The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About15 October 2019_TAC Meeting PresentationUkiah Valley Groundwater Sustainability Plan Development Update October 15, 2019 Ukiah Valley Basin Groundwater Sustainability Agency Technical Advisory Committee Meeting DRAFT ◼HCM & DMS Update and Discussion ◼Water Budget Preliminary Discussion ⚫Groundwater Model ⚫Hydrological Model ⚫Root Zone Water Budget ⚫Integration ◼Review and Commenting Process ◼Prop. 68 Grant Outline DRAFT ◼HCM & DMS Update and Discussion ◼Water Budget Preliminary Discussion ⚫Groundwater Model ⚫Hydrological Model ⚫Root Zone Water Budget ⚫Integration ◼Review and Commenting Process ◼Prop. 68 Grant Outline DRAFT DRAFT HCM Structure and SGMA Requirements Significant Sections and Changes Data Gaps and Additional Analysis DMS DRAFT SGMA Section Requirements HCM Chapter a Each Plan shall include a descriptive Hydrogeologic Conceptual Model of the Basin based on technical studies and qualified maps that characterizes the physical components and interaction of the surface water and groundwater systems in the basin. X b The hydrogeologic conceptual model shall be summarized in a written description that includes the following:X 1 The regional geologic and structural setting of the basin including the immediate surrounding area, as necessary for geologic consistency 2, 2.1, 4 2 Lateral basin boundaries, including major geologic features that significantly affect groundwater flow 2, 2.1, 4.3.1 3 The definable bottom of the basin 2.1 4 Principal aquifers and aquitards, including the following information 5 A Formation names, if defined 5.1, 5.2, 5.3 B Physical properties of aquifers and aquitards, including the vertical and lateral extent, hydraulic conductivity and storativity, which may be based on existing technical studies or other best available information 5.1, 5.2, 5.3, 5.5 C Structural properties of the basin that restrict groundwater flow within the principal aquifers, including information regarding stratigraphic changes, truncation of units, or other features 4.3.1, 5.3, 5.5 D General water quality of the principal aquifers, which may be based on information derived from existing technical studies or regulatory programs 5.1.1, 5.2.1, 5.3.1, 5.5 E Identification of the primary users or uses of each aquifer, such as domestic, irrigation, or municipal water supply 5.5 5 Identification of data gaps and uncertainty within the hydrogeologic conceptual model 8 c The hydrogeologic conceptual model shall be represented graphically by at least two scaled cross- section that display the information required by this section and are sufficient to depict major stratigraphic and structural features in the basin 4.4, 4.4.1, 4.4.2 d Physical characteristic of the basin shall be represented on one or more maps that depict the following X 1 Topographic information derived from the U.S Geological Survey or another reliable source 2, 2.1, Figure 1 2 Surficial geology derived from a qualified map including the locations of cross-sections required by this Section 4.2, Figure 4, Figure 5 3 Soil characteristics as described by the appropriate Natural Resources Conservation Service soil survey or other applicable studies 3, 3.1, 3.2, Figure 2, Figure 3 4 Delineation of existing recharge areas that substantially contribute to the replenishment of the basin, potential recharge areas, and discharge areas, including significant active springs, seeps, and wetlands within or adjacent to the basin 6, Figure 9 5 Surface water bodies that are significant to the management of the basin 7.1, Figure 10 6 The source and point of delivery for imported water supplies 7.3, Figure 11 Notes: X, Section addressed by HCM in its entirety DRAFT HCM Structure and SGMA Requirements Significant Sections and Changes Data Gaps and Additional Analysis DMS DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT 3 Principal Aquifers Quaternary Alluvium Terrace Deposits Continental Deposits DRAFT DRAFT Station ID Location Long- term Averag e (cfs) Percen t Dry Years Dry Years Averag e (cfs) Wet Years Averag e (cfs) 11461000 Russian River North of Ukiah 153 59%126 232 11462000 East Fork Russian River 273 59%168 351 11462080 Russian River near Talmage 399 50%192 518 11462500 Russian River North of Hopland 605 53%353 759 Month Station 11462500 Russian River North of Hopland (cfs) Station 11462000 East Fork Russian River (cfs) Station 11461000 Russian River North of Ukiah (cfs) January 1563 519 406 February 1517 478 442 March 1118 308 356 April 592 278 168 May 297 229 59 June 176 195 16.2 July 174 222 3.3 August 181 229 0.8 September 179 229 0.6 October 197 224 6.8 November 220 170 40.5 December 920 208 335 Max historical flow 27,403 5,329 10,083 Min historical flow 21 5 0 DRAFT DRAFT HCM Structure and SGMA Requirements Significant Sections and Changes Data Gaps and Additional Analysis DMS DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT Constituent Parameter Reported range (units as shown)Reference Total Dissolved Solids · Range: 87-301 mg/L · Average: 166 mg/L · 190.0 mg/l (KP-MW 1, 1 July 2005) · 190.0 mg/L (Well P 6 2, October 2002 DWR, 2004; Kunzler Terrace Mine, 2009 Total Hardness · Moderately Hard to Hard Bicarbonate DWR, 2004; Kunzler Terrace Mine, 2009 · 250.0 (July, 2005) · 293.0 (015N012W08F001M3) Electrical Conductivity Kunzler Terrace Mine, 2009 Chloride · 7.3 mg/L (KP-MW 1, 1 July 2005) · 6.1 mg/L (Well P6, 2 October 2002) · 6.5 mg/L (015N012W08F001M3, October 1981) Kunzler Terrace Mine, 2009 DRAFT HCM Structure and SGMA Requirements Significant Sections and Changes Data Gaps and Additional Analysis DMS DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT ◼HCM& DMS Update and Discussion ◼Water Budget Preliminary Discussion ⚫Groundwater Model ⚫Hydrological Model ⚫Root Zone Water Budget ⚫Integration ◼Review and Commenting Process ◼Prop. 68 Grant Outline DRAFT Preliminary Water Budget DRAFT Required Water Budget Components ◼The water year type associated with the annual supply, demand, and change in groundwater stored. ◼An estimate of sustainable yield for the basin. DRAFT Preliminary Water Budget Mass Balance Water Budget (Spreadsheet) Integrated Demand Calculator (IDC)* Groundwater Model (MODFLOW)* Surface Water Model (PRMS) Resolution (Level of detail) Low (at basin scale-tub model) Medium (Land Use/Soil/Climate HRU)High (100m x 100m) Dis/ advantages A: Simple setup/ Calculation D: Difficult Decision- making A: Resolves water use data gaps; Some decision-making capability; projectable D: Complicated; input data heavy A: Informed decision-making capability, established, projectable D: Complicated; input data heavy Level of progress Done: Marquez et al. (2017); summary of results presented today In progress; preliminary results presented today In progress; preliminary& pre-calibration results presented today In progress; structure and set- up presented today Integrated Hydrological Model DRAFT Spreadsheet Water Budget (Marquez et al., 2017) UVGB Ukiah Valley Redwood Valley Ave.10,18 1 AF/y 7,789 AF/y 2,393 AF/y DRAFT Spreadsheet Water Budget (Marquez et al., 2017) DRAFT Spreadsheet Water Budget (Marquez et al., 2017) DRAFT GSFLOW Integrated Hydrological Model Integrated Hydrological Modelling PRMS Rainfall Runoff Model MODFLOW Groundwater Model *Soil (Root Zone Budget) DRAFTUnderlying Data: Land Use (Marquez et al., 2017) DRAFT Underlying Data: Soil ◼SSURGO Database: •Available Water Content •Saturated Conductivity •Porosity •Pore Size Distribution Index •Wilting Point •Field Capacity DRAFT Underlying Data: Crop Coefficients Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Grazing GZ 0.6 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.0 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.7 0.8 0.7 0.6 Fruits FD 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.7 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.8 0.7 0.0 0.0 Grapes VN 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.0 0.0 Pasture PA 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.0 0.0 Citrus/Subtropical CS 0.8 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 Apples AP 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.8 0.7 Greens and VegetablesVG 0.0 0.5 0.2 1.3 1.8 1.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Walnuts WN 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.1 1.1 1.0 0.7 0.2 0.0 Grains GR 0.2 0.6 0.9 1.1 1.0 0.6 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Grass GS 0.6 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.0 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.7 0.8 0.7 0.6 Field Crops FC 0.1 0.2 0.8 1.3 1.7 1.8 1.8 1.7 1.3 0.9 0.6 0.3 Pears PR 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.7 0.8 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.8 0.7 Pistachios PS 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.2 0.9 0.6 0.2 0.0 Alfalfa/Clover AL 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 1.0 1.0 1.0 Peaches & NectarinesPN 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.5 0.7 0.9 1.1 1.1 11.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 𝐸𝑆=𝐸𝑆0 × 𝐾𝑐 DRAFT PRMS: Discretization ◼Spatial: 100m x 100m Grid o Rows: 483 o Columns: 343 o Cells:165,669 o Active Area: 238,980 acres o Basin Area: 37,531 acres ◼Temporal: o From Jan 1, 1991 o To Dec 31, 2018 o Daily timesteps o 10,227 timesteps DRAFT PRMS: Stream Network ◼Developed based on 1m x 1m DEM analysis o 2,500,000 sq. meter (250 cells) drainage threshold is used. o 208 Stream Segments are defined o 4,653 stream cells o Approximate river profiles are extracted from LiDar DEM DRAFT PRMS: Precipitation DRAFT PRMS: Precipitation DRAFT PRMS: Streamflow DRAFT PRMS: State of the Model ◼Hydrological Simulation is complete. o Releases from PVP and subsequently Mendocino Lake is simulated through USGS/CDEC stream gauge. o Surface water and groundwater diversions are being estimated and are not yet included. ◼To be done by January 2020: o Final diversion estimations to be completed and implemented in the model. o Calibration and validation of the model. o Complete historical and current surface water budget. o Possible integration into the GS-FLOW Framework. DRAFT PRMS: Pre-Calibration Results ◼Simulated at Hopland Gauge (Basin’s Drainage) Expected improvements through Calibration and MODFLOW integration DRAFT IDC: Discretization ◼Spatial: 228 Combinations of unique Land Use, Hydrologic Soil Type, and Precipitation. ◼Temporal: o From Jan 1, 1991 o To Dec 31, 2018 o Daily timesteps o 10,227 timesteps Grazing Fruits Grapes Pasture Citrus/Subtropical Apples Greens and Vegetables Idle Walnuts Grains Grass Field Crops Pears Pistachios Alfalfa/Clover Peaches & Nectarines Not irrigated Native Vegetation Urban Water Riparian Vegetation Precipitation NOAA POTTER VALLEY POWERHOUSE Average of: NOAA UKIAH MUNICIPAL AIRPORT; UKIAH Soil Type A B C D Unknown ETo CIMIS Station# 106 (Sanel Valley)* DRAFT IDC: ETo DRAFT IDC: Frost/Heat Control ◼Problems of hourly data o Averaged NOAA Ukiah and CDEC LYO o 27% missing data points for 1991-2018 ◼Frost Control o We need to be able to determine individual events and their length for their impact on soil moisture, river, and for future scenarios. o Local understating is 5 events per year using 50 gal/min/acre for 3-8 hours. But not every year has a frost event. o We prefer not put average values into either PRMS or IDC. ◼Heat Control o Local understanding is one event per year using the same 50 gal/min/acre for 2-4 hours. o Not everybody uses the approach. o We prefer to find a way to put exact or constant average in the model for soil moisture and impact on streams. DRAFT IDC: Frost/Heat Control Year Count of Frost Dates Average duration of frost 1991 3 3.7 1994 2 7.5 1995 2 8.0 1996 1 8.0 1999 10 6.4 2000 4 8.3 2001 13 8.4 2002 15 9.7 2003 11 9.0 2006 4 10.8 2008 6 7.3 2009 3 9.7 2010 2 9.0 2012 4 8.5 ◼Are we using the right gauges? ◼Are we using the right threshold: o 34 F between 9PM- 2AM with a decreasing trend ◼Is there a resource to directly obtain this information? ◼Do these numbers make sense? DRAFT IDC: Grapes DRAFT IDC: Pears DRAFT IDC: Pasture DRAFT IDC: Preliminary Results IDC Lewis et al. IDC (Irrigation Efficiency=0.88; Pasture=0.75)Lewis et al. Grapes 13733 15540 9706 9479 Pears 1308 1845 2795 4263 Pasture 2887 3144 8962 6287 Area Consumptive use ◼We are over-estimating slightly. This may be due to the lengthier irrigation period. Addition of frost protection to soil moisture may benefit this aspect. DRAFT IDC: What is next? ◼Frost and heat protection adjustments. Determination of these events will be added as a generic soil moisture to the model. ◼Temporal adjustments to the land use. ◼Temporal adjustments to the irrigation method efficiency. ◼Linking the estimated applied water to surface water diversions or well pumpage and add to PRMS. DRAFT Groundwater Model: MODFLOW 53 MODFLOW is a modular finite-difference model,which solves the groundwater flow equation (Eq.1),derived from mass conservation and Darcy’s Law (Anderson et al.,2015).Uses packages to represent different boundary conditions. 𝜕 𝜕𝑥𝐾𝑥 𝜕ℎ 𝜕𝑥+𝜕 𝜕𝑥𝐾𝑥 𝜕ℎ 𝜕𝑥+𝜕 𝜕𝑥𝐾𝑥 𝜕ℎ 𝜕𝑥=𝑆𝑠 𝜕ℎ 𝜕𝑠(Eq.1) DRAFT 54 1. Model Grid -Columns:343. -Rows:483. DRAFT 55 2. Model Active/Inactive areas -:Active cells -:Inactive cells DRAFT 56 3.Model Layers and Extensions: Aquifer(1) and Aquifer (2) 1)-Chanel Alluvium 2)-Terrace deposit DRAFT 57 4)-Franciscan bedrock 3)-Continental deposit 3.Model Layers and Extensions: Aquifer(3) and Aquifer (4) DRAFT 58 4. Boundary Conditions: Streams Package:Stream Flow Routing (SFR). ▪SFR is used to route the water in the river in cascade and to simulate the exchanges between the stream and the aquifer; ▪208 stream segments were selected to represent the main catchment characteristics of the URR Basin; ▪For each stream segments a different width was assigned using the Lidar data of 1m resolution; ▪The width is key input of the stream geometry that allows connecting the stream to the aquifer when calculating the stream depth. DRAFT 59 4. Boundary Conditions: Streams ▪Two major datasets were required to build SFR. Package:Stream Flow Routing (SFR). Cell or Reach Layer row col Segment Number Reach cascade Reach Length (m) 0 0 72 143 1 1 1.27E+01 1 0 71 143 1 2 1.17E+02 2 0 71 142 1 3 6.76E+01 3 0 70 142 1 4 7.28E+01 4 0 70 141 1 5 5.25E+01 .............. .............. 4653 0 473 240 208 75 5.96E+01 Segment Number Outlet segment Headwaters Inflows Runoff K (m/day) Upstream Streambed Thickness Upstream (m) Elevation Upstream (m) Width Upstream (m) K (m/day) Downstream Streambed Thickness Downstream (m) Elevation Downstream (m) Width Downstream (m) 1 3 504.69 0 0.01 0.4 392 14 0.01 0.4 264 15 2 3 298.819 0 0.01 0.4 332 14 0.01 0.4 264 14 3 5 0 0 0.003 1 264 14 0.003 1 258 11 4 5 182.4004 0 0.01 0.4 299 10 0.01 0.4 258 10 5 7 0 0 0.003 1 258 10 0.003 1 256 10 6 7 1558.132 0 0.01 0.4 437 13 0.01 0.4 256 13 ........................ ........................ ........................ ........................ 208 0 0 0 0.01 1 153 22 0.003 1 147 22 DRAFT 60 Name Type X Y Layer row col Pumping (m3/day) 1. Pumping data are missing for the Wells Below Millview W17 MI 482776.2698 4337671.6053 1 235 164 Millview W12 MI 482903.2181 4337796.3870 1 234 164 Millview W16 MI 482893.0786 4337671.2450 1 235 163 Masonite W6 MI 482645.0277 4336408.4683 1 247 161 2. Pumping data are available for the Wells Below Calpella W1 MI 482999.7371 4344273.3147 1 169 165 138.41 Ukiah WTP MI 483465.4143 4334510.1550 1 266 169 0.0 Ukiah W2 MI 482653.0450 4334400.5699 1 267 161 5.96 Ukiah W3 MI 483860.6311 4333923.8788 1 272 173 653.74 Ukiah W4 MI 482840.6152 4332477.7921 1 287 163 1426.06 Ukiah W7 MI 482714.0727 4332753.8830 1 284 162 0.0 Ukiah W8 MI 483429.2259 4333293.3829 1 279 169 0.0 Willow/Nogard W5 MI 483315.5160 4330118.7917 1 310 168 579.61 Willow/Nogard W6 MI 483332.5786 4330037.6263 1 311 167 579.61 Willow/Burke W7 MI 484546.0796 4326967.8361 1 342 180 579.61 Willow/Burke W8 MI 484571.3393 4326848.3879 1 343 180 579.61 5. Boundary Conditions: Pumping Well Package:defines negative flux at a specific coordinate within the model. DRAFT 61 6. Next Boundary Conditions: Lake, Recharge and General Head Boundary (GHB) Packages Stress Periods Precipitation Evaporation Runoff WITHDRW Stage min Stage max 0 0.0015 0.007 0.002 592 213.36 231.82 1 ------ 2 ------ 3 ------ 4 ------ 5 ------ 6 ------ 7 ------ 8 ------ ------- ------- ------- ------- 336 ------ Stress Periods Recharge (m\day) 0 0.05 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5 - 6 - -- -- -- -- -- -- 336 - Lake dataset Recharge dataset DRAFT 62 7.Steady State and Transient Models 1.Example of water budget from a steady state Model 2. Transient Model Water budget from the transient model is under process and is covering the simulation period of 1991-2018 DRAFT ◼HCM & DMS Update and Discussion ◼Water Budget Preliminary Discussion ⚫Groundwater Model ⚫Hydrological Model ⚫Root Zone Water Budget ⚫Integration ◼Review and Commenting Process ◼Prop. 68 Grant Outline DRAFT ◼HCM & DMS Update and Discussion ◼Water Budget Preliminary Discussion ⚫Groundwater Model ⚫Hydrological Model ⚫Root Zone Water Budget ⚫Integration ◼Review and Commenting Process ◼Prop. 68 Grant Outline DRAFT Thank you! Questions? DRAFT PRMS (Climatic Input) Source Station Datatype Start Date End Date Elevation CDEC CDW Evaporation 2/8/2010 2/13/2019 670 CIMIS CIMIS 106 Evaporation 1/1/1991 4/30/2019 525 CDEC CDM Gauge Height 2/8/2010 2/13/2019 614 CDEC MRK Gauge Height 9/14/2016 2/13/2019 955 CDEC Q03 Gauge Height 2/6/2014 3/21/2016 1447 CDEC RRU Gauge Height 2/8/2010 2/13/2019 599 CDEC CDW Precipitation 2/8/2010 2/13/2019 670 CDEC LYO Precipitation 12/23/2010 4/9/2017 3200 NOAA POTTER VALLEY POWERHOUSE, CA US Precipitation 1/1/1991 3/1/2019 1018 NOAA UKIAH 4 WSW, CA US Precipitation 1/1/1991 11/30/2018 1328 NOAA UKIAH MUNICIPAL AIRPORT, CA US Precipitation 1/1/2001 3/1/2019 601 NOAA UKIAH, CA US Precipitation 1/1/1991 5/24/2013 636 CDEC WIL Precipitation 1/1/1991 2/13/2019 1925 NOAA WILLITS 1 NE, CA US Precipitation 1/1/1991 9/27/2012 1353 CDEC CDW Relative Humidity 2/8/2010 4/9/2017 670 CDEC LYO Relative Humidity 1/1/1995 2/12/2019 3200 CDEC PVP Relative Humidity 11/23/2009 2/13/2019 1020 CDEC CDW Solar Radiation 12/23/2010 2/13/2019 670 CDEC LYO Solar Radiation 12/23/2010 4/26/2014 3200 DRAFT PRMS (Climatic Input) Source Station Datatype Start Date End Date Elevation USGS 11461000 Stream Discharge 1/1/1991 3/10/2019 599 USGS 11461500 Stream Discharge 1/1/1991 3/10/2019 788 USGS 11462000 Stream Discharge 1/1/1991 10/1/2011 614 USGS 11462080 Stream Discharge 8/6/2009 3/10/2019 560 USGS 11462500 Stream Discharge 1/1/1991 3/10/2019 498 USGS 11471000 Stream Discharge 1/1/1991 9/30/2017 CDEC CDW Temperature 2/8/2010 2/13/2019 670 NOAA HOPLAND CALIFORNIA, CA US Temperature 10/4/2001 3/1/2019 2682 CDEC LYO Temperature 6/1/1991 2/12/2019 3200 NOAA POTTER VALLEY POWERHOUSE, CA US Temperature 1/1/1991 3/1/2019 1018 CDEC Q03 Temperature 1/10/2014 3/21/2016 1447 NOAA UKIAH MUNICIPAL AIRPORT, CA US Temperature 1/1/2001 3/1/2019 601 NOAA UKIAH, CA US Temperature 1/1/1991 5/24/2013 636 CDEC WIL Temperature 10/27/2009 6/12/2013 1925 NOAA WILLITS 1 NE, CA US Temperature 1/1/1991 9/27/2012 1353 CDEC CDW Wind Speed 12/23/2010 2/13/2019 670 CDEC LYO Wind Speed 1/1/1995 2/7/2019 3200