Laserfiche WebLink
<br />.' <br /> <br />,.---- ---------- <br />_ After adding the region of higher hydraulic conductivity in the area of <br />:the sand dunes and making a few minor adjustments to specific yield, pumping, <br />,and boundary fluxes, the model was run in annual time increments simulating <br />,60 years. The new initial condition was computed and the simulated water- <br />table configuration is shown on figure 25. As indicated in table 11, the sim- <br />'ulated streamflow in Beaver Creek was 20.9 ft3/s. The simulated water table <br />.for 1947 (fig. 26) can be compared to figure 18 and the simulated water table <br />;for 1978 (fig. 27) can be compared to figure 20. The general water budgets <br />for these 2 years are summarized in table 11. Additional substantiation that <br />the model is reasonably calibrated can be seen by the comparisons of the sim- <br />ulated water levels to the measured hydrographs of the six wel Is having at <br />:least 20 years of record (figs. 28-33). Although some of the simulated re- <br />sults are somewhat less than measured water levels, considering the possible <br />range of water levels and the fact that the actual observation wells are not <br />located in the middle of the simulated nodes, the results are not thought to <br />be unreasonable. <br /> <br />Table 11.--Simulated watep budgets fop Beavep Creek valley <br /> <br />computed duping calibration <br /> <br />Pre; rrigation <br /> <br />1947 <br /> <br />1978 <br /> <br />Cubic feet pep second <br /> <br />In flow: <br /> <br />Boundary flux------- <br /> <br />23.1 <br /> <br />23.1 <br /> <br />23.1 <br /> <br />Outflow: <br /> <br />Pumping------------- <br /> <br />o <br /> <br />20.8 <br /> <br />24.0 <br /> <br />Streamflow---------- <br /> <br />20.9 <br /> <br />9.9 <br /> <br />o <br /> <br />Boundary flux------- <br /> <br />2.2 <br /> <br />2.2 <br /> <br />2.2 <br /> <br />Change in storage----- <br /> <br />o <br /> <br />-9.8 <br /> <br />-3.1 <br /> <br />.: <br /> <br />~ <br />