1 / 21

Prepared by: Larry Land, P.E . and Maureen Reilly, P.E. (CA)

Springflow Benefits for Pumping Forbearance East and West of Cibolo Creek Edwards Aquifer Habitat Conservation Plan Prepared for: Stakeholder Committees: ASR and VISPO Work Groups. Prepared by: Larry Land, P.E . and Maureen Reilly, P.E. (CA)

vail
Download Presentation

Prepared by: Larry Land, P.E . and Maureen Reilly, P.E. (CA)

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Springflow Benefits for Pumping Forbearance East and West of Cibolo CreekEdwards Aquifer Habitat Conservation Plan Prepared for:Stakeholder Committees: ASR and VISPO Work Groups Prepared by:Larry Land, P.E. and Maureen Reilly, P.E. (CA) Sam Vaugh, P.E. and Phyllis Stanin, P.G.(CA)July 31, 2014

  2. Topics of Discussion • Purpose and Scope • Technical Approach and Assumptions • Modeling Analyses • Summary • Conclusions

  3. Purpose and Scope PURPOSE: Establish the Springflow Benefits of ASR Leases and VISPO Forbearance Agreements East and West of Cibolo Creek SCOPE: Test and Evaluate One Conceptual Scenario

  4. Technical Approach and Assumptions • Tasks • Estimate Availability of Potential Forbearance Agreements for ASR Leases or VISPO East and West of Cibolo Creek • Selected 10,000 acft/yr of IRP for Test and Evaluation • East of Cibolo: 69% from Comal County and 31% from Hays County • West of Cibolo: 60% from Medina County and 40% from Uvalde County • NOTE: 10,000 acft/yr is 13.8 cfs

  5. Technical Approach and Assumptions(Continued) • Tasks (Continued) • Applications of Edwards Aquifer Model • Baseline Scenario • Prepare a Baseline Pumping Dataset for 200,000 acft/yr. Distribution within County is a Prorated Reduction of IRP. Monthly Distribution is Based on Use Type • Turn OFF Critical Period Management Controls • Run the Model

  6. Technical Approach and Assumptions(Continued) • Tasks (Continued) • Applications of Edwards Aquifer Model (Continued) • East of Cibolo Creek Scenario • Prepare a Pumping Data Set with a Forbearance of up to 10,000 acft/yr • Run the Model • West of Cibolo Creek Scenario • Prepare a Pumping Data Set with a Forbearance of up to 10,000 acft/yr • Run the Model

  7. Technical Approach and Assumptions(Continued) • Tasks (Continued) • Applications of Edwards Aquifer Model (Continued) • Calculate Springflow Benefits to Comal and San Marcos Springs • Deliverables, Meeting and Schedule • Powerpoint • Presentation to Work Groups

  8. Flowpaths and Forbearance (acft/yr) East of Cibolo 3,100 6,900 West of Cibolo 6,000 4,000 Source: EAA

  9. Springs in MODFLOW Discharge from Springs • Notes: • Hueco Springs is not in model. • Barton Springs is lumped in with Colorado River and simulated as a “River”. • Las Moras Springs is considered to be insignificant for purposes of this study.

  10. Groundwater Modeling Results • Hydrographs at Springs and Index Wells • Difference between Baseline Scenario and East and West of Cibolo Scenarios • Distribution of Springflow Benefits from Forbearance • Efficiency of Forbearance to Springs

  11. J-17 and J-27

  12. Comal and San Marcos Springs

  13. Forbearance BenefitComal and San Marcos 5.6 3.9 8.8 0.4

  14. Forbearance BenefitComal and San Marcos Combined 12.7 6.0

  15. Distribution of Forbearance Springflow BenefitScenario 1 (East of Cibolo) Leona San Antonio and San Pedro Comal San Marcos

  16. Distribution of Forbearance Springflow BenefitScenario 2 (West of Cibolo) San Antonio and San Pedro Leona Comal San Marcos

  17. Summary of Forbearance Benefit to Springs

  18. Summary • Benefit to Minimum Springflow • Comal Springs • Eastern Forbearance (Scenario 1): +5 cfs • Western Forbearance (Scenario 2): +10 cfs • San Marcos Springs • Eastern Forbearance (Scenario 1): +10 cfs • Western Forbearance (Scenario 2): +0 cfs

  19. Summary • Benefit to Long-Term Average Springflow • Comal Springs • Eastern Forbearance (Scenario 1): +3.9 cfs • Western Forbearance (Scenario 2): +5.6 cfs • San Marcos Springs • Eastern Forbearance (Scenario 1): +8.8 cfs • Western Forbearance (Scenario 2): +0.4 cfs

  20. Conclusions • Forbearance in Comal and Hays Counties (Scenario 1) • About 28% of the Flow Benefit goes to Comal Springs, 64% to San Marcos Springs, and 3% to Other Springs • About 5% goes to Storage (higher water levels), Los MorasSprings and boundaries • Forbearance in Medina and Uvalde Counties: (Scenario 2) • About 41% of the Flow Benefit goes to Comal Springs, 3% to San Marcos Springs, and 44% to Other Springs • About 12% goes to Storage (higher water levels), Los Moras Springs and boundaries • Results are Consistent with the Flowpath Map in Slide 15

  21. Discussion Questions & Answers

More Related