20ogallala%20gam%20rev%2001
DESCRIPTION
http://panhandlewater.org/pwpg_notices/2010/Northern%20Ogallala%20GAM%20Rev%2001.pdfTRANSCRIPT
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)
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
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
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