain- fall (user speciﬁed) is assumed to be trapped and used by vegetation and evaporated or transpired from plant surfaces. Daily precipitation values must exceed the speciﬁed interception amount before any water is as- sumed to reach the soil surface. Interception values are speciﬁed for each land use type and season (growing and non-growing). outﬂow Outﬂow (or surface runoff) from a cell is calculated using a Soil Conservation Service curve- number rainfall-runoff relationship (Table Values were adapted for fracture soils group differing from model runs for other areas. This rainfall-runoff relationship relates rainfall to runoff based on four basin properties: soil type, land use, surface condition, and antecedent runoff condition. The curve number method deﬁnes runoff in relationship to the difference between precipitation and an “initial abstraction” term. Conceptually, this initial abstraction term represents the summation of all processes that might act to reduce runoff, including interception by plants and fallen leaves, depression storage, and inﬁltration. The equation used to calculate runoff volumes is given in equation 2. R = (P−Ia)2 (P+[Smax −Ia]) P > Ia where: R is the runoff, P is the daily precipitation, Smax is deﬁned as a the maximum soil moisture holding capacity, Ia is the initial abstraction, the amount of precipitation that must fall before any runoff is generated. The initial abstraction (Ia) term is related to a maximum storage term (Smax) (equation Ia = 0.2Smax 7 ---PAGE BREAK--- The maximum storage term is deﬁned by the curve number for the land cover type under consideration (equation Smax = 1000 CN −10 Curve numbers are adjusted upward or downward depending on how much precipitation has occurred in the previous 5-day period. The amount of precipitation that has fallen in the previous 5-day period is used to describe soil moisture conditions; three classes of moisture conditions are deﬁned, and are called antecedent runoff condition depending on the soil wetness. When soils are “nearly saturated”, the curve number for a grid cell is adjusted upward to account for generally higher observed runoff amounts experienced when precipitation falls on saturated soil. Conversely, when soils are “dry”, curve numbers are adjusted downward in an attempt to reﬂect the increased inﬁltration rates of dry soils. Between “dry” and “nearly saturated” represents an average rainfall-runoff relationship for “moderate” soil moisture conditions. Curve numbers have been deﬁned as ranging from 0 to 100. If we deﬁne a useful range of curve numbers with minimum of 30 and maximum of 98, the maximum storage term (Smax) varies from a low of about 0.2in to a high of about 23in. Using an initial abstraction term of 0.2Smax implies that between 0.04in and 4.6in of precipitation must fall before initiation of runoff processes; using an initial abstraction term of 0.05Smax implies that between 0.01 and 1.15in of precipitation must fall prior to initiation of runoff. Frozen ground conditions are tracked by use of a simple continuous frozen-ground index (equation CFGIi = A.CFGIi−1 −T.e(−0.4.K.D) ≥0 where: CFGIi = continuous frozen ground index on day i , CFGIi−1= continuous frozen ground index on day i−1 , T= mean daily air temperature A= daily decay coefﬁcient, K= snow reduction coefﬁcient, D= depth of snow on ground (centimeters). The value for the coefﬁcients A and K are: K = 0.5cm for above freezing periods; K = 0.08cm for below freezing periods, and A = 0.97. The continuous frozen ground index is applied by allowing for a transition range to be applied through which runoff enhancement would go from “negligible to strong”. A probability of runoff enhancement factor, P f , is deﬁned as Pf = CFGI −LL UL−LL where: Pf = probability that runoff will be enhanced due to frozen ground conditions, CFGI= continuous frozen ground index, 8 ---PAGE BREAK--- UL= upper limit of the CFGI, above which frozen ground conditions presumably exist, LL= lower limit of the CFGI, below which frozen ground conditions presumably do not exist. If no values are assigned, the CFGI routine will be ignored. If the CFGI option is used it is recommend to start with a value of 83C-days for the upper limit (UL) and a value of 56C-days for the lower limit (LL). Outﬂow from a cell becomes inﬂow to the downslope cell as determined from the ﬂow direction grid. evapotranspiration (ET) method was used to estimate potential evapotranspiration from portions of the soil zone that are not included in the interception calculation. △soil moisture In order to track changes in soil moisture, a number of intermediary values are calcu- lated, including precipitation minus potential evapotranspiration (P−PE), accumulated potential water loss (APWL), actual evapotranspiration, soil moisture surplus, and soil moisture deﬁcit. These terms are de- scribed below. The ﬁrst step in calculating a new soil moisture value for any given grid cell is to subtract potential evapotranspiration from the daily precipitation (P˘PE). Negative values of P −PE represent a potential deﬁciency of water, while positive P−PE values represent a potential surplus of water. accumulated potential water loss (APWL) The accumulated potential water loss is calculated as a run- ning total of the daily P−PE values during periods when the P−PE values are negative. This running total represents the total amount of unsatisﬁed potential evapotranspiration to which the soil has been subjected. Soils typically yield water more easily during the ﬁrst days in which P −PE is negative. On subsequent days as the APWL grows, soil moisture is less readily given up. The nonlinear relationship between soil moisture and the accumulated potential water loss was described by and Mather in a series of tables. These tables are incorporated into the SWB code. soil moisture, △soil moisture When P−PE is positive, the new soil moisture value is found by adding this P −PE term directly to the old soil moisture value. If the new soil moisture value is still below the maximum water-holding capacity, the soil-moisture tables are consulted to calculate a new, reduced accumulated potential water loss value. If the new soil moisture value exceeds the maximum water-holding capacity, the soil moisture value is capped at the value of the maximum water-holding capac- ity, the excess moisture is converted to recharge, and the accumulated potential water loss term is reset to zero. When P−PE is negative, the new soil moisture term is calculated using the new accumulated potential water loss value, looking up the resultant soil moisture in the tables. actual ET When P−PE is positive, the actual evapotranspiration equals the potential evapotranspiration. When P −PE is negative, the actual evapotranspiration is equal only to the amount of water that can be extracted from the soil (△soil moisture). soil moisture SURPLUS If the soil moisture reaches the maximum soil moisture capacity, any excess precipitation is added to the daily soil moisture surplus value. Under most conditions, the soil moisture surplus value is considered as equivalent to the daily groundwater recharge value. 9 ---PAGE BREAK--- soil moisture DEFICIT The daily soil moisture deﬁcit is the amount by which the actual evapotranspi- ration differs from the potential evapotranspiration. 2.2 Model assumptions Runoff routing The inclusion of overland ﬂow routing in the code ensures that runoff from an upslope grid cell has one or more opportunities to contribute to inﬁltration in the cells that are downslope from it. However, all runoff from a cell is assumed to inﬁltrate in downslope cells or be routed out of the model domain on the same day in which it originated as rainfall or snowmelt. In addition, once water is routed to a closed surface depression, and evapotranspiration and soil moisture demands are met, the only loss mechanism is recharge. This results in cases where maximum recharge values of hundreds or thousands of inches per year are calculated. These extremely high values are unrealistic and are likely due to the fact that surface storage of water is not accounted for. The SWB code described here allows the user to enter a maximum recharge rate for each land cover and soil group combination. This offers a way to restrict the estimated recharge values to a more reasonable range, however, the “rejected recharge” is nonetheless removed from the model domain on the same day in which it originated as precipitation or snowmelt. Groundwater / surface water interaction Interactions between surface water and groundwater features are not simulated in the SWB code, and could not be without signiﬁcantly increasing the complexity of the model. In locations where the groundwater table is beneath the bottom of the root zone, the SWB code should be capable of producing reasonable results on an annual basis. The depth from the bottom of the root zone to the top of the water table is not considered in the estimation of recharge; there may be a signiﬁcant travel time through the unsaturated zone. Coupling the SWB code with an unsaturated zone code that could route water to the water table, such as the MODFLOW UZF Package, would be one way to address this limitation. In areas with wetlands, springs, lakes, or other landscape features where groundwater is near the surface, the SWB code can be expected to perform poorly; there is currently no provision for recharge rejection via saturation excess, other than by specifying a maximum recharge rate for a particular land use and soil type combination. Since groundwater is generally not near the surface in Laramie, this model is appropriate. Curve number method The current version of the SWB assumes that inﬁltration is sum of pre- cipitation, snowmelt, and inﬂow, minus the runoff calculated by means of the USDA-NRCS curve number method. Runoff calculation at a plot or ﬁeld scale in a continuous simulation by means of the curve num- ber method may be beyond the limits of the method. The list of perceived ﬂaws associated with the curve number method include: • the inability to identify runoff processes, source areas, or ﬂow paths; • method is a watershed scale method that should not be applied at a plot or ﬁeld (or grid cell) scale; and 10 ---PAGE BREAK--- • method was developed to evaluate ﬂood events and was not designed to simulate daily ﬂows of ordi- nary magnitude. In addition, it has been suggested that the curve number is not constant, but varies from event to event, and that the antecedent runoff condition only explains a portion of this variability. Given variability in the curve numbers themselves as well as the other limitations of the curve number method, it would seem reasonable to assume that the standard curve number table values merely represent starting points; ideally the curve numbers should be veriﬁed using observed paired precipitation-runoff data. SWB adjusts curve numbers for the antecedent soil moisture conditions. The SWB code contains an alternative method for calculating runoff that incorporates a much smaller initial abstraction term. Use of this alternative method for calculating the initial abstraction may be more appropriate for continuous simulation. Users of the SWB code have the option of deﬁning the initial ab- straction term as Ia = 0.05 × Smax, compared to Ia = 0.2 × Smax. The use of this smaller initial abstraction term results in more runoff generation for areas with low curve numbers and for storms of smaller magni- tude. If the smaller initial abstraction term is used, curve numbers are automatically scaled by the SWB code to maintain an appropriately shaped rainfall-runoff curve. We used the smaller initial abstraction of Ia = 0.05×Smax. Snowmelt and inﬁltration For temperate areas that experience snowfall and snowmelt, the SWB model is sensitive to snowmelt, and in particular, to how snowmelt translates into surface runoff. The addition of a continuous frozen ground index to the SWB code offers a simple way to approximate the effects of frozen ground. Spring runoff may be increased by altering the set-point at which the ground is considered to be frozen; above this set-point the curve numbers are forced to antecedent runoff condition. Other modelers have altered the curve number in an attempt to simulate runoff from frozen ground. Despite this, there is no theoretical basis supporting the derivation of a “frozen ground curve number” thus its use in the SWB code is primarily for expediency and consistency with other model input considerations. Climate variability The year-to-year climate variability causes corresponding variability in the recharge values. Use of multiple years of climate data should help to ensure representative variability in estimated recharge values. We used 27 years of climate data (1980 - 2007) and ignored the ﬁrst year of results, which was considered a start up period. The model uses antecedent conditions to calculate values, thus the ﬁrst year run does not provide reliable results. 2.3 SWB application in the mountain West The standard SWB code was developed for applications in humid areas with only moderate changes in elevation. In the mountain West, the standard code had some important limitations and are listed below. Recharge into fractured rock The standard SWB code does not have the ability to speciﬁcally manage recharge directly into fractured bedrock, particularly in a region where major fractures have been mapped. We developed methodologies and code enhancements to improve this capability. 11 ---PAGE BREAK--- Temperature variations In the mountain West, it is common for the ground elevation to vary by thousands of feet over fairly small regions. Furthermore, water availability is closely related to the presence or absence of winter snowpack. The standard SWB can make use of gridded daily meteorological data, but at the cost of increased disk space usage for the grids and increased run times. Furthermore, it is uncommon to ﬁnd mountain weather stations in a typical catchment that is to be simulated with SWB. We developed code enhancements that allow the modeler to adjust temperature as a function of elevation within SWB. 2.3.1 Modeling recharge into fractured rock aquifers With SWB, the simulation of recharge into densely fractured bedrock aquifers can typically be handled by assuming that at the scale of the model, and for the purpose of estimating recharge, the aquifer may be treated as if it were a porous media (the “representative elementary volume” assumption). However, in regions where major bedrock fracture lineaments may be identiﬁed, there will be two different recharge regimes: recharge into more dense, smaller fractures, which will typically yield small recharge rates; and more rapid recharge into the fracture zones along major fracture lineaments. Additionally, a third recharge mechanism may be present: during major storm runoff events, some runoff can enter fractures that intersect with ephemeral streams, providing direct recharge into the fracture network. We developed approaches for simulating recharge into the fractured bedrock aquifer in the project re- gion. For the problem of recharge into fractured rock that underlie the surface soils, this was accomplished by modifying the input data for the standard SWB code. For direct recharge during storm runoff events, we modiﬁed the SWB code. Recharge into fractures beneath soils As discussed above, we have developed a methodology for managing the inﬂow of recharge through surface soils (where present) into the fractured bedrock aquifer in the project region. Over most of the landscape, between the major identiﬁed fracture lineaments, we use the “standard” SWB approach, which provides recharge to the aquifer when water that exceeds the soil moisture capacity inﬁltrates into the soil. Much of the model domain, however, has very little soil present. Therefore, in cells that overlie major fractures, we accounted for the additional potential for localized inﬁltration by reducing the soil moisture capacity to about 0.5in. This results in recharge patterns that make good conceptual sense; recharge is concentrated in the areas where major fractures are present. Recharge from streams into fractures In Laramie, there are many drainage features that carry water only during and shortly after major precipitation events. Some of those ephemeral stream channels intersect with the major fractures that were identiﬁed above. We modiﬁed SWB to allow the user to provide an input grid that identiﬁes cells where this can occur. It is then assumed that a fraction of the water that ﬂows into the cell will directly recharge the aquifer. For the cell in row j and column i the user provides ji Rmax, the maximum allowable daily value for this “fracture recharge” and ji Qmax the daily overland inﬂow to cell (j,i) that corresponds to the fracture recharge rate ji Rmax. For the date d, SWB computes the daily fracture 12 ---PAGE BREAK--- recharge from the daily inﬂow rate according to: ji Qd= ji Qmax × ji Rd ji Rmax where ji Rd is the total inﬂow into cell It is left to the modeler to adjust the parameters ji Rmax and ji Qmax during model calibration. 2.3.2 Adjusting temperature with elevation In the mountain West, much of the water supply is associated with the magnitude of the winter snowpack and the timing and intensity of spring melting events. SWB determines the amount of daily precipitation that arrives as snow based upon the air temperature. As a result, it is very important that accurate temperature data are used over the entire model domain. There are large mountain ranges present within the model domain for the project region, but no weather stations are present to allow for interpolated grids of daily temperature. It has been reported elsewhere that the air temperature varies according to elevation, according to: Tz = T0 −A(z−z0) where Tz is the temperature at the elevation z, z0 is the elevation of the weather station, and T0 is the measured temperature at the weather station. The parameter A has units of the change in temperature (in ◦F/1000 ft of elevation difference). According to the Wyoming Climate Atlas, 2005, the coefﬁcient A has values of 5.5◦F/1000 ft per in dry air and 3.5◦F/1000 ft in saturated air. We modiﬁed SWB to allow the user to read a digital elevation model of the land surface elevation and to provide “dry” and “humid” values for the parameter A. In addition, a threshold relative humidity is provided that determines whether the model should adjust the cell-by-cell temperature according to the “dry” or the “humid” parameter. It should be noted that at Laramie, there were no available humidity data, and the “dry” value was used throughout. The airport sits at 7266 ft AMSL, and the highest elevation on the model grid is 8792 ft. The lowest elevation in the model is 7221 ft. Thus, on any given day, the temperature in the model grid varies over range Td +0.1575 ≤Td ≤Td −5.341 where Td is the daily temperature value from the weather station. This is a substantial amount of variation in temperature over the model domain, and this code enhancement has an important effect on the distribution and magnitude of snowpack and the timing of the spring melt. Changes in total precipitation due to elevation changes were modeled with PRISM [PRISM Group, 2008]. For the study area, increase in precipitation is, on average, 50 % higher on the mountain side than on the basin side of the study area. PRISM is a complex model that accounts for many parameters not included in the soil-water balance model. Therefore, our model does not account for changes in precipitation with elevation except to change rainfall to snow when temperatures are right. 13 ---PAGE BREAK--- 2.4 Data input The SWB model requires tabular data sets for weather and gridded land surface data (land use, hydrologic soil group, and elevation). These data sets are readily available online in many formats which needed to be manipulated in order to ﬁt the model format requirements. 2.4.1 Meteorological data Meteorological data is registered by weather stations in a daily basis. For this project data was derived from the weather station 485415 at KLAR Laramie Regional Airport. Data for the model include daily average, minimum, and maximum air temperature (in◦F), and daily precipitation (in inches). Because of the considerable differences of elevation between the weather station and the Laramie Range areas within the study area (approximately 1,570 ft), we implemented the temperature correction described in section 2.3.2. This accounts for the decrease in temperature and consequent increase of snowfall at higher elevations. 2.4.2 Land use/land cover The model requires land use/land cover information, together with the soil available water capacity information, to calculate surface runoff and assign a maximum soil moisture holding capacity for each grid cell. Land use/land cover data is classiﬁed according to Anderson Level II Land Cover Classiﬁcation method (Table 1) and accompanies a land use look-up table containing the curve number, maximum recharge, and rooting depth data for each land use type contained in the grid (Tables 2 and Figure 4 shows the land use/land cover classiﬁcation within the study area. 2.4.3 Hydrologic soils group The Soil Conservation Service (SCS) has categorized over 14,000 soil series within the United States into 1 of 4 hydrologic soil groups based on its inﬁltration capacity (A - Soil group information may be input to the model as an ARC ASCII or Surfer ASCII grid with integer values ranging from 1 (soil group A) to 4 (soil group The SCS soil hydrologic group soils have a high minimum inﬁltration capacity and subsequently, a low overland ﬂow potential while, soils have a very low inﬁltration capacity and subsequently, a high overland ﬂow potential. Available water capacity values were given to each hydrologic soil group as shown in Table 4. Figure 5 shows the soils groups within the study area. Note that the faults were given a separate soil group value of 5 because of their distinctive hydrologic nature when compared to soils. 2.4.4 Flow direction Flow direction is calculated from an Digital Elevation Model (DEM), available at the USGS website [USGS, 2001]. Elevation values are analyzed for eight neighboring cells for each cell, the neighboring cell with the lowest elevation will be the direction to which surface runoff is routed from that cell. Table 5 shows 14 ---PAGE BREAK--- 15 Table 1: Land use classiﬁcation within the study area, based on Anderson Level II land use classiﬁcation. Class name Class Class name Class value value Water Herbaceous upland natural/semi-natural vegetation Open water 11 Grassland/herbaceous 71 Perennial ice/snow 12 Sedge/Herbaceous 72 Developed Lichens 73 Open spaces 21 Moss 74 Low intensity 22 Herbaceous planted/cultivated Medium intensity 23 Pasture/hay 81 High intensity 24 Cultivated crops 82 Barren Wetlands Barren land (rock/sand/clay) 31 Woody wetlands 90 Unconsolidated shore 32 Palustrine forested wetland 91 Vegetated: natural forested upland Palustrine scrub/shrub wetland 92 Deciduous forest 41 Estuarine forested wetland 93 Evergreen forest 42 Estuarine scrub/shrub wetland 94 Vegetated: natural shrubland Emergent Herbaceous wetlands 95 Dwarf scrub 51 Palustrine emergent wetland (persistent) 96 Shrub/scrub 52 Estuarine emergent wetland 97 Palustrine aquatic bed 98 Estuarine aquatic bed 99 ---PAGE BREAK--- 16 Table 2: Look-up table for land use curve numbers and maximum recharge used in the model. Curve numbers Max Recharge (in/day) Soil 1 Soil 2 Soil 3 Soil 4 Soil 5 Soil 1 Soil 2 Soil 3 Soil 4 Soil 5 LU code Medium Fine Loamy Till Clay Till Fractures Medium Fine Loamy Till Clay Till Fractures 11 100 100 100 100 100 2 0.6 0.24 0.12 5 12 5 5 5 5 100 2 0.6 0.24 0.12 5 21 89 94.5 94 95 100 2 0.6 0.24 0.12 5 22 54 82.5 80 85 100 2 0.6 0.24 0.12 5 23 61 85 83 87 100 2 0.6 0.24 0.12 5 24 77 91 90 92 100 2 0.6 0.24 0.12 5 31 5 5 5 5 100 2 0.6 0.24 0.12 5 32 5 5 5 5 100 2 0.6 0.24 0.12 5 41 42 82 79 85 100 2 0.6 0.24 0.12 5 42 34 76 73 79 100 2 0.6 0.24 0.12 5 51 39 77 74 80 100 2 0.6 0.24 0.12 5 52 39 77 74 80 100 2 0.6 0.24 0.12 5 71 39 77 74 80 100 2 0.6 0.24 0.12 5 72 39 77 74 80 100 2 0.6 0.24 0.12 5 73 39 77 74 80 100 2 0.6 0.24 0.12 5 74 39 77 74 80 100 2 0.6 0.24 0.12 5 81 39 77 74 80 100 2 0.6 0.24 0.12 5 82 67 87 85 89 100 2 0.6 0.24 0.12 5 90 34 76 73 79 100 2 0.6 0.24 0.12 5 91 34 76 73 79 100 2 0.6 0.24 0.12 5 92 100 100 100 100 100 2 0.6 0.24 0.12 5 93 100 100 100 100 100 2 0.6 0.24 0.12 5 94 100 100 100 100 100 2 0.6 0.24 0.12 5 95 100 100 100 100 100 2 0.6 0.24 0.12 5 96 100 100 100 100 100 2 0.6 0.24 0.12 5 97 100 100 100 100 100 2 0.6 0.24 0.12 5 98 100 100 100 100 100 2 0.6 0.24 0.12 5 99 100 100 100 100 100 2 0.6 0.24 0.12 5 ---PAGE BREAK--- 17 Table 3: Look-up table for land use and root zone depth used in the model. Root zone depth (ft) Soil 1 Soil 2 Soil 3 Soil 4 Soil 5 LU code Medium Fine Loamy Till Clay Till Fractures 11 0 0 0 0 0 12 0 0 0 0 0 21 1 1 1 1 0.5 22 1 1 1 1 0.5 23 1 1 1 1 0.5 24 1 1 1 1 0.5 31 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 32 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 41 1 0.9 1 0.9 0.5 42 1 0.9 1 0.9 0.5 51 1.7 1.7 1.8 1.3 0.5 52 1.7 1.7 1.8 1.3 0.5 71 1.7 1.7 1.8 1.1 0.5 72 1.7 1.7 1.8 1.1 0.5 73 1.7 1.7 1.8 1.1 0.5 74 1.7 1.7 1.8 1.1 0.5 81 1.7 1.7 1.8 1.1 0.5 82 0.8 0.8 1 0.3 0.5 90 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.3 0.5 91 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.3 0.5 92 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.3 0.5 93 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.3 0.5 94 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.3 0.5 95 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.3 0.5 96 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.3 0.5 97 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.3 0.5 98 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.3 0.5 99 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.3 0.5 ---PAGE BREAK--- 18 Figure 4: Land use/land cover classiﬁcation of the study area. ---PAGE BREAK--- 19 Figure 5: Hydrologic soils group classiﬁcation within the study area. ---PAGE BREAK--- Table 4: Available water capacity values for each hydrologic soil group. Hydrologic soil group available water capacity (in/ft) A 1.2 B 2.0 C 2.8 D 3.6 fracture 0.5 Table 5: Flow direction values depending on direction of runoff ﬂow. 32 64 128 16 center 1 8 4 2 the ﬂow direction values used in the model and respective ﬂow directions. Figure 6 shows the ﬂow direction grid used in the model. 2.4.5 Faults and fractures A shapeﬁle of mapped faults and fractures were provided by the City of Laramie. The shapeﬁle was converted to a raster data set in order to be used in the model. After the raster coverage was created, “fracture zones” in the model were generated by widening the mapped raster fractures. 2.4.6 Implementing the climate change scenario We developed a climate change scenario for the “future” model runs using a method based on recent literature reports of the changes in temperature and precipitation. Temperature and precipitation changes are expected to vary over the course of a decade as shown in Figure 7. We developed a preprocessing computer script that reads a table of month-by-month adjustments in temperature and precipitation, then applies that month-by-month schedule to the time series of actual me- teorological data used in the calibrated model. The model results that are based on “climate-adjusted” meteorological data may be readily compared to the calibrated model in order to identify how recharge rates will be affected. The preprocessor script adjusts the daily temperature according to T ∗ d = Td +∆Tm where T ∗ d is the adjusted temperature on date d, Td is the measured temperature, and ∆Tm is the magnitude of the temperature adjustment provided for the month m which contains the date d (e.g. ∆T2 = 1.5 if February 20 ---PAGE BREAK--- 21 Figure 6: Flow direction grid showing direction of runoff ﬂow. ---PAGE BREAK--- 22 Figure 7: Long term trend of temperature and precipitation change. Source: National Weather Service. ---PAGE BREAK--- Table 6: Average snowfall differences between the uncorrected single station and the corrected elevation- dependent weather data. Mean annual precipitation (in/year) 9.7 Uncorrected snowfall (in/year) 2.3 Uncorrected snowfall as percent of precipitation 24.9 Elevation corrected snowfall (in/year) 3.2 Elevation corrected snowfall as percent of precipitation 33.5 Average change in total snowfall (in/year) 0.9 temperatures are expected to increase by 1.5◦F). Similarly, the script adjusts the daily precipitation for date d in the month m according to R∗ d = Rd ×αm (10) where R∗ d is the adjusted temperature on date d, Rd is the measured temperature, and αm is a factor (e.g. α5 = 0.8 if a 20% reduction in precipitation is expected in May). 2.5 Model calibration Weather data used for recharge modeling consists of a set of 27 years, from 1980 through 2007. The ﬁrst year of the model run (1980) is used by the model to set antecedent conditions for the other years. Results for 1980 were ignored because they are not reliable. Normal climate data (1971-2000) indicates a mean total annual precipitation of approximately 11in at the Laramie Regional Airport. 2.5.1 Current conditions - climate Daily temperature was corrected for change in elevation as described in the methodology section; each cell in the model has a daily temperature value adjusted for elevation. As the elevation increases, the temperature decreases and consequently the potential precipitation that falls as snow increases with elevation, even though the precipitation value is constant over the grid. Table 6 shows an example of model results of snowfall amounts (as water equivalent, in inches) between the uncorrected single station input and the corrected elevation-dependent temperature. 2.5.2 Current conditions - land use Most of the study area covers the western ﬂank of the Laramie Range where the elevation gradient is steep and consequently, the most common land cover is shrubs and grassland, and towards the top of the range, evergreen forests. Urban areas are found towards the west-central side of the study area, representing the eastern side of the City of Laramie. Table 7 shows the percent of each land cover within the model boundaries based on 2001 National Land Cover Database (add citation). 23 ---PAGE BREAK--- Table 7: Land use/land cover characteristics of the modeled area. 2001 land Land use Number Square use code name of cells miles (mi2) 21 Open spaces 5,402 1.88 22 low intensity 2,120 0.74 23 medium intensity 995 0.35 24 high intensity 71 0.02 31 barren land 1,500 0.52 41 deciduous forest 58 0.02 42 evergreen forest 17,549 6.10 52 shrub 164,249 57.08 71 grassland/herbaceous 53,040 18.43 81 pasture/hay 21 0.01 82 cultivated crops 86 0.03 90 woody wetlands 41 0.01 95 herbaceous wetlands 208 0.07 Total 245,340 85.25 3 Recharge scenarios Two scenarios were modeled in order to analyze the impact of climate change and increase in ur- banization on the total recharge to the Casper Aquifer. The “climate change” scenario includes changes in temperature and precipitation as indicated by long-term trends. The “urbanization” scenario was designed to see how much increase in urbanization in the eastern Laramie area would affect total recharge. 3.1 Climate change scenario Changes in climate patterns observed during recent decades has sparked public awareness and scientiﬁc inquiry about the effects of climate change. Complex climatological models have been developed to predict the increase of the atmosphere’s heat-trapping ability and resulting impact on climate. Although results of models vary, generally accepted trends are temperature increase and changes in precipitation. In Climate Change and Wyoming, the EPA reports that global surface average temperatures increases between 1.6 to 6.3 ◦F could be seen by 2100 with signiﬁcant regional variation. In Laramie, an increase in temperature of 1.5 and decrease in precipitation of up to 20 % has been observed for in Wyoming over the last century. According to the National Weather Service (NWS), rates of long-term trend temperature and precipita- tion changes for the area surrounding the City of Laramie range from +0.25 to +0.4 ◦F and −0.3 to −0.6in respectively, per decade, based on 1941-2005 data [National Weather Service, 2005]. The NWS data is also available with seasonal variations, aggregated in three month running averages for temperature and three months totals for precipitation. We used the NWS data with seasonal variations for the Laramie region to 24 ---PAGE BREAK--- Table 8: Values used to represent seasonal effects on climate change parameters. Trend temperature Trend precipitation Months increase decrease (in) DJF 0.87 -0.40 JFM 5.00 -0.40 FMA 5.00 -0.40 MAM 5.00 -0.14 AMJ 3.00 -0.14 MJJ 1.62 -0.14 JJA 1.62 -0.14 JAS 1.62 -0.14 ASO 0.87 -0.14 SON 0.00 -0.14 OND -0.87 -0.40 NDJ 0.87 -0.40 Average/Total 2.00 -3.00 estimate an increase of 2 ◦F and a decrease of 25 % of precipitation over the next 50 years. These values represent a worse-case scenario, given the two estimations of climate change described above. The precip- itation reduction of 25 % derived from the higher end of the precipitation (−0.6in per decade) multiplied by the ﬁve decades modeled. The resulting 3in increase was than compared to the normal annual precipita- tion of 11.4in which resulted on a decrease of approximately 25 % in precipitation. Seasonal variations of temperature and precipitation used in the model are shown in Table 8. 3.2 Urbanization scenario Future land use/land cover changes were created based on the original 2001 land use/land cover grid. Changes were made by expanding urbanization found on the eastern side of Laramie, or on the western portion of the study area. Existing urbanization levels were increased a level from medium to intensive urbanization) and surrounding areas that had a land use other than urban received a low intensity urbaniza- tion status. Figure 8 shows the modiﬁed land use/land cover used for the land use change scenario. Land use was not changed on the higher elevations areas towards the creast of the Laramie Range because of highly unlikly possibility that urbanization will occur in this area. Urbanization can be expected to expand from the city towards the east. 25 ---PAGE BREAK--- 26 Figure 8: Modiﬁed land use representing possible future urbanization (more intense urbanization). ---PAGE BREAK--- Table 9: Results of model using historical climate data (1981-2007). Total Total Percent Soil Fracture Total Fracture Year precipitation snowfall snowfall recharge recharge recharge recharge (in) (in) (in) (in) (in) average 10.97 4.20 38.63 1.02 0.07 1.09 9.48 maximum 16.60 10.40 65.79 4.98 0.20 5.07 24.55 minimum 5.40 1.88 20.42 0.08 0.03 0.11 1.76 4 Results and implications This section describes results obtained from running the SWB model under current conditions (historical weather data: 1981 - 2007 and the 2001 land use/land cover classiﬁcation) and the climate change and land use change scenarios.. The current conditions combination of land use and weather data gives us a base to compare model runs with changes in land use and climate. 4.1 Current conditions Model results show an overall decrease in recharge over the last 26 years, while the temperature (plotted as 2-year moving average) shows an increasing trend (Figure The highest rate of recharge, over 5.07in, occurred in 1983 when the recorded total annual precipitation was 15.80in and snowfall was 10.40in. The lowest recharge of 0.11in occurred in 2002 when the total precipitation was only 5.40in and snowfall was 2.16in, this was following a year of similarly low precipitation and snowfall of 6.05 and 2.15in, respectively (Table Also in 2002 approximately 25 % of total recharge was fracture recharge, while in 1983, fracture recharge was 1.2 % of total recharge. The average recharge rate for the 26-year period was 1.09in with an average precipitation of 10.97in and average snow fall of 4.20in per year. On average, 10 % of precipitation is recharged into the aquifer, 38 % of precipitation occurs as snowfall, and 9.4 % of recharge occurs as fracture recharge. Figure 10 illustrates the concept that for years of low precipitation, the amount of the recharge that occurs though the fractures is higher than those years of higher precipitation rates. In relatively dry years, up to 25 % of the recharge can occur from fractures, like in 2002, and in wet years fracture recharge can drop to as low as like in 1983. For annual results of modeled recharge see Appendix A, Table 12. Appendix B shows a sample log ﬁle for the base model run. 4.2 Future conditions Future modeled conditions include climate change as well as increased urbanization. This section describes the results from the two different scenarios. 27 ---PAGE BREAK--- Figure 9: Relationship between total annual precipitation, snowfall and recharge (1981 - 2007 modeled years). 28 ---PAGE BREAK--- 29 Figure 10: Recharge from fractures as a percent of the total recharge. ---PAGE BREAK--- Table 10: Average inter-annual (1981-2007) recharge changes inﬂuenced by climate change from historical model results. Total Total Percent Soil Fracture Total Fracture Year precipitation snowfall snowfall recharge recharge recharge recharge (in) (in) (in) (in) (in) historical (1981-2007) 10.97 4.20 38.63 1.02 0.07 1.09 9.48 climate change scenario 10.24 3.14 31.10 0.62 0.06 0.68 14.53 change % -6.65 -25.24 -19.49 -39.22 -14.29 -37.61 53.27 precipitation change only 10.25 3.83 37.81 0.84 0.06 0.90 10.39 change % -6.64 -8.81 -2.12 -17.65 -8.21 -17.08 9.57 temperature change only 10.98 3.48 32.03 0.75 0.07 0.82 13.33 change % 0.02 -17.25 -17.10 -26.61 0.00 -25.01 40.64 4.2.1 Climate change scenario In addition to the climate change scenario, which include estimated climate changes of increase temperature of 2.0 ◦F and decrease in precipitation of 25 temperature and precipitation factors were modeled individually in order to verify the impact of each factor on total recharge. Figure 11 shows the results of historical and modeled recharge. As expected, the compounded effect of changes in precipitation and temperature, together, cause a larger decrease in recharge than temperature or precipitation alone. Recharge estimates decrease by 37 % from the historical climate data results (from 1.09 to 0.68in per year) (Table 10). Comparing the effects of the individual factors, the decrease in precipitation is less of a factor in recharge than the temperature increase. Decrease of annual recharge from historical average due to the inﬂuence of precipitation alone was 17 or from 1.09 to 0.90in, and the inﬂuence of temperature alone was 25 % or from 1.1 to 0.8in (Table 10). For annual recharge results of the effect of climate change, see Appendix A, Table 13. For annual recharge results of individual climate change parameters see Appendix A Tables 14 and 15. 4.2.2 More intense urbanization scenario The increase in urbanization levels, exaggerated for purposes of analyzing the inﬂuence of urbanization on recharge, showed little impact on aquifer recharge. Average increase in recharge was approximately 3 % (Table 11). The differences in recharge are due to increase in soil recharge. Fracture recharge remains the same because the location of the faults and fractures are located at higher elevations to the east of the urbanization area. For annual recharge results see Appendix A, Table 16. 30 ---PAGE BREAK--- Figure 11: Total recharge under current conditions and the climate change scenario. 31 ---PAGE BREAK--- Table 11: Changes in recharge due to increase in urbanization. Total Total Soil Fracture Total Fracture Year precipitation snowfall recharge recharge recharge recharge (in) (in) (in) (in) (in) original land use 10.97 4.20 1.02 0.07 1.09 9.48 modiﬁed land use 10.97 4.20 1.05 0.07 1.12 9.57 change % 0 0 2.59 0 2.64 0.92 5 Conclusions The SWB model results indicate an average annual recharge of approximately 1in for the last 26 years. The large precipitation events of 1983 are reﬂected in the model as record recharge of over 5in. The results also indicate a long-term trend of decreasing recharge and consequently, water levels. This decline in water level has been observed by the City of Laramie Utility. Recharge to the aquifer occurs mostly during spring snowmelt events when the amount of water gen- erated is enough to saturate soils and allow the surplus of water to recharge the aquifer. Snowmelt events also feed ephemeral streams that run into lower lying areas near Laramie. Recharge through faults accounts in average for nearly 10 % of total aquifer recharge. Fault recharge increases in relation to annual aver- age precipitation, as the precipitation decreases. With more precipitation, recharge through soil inﬁltration increases because surplus water can then percolate through the wet soil, recharging the aquifer rather than being lost to evapotranspiration. With less precipitation, water that does runoff into streams feed fracture recharge where faults and fractures intersect these streams. As the climate changes, the effects of temperature increase are expected to be larger than those of reduced precipitation, although, both trends reduce recharge. Modeled results show that with the increase of 2 ◦F in temperature and decrease of 25 % of precipitation in 50 years, recharge rates could drop by 37 This would be signiﬁcant for an aquifer that gets an estimated annual average recharge of 1in and average precipitation of 11in. Signiﬁcant decreases in water levels have been observed in the Casper Aquifer recently but little or no growth in population or water demand. With the increasing temperature trends shown by historical weather data over the last few decades, it can be expected that water levels will keep falling, since temperature increase has a strong inﬂuence on recharge. While large precipitation events can provide signiﬁcant recharge to the Casper Aquifer as shown by events in 1983, long-term trends of increasing temperatures may reduce recharge. As temperature increase due to climate changes, it is important for Laramie to understand and prepare for declining water levels. A conservation plan that will address long-term water demand would help direct the City in conserving groundwater for a sustainable water supply. 32 ---PAGE BREAK--- References [National Weather Service, 2005] National Weather Service (2005). NOAA Rate of Long-Term Trend Tem- perature and Precipitation Change. http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/anltrend.gif. [PRISM Group, 2008] PRISM Group (2008). Parameter-elevation Regressions on Independent Slopes Model. http://www.prismclimate.org. [USEPA, 1998] USEPA (1998). Climate Change and Wyoming. Technical Report EPA 236-F-98-007n, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. http://yosemite.epa.gov/oar/globalwarming.nsf. [USGS, 2001] USGS (2001). 2001 USGS National Land Cover Database. http://seamless.usgs.gov/website/seamless/viewer.htm. [Westenbroek et al., 1998] Westenbroek, Kelson, V. Dripps, W. Hunt, R. and Bradbury, K. R. (1998). SWB - A modiﬁed soil water balance code for estimating ground-water recharge. In review. [WHPA, 2008] WHPA (2008). Casper Aquifer Protection Plan. Technical report, Wittman Hydro Planning Associates. In review. 33 ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix A - Model results ---PAGE BREAK--- 35 Table 12: Results of model using historical climate data (1981-2007). Total Total Percent Soil Fracture Total Fracture Year precipitation snowfall snowfall recharge recharge recharge recharge (in) (in) (in) (in) (in) 1981 11.19 4.36 38.99 0.77 0.06 0.83 7.01 1982 10.80 5.95 55.08 0.40 0.05 0.45 10.86 1983 15.80 10.40 65.79 4.98 0.09 5.07 1.76 1984 11.87 3.63 30.57 1.93 0.09 2.01 4.22 1985 11.58 4.43 38.25 0.44 0.06 0.50 12.30 1986 10.80 4.65 43.08 3.33 0.06 3.39 1.89 1987 12.00 4.33 36.07 0.80 0.06 0.86 7.22 1988 9.93 4.77 47.99 1.21 0.06 1.27 4.74 1989 8.49 3.68 43.29 0.38 0.04 0.42 10.14 1990 15.11 6.41 42.42 1.41 0.08 1.49 5.37 1991 16.60 3.86 23.27 2.63 0.20 2.83 7.18 1992 13.61 5.11 37.57 0.63 0.07 0.70 9.60 1993 14.87 5.65 38.00 1.62 0.10 1.72 5.98 1994 6.42 3.80 59.13 1.07 0.03 1.10 2.83 1995 12.97 4.75 36.60 0.96 0.07 1.03 6.77 1996 8.05 3.07 38.11 0.44 0.04 0.48 8.09 1997 11.35 3.24 28.58 0.54 0.06 0.60 9.80 1998 15.28 3.83 25.09 0.62 0.10 0.72 13.69 1999 8.09 2.83 35.01 0.90 0.04 0.94 4.47 2000 12.09 5.17 42.72 0.50 0.07 0.57 12.30 2001 6.05 2.15 35.55 0.35 0.03 0.38 8.42 2002 5.40 2.16 39.96 0.08 0.03 0.11 24.55 2003 8.87 4.45 50.20 0.35 0.04 0.40 11.14 2004 11.47 2.34 20.42 0.26 0.06 0.32 19.00 2005 9.65 3.46 35.87 0.54 0.08 0.62 12.92 2006 7.19 1.88 26.11 0.13 0.04 0.16 21.60 2007 10.75 3.16 29.40 0.40 0.06 0.45 12.11 average 10.97 4.20 38.63 1.02 0.07 1.09 9.48 maximum 16.60 10.40 65.79 4.98 0.20 5.07 24.55 minimum 5.40 1.88 20.42 0.08 0.03 0.11 1.76 ---PAGE BREAK--- 36 Table 13: Recharge changes inﬂuenced by the decrease of 25% of precipitation and increase of 2 ◦F in temperature(1981-2007). Total Total Percent Soil Fracture Total Fracture Year precipitation snowfall snowfall recharge recharge recharge recharge (in) (in) (in) (in) (in) 1981 10.48 2.95 28.20 0.39 0.05 0.44 12.10 1982 9.97 4.27 42.80 0.19 0.05 0.23 19.83 1983 14.53 7.32 50.40 3.40 0.08 3.48 2.30 1984 11.11 3.02 27.20 1.23 0.08 1.31 5.73 1985 10.85 3.48 32.10 0.25 0.06 0.31 18.51 1986 10.13 3.75 37.00 2.98 0.06 3.04 1.91 1987 11.10 3.62 32.60 0.44 0.06 0.50 11.20 1988 9.17 3.74 40.80 0.69 0.05 0.75 6.97 1989 7.84 2.98 38.00 0.26 0.04 0.30 13.29 1990 13.98 4.88 34.90 0.76 0.07 0.83 8.65 1991 15.58 3.18 20.40 1.23 0.18 1.41 13.03 1992 12.55 3.86 30.80 0.41 0.06 0.47 13.38 1993 13.80 4.43 32.10 0.96 0.08 1.04 7.50 1994 5.91 2.96 50.00 0.47 0.03 0.50 5.43 1995 12.24 3.05 25.00 0.38 0.07 0.44 14.74 1996 7.53 2.34 31.10 0.26 0.04 0.29 12.59 1997 10.62 2.64 24.90 0.36 0.06 0.41 13.29 1998 14.36 2.91 20.30 0.37 0.09 0.46 19.69 1999 7.59 2.11 27.80 0.44 0.04 0.48 8.68 2000 11.41 3.53 30.92 0.27 0.06 0.33 19.03 2001 5.68 1.72 30.34 0.16 0.03 0.19 15.43 2002 5.06 1.64 32.41 0.06 0.03 0.09 28.74 2003 8.26 3.04 36.77 0.15 0.04 0.20 21.03 2004 10.87 1.56 14.33 0.19 0.06 0.25 22.98 2005 9.05 2.62 28.89 0.20 0.08 0.28 29.08 2006 6.79 1.47 21.58 0.10 0.03 0.13 25.38 2007 10.12 1.83 18.13 0.18 0.05 0.24 21.70 average 10.24 3.14 31.10 0.62 0.06 0.68 14.53 maximum 15.58 7.32 50.40 3.40 0.18 3.48 29.08 minimum 5.06 1.47 14.33 0.06 0.03 0.09 1.91 historical average 10.97 4.20 38.63 1.02 0.07 1.09 9.48 change % -6.65 -25.21 -19.49 -39.34 -8.83 -37.51 53.21 ---PAGE BREAK--- 37 Table 14: Recharge changes inﬂuenced by the decrease of 25% of precipitation (1981-2007). Total Total Percent Soil Fracture Total Fracture Year precipitation snowfall snowfall recharge recharge recharge recharge (in) (in) (in) (in) (in) 1981 10.48 4.20 40.10 0.63 0.05 0.69 7.87 1982 9.97 5.42 54.32 0.34 0.05 0.38 11.72 1983 14.53 9.43 64.90 4.30 0.08 4.38 1.85 1984 11.11 3.31 29.79 1.45 0.08 1.52 5.06 1985 10.85 4.08 37.61 0.36 0.06 0.41 13.77 1986 10.13 4.34 42.89 3.04 0.06 3.10 1.94 1987 11.10 3.92 35.28 0.63 0.06 0.69 8.28 1988 9.17 4.27 46.53 0.89 0.05 0.94 5.72 1989 7.84 3.26 41.64 0.29 0.04 0.33 11.75 1990 13.98 5.72 40.91 1.06 0.07 1.13 6.47 1991 15.58 3.49 22.39 2.14 0.18 2.33 7.90 1992 12.55 4.48 35.68 0.48 0.06 0.54 11.52 1993 13.80 5.04 36.54 1.23 0.09 1.31 6.70 1994 5.91 3.43 57.92 0.79 0.03 0.81 3.44 1995 12.24 4.43 36.17 0.82 0.07 0.89 7.34 1996 7.53 2.80 37.19 0.37 0.04 0.40 9.20 1997 10.62 2.92 27.46 0.44 0.05 0.49 10.98 1998 14.36 3.49 24.29 0.49 0.09 0.58 15.65 1999 7.59 2.60 34.20 0.72 0.04 0.76 5.53 2000 11.41 4.83 42.33 0.55 0.06 0.62 10.41 2001 5.72 1.97 34.40 0.31 0.03 0.34 8.90 2002 5.06 1.98 39.09 0.07 0.03 0.10 25.51 2003 8.26 4.07 49.25 0.30 0.04 0.34 12.02 2004 10.87 2.20 20.22 0.23 0.06 0.28 20.14 2005 9.05 3.19 35.18 0.44 0.07 0.51 14.48 2006 6.79 1.75 25.74 0.11 0.03 0.14 22.92 2007 10.12 2.93 28.91 0.33 0.05 0.38 13.39 average 10.25 3.83 37.81 0.84 0.06 0.90 10.39 maximum 15.58 9.43 64.90 4.30 0.18 4.38 25.51 minimum 5.06 1.75 20.22 0.07 0.03 0.10 1.85 historical average 10.97 4.20 38.63 1.02 0.07 1.09 9.48 change % -6.64 -8.81 -2.12 -17.65 -8.21 -17.08 9.57 ---PAGE BREAK--- 38 Table 15: Recharge changes inﬂuenced by 2 ◦F increase in temperature (1981-2007). Total Total Percent Soil Fracture Total Fracture Year precipitation snowfall snowfall recharge recharge recharge recharge (in) (in) (in) (in) (in) 1981 11.19 3.26 29.12 0.50 0.06 0.55 10.31 1982 10.80 4.82 44.60 0.23 0.05 0.28 17.75 1983 15.80 8.19 51.80 3.99 0.10 4.09 2.32 1984 11.87 3.34 28.17 1.63 0.08 1.72 4.90 1985 11.58 3.83 33.07 0.31 0.06 0.37 16.58 1986 10.80 4.08 37.77 3.01 0.06 3.07 1.99 1987 12.00 4.06 33.85 0.53 0.06 0.59 10.46 1988 9.93 4.22 42.54 1.01 0.06 1.07 5.45 1989 8.49 3.37 39.74 0.36 0.04 0.40 11.03 1990 15.11 5.49 36.36 1.05 0.08 1.13 6.98 1991 16.60 3.53 21.25 1.53 0.20 1.73 11.77 1992 13.61 4.44 32.65 0.53 0.07 0.60 11.30 1993 14.87 4.98 33.48 1.27 0.09 1.36 6.42 1994 6.42 3.30 51.42 0.67 0.03 0.70 4.32 1995 12.97 3.27 25.22 0.44 0.07 0.51 13.81 1996 8.05 2.58 32.07 0.32 0.04 0.36 11.02 1997 11.35 2.96 26.05 0.45 0.06 0.51 11.68 1998 15.28 3.11 20.37 0.48 0.10 0.57 17.07 1999 8.09 2.30 28.39 0.53 0.04 0.57 7.23 2000 12.09 3.78 31.29 0.27 0.07 0.34 20.12 2001 6.10 1.90 31.08 0.20 0.03 0.23 14.04 2002 5.40 1.80 33.35 0.07 0.03 0.10 27.27 2003 8.87 3.35 37.71 0.19 0.04 0.23 19.21 2004 11.47 1.68 14.64 0.21 0.06 0.27 22.76 2005 9.65 2.73 28.24 0.24 0.10 0.33 28.83 2006 7.19 1.58 22.03 0.11 0.04 0.14 24.65 2007 10.75 1.98 18.45 0.21 0.06 0.27 20.75 average 10.98 3.48 32.03 0.75 0.07 0.82 13.33 maximum 16.60 8.19 51.80 3.99 0.20 4.09 28.83 minimum 5.40 1.58 14.64 0.07 0.03 0.10 1.99 historical average 10.97 4.20 38.63 1.02 0.07 1.09 9.48 change % 0.02 -17.25 -17.10 -26.61 -0.00 -25.01 40.64 ---PAGE BREAK--- 39 Table 16: Annual results of changes in recharge due to increase in urbanization. Year Precipitation Snowfall Recharge - original Recharge - modiﬁed Change (in) (in) land use (in) land use (in) 1981 11.19 4.36 0.83 0.86 3.5 1982 10.80 5.95 0.45 0.46 1.1 1983 15.80 10.40 5.07 5.13 1.2 1984 11.87 3.63 2.01 2.09 3.5 1985 11.58 4.43 0.50 0.51 2.2 1986 10.80 4.65 3.39 3.45 1.6 1987 12.00 4.33 0.86 0.90 4.9 1988 9.93 4.77 1.27 1.33 4.7 1989 8.49 3.68 0.42 0.45 6.6 1990 15.11 6.41 1.49 1.55 4.0 1991 16.60 3.86 2.83 2.86 1.1 1992 13.61 5.11 0.70 0.74 5.6 1993 14.87 5.65 1.72 1.80 4.4 1994 6.42 3.80 1.10 1.14 3.9 1995 12.97 4.75 1.03 1.05 1.5 1996 8.05 3.07 0.48 0.49 2.1 1997 11.35 3.24 0.60 0.63 5.1 1998 15.28 3.83 0.72 0.75 4.3 1999 8.09 2.83 0.94 0.97 2.9 2000 12.09 5.17 0.57 0.59 3.5 2001 6.05 2.15 0.38 0.39 3.7 2002 5.40 2.16 0.11 0.11 0.9 2003 8.87 4.45 0.40 0.40 1.5 2004 11.47 2.34 0.32 0.33 1.9 2005 9.65 3.46 0.62 0.62 0.2 2006 7.19 1.88 0.16 0.16 0.6 2007 10.75 3.16 0.45 0.46 0.9 average 11.0 4.2 1.1 1.1 2.9 ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix B - Run log for SWB calibration run Soil Water Balance Code compiled on: 02 May 2008 Model execution started: 20080522_213138 Running fracture-recharge.ctl A downhill routing table exists from a previous run... > > GRID 348 705 [PHONE REDACTED] 4562937.0619 [PHONE REDACTED] 4584087.0554 30.0 Reading in grid dimensions > > GRID_LENGTH_UNITS METERS Setting grid length units > > SUPPRESS_DAILY_FILES > > GROWING_SEASON 156 250 TRUE Reading growing season Northern Hemisphere = T > > ANSI_COLORS FALSE Setting ANSI color screen output option > > RLE_MULTIPLIER 10000 Setting the value for the RLE multiplier > > PRECIPITATION SINGLE_STATION Configuring precipitation data input Precip data will be read for a single station > > TEMPERATURE SINGLE_STATION Configuring temperature data input Temperature data will be read for a single station > > OUTPUT_GRID_SUFFIX grd Setting output grid file suffix > > INITIAL_ABSTRACTION_METHOD TR55 Setting initial abstraction method > > INITIAL_FROZEN_GROUND_INDEX CONSTANT 0 Initializing continuous frozen ground index > > UPPER_LIMIT_CFGI 9999 Initializing upper boundary for continuous frozen ground index threshold Ground will be considered frozen at a CFGI value of: 9999.0000000000000 > > LOWER_LIMIT_CFGI 9999 Initializing lower boundary for continuous frozen ground index threshold Ground will be considered unfrozen at a CFGI value of: 9999.0000000000000 > > DRIPPS_COMPATIBILITY FALSE Setting compatibility option regarding recharge calculation > > FLOW_DIRECTION ARC_GRID input\Flow_dir.grd Populating flow direction grid ---PAGE BREAK--- Summary of integer grid data values 7221 grid cells have value: 1 7619 grid cells have value: 2 24879 grid cells have value: 4 39902 grid cells have value: 8 75330 grid cells have value: 16 44654 grid cells have value: 32 30870 grid cells have value: 64 14865 grid cells have value: 128 Total number of grid cells: 245340 Total number of grid cells with value [0-256]: 245340 > > SOIL_GROUP ARC_GRID input\Soils_5_Types_widen_1.grd Populating soil group grid Summary of integer grid data values 36993 grid cells have value: 1 89875 grid cells have value: 2 99570 grid cells have value: 3 18902 grid cells have value: 5 Total number of grid cells: 245340 Total number of grid cells with value [0-256]: 245340 > > LAND_USE ARC_GRID input\land_use.grd Populating land use grid Summary of integer grid data values 5402 grid cells have value: 21 2120 grid cells have value: 22 995 grid cells have value: 23 71 grid cells have value: 24 1500 grid cells have value: 31 58 grid cells have value: 41 17549 grid cells have value: 42 164249 grid cells have value: 52 53040 grid cells have value: 71 21 grid cells have value: 81 86 grid cells have value: 82 41 grid cells have value: 90 208 grid cells have value: 95 Total number of grid cells: 245340 Total number of grid cells with value [0-256]: 245340 > > LAND_USE_LOOKUP_TABLE std_input\lulookup5SoilsLowIntercept.txt Reading land-use lookup table allocating memory for 28 landuse types within lookup table allocating memory for 5 soil types within lookup table Reading landuse record number 1 of 28 41 ---PAGE BREAK--- landuse type = 11 landuse description = Open water assumed % imperviousness = not applicable curve number for soil group 1 : 100.000000000000000 curve number for soil group 2 : 100.000000000000000 curve number for soil group 3 : 100.000000000000000 curve number for soil group 4 : 100.000000000000000 curve number for soil group 5 : 100.000000000000000 MAXIMUM RECHARGE for soil group 1 : 2.0000000000000000 MAXIMUM RECHARGE for soil group 2 : 0.59999999999999998 MAXIMUM RECHARGE for soil group 3 : 0.23999999999999999 MAXIMUM RECHARGE for soil group 4 : 0.12000000000000000 MAXIMUM RECHARGE for soil group 5 : 5.0000000000000000 Interception value for growing season = 0.0000000000000000 Interception value for non-growing season = 0.0000000000000000 ROOTING DEPTH for soil group 1 : 0.0000000000000000 ROOTING DEPTH for soil group 2 : 0.0000000000000000 ROOTING DEPTH for soil group 3 : 0.0000000000000000 ROOTING DEPTH for soil group 4 : 0.0000000000000000 ROOTING DEPTH for soil group 5 : 0.0000000000000000 Reading landuse record number 2 of 28 landuse type = 12 landuse description = Perennial Ice/Snow assumed % imperviousness = not applicable curve number for soil group 1 : 5.0000000000000000 curve number for soil group 2 : 5.0000000000000000 curve number for soil group 3 : 5.0000000000000000 curve number for soil group 4 : 5.0000000000000000 curve number for soil group 5 : 100.000000000000000 MAXIMUM RECHARGE for soil group 1 : 2.0000000000000000 MAXIMUM RECHARGE for soil group 2 : 0.59999999999999998 MAXIMUM RECHARGE for soil group 3 : 0.23999999999999999 MAXIMUM RECHARGE for soil group 4 : 0.12000000000000000 MAXIMUM RECHARGE for soil group 5 : 5.0000000000000000 Interception value for growing season = 0.0000000000000000 Interception value for non-growing season = 0.0000000000000000 ROOTING DEPTH for soil group 1 : 0.0000000000000000 ROOTING DEPTH for soil group 2 : 0.0000000000000000 ROOTING DEPTH for soil group 3 : 0.0000000000000000 ROOTING DEPTH for soil group 4 : 0.0000000000000000 ROOTING DEPTH for soil group 5 : 0.0000000000000000 Reading landuse record number 3 of 28 42 ---PAGE BREAK--- landuse type = 21 landuse description = Commercial/Industrial/Transportation assumed % imperviousness = 85 curve number for soil group 1 : 89.000000000000000 curve number for soil group 2 : 94.500000000000000 curve number for soil group 3 : 94.000000000000000 curve number for soil group 4 : 95.000000000000000 curve number for soil group 5 : 100.000000000000000 MAXIMUM RECHARGE for soil group 1 : 2.0000000000000000 MAXIMUM RECHARGE for soil group 2 : 0.59999999999999998 MAXIMUM RECHARGE for soil group 3 : 0.23999999999999999 MAXIMUM RECHARGE for soil group 4 : 0.12000000000000000 MAXIMUM RECHARGE for soil group 5 : 5.0000000000000000 Interception value for growing season = 0.0000000000000000 Interception value for non-growing season = 0.0000000000000000 ROOTING DEPTH for soil group 1 : 1.00000000000000000 ROOTING DEPTH for soil group 2 : 1.00000000000000000 ROOTING DEPTH for soil group 3 : 1.00000000000000000 ROOTING DEPTH for soil group 4 : 1.00000000000000000 ROOTING DEPTH for soil group 5 : 0.50000000000000000 Reading landuse record number 4 of 28 landuse type = 22 landuse description = Low density Residential assumed % imperviousness = 12 curve number for soil group 1 : 54.000000000000000 curve number for soil group 2 : 82.500000000000000 curve number for soil group 3 : 80.000000000000000 curve number for soil group 4 : 85.000000000000000 curve number for soil group 5 : 100.000000000000000 MAXIMUM RECHARGE for soil group 1 : 2.0000000000000000 MAXIMUM RECHARGE for soil group 2 : 0.59999999999999998 MAXIMUM RECHARGE for soil group 3 : 0.23999999999999999 MAXIMUM RECHARGE for soil group 4 : 0.12000000000000000 MAXIMUM RECHARGE for soil group 5 : 5.0000000000000000 Interception value for growing season = 0.0000000000000000 Interception value for non-growing season = 0.0000000000000000 ROOTING DEPTH for soil group 1 : 1.00000000000000000 ROOTING DEPTH for soil group 2 : 1.00000000000000000 ROOTING DEPTH for soil group 3 : 1.00000000000000000 ROOTING DEPTH for soil group 4 : 1.00000000000000000 ROOTING DEPTH for soil group 5 : 0.50000000000000000 Reading landuse record number 5 of 28 43 ---PAGE BREAK--- landuse type = 23 landuse description = Medium density Residential assumed % imperviousness = 38 curve number for soil group 1 : 61.000000000000000 curve number for soil group 2 : 85.000000000000000 curve number for soil group 3 : 83.000000000000000 curve number for soil group 4 : 87.000000000000000 curve number for soil group 5 : 100.000000000000000 MAXIMUM RECHARGE for soil group 1 : 2.0000000000000000 MAXIMUM RECHARGE for soil group 2 : 0.59999999999999998 MAXIMUM RECHARGE for soil group 3 : 0.23999999999999999 MAXIMUM RECHARGE for soil group 4 : 0.12000000000000000 MAXIMUM RECHARGE for soil group 5 : 5.0000000000000000 Interception value for growing season = 0.0000000000000000 Interception value for non-growing season = 0.0000000000000000 ROOTING DEPTH for soil group 1 : 1.00000000000000000 ROOTING DEPTH for soil group 2 : 1.00000000000000000 ROOTING DEPTH for soil group 3 : 1.00000000000000000 ROOTING DEPTH for soil group 4 : 1.00000000000000000 ROOTING DEPTH for soil group 5 : 0.50000000000000000 Reading landuse record number 6 of 28 landuse type = 24 landuse description = High density Residential assumed % imperviousness = 65 curve number for soil group 1 : 77.000000000000000 curve number for soil group 2 : 91.000000000000000 curve number for soil group 3 : 90.000000000000000 curve number for soil group 4 : 92.000000000000000 curve number for soil group 5 : 100.000000000000000 MAXIMUM RECHARGE for soil group 1 : 2.0000000000000000 MAXIMUM RECHARGE for soil group 2 : 0.59999999999999998 MAXIMUM RECHARGE for soil group 3 : 0.23999999999999999 MAXIMUM RECHARGE for soil group 4 : 0.12000000000000000 MAXIMUM RECHARGE for soil group 5 : 5.0000000000000000 Interception value for growing season = 0.0000000000000000 Interception value for non-growing season = 0.0000000000000000 ROOTING DEPTH for soil group 1 : 1.00000000000000000 ROOTING DEPTH for soil group 2 : 1.00000000000000000 ROOTING DEPTH for soil group 3 : 1.00000000000000000 ROOTING DEPTH for soil group 4 : 1.00000000000000000 ROOTING DEPTH for soil group 5 : 0.50000000000000000 Reading landuse record number 7 of 28 44 ---PAGE BREAK--- landuse type = 31 landuse description = Bare Exposed Rock / Sand / Clay (assume similar to dirt road) assumed % imperviousness = not applicable curve number for soil group 1 : 5.0000000000000000 curve number for soil group 2 : 5.0000000000000000 curve number for soil group 3 : 5.0000000000000000 curve number for soil group 4 : 5.0000000000000000 curve number for soil group 5 : 100.000000000000000 MAXIMUM RECHARGE for soil group 1 : 2.0000000000000000 MAXIMUM RECHARGE for soil group 2 : 0.59999999999999998 MAXIMUM RECHARGE for soil group 3 : 0.23999999999999999 MAXIMUM RECHARGE for soil group 4 : 0.12000000000000000 MAXIMUM RECHARGE for soil group 5 : 5.0000000000000000 Interception value for growing season = 0.0000000000000000 Interception value for non-growing season = 0.0000000000000000 ROOTING DEPTH for soil group 1 : 0.50000000000000000 ROOTING DEPTH for soil group 2 : 0.50000000000000000 ROOTING DEPTH for soil group 3 : 0.50000000000000000 ROOTING DEPTH for soil group 4 : 0.50000000000000000 ROOTING DEPTH for soil group 5 : 0.50000000000000000 Reading landuse record number 8 of 28 landuse type = 32 landuse description = Quarries/Gravel Pits (assume similar to commercial) assumed % imperviousness = 0 curve number for soil group 1 : 5.0000000000000000 curve number for soil group 2 : 5.0000000000000000 curve number for soil group 3 : 5.0000000000000000 curve number for soil group 4 : 5.0000000000000000 curve number for soil group 5 : 100.000000000000000 MAXIMUM RECHARGE for soil group 1 : 2.0000000000000000 MAXIMUM RECHARGE for soil group 2 : 0.59999999999999998 MAXIMUM RECHARGE for soil group 3 : 0.23999999999999999 MAXIMUM RECHARGE for soil group 4 : 0.12000000000000000 MAXIMUM RECHARGE for soil group 5 : 5.0000000000000000 Interception value for growing season = 0.0000000000000000 Interception value for non-growing season = 0.0000000000000000 ROOTING DEPTH for soil group 1 : 0.50000000000000000 ROOTING DEPTH for soil group 2 : 0.50000000000000000 ROOTING DEPTH for soil group 3 : 0.50000000000000000 ROOTING DEPTH for soil group 4 : 0.50000000000000000 ROOTING DEPTH for soil group 5 : 0.50000000000000000 45 ---PAGE BREAK--- Reading landuse record number 9 of 28 landuse type = 41 landuse description = Deciduous Forest assumed % imperviousness = 0 curve number for soil group 1 : 42.000000000000000 curve number for soil group 2 : 82.000000000000000 curve number for soil group 3 : 79.000000000000000 curve number for soil group 4 : 85.000000000000000 curve number for soil group 5 : 100.000000000000000 MAXIMUM RECHARGE for soil group 1 : 2.0000000000000000 MAXIMUM RECHARGE for soil group 2 : 0.59999999999999998 MAXIMUM RECHARGE for soil group 3 : 0.23999999999999999 MAXIMUM RECHARGE for soil group 4 : 0.12000000000000000 MAXIMUM RECHARGE for soil group 5 : 5.0000000000000000 Interception value for growing season = 0.0000000000000000 Interception value for non-growing season = 0.0000000000000000 ROOTING DEPTH for soil group 1 : 1.00000000000000000 ROOTING DEPTH for soil group 2 : 0.90000000000000002 ROOTING DEPTH for soil group 3 : 1.00000000000000000 ROOTING DEPTH for soil group 4 : 0.90000000000000002 ROOTING DEPTH for soil group 5 : 0.50000000000000000 Reading landuse record number 10 of 28 landuse type = 42 landuse description = Evergreen Forest assumed % imperviousness = 0 curve number for soil group 1 : 34.000000000000000 curve number for soil group 2 : 76.000000000000000 curve number for soil group 3 : 73.000000000000000 curve number for soil group 4 : 79.000000000000000 curve number for soil group 5 : 100.000000000000000 MAXIMUM RECHARGE for soil group 1 : 2.0000000000000000 MAXIMUM RECHARGE for soil group 2 : 0.59999999999999998 MAXIMUM RECHARGE for soil group 3 : 0.23999999999999999 MAXIMUM RECHARGE for soil group 4 : 0.12000000000000000 MAXIMUM RECHARGE for soil group 5 : 5.0000000000000000 Interception value for growing season = 0.0000000000000000 Interception value for non-growing season = 0.0000000000000000 ROOTING DEPTH for soil group 1 : 1.00000000000000000 ROOTING DEPTH for soil group 2 : 0.90000000000000002 ROOTING DEPTH for soil group 3 : 1.00000000000000000 ROOTING DEPTH for soil group 4 : 0.90000000000000002 ROOTING DEPTH for soil group 5 : 0.50000000000000000 46 ---PAGE BREAK--- Reading landuse record number 11 of 28 landuse type = 51 landuse description = Shrubland (assumed same as parkland) assumed % imperviousness = 0 curve number for soil group 1 : 39.000000000000000 curve number for soil group 2 : 77.000000000000000 curve number for soil group 3 : 74.000000000000000 curve number for soil group 4 : 80.000000000000000 curve number for soil group 5 : 100.000000000000000 MAXIMUM RECHARGE for soil group 1 : 2.0000000000000000 MAXIMUM RECHARGE for soil group 2 : 0.59999999999999998 MAXIMUM RECHARGE for soil group 3 : 0.23999999999999999 MAXIMUM RECHARGE for soil group 4 : 0.12000000000000000 MAXIMUM RECHARGE for soil group 5 : 5.0000000000000000 Interception value for growing season = 0.0000000000000000 Interception value for non-growing season = 0.0000000000000000 ROOTING DEPTH for soil group 1 : 1.7000000000000000 ROOTING DEPTH for soil group 2 : 1.7000000000000000 ROOTING DEPTH for soil group 3 : 1.8000000000000000 ROOTING DEPTH for soil group 4 : 1.3000000000000000 ROOTING DEPTH for soil group 5 : 0.50000000000000000 Reading landuse record number 12 of 28 landuse type = 52 landuse description = Shrubland/scrub assumed % imperviousness = 0 curve number for soil group 1 : 39.000000000000000 curve number for soil group 2 : 77.000000000000000 curve number for soil group 3 : 74.000000000000000 curve number for soil group 4 : 80.000000000000000 curve number for soil group 5 : 100.000000000000000 MAXIMUM RECHARGE for soil group 1 : 2.0000000000000000 MAXIMUM RECHARGE for soil group 2 : 0.59999999999999998 MAXIMUM RECHARGE for soil group 3 : 0.23999999999999999 MAXIMUM RECHARGE for soil group 4 : 0.12000000000000000 MAXIMUM RECHARGE for soil group 5 : 5.0000000000000000 Interception value for growing season = 0.0000000000000000 Interception value for non-growing season = 0.0000000000000000 ROOTING DEPTH for soil group 1 : 1.7000000000000000 ROOTING DEPTH for soil group 2 : 1.7000000000000000 ROOTING DEPTH for soil group 3 : 1.8000000000000000 ROOTING DEPTH for soil group 4 : 1.3000000000000000 ROOTING DEPTH for soil group 5 : 0.50000000000000000 47 ---PAGE BREAK--- Reading landuse record number 13 of 28 landuse type = 71 landuse description = Grasslands / Herbaceous (Deep-rooted ag) assumed % imperviousness = 0 curve number for soil group 1 : 39.000000000000000 curve number for soil group 2 : 77.000000000000000 curve number for soil group 3 : 74.000000000000000 curve number for soil group 4 : 80.000000000000000 curve number for soil group 5 : 100.000000000000000 MAXIMUM RECHARGE for soil group 1 : 2.0000000000000000 MAXIMUM RECHARGE for soil group 2 : 0.59999999999999998 MAXIMUM RECHARGE for soil group 3 : 0.23999999999999999 MAXIMUM RECHARGE for soil group 4 : 0.12000000000000000 MAXIMUM RECHARGE for soil group 5 : 5.0000000000000000 Interception value for growing season = 0.0000000000000000 Interception value for non-growing season = 0.0000000000000000 ROOTING DEPTH for soil group 1 : 1.7000000000000000 ROOTING DEPTH for soil group 2 : 1.7000000000000000 ROOTING DEPTH for soil group 3 : 1.8000000000000000 ROOTING DEPTH for soil group 4 : 1.1000000000000001 ROOTING DEPTH for soil group 5 : 0.50000000000000000 Reading landuse record number 14 of 28 landuse type = 72 landuse description = Grasslands / Herbaceous (Deep-rooted ag) assumed % imperviousness = 0 curve number for soil group 1 : 39.000000000000000 curve number for soil group 2 : 77.000000000000000 curve number for soil group 3 : 74.000000000000000 curve number for soil group 4 : 80.000000000000000 curve number for soil group 5 : 100.000000000000000 MAXIMUM RECHARGE for soil group 1 : 2.0000000000000000 MAXIMUM RECHARGE for soil group 2 : 0.59999999999999998 MAXIMUM RECHARGE for soil group 3 : 0.23999999999999999 MAXIMUM RECHARGE for soil group 4 : 0.12000000000000000 MAXIMUM RECHARGE for soil group 5 : 5.0000000000000000 Interception value for growing season = 0.0000000000000000 Interception value for non-growing season = 0.0000000000000000 ROOTING DEPTH for soil group 1 : 1.7000000000000000 ROOTING DEPTH for soil group 2 : 1.7000000000000000 ROOTING DEPTH for soil group 3 : 1.8000000000000000 ROOTING DEPTH for soil group 4 : 1.1000000000000001 ROOTING DEPTH for soil group 5 : 0.50000000000000000 48 ---PAGE BREAK--- Reading landuse record number 15 of 28 landuse type = 73 landuse description = Grasslands / Herbaceous (Deep-rooted ag) assumed % imperviousness = 0 curve number for soil group 1 : 39.000000000000000 curve number for soil group 2 : 77.000000000000000 curve number for soil group 3 : 74.000000000000000 curve number for soil group 4 : 80.000000000000000 curve number for soil group 5 : 100.000000000000000 MAXIMUM RECHARGE for soil group 1 : 2.0000000000000000 MAXIMUM RECHARGE for soil group 2 : 0.59999999999999998 MAXIMUM RECHARGE for soil group 3 : 0.23999999999999999 MAXIMUM RECHARGE for soil group 4 : 0.12000000000000000 MAXIMUM RECHARGE for soil group 5 : 5.0000000000000000 Interception value for growing season = 0.0000000000000000 Interception value for non-growing season = 0.0000000000000000 ROOTING DEPTH for soil group 1 : 1.7000000000000000 ROOTING DEPTH for soil group 2 : 1.7000000000000000 ROOTING DEPTH for soil group 3 : 1.8000000000000000 ROOTING DEPTH for soil group 4 : 1.1000000000000001 ROOTING DEPTH for soil group 5 : 0.50000000000000000 Reading landuse record number 16 of 28 landuse type = 74 landuse description = Grasslands / Herbaceous (Deep-rooted ag) assumed % imperviousness = 0 curve number for soil group 1 : 39.000000000000000 curve number for soil group 2 : 77.000000000000000 curve number for soil group 3 : 74.000000000000000 curve number for soil group 4 : 80.000000000000000 curve number for soil group 5 : 100.000000000000000 MAXIMUM RECHARGE for soil group 1 : 2.0000000000000000 MAXIMUM RECHARGE for soil group 2 : 0.59999999999999998 MAXIMUM RECHARGE for soil group 3 : 0.23999999999999999 MAXIMUM RECHARGE for soil group 4 : 0.12000000000000000 MAXIMUM RECHARGE for soil group 5 : 5.0000000000000000 Interception value for growing season = 0.0000000000000000 Interception value for non-growing season = 0.0000000000000000 ROOTING DEPTH for soil group 1 : 1.7000000000000000 ROOTING DEPTH for soil group 2 : 1.7000000000000000 ROOTING DEPTH for soil group 3 : 1.8000000000000000 ROOTING DEPTH for soil group 4 : 1.1000000000000001 ROOTING DEPTH for soil group 5 : 0.50000000000000000 49 ---PAGE BREAK--- Reading landuse record number 17 of 28 landuse type = 81 landuse description = "Pasture (assumed type pasture, good condition)" assumed % imperviousness = 0 curve number for soil group 1 : 39.000000000000000 curve number for soil group 2 : 77.000000000000000 curve number for soil group 3 : 74.000000000000000 curve number for soil group 4 : 80.000000000000000 curve number for soil group 5 : 100.000000000000000 MAXIMUM RECHARGE for soil group 1 : 2.0000000000000000 MAXIMUM RECHARGE for soil group 2 : 0.59999999999999998 MAXIMUM RECHARGE for soil group 3 : 0.23999999999999999 MAXIMUM RECHARGE for soil group 4 : 0.12000000000000000 MAXIMUM RECHARGE for soil group 5 : 5.0000000000000000 Interception value for growing season = 0.0000000000000000 Interception value for non-growing season = 0.0000000000000000 ROOTING DEPTH for soil group 1 : 1.7000000000000000 ROOTING DEPTH for soil group 2 : 1.7000000000000000 ROOTING DEPTH for soil group 3 : 1.8000000000000000 ROOTING DEPTH for soil group 4 : 1.1000000000000001 ROOTING DEPTH for soil group 5 : 0.50000000000000000 Reading landuse record number 18 of 28 landuse type = 82 landuse description = Row Crops (Shallow-Rooted Agriculture) assumed % imperviousness = 0 curve number for soil group 1 : 67.000000000000000 curve number for soil group 2 : 87.000000000000000 curve number for soil group 3 : 85.000000000000000 curve number for soil group 4 : 89.000000000000000 curve number for soil group 5 : 100.000000000000000 MAXIMUM RECHARGE for soil group 1 : 2.0000000000000000 MAXIMUM RECHARGE for soil group 2 : 0.59999999999999998 MAXIMUM RECHARGE for soil group 3 : 0.23999999999999999 MAXIMUM RECHARGE for soil group 4 : 0.12000000000000000 MAXIMUM RECHARGE for soil group 5 : 5.0000000000000000 Interception value for growing season = 0.0000000000000000 Interception value for non-growing season = 0.0000000000000000 ROOTING DEPTH for soil group 1 : 0.80000000000000004 ROOTING DEPTH for soil group 2 : 0.80000000000000004 ROOTING DEPTH for soil group 3 : 1.00000000000000000 ROOTING DEPTH for soil group 4 : 0.29999999999999999 50 ---PAGE BREAK--- ROOTING DEPTH for soil group 5 : 0.50000000000000000 Reading landuse record number 19 of 28 landuse type = 90 landuse description = Woody wetlands assumed % imperviousness = 0 curve number for soil group 1 : 34.000000000000000 curve number for soil group 2 : 76.000000000000000 curve number for soil group 3 : 73.000000000000000 curve number for soil group 4 : 79.000000000000000 curve number for soil group 5 : 100.000000000000000 MAXIMUM RECHARGE for soil group 1 : 2.0000000000000000 MAXIMUM RECHARGE for soil group 2 : 0.59999999999999998 MAXIMUM RECHARGE for soil group 3 : 0.23999999999999999 MAXIMUM RECHARGE for soil group 4 : 0.12000000000000000 MAXIMUM RECHARGE for soil group 5 : 5.0000000000000000 Interception value for growing season = 0.0000000000000000 Interception value for non-growing season = 0.0000000000000000 ROOTING DEPTH for soil group 1 : 2.2999999999999998 ROOTING DEPTH for soil group 2 : 2.2999999999999998 ROOTING DEPTH for soil group 3 : 2.2999999999999998 ROOTING DEPTH for soil group 4 : 2.2999999999999998 ROOTING DEPTH for soil group 5 : 0.50000000000000000 Reading landuse record number 20 of 28 landuse type = 91 landuse description = Forested Wetland assumed % imperviousness = 0 curve number for soil group 1 : 34.000000000000000 curve number for soil group 2 : 76.000000000000000 curve number for soil group 3 : 73.000000000000000 curve number for soil group 4 : 79.000000000000000 curve number for soil group 5 : 100.000000000000000 MAXIMUM RECHARGE for soil group 1 : 2.0000000000000000 MAXIMUM RECHARGE for soil group 2 : 0.59999999999999998 MAXIMUM RECHARGE for soil group 3 : 0.23999999999999999 MAXIMUM RECHARGE for soil group 4 : 0.12000000000000000 MAXIMUM RECHARGE for soil group 5 : 5.0000000000000000 Interception value for growing season = 0.0000000000000000 Interception value for non-growing season = 0.0000000000000000 ROOTING DEPTH for soil group 1 : 2.2999999999999998 ROOTING DEPTH for soil group 2 : 2.2999999999999998 ROOTING DEPTH for soil group 3 : 2.2999999999999998 ROOTING DEPTH for soil group 4 : 2.2999999999999998 51 ---PAGE BREAK--- ROOTING DEPTH for soil group 5 : 0.50000000000000000 Reading landuse record number 21 of 28 landuse type = 92 landuse description = Wetland assumed % imperviousness = 0 curve number for soil group 1 : 100.000000000000000 curve number for soil group 2 : 100.000000000000000 curve number for soil group 3 : 100.000000000000000 curve number for soil group 4 : 100.000000000000000 curve number for soil group 5 : 100.000000000000000 MAXIMUM RECHARGE for soil group 1 : 2.0000000000000000 MAXIMUM RECHARGE for soil group 2 : 0.59999999999999998 MAXIMUM RECHARGE for soil group 3 : 0.23999999999999999 MAXIMUM RECHARGE for soil group 4 : 0.12000000000000000 MAXIMUM RECHARGE for soil group 5 : 5.0000000000000000 Interception value for growing season = 0.0000000000000000 Interception value for non-growing season = 0.0000000000000000 ROOTING DEPTH for soil group 1 : 2.2999999999999998 ROOTING DEPTH for soil group 2 : 2.2999999999999998 ROOTING DEPTH for soil group 3 : 2.2999999999999998 ROOTING DEPTH for soil group 4 : 2.2999999999999998 ROOTING DEPTH for soil group 5 : 0.50000000000000000 Reading landuse record number 22 of 28 landuse type = 93 landuse description = Wetland assumed % imperviousness = 0 curve number for soil group 1 : 100.000000000000000 curve number for soil group 2 : 100.000000000000000 curve number for soil group 3 : 100.000000000000000 curve number for soil group 4 : 100.000000000000000 curve number for soil group 5 : 100.000000000000000 MAXIMUM RECHARGE for soil group 1 : 2.0000000000000000 MAXIMUM RECHARGE for soil group 2 : 0.59999999999999998 MAXIMUM RECHARGE for soil group 3 : 0.23999999999999999 MAXIMUM RECHARGE for soil group 4 : 0.12000000000000000 MAXIMUM RECHARGE for soil group 5 : 5.0000000000000000 Interception value for growing season = 0.0000000000000000 Interception value for non-growing season = 0.0000000000000000 ROOTING DEPTH for soil group 1 : 2.2999999999999998 ROOTING DEPTH for soil group 2 : 2.2999999999999998 ROOTING DEPTH for soil group 3 : 2.2999999999999998 ROOTING DEPTH for soil group 4 : 2.2999999999999998 52 ---PAGE BREAK--- ROOTING DEPTH for soil group 5 : 0.50000000000000000 Reading landuse record number 23 of 28 landuse type = 94 landuse description = Wetland assumed % imperviousness = 0 curve number for soil group 1 : 100.000000000000000 curve number for soil group 2 : 100.000000000000000 curve number for soil group 3 : 100.000000000000000 curve number for soil group 4 : 100.000000000000000 curve number for soil group 5 : 100.000000000000000 MAXIMUM RECHARGE for soil group 1 : 2.0000000000000000 MAXIMUM RECHARGE for soil group 2 : 0.59999999999999998 MAXIMUM RECHARGE for soil group 3 : 0.23999999999999999 MAXIMUM RECHARGE for soil group 4 : 0.12000000000000000 MAXIMUM RECHARGE for soil group 5 : 5.0000000000000000 Interception value for growing season = 0.0000000000000000 Interception value for non-growing season = 0.0000000000000000 ROOTING DEPTH for soil group 1 : 2.2999999999999998 ROOTING DEPTH for soil group 2 : 2.2999999999999998 ROOTING DEPTH for soil group 3 : 2.2999999999999998 ROOTING DEPTH for soil group 4 : 2.2999999999999998 ROOTING DEPTH for soil group 5 : 0.50000000000000000 Reading landuse record number 24 of 28 landuse type = 95 landuse description = Wetland assumed % imperviousness = 0 curve number for soil group 1 : 100.000000000000000 curve number for soil group 2 : 100.000000000000000 curve number for soil group 3 : 100.000000000000000 curve number for soil group 4 : 100.000000000000000 curve number for soil group 5 : 100.000000000000000 MAXIMUM RECHARGE for soil group 1 : 2.0000000000000000 MAXIMUM RECHARGE for soil group 2 : 0.59999999999999998 MAXIMUM RECHARGE for soil group 3 : 0.23999999999999999 MAXIMUM RECHARGE for soil group 4 : 0.12000000000000000 MAXIMUM RECHARGE for soil group 5 : 5.0000000000000000 Interception value for growing season = 0.0000000000000000 Interception value for non-growing season = 0.0000000000000000 ROOTING DEPTH for soil group 1 : 2.2999999999999998 ROOTING DEPTH for soil group 2 : 2.2999999999999998 ROOTING DEPTH for soil group 3 : 2.2999999999999998 ROOTING DEPTH for soil group 4 : 2.2999999999999998 53 ---PAGE BREAK--- ROOTING DEPTH for soil group 5 : 0.50000000000000000 Reading landuse record number 25 of 28 landuse type = 96 landuse description = Wetland assumed % imperviousness = 0 curve number for soil group 1 : 100.000000000000000 curve number for soil group 2 : 100.000000000000000 curve number for soil group 3 : 100.000000000000000 curve number for soil group 4 : 100.000000000000000 curve number for soil group 5 : 100.000000000000000 MAXIMUM RECHARGE for soil group 1 : 2.0000000000000000 MAXIMUM RECHARGE for soil group 2 : 0.59999999999999998 MAXIMUM RECHARGE for soil group 3 : 0.23999999999999999 MAXIMUM RECHARGE for soil group 4 : 0.12000000000000000 MAXIMUM RECHARGE for soil group 5 : 5.0000000000000000 Interception value for growing season = 0.0000000000000000 Interception value for non-growing season = 0.0000000000000000 ROOTING DEPTH for soil group 1 : 2.2999999999999998 ROOTING DEPTH for soil group 2 : 2.2999999999999998 ROOTING DEPTH for soil group 3 : 2.2999999999999998 ROOTING DEPTH for soil group 4 : 2.2999999999999998 ROOTING DEPTH for soil group 5 : 0.50000000000000000 Reading landuse record number 26 of 28 landuse type = 97 landuse description = Wetland assumed % imperviousness = 0 curve number for soil group 1 : 100.000000000000000 curve number for soil group 2 : 100.000000000000000 curve number for soil group 3 : 100.000000000000000 curve number for soil group 4 : 100.000000000000000 curve number for soil group 5 : 100.000000000000000 MAXIMUM RECHARGE for soil group 1 : 2.0000000000000000 MAXIMUM RECHARGE for soil group 2 : 0.59999999999999998 MAXIMUM RECHARGE for soil group 3 : 0.23999999999999999 MAXIMUM RECHARGE for soil group 4 : 0.12000000000000000 MAXIMUM RECHARGE for soil group 5 : 5.0000000000000000 Interception value for growing season = 0.0000000000000000 Interception value for non-growing season = 0.0000000000000000 ROOTING DEPTH for soil group 1 : 2.2999999999999998 ROOTING DEPTH for soil group 2 : 2.2999999999999998 ROOTING DEPTH for soil group 3 : 2.2999999999999998 ROOTING DEPTH for soil group 4 : 2.2999999999999998 54 ---PAGE BREAK--- ROOTING DEPTH for soil group 5 : 0.50000000000000000 Reading landuse record number 27 of 28 landuse type = 98 landuse description = Wetland assumed % imperviousness = 0 curve number for soil group 1 : 100.000000000000000 curve number for soil group 2 : 100.000000000000000 curve number for soil group 3 : 100.000000000000000 curve number for soil group 4 : 100.000000000000000 curve number for soil group 5 : 100.000000000000000 MAXIMUM RECHARGE for soil group 1 : 2.0000000000000000 MAXIMUM RECHARGE for soil group 2 : 0.59999999999999998 MAXIMUM RECHARGE for soil group 3 : 0.23999999999999999 MAXIMUM RECHARGE for soil group 4 : 0.12000000000000000 MAXIMUM RECHARGE for soil group 5 : 5.0000000000000000 Interception value for growing season = 0.0000000000000000 Interception value for non-growing season = 0.0000000000000000 ROOTING DEPTH for soil group 1 : 2.2999999999999998 ROOTING DEPTH for soil group 2 : 2.2999999999999998 ROOTING DEPTH for soil group 3 : 2.2999999999999998 ROOTING DEPTH for soil group 4 : 2.2999999999999998 ROOTING DEPTH for soil group 5 : 0.50000000000000000 Reading landuse record number 28 of 28 landuse type = 99 landuse description = Wetland assumed % imperviousness = 0 curve number for soil group 1 : 100.000000000000000 curve number for soil group 2 : 100.000000000000000 curve number for soil group 3 : 100.000000000000000 curve number for soil group 4 : 100.000000000000000 curve number for soil group 5 : 100.000000000000000 MAXIMUM RECHARGE for soil group 1 : 2.0000000000000000 MAXIMUM RECHARGE for soil group 2 : 0.59999999999999998 MAXIMUM RECHARGE for soil group 3 : 0.23999999999999999 MAXIMUM RECHARGE for soil group 4 : 0.12000000000000000 MAXIMUM RECHARGE for soil group 5 : 5.0000000000000000 Interception value for growing season = 0.0000000000000000 Interception value for non-growing season = 0.0000000000000000 ROOTING DEPTH for soil group 1 : 2.2999999999999998 ROOTING DEPTH for soil group 2 : 2.2999999999999998 ROOTING DEPTH for soil group 3 : 2.2999999999999998 ROOTING DEPTH for soil group 4 : 2.2999999999999998 55 ---PAGE BREAK--- ROOTING DEPTH for soil group 5 : 0.50000000000000000 > > WATER_CAPACITY ARC_GRID input\water_cap.grd Populating water capacity grid Water capacity grid MINUMUM VALUE: 1.1999679999999999 Water capacity grid MAXIMUM VALUE: 3.5999550000000000 > > SM T-M std_input\soil-moisture-retention-extended.grd Configuring soil-moisture options Reading std_input\soil-moisture-retention-extended.grd for soil-moisture retention information Read in the soil-moisture retention file with the following dimensions: iNX = 35 iNY = 408 iDataType = 1 rX0, rX1 = 0.50000000000000000 17.500000000000000 rY0, rY1 = -40.700000000000003 0.0000000000000000 > > INITIAL_SOIL_MOISTURE CONSTANT 100 Populating initial moisture grid > > INITIAL_SNOW_COVER CONSTANT 0 Reading initial snow cover > > RUNOFF C-N DOWNHILL Configuring runoff options Configuring the curve number runoff model Configuring the downhill runoff procedure > > ET HARGREAVES 41.13 41.24 Configuring ET options Configuring Hargreaves PET model > > FRACTURE_INDEX ARC_GRID input\NewDEMIntersection.grd Populating fracture index grid Summary of integer grid data values 245094 grid cells have value: 0 246 grid cells have value: 1 Total number of grid cells: 245340 Total number of grid cells with value [0-256]: 245340 > > STREAM_INTERACTIONS 1 1.0 0.5 > > ELEVATION ARC_GRID input\DEM_Feet.grd Reading elevation grid > > ELEVATION_ADJUSTMENT 7266.0 0.005 0.0035 9999 > > OUTPUT_OPTIONS RECHARGE NONE BOTH BOTH Setting the output options (daily, annual) Options have been set for: RECHARGE STAT_INFO(iVarNum)%iAnnualOutput: 0 0 STAT_INFO(iVarNum)%iDailyOutput: 0 56 ---PAGE BREAK--- > > OUTPUT_OPTIONS SM_APWL NONE NONE NONE Setting the output options (daily, annual) Options have been set for: SM_APWL STAT_INFO(iVarNum)%iAnnualOutput: 0 0 STAT_INFO(iVarNum)%iDailyOutput: 0 > > OUTPUT_OPTIONS SNOWCOVER NONE BOTH NONE Setting the output options (daily, annual) Options have been set for: SNOWCOVER STAT_INFO(iVarNum)%iAnnualOutput: 0 0 STAT_INFO(iVarNum)%iDailyOutput: 0 > > OUTPUT_OPTIONS RUNOFF_OUTSIDE NONE NONE GRAPH Setting the output options (daily, annual) Options have been set for: RUNOFF_OUTSIDE STAT_INFO(iVarNum)%iAnnualOutput: 0 0 STAT_INFO(iVarNum)%iDailyOutput: 0 > > OUTPUT_OPTIONS ACT_ET NONE NONE NONE Setting the output options (daily, annual) Options have been set for: ACT_ET STAT_INFO(iVarNum)%iAnnualOutput: 0 0 STAT_INFO(iVarNum)%iDailyOutput: 0 > > OUTPUT_OPTIONS POT_ET NONE NONE NONE Setting the output options (daily, annual) Options have been set for: POT_ET STAT_INFO(iVarNum)%iAnnualOutput: 0 0 STAT_INFO(iVarNum)%iDailyOutput: 0 > > OUTPUT_FORMAT ARC_GRID Selecting ARC output format > > SOLVE Bmet_data_1980.txt Solving the model model.f95: calling model_InitializeSM model.f95: runoff_InitializeCurveNumber Initializing the base curve numbers CN minimum: 5.0000000000000000 CN maximum: 100.000000000000000 returning from base curve number initialization... model.f95: model_InitializeET model_InitializeET : filename = Bmet_data_1980.txt Initializing Hargreaves PET model 57 ---PAGE BREAK--- model.f95: model_InitialMaxInfil NOTE: Read in downhill routing information from existing swb_routing.bin file Opening time series file: Bmet_data_1980.txt Skipping: MONTH DAY YEAR MNTP PRCP RH TMAX TMIN WIND MIN-RH PSS finished calcs for: 1/1980 finished calcs for: 2/1980 finished calcs for: 3/1980 finished calcs for: 4/1980 finished calcs for: 5/1980 finished calcs for: 6/1980 finished calcs for: 7/1980 finished calcs for: 8/1980 finished calcs for: 9/1980 finished calcs for: 10/1980 finished calcs for: 11/1980 finished calcs for: 12/1980 CALCULATING ANNUAL SUMS for FRACTURE_RECHARGE FRACTURE_RECHARGE 0.0000 0.0514 900.0225 CALCULATING ANNUAL SUMS for STREAM_INFLOW STREAM_INFLOW 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 58

Document Laramie_doc_b01d1d5bd4

Full Text