From Event to Action: Accelerate Your Decision Making with Real-Time Automation
GMA 8 Northern Trinity Woodbine GAM Update: Bill Mullican and Van Kelley
1. Update of the Northern Trinity/Woodbine
Groundwater Availability Model
Presented To:
Texas Alliance of
Groundwater Districts
Presented By:
In Association With:
Mullican &
Associates
1
Mullican &
Associates
October 29, 2013
3. Projected Population
• Priority
Groundwater
Management Area
• Greatest water level
declines in the state
• Population projected
to increase greater
than 100 % in next
50 years
State Water Plan – TWDB, 2012
3
Mullican &
Associates
5. Texas Water Code § 36.108 (p)
“Districts located within the same
groundwater management areas or in
adjacent management areas may contract
to jointly conduct studies or research, or to
construct projects, under terms and
conditions that the districts consider
beneficial. These joint efforts may include
studies of groundwater availability and
quality, aquifer modeling,…”
5
Mullican &
Associates
8. NTWO Project Execution Elements
Contract Management
Committee
Technical Advisory
Committee
TWDB GAM Program
8
Mullican &
Associates
9. Integration with Joint-Planning Process
Scope of modeling project designed to be
compatible and to provide maximum benefit to
the joint-planning process in GMA-8
Initial predictive simulation to be agreed to by
GMA-8 District Representatives will be
developed and performed as part of the
project scope
Other information developed in support of the
project scope will be of use in the development
of the GMA-8 Explanatory Report
9
Mullican &
Associates
10. Project Schedule and GMA Schedule
2014
2013
8/14
2015
2016
2017
GAM Development
4/16
GMA-8 DFC Development
90
TWDB MAG
10
Mullican &
Associates
11. Benefits to GMA-8 Districts
Overhaul a critical tool in meeting the District missions Trinity/Woodbine Aquifer GAM (NTWGAM)
Address documented limitations in the current
NTWGAM
Expand calibration period to 2010
More accurate predictions at the County scale
Development of an new GAM that can be used for GMA-8
in this round of joint planning
11
Mullican &
Associates
12. Factors for Meeting Study Objectives
• Finer-model scale (grid size)
• Stakeholder support and data collection
• Detailed hydrostratigraphic framework using
state-of-of the art tools
• Extensive effort in collection of aquifer data
• Calibration from PreD to 2010
• Detailed conceptual water balance prior to
model development
• Use a reproducible and documented approach
12
Mullican &
Associates
13. Challenges for Meeting Study Objectives
• Developing a model grid that can meet the
objectives but still be manageable
• Lack of data
• No matter how much data you have – you can
never have enough to inform every grid cell
• As a result, one has to rely on data driven
conceptual models of key model parameters
(hydraulic conductivity, recharge) to guide
model development
13
Mullican &
Associates
14. Work Scope Task Structure
•
•
•
•
•
Task 1 – Project Management
Task 2 – Stakeholder Communication
Task 3 – Conceptual Model Development
Task 4 – Model Construction
Task 5 – Model Calibration
•
•
Steady-State – Predevelopment
Historical – Predevelopment through 2010 (or latest)
• Task 6 – Model Visualization Tools
• Task 7 – Model Documentation
14
Mullican &
Associates
15. Task 3 – Conceptual Model Development
• Identify relevant processes and physical elements
controlling GW flow in the aquifer:
- Geologic Framework
- Hydrologic Framework
- Hydraulic Properties
- Sources & Sinks (Water Budget)
• Determine Data Deficiencies
The conceptual model dictates how we translate the “real world”
I
to the mathematical model.
15
Mullican &
Associates
16. Horizontal Model Grid (Scale)
• Refinement Provides
– Better representation of
topographic gradients
– Better definition of topographic
lows
• The smaller the grid, the more
local the flow system that can be
modeled
• Generally, the smaller the grid,
the more amount of discharge
(recharge) can be modeled
16
Mullican &
Associates
1/4 mile
1 mile
5 mile
17. Vertical Scale Issues – Also Important
Conceptual Groundwater Flow System
Groundwater flow systems are hierarchal
From Eberts and others, 1998
17
Mullican &
Associates
19. Stakeholder Data Requested & Received
• Data Requested:
– Well databases
– Aquifer test data
– Water level data
– Water quality data
– Aquifer production data
– Geophysical logs
– Natural aquifer discharge data (springs/streams)
– District developed reports
19
Mullican &
Associates
25. Strike Cross Section – South to North
McLennan
Hill
Ellis
Dallas
Denton Cln Grayson
Fannin
Lamar
Woodbine
Paluxy
Glen Rose
Pearsall
Hosston
0
25
Mullican &
Associates
100 mi
2000 ft
Washita
Fred’burg
28. Geohydrostratigraphic Model (GHS)
• A conceptual GHS combines lithologic and
depositional information with hydraulic test
information to provide a framework for estimating
hydraulic properties across all hydrostratigraphic
units (HSUs)
• GHS should allow for the model to be calibrated in a
framework which is:
• Allows for estimation of properties across the
model domain
• Constrained on aquifer data to avoid unrealistic
parameter values
28
Mullican &
Associates
29. GHS Model Approach
• Assemble Aquifer Pump & Specific Capacity Test Data and
Calulate Transmissivities
• Develop Lithologic-Unit Profiles from geophysical logs for all
HSUs represented in model
• For Each HSU
– Calculate “Average” K’s of Lithologic Units from Aquifer Tests
– Estimate a “Average Transmissivity” for HSUs at each geophysical log
location
• Calibrate model to Simultaneously Match Water Levels as well
as Measured and Estimate Aquifer Parameters
• Final Model is based on achieving Acceptable Matches to Both
Water Levels (model output) and Aquifer Properties (model
input)
29
Mullican &
Associates
30. Pumping Tests from PWS, Literature and
GCDs
Public Water Supply Well
Number
In TCEQ Database
Identified Pumping Tests
820
Good Tests that Meet QA/QC
340
Literature & GCD Tests
Mullican &
Associates
1010
Reliable Pumping Tests with Well
Screen Information
30
4530
160
31. Specific Capacity Data from Well Driller Logs
Metric
Number
Total Wells
85,903
Wells with Drawdown
24,346
Wells with Pumping Rate
43,936
Both Drawdown and Pumping Rate
24,283
Wells with Screen Info / Top of Screen
47,689
Wells with Depth
85,846
Wells with Water Level
44,216
12,364 Specific Capacity Tests met QA/QC Requirements
31
Mullican &
Associates
33. GHS Case Example
Determining Litho-Units Kh Values based on Matching
Measured Kh from Seven Aquifer Tests using Three
Lithologic Unit Classifications
Est. Kh (ft/d) for Litho-Units
Clay
Fine Gravelly
Sand
Sand
Sand
1.6
6.2
8.4
Aquifer Measured Length (ft) of Sand Litho- Fitted Kh Kh Error
Fine
Gravelly
Test
Kh (ft/d) Clayey
(ft/d)
(ft/d)
1
4.02
40
1
20
3.91
0.11
30
1
3.37
-0.77
2
2.59
50
3
6.76
25
10
50
6.15
0.61
4
2.89
60
20
10
3.37
-0.48
5
6.71
20
20
45
6.29
0.42
6
6.29
10
60
35
6.49
-0.20
7.93
1.29
7
9.22
5
5
80
Test 1: Fitted Kh = {(40 * 1.6)+(1*6.2)+(20*8.4)}/61 = 3.9
Kh Error = Measured Kh - Fitted Kh = 4.02 - 3.91 = 0.11
33
Kh Error
(%)
3%
-30%
9%
-16%
6%
-3%
14%
GHS allows estimation of hydraulic conductivity at all location
Mullican & you know lithology
where
Associates
34. Hydr. Prop. / Case Example
Clay sand: L1 = 40 ft, Kh1= 1.6 ft/d
Fine sand: L2 = 1 ft, Kh2= 6.2 ft/d
Gravelly sand: L3 = 20 ft, Kh3= 8.4 ft/d
34
Mullican &
Associates
Tot_L = 61 ft
Calculating Kh at each of the 35 Geophysical Log Locations
Kh = Arithematic Average
Kh = Kh1 * L1/(Tot_L) +
Kh2 * L2/(Tot_L) +
Kh3 * L3/(Tot_L)
= 1.6 *40/61 + 6.2 *1/61 + 8.4*20/61
= 3.9 ft/d
35. Hydr. Prop. / Case Example
Calculating Kv at each of the 35 Geophysical Log Locations
L1 + L 2 + L 3
Kv =
L1/Kv1 + L2/Kv2 + L3/Kv3
61
=
40/0.016 + 1/0.062 + 20/0.084
= 0.022 ft/d
Assumption: For all Litho-Units Kv = 0.01 * Kh
35
Mullican &
Associates
36. Lithologic and Property Control
Number of
Number of Aquifer
Hydrostratigraphic
Number of
Aquifer Pumping Pumping Tests
Unit
Geophysical Logs
Tests
(Filtered)
Woodbine
Fredericksburg
Paluxy
Glen Rose
Hensell
Pearsall
Hosston
Total
80
21
44
65
51
73
166
500
16
10
13
17
9
21
65
151
406
587
671
749
782
797
784
4776
By developing a GHS for each HSU, we use a limited
number of excellent aquifer tests combined with
detailed lithologic data to develop 4,776 estimates of
hydraulic conductivity
36
Mullican &
Associates
39. Hydraulic Heads & Groundwater Flow
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
39
Documented water level data sources
Assigned heads to HSUs
Developed Pre-Development head surfaces
Developed hydraulic head surfaces for 1950, 1970, 1990
and 2010
Developed drawdown maps from Predevelopment to
1950 and to 2010
Developed transient hydrographs
Tabulated calibration targets
Analyzed trends in water levels
Analyzed vertical gradients
Mullican &
Associates
40. Multi-Completed Wells & Nomenclature
40
Mullican &
Associates
34,863 locations where we have calibration water level
information of a total of 45,595 possible locations
41. Multi-Completed Wells & Nomenclature
HSU
Paluxy Aquifer
Glen Rose
Formation
Hensell Aquifer
Pearsall
Formation
Hosston Aquifer
41
Mullican &
Associates
Terminology Used to Express Water Source for
Wells Completed Across Multiple HSUs in the Trinity Group
upper
Trinity
aquifer
uppermiddle
Trinity
aquifer
middle
Trinity
aquifer
lower
Trinity
aquifer
Hensell
middleand
lower
Trinity
aquifer
Hosston
aquifers
Trinity
Group
44. Springs
Ü
Ok
Te
0
25
h om
•
a
#
## B B
B #B
#
#
BB
@
E##
B
#
# # #
#B
#
B # # B
@
E
xas
@
E
50
#
#
B
BB
#
B
B B
B B B
B
BB
B #
B
#
B
B
BB B B
B
#
BB # B
B B
# B#
BB #
B# B@ B ## #
E #E B
B
@
BB
B B
@
E
B
@ @
E E
B
B
BB E B
@
@
E
@
E
@
E
@
@
E
E EB
@
E@
E
Miles
@
@E
@
@E
la
E
Arkansas
Louisiana
•
•
@
E
@
E
@
E
@
E
@
E@
@
E@
@@
@E
EE
E@
@
@
E
E
@
E
@
E
#
##
B E#
@
B E
B
@
B
##
#E
@
@
E
E
@
E
B
Woodbine Aquifer Downdip
Trinity Aquifer Outcrop
Trinity Aquifer Downdip
•
@
E
B
Woodbine Aquifer Outcrop
@
@
E
E
@ @
E E
B
@
@
E
@
BE
@@ @
@@
EE@
B@@ E
EEB
@@
@
@E
E
@
EE
E
@
# E@
@@
@@
@
E
B
B
@ @
E E#
@@
B
@
EE
E B # B@ B
@@
BE
EE@
@@E
E@
E
@
E@EE
@
@
E
@@ BE
@ BB
E EE
@@
@
E
@
@@@ E #@@
B
@ @@ E
@
@
@
EE@
E@
@@@
EE
E@@
@E
@E
@
E
@
B
E
@ E
@ @
@
E
E
E
E
EE
EE
E
EE
TWDB Springs
Alluvium
#
Alluvium
@
Woodbine Aquifer
B
Austin Grp
@
Fred./Washita Grps
B
Woodbine Aquifer
@
Trinity Aquifer
B
Fred./Washita Grps
@
unknown
B
Trinity Aquifer
#
lower Cretaceous
#
unknown
USGS Springs
E
Alluvium
Active Model Boundary
E
Fred./Washita Grps
County Boundary
E Trinity Aquifer
State Boundary
44
E
Mullican &
Associates
Brune Springs (approx. locations)
@
unknown
•
•
~76 springs or groups of
springs on Trinity
Aquifer outcrop
~ 14 springs or groups
of springs on Woodbine
Aquifer outcrop
5 flowed >100 gpm at
one time
Many springs now dry
or flow at reduced rate
No recent flow data
Range from dry to >600
gpm (Lampasas Co in
1973)
51. Recharge
• Used multiple methods to estimate recharge:
• Stream baseflow analysis
• Water balance methods
• Chloride mass balance method
• Literature review
• Also reviewed physical controls on recharge including
precipitation, soil permeability and land use/land cover
• Aquifer discharge to streams (baseflow) provided the
most consistent estimate of recharge
• Provides a lower estimate of shallow aquifer
system recharge
• Provides the basis for a spatial and temporal model
51
Mullican &
Associates
52. Baseflow (in/yr) ≈ Recharge
!
.
!
.
!
.
Oklahoma
!
.
!
.
!!
..
!
.
! L!t l !
. . .
it
!
! e R.
.
iv
Tr
i
ni t
! !
. .
y
ve
i
R
!
.
!
.
r
s
az o
er
sa s
pa
n
o
!
.
!
.
! Ri v
.
B
am
Le
L
! er
.
ve
Ri
Ri
!
.
r
!
.
!
.
r
v
!
.
!
.
0
Ü
25
!
.
!
.
!
.
!
.
! Col
. o
50
rado
Ri v
er
Miles
Woodbine Aquifer Outcrop
Average annual recharge (in/yr)
Woodbine Aquifer Downdip
0.20 - 0.75
Trinity Aquifer Outcrop
0.75 - 1.25
Trinity Aquifer Downdip
1.25 - 2.50
Active Model Boundary
2.50 - 3.75
County Boundary
52
State Boundary
Mullican &
Associates
3.75 - 5.50
!
.
USGS gage (perennial, >10 years unregulated data)
River
Reservoir
er
R i ve r
Texas
Re d
!
.
!
.
Arkansas
Louisiana
53. Base-Case Recharge Model
Texas
Oklahoma
0
Ü
25
50
Miles
Woodbine Aquifer Outcrop
Average Recharge (in/yr)
Trinity Aquifer Outcrop
53
0.5 - 1
County Boundary
Mullican &
Associates
0 - 0.5
Active Model Boundary
1-2
State Boundary
2-3
3-4
4 - 5.4
Arkansas
Louisiana
54. Conceptual Water Balance
Region
North
Central
South
TOTAL
54
Mullican &
Associates
Shallow Recharge
(acre-feet/year)
1,012,300
548,901
348,158
1,909,360
Percent of Precip
10.6%
4.6%
1.8%
Confined Flow (1)
acre-feet/year
75,000 - 140,000
120,000 - 168,000
78,000 - 120,000
273,000 - 428,000
Percent of Precip
0.8 % - 1.4 %
1 % - 1.4 %
0.4 % - 0.6 %
65. Implementation
Younger
Sediments
Wo
o
Fr
ed
Total Model Grid Cells = 12,696,704
Active Model Gris Cells = 4,818,240
65
Mullican &
Associates
db
ine
Layer 1
Aq
u
if e
r
eri Was
ck h i
sb t a/
ur
gG
ro
up
Pa
s
lu x
yA
Gl
qu
en
ife
Ro
r
se
Fo
rm
at
io
He
n
ns
e ll
Aq
Pe
ui
fe
ar
r
sa
ll F
or
ma
t io
n
Ho
ss
to
nA
qu
if e
r
Layer 2
Layer 3
Layer 4
Layer 5
Layer 6
Layer 7
Layer 8
66. Draft Conceptual Model Report
• Report submitted to meet
and surpass TWDB
standards
• Geodatabase consistent
with GAM Standards
• Appendices
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
66
Mullican &
Associates
GCD Database
Bibliography of Historical Reports
Stratigraphic Cross-sections
Aquifer Test Plots and Analyses
Summary of Historical Development of
Aquifers
Historical Hydrographs
Stream Discharge and Baseflow Plots
Historical Pumping Estimates
Geodatabase
Structure Visulaization Tool
67. Comments Received
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
67
Texas Water Development Board (TWDB)
United States Geological Survey (USGS)
Mullican and Associates
Dennis Erinakes (Prairielands)
Mike Massey (Upper Trinity)
Collier Consulting (North Texas)
WBarW (Clearwater)
Mullican &
Associates
71. Path Forward
• All draft conceptual model report comments
will be documented and a final report
submitted.
• Model construction and calibration is ongoing
• Plan to have the draft steady-state and
transient models in late April of 2014.
71
Mullican &
Associates