GMA 8 Northern Trinity Woodbine GAM Update: Bill Mullican and Van Kelley

1 Mullican &Associates October 29, 2013

Presented By:

In Association With:

Mullican &Associates

Update of the Northern Trinity/WoodbineGroundwater Availability Model

Presented To:

Texas Alliance of Groundwater Districts

2 Mullican &Associates

Study Region


Projected Population

State Water Plan – TWDB, 2012

• Priority Groundwater Management Area

• Greatest water level declines in the state

• Population projected to increase greater than 100 % in next 50 years


Districts in Model Area


“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,…”

Texas Water Code § 36.108 (p)


Project Organization

Inter-LocalAgreementNorth Texas GCD

Northern Trinity GCDPrairielands GCD

Upper Trinity GCD

Mullican &Associates


Contract Management –

Technical Reviews

TWDB LiaisonStakeholder Processes

Mullican and Associates

NTWO Project Execution


Contract Management Committee

Technical Advisory Committee

TWDB GAM Program

NTWO Project Execution Elements


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


Project Schedule and GMA Schedule

2013 20152014 2016

GAM Development

8/14

GMA-8 DFC Development

4/16

TWDB MAG

90

2017


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


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


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


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


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

IThe conceptual model dictates how we translate the “real world” to the mathematical model.


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

1/4 mile

1 mile

5 mile


From Eberts and others, 1998

Conceptual Groundwater Flow System

Groundwater flow systems are hierarchal

Vertical Scale Issues – Also Important


Conceptual Model Review


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


HydrostratigaphicFramework


Hydrostratigraphic Framework

• Hydrostratigraphic Framework• Aquifer surfaces,• Lithology,• Depositional environments

• Correlation methods and software are state-of-the-art• Using PETRA© which is the oil and gas industry standard• All methods, logs and data will be documented and available to

the public for further use• Hydrostratigraphy provides a framework for

estimation of hydraulic properties


Structure / Lithologic Control

Update NTW GAM1498 Logs collected1,302 CorrelatedLithology developed for all logs


Hydrostratigraphic Units (HSUs)


Cross Section Base Map

Type Log Location


100 mi0

HillMcLennan DallasEllis Denton Grayson Fannin LamarCln

Woodbine

WashitaFred’burg

Paluxy

Glen Rose

Pearsall

Hosston

2000

ft

Strike Cross Section – South to North


Paluxy Hydrostratigraphic UnitPercent Sand

Depositional Environments


Aquifer Properties


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 hydrostratigraphicunits (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


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)


Pumping Tests from PWS, Literature and GCDs

Public Water Supply Well Number

In TCEQ Database 4530

Identified Pumping Tests 1010Reliable Pumping Tests with WellScreen Information 820

Good Tests that Meet QA/QC 340

Literature & GCD Tests 160


Specific Capacity Data from Well Driller Logs

Metric NumberTotal 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


Aquifer Tests and Specific Capacity Tests

Local Data Control


GHS Case ExampleDetermining Litho-Units Kh Values based on Matching Measured Kh from Seven Aquifer Tests using ThreeLithologic Unit Classifications

Clay Sand

Fine Sand

Gravelly Sand

1.6 6.2 8.4

Est. Kh (ft/d) for Litho-Units

Clayey Fine Gravelly 1 4.02 40 1 20 3.91 0.11 3%2 2.59 50 30 1 3.37 -0.77 -30%3 6.76 25 10 50 6.15 0.61 9%4 2.89 60 20 10 3.37 -0.48 -16%5 6.71 20 20 45 6.29 0.42 6%6 6.29 10 60 35 6.49 -0.20 -3%7 9.22 5 5 80 7.93 1.29 14%

Test 1:

Aquifer Test

Measured Kh (ft/d)

Length (ft) of Sand Litho-

Kh Error = Measured Kh - Fitted Kh = 4.02 - 3.91 = 0.11

Fitted Kh = {(40 * 1.6)+(1*6.2)+(20*8.4)}/61 = 3.9

Fitted Kh

(ft/d) Kh Error

(ft/d) Kh Error

(%)

GHS allows estimation of hydraulic conductivity at all location where you know lithology


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

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

Tot_

L=

61 ft

Calculating Kh at each of the 35 Geophysical Log Locations

Kh = Arithematic Average


Hydr. Prop. / Case ExampleCalculating Kv at each of the 35 Geophysical Log Locations

Kv =L1 + L2 + L3

L1/Kv1 + L2/Kv2 + L3/Kv3

= 6140/0.016 + 1/0.062 + 20/0.084

= 0.022 ft/d

Assumption: For all Litho-Units Kv = 0.01 * Kh


Lithologic and Property Control

Woodbine 80 16 406Fredericksburg 21 10 587Paluxy 44 13 671Glen Rose 65 17 749Hensell 51 9 782Pearsall 73 21 797Hosston 166 65 784Total 500 151 4776

Hydrostratigraphic Unit

Number of Geophysical Logs

Number of Aquifer Pumping

Tests

Number of Aquifer Pumping Tests

(Filtered)

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


Paluxy Hydrostratigraphic Unit

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!!!

!

!

!!

! !

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!!!!

!!

!!

!!!

! !

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!!

!!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!!

!

!!

!!

!

!

!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!! !

!

!!

!! !

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!!

!!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!!

!

!

!!!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

Texa

s

Oklahoma

Arkansas

Louisiana

0 4020

Miles

Woodbine Aquifer BoundaryTrinity Aquifer BoundaryActive Model BoundaryCounty BoundaryState Boundary

! Well Log

ÜConductivity Paluxy(ft/d)

0 - 0.80.9 - 1.11.1 - 1.21.2 - 1.51.5 - 2.32.3 - 4.7

Hydraulic Conductivity

(feet/day)

13 Excellent Aquifer Tests with Lithology Provide for 671 Estimates

of Hydraulic Conductivity (feet/day)


Hydraulic Heads and Groundwater Flow


Hydraulic Heads & Groundwater Flow

• 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


Multi-Completed Wells & Nomenclature

34,863 locations where we have calibration water level information of a total of 45,595 possible locations


Multi-Completed Wells & Nomenclature

HSU Terminology Used to Express Water Source forWells Completed Across Multiple HSUs in the Trinity Group

Paluxy Aquifer

Glen Rose Formation

Hensell Aquifer

Pearsall Formation

Hosston Aquifer

upper-middleTrinityaquifer middle-

lowerTrinityaquifer

TrinityGroup

Henselland

Hosstonaquifers

upperTrinityaquifer

lowerTrinityaquifer

middleTrinityaquifer


Predevelopment Water Levels

Courtesy of Robert Mace


!!!

!!

!! !!!!

!

!!!

!! !! !!!! !!!!!! !! !!!

!

! !!!!!! ! ! !

!!! !! !! !! ! !! !!!!! !! !! !! !! !

! !! !!!!!

!!! !!! ! !!! !

! ! ! !!! !!! !!! ! ! !!!! !! !!! !!!! !!!! ! !!! !!!! ! ! ! !!! ! !!! ! !!! ! !!!! !! ! !!! ! ! !! !!! ! !!!! !!

!! !!! !! !!!!! !! ! !! !!! ! !! !! !!! !!! ! !!!!!! ! !! ! !! !!! !!!! !! !!! ! !!!!! !! ! !! !!! ! !! !! !!

!! !! !! !!! !!! !!!! ! ! ! !! !! !! !! !

! !!!!!!!!

!!! !!

! !!!!!! !!! !! ! !!! ! !! ! ! !

!!!!!!!

!!!

!!

!! !!!!

!

!!!

!! !! !!!! !!!!!! !! !!!

!

! !!!! ! !

!!! !! ! !! !!!!

!! !! !! !

!! !!!

!!! !

! !

! ! !! !!! !!! ! ! !!!! !! !!!! !!!! !! !!!! ! ! ! !!! !!! ! !!! !! !! !! ! !! !!

! !!!!!

!!! !! !! !! !! !! !!! !! ! !! !

!!! !!! ! !!!! !! ! !!

!!!

!! !!

!! !

!!

!!

!!! !!! ! !!!

!!!

!.!.

!.

!.!.!.

!.!.

!.!.!.!.!.!.!.

!.

!. !.

!.

ArkansasLouisiana

0 5025

Miles

ÜO kla h oma

Te x as

Flowing Wells

Woodbine Aquifer OutcropWoodbine Aquifer DowndipTrinity Aquifer OutcropTrinity Aquifer DowndipActive Model BoundaryCounty BoundaryState Boundary

TWDB groundwater database!. Trinity Aquifer!. Woodbine Aquifer

Hill (1901) - approx. locations! Trinity Aquifer! Woodbine Aquifer


Springs

• ~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)EEEE EEEEEEEEEE

EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE EEE EE EEEEEEEEEEE

E EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE EEEE

EEEEE EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

EE EEE EE

E

EEEEEEEEE EEEEEE

EEEE EEE

EEEE

EE E

EE EEE EE

EEEEE

EE

E

EE

E

@@@ @@@@@@@@@@@@@@ @@@@@@@@

@@@@@@@@ @@@ @@ @@@@@@@@@@@@

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ @

@@@@@

@@@@ @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ @@@@@@@

@@@@@ @

@

@

@@@@@@@@@ @@@@@ @@@

@@@@ @@@

@@@@

@@

@@@@ @

@ @@@

@@@

@@

@

@@

@

B

B#BBB

BB BB # B#B B#BB

BBBB### B B #B##

B#

BBB BB B

BB BBB B BB# ##BB ##BBB ## # BBB BB #

#BB BB BBB

#B B #BB

B BB BBB B

BB ###B## ## # B

##BB# BB #B# B ##B## B# B #

ArkansasLouisiana

0 5025

Miles

ÜO kla h oma

Te xa s


TWDB Springs@ Alluvium@ Woodbine Aquifer@ Fred./Washita Grps@ Trinity Aquifer@ unknown

USGS SpringsE AlluviumE Fred./Washita GrpsE Trinity AquiferE unknown

Brune Springs (approx. locations)# AlluviumB Austin GrpB Woodbine AquiferB Fred./Washita GrpsB Trinity Aquifer# lower Cretaceous# unknown


Location of Long-Term Hydrographs

904 Long-term calibration hydrographs


Location of Long-Term Hydrographs


Example Long-Term Hydrograph


Water Level Decline – Hosston 1950


Water Level Decline – Hosston 2010


Aquifer Water Balance –Recharge / Discharge


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


Baseflow (in/yr) ≈ Recharge !.

!.

!. !.

!.

!.!.!. !.

!.

!.!.

!.

!.!.

!. !.

!.

!.!.

!.!.

!.

!.

!.

!.!.

!.

!.!.!.!.

!.Te

xas

Oklahoma

Arkansas

Louisiana

Colorado River

Lampasas

Ri v e r

Re d R ive r

B razos R ive r

Le on

Ri ver

L itt l e R iv er

Tr ini t y

Riv er

0 5025

Miles


ÜAverage annual recharge (in/yr)

0.20 - 0.750.75 - 1.251.25 - 2.502.50 - 3.753.75 - 5.50

!. USGS gage (perennial, >10 years unregulated data)RiverReservoir


Base-Case Recharge Model

Texa

s

Oklahoma

Arkansas

Louisiana

0 5025

Miles

Woodbine Aquifer OutcropTrinity Aquifer OutcropActive Model BoundaryCounty BoundaryState Boundary

ÜAverage Recharge (in/yr)

0 - 0.5 0.5 - 11 - 22 - 33 - 44 - 5.4


Conceptual Water Balance

Region Shallow Recharge Percent of Precip Confined Flow (1) Percent of Precip(acre-feet/year) acre-feet/year

North 1,012,300 10.6% 75,000 - 140,000 0.8 % - 1.4 %Central 548,901 4.6% 120,000 - 168,000 1 % - 1.4 %South 348,158 1.8% 78,000 - 120,000 0.4 % - 0.6 %

TOTAL 1,909,360 273,000 - 428,000


Water Quality


Extent of 1,000 ppm


Historical Pumping


Historical Pumping Tarrant Co.

1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010Year

0

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

Pum

page

(AFY

)

RD (Calculated)IND (Nordstrom, 1982)IND GCDIRR (Calculated)IRR (Nordstrom, 1982)IRR TWDBMAN TWDBMIN TWDB

MIN (Nicot, 2011)MUN (George & Rose, 1942)MUN (Leggat, 1957)MUN (Nordstrom, 1982)MUN TWDBMUN GCDPWR TWDB

STK (Calculated)STK TWDBLBG Calc TotalNordstrom (1982) TotalTWDB TotalGCD TotalDutton Total

Tarrant CountyHistorical Pumpage

Trinity Aquifer


Historical Pumping Tarrant Co.Pu

mpa

ge(A

FY)


Historical Pumping Rate (AFY)


Historical Cumulative Pumping (AF)


Conceptual Framework and Implementation


Hosston

WoodbineFredericksburg/

Washita

Paluxy

Glen Rose

HensellPearsall-Cow Creek-

Hammett

Younger Strata

A

A’

Extent of Fresh Water

Flow Direction

Predevelopment Conditions


Hosston

WoodbineFredericksburg/

Washita

Paluxy

Glen Rose

HensellPearsall-Cow Creek-

Hammett

Younger Strata

A

A’

Flow Direction

Post-development Conditions


Layer 2

Layer 3

Layer 4

Layer 5

Layer 6

Layer 7

YoungerSediments

Woodbine Aquifer

Glen Rose Formation

Paluxy Aquifer

Hensell Aquifer

Layer 1

Layer 8

Washita/

Fredericksburg Groups

Pearsall FormationHosston Aquifer

Implementation

Total Model Grid Cells = 12,696,704Active Model Gris Cells = 4,818,240


Draft Conceptual Model Report• Report submitted to meet

and surpass TWDB standards

• Geodatabase consistent with GAM Standards

• Appendices• 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


Comments Received

• 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)


PDF Visualization Tool


View of Lithology


Limestone removed from Boreholes


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.


Project Schedule


Mullican& Associates

Technology

GMA 8 Northern Trinity Woodbine GAM Update: Bill Mullican and Van Kelley