CO Division of Water Resources

1.     Executive Summary

The South Platte Decision Support System (SPDSS) is part of the larger Colorado Decision Support System (CDSS) that provides a data centered approach to water management for each of Colorado’s major water basins. The SPDSS is an ongoing effort developed by the Colorado Water Conservation Board (CWCB) and Colorado Division of Water Resources (DWR) to provide data, tools, and products for decision making by water managers and water users.

CWCB issued a Request for Proposal PDA-1422 (RFP) on December 31, 2013 to complete the following objectives:

  • Extend the historical time series datasets from 2006 through at least 2011 for use in the SPDSS alluvial groundwater model.
  • Update the CDSS Tool Box for use in ArcGIS 10.1.
  • Develop MODFLOW input files with extended historical time series datasets for the SPDSS alluvial groundwater model.
  • Run and test the extended SPDSS alluvial groundwater model to determine if the model maintains historical and extended calibration.
  • Perform modeling scenarios on an as-needed basis.

Adaptive Resources, Inc. (ARI) has teamed with GIS Workshop, Inc. (GISW) to accomplish the RFP objectives. The historical time series dataset extension, groundwater model input file creation, modeling results validation, and groundwater modeling scenarios will be completed by ARI, with GISW responsible for completion of the CDSS Toolbox Update.

ARI will utilize existing information from the current StateCU analysis, completed for the analysis outlined in House Bill 1278, to provide data to a portion of the historical time series dataset extension. The StateDGI, Rainfall and Runoff, and StatePP preprocessors will be utilized to create portions of the Evapotranspiration Segments (ETS), Recharge (RCH), Well (WEL), and Streamflow-Routing (SFR2) packages. The SPDSS Groundwater Geodatabase, USGS Denver Basin Model, and Hydrobase will also be utilized to provide information for the creation of the RCH, WEL, and SFR2 packages. Once these packages have been updated, the SPDSS alluvial groundwater model (groundwater model) will be executed to ensure agreement with previous SPDSS model results. Also, on an as needed basis, we will perform modeling scenario analysis using the current and future updated groundwater model.

 

The experience of GISW in designing and building custom desktop and web based ESRI GIS data management, data analysis, and modeling applications across a wide variety of disciplines will significantly benefit the update and testing of the CDSS Toolbox. ARI will use its extensive water resources data management, modeling, and analysis expertise in collaboration with GISW to evaluate and test the CDSS Toolbox components. This process will provide CWCB and DWR with a fully functional, tested, and updated CDSS Toolbox that will be compatible with ArcGIS 10.1 or greater for use in other CDSS models.

2.     Team Overview

Adaptive Resources Inc. (Prime Contractor)

Adaptive Resources, Inc. (ARI) was founded in 2011 by Heath Kuntz, following thirteen years of work in the water resources consulting industry serving various clients throughout Colorado and Nebraska. In early 2012, Heath’s brother, Thad Kuntz, joined the company as a Principal Hydrogeologist. Thad brings nine years of experience working as a hydrogeologist in both the private and public sectors to ARI, as well as being a licensed Professional Geologist in Wyoming and Nebraska. During this time, he has worked on a wide variety of hydrogeologic studies, groundwater models, and related analyses in a number of western states, primarily focused on Colorado and Nebraska. For the past five years, he has been the project manager and groundwater modeler for the regional Decision Support System (DSS) called the Western Water Use Management Modeling in the central and southern Nebraska Panhandle. ARI has since grown with the additions of a Project Hydrologist, Kyle Liebig; a Staff Hydrogeologist, Joseph Reedy; and office support staff. ARI is a Colorado Corporation, with offices in Fort Morgan, Colorado and Scottsbluff, Nebraska. Since its inception, ARI has been steadily growing to include new clients and exciting projects.

Overall, ARI provides water resources planning, development, and management featuring technical excellence in all phases for clients throughout Colorado and Nebraska.

Since 2011, ARI has been providing strategic solutions for:

 

  • Water Resources Management
  • Hydrologic Modeling
  • Water Supply Planning
  • Surface Water Modeling
  • Consumptive Use Analyses
  • Augmentation Plans
  • SWSPs
  • Well Permitting and Design
  • Groundwater Supply Planning
  • Litigation Support
  • Groundwater Model Building and Calibration
  • Water Rights Accounting
  • Water Rights Transfers and Evaluations
  • Streamflow Analysis
  • Land Use Planning
  • Remote Sensing and GIS
  • Groundwater Rights
  • Aquifer Characterization
  • Analytical and Numerical Aquifer Modeling Analysis

 

GIS Workshop (Subcontractor)

GIS Workshop, Inc. (GISW) is a Lincoln, Nebraska based company focusing almost exclusively on supplying GIS application and IT consulting expertise to state, county, and natural resource management agencies. They have particular expertise in ground and surface water monitoring and modeling applications and desktop, mobile and web design and construction.

For over 14 years, GISW has worked extensively with commercial groups and public agencies to provide customized spatial information management and analysis solutions. Established in 1999, the company, built on an employee base with an extensive assortment of skills and expertise ranging from computer science and civil engineering to environmental stewardship and business development, provides total client satisfaction through delivery of complete GIS/IT solution packages.

By employing GIS/IT savvy professionals with market expertise, GISW excels at delivering integrated GIS/IT solutions to its clients. Their approach allows them to cross-pollinate ideas from one knowledge domain to another.

  • GISW specializes in natural resource GIS/IT consulting, database and web application construction.
  • Their new “Cloud” based technology may be leveraged by CWCB and DWR to access GIS technology simply and cost effectively.
  • GISW is an ESRI Gold Tier business partner. The Gold status gives GISW and its client’s access to the latest GIS technology before the general market, such as new parcel fabric updates, new tools, and new software releases. Everything they do is “within the ESRI technology family.”

2.1 Bidder Identification and Information

Company Name: Adaptive Resources Inc.
Company Address: Headquarters

229 East Kiowa Ave.

Fort Morgan, CO 80701-3109 USA

Tel: (970) 380-2481

 

Scottsbluff, NE Office

416 Valley View Drive, Suite 301

Scottsbluff, NE 69361-1420 USA

Tel: (308) 633-2890

Entity Organization: S-Corporation
State of Incorporation: Colorado
Year Established: 2011
FEIN/SSN: 27-5002168

 

2.2            Office Location

ARI will conduct all business related to the project, pursuant to an award of a contract with the Department of Natural Resources on behalf of the Colorado Water Conservation Board, out of its corporate headquarters in Fort Morgan, Colorado:

 

229 East Kiowa Ave.

Fort Morgan, Colorado 80701 USA

Tel: (970) 370-2481

2.3            Bidder’s Qualifications

The ARI and GISW team has extensive experience with Colorado water rights, water use, management, administration, surface water analyses, and groundwater modeling. Our team expertise includes regional DSS project management, groundwater model construction and calibration using MODFLOW 2000 code, regional water resources modeling using an approach and tools similar to that used in the SPDSS modeling, groundwater modeling scenario analyses, water and natural resources data management, and design and building of custom desktop and web based ESRI GIS applications. The ARI and GISW team provides services for ground and surface water management issues extensively throughout Colorado and Nebraska. Working with State and Local governments, and private sector clients, the ARI/GISW team has successfully completed similar projects on-time and within the project budget.

ARI possesses over 75 years of combined experience, including as needed contractors, working with state and local agencies on projects of a similar nature. ARI has extensive knowledge of the regional groundwater modeling challenges facing SPDSS and is familiar with the current model. In addition, ARI has used many of the tools in the CDSS Toolbox.  As a small firm from Northeastern Colorado and Western Nebraska, we are able to meet your needs without a large overhead while still maintaining effective communication and scheduling.

GISW has over 75 years combined experience in application, data, and web site development in a wide variety of markets such as water resources, municipal government, environmental engineering, civil engineering, satellite imagery analysis, agriculture, defense, and telecommunications. Their past experience working with these types of entities provides them with an advanced understanding of the tools that require updates, as well as knowledge of developments in the field, allowing them to effectively guide you into the future of GIS processing.

2.4            Team Project Narratives

To facilitate the evaluation of ARI/GISW project experience, we have selected the following four narratives to highlight our experience and capabilities.

 

Project Title: North Platte and South Platte Natural Resources Districts Western Water Use Management Modeling
Project Period: 2009 – Current
Status: Ongoing project
Contractor’s Responsibilities:
In 2009, the North Platte and South Platte Natural Resources Districts (Districts), in cooperation with Nebraska Department of Natural Resources (NDNR) started building and calibrating the Western Water Use Management (WWUM) Modeling which is a regional groundwater model encompassing the two Districts using the most up-to-date geologic, hydrogeologic, hydrologic, and land-use data available. The modeling aids the Districts in management issues and provides the basis for scenario development to evaluate the management actions taken by the Districts.

 

In 2009, Thad Kuntz was hired by the Districts as a Hydrogeologist/Ground Water Modeler where he provided the project management, hydrogeologic, and ground water modeling expertise on the WWUM Modeling effort. In April 2012, he contracted with the Districts to provide the same services in a consulting role to complete the modeling effort and provide ongoing support for analyses of their management actions.

 

Initial modeling efforts indicated a robust historical land use dataset was required; therefore, aerial photography was gathered for each decade beginning in 1953 to delineate field boundaries and irrigation type. As a result, the historical land use dataset is attributed with crop statistics, remote sensing crop type delineation, water source information, and water use information from meters on each well. The overall goal is to construct and calibrate a robust groundwater model utilizing MODFLOW 2000 code with up to date physical information and highly constrained datasets from watershed and surface water operational models. The watershed model determined the historical consumptive water use for each land use and overland runoff for a complete understanding of the water budget. A StateMod surface water operations planning model was built and calibrated by Wilson Water Group, LLC. (WWG) of Lakewood, CO and provided:

·         The groundwater model with recharge from canals and irrigation inefficiencies.

·         The supplemental groundwater pumping on surface water irrigated lands.

·         A better understanding of the surface water operations along the North Platte River and its tributaries.

 

The result of this approach is that it constrains each model calibration with the other two models’ calibrated data.

 

The WWUM modeling effort is currently completing a modeling extension and update through 2013. ARI has been contracted to complete the project management, land use dataset creation, and groundwater modeling with team member support from WWG for the StateMod modeling and other consultants for the watershed modeling. The final goal of the modeling effort is to provide the Districts with a suite of models capable of providing results of management actions completed by each District and to evaluate a variety of scenarios for future management decisions.

 

Point of Contact: John Berge, General Manager

P: (308) 632-2749 E: jberge@npnrd.org

Role (Prime/Sub): Prime

 

 

Project Title: Empire Dairy Colorado Water Court Case and SWSP Requests
Period of Performance: 2011 – Present
Status: Ongoing Project / Operating
Contractor’s Responsibilities:
Empire Dairy filed for an augmentation plan in Division 1 Water Court in 2011 to operate their large dairy operation and provide additional pumping for irrigation wells producing feed. A subsequent Substitute Water Supply Plan (SWSP) was filed for the 2012, 2013, and 2014 seasons. The plan and water court documents detail an operational analysis of the wells, farming, and dairy operations. The ultimate analysis needed for the successful completion of the SWSP and final decree is the accounting of the return flow and depletion impacts on the South Platte River and the proper releases and recharge credits for augmentation of those depletions or return flow reductions. To compute the return flow and depletion impacts on the South Platte River a superposition groundwater model using MODFLOW 2000 code was constructed using available hydrogeologic information to determine unit response functions to the South Platte River above and below the Fort Morgan Canal river diversion.

To evaluate the farm well operations, the historical consumptive use from well pumping was calculated using pumping information taken from meters on each well. This was then combined with efficiency estimates of the application through flood and sprinkler irrigation practices. The final estimate was the amount of consumptive use taken from each well based upon its efficiency as well as the amount of return flow from the pumping that was not consumptively used.

The final products utilized recharge credits derived from water placed in recharge ponds and lagged back to the river for augmentation credit toward those well depletions. In addition, the supply also included several reservoir shares that were used as replacement of well depletions through a consumptive use value and associated return flow maintenance requirements.

The project is currently before the Division 1 Water Court and has successfully had each SWSP request approved as filed. The Dairy is currently operating with 700 acres of farmland irrigated by wells and more than 5,000 head of dairy cattle with the potential for expansion.

Point of Contact: Steve Bruntz

P: (970) 380-1484

E: sbruntz@rtebb.net

Role (Prime/Sub): Prime

 

 

 

Project Title: ARCGIS Server Based Hydrologic Surface Water Runoff Analysis, Agricultural Pond and Dam Site Suitability – USDA – NRCS/Agren, Inc.
Period of Performance: 2008 – Present
Status: Ongoing Project
Contractor’s Responsibilities:
The Agren, Inc., PondBuilder and subsequent web-based tools are excellent examples of GISW’s capabilities. GISW was tasked with developing a fully-customized web-based GIS application that integrated traditional engineering calculations with advanced GIS data and analysis. Easily updated with new parameters and thresholds in response to change in the model – Agren, Inc. and NRCS staff may easily maintain changes to various data layers and model inputs via simple table updates. The application determines the suitability of a location for an agricultural pond and dam and provides the user with cost based alternatives for construction. The application capabilities:

  • Multi-point access to software service and data (field or office via web).
  • ArcGIS Server based web application, utilizing SDE Geodatabase on MS SQL – utilizes massive enterprise database (over 2Tb).
  • Complex engineering modeling algorithm that uses GIS data and user input to formulate alternative pond/dam designs.

This sophisticated project pushes the envelope of web-based GIS capability by giving NRCS Field Technicians the capability to digitize the desired analysis basis boundary and land use classes, choose their modeling parameters and then let the server calculate every possible combination of results and associated construction costs. It has robust reporting capability and hosting by GISW on our redundant servers, ongoing unlimited support for application. The server side processing intersects a variety of data including the wetted basin boundary, land use, soils and a massive Iowa Statewide 1-meter LiDAR dataset.  After the GIS preprocessing of model inputs, the customized GISW code performs standard NRCS engineering analysis and then returns a results grid containing hundreds of pond options and associated costs.  The traditional approach would take a technician several months of field data collection and paper analysis.  With the new Agren WebGIS tool a technician can perform the same analysis in 15 to 30 minutes. The application is developed for a wide range of users and does not require desktop GIS licensing. Advanced user access control is restricted, subscription based login by tool and geographic area.

The application provides the technician with a presentation quality report detailing the site, selected plans, costs and other data related to the pond/dam design.

The web-based tool has been verified by NRCS personal against actual constructed ponds/dams and the application is found to be within +/-3% in its final cost analysis.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Point of Contact: Stan Buman

Vice President

T: (712) 792-6248

E: Stan@agren-inc.com

Role (Prime/Sub): Prime

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Project Title: ARCGIS Desktop Tools Conversion from 3.X to 10.X – Nebraska State Historical Society
Period of Performance: August, 2011 – December, 2011
Status: Completed
Contractor’s Responsibilities:
ESRI terminated active support ArcView 3.x many years ago, forcing agencies using this technology to upgrade. The Nebraska State Historical Society (NSHS) 3.x based application, NCRGIS, which was written in Avenue, had become almost impossible to maintain due to lack of vendor support. NSHS selected GISW to convert the old 3.x toolbox into ArcGIS 10.x technology. NSHS supplied GISW a copy of their custom NCRGIS interface built in ArcView 3.x.  GISW worked with NSHS staff to review the ArcView 3.x interface and develop a work plan to upgrade from 3.x to 10.x ESRI technology.

The NCRGIS was based on three components to the user interface including navigation, site information and historic maps. GISW used a similar approach to simplify the standard ArcGIS 10.x interface for novice GIS users. GISW developed a customized ArcGIS 10.x interface using industry standard tools (Microsoft Visual Studio VB.NET). The customized toolset was delivered as self-extracting installation file.  GISW provided a 1-day training session to help NSHS learn how to use the customized ArcGIS 10.x product and further customize the ArcGIS software. GISW replicated all of the tools in NCRGIS and added additional capabilities based on user requirements. This also includes:

·         Database architecture design and implementation

·         Experience with existing state (spatial and non-spatial) databases

·         Application/UI design and use case analysis (for proper form design and application flow analysis related to the business process)

  • Robust reporting requirements
  • Leverage existing enterprise database

GISW has complete training and support for client staff application usage and to perform application maintenance.

Point of Contact: Rob Bozell

Highway Archeology Program Manager

P: (402) 471-4789

E: Rob.Bozell@nebraska.gov

Role (Prime/Sub): Prime

 

 

 

2.5            Summary of Bidder’s Proposed Personnel and Management Approach

The ARI and GISW approach is to utilize our experience to provide vision and direction to complete the project within the scope and on time. In particular, experienced professionals will have an active role in the development and final product. The key team members and their roles are summarized in Table 1. Full resumes, for each person identified in the table, are provided in Appendix A. Appropriate personnel will participate in activities described in the work plan. The management team will lead the project and technical capabilities for efficiency and cost savings.

Table 1: ARI and GISW Team

Personnel Role in Project Background and Expertise
Thad Kuntz, P.G. Lead Project Manager/ Hydrogeologist/Groundwater Modeler Hydrogeologist, Groundwater Modeler, Project Management, Agriculture
Heath Kuntz ARI Principal Hydrologist Agronomist, Hydrologist, Project Management, Database Management
Kyle Liebig ARI Project Hydrologist Hydrologist, GIS, Agriculture, Database Management
Joseph Reddy ARI Staff Hydrogeologist and Groundwater Modeler Hydrogeologist, Groundwater Modeler, GIS
Richard R. Luckey ARI Senior Groundwater Modeler (As Needed Contractor) Groundwater Modeler
Marcus Tooze GISW President and Project Manager GIS/GPS/IT Applications, Project Management, Database Management, IT Integration Planning
Janelle Bartels GISW Project Manager GIS, Strategy and Scope Development, Project Management, Database Management
Claire Inbody GISW GIS Technical Services GISP, GIS Support, Database Management,
Andrew Rutledge GISW Software Development and Programmer GISP, IT Specialist (MS SQL, Oracle, MySQL, PostgreSQL), IT/GIS Development, Project Management, ArcGIS Server

3       Technical Approach

The overall technical approach will be to perform the objectives as provided in the RFP. ARI will complete the extended historical time series dataset creation, groundwater model input file creation and model extension, groundwater model testing and calibration verification, documentation, groundwater modeling scenarios, and the groundwater modeling and overall project management. GISW will concurrently complete the specified CDSS Toolbox Update and documentation. ARI and GISW will jointly test the updated CDSS Toolbox to provide a fully functional and tested product for use in future modeling efforts.

ARI will utilize existing information from the current StateCU analysis, completed for the analysis outlined in House Bill 1278, to provide data to a portion of the historical time series dataset extension. The StateDGI, Rainfall and Runoff, and StatePP preprocessors will be utilized to create portions of the ETS, RCH, WEL, and SFR2 packages. The USGS Denver Basin Model and extended SPDSS Groundwater Geodatabase and HydroBase information will be utilized and applied to the StatePP, Lateral Boundary, USGS Grid2Grid, SFR GIS, and SFR Generator preprocessors to provide the remaining extended information to the RCH, WEL, and SFR2 packages. Once these packages have been updated, the groundwater model will be executed to ensure agreement with previous SPDSS model results. Also, on an as needed basis, we will perform modeling scenario analysis using the current and future updated groundwater model.

The experience of GISW in designing and building custom desktop and web based ESRI GIS data management, data analysis, and modeling applications across a wide variety of disciplines will significantly benefit the update and testing of the CDSS Toolbox. ARI will use its extensive water resources data management, modeling, and analysis expertise in collaboration with GISW to evaluate and test the CDSS Toolbox components. This process will provide CWCB and DWR with a fully functional, tested, and updated CDSS Toolbox that will be compatible with ArcGIS 10.1 or greater for use in other CDSS models.

 

3.1            Detailed Project Timeline

Table 2: ARI proposes a twelve month completion with a tentative start date for the month of March 2014, with final products completed by the end of February 2015.

 

Task 1 – Extension of Historical Time Series Data

As stated in the RFP, new data beyond 2006 has been collected or created during subsequent analyses and is available for use in the groundwater model, which currently has a temporal extent from 1950 to 2006. The additional data includes that in HydroBase, SPDSS Groundwater Geodatabase, USGS Denver Basin Model, and the new StateCU analyses results that provide consumptive use time series data from 2006 through at least 2011, completed under the auspices of the HB-1278 study. Excluding the updated StateCU time series data, the newly extended data will need to be converted into time series datasets.

SPDSS uses a data-centered approach in the development of model input files which allows for automated MODFLOW input file generation from time series datasets using preprocessors such as StateDGI, StatePP, and others. These processes have been well documented in Task 50.1 SPDSS Memorandum and Appendix A through M of the SPDSS Alluvial Groundwater Model Report.

As provided in the RFP, extending the time series data from 2006 through at least 2011 will need to be completed using the same methodologies developed for the original model. Table 3 describes the costs associated with several datasets that will be extracted and formatted for use in specific processors, mainly StateDGI and StatePP, to create the WEL, RCH, and SFR2 MODFLOW input files.  We understand this data is currently available in HydroBase and we have included a line item cost estimate for command file creation for use in the TSTool query tool to extract the data. The lateral boundary inflow fluxes dataset will be updated utilizing data from outside the model extent including precipitation recharge on native vegetation (which involves the precipitation data extension), irrigation seepage, and canal leakage.  The lateral boundary inflow fluxes may be an area where adjustments can be made to improve calibration if the results of the extended modeling indicate a need to recalibrate the model. Also, to allow for smooth data exchange, a line item cost to coordinate with the consumptive use and surface water modeling contractors will allow for a thorough understanding of the data and a more efficient process.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

TABLE 3 – EXTENDING DATA COSTS – SEVERAL DATASETS
Data Estimated Hours Hourly Rate Task Cost
Stream Inflows and Diversions Needed for the SFR2 Package 30

5

$90

$140

$2,700

$700

M&I Pumping 15 $90 $1,350
Recharge Pumping 15 $90 $1,350
Augmentation Pumping 15 $90 $1,350
Augmentation Recharge 15 $90 $1,350
Lateral Boundary Inflow Fluxes 40

20

$90

$140

$3,600

$2,800

Data Coordination with Consumptive Use and Surface Water Modeling Contractors 15

15

$140

$145

$2,100

$2,175

TSTool Command File Query Building and Processing of Hydrobase Data 5

5

20

$90

$140

$145

$450

$700

$2,900

Total Cost $23,525

The data extension of the precipitation information involves extraction of the data from HydroBase using the TSTool tool at each weather station location (point file), followed by formatting the data to be compatible with the rainfall pre-processor and the CDSS Toolbox Climate Weights tool (for use in StateDGI, and ultimately StatePP to generate recharge and lateral boundary inflow fluxes) and the ungaged surface water runoff generator tool (for use in the SFR generator to distribute these flows to stream sections). Table 4 provides costs for the TSTool command file query building, extraction, and formatting of the data.

TABLE 4 – EXTENDING DATA COSTS – PRECIPITATION
Data Estimated Hours Hourly Rate Task Cost
Precipitation 30

10

5

$90

$140

$145

$2,700

$1,400

$725

Total Cost $4,825

The data extension of the alluvial underflow into the groundwater model encompasses use of the previously determined monthly estimates as documented in the SPDSS Alluvial Groundwater Model Report, Appendix D. These estimates are average monthly flux values and are used in every month of the simulation and only vary due to the change in the number of days of each month. To extend the fluxes into and out of the Denver Basin Aquifers, the USGS Denver Basin Model was used to provide estimates from 1950 through 2003. The 2003 fluxes were repeated through 2006 to provide data through the end of the groundwater model simulation, which will be repeated during this model extension. Table 5 provides costs to extend and format the alluvial underflow and the bedrock flux information for use in the StatePP program that converts the estimates into wells using the WEL package.

 

 

TABLE 5 – EXTENDING DATA COSTS – ALLUVIAL UNDERFLOW AND BEDROCK FLUXES
Data Estimated Hours Hourly Rate Task Cost
Alluvial Underflow into Model 15

5

$90

$140

$1,350

$700

Bedrock Fluxes 15

5

$90

$140

$1,350

$700

Total Cost $4,100

 

The reservoir seepage data extension will be completed by extending the constant recharge rates per stress period, as provided in the model documentation. Table 6 provides the costs to extend this dataset and format the data to be used in the StatePP program that will generate the recharge using the RCH package.

 

TABLE 6 EXTENDING DATA COSTS – RESERVIOR SEEPAGE
Data Estimated Hours Hourly Rate Task Cost
Reservoir Seepage 10

2

$90

$140

$900

$280

Total Cost $1,180

 

To complete the observation water level data extension, the SPDSS_GW_database, which is a Microsoft Access database, and HydroBase will be queried for extended data that will be used as head calibration targets. Table 7 provides the costs to query and format the data.

TALBE 7 – EXTENDING DATA COSTS – OBSERVATION WATER LEVEL DATA
Data Estimated Hours Hourly Rate Task Cost
Observation Water Level Data 40

5

5

$90

$140

$145

$3,600

$700

$725

Total Cost $5,025

 

The data extension of the streamflow at certain gages within the model requires a query of HydroBase using TSTool command file queries. The extracted data will be organized and then processed using methods described in Appendix E of the SPDSS Alluvial Groundwater Model Report to sum all inflows and outflows at each gage and provide the daily mass balance.  This mass balance will be processed using an automated pilot point method to create the stream gain/loss estimates, or groundwater baseflows, that are used for model calibration targets.  Table 7 provides the costs to query, format, and process the data.  Previously we have completed a study to determine an appropriate hydrograph separation method for use in the WWUM Modeling effort which included the pilot point method and is published on the Nebraska Department of Natural Resources website http://dnr.nebraska.gov/iwm/hydrograph-separation-methods-estimate-groundwater-discharge.

TABLE 7 – EXTENDING DATA COSTS – STREAM GAIN/LOSS ESTIMATES
Data Estimated Hours Hourly Rate Task Cost
Streamflow at relevant gages within the model 10

5

5

$90

$140

$145

$900

$700

$725

Stream Gain/Loss Estimates 30

10

$90

$140

$2,700

$1,400

Total Cost $6,425

 

During the mandatory pre-bid meeting held on Thursday, January 16, 2014, a comment by CWCB and DWR staff was to have contingency costs included in the project proposal to provide funding for unanticipated data issues. Table 8 provides the costs for unanticipated extending data costs.

 

TABLE 8 – EXTENDING DATA COSTS
Data Estimated Hours Hourly Rate Task Cost
Unanticipated Data Issues 30

20

15

$90

$140

$145

$2,700

$2,800

$2,175

Total Cost $7,675

 

The total estimated cost to complete the tasks listed above under Task 1 is $52,755.

Task 2 – Update CDSS Toolbox

The RFP identified a specific set of criteria required to be completed during this project. When comparing these criteria to the listed project methodology, the ARI and GISW team determined that use of a phased approach within the proposed work plan would be desirable.

Items such as the number of input databases, code updating requirements, and output QA/QC checks make this a complex project. Given this complexity, it is imperative that ARI and GISW meet with CWCB and DWR staff to thoroughly discuss, examine and understand the project needs and requirements prior to any development work or implementation. ARI and GISW will use this valuable input and further understanding to develop a detailed Scope of Work (we can provide example SoWs on request). This process allows ARI and GISW to more accurately cost the project and set realistic expectations for project completion. In addition, “scope creep” has been reduced and project management has been more efficient using this process since all parties have common expectations for the mutually agreed upon final product.

As outlined in the RFP, ARI and GISW will perform the following tasks to complete Task 2:

 

 

TABLE 9 – TASK 2 COSTS
Task Description Estimated Hours Rate Task Cost
Update entire CDSS Toolbox to ArcGIS 10.1. Tools can be written to use up to ArcGIS Basic (formerly ArcView) level functionality. 120 $155 $18,600
Include the ability to read both geodatabases and shapefiles. 48 $155 $7,440
Update the CDSS Toolbox to run on both geodatabase feature class and shapefile input. It is believed that ‘ObjectID’, a default geodatabase field, is being used as an iterator within the Access Database Shell. This will have to be modified to accommodate the use of geodatabase feature classes. 72 $155 $11,160
Review the entire code in the CDSS Toolbox for redundant code, consistent input data schema requirements and overall logic of geoprocessing functions. 80 $155 $12,400
Review the queries run within the Access Database Shell for correct logic and consistent schema requirements that match the schema requirements of the CDSS Toolbox; correct where necessary. 40 $155 $6,200
Add appropriate processing messages describing what the tool is doing during processing. 24 $155 $3,720
Revise queries calling the ‘cov’ fields in the irrigated lands input data to also operate without this field by pro rating them evenly between the surface water structures assigned to the parcel. 40 $155 $6,200
Within the StateDGI Access data shell, the queries that build the State PP input files will be evaluated and modified if necessary. 30

10

$145

$155

$5,900
Evaluate Climate Weights Toolset scripts to insure they perform as required. 20 $145 $2,900
Ensure scripts that create climate station grids are operating correctly. 20

10

$145

$155

$4,450
Evaluate the Well to Parcel Matching tool to ensure that it is processing the data correctly, such as assign well class. 18 $155 $2,790
Ensure that StateDGI is reading the appropriate data fields and uses the current DSS data schema. For example, in well data, the fields ‘PERMDATE’ and ‘APPRDATE’ must have underscores in the data like this ‘PERM_DATE and ‘APPR_DATE’ in order for the well data export from StateDGI to work. 40 $155 $6,200
All code changes will be documented and presented in an updated CDSS Toolbox User Manual, made available to the State. A functional CDSS Toolbox will be installed on designated CWCB and DWR computers. 64 $120 $7,680
Updated CDSS Toolbox Testing and Feedback for Corrections to Ensure Functionality 40 $145 $5,800
Project Management, Kick-off and Project Meetings 40 $165 $6,600
Travel Three Trips to Denver from Lincoln for Two People $350/ Person $2,100
 
Total Task 2 Cost $110,140

Note: Black estimated hours and rate denotes GISW portion. Red estimated hours and rate denotes ARI portion.

Alternative Approach to Updating CDSS Tool Box

The ARI and GISW team feel that an alternative approach to the tasks identified in the RFP may be a better long-term, cost effective option for the CWCB and DWR.  The ARI and GISW team offer a second option that would take the existing CDSS Toolbox and move it to the Internet, so that it is available using web technology.  GISW has successfully performed this “conversion” before for complex, desktop based models, similar in type to the CDSS Toolbox.  The advantages of making the application web based are:

Cross platform compatibility: Most web based applications are far more compatible across platforms than traditionally installed software. Typically, the minimum requirement would be a web browser, of which there are many. These web browsers are available for a multitude of operating systems and so whether using Windows, Linux or Mac OS, the web application can still be run.

More manageable: Web based systems need only be installed on the server, placing minimal requirements on the end user workstation. This makes maintaining and updating the system much easier as it typically can all be done on the server. Any client updates can be deployed via the web server with relative ease.

Highly deployable: Due to the manageability and cross platform support, deploying web applications to the end user is far easier. They are also ideal where bandwidth is limited and the system and data is remote to the user. At their most deployable, the user is simply sent to a website address to log into and provided with internet access. Of course, the need for desktop ArcGIS license installation and management also goes away.

Secure live data: Typically, in larger more complex systems, data is stored and moved around separate systems and data sources. In web-based systems, these systems and processes can often be consolidated, thereby reducing the need to move data around.  Web-based applications also provide an added layer of security by removing the need for the user to have access to the data and back end servers.

Reduced costs: Web-based applications can dramatically lower costs due to reduced support and maintenance; lower requirements on the end user system and simplified architecture.

Web-based applications offer competitive advantages to traditional software based systems allowing government agencies to consolidate and streamline their systems and processes and reduce costs.

Comparing this type of desktop to web-based interface conversion to similar projects, we would anticipate a total cost for this option being between $125,000 to $150,000.

Task 3 – Development of MODFLOW Input Files

The creation of MODFLOW input files from the extended data described in Task 1 will be completed for the updated groundwater model, as outlined in the RFP. Cost estimates for this task are based on the assumption that MODFLOW-2000 code will be used in the updated model and that datasets will be created using that modeling code.  As part of this task, an investigation will be conducted to determine the effort necessary to utilize the MODFLOW-CDSS code, which is based on MODFLOW-2005 code, developed by the USGS for the CDSS effort.

Task 3.1 – Investigate Adapting Input Files to MODFLOW-CDSS

An investigation will be completed to determine the estimated cost and schedule for converting the original groundwater model and input files that use MODFLOW-2000 code into the MODFLOW-CDSS code, which is based on MODFLOW-2005. This estimate will include determining how to modify the existing pre-processors (StateDGI, StatePP, etc.), or procedural changes to the use of the pre-processors, to create input files utilizing the stress-partitioning capability, converting other input files to MODFLOW-2005 if necessary, and making code changes to MODFLOW-CDSS to incorporate the solution used in the original model to prevent dry cells during a simulation (Doherty, 2001). The task will include findings documentation and a recommendation to CWCB and DWR on the use of MODFLOW-CDSS.

TABLE 10 – DEVELOP MODFLOW INPUT FILES
Task Estimated Hours Hourly Rate Task Cost
Investigation of the conversion from MODFLOW-2000 to MODFLOW-CDSS 70

30

$90

$140

$6,300

$4,200

Findings and Recommendation 70

30

$90

$140

$6,300

$4,200

Total Cost $21,000

Task 3.2 – Develop MODFLOW Input Files

The RFP stipulates that the extended MODFLOW input datasets created for this updated modeling utilize the MODFLOW-2000 code. StateDGI and StatePP and other pre-processors will be run, when appropriate, using specifically formatted datasets for those pre-processors described in Task 1.

As described in the RFP, the StateCU derived Input Files will provide estimates, per StateCU structure ID, of canal loss, non-consumed applied irrigation water, and pumping estimates.  This will include information on the irrigated acreage both inside and outside of the active model area (which contributes to the lateral inflow into the model) as well as sub-irrigation potential within the active model area.  This information will be distributed to the groundwater model cells through the StatePP pre-processor.

The seven sets of output files, described in the RFP and created by StateDGI, as well as other information provided from Task 1 and other sources will be used as input files in the StatePP pre-processor.  The creation of these files will utilize the individual irrigated acreage snapshots.  The seven sets of data described below are those presented in the RFP:

  • SP2013_xxxx.irr; SP2013_xxxx_Active.irr – Will provide the total irrigated acreage, by StateCU structure ID, contained in each associated model grid cell.
  • SP2013_xxxx.alf; SP2013_xxxx_Active.alf – Will provide the irrigated alfalfa acreage, by StateCU structure ID, contained in each associated model grid cell.
  • SP2013_xxxx.med; SP2013_xxxx_Active.med – Will provide the irrigated grass pasture (meadow) acreage, by StateCU structure ID, contained in each associated model grid cell.
  • SP2013_xxxx.wel; SP2013_xxxx_Active.wel – Will contain information for each well assigned to irrigated acreage including:
    • o Assigned StateCU structure ID,
    • o unique well WDID, permit, or receipt number,
    • o irrigated acreage served by well in each associated model grid cell,
    • o area weighted well yield in the each associated grid cell,
    • o model layer where well pumping occurs, and
    • o year well was permitted/adjudicated.
    • SP2013_xxxx.can; SP2013_xxxx_Active.can – Will provide the canal length, by StateCU structure ID, in each associated model grid cell.
    • SP2013_2001.pcp; SP2013_2001_Active.pcp – Will provide the area, by land use category, in each associated model grid cell. Note that there is only one land use coverage for the South Platte and it represents the year 2001.
    • SP2013_2001.etz; SP2013_2001_Active.etz – Will provide the phreatophyte acreage in each associated model grid cell.  Note that there is only one land use coverage for the South Platte, which includes native vegetation categories reported in the *.etz file, and it represents the year 2001.

The CDSS Toolbox Climate Weights tool will be used to recreate the StatePP input file that determines the influence of an individual weather station’s climate information at a particular location within the model to aid in the estimation of precipitation recharge.  The file that is created, as described in the RFP, is provided below:

  • GWModel_ppt_wts.csv – Will provide the climate station weights for each model cell for use in estimating precipitation recharge.

The rainfall pre-processor will be run using precipitation data from StateDGI that will be used in both StatePP, to generate recharge and lateral boundary inflow fluxes, and the ungaged surface water runoff generator tool, to provide data for use in the SFR generator to distribute these flows to stream sections.  As discussed in Task 1, the alluvial underflow into the model and the bedrock fluxes will be added to StatePP to generate boundary wells that provide this water to the updated groundwater model.

Also, to provide quality control and quality assessment of updated datasets, the MODFLOW input files will be compared against the previously generated files in the current groundwater model.  Table 11 provides the costs associated with the creation of the MODFLOW input files.

TABLE 11 – DEVELOP MODFLOW INPUT FILES
Task Estimated Hours Hourly Rate Task Cost
Run Processors to Generate MODFLOW Input Files 60

25

$90

$140

$5,400

$3,500

Quality Assessment and Quality Control of Datasets 40

25

$90

$140

$3,600

$3,500

Total Cost $16,000

Task 4 – Run Extended Alluvial Groundwater Model

As described in the RFP, the groundwater model will be ran for the 1950 through 2011 (or to the most current year data available) simulation period. The GMS groundwater modeling software used by the State will be utilized in working with the MODFLOW input, run execution, and output as much as practicable.

The updated model will be compared to the original model’s results to ensure that the extended dataset results are similar for the simulation period 1950 through 2006. Concurrently, to determine that the extended period of 2007 through 2011 (or to the most current year data is available) is calibrated to the same standards as in the original model calibration a comparison with this time periods head targets and stream gain/loss estimates will be completed to the SPDSS Task Memorandum 48 initial calibration standards. An additional 80 hours of limited calibration time will be made available to work through any issues that may arise during the update.

Task 4.1 – Model Simulation, 1950-2006

The updated alluvial groundwater model for the period 1950 through 2006 will be rerun to ensure it replicates the previous SPDSS results.

TABLE 12 – RUN MODEL AND VERIFY RESULTS, 1950 THROUGH 2006
Task Estimated Hours Hourly Rate Task Cost
Run Model and Organize Results 30

5

$90

$140

$2,700

$700

Comparison of Previous SPDSS Alluvial Groundwater Model Results 40

20

$90

$140

$3,600

$2,800

Total Cost $9,800

Task 4.2 – Model Simulation, 1950-2011 (or most current year of data)

The extended alluvial groundwater model will be run for the entire simulation period, 1950 through 2011(or to the most current year data is available) and provide calibration statistics for the original (1950 through 2006) and extended (2007 through 2011) time periods will be provided. The calibration statistics between the original and extended time periods will be compared and a recommendation will be given as to whether or not recalibration is needed. Upon agreement and approval by the State, up to 80 hours of recalibration work will be conducted.

TABLE 13 – RUN UPDATED MODEL, 1950 THROUGH 2011
Task Estimated Hours Hourly Rate Task Cost
Run Model and Organize Results 30

5

$90

$140

$2,700

$700

Prepare Calibration Statistics for Both Original and Extended Time Periods 30

20

$90

$140

$2,700

$2,800

Recommendation for Re-calibration 20

15

$90

$140

$1,800

$2,100

Re-calibration Work 60

20

$90

$140

$5,400

$2,800

Total Cost $21,000

 

Task 4.3 – Model Update Report

A summary report documenting the model input and results will be provided.

TABLE 14 – MODEL UDPATE REPORT
Task Estimated Hours Hourly Rate Task Cost
Summary Report 80

80

$90

$140

$7,200

$11,200

Total Cost $18,400

 

Task 4.4 – File Organization

All files, including both data and executable files, used or created as part of the update process will be provided to CWCB and DWR as part of the deliverables.  Documentation of the file compilation process, along with a process flow diagram will also be provided. All files will be organized in such a manner as to allow CWCB and DWR staff to easily follow the update process.

 

 

 

TABLE 15 – FILE ORGANIZATION
Task Estimated Hours Hourly Rate Task Cost
File Organization, Flow Diagram Creation, and Deliverable of Files. 40

10

$90

$140

$3,600

$1,400

Total Cost $5,000

 

Task 5 – Perform Modeling Scenarios

As described in the RPF, the need may arise for various simulations using the groundwater model. These simulations, on approval by the State representatives, will be performed on a task-order basis. Estimates for cost and schedule will be presented to CWCB and DWR, which will decide how to proceed.

Our extensive experience with the completing modeling simulations has provided us with several insights into how to complete analyses using a groundwater model.  A groundwater model has several functions that include simulating past historical conditions that provide an understanding of how an aquifer system changed during that timeframe.  To determine what affect a certain historical stress has had on the aquifer system during the historical model, the inputs of the model will be modified to remove or add an additional stress to the model.  This modified historical model when compared to the original historical model will provide insight into the responses of the new stress on the aquifer system.  These analyses can be as simple as determining the depletion response from pumping or injecting at a certain location within the model.  The complexity of the analysis depends on the end resulting information needed.  In the past we have conducted analyses creating hundreds of well files to be batch ran through a groundwater model to determine the time and location of impacts to the surface water system.

Additionally, a groundwater model also has the capability to estimate future conditions of an aquifer system that can include determining impacts from a current or new stress on the system.  First, assumptions must be made to determine the future climatic or range in climactic conditions.  Then a similar process as outlined above can be completed to determine the change in the system.

Generally, scenario modeling analyses documentation should include:

  • A clearly defined question being asked of the model.
  • The configuration of the original baseline model used to compare the modified model against.
  • The modification of the model to complete the modeling scenario.
  • A detailed scenario modeling results analysis.
  • Model precision error analysis of the baseline model (original model), modified model, and the combined error to establish significance of results.

Task 5.1 – Modeling Scenario Simulations

As described above, to complete a modeling scenario analysis two model runs must be completed to determine the effect of a new stress on the aquifer system.   First, a model run is completed using a model with no changes in the input files which provides baseline results of the alluvial aquifer system either historically or assumed future conditions.  Second, one or more modified stresses are applied to the model through changes to the model inputs to create a new condition in the alluvial aquifer system.  Then the results from the modified and baseline model runs are compared to determine the change to the alluvial aquifer system that has occurred due to the new stress.

Table 16 provides the costs of conducting a basic analysis by adding one pumping well to a historical model and determining the timing and location of the impacts from that pumping.

TABLE 16 – BASIC SCENARIO MODELING ANALYSIS
Task Estimated Hours Hourly Rate Task Cost
Scenario Modeling Conceptualization 8

3

$90

$140

$720

$420

Scenario Modeling Set-up 8 $90 $720
Scenario Model Runs 8 $90 $720
Scenario Modeling Analysis 8

3

$90

$140

$720

$420

Total Cost $3,720

 

To provide an example of a highly complex modeling scenario we outlined an analysis we recently completed in the North Platte River Basin in Nebraska that involved repeated model runs using numerous well file medications.  First, a Python language code was created to provide an automated modification to the well package which added injection wells in every cell within a specified area to determine the location and timing of the impacts to the injection on the North Platte River and its tributaries.  By adding wells in every cell we utilized the model itself to partition the water to an individual tributary in time and location.  This removed bias by placing a well in the centroid or other placement approaches to place a single well for the analysis. For this study, 153 land areas were analyzed and the groundwater model was ran in batch mode by running one analysis, processing and exporting the results using a ARI modified USGS ZoneBudget program (increased printed digits to take advantage of double precision MODFLOW code) for designated stream zones, and then resaving over the current well file with a well file from another land area.  This process is then repeated for all 153 land areas.  The exported data is then processed using a vb.net language to determine the unit response function for the land area using the calculation of total change in flow at each stream zone divided by the total water injected for all wells per monthly stress period.  Table 17 provides the estimated costs that are associated with complex modeling scenario work.

 

TABLE 17 – COMPLEX SCENARIO MODELING ANALYSIS
Task Estimated Hours Hourly Rate Task Cost
Scenario Modeling Conceptualization 30

10

$90

$140

$2,700

$1,400

Scenario Modeling Set-up 80

20

$90

$140

$7,200

$2,800

Scenario Model Runs 40 $90 $3,600
Scenario Modeling Analysis 40

10

10

$90

$140

$145

$3,600

$1,400

$1,450

Total Cost $24,150

 

It is our understanding that the surface water modeling effort being completed for the SPDSS is utilizing Glover equation analytical analysis to determine the timing of the return flows to the system for each land area within each of the surface water modeling areas.  In our opinion this type of analysis has two major flaws.  First, the timing of impacts using this equation is solely based a user defined location of the river and back boundary at a single point within a land area.  This doesn’t allow for a dynamic understanding of impacts of water returning to a steam even with simple differences in the stream location such as a curve in the river which will affect the timing of the impacts.  Second, the location of the impacts is completely at the discretion of the analyst to determine where those impacts occur.  These two flaws provide a fatal flaw in using the Glover Equation analytical analysis to provide this to the surface water modeling efforts.  Instead using the above approach will provide separate impacts to different reaches of the South Platte River and its tributaries that will provide a robust understanding of the timing and location using the groundwater flow equation that MODFLOW is built upon.  This type of analysis can be completed with the groundwater model as is with no modifications.  We recommend that CWCB and DWR complete this analysis to provide the surface water models with dynamic timing and locations of impacts to sections of the South Platte River before the surface water modeling effort is too far into the calibration process which will cause  additional costs to recalibrate these models in the future.

Task 5.2 – Modeling Scenario Documentation

Preparation of a memorandum describing the modeling scenario, the results, and model precision error costs are described in Table 18.

 

 

 

 

 

TABLE 18 – SCENARIO MODELING DOCUMENTATION
Task Estimated Hours Hourly Rate Task Cost
Scenario Modeling Documentation – Basic Scenario 20

5

$90

$140

$1,800

$700

Total Cost – Basic Scenario Documentation $2,500
Scenario Modeling Documentation – Complex Scenario 40

15

$90

$140

$3,600

$2,100

Total Cost $5,700

 

Task 6 – Project Management and Meetings

Task 6.1 – Progress Reports

Monthly invoices will be prepared that include billing by person, rate, hours, and charge. Invoices will include monthly progress reports that show: 1) a task summary that presents the budget, costs to date, percent spent, and percent complete; 2) work activity description that describes the work accomplished that month and estimated percent complete for each subtask presented in the budget; and 3) a summary of concerns on technical issues, budget or schedule.

Task 6.2 – State and Coordination Meetings

Prepare for and attend 12 monthly half-day progress meetings with State representatives to discuss progress, results, issues and recommendations. Meet with Modeling Technical Manager 6 times to discuss coordination and modeling issues.  Table 19 provides costs to complete these tasks.

TABLE 19 – PROJECT MANAGEMENT AND MEETINGS
Task Estimated Hours Hourly Rate Task Cost
Project Management 30 $140 $4,200
Monthly Progress and Technical Manager Meetings 120 $140 $16,800
Total Cost $21,000

3.2            Project Completion Timeframe and Estimated Total Project Cost

According to the RFP, all specified work and deliverables will need completed by June 30, 2016 however it is anticipated that Tasks 1 through 4 and Task 6 will be completed within 12 to 18 months from the project start date when the contracts are signed.

To complete all the tasks outlined above, except for Task 5 work, the estimated total project cost is $275,095.

3.3            Conflict of Interest

No potential real or perceived conflicts of interest exist between the ARI and GISW team and this project and other past or ongoing projects.

3.4            Description of Insurance

ARI carries a full suite of insurance for the protection. The insurance that is carried is as follows:

  1. General Commercial Liability Insurance
  2. General Auto Liability Insurance
  3. Commercial Umbrella Liability Insurance
  4. Errors and Omissions Insurance
  5. Workman’s Compensation Insurance
  6. General Aircraft Liability Insurance

 

0 replies

Leave a Reply

Want to join the discussion?
Feel free to contribute!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *