1. Southwest Kansas Groundwater Management District #3 Model Kansas Water Office Contract A Kansas Water Plan Project Progress Report March 29, 2010

2. Major Progress PEST Calibration – 16 runs 1) Power functions for recharge-precipitation 2) Five-year water level differences 3) Weighting factor change for streamflow

3. Power P-R Functions P 0 is threshold precipitation after which groundwater recharge occurs. For each recharge zone, P 0, a and b are calibrated.

4. PEST Runs D-J D: Change linear P-R segments to power functions. Other settings same as Run B in TAC020810. E: Change water-level difference targets from 1 year to 5-year intervals. Other settings same as D. Different runs derived from E - F: Fix P-R power functions, calibrate PST+ K and Sy. G: Fix P-R power functions and Sy, calibrate K. H: Fix P-R power functions and K, calibrate Sy. I: Use optimal values from H and recalibrate all parameters. J: Use optimal values from I and calibrate all parameters, but lower the maximum limit for Sy (the calibrated Sy for sands and gravels from I was 39%).

5. PEST Runs K-S K: Double the weighting factor for streamflow targets. Other setting same as J. L: Use log for K. Other settings same as J. M: Decrease the weighting factor for streamflow targets by half. Use log for K. N: Increase precipitation recharge for zone 3. Calibrated recharge for zone 3 too small. O: Change precipitation recharge parameter settings for zone 2. Calibrated recharge for zone 2 not physically reasonable. P: Further modify recharge parameter settings. Calibrated recharge for zone 2 from O still not physically reasonable. Q: Further modify recharge parameter and specific yield settings. Precipitation recharge curve for zone 2 not reasonable. The Sy values considered a little too high after KGS internal team discussion. R and S: Similar to Q, fix K and Sy and further improve recharge parameters.

6. PEST Run RMS Summary Overall Predevelopment Heads (ft) Water Level Difference (ft) Streamflows log(cfs) B (TAC020810) 26.7621.10 4.80 (1-yr interval) 0.85 D27.5621.70 4.85 (1-yr interval) 1.01 E36.9826.29 9.40 (5-yr interval) 1.29 F32.2621.699.371.20 G31.3221.089.310.94 H31.2821.089.270.93 I31.2121.149.220.84 J31.3121.249.220.85 K31.2821.189.250.84 L31.0620.999.220.85

7. PEST Run RMS Summary Overall Predevelopment Heads (ft) Water Level Difference (ft) Streamflows log(cfs) E36.9826.299.401.29 F32.2621.699.371.20 G31.3221.089.310.94 H31.2821.089.270.93 I31.2121.149.220.84 J31.3121.249.220.85 K31.2821.189.250.84 L31.0620.999.220.85 M31.0921.039.220.84 N30.8020.789.180.85 O30.9920.949.200.85 P30.8120.819.160.84 Q31.3821.139.320.93 R31.2321.189.220.83 S32.5322.539.160.83

8. Comparison to Previous Models Model Changes Head Statistics Streamflows Log(cfs) RMS RMS (ft)MAR (ft)RMAE(%) TAC 0917200935.6925.331.441.07 PEST Run TAC 02082010 33.9923.811.360.85 PEST Run R TAC 03282010 33.3823.521.340.83

9. Model Results from PEST Run R

10. Current Model Recharge Zones Row Column Zone 1

11. Calibrated P-R Curves

12. Calibrated Synonymy K (ft/day) and Sy

13. Parameter Sensitivity

14. Predevelopment T ft 2 /d

15. 1996-2007 T ft 2 /d

16. Predevelopment-1966 Sy

17. 1997-2007 Sy

18. Predevelopment Precipitation Recharge in/yr

19. 2007 Precipitation Recharge in/yr

20. Simulated vs. Observed Water Levels The RMS (root mean square), MAR (mean absolute residual) and RMAE (relative mean absolute error) are: 33.38 ft and 23.52 ft and 1.34%.

21. Simulated vs. Observed Water Level Changes 5 Years 10 Years

22. Simulated Vs. Observed Ark River Flows Syracuse RMS = 0.08 Deerfield RMS = 0.63 Garden City RMS = 0.46 Dodge City RMS = 0.85

23. Cimarron River and Crooked Creek Flows Crooked Creek RMS = 0.40 Cimarron RMS = 0.10

24. Well Hydrographs Paleo KearnyFinneyArkN GrayArkN KearnyFinneyArkS HoFo GrHsCimN GrayArkS-CC Stanton MT StSeCimS ME

25. Well Hydrographs - Paleo Ark Valley

26. Well Hydrographs – Kearny & Finney North of Ark

27. Well Hydrographs – Gray North of Ark

28. Well Hydrographs – Kearny & Finney South of Ark

29. Well Hydrographs – Hodgeman & Ford

30. Well Hydrographs - Stanton

31. Well Hydrographs – Grant & Haskell North of Cimarron

32. Well Hydrographs - Gray South of Ark to Crooked Creek

33. Well Hydrographs - Morton The first well is in bedrock although the water level is slightly above bedrock surface; the second well is also in thinly saturated area on the tri-state border.

34. Well Hydrographs - Stevens & Seward South of Cimarron

35. Well Hydrographs - Meade

36. GMD3 Model Boundaries Red – Specified Fluxes (Represented by a series of artificial wells)

37. Water Budgets Across Boundaries (Accumulative)

38. Water Budgets Across Boundaries (Annual)

39. Bedrock Head Boundary Budgets (Accumulative)

40. Bedrock Head Boundary Budgets (Annual)

41. Arkansas River Flow Predevelopment 2007

42. Crooked Creek Flow Predevelopment 2007

43. Cimarron River Flow Predevelopment 2007

44. Simulated Groundwater Budgets (Accumulative)

45. Simulated Groundwater Budgets (Annual)

46. Next Major Steps A few more PEST runs to check if the calibrated model can be further improved. Scenario simulation under different climatic and water use conditions.