GMA 8 Joint Planning Meeting

Similar documents
GMA 8 Joint Planning Meeting

Northern Trinity / Woodbine:

Approved by District Board of Directors on April 23, Southern Trinity Groundwater Conservation District. Groundwater Management Plan

The Southern Trinity Groundwater Conservation District: Managing Groundwater Supply in McLennan County

Balancing Total Estimated Recoverable Storage and. Wade A. Oliver, P.G. Texas Alliance of Groundwater Districts Groundwater Summit August 27, 2015

LSGCD STRATEGIC PLANNING FOR GROUNDWATER MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PUBLIC STAKEHOLDER MEETING

T HE CLEARWATER SOURCE

District Management Plan

Highlights of Study Results

The Use of Groundwater Availability Models in Texas in the Establishment of Desired Future Conditions in GMA 7

Trans-Texas Corridor-35 Update

District Management Plan

Region K. Water 101 Training Workshop Groundwater Presentation

Technical Consultant Scope of Work and Budget for Task 5A to Develop the 2021 Brazos G Regional Water Plan

Clearwater Underground Water Conservation District Clearwater Source Annual Newsletter Volume 11, Issue 1 October, 2015

Northern Trinity Groundwater Conservation District Groundwater Management Plan

UVALDE COUNTY UNDERGROUND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT GROUNDWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN

T E C H N I C A L M E M O R A N D U M

UVALDE COUNTY UNDERGROUND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT MANAGEMENT PLAN

New Braunfels population growth ranks second in U.S. San Antonio Business Journal WHY ASR FOR NEW BRAUNFELS UTILITIES

4B.6 Desalination 4B Description of Option. Desalination of Lake Granbury Water for Johnson County Regional Plan.

2016 DFC Planning: Status Update

A Close Look at the Vista Ridge Water Pipeline: What is it Good For?

5.39 Summary of Recommended and Alternative Water Management Strategies

Legislative Statistics

Water Supply Strategies 5 6. Water Master Plan City of Waco

Mace s BIZARRE TEXAS GROUNDWATER FACTS!

5.16 Hood County Water Supply Plan

8.3 Somervell County Water Supply Project

The Future of Water in Texas

Modeling and Planning The Joint Groundwater Planning Process and Groundwater Models

Appendix B Aquifer Descriptions and Groundwater Availability Analysis

Development of Groundwater Model for GMA-12 Using a Participatory Framework for Data Collection and Model Calibration

and Reasons for creation (2001) >35,000 acres water rights leased by 2000

Planning Group Makes Progress on 2016 Water Plan

Amount of Water Available Annually: 21,000 acre-feet per year (af/yr) upon project completion

Objective. Introduction and Background. Emily Finkelman

Brazos G Regional Water Plan. Executive Summary

3. Analysis of Water Supply Currently Available to Region C

THE ECONOMIC IMPACT OF RECENT AND PLANNED INVESTMENTS BY TXU ON BUSINESS ACTIVITY IN TEXAS AND AFFECTED COUNTIES AND LEGISLATIVE DISTRICTS

Kinney County Groundwater Conservation District Groundwater Management Plan

Medina County Groundwater Conservation District Groundwater Management Plan

Explanatory Report for the Proposed Desired Future Conditions. of the Western Fresh Edwards (Balcones Fault Zone) Aquifer

Report of Findings: WRGS

Evaluation of the Potential for Unreasonable Impacts from the EP Well Field, Hays County, Texas

3. Analysis of Water Supply Currently Available to Region C

Current and future water demands and water needs during severe drought, Texas Hill Country Raymond Slade, Jr. Certified Professional Hydrologist

Name of Project: Lake Dunlap and Wells Ranch Water Supply through Canyon Regional Water Authority

Tower 55 Rail Reliever Study

Visualizing Texas Groundwater Policy

APPENDIX W WATER SUPPLY STUDY FOR KAUFMAN COUNTY

Sutton County UWCD 301 S. Crockett Ave. Sonora, TX Water is Life

DESIRED FUTURE CONDITION EXPLANATORY REPORT FOR GROUNDWATER MANAGEMENT AREA 12

Entities who are requesting Texas Water Development Board (TWDB) financial assistance greater than $500,000

San Antonio Water System Mission Statement Sustainable Affordable Water Services

Groundwater in Texas

Changes in Water Levels in Texas, 1995 to 2005

Region C Water Planning Group Meeting. TRA Central Wastewater Treatment Plant October 6, 2003

5.10 Falls County Water Supply Plan

5.10 Falls County Water Supply Plan

Figure 4.1: Number of WUGs With Identified Water Needs in the LCRWPA Figure 4.2: Identified Amount of Water Needs in the LCRWPA...

Jim Brasher General Manager, Colorado County Groundwater Conservation District. January 25, 2011 LCRA Regional Council Meeting

TRANS-TEXAS CORRIDOR-35 REGIONAL/STATE UPDATE

Section 1 Description of the Region

Region C Water Planning Group June 8, 8, 2009

Appendix F. County Compost Use Demonstration Reports

THE EDWARDS AQUIFER: CONFLICTS SURROUNDING USE OF A REGIONAL WATER RESOURCE

THE NEED FOR HB 3250 By James R. Gaines

Public Comments Regarding GMA-12 DFC/MAG Preliminary Scenarios

APPENDIX I WATER SUPPLY AVAILABLE TO REGION C DRAFT

T HE CLEARWATER SOURCE

SCENARIOS AND ALTERNATIVE INITIAL CONDITIONS

APPENDIX I WATER SUPPLY AVAILABLE TO REGION C

PANHANDLE GROUNDWATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT MANAGEMENT PLAN

Groundwater Management Plan

Texas Water! Robert E. Mace, Ph.D., P.G. Texas Water Development Board. The LSSS, RACSS, and LRL Professional Development Seminar

Aquifer Storage Recovery

San Mateo Plain Groundwater Basin Assessment Stakeholder Workshop #8 17 APRIL 2018

APPENDIX I WATER SUPPLY AVAILABLE TO REGION C

Groundwater Conservation District Recommendation for Hill Country Priority Groundwater Management Area Western Comal and Southwestern Travis Counties

FINAL REPORT Fair Oaks Ranch Water Policy Analysis. Prepared for: The City of Fair Oaks Ranch

Brazos Valley Groundwater Conservation District

PEDERNALES? and Action Plan

San Antonio Water System Mitchell Lake Constructed Wetlands Below the Dam Preliminary Hydrologic Analysis

IGA between Denver Water and City and County of Denver PRESENTED TO INFRASTRUCTURE AND CULTURE COMMITTEE NOVEMBER 18, 2015

Marketing Edwards Water Rights

W R. December 14, Mr. John Dupnik, P.G. Barton Springs Edwards Aquifer Conservation District 1124 Regal Row Austin, Texas 78745

PLUM CREEK CONSERVATION DISTRICT. Groundwater Management Plan. Adopted as Amended Approved by the TWDB on December 18, 2017

BEE GROUNDWATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT MANAGEMENT PLAN

DEFINITION OF TERMS AND ACRONYMS 31 TAC EFFECTIVE DECEMBER 8, 2016

STATEWIDE AIR EMISSIONS CALCULATIONS FROM ENERGY EFFICIENCY, WIND AND RENEWABLES. May 2008

NECHES & TRINITY VALLEYS GROUNDWATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT MANAGEMENT PLAN

Trans Texas Corridor-35 (TTC-35) Study Area Identification Report

7 Management of Existing Supplies

Groundwater Sources, Well Design, and Permitting

Brazos Valley Groundwater Conservation District. Groundwater Management Plan

BRUSH COUNTRY GROUNDWATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT. Groundwater Management Plan

Proposed 2018 District Groundwater Management Plan

Region C Water Planning Group Meeting. TRA Central Wastewater Treatment Plant April 25, 2005

Transcription:

GMA 8 Joint Planning Meeting Discussion of Southern GMA 8 GAM Run 9 Results November 18, 2015 1

Purpose of the GAM Run Provide Information in Support of the Joint Planning Process Facilitate Discussion Amongst the Districts Regarding Potential Aquifer DFCs Develop Additional Data for Consideration of the Nine Factors 2

GAM Run Process Modify Pumping Inputs per District Requests Conduct Simulation Use Modified Version of the TWDB Accepted GAM Modification Allows Aquifers to be Simulated as Unconfined Prepare Evaluations of Results 3

Changes in Pumping District County Run 5 (AFY) Run 9 (AFY) Difference CUWCD Bell 5,972 16,995 11,023 CTGCD Burnet 2,250 3,893 1,643 STGCD McLennan 16,219 20,690 4,471 Bosque 8,757 10,509 1,751 MTGCD Comanche 12,079 12,079 0 Coryell 4,779 5,735 956 Erath 15,858 20,615 4,757 Ellis 7,920 7,920 0 PGCD Hill 4,933 4,933 0 Johnson 13,949 13,949 0 Somervell 3,181 3,181 0 4

Acre-Feet Per Year Summary of Total Pumping Changes (Woodbine, Edwards, and Trinity Aquifers) 35,000 30,000 25,000 20,000 15,000 10,000 5,000 - Run 5 Pumping MAG Run 9 Pumping 5

Conduct Simulation Create New Well File No change in pumping distribution from Run 5 Added new and pending permit locations in Bell County Perform Simulation Using Modified GAM Layers allowed to convert from confined to unconfined Specific Yield = 0.10 for all layers Pumping not reduced until cell is essentially dry 6

Simulation Results 2070 Water Levels Hensell Aquifer Hosston Aquifer 7

Simulation Results 2070 Drawdown Hensell Aquifer Hosston Aquifer 8

Simulation Results 2070 Average Drawdown South GMA 8 Run 9 - Total Average Drawdown in feet from 2010 through 2070 - Current DFC as 50-Year Average Drawdown in parentheses () County Woodbine Wash/Fred Paluxy Glen Rose Hensell Pearsall Hosston Bell 25 (N/A) 34 (N/A*) 55 (134) 75 (155) 129 (286) 221 (N/A) 316 (319) Bosque N/A 1 (N/A) 5 (26) 42 (33) 115 (201) 157 (N/A) 178 (220) Burnet N/A N/A N/A 2 (1) 7 (11) 12 (N/A) 12 (29) Comanche N/A N/A N/A 2 (0) 2 (2) 2 (N/A) 3 (11) Coryell N/A 2 (N/A) 7 (15) 12 (15) 62 (156) 106 (N/A) 123 (179) Ellis 44 (102) 49 (N/A) 46 (265) 107 (283) 128 (336) 173 (N/A) 162 (362) Erath N/A 2 (N/A) 1 (1) 4 (1) 9 (11) 15 (N/A) 18 (27) Falls 123 (N/A) 210 (N/A) 229 (279) 251 (354) 283 (459) 383 (N/A) 396 (480) Hamilton N/A 2 (N/A) 3 (0) 3 (2) 12 (39) 24 (N/A) 32 (51) Hill 29 (87) 26 (N/A) 33 (209) 106 (253) 145 (381) 257 (N/A) 276 (406) Johnson 1 (4) -1 (N/A) -20 (37) 22 (83) 50 (208) 107 (N/A) 106 (234) Lampasas N/A N/A N/A 1 (1) 1 (12) 7 (N/A) 10 (23) McLennan 26 (N/A) 35 (N/A) 29 (251) 118 (291) 198 (489) 410 (N/A) 503 (527) Milam 157 (N/A) 225 (N/A) 238 (252) 247 (294) 258 (337) 282 (N/A) 295 (344) Somervell N/A 5 (N/A) 3 (1) 3 (4) 15 (53) 42 (N/A) 55 (113) Travis 52 (N/A) 91 (N/A*) 96 (124) 61 (61) 38 (98) 78 (N/A) 126 (116) Williamson 41 (N/A) 63 (N/A*) 72 (108) 68 (88) 69 (142) 116 (N/A) 161 (166) *Model not applicable for Edwards (BFZ), but DFC for Bell County = 100 acre-feet per month of stream/spring flow in Salado Creek, Travis County DFC = 42 acre-feet per month of aggregate stream/spring flow, and Williamson County DFC = 60 acre-feet per month of aggregate stream/spring flow. 9

Average Drawdown, Feet Simulation Results 2070 Average Drawdown -5 Hensell Aquifer Average Drawdown - Erath County 0 5 10 15 20 Run 1 Current MAGs 25 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070 Southern GMA 8 Run 9 Baseline Pumping (Run 5) Run 6.1 Run 6.2 Run 6.3 Run 6.4 Run 1 10

Simulation Results 2070 Artesian Head (above top of aquifer) Hensell Aquifer Hosston Aquifer 11

Simulation Results Percent of 2010 Artesian Head Remaining in 2070 Hensell Aquifer Hosston Aquifer 12

Average Percent of 2010 Available Drawdown Remaining in 2070 (Artesian Head) South GMA 8 Run 9 - Percent of 2010 Average Artesian Head Remaining in 2070 County Woodbine Wash/Fred Paluxy Glen Rose Hensell Pearsall Hosston Bell 96% 92% 93% 89% 90% 82% 79% Bosque N/A N/A 96% 49% 68% 56% 51% Burnet N/A N/A N/A N/A 97% 91% 89% Comanche N/A N/A N/A N/A 96% 97% 96% Coryell N/A N/A 96% 78% 82% 72% 70% Ellis 92% 95% 97% 93% 95% 92% 92% Erath N/A N/A 98% 91% 87% 90% 90% Falls 93% 88% 90% 89% 91% 88% 89% Hamilton N/A N/A 97% 94% 94% 89% 88% Hill 92% 92% 96% 86% 88% 79% 77% Johnson 95% 99% 112% 87% 90% 75% 67% Lampasas N/A N/A N/A N/A 98% 93% 92% McLennan 95% 90% 95% 83% 82% 66% 61% Milam 94% 91% 93% 92% 94% 93% 94% Somervell N/A N/A 95% 91% 88% 81% 78% Travis 95% 91% 94% 95% 98% 95% 93% Williamson 96% 91% 94% 93% 96% 93% 91% 13

Percent of Remaining 2010 Artesian Head, Feet Simulation Results Percent of 2010 Average Artesian Head Remaining in 2070 110% 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% Hosston Aquifer Percent of Remaining 2010 Artesian Head - McLennan County Run 1 Current MAGs 0% 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070 Southern GMA 8 Run 9 Baseline Pumping (Run 5) Run 6.1 Run 6.2 Run 6.3 Run 6.4 Run 1 14

Simulation Results Public Water Supply Well Impacts Calculated as Remaining Available Drawdown Available Drawdown Defined as the Difference Between: The water level and the top of the screen; or, The water level and where the well diameter is 6 inches or less. Presented as: Percent of wells with more or less particular available drawdown Number of wells with more or less particular available drawdown 15

2070 Available Drawdown, Feet Public Water Supply Well Impacts 3,500 3,000 2,500 2,000 1,500 1,000 500 0-500 -1,000-1,500-2,000 Run 9: 31% of the wells have a 2070 available drawdown of 60 feet or less (69% have 60 feet or more) Run 9: 71% of the wells have a 2070 available drawdown of 290 feet or less (31% have 290 feet or more) -2,500 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Percent of Wells Run 9 Run 1 Run 5 Run 6.1 Run 6.2 Run 6.3 Run 6.4 2010 16

2070 Available Drawdown, Feet Public Water Supply Well Impacts 500 400 300 Run 9: In 2070 the percent of PWS wells with 0 available drawdown increases by about 5 percent from 2010 200 100 0 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Percent of Wells Run 9 Run 1 Run 5 Run 6.1 Run 6.2 Run 6.3 Run 6.4 2010 17

2070 Available Drawdown, Feet Public Water Supply Well Impacts 3,500 3,000 2,500 2,000 1,500 1,000 500 0-500 -1,000-1,500-2,000 Run 9: 380 out of 1,208 wells have a 2070 available drawdown of 60 feet or less (828 have 60 feet or more) Run 9: 853 out of 1,208 wells have a 2070 available drawdown of 290 feet or less (355 have 290 feet or more) -2,500 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1,000 1,100 1,200 Number of Wells Run 9 Run 1 Run 5 Run 6.1 Run 6.2 Run 6.3 Run 6.4 2010 18

2070 Available Drawdown, Feet Public Water Supply Well Impacts 500 400 Run 9: In 2070 the number of PWS wells with 0 available drawdown increases by about 50 from 2010 300 200 100 0 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1,000 1,100 1,200 Number of Wells Run 9 Run 1 Run 5 Run 6.1 Run 6.2 Run 6.3 Run 6.4 2010 19

Public Water Supply Well Impacts 20

Public Water Supply Well Impacts 21

Public Water Supply Well Impacts Ellis County 22

Public Water Supply Well Impacts Hill County 23

Simulation Results Public Water Supply Well Impacts South GMA 8 Run 9 - PWS Well 2070 Available Drawdown County PWS Wells* Less than 50 feet 50 to 100 feet 100 to 250 feet 250 to 500 feet More than 500 feet Bell 36 11 1 0 3 21 Bosque 87 3 12 50 21 1 Burnet 36 22 8 6 0 0 Comanche 10 3 7 0 0 0 Coryell 34 0 0 19 15 0 Ellis 81 0 2 7 22 50 Erath 91 39 40 11 1 0 Falls 15 3 0 0 0 12 Hamilton 12 5 1 6 0 0 Hill 67 0 1 8 36 22 Johnson 272 94 32 94 46 6 Lampasas 12 2 7 3 0 0 McLennan 171 23 5 22 42 79 Somervell 57 1 3 52 1 0 Travis 91 64 4 10 9 4 Williamson 136 82 11 16 15 12 *Only public water supply wells (PWS) completed in one or more of the modeled aquifers are included in the calculation. 24

Simulation Results Effects on Neighbors Use Run 7 to Evaluate Effects of Changing Pumping Ratio of Run 9 Increased Pumping to Run 7 Increase Pumping Multiplied by Additional Drawdown For Example: Bell County Hosston Run 7 Increase = 720 Acre-Feet per Year Bell County Hosston Run 9 Increase = 6,319 Acre-Feet per Year Ratio: 6,319 / 720 = 8.78 Additional Drawdown: 8.78 x Run 7 results 25

Simulation Results 2070 Additional Drawdown Hensell Aquifer McLennan County Run 7 Add l Drawdown Hensell Aquifer McLennan County Run 9 Add l Drawdown (Run 7 x 1.28) 26

Simulation Results 2070 Additional Drawdown Hosston Aquifer Bell County Run 7 Add l Drawdown Hosston Aquifer Bell County Run 9 Add l Drawdown (Run 7 x 8.78) 27

Run 9 Findings Bell and Burnet Counties have relatively large increase in pumping, but the water level decline is significantly less than when all counties increase to 1.9 Generally Run 9 impacts on PWS wells are significantly less than consistent Run 6.2, 6.3, and 6.4 GMA-8 needs to decide what the DFC should be counties with no districts 28

Questions 29