Modeling Committee Advisory Meeting Northern Ogallala Aquifer GAM

A Presentation To:

Presented By:

January 19, 2010

Panhandle Regional Planning Commission

2

Presentation Outline

Update of Northern Ogallala GAMModel UpdatesCalibration

• Steady-State model• Transient model

Baseline Simulation (2010-2060)Revised Ogallala – Regional Availability Calculations

Comparison of GAM (2004) to GAM (2010)Reporting

3

Model Updates

Updated Structure Model WideNew base aquifer picks

• North Plains, Panhandle, and Hemphill Groundwater Conservation Districts, Canadian River Water Municipal Water Authority, the City of Amarillo, Mesa Water Inc. and Dr. Alan Dutton

Updated Hydraulic PropertiesNew estimates of K from

• City of Amarillo, Mesa Water Inc., and Panhandle Groundwater Conservation District

• Carson, Potter and Roberts Counties

4

Model Revision -Pumping Pumping Revision

Historical Pumping1950 through 2008

Predictive Pumping2009-2060

Pumping allocationImproved Data Sources – Irrigation, Municipal, LivestockImproved Grid Allocation – Irrigation, Municipal, Livestock, Mining, Industrial, Rural/Domestic

5

Pumping by CategoryPumping Time Series – 1950-2060

1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060Year

0

250,000

500,000

750,000

1,000,000

1,250,000

1,500,000

1,750,000

Pum

page

(AFY

)

IrrigationTotal non-irrigationTotal

Average Demand 2010-20601,303,482 AFY

6

Pumping by CategoryPumping Time Series – 1950-2060

1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060Year

0

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

60,000

70,000

80,000

90,000

100,000

110,000

Pum

page

(AFY

)

MunicipalManufacturingCombined Stock and Rural DomesticStockRural DomesticMiningPower

7

Recharge and Return FlowModel Revision - Recharge

Current recharge model is representative of “steady-state” conditionsThe current model is broadly consistent with

The BEGs recharge work using CMB MethodIsotope studies and estimates travel times

Natural recharge is of minor importance to future resource planning at current development volumesWe will maintain the current model and review the recharge distribution for changes during calibration based upon hydraulic conductivity dataReturn flow has apparently not been included in the 2004 GAM or GAM runs since the 2001 GAM

8

Model Calibration

CalibrationSteady State (Pre-1950)Transient (1950-2008)

Path Forward Last MeetingCalibration will start with a review of residuals and an assessment of model calibration against previous GAMInitial parameter exploration will start with hydraulic conductivityInclude flow balance and stream targets as calibration targets

9

New Model CalibrationSteady-State Model Calibration

Steady‐State ModelMetric Dutton (2004) GAM (2010)Number of Targets 1280 1152Target Range (ft) 2360 2349.7Mean Error (ft) 6.8 10.3Mean Absolute Error (MAE‐ft) 23 21.8MAE / Range (%) 1.0% 0.9%Root Mean Square Error (RMSE ‐ ft) 32.2 29.3

10

New Model CalibrationSteady-State Residuals

Residuals (ft) -95 to -50 -50 to -25 -25 to -10 -10 to 10 10 to 25 25 to 50 50 to 160 160 to 1000001DRYOgallala North Residuals for Steady-State (Revised Model)

11

New Model Calibration1998 Transient Calibration

Transient Model ‐ 1998Metric Dutton (2004) GAM (2010)Number of Targets 762Target Range (ft) 2191 2249.3Mean Error (ft) 10.9 8.6Mean Absolute Error (MAE‐ft) 35.8 32.6MAE / Range (%) 1.6% 1.4%Root Mean Square Error (RMSE ‐ ft) 52.8 44.9

12

New Model Calibration1998 Residuals

Residuals (ft) -191 to -50 -50 to -25 -25 to -10 -10 to 10 10 to 25 25 to 50 50 to 198Ogallala North Residuals for 1998 (Revised Model)

13

New Model Calibration2007-2008 Transient Calibration

Transient Model ‐ 1998 Compared to 2007Metric 1998 2007Number of Targets 762 963Target Range (ft) 2249.3 2215.8Mean Error (ft) 8.6 9.4Mean Absolute Error (MAE‐ft) 32.6 26.7MAE / Range (%) 1.4% 1.2%Root Mean Square Error (RMSE ‐ ft) 44.9 35.6

14

New Model Calibration2007-08 Residuals

Residuals (ft) -111 to -50 -50 to -25 -25 to -10 -10 to 10 10 to 25 25 to 50 50 to 221Ogallala North Residuals for 2007 (Revised Model)

15

New Model CalibrationSelected Hydrographs

16

New Model CalibrationSelected Hydrographs

17

New Model CalibrationSelected Hydrographs

18

Planning Support Forward Simulations

Simulation Purpose

Baseline(Includes updated demands)

Estimate groundwater availability with current locations

Regional Availability Determine available groundwater given regional availability criteria

Available Supplies Estimate groundwater available to IRR and MUN

Developed at the Modeling Committee Meeting on August 7th, 2009

19

2010 GAM -New Demands Baseline Simulation

Performed with the 2010 GAMNew historical pumping

1999-2008New projected pumping demands

2010 through 2060

20

2004 GAM -New Demands Saturated Thickness - 2000

3800000 4000000 4200000 4400000 4600000 4800000 5000000

Easting (ft)

21000000

21200000

21400000

21600000

21800000

Nor

thin

g (ft

)

SaturatedThickness (ft)

-1000000 to 0 0 to 50 50 to 100 100 to 150 150 to 200 200 to 250 250 to 300 300 to 350 350 to 400 400 to 450 450 to 500 500 to 700 700 to 1001000

Ogallala North SaturatedThickness for 2000

Dry Cell

Inactive Cell

21

2010 GAM -New Demands Saturated Thickness - 2030

3800000 4000000 4200000 4400000 4600000 4800000 5000000

Easting (ft)

21000000

21200000

21400000

21600000

21800000

Nor

thin

g (ft

)

SaturatedThickness (ft)

-1000000 to 0 0 to 50 50 to 100 100 to 150 150 to 200 200 to 250 250 to 300 300 to 350 350 to 400 400 to 450 450 to 500 500 to 700 700 to 1001000

Ogallala North SaturatedThickness for 2030

Dry Cell

Inactive Cell

22

2010 GAM -New Demands Saturated Thickness - 2060

3800000 4000000 4200000 4400000 4600000 4800000 5000000

Easting (ft)

21000000

21200000

21400000

21600000

21800000

Nor

thin

g (ft

)

SaturatedThickness (ft)

-1000000 to 0 0 to 50 50 to 100 100 to 150 150 to 200 200 to 250 250 to 300 300 to 350 350 to 400 400 to 450 450 to 500 500 to 700 700 to 1001000

Ogallala North SaturatedThickness for 2060

Dry Cell

Inactive Cell

23

2010 GAM -New Demands Baseline Simulation – WIP (AF)

190 Million AF

179 Million AF

24

2010 GAM -New Demands Baseline Demand vs Pumping

Baseline Demand

Baseline Pumped

Total Average AnnualCase Volume (AF) Volume (AF/Y)

Baseline Demand 66,477,581 1,303,482 Basline Simulation 54,165,830 1,062,075

25

Regional Availability Regional Availability – 2010 GAM

26

Availability Versus Baseline

Total Average AnnualCase Volume (AF) Volume (AF/Y)

Baseline Demand 66,477,581 1,303,482 Basline Simulation 54,165,830 1,062,075

Availability Simulation 141,841,714 2,781,210

Baseline Demand

Baseline Pumped

Regional Availability

27

Schedule

Pumping updates (Complete)Update model base (Complete)Review/Update recharge and properties (Complete)Perform post-audit (Complete)Planning Simulations (Complete)Recalibration – (Complete)Prediction – (Complete)Reporting – (Draft Report January 31, 2010)