HomeMy WebLinkAboutMay 13 2020_TAC Presentation Final - 20200513 smallUkiah Valley Groundwater
Sustainability Plan Development
Update
May 13, 2020
Ukiah Valley Basin Groundwater Sustainability
Agency Technical Advisory Committee Meeting
DRAFT
DRAFT
State of GSP Prior to This Meeting
Historical Trends of Groundwater Elevation
Integrated Model Updates and Preliminary
Water Budget Discussion
Sustainable Management Criteria
Surface Water Depletion (introduction)
Subsidence
Outline
DRAFT
State of GSP Prior to This Meeting
Historical Trends of Groundwater Elevation
Integrated Model Updates and Preliminary
Water Budget Discussion
Sustainable Management Criteria
Surface Water Depletion (introduction)
Subsidence
Outline
DRAFT
State of GSP Prior to this Meeting
Sustainable Management Criteria
development for Water Quality
Uncalibrated confined MODFLOW was
presented along with calibrated PRMS and
IDC
SW/GW working group first two meetings were
held
DRAFT
Outline
State of GSP Prior to This Meeting
Historical Trends of Groundwater Elevation
Integrated Model Updates and Preliminary
Water Budget Discussion
Sustainable Management Criteria
Surface Water Depletion (introduction)
Subsidence
DRAFT
Long-term Historical Groundwater
Elevations (Alluvial Aquifer)
6
•Relatively constant long-term historical
elevations
•Alluvium aquifer recovers quickly from
seasonal changes
•Very limited inter-annual variability
Erroneous
measurements
DRAFT
Historical Groundwater Elevations by
Region for Alluvial Aquifer
7
Redwood Valley
Range : 718-792 ft-MSL
Seasonal Change: ~12 ft (4-17 ft)
Central Ukiah Valley
Range : 542 -691 ft-MSL
Seasonal Change: ~8 ft (0-28 ft)
DRAFT
Historical Groundwater Elevations by
Region for Alluvial Aquifer
8
Southern Ukiah Valley
Range : 518-650 ft-MSL
Seasonal Change: ~8 ft (1-16 ft)
DRAFT
Seasonal Groundwater Elevations
9
Spring 2019 Fall 2019
GW direction is
normally southward
and towards the river:
gaining conditions.
DRAFT
Questions?
DRAFT
State of GSP Prior to This Meeting
Historical Trends of Groundwater Elevation
Integrated Model Updates and Preliminary
Water Budget Discussion
Sustainable Management Criteria
Surface Water Depletion (introduction)
Subsidence
Outline
ET demand for
crops is met by
irrigation with
groundwater or
surface water
Surface Water and
Groundwater
available for
Agricultural Use
IDC or GSFLOW
Agriculture Model
Streamflow Routing (SFR)
in the MODFLOW
Groundwater Model
PRMS Rainfall
Runoff
Watershed
Model
Surface and groundwater flows
Integrated Model Updates:
Surface Water and
Groundwater
available for Urban
and Domestic Use
Surface and groundwater flows
DRAFT
PRMS updates
PRMS updated to newer version PRMS 5.0 compatible with
GSFLOW v2.0.
Ponds included in PRMS. SW diversions are estimated.
Reservoir operation methodology developed to be incorporated into
the PRMS.
PRMS is running with GSFLOW executable.
PRMS 5.0 has now the capability to model stream temperature.
IDC updates
IDC calculated percolation and ET are being used to adjust
MODFLOW recharge and PRMS ET.
IDC’s role will be switched to recently released Ag Package within
GSFLOW and IDC will be used to form Ag Package inputs and
ground truth its results.
Integrated Model Updates
13
DRAFT
14
MODFLOW:
Discretization
Spatial: 100m x 100m Grid
o Rows: 483
o Columns: 343
o Cells:165,669
o Active Area: ~ 240 acres
o Basin Area: ~ 37 acres
Temporal:
o From Jan 1, 1991
o To Dec 31, 2018
o Monthly timesteps
o 366 timesteps
DRAFT
Layer1: Channel
Alluvium
Layer2: Terrace
Deposit
Model layers
•Layer 1:Has a constant thickness of 12m (39ft)
•Layer 2:Has thicknesses ranging from 12 to 78m (39 to 256ft)
DRAFT
Layer4: Franciscan Layer3: Continental
Deposit
Model layers
•Layer 3:Has thicknesses ranging from 12 to 177m (39 to 580ft)
•Layer 4:Has a constant thickness of 50m (160ft)
DRAFT
Model Assumptions
17
Model Version Advantages Disadvantages
Confined Layers
[1,2,3]
•Quick Run time •No Coupling with
GSFLOW•Minimal Convergence
Issues
Model Version Disadvantages Advantages
Unconfined
Layers [1,2,3]
•Long Run time •Coupling with GSFLOW
•Challenging Convergen
ce Issues
•Add unsaturated zone
flow
Calibrate Confined Version
Use Calibrated Values
Run Unconfined Version
Couple with GSFLOW Final Calibration
DRAFT
18
Aquifer Parameters Parameters Ranges
Hydraulic conductivity:
-Layer1:Channel Alluvium 150 -220 ft/day
-Layer2:Terrace Deposit 0.1 -15 ft/day
-Layer3:Continental Deposit 0.01 -0.51 ft/day
-Layer4:Franciscan 0.3x10-5 -0.3x10-7 ft/day
Specific Storage
-Layer 1&2 1x10-5 -1 x10-4
-Layer 3 1x10-5 -1 x10-4
-Layer 4 1x10-7 -1 x10-5
Specific Yield Layer 1&2&3 1x10-2 -5 x10-2
Model Hydrologic Parameters
Values before calibration from the Hydrogeological
Conceptual Model (HCM) and Literature.
DRAFT
19
Stream Flow Routing (SFR)package
Current Modeling Effort : Stream Flow
Routing Package (SFR).
Previous Modeling Effort: River
Package
DRAFT
DRAFT
Impaired flows of
main stem
Large tributaries
Small tributaries
Natural flows of
main stem
Stream Parameters Parameters Ranges
Streambed Thickness:
-Main stem upstream of the lake –
-Main stem downstream of the lake 3.2 –5 ft
-Large tributaries 1.3 –2 ft
-Small tributaries –
Streambed Hydraulic Conductivity
-Main stem upstream of the lake –
-Main stem downstream of the lake 0.01-0.02 ft/d
-Large tributaries 0.01-0.02 ft/d
-Small tributaries –
DRAFT
Mendocino Lake Modeling
Current Model
•Specified releases from the stream
gage PRMS Model
•Best way to simulate historical
releases
Future Model
•Lake package in MODFLOW
Allow to assess and simulate different
management scenarios especially :
•Reservoir operations
DRAFT
23
Well (WEL)package
2. Missing well supply data
Name Type
Pumping
(AF/month)
Millview W17 MI -
Millview W12 MI -
Millview W16 MI -
Masonite W6 MI -
Well Package:defines groundwater pumping rate at a
specific well location.
1. Available well supply data
Name Type
Pumping (AF/month)
till December 2015
Calpella W1 MI 2.13
Ukiah WTP MI 0
Ukiah W2 MI 0
Ukiah W3 MI 10.59
Ukiah W4 MI 0
Ukiah W7 MI 24.59
Ukiah W8 MI 8.05
Willow/Nogard W5 MI 12.35
Willow/Nogard W6 MI 12.35
Willow/Burke W7 MI 12.35
Willow/Burke W8 MI 12.35
Municipal Wells
DRAFT
Well (WEL)package
Agricultural Wells —Demand is currently estimated from IDC at each cell
with groundwater-irrigated Agriculture
… will be migrated to GSFLOW Ag Package in the future
IDC Flow Components
Boundary Condition for
MODFLOW
DRAFT
Recharge package
Recharge —Currently specified using PRMS results where there is no
agriculture, and with IDC where there is agriculture
… will be calculated dynamically with GSFLOW in the future
IDC Flow Components
Boundary Condition for MODFLOW
PRMS Flow Components
DRAFT
Questions?
MODFLOW Initial Calibration
DRAFT
•Parameters are defined variables that control the
flow system in a model.
•Examples include hydrogeologic properties
within the model.
•Sensitivities are a measurement of how important a
parameter is to set of observations.
•Observations in groundwater models are typically
hydraulic heads (water level) but including stream
flow and other fluxes into or out of the system is
very beneficial for a successful calibration.
Introduction to Parameters and Sensitivities
DRAFT
29
Observations
Initial sensitivity
analysis and
Calibration:
•39 CASGEM wells
•1 USGS gage
(Hopland)
Subsequent
Calibration:
•39 CASGEM + 5
CLSI wells
•3 USGS + 6 CLSI
gages
DRAFT
30
Sensitivity Results—which parameters
are important?
Groundwater pumping and recharge are
the most sensitive parameters …
… while hydraulic properties are relatively
less sensitive.
Pumping estimates are relatively well
constrained, recharge is uncertain.
Parameters
Re
l
a
t
i
v
e
p
a
r
a
m
e
t
e
r
i
m
p
o
r
t
a
n
c
e
(C
o
m
p
o
s
i
t
e
S
c
a
l
e
d
S
e
n
s
i
t
i
v
i
t
y
[
C
S
S
]
)
more
important
less
important
Hydraulic properties (Hydraulic Conductivity, Storage, Stream Conductance)
DRAFT
31
Calibration Setup—Which parameters
are included?
Parameters
Re
l
a
t
i
v
e
p
a
r
a
m
e
t
e
r
i
m
p
o
r
t
a
n
c
e
(C
o
m
p
o
s
i
t
e
S
c
a
l
e
d
S
e
n
s
i
t
i
v
i
t
y
[
C
S
S
]
)
Parameters included
in the calibration:
Recharge
Horizontal hydraulic conductivity
Stream conductance
Storage properties
more
important
less
important
Hydraulic properties (Hydraulic Conductivity, Storage, Stream Conductance)
DRAFT
32
Initial Calibration Results—Parameter
Adjustments
Parameter Initial value Calibrated value Change
Hk layer 1 196.8 ft/d 212.8 ft/d Increase
Hk layer 2 9.8 ft/d 0.96 ft/d Decrease
Hk layer 3 1.7ft/d 0.06 ft/d Decrease
Hk layer 4 3.3e-5 ft/d 3.3-5 ft/d Not adjusted
SS layer 1 1e-4 2e-5 Decrease
SS layer 2 1e-4 2e-5 Decrease
SS layer 3 1e-5 6e-6 Decrease
SS layer 4 1e-7 1e-7 Not adjusted
Upland Strm Cond.0.03 ft/d 0.01 ft/d Decrease
Lowland strm. Cond.0.01 ft/d 3.1 ft/d Increase
Recharge
adjustment factor
1.0 (unitless)0.4 (unitless)Decrease
Hy
d
r
a
u
l
i
c
Co
n
d
u
c
t
i
v
i
t
y
Sp
e
c
i
f
i
c
St
o
r
a
g
e
St
r
e
a
m
Co
n
d
u
c
t
a
n
c
e
DRAFT
33
Calibration Results—Groundwater Heads
Uncalibrated heads were
consistently overpredicted
Initial calibration yields improvements
in heads …
… by adjusting hydraulic properties
and reducing recharge
DRAFT
34
Calibration Results—Groundwater Heads
Root Mean Square Error (RMSE) is a
measurement of model agreement.
RMSE = 0 = perfect fit
RMSE is in units of length (i.e., ft.)
Uncalibrated RMSE = 54 ft
Calibrated RMSE = 28 ft
47% improvement … more is needed
DRAFT
35
Calibration Results—Groundwater Heads
uncalibrated heads
calibrated heads
measured heads
Uncalibrated heads were
consistently overpredicted
Initial calibration yields
improvements in heads
DRAFT
36
Calibration Results—Groundwater Heads
uncalibrated heads
calibrated heads
measured heads
Consistent improvement for most
calibration targets
DRAFT
37
Calibration Results—Groundwater Heads
uncalibrated heads
calibrated heads
measured heads
Consistent improvement for most
calibration targets
DRAFT
38
Calibration Results—Groundwater Heads
uncalibrated heads
calibrated heads
measured heads
Calibration is an iterative process:
Additional calibration with coupled
GSFLOW model will be necessary to
improve results …
… to better match measured heads,
streamflow, and interannual variability
Some calibration targets need
improvement
DRAFT
Groundwater Model:
Preliminary Results
(Simulated minus Observed)
Overprediction of
heads still occurring
along the river corridor
DRAFT
40
Calibration Results -Streamflow
Streamflow at the outlet is insensitive
to calibration of hydraulic properties
in MODFLOW
Greater improvement will occur with
integration of PRMS …
… and additional streamflow
observations
2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
DRAFT
41
Calibration Results -Streamflow
Da
i
l
y
A
v
e
r
a
g
e
S
t
r
e
a
m
f
l
o
w
(
C
F
S
)
,
L
o
g
1
0
s
c
a
l
e
PRMS Calibrated Streamflow shows good agreement
Simulated (red)
Observed (blue)
DRAFT
New Data to be Included
in Calibration Process
CLSI data
6 tributary gages
5 continuous wells
Data helps fill important data
gaps
Tributary gage data to better
understand GW/SW
interactions
42
DRAFT
43
New Data to be Included
in Calibration Process
Reasonable uncalibrated agreement for some tributary gages
2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
Estimated Flow
Simulated Flow
DRAFT
New Data to be Included
in Calibration Process
44Reasonable uncalibrated agreement for some tributary gages
missing
high-flow
events
timing issues
2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
Estimated Flow
Simulated Flow
DRAFT
New Data to be Included
in Calibration Process
45Poor uncalibrated agreement for some tributary gages
Large rating curve uncertainty
for CLSI gages
2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
Estimated Flow
Simulated Flow
DRAFT
46
Simulated
Results
Layer 1
Fall 2015
DRAFT
47
Simulated
Results
Layer 1
Spring 2015
DRAFT
48
Simulated
Results
Layer 2
Fall 2015
DRAFT
49
Simulated
Results
Layer 2
Spring 2015
DRAFT
Next Steps
Transfer to GSFLOW Model
Implement Ag package
Final Calibration (PRMS + MODFLOW)
50
DRAFT
Questions?
DRAFT
State of GSP Prior to This Meeting
Historical Trends of Groundwater Elevation
Integrated Model Updates and Preliminary
Water Budget Discussion
Sustainable Management Criteria
Surface Water Depletion (introduction)
Subsidence
Outline
DRAFT
SUSTAINABLE MANAGEMENT
CRITERIA –SURFACE WATER
DEPLETION
53
DRAFT
Surface Water-Groundwater Interaction SMC
What are surface water-groundwater
interactions and why are they relevant?
54
DRAFT
GW Elev.
Streambed Elev.
GW Elev.Streambed Elev.
How can we determine whether a
stream is gaining or losing?
Surface Water-Groundwater Interaction SMC
DRAFT
Gaining Stream
Pumping can increase
infiltration of surface
water to the
groundwater system,
or reduce exfiltration
of groundwater to
surface water …
… phenomena
known as “Surface
Water Depletion.”
How can a pumping well impact
streamflow?
Surface Water-Groundwater Interaction SMC
DRAFT
“Cone of
depression” is
initially small. Note
that its extent is
unrelated to impact
on stream.
How can a pumping well
impact streamflow?
Pumping creates an
imperceptibly small
decrease in hydraulic
gradient to the river …
eventually resulting in
reduced discharge to the
river.
Groundwater pumping
removes water that would
have otherwise discharged to
the river or riparian vegetation
Surface Water-Groundwater Interaction SMC
DRAFT
Cone of
depression may
grow with time
How can a pumping well
impact streamflow?
River is still gaining, but
gradually less and less than
before pumping initiated
Groundwater pumping
removes water that would
have otherwise discharged to
the river or riparian vegetation
Surface Water-Groundwater Interaction SMC
More time pumping = more impact on river
DRAFT
Cone of
depression may
grow with time
How can a pumping well
impact streamflow?
River is still gaining, but
gradually less and less than
before pumping initiated
Groundwater pumping
removes water that would
have otherwise discharged to
the river or riparian vegetation
Surface Water-Groundwater Interaction SMC
More time pumping = more impact on river
DRAFT
Cone of
depression may
grow with time
How can a pumping well
impact streamflow?
River is still gaining, but
gradually less and less than
before pumping initiated
Groundwater pumping
removes water that would
have otherwise discharged to
the river or riparian vegetation
Surface Water-Groundwater Interaction SMC
More time pumping = more impact on river
DRAFT
Cone of
depression may
grow with time
How can a pumping well
impact streamflow?
River is still gaining, but
gradually less and less than
before pumping initiated
Groundwater pumping
removes water that would
have otherwise discharged to
the river or riparian vegetation
Surface Water-Groundwater Interaction SMC
More time pumping = more impact on river
DRAFT
Losing Stream
How can a pumping well impact
streamflow in a losing stream?
A stream segment can
“gain” water and “lose”
water to/from the
groundwater system at
different times during the
year
Surface Water-Groundwater Interaction SMC
Streams often “lose” water to the groundwater
system during summer and fall months, even under
natural conditions without pumping
DRAFT
Cone of
depression may
grow with time
River is still losing,
and will lose more as
the duration of
pumping increases
Groundwater pumping removes
water that would have otherwise
discharged to the river or riparian
vegetation
… at some point in the future
How can a pumping well
impact streamflow in a
losing stream?
Surface Water-Groundwater Interaction SMC
More time pumping = more impact on river
DRAFT
Cone of
depression may
grow with time
River is still losing,
and will lose more as
the duration of
pumping increases
Groundwater pumping removes
water that would have otherwise
discharged to the river or riparian
vegetation
… at some point in the future
How can a pumping well
impact streamflow in a
losing stream?
Surface Water-Groundwater Interaction SMC
More time pumping = more impact on river
DRAFT
Cone of
depression may
grow with time
River is still losing,
and will lose more as
the duration of
pumping increases
Groundwater pumping removes
water that would have otherwise
discharged to the river or riparian
vegetation
… at some point in the future
How can a pumping well
impact streamflow in a
losing stream?
Surface Water-Groundwater Interaction SMC
More time pumping = more impact on river
DRAFT
66
How is SW/GW interaction unique in UVBGSA?
… River Incision
No incision Elevated water table Interconnected tributaries
River
Interconnected Tributary
DRAFT
67
Channel incision Reduced water table depth Disconnected tributaries
Interconnected ReachDisconnected Reach
River
Channel incision
Water Table Drop = Reduced Storage
How is SW/GW interaction unique in UVBGSA?
… River Incision
DRAFT
68
River
Channel incision
Water Table Drop = Reduced Storage
Channel incision Reduced water table depth Disconnected tributaries
Interconnected ReachDisconnected Reach
How is SW/GW interaction unique in UVBGSA?
… River Incision
DRAFT
GW Elev.
Streambed
Elev.
GW Elev.Streambed Elev.
Questions on the physics of
groundwater-surface water interaction?
DRAFT
How are SW/GW interactions relevant to
the GSP?
§354.28 (c)(6) Depletions of Interconnected Surface
Water.
The minimum threshold for depletions of
interconnected surface water shall be the rate or
volume of surface water depletions caused by
groundwater use that has adverse impacts on
beneficial uses of the surface water and may lead to
undesirable results.
70
DRAFT
How are SW/GW interactions relevant to the
GSP?
The minimum threshold for depletions of
interconnected surface water shall be
the rate or volume
of surface water depletions caused by groundwater
use
that has adverse impacts on beneficial uses of the
surface water
and may lead to undesirable results.
71*Based on the technical team’s understanding at this time.
This definition will determine*
DRAFT
How are SW/GW interactions relevant to
the GSP?
§354.28 (c)(6) Depletions of Interconnected
Surface Water. (cont.)
The minimum threshold established for
depletions of interconnected surface water
shall be supported by the following:
(A) The location, quantity, and timing of depletions
of interconnected surface water.
(B) A description of the groundwater and surface
water model used to quantify surface water
depletion. … 72
DRAFT
SW/GW interactions discussion topics
Possibly tailor in-stream flow studies to local
conditions
Correlating flow conditions with data from spawning surveys
data or juvenile surveys
Possibly define measurable objectives as
functional flows, rather than constant flow rate
Relate flow rates (at Hopland gage?
elsewhere?) to tributary connectivity
Has this been done?
What does the model tell us about SW-GW
interaction?
73
DRAFT
Example using historical data from McNab Creek and adjacent monitoring well
15-minute stream gage + monitoring well head data since 2012
DRAFT
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
Example using historical data from McNab Creek and adjacent monitoring well
Approximate Streambed Elev.
DRAFT
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
Stream Loss Periods
Approximate Streambed Elev.
GW Elev.
Streambed Elev.
DRAFT
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
Large Gradient = Greater Stream Losses
Magnitude and direction of gradient affects loss/gain volumes
Approximate Streambed Elev.
DRAFT
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
Magnitude and direction of gradient affects loss/gain volumes
Smaller Gradient = Smaller Stream Losses
Approximate Streambed Elev.
DRAFT
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
Stream Gaining/Neutral Periods
Approximate Streambed Elev.
GW Elev.
Streambed Elev.
DRAFT
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
Magnitude and direction of gradient affects loss/gain volumes
Significant bank storage
following wet winters
Approximate Streambed Elev.
DRAFT
Key Tasks
Get informed on all aspects of SW beneficial
uses
Options for defining:
Measurable Objectives
for stream discharge/depletion and GDEs
“healthy” basin condition
Undesirable Results
“Significant and unreasonable” depletion of surface water
Minimum Thresholdsavoid undesirable results
What are the key questions that will help define
the above?
81
DRAFT
QUESTIONS ON SW-GW
INTERACTION?
DRAFT
SUSTAINABLE MANAGEMENT
CRITERIA –SUBSIDENCE
83
DRAFTSubsidence of the land surface is an
undesirable result for SGMA
Lowering groundwater levels
Reduction in storage
Seawater intrusion
Degraded water quality
Land subsidence
Surface water depletion
DRAFT
DRAFTSubsidence data available for Mendocino Co.
InSAR satellite-derived
subsidence data product is the
only known dataset for
Mendocino Co. to use for GSPs
Data available from mid 2015-
2018
Additional 2018-2019 data
expected by April 2019
DRAFT
DRAFT
86
Data shown are
within these two
color zones
InSAR-derived
and calibrated to
CGPS stations
across CA
DRAFT
Subsidence data available for Mendocino Co.
DRAFT Subsidence data for Ukiah Valley
87
DWR assessed that there was no
documented groundwater-extraction
induced subsidence of concern
DRAFT
DRAFT
88
Subsidence data for Ukiah Valley 2015-2018
DRAFT
InSAR error from
calibration and
conversion is
~0.1 ft
DRAFT
89
Subsidence data for Ukiah Valley 2015-2018
DRAFT
InSAR error from
calibration and
conversion is
~0.1 ft
Data display largely noise considering the range of
both the data and the error are equivalent
DRAFT
Thank you!
Questions?
DRAFT
Seasonal Change in Groundwater
Elevations
91
2019:
Spring Head-Fall Head
Similar pattern were
shown for 2017-2019.
It seems west of the
river and east of the
river have different
responses to the
change in season. That
may be due to the
difference in land use.
North of Redwood
Valley is very
dependent on climate
variability.
Are not covered
by Aquifer 1 and
the differences
are majorly due
to interpolation
DRAFT
92
Calibration Results—Water Budget
Ac
r
e
-fe
e
t
p
e
r
m
o
n
t
h
l
y
;
+
i
n
,
-ou
t
Uncalibrated Monthly Groundwater Budget for a “Typical” Water Year (GSA Area)
Recharge (in)
Boundary Flows (in)
Stream Discharge (out)
Groundwater Pumping (out)
Oct Jan Apr JulNovDecFebMarMayJun Aug Sep
DRAFT
93
Calibration Results—Water Budget
Ac
r
e
-fe
e
t
p
e
r
m
o
n
t
h
l
y
;
+
i
n
,
-ou
t
Calibrated Monthly Groundwater Budget for a “Typical” Water Year (GSA Area)
Recharge (in)
Boundary Flows (in)
Stream Discharge (out)
Groundwater Pumping (out)
Oct Jan Apr JulNovDecFebMarMayJun Aug Sep
PLACEHOLDER FIGURE