You are on page 1of 15

Water Supply Study

Present and Planned Water Supply

Operational (2001) spring water bottling plant, with groundwater extraction rates approximating 125 gpm.

Planned groundwater extraction of up to 400 gpm.

Concerns about impacts to nearby water bodies.

Critical Prediction

Calculate changes in Surface- Water Flows, Wetland and Lake Levels from Constant Production of 400 gpm

Regional Model Design

Study Area 0 ft 1 0 0 0 0 ft 2
Study Area
0 ft
1
0
0 0 0 ft
2

Selected Code

MODFLOW2000

Model Summary

4 layers Conductivity zones derived from regional/local geologic studies Variable recharge derived from published regression analysis

0 0 0 0 ft

Local Model Area

Groundwater Flow Pumping Center Impoundment Spring Outfall Stream
Groundwater
Flow
Pumping
Center
Impoundment
Spring
Outfall
Stream

Shortcomings in Problem Formulation

Modeling Tool – Use of River Package Inability to realistically represent changes in streams, wetlands, and lakes. Inability to explicitly represent the impoundment-overflow

Stream

Stream Impoundment Culvert Discharge Stream
Impoundment Culvert Discharge Stream
Impoundment
Culvert
Discharge
Stream

Revised Problem Formulation

• Digitized stream intersections and topo maps to assign MODFLOW Drain/River - revised during calibration.

• Impoundment and nearby lakes represented with Lake Package (Merritt and Konikow, 2000); outflow from impoundment explicitly modeled.

• Four wetlands with standing water modeled with Lake Package to explicitly simulate wetland water levels.

• Stream simulated using MODFLOW Drain Package plus Impoundment outflow.

• Regional river comprises down gradient drainage center.

Model Calibration

Calibration Strategy

• Steady-state calibration to water levels in 48 wells, baseflow in five creeks, and lake levels in five lakes.

• Transient calibration to drawdowns from long-term (72 hour) pumping test - one dozen wells with time-series drawdown data

• Prior information used to establish total transmissivity as ‘soft’ information during steady-state calibration • Approx. 40 parameters – step-wise reduction using tied/untied parameters as calibration progressed • PEST used in parallel across four 1.8GHz processors

PEST Pre-Post Processing

Advantages over GUI or ‘prompt’ Execution

• Ability to assess progress with every run • Ability to re-parameterize (tie, hold, transform, scale, prior, regularize) model without ‘rebuild’

• Ability to alter run type with one (or two) quick Control File modifications – Forward run, Estimation, Regularization, and Prediction

c

Read original MODFLOW DRN and RIV packages, and assign REACHES

c=======================================================================

c

Comment-out the GOTO to re-write packages with reach numbers

goto 20

Batch and Post-Processing

Open(1,file='MICHIGAN_No_Reaches.riv')

Open(2,file='Michigan_reaches.riv')

c

MODFLOW 2000 headers

Read(1,*)

Batch File

REM File Management del headsave.hds copy mich_fin.hds headsave.hds del mich_fin.hds del mich_fin.ddn del calibration.hds REM Run array multiplers cond_mult rech_mult REM Run custom MF2K Lake Package cust_lak3 <modflowq.in REM get the water level target data targpest REM get the flux target data flux_targets copy mich_fin.hds calibration.hds REM Check for water above land surface wl_above_ls

c

Read(1,*)

Read(1,*) nriv,idum

Post-Processor

Write(2,'(2I10)') nriv,idum

Read(1,*) nriv

Write(2,*) nriv

Lay, Row, Col

Do n=1,nriv Read(1,*) k,i,j,stage,cond,rbot Write(2,2) k,i,j,stage,cond*10,rbot,iriv_rch(j,i) End do

Close(1)

Close(2)

Open(1,file='MICHIGAN_No_Reaches.drn')

Open(2,file='Michigan_reaches.drn')

c

MODFLOW 2000 headers

Read(1,*)

Read(1,*)

Read(1,*) nriv,idum

Write(2,'(2I10)') nriv,idum

Read(1,*) nriv

Write(2,*) nriv

Do n=1,nriv

c

Lay, Row, Col

Read(1,*) k,i,j,rbot,cond Write(2,3) k,i,j,rbot,cond,idrn_rch(j,i) End do

Close(1)

Close(2)

20 Continue

c=======================================================================

c

FORMAT STATEMENTS

c=======================================================================

  • 1 Format(4I11,F21.0)

  • 2 Format(3I10,F10.3,E10.3,F10.3,I10)

  • 3 Format(3I10,F10.3,E10.3,I10)

c=======================================================================

c

END OF PROGRAM

c=======================================================================

Calibration Results – SS

Baseflows

Water Levels

Calibration Results – SS Baseflows Water Levels WL Sum of Squares (PHI) = Count = Mean
Calibration Results – SS Baseflows Water Levels WL Sum of Squares (PHI) = Count = Mean

WL Sum of Squares (PHI) = Count = Mean Residual = Mean Absolute Residual = StDev of the residuals = Range = StDev/Range =

~ 115 ft 2 48 wells - 0.2 ft 1.1 ft 1.5 ft 63 ft ~ 2.25%

Calibration Results – Transient

Drawdowns

Calibration Results – Transient Drawdowns
Calibration Results – Transient Drawdowns

Predictive Analysis

Problem Formulation and Execution

• Reformulate the PEST calibration control file to estimate the max and min baseflow depletions in stream, while maintaining calibration – i.e. establish the range of uncertainty

• Typically the increment added to the calibration objective function (min +  is about 5% of min.

For our analysis, this was raised by 50%

Predictive Analysis

Present and Planned Water Supply

• With total planned groundwater extraction of 400 gpm.

-Predicted stream depletion at regional river:

400 gpm

-Depletion of interest stream: small but measurable*

-Changes in wetland water levels:

small but measurable*

The calculated upper- and lower-bound estimates of the change in flow at the stream are on the order of five percent (above or below) of the ‘most likely’ estimated change.

*This is consistent with the observation that wetland water levels, and the areal extent of wetlands based on aerial photographs were not significantly affected by the construction of the impoundment .

Salient Point(s)

Problem formulation is key to the ‘integrity’ of the predictive analysis – the selected code must be designed to simulate the type of prediction of interest.

The fairly tight bounds on the prediction may also arise from the ability of models to predict changes far better than absolute numbers.