• Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Be the first to comment
No Downloads

Views

Total Views
346
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0

Actions

Shares
Downloads
5
Comments
0
Likes
1

Embeds 0

No embeds

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
    No notes for slide

Transcript

  • 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
  • 2. Study Region 2 Mullican & Associates
  • 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
  • 4. Districts in Model Area 4 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
  • 6. Project Organization Inter-Local Agreement North Texas GCD Northern Trinity GCD Prairielands GCD Upper Trinity GCD Mullican & Associates 6 Mullican & Associates
  • 7. NTWO Project Execution Mullican and Associates Contract Management – Technical Reviews Stakeholder Processes 7 Mullican & Associates TWDB Liaison
  • 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
  • 18. Conceptual Model Review 18 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
  • 20. Hydrostratigaphic Framework 20 Mullican & Associates
  • 21. Hydrostratigraphic Framework • Hydrostratigraphic Framework • • • Aquifer surfaces, Lithology, Depositional environments • Correlation methods and software are state-of-theart • • 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 21 Mullican & Associates
  • 22. Structure / Lithologic Control Update NTW GAM 1498 Logs collected 1,302 Correlated Lithology developed for all logs 22 Mullican & Associates
  • 23. Hydrostratigraphic Units (HSUs) 23 Mullican & Associates
  • 24. Cross Section Base Map Type Log Location 24 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
  • 26. Paluxy Hydrostratigraphic Unit Percent Sand 26 Mullican & Associates Depositional Environments
  • 27. Aquifer Properties 27 Mullican & Associates
  • 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
  • 32. Local Data Control Aquifer Tests and Specific Capacity Tests 32 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
  • 37. Paluxy Hydrostratigraphic Unit Oklahoma ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 0 Ü 20 ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !!!! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! !!!! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !!! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!!! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !!! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !!! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! !! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 40 ! ! Miles Woodbine Aquifer Boundary Conductivity Paluxy Trinity Aquifer Boundary Active Model Boundary (ft/d) 0 - 0.8 County Boundary 37 Mullican & Associates 0.9 - 1.1 State Boundary ! ! !! ! 1.1 - 1.2 Well Log 1.2 - 1.5 1.5 - 2.3 2.3 - 4.7 ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! Texas ! ! ! ! Arkansas Louisiana Hydraulic Conductivity (feet/day) 13 Excellent Aquifer Tests with Lithology Provide for 671 Estimates of Hydraulic Conductivity (feet/day)
  • 38. Hydraulic Heads and Groundwater Flow 38 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
  • 42. Predevelopment Water Levels Courtesy of Robert Mace 42 Mullican & Associates
  • 43. Flowing Wells Ü Ok Te 0 25 50 Miles ! . ! Woodbine Aquifer Outcrop la a h om !! ! !!! . ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! !! ! ! ! !!!! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! . ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! !! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!!!! ! ! ! ! ! . . ! ! ! !! ! ! ! . . ! ! ! ! ! . ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! . . !! ! ! . . . ! . ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! . ! ! ! !! ! ! Woodbine Aquifer Downdip Trinity Aquifer Outcrop Trinity Aquifer Downdip Active Model Boundary County Boundary State Boundary 43 Mullican & Associates ! xas ! ! Arkansas Louisiana ! TWDB groundwater database ! . ! ! ! ! ! Trinity Aquifer ! . Woodbine Aquifer Hill (1901) - approx. locations ! Trinity Aquifer ! Woodbine Aquifer
  • 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)
  • 45. Location of Long-Term Hydrographs 45 Mullican & Associates 904 Long-term calibration hydrographs
  • 46. Location of Long-Term Hydrographs 46 Mullican & Associates
  • 47. Example Long-Term Hydrograph 47 Mullican & Associates
  • 48. Water Level Decline – Hosston 1950 48 Mullican & Associates
  • 49. Water Level Decline – Hosston 2010 49 Mullican & Associates
  • 50. Aquifer Water Balance – Recharge / Discharge 50 Mullican & Associates
  • 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 %
  • 55. Water Quality 55 Mullican & Associates
  • 56. Extent of 1,000 ppm 56 Mullican & Associates
  • 57. Historical Pumping 57 Mullican & Associates
  • 58. Historical Pumping Tarrant Co. 25,000 Pumpage (AFY) 20,000 Tarrant County Historical Pumpage Trinity Aquifer 15,000 10,000 5,000 0 1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 Year 58 Mullican & Associates RD (Calculated) IND (Nordstrom, 1982) IND GCD IRR (Calculated) IRR (Nordstrom, 1982) IRR TWDB MAN TWDB MIN TWDB MIN (Nicot, 2011) MUN (George & Rose, 1942) MUN (Leggat, 1957) MUN (Nordstrom, 1982) MUN TWDB MUN GCD PWR TWDB STK (Calculated) STK TWDB LBG Calc Total Nordstrom (1982) Total TWDB Total GCD Total Dutton Total
  • 59. Pumpage (AFY) Historical Pumping Tarrant Co. 59 Mullican & Associates
  • 60. Historical Pumping Rate (AFY) 60 Mullican & Associates
  • 61. Historical Cumulative Pumping (AF) 61 Mullican & Associates
  • 62. Conceptual Framework and Implementation 62 Mullican & Associates
  • 63. Predevelopment Conditions A Younger Strata Wood bine A’ Fred e Was ricksbu hita r g/ Pal ux Extent of Fresh Water Flow Direction 63 Mullican & Associates Gle n y Ro se He ns ell Pe Co ars Ha w C allm re Ho me ektt ss to n
  • 64. Post-development Conditions A Younger Strata Wood bine A’ Fred e Was ricksbu hita rg/ Pal Gle n Flow Direction 64 Mullican & Associates uxy Ro se He ns ell Pe Co ars Ha w C allm re Ho me ektt ss to n
  • 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
  • 68. PDF Visualization Tool 68 Mullican & Associates
  • 69. View of Lithology 69 Mullican & Associates
  • 70. Limestone removed from Boreholes 70 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
  • 72. Project Schedule 72 Mullican & Associates
  • 73. 73 Mullican Mullican &Associates & Associates