exhibit 119 walker river decision support tool
play

EXHIBIT 119 Walker River Decision Support Tool Groundwater Model - PDF document

EXHIBIT 119 Walker River Decision Support Tool Groundwater Model Component Greg Pohll DST 2.0 Model Components MODSIM River Basin Management system PRMS models of headwater areas (Supply Side) MODFLOW models of Mason & Smith (Demand


  1. EXHIBIT 119

  2. Walker River Decision Support Tool Groundwater Model Component Greg Pohll

  3. DST 2.0 Model Components MODSIM River Basin Management system PRMS models of headwater areas (Supply Side) MODFLOW models of Mason & Smith (Demand Side)

  4. Groundwater/Surface Water – One Resource 5 – 25% of the surface water budget

  5. Stream/Aquifer Interaction

  6. Phreatophyte ET Deep Water Table Shallow Water Table

  7. Groundwater Model Construction q • Two groundwater models were built o Smith Valley o Mason Valley • Key inputs o Recharge o Well information o Hydraulic conductivity o Phreatophyte ET o Stream and ditch information 2 1 0 2 4 6 8 Miles

  8. Groundwater Model Revisions • Two groundwater models were built o Smith Valley o Mason Valley • Key inputs o Recharge o Well information o Hydraulic conductivity o Phreatophyte ET o Stream and ditch information

  9. Groundwater Model Revisions • NDOW properties included and ponds simulated using General Head Boundary (GHB package • Smith Valley model initial conditions adjusted to yield better agreement with measured water levels • HRU water balance, which includes calculations of groundwater pumping rates is handled in MODSIM

  10. Recharge Irrigation Excess Ditch & Drain Losses Mountain Block Recharge

  11. Well Information

  12. Hydraulic Conductivity Smith Mason

  13. Phreatophyte ET

  14. Stream & Ditch Information • A complete water budget is calculated using the SFR package within MODFLOW for the Walker River and agricultural drains • Losses from irrigation ditches are handled separately in MODSIM and are treated as a fluid source term in MODFLOW

  15. Model Accuracy

  16. Model Accuracy

  17. Model Accuracy

  18. Model Accuracy Mason Valley RMSE = 3.7 m Relative Error = 1.98%

  19. Model Accuracy Smith Valley RMSE = 8.8 m Relative Error = 5%

  20. Stream Gains and Losses • Warm Colors – Losing • Cool Colors – Gaining

  21. Conclusions • Two groundwater models were constructed for use in the DST • These models were calibrated, validated, and peer-reviewed • The models are integrated into the DST to provide groundwater flux information at every time step

Recommend


More recommend