SAF2 Bolson GAM pdf€¦ · McCU LOCH B AN CO HA RISO N EPH AN GEL I A C L CO LOR ADO A F D KAU FMA...
101
Transcript of SAF2 Bolson GAM pdf€¦ · McCU LOCH B AN CO HA RISO N EPH AN GEL I A C L CO LOR ADO A F D KAU FMA...
PEC OS
W EBB
BR EW STER
H UD SPET H
PRESID IO
REEVES
CU LBER SON
VAL VERD E
DU VAL
TER R ELL
C R OC K ETT
KEN ED Y
FRIO
H ARR IS
H I LL
BELL
BEE
C LAY
POLK
ED W ARD S
J EFF D AVIS
KER R
GAIN ES
LEON
U VALD E
H ALE
D ALLAM
IR ION
D IMMIT
LAMB
KIN G
BEXARKIN N EY
STAR R
H ALL
W ISEJ AC K
U PTON
HID ALGO
S U TTON
C ASS
OLD H AM
ELLIS
MEDIN A
KIMBLE
Z AVALA
KEN T
R U SK
LEE
LYNN
GR AY
COKE
L A SALLE
MILAM
ER ATH
HAR TLEY
HU N T
BR AZO R IA
SMITH
KN OX
FLOYD
LLAN O
A N DR EW S
TYLER
TR AVISLIBERTY
JON ES
N U ECES
R EA GAN
BOW IE
W AR D
ZAPATA
LAMAR
R EAL
N OLAN
TER R Y GA R ZA
MILLS
C OLEMAN
EC TOR
TOM GR EEN
MASON
YOU N G
FALLS
C AMER ON
MAT AGOR DA
H AYS
BR OW N
C OOKE
JASPER
D EAF SMITH
BUR N ET
M AVERIC K
H OU STON
LAVACA
FISH ER
C OLLIN
MOOR E
FANN IN
M OTLEY
MAR TIN
L IVE OAK
D ALLAS
EL PASO
BAILEY
B OSQU E
H AR D IN
KLEBER G
JIM H OGG
TAYLOR
C OT TLE
POTTER
D ON LEY
GOLIAD
SAN SABA
ATASC OSA
D EN TON
COR YELLCR AN E
CON C HO
BAYLOR
DE W ITT
BR OOKS
PAR KER
R U NN ELS
N AVAR R O
ARC H ER
CAR SON
CASTR O
W OOD
SC U RR Y
C R OSBY
FAYETTE
Mc MULL EN
W HAR TON
BORD EN
C ALHOU N
SH ELBY
MEN ARD
GILLESPIE
PAR MER
W ILSON
D IC KEN S
SC H LEIC H ER
GR IMES
F OARD
PAN OLA
H ASKELL
BR ISC OE
R AN D ALL
DAW SON
MID LAN D
H OWAR D
Mc LEN NAN
GON ZALES
GR AYSON RED R IVER
SWISH ER
R OBER TS
H OCKLE Y
AN D ER SON
TARR AN T
W ALKER
L U BBOC K
VIC TORIA
BASTR OP J EFFER SON
SH ER MAN
W H EELER
MITC HELL
YOAKU M
STER LIN GWIN KL ER
TR IN ITY
H EMPH ILL
W ILBA R-GER
COMAN -CHE
WA
LLER
KAR N ES
LIPSC OMB
J AC KSON
W ILLIAMSON
R EFUG IO
W ILLAC Y
LOVING
AU STIN
EASTLAN D
H OPKIN S
Mc CU LL OCH
BLAN C O
H AR RISONSTEPHEN S
ANGELIN A
C ALLAH AN
C OLOR AD O
HAN SFOR D
KAU FMAN
BAN D ER A
PALO PINTO
MON T AGU E
H AMILTO N
OCH ILTR EE
C OM AL
LIMEST ON ESABIN E
COC H RAN
FOR T BEN D
CH AMBER S
VAN ZAN D T
WIC H ITA
J OH N SON
STONEW ALL
H EN DER SON
TITUS
FR EESTON E
MON TG OMER Y
HOOD
KEN D ALL
BR AZ OS
GALVESTON
U P SH U R
H UTC H INSON
LAMPAS AS
BU R LESON
H AR D EMAN
GU ADALU PE
CH ILD -RE SS
AR M-STRON G
GLAS S-COCK
N AC OG-D OC HES
MARION
C ALD W ELL
MAD ISON
ORAN GE
D ELTA
R AIN S
GRE GG
C AMP
MO
RR
IS
FR
ANKLIN
ROCK -WA LL
C OLLI NGS -W ORTH
THR OCK-MOR TON
S OM E R-V E L
SANAUGUS -
TI NE
S ANJ AC IN TO
J IMW ELLS
S HA CKEL-FOR D
C HE RO-KE E
NEW
TON
ROBE RT-SON
WA SH IN G-TON
ARA N-SASSAN
PATR IC I O
80
79
67
78
85
82
6876
69
81
75
77
87
71
72
73
74
84
86
83
46
47
66
53
45
54
56
50
65
38
64
41
51
16
59
42
49
39
63
48
40
61 57
44
37 55
58
62
43
60
52
36
70
29
6
14
17
35
15
9
25
3328
8
7
12
3
345
26
32
30
23
21 10
11
27
20
18
22
19
24
13
2
31
4
1
PECOS
WEBB
BREWSTER
HUDSPETH
PR ESIDIO
REEVES
CULBERSON
VAL VERDE
DUVAL
TERR ELL
CROCKETT
FRI O
HARRIS
HILL
BELL
BEE
KENEDY
CLAY
POLK
ED WARDS
JEFF DAVI S
GAINES
LEON
KERR
UVALDE
HALE
DALLAM
KI NG
IRION
LAMB
DIMMI T
BEXARKI NNEY
STARR
HALL
JACK
CASS
WISE
SU TTON
OLDHAM
HIDALGO
ELLI S
UPTON
ZAVALA
MEDI NA
KI MBLE
RUSK
LEE
LYNN KEN T
GRAY
LA SALLE
COKE
MILAM
ERATH
HARTLEY
HUNT
SMITH
KN OX
FLOYD
LLANO
TYLER
BR AZORIA
AN DREWS
TRAVI S LIBERTY
REAGAN
JONES
ZAPATA
LAMAR
BOWI E
NUECES
WARD
REAL
NOLAN
TERR Y GARZA
COLEMAN
MILLS
EC TOR
YO UNG
TOM GREEN
MASON
FALLS
MAVERICK
BU RNET
HAYS
DEAF SMITH
JASPER
LAVACA
HOUSTON
COOKE
FISHER
BROW N
COLLIN
MOORE
MOTLEY
FANN IN
MARTIN
EL PASO
BAI LEY
DALLAS
LIVE O AK
BOSQUE
HARDIN
JIM HO GG
TAYLOR
CAMERON
PO TTER
GOLIAD
CRANE
COTTLE
DONLEY
ATASCOSA
SAN SABA
DENTON
CORYELL
BAYLOR
CONC HO
BROOKS
RUNNELS
PARKER
NAVARRO
ARCHER
DE WI TT
CARSON
SCURRY
MATAGO RDA
CROSBY
KLEBERG
FAYETTE
SH ELBY
WOOD
CASTRO
BORDEN
MENARD
WHARTON
NEWTON
PAR MER
GILLESPIE
MCMULLEN
DICKENS
SCHLEI CHER
FO ARD
HASKELL
PANOLA
GRIMES
MIDLAND
WILSON
RANDALL
BR ISCOESWISHER
DAWSON
GRAYSON
GONZALES
HOW ARD
RED RI VER
ROBERTS
HOCKLEY
TARR ANT
ANDERSON
MCLENNAN
LUBBO CK
CALHO UN
CHEROKEE
VI CTORI A
BASTRO P
WALKER
SHERMAN
YO AKUM
MITCH ELL
STERLING
HEMPHI LL
WHEELER
KARNES
TRI NITY
WINKLER
JACKSON
LIPSCOMB
LOVI NG
WILLIAMSON
AUSTI N
EASTLAND
REFUGIO
HOPKIN S
HARRISON
BLANCO
CALLAHAN
COLORADO
AN GELINA
MCCULLOCH
STEPHENS
WILLACY
JEFFERSO N
KAU FMAN
BAN DERA
HANSFORD
COMANCHE
MONTAGUE
PALO PINTO
JIM WELLS
LIMESTONE
COMAL
HAMI LTON
OCHI LTREE
WILBARGER
SABI NE
COCHRAN
CHAMBERS
FORT BEND
VAN ZANDT
HENDERSON
STO NEWALL
JOHNSON
FREESTON E
MONTGOMERY
GLASSCO CK
KENDALL
TITUS
BRAZO S
HOO D
WICHITA
ARMSTRO NG
UPSHUR
ROBERTSON
HUTCHINSO N
LAMPASAS
CHILDRESS
WA
LLER
NACOG DOC HES
SH ACKELFORD
BURLESON
HARDEMAN
GUADALUPE
GALVESTON
MARI ON
THROCKMORTO N
COLLINGSWO RTH
MADI SON
CALDW ELL
SAN PATR ICIO
SAN JACI NTO
AR ANSAS
WASHINGTON ORANGE
DELTA
RAINS
GREGG
SA
N A
UG
US
T INE
CAMP
MO
RR
IS
FRAN
KLIN
SOMER-VELL
ROCK-WALL
Region F Brazos G
Panhandle
Far West Texas
Region C
East Texas
Region H
Llano Estacado
Plateau
Rio Grande
South Central Texas
Region B
Coastal Bend
Lower Colorado
North East Texas
Lavaca
P
D
K
N
B
M
L
J
O
H
I
C
E
A
GF
Groundwater Groundwater Availability ModelingAvailability Modeling
Contract ManagerContract ManagerTed AngleTed Angle
Texas Water Development Board
• Purpose: to develop tools that can be used to help GCDs, RWPGs, and others assess groundwater availability.
• Public process: you get to see how the model is put together.
• Freely available: standardized, thoroughly documented, and available over the internet.
• Living tools: periodically updated.
GAMGAM
• Managed available groundwater (MAG)…the amount of groundwater available for use.
• The State does not directly decide how much groundwater is available for use: GCDs will through GMA process
• A GAM is a tool that can be used to assess groundwater availability once GCDs and GMAs decide on the desired future condition of the aquifer.
What isWhat isgroundwatergroundwater
availability or MAG?availability or MAG?
• Water Code & TWDB rules require that GCDs use GAM information, if available, for their management plans.
• TWDB rules require that RWPGs use managed available groundwater estimates, if developed in time for the planning cycle
Do we haveDo we haveto use GAM?to use GAM?
• The model– predict water levels and flows in response to
pumping and drought– effects of well fields
• Data in the model– water in storage– recharge estimates– hydraulic properties
• GCDs and RWPGs can request runs
How do weHow do weuse GAM?use GAM?
• GCDs, RWPGs, TWDB, and others collect new information on aquifer.
• This information can enhance the current GAMs.
• TWDB plans to update GAMs every five years with new information.
• Please share information and ideas with TWDB on aquifers and GAMs.
LivingLivingtoolstools
• SAF meetings– hear about progress on the model– comment on model assumptions– offer information (timing is important!)
• Report review– at end of project
• Contact TWDB– Ted Angle
Participating inParticipating inthe GAM processthe GAM process
Comments:Comments:Ted AngleTed Angle
[email protected]@twdb.state.tx.us(512) 463(512) 463--38793879
www.twdb.state.tx.us/gamwww.twdb.state.tx.us/gam
22ndnd Stakeholder Advisory Forum Stakeholder Advisory Forum for for
West Texas Bolson GAMWest Texas Bolson GAM
LBG-GUYTON ASSOCIATESin association with
Eddie Collins, Bureau of Economic GeologyBarry Hibbs, California State University, LA
John Shomaker & Associates, Inc.Daniel B. Stephens & Associates, Inc.
Kevin Urbanczyk, Sul Ross State University
May 29, 2007
General Location
Map
Mexico
Location of the West
Texas Bolsons Aquifer
Mexico
Location of the West
Texas Bolsons Aquifer
Mexico
Regional Water
Planning Groups
Mexico
Groundwater Conservation
Districts
Mexico
Groundwater Management
Areas
Mexico
Topography Topography
Mexico
Physiographic Provinces
Mexico
Land Use Land Cover
(USGS)
Mexico
Vegetation (Texas Parks & Wildlife)
Mexico
GAP?
Weather Stations With Historical
Precipitation
Mexico
Precipitation (inches/year)
Mexico
Evaporation(inches/year)
Mexico
SEP0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16m
onth
ly a
vera
ge, i
nche
s
JAN MAR MAY JUL NOV
Evaporation
Precipitation
Van Horn, Texas
SEP
EVAPORATION EXCEEDS PRECIPITATION INDICATINGRECHARGE OCCURS FROM INFILTRATION OF STORM RUNOFF
GeologyGeology
Surface Geology
Mexico
Surface Geology
CrossCross--sectionssections
Mexico
AA--AA’’
BB--BB’’
CC--CC’’
DD--DD’’
EE--EE’’
FF--FF’’
Geologic Geologic FaultingFaulting
Mexico
TopographyTopography• Ground surface is the
top of Layer 1 and 2 as appropriate throughout the model area
Elevation of Elevation of Base of Base of BolsonsBolsons
Bottom of Layer 1Bottom of Layer 1
Thickness Thickness of Bolsonsof Bolsons
Thickness Thickness of Rocks of Rocks
above above BasementBasement
??
Thickness Thickness of Layer 2 of Layer 2
and 3and 3(Cretaceous, Permian, (Cretaceous, Permian,
etc.)etc.)
??
Cretaceous and Permian, etc.Cretaceous and Permian, etc.
• Layer 2 and 3 Structure – Where present, evenly split the total thickness
of Cretaceous and Permian, etc. above the basement rock
– Where not present, assume 1000 feet thickness for basement rock
– Steady-state calibration will be impacted by deeper rocks, but not 50-year water supply
Water Levels Water Levels and and
Regional Groundwater FlowRegional Groundwater Flow
Depth to
Water
Depth to water
(after Darling, 1997)
Depth to Water
Regional Groundwater Flow Paths
D
D
Well InformationWell Information
• TWDB Record of Wells 184• TCEQ central records 41
Water Level DataWater Level Data
Green River Valley Hydrograph
Hydrograph, SWN 5109802, 112GRBL
-30
-25
-20
-15
-10
1960
1962
1964
1966
1968
1970
1972
1974
1976
1978
1980
1982
1984
1986
1988
1990
1992
1994
1996
1998
2000
2002
2004
2006
Year
Dep
th to
Wat
er (F
eet)
Red Light Draw Hydrographs
Hydrograph, SWN 5006301,112RLBL
-328
-326
-324
-322
-320
-318
-316
-314
1960
1962
1964
1966
1968
1970
1972
1974
1976
1978
1980
1982
1984
1986
1988
1990
1992
1994
1996
1998
2000
2002
2004
2006
Year
Dep
th to
Wat
er (f
eet)
Hydrograph, SWN 5016701, 112RLBL
-168
-167
-166
-165
-164
-163
-162
1960
1962
19 64
19 66
1 96 8
1 97 0
19 72
19 74
19 76
1 97 8
19 8 0
19 82
1 9 84
19 86
19 88
1 99 0
1 99 2
1 99 4
19 96
19 98
2 00 0
2 00 2
20 04
20 06
Year
Dep
th to
Wat
er (F
eet)
Eagle Flat Hydrograph
Hydrograph, SWN 4864603, 112EFBL
-168
-167
-166
-165
-164
-163
-162
-161
1960
1962
1 9 64
19 6 6
19 6 8
19 7 0
19 7 2
1 9 74
1 9 76
1 9 78
1 9 80
1 9 82
19 8 4
19 8 6
19 8 8
19 9 0
19 92
1 99 4
1 99 6
1 99 8
2 00 0
20 02
20 04
20 06
Year
Dept
h to
Wat
er (F
eet)
Alluvium HydrographsHydrograph, SWN 5024202,
110ALVM
-55
-50
-45
-40
-35
-30
1960
1962
1964
1966
1968
1970
1972
1974
1976
1978
1980
1982
1984
1986
1988
1990
1992
1994
1996
1998
2000
2002
2004
2006
Year
Dept
h to
Wat
er (F
eet)
Hydrograph, SWN 5015902, 111RGRD
-8-7-6-5-4-3-2-10
1960
196 2
19 64
19 66
1 96 8
1 97 0
19 72
19 74
19 76
1 97 8
1 98 0
19 82
19 84
1 98 6
1 98 8
19 90
199 2
199 4
1 99 6
1 99 8
200 0
200 2
2 004
2 006
Year
Dept
h to
Wat
er (F
eet)
Control points withwater level <1950 date
Water Level Contours
(1972-73)
Control points withwater level <1950 date
Water Level Contours
(1992-93)
RECHARGE METHODS FOR TRANS-PECOS REGIONMethod
1. One-Percent Rule
2. Modified Maxey-Eakin
3. Storm Runoff Infiltration
4. Runoff Redistribution
Reference1. Gates et al. (1978)
2. Mayer (1995)
3. Finch and Armour (2001)
4. Finch and Bennett (2002)Stone et al. (2001)Dunne and Leopold (1978)
RUNOFF RE-DISTRIBUTION METHOD
1. Delineate watershed area and subbasins2. Determine potential recharge from empirical
relationships3. Calculate runoff for each subbasin4. Potential recharge - runoff = subbasin
recharge5. Runoff = potential recharge to bolson
Rain Gauges Used for Recharge Analysis
PRECIPITATION VERSUS ELEVATION
Average Water Year Elev v. Precip
y = 0.0038x - 5.0816R2 = 0.7328
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
24
2,500 2,750 3,000 3,250 3,500 3,750 4,000 4,250 4,500 4,750 5,000 5,250 5,500 5,750 6,000
land surface elevation, ft amsl
aver
age
wat
er y
r pre
cip,
inch
es
Candelaria
Tornillo 2 SSE
FabensSalt Flat CAA
Salt Flat 10 ENEFort Hancock 8 SSE
Van Horn
ValentineValentine 10 WSW
Cornudas SS
El Paso 32 ENE
Pine Springs
DellCity5 SSW
Sierra Blanca 2 E
ANNUAL PRECIPITATION FOR PERIOD OF RECORD (1939 – 2005)FOR VAN HORN WEATHER STATION
Van Horn weather station
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
24
26
28
3019
39
1941
1943
1945
1947
1949
1951
1953
1955
1957
1959
1961
1963
1965
1967
1969
1971
1973
1975
1977
1979
1981
1983
1985
1987
1989
1991
1993
1995
1997
1999
2001
2003
2005
year
annu
al p
reci
pita
tion,
in
ann prcp
5-yr running avg
avg ann prcp
average annual precipitation = 10.52 inches
NO. OF POTENTIAL RUNOFF-GENERATING EVENTS AT VAN HORN WEATHER STATION (1939-2005)
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
1619
39
1941
1943
1945
1947
1949
1951
1953
1955
1957
1959
1961
1963
1965
1967
1969
1971
1973
1975
1977
1979
1981
1983
1985
1987
1989
1991
1993
1995
1997
1999
2001
2003
2005
year
num
ber o
f 24-
hour
sto
rm e
vent
s th
at e
xcee
ded
0.67
inch
es
number of events annually
5-yr running average
avg number of events
1970, 1974, 1975, and 1982-1986 represent missing years (other zero values represent years with no precipitation events exceeding 0.67 inches)
average number of events annually = 3.63
Van Horn weather station
ANNUAL PRECIPITATION FOR PERIOD OF RECORD (1950 – 2000)FOR SIERRA BLANCA 2E WEATHER STATION
Sierra Blanca 2 E weather station
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
2219
50
1952
1954
1956
1958
1960
1962
1964
1966
1968
1970
1972
1974
1976
1978
1980
1982
1984
1986
1988
1990
1992
1994
1996
1998
2000
year
annu
al p
reci
pita
tion,
in
ann prcp
5-yr running avg
avg ann prcpaverage annual precipitation = 11.45 inches
NO. OF POTENTIAL RUNOFF-GENERATING EVENTS AT SIERRA BLANCA 2E WEATHER STATION (1950-2000)
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
1619
50
1952
1954
1956
1958
1960
1962
1964
1966
1968
1970
1972
1974
1976
1978
1980
1982
1984
1986
1988
1990
1992
1994
1996
1998
2000
year
num
ber o
f 24-
hour
sto
rm e
vent
s th
at e
xcee
ded
0.67
inch
es
number of events annually
5-yr running average
avg number of events
1951-1962, 1987, and 1988 represent missing years (other zero values represent years with no precipitation events exceeding 0.67 inches)
average number of events annually = 4.00
Sierra Blanca 2 E weather station
SEP0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16m
onth
ly a
vera
ge, i
nche
s
JAN MAR MAY JUL NOV
Evaporation
Precipitation
Van Horn, Texas
SEP
EVAPORATION EXCEEDS PRECIPITATION INDICATINGRECHARGE OCCURS FROM INFILTRATION OF STORM RUNOFF
POTENTIAL RECHARGEPOTENTIAL RECHARGE
• Coefficient based on multiple linear regression model
• Accounts for evapotranspiration
pptn potential recharge
in/yr in/yr12 0.0016 0.5620 1.408 12 16 20 24 28
average annual precipitation, inches/yr
0.000
0.020
0.040
0.060
0.080
0.100
0.120
0.140
0.160
coef
ficie
nt Nichols (2000)
coefficient
Adjusted Nichols (2000)coefficient
Distribution of Potential Recharge
Calculation of Runoff
(P-Ia)2
Q = (P-Ia)+S
Q = runoffP = precipitation event
(freq. scaled to elevation)S = potential max. retention
after runoff beginsIa = water retained
• SCS Method• Based on precipitation
events rather than total annual precipitation
• Accounts for vegetation type and density, and hydrologic characteristics of soil or rock
MAGNITUDE OF 24-HR PRECIPITATION EVENTSVERSUS ELEVATION
1.00
1.05
1.10
1.15
1.20
1.25
1.30
1.35
1.40
2,500 2,750 3,000 3,250 3,500 3,750 4,000 4,250 4,500 4,750 5,000 5,250 5,500 5,750 6,000
land surface elevation, ft amsl
aver
age
mag
nitu
de o
f pre
cip
even
t > I a
of 0
.67
inch
es
Candelaria
Tornillo 2 SSE
Fabens
Salt Flat CAA
Dell City 5 SSW
Salt Flat 10 ENE
Fort Hancock 8 SSE
Van Horn
Valentine
Valentine 10 WSW
Cornudas SS
Sierra Blanca 2 E
El Paso 32 ENE
Pine Springs
MAGNITUDE OF 24-HR PRECIPITATION EVENTSVERSUS ELEVATION
Average Magnitude of Precip Event > Ia of 1.58 inches
1.60
1.80
2.00
2.20
2.40
2.60
2.80
3.00
2,500 2,750 3,000 3,250 3,500 3,750 4,000 4,250 4,500 4,750 5,000 5,250 5,500 5,750 6,000
land surface elevation, ft amsl
aver
age
mag
nitu
de o
f pre
cip
even
t > I a
of 1
.58
inch
es
Candelaria Tornillo 2 SSE
Fabens
Salt Flat CAA
Dell City 5 SSW
Salt Flat 10 ENE
Fort Hancock 8 SSE
Van Horn
Valentine
Valentine 10 WSW
Cornudas SSSierra Blanca 2 E
El Paso 32 ENE
Pine Springs
FREQUENCY OF 24-HR PRECIPITATION EVENTSVERSUS ELEVATION
Average Annual No. of Precip Events > Ia of 0.67 inches
y = 0.0023x - 5.7469R2 = 0.8057
2.0
2.4
2.8
3.2
3.6
4.0
4.4
4.8
5.2
5.6
6.0
6.4
6.8
7.2
7.6
2,500 2,750 3,000 3,250 3,500 3,750 4,000 4,250 4,500 4,750 5,000 5,250 5,500 5,750 6,000
land surface elevation, ft amsl
aver
age
annu
al n
o. o
f pre
cip
even
ts >
I a o
f 0.6
7 in
ches
Candelaria
Tornillo 2 SSE
Fabens Salt Flat CAA
Dell City 5 SSW
Salt Flat 10 ENE
Fort Hancock 8 SSE
Van Horn
Valentine
Valentine 10 WSW
Cornudas SS
Sierra Blanca 2 E El Paso 32 ENE
Pine Springs
FREQUENCY OF 24-HR PRECIPITATION EVENTSVERSUS ELEVATION
Average Annual No. of Precip Events > Ia of 1.58 inches
y = 0.0004x - 1.2567R2 = 0.7565
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.4
2,500 2,750 3,000 3,250 3,500 3,750 4,000 4,250 4,500 4,750 5,000 5,250 5,500 5,750 6,000
land surface elevation, ft amsl
aver
age
annu
al n
o. o
f pre
cip
even
ts >
I a o
f 1.5
8 in
ches
Candelaria
Tornillo 2 SSE
FabensSalt Flat CAA
Dell City 5 SSW
Salt Flat 10 ENE
Fort Hancock 8 SSE
Van Horn
Valentine
Valentine 10 WSW
Cornudas SS
Sierra Blanca 2 E
El Paso 32 ENE
Pine Springs
DISTRIBUTION OF RECHARGE
RESULTS OF RECHARGE ANALYSIS USINGRUNOFF REDISTRIBUTION METHOD
0.80.40.41.40.30.8percenttotal precipitation that becomes recharge
0.090.030.040.170.030.09in/yr
5,214274392,8692481,631ac-ft/yrtotal estimated recharge
to watershed area encompassing bolson
1,43427309489168441ac-ft/yrestimated recharge along bolson fringea
4,780901,0301,6305601,470ac-ft/yrrunoff from mountain block
3,78001302,380801,190ac-ft/yrestimated areal recharge to mountain block
633,3607,070125,130209,74087,780203,640ac-ft/yrtotal precipitation
672,4009,530131,380200,850103,210227,430acresarea
STUDY AREA
EAGLE CANYON
BLANCA DRAW
EAGLE FLAT DRAW
GREEN RIVER
VALLEY
RED LIGHT DRAW
UNITPARAMETER
COMPARISON OF RECHARGE METHODS
2,8692481,631modified runoff redistribution (this study)
53 to 2661,365 to 6,823915 to 4,576Darcy flux check (this study)
430 to 4,119120 to 1,000280 to 2,000previous work (Table 4.4.1)
Eagle Flat DrawGreen River ValleyRed Light Drawmethod
Estimated recharge (af/yr)
Daily Streamflow Gauging DataDaily Streamflow Gauging Data
Gauge 08-3705.00Fort Quitman, TX
0
1
10
100
1000
10000
1922 1935 1949 1963 1976 1990 2004
Date
Flow
Rat
e (C
FS)
Daily Streamflow Gauging DataDaily Streamflow Gauging Data
Gauge 08-3712.00Candelaria, TX
0
1
10
100
1000
10000
100000
1975 1980 1985 1991 1996 2002
Date
Flow
Rat
e (C
FS)
Streamflow Gauging DataStreamflow Gauging DataMean of MonthlyMean of Monthly
Gauge 08-3705.00, Period 1938-2003 Fort Quitman, TX
0
5
10
15
20
Jan. Feb. Mar. April May June July Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec.
Month
Volu
me
(100
0 ac
-ft)
Streamflow Gauging DataStreamflow Gauging DataMean of MonthlyMean of Monthly
Gauge 08-3712.00, Period 1975-2003 Candelaria, TX
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
Jan. Feb. Mar. April May June July Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec.
Month
Volu
me
(100
0 ac
-ft)
SpringsSprings
Mexico
Hydraulic PropertiesHydraulic Properties
• Bolsons (1)– 2 from drillers log
(outside model area)
– 1 pump test from BEG Low-Level studies (Darling)
• Cretaceous (11)– 6 from drillers log– 5 pump tests from
BEG Low-Level studies (Darling)
1. Potential pump tests?
2. Potential Region E pump tests?
Hydraulic PropertiesHydraulic Properties
• NO S, Ss, Sy or porosity data• NO Vertical hydraulic conductivity • NO Anisotropy
Hydraulic Hydraulic Conductivity Conductivity
Data Data (feet/day)(feet/day)
HISTOGRAM OF HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITYFOR CRETACEOUS ROCKS
Pumping DataPumping Data
• TWDB database is primary source of data
• Supplemental data from other source documents
• Pumpamatic
Total PumpingTotal Pumping
Pumping by AquiferPumping by Aquifer
Total Pumping by CountyTotal Pumping by County
Culberson CountyCulberson County
Hudspeth CountyHudspeth County
Jeff Davis CountyJeff Davis County
Presidio CountyPresidio County
Irrigated Irrigated AgricultureAgriculture(1989 and 1994)(1989 and 1994)
Only 3 irrigation wells along river
MunicipalMunicipal
• Sierra Blanca• Pumped wells only in early 1980s• Will be implemented in model grid cells
consistent with well locations
1990 Census
Data
Water Water QualityQuality
Conceptual Block DiagramConceptual Block Diagram
Bolsons
No Flow Boundary
Recharge
PumpingGroundwater-Surface Water Interaction Spring flow
Cretaceous-Permian
Cro
ss-fo
rmat
iona
l Flo
w
Cro
ss-fo
rmat
iona
l Flo
w
Cretaceous-Permian-Basement Rock
Evapotranspiration
Model GridModel Grid½½ -- mile mile
140 x 80 x 3 = 33,600140 x 80 x 3 = 33,600
5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80
5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80
Layer 1 and 2 Layer 1 and 2 Boundary Boundary
ConditionsConditions
Stream
Recharge
No-Flow along GW divide
No-Flow
ET
GHB
Recharge
5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80
Layer 3 Layer 3 Boundary Boundary
ConditionsConditions
No-Flow along GW divide
No-Flow
GHB
![f2SJ9:B ONG ]NPBGB XiX f9CS aS>H N:, FBQJGJ:S4JBCN … · f2SJ9:B ONG ]NPBGB XiX f9CS aS>H N:, FBQJGJ:S4JBCN KD ... ... b n](https://static.fdocument.pub/doc/165x107/5e09b31e6c2c80740e1c6428/f2sj9b-ong-npbgb-xix-f9cs-ash-n-fbqjgjs4jbcn-f2sj9b-ong-npbgb-xix-f9cs.jpg)
![B B^Aí: B§B B¦Bò: $|á - METI17 B B^Aí: B B B Bò: - B (» CC BpB_BjB (» & "á N-Ð » % ² B1 n 0 $|"á ] % ²Bé >Bí: B B+ BtB1 Aï DA n 0BKBM !ª Bt >Bí: Aî Aï Bt B·BuB1](https://static.fdocument.pub/doc/165x107/610491211b2b0805da65a042/b-ba-bb-bb-meti-17-b-ba-b-b-b-b-b-cc-bpbbjb-.jpg)
