Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutFinal Draft_Sep 10 2020_TAC PresentationUkiah Valley Groundwater Sustainability Plan Development Update September 9, 2020 Ukiah Valley Basin Groundwater Sustainability Agency Technical Advisory Committee Meeting DRAFT DRAFT ◼Monitoring Network and TSS Update ⚫Instrumentation of Existing Wells ⚫New Stream Gage Installation ⚫TSS and Drilled Wells ◼Introduction to Possible Geophysical Studies that Facilitate Management Actions ◼GSP Chapters Development and Review ◼Integrated Model Updates and Preliminary Water Budget ◼Future Scenarios ⚫Summary of Scenario Development Survey ⚫Examples of Simulated Future Scenarios ⚫Development of Further Scenarios ◼Satellite Imagery for SW/GW Interaction and GDEs: Use and Proof of Concept Outline DRAFT ◼Monitoring Network and TSS Update ⚫Instrumentation of Existing Wells ⚫New Stream Gage Installation ⚫TSS and Drilled Wells ◼Introduction to Possible Geophysical Studies that Facilitate Management Actions ◼GSP Chapters Development and Review ◼Integrated Model Updates and Preliminary Water Budget ◼Future Scenarios ⚫Summary of Scenario Development Survey ⚫Examples of Simulated Future Scenarios ⚫Development of Further Scenarios ◼Satellite Imagery for SW/GW Interaction and GDEs: Use and Proof of Concept Outline DRAFT ◼Couple monitoring wells on both sides of streams with stream gage to assess the SW/GW interaction. ◼Requires continuous measurement of GW levels and streamflow: ⚫Instrument existing wells ⚫Drill and instrument new wells (TSS) ⚫Install new stream gages Monitoring Network and TSS Update Stream Gage DRAFT Example Dashboard DRAFT Monitoring Network and TSS Update Communicating with well-owner to instrument Added well that will be instrumented Communicating with well-owner to incorporate one of the wells USGS-11462080 No need to drill Instrumenting two separate wells in Aq 1 and 2. Instrumented and ready to use. Verbally in agreement for drilling new wells. Southern well is a nested well. DRAFT Monitoring Network and TSS Update DRAFT Monitoring Network and TSS Update Still looking for an existing well to instrument or permission to drill Will coordinate after finding a well on the other side of river DRAFT Monitoring Network and TSS Update Verbal agreement to instrument an existing well from the set of GeoTracker wells Will coordinate in the next round of instrumentation One well exist. Seemingly able to drill a new well. We need at least one of the wells NMFS-West Branch Russian River: Not there anymore DRAFT ◼Two primary locations are in Redwood Valley on Russian River and Forsythe Creek: ⚫Provide a good picture when incorporated into the Redwood Valley Monitoring Transect ⚫Provide a measure of inflow to the basin from Russian River ⚫Provide understanding of Forsythe creek as a model tributary in the northern Ukiah Valley Basin (Redwood Valley) New Streamflow Gage Installation West Fork Russian River Gage to replace the NFMS gage in Redwood Valley Forsythe Creek Gage: The first gage to be installed on tributaries for the plan DRAFT Questions? ◼Are there any other critical areas that we should look into to add GW and/or SW monitoring? Probably outside our transect network. ◼Which tributaries should be considered as priority candidates for streamflow measurement? DRAFT ◼Monitoring Network and TSS Update ⚫Instrumentation of Existing Wells ⚫New Stream Gage Installation ⚫TSS and Drilled Wells ◼Introduction to Possible Geophysical Studies that Facilitate Management Actions ◼GSP Chapters Development and Review ◼Integrated Model Updates and Preliminary Water Budget ◼Future Scenarios ⚫Summary of Scenario Development Survey ⚫Examples of Simulated Future Scenarios ⚫Development of Further Scenarios ◼Satellite Imagery for SW/GW Interaction and GDEs: Use and Proof of Concept Outline DRAFT Intro to Possible Geophysical Studies that Facilitate Management Actions ◼The purpose of the geophysical investigations is to improve the knowledge about the recharge process and possibly better understand the role of GDEs. ◼Use a towed TEM method named tTEM, which provides continuous mapping down to a depth of 150-200 feet, and a hand-carried TEM system named WalkTEM to reach a depth of 800-1000 feet at specific sounding/point locations. ◼Prop 68 (DWR) -Address drought and groundwater challenges to achieve regional sustainability for investments in groundwater recharge projects with surface water, stormwater, recycled water, and other conjunctive use projects DRAFT Intro to Possible Geophysical Studies that Facilitate Management Actions Link to a short video showing the tTEM system in operation: https://youtu.be/8MjKv1rX-_A Towed Time-Domain Electromagnetics (tTEM) DRAFT Intro to Possible Geophysical Studies that Facilitate Management Actions Link to a short video showing the tTEM system in operation: https://youtu.be/8MjKv1rX-_A Towed Time-Domain Electromagnetics (tTEM) DRAFT Intro to Possible Geophysical Studies that Facilitate Management Actions Hand-carried Time-Domain Electromagnetics (WalkTEM) DRAFT Intro to Possible Geophysical Studies that Facilitate Management Actions Time-Domain Electromagnetics (TEM) “In areas where the groundwater level is at an intermediate depth (e.g., 20–40 m [65–131’]), such information is needed from the ground surface down to a minimum depth of ~50 m [164’]. To achieve this goal, we used a new geophysical imaging system: a towed time-domain electromagnetic system that is efficient for acquiring data at a significantly improved resolution and a scale needed for MAR.” DRAFT Intro to Possible Geophysical Studies that Facilitate Management Actions Time-Domain Electromagnetics (TEM) “In areas where the groundwater level is at an intermediate depth (e.g., 20–40 m [65–131’]), such information is needed from the ground surface down to a minimum depth of ~50 m [164’]. To achieve this goal, we used a new geophysical imaging system: a towed time-domain electromagnetic system that is efficient for acquiring data at a significantly improved resolution and a scale needed for MAR.” DRAFT Intro to Possible Geophysical Studies that Facilitate Management Actions Electrical Resistivity Imaging/Tomography (ERI/T) DRAFT Intro to Possible Geophysical Studies that Facilitate Management Actions “This transdisciplinary study explores the use of geophysics (electrical resistivity tomography) to fill in our understanding of shallow subsurface soil-hydrological conditions within GDEs. In addition, we develop an approach to characterize ecosystem health within GDEs, using groundwater-dependent vegetation (phreatophytes) as indicators.” DRAFT Intro to Possible Geophysical Studies that Facilitate Management Actions ◼Where are the top locations to conduct these studies? ◼Are there interested parties that could help with this effort? DRAFT Questions? DRAFT ◼Monitoring Network and TSS Update ⚫Instrumentation of Existing Wells ⚫New Stream Gage Installation ⚫TSS and Drilled Wells ◼Introduction to Possible Geophysical Studies that Facilitate Management Actions ◼GSP Chapters Development and Review ◼Integrated Model Updates and Preliminary Water Budget ◼Future Scenarios ⚫Summary of Scenario Development Survey ⚫Examples of Simulated Future Scenarios ⚫Development of Further Scenarios ◼Satellite Imagery for SW/GW Interaction and GDEs: Use and Proof of Concept Outline DRAFT GSP Chapters Development and Review A GSP has five chapters: 1.Introduction 2.Plan Area and Basin Setting 3.Sustainable Management Criteria 4.Projects and Management Actions 5.Plan Implementation Mostly administrative information Will work with the County to produce As we progress investigating each SMC we will roll out respective subchapters of these two chapters for review starting with Water Quality and Subsidence in October. Will be completed and sent for review by the end of September. This chapter will undergo minor changes up to the end of the GSP writing Will be rolled out with the completed GSP DRAFT ◼Chapter 2 (2.1 and 2.2) provided to the TAC in September 2020 ◼As we progress investigating each SMC we will roll out respective subchapters of these two chapters for review ⚫Water Quality and Subsidence (including SMC and monitoring network): October 2020 ⚫Surface Water Depletion (including SMC and monitoring network): End of November 2020 ⚫Lowering groundwater levels and decrease in storage: January 2020 Next steps DRAFT More in details for Chapter 2 ◼Key sections not completed for Subchapter 2.1 ⚫Existing monitoring and management programs ⚫Incorporate County of Mendocino Zoning Plan ⚫Include environmental health department policies for well construction/abandonment/destruction and wellhead protection ⚫Input for migration of contaminated groundwater and replenishment of groundwater in recent years if any. Accordingly, descriptions of cleanup, conservation, water recycling, and extraction projects need to be incorporated. ⚫Improve understanding of Groundwater Dependent Ecosystems DRAFT More in details for Chapter 2 ◼Key sections not completed for Subchapter 2.2 ⚫Identification of interconnected surface water systems and GDEs are pending further discussion and technical work. DRAFT Reminder about how to use the Reviewer Form Reviewer name: Submission date: GSP sections reviewed: Line number Suggested revision (please delete example text below once you submit) 69 Example: In the acknowledgements section, please add XXX as a partner 131 Example: Can you provide source of information, footnote or otherwise? 220 Example of how to make edits to original document text: In 2014, the State of California enacted the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act, which includes requirements that must be addressed in the Scott Valley Basin, as this area is considered a medium priority groundwater basin. DRAFT Questions? DRAFT ◼Monitoring Network and TSS Update ⚫Instrumentation of Existing Wells ⚫New Stream Gage Installation ⚫TSS and Drilled Wells ◼Introduction to Possible Geophysical Studies that Facilitate Management Actions ◼GSP Chapters Development and Review ◼Integrated Model Updates and Preliminary Water Budget ◼Future Scenarios ⚫Summary of Scenario Development Survey ⚫Examples of Simulated Future Scenarios ⚫Development of Further Scenarios ◼Satellite Imagery for SW/GW Interaction and GDEs: Use and Proof of Concept Outline DRAFT 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) 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 ◼Status of model in the June meeting Integrated Model Updates DRAFT 32 ◼What is new ⚫Different Stream channels are defined for better representation and calibration Stream Type Thickness Initial Hydraulic Conductivity Bedrock canyon 0.2 0.001 Confined Alluvial Channels Semiconfined Alluvial Channels Dissected Alluvium Channels 0.6 0.003 Alluvial Fan Channels Alluvial unconfined streams Main Stem 1 0.01 Regulated Channels 1.5 0.03 Integrated Model Updates DRAFT 33 ◼What is new ⚫Different aquifer zones are defined for better parameterization and calibration Integrated Model Updates Zone/Aquifer Aquifer I Aquifer II Aquifer III Zone 1 Stream channels (hk1= 60 m/day) Zone 2 Older deposits (hk2= 40 m/day) Zone 3 Confined deposits (hk3= 1.5 m/day) Zone 4 Unconfined deposits (hk4= 4.5 m/day) Zone 5 Underlying Aquifers I and II with significant clay (hk5= 0.03 m/day) Zone 6 Outcrops (hk6= 0.15 m/day) *hk values are suggested values used as initial for calibration DRAFT 34 ◼What is new ⚫We now have a Coupled GSFLOW Integrated Model Updates Calibrate Confined Version Use Calibrated Values Run Unconfined Version Couple with GSFLOW Final Calibration Calibrate Confined Version Use Calibrated Values Run Unconfined Version Couple with GSFLOW ◼What is being undertaken ⚫Demands and diversions are being included in the GSFLOW based on IDC results ⚫Additional observations points for GW levels and streamflow are included for the next round of calibration ◼Next steps: ⚫Sensitivity analysis and calibration of GSFLOW ⚫Assessment of the need to add the Ag Package DRAFT Preliminary Historical (1991-2018) Water Budget 0 5 50 5 1 0 000 0 0 ater year r e c i p i t a t i o n (in ) ater year Type ritical ry elow normal ove normal et ater year Type ased on recipitation Critical Dry Below Normal Above Normal Wet 1976 1972 1966 1967 1969 1977 1979 1968 1970 1974 2007 1981 1985 1971 1978 2008 1987 1989 1973 1982 2014 1988 2000 1975 1983 1990 2002 1980 1986 1991 2004 1984 1993 1992 1997 1995 1994 1999 1996 2001 2010 1998 2009 2011 2003 2012 2016 2005 2013 2006 2015 2017 2018 2019 DRAFT ◼ udget elements’ values are preliminary and not calibrated, intended for presentation purposes only. ◼No agricultural SW diversion is simulated in this run of the GSFLOW ◼Model is not in final calibrated stage. Preliminary Historical (1991-2018) Water Budget for Watershed Draft Draft Draft DRAFT Preliminary Historical (1991-2018) Overall Water Budget for Watershed ◼ udget elements’ values are preliminary and not calibrated, intended for presentation purposes only. ◼No agricultural SW diversion is simulated in this run of the GSFLOW ◼Model is not in final calibrated stage. Draft DRAFT Preliminary Watershed Historical (1991 -2018) Water Budget: Dry Season (April -September) ◼ udget elements’ values are preliminary and not calibrated, intended for presentation purposes only. ◼No agricultural SW diversion is simulated in this run of the GSFLOW ◼Model is not in final calibrated stage. Draft DRAFT Future Baseline and Climate Change Scenarios Section 354.18(c)(3): …The projected water udget shall utilize the following methodologies and assumptions to estimate future baseline conditions concerning hydrology, water demand and surface water supply availability or reliability over the planning and implementation horizon: (A) Projected hydrology shall utilize 50 years of historical precipitation, evapotranspiration, and streamflow information as the baseline condition for estimating future hydrology. The projected hydrology information shall also be applied as the baseline condition used to evaluate future scenarios of hydrologic uncertainty associated with projections of climate change and sea level rise. Section 354.18(d)(3): (d) The Agency shall utilize the following information provided, as available, by the Department pursuant to Section 353. , or other data of compara le quality, to develop the water udget: … (3) Projected water budget information for population, population growth, climate change, and sea level rise. Section 354.18(e): (e) Each Plan shall rely on the best available information and best available science to quantify the water budget for the basin in order to provide an understanding of historical and projected hydrology, water demand, water supply, land use, population, climate change, sea level rise, groundwater and surface water interaction, and su surface groundwater flow… DRAFT What is available from DWR Climate Change Data •2 central tendency scenarios for 2030 and 2070 •2 extreme single GCM-RCP scenario representing drier with extreme warming and wetter with moderate warming •Data includes change factors for gridded precipitation, ET, CalWater HUC-8 unimpaired streamflow, and CalSim II impaired flow data and VIC routed streamflow Analysis Tools •Second Order Correction Spreadsheet Tool: more accurate streamflow patterns from monthly change factors •Desktop IWFM/MODFLOW Tools: Map VIC data to model grids Guidance Documents •Resource Guide •Guidance for Climate Change Data Use During Sustainability Plan Development •Climate Change Fact Sheet DRAFT DWR Guidance on Climate Change Analysis 41 What is available? •DWR provided data and tools to assist GSAs Is it required? •GSAs are not required to use DWR-provided climate change data or methods, but GSAs will need to adhere to the requirements in the GSP Regulations. And for future updates to the plan? •As climate science further develops, it will be important to use the data that reflect the current understanding and best available science at the time of future GSP updates. DRAFT Precipitation and Reference ET Data Specifics ◼Change Factors that should be multiplied by baseline climate data: 2030/2070 conditions divided by 1995 detrended conditions. ◼Data is generated from 1915 to 2011 ◼Spatial grid is 1/6th degree (6km); DWR suggests area- weighted averaging DRAFT Roadmap for Climate Change Analysis Using a Model and DWR Data: Historical baseline includes >50-year simulation period between 1915-2011 that was used for future baseline? Multiply baseline P & ET by change factors for 2030 and 2070 and generate input climate data Is baseline <50-year? Does baseline simulate beyond 2011? DWR provides no guidance. Add historical data that captures water year types trend and frequency in the region. Use the most similar years within 1915-2011 in terms of water year type and average P and T for change factors Run model using these hydroclimatic data and the most recent data for land use, diversions, etc. Aggregate the results, summarize them appropriately for presentation Estimate uncertainty in projection and present it with the results Yes YesYes No No Aggregate P/T/ET to Monthly Values Reduce P/T/ET to Daily Values DRAFT DWR Method has limitations: ◼Climate time-period analysis approach has dis/advantages: ⚫CDFs were produced for 2016-2045 (2030) and 2056- 2085 (2070), and 1981-2010 (1995) to generate data. ⚫Conditions at the end of the simulation and each year in between are not the expected conditions at those years ⚫Comparing projected models with historical models to estimate changes is likely more appropriate than interpreting actual simulated physical values of the projected model. DRAFT DWR Method has limitations: ◼Climate time-period analysis approach has dis/advantages: ⚫Outputs from projection models are best aggregated and interpreted using summary statistics rather than specific points in time. ⚫This approach singles out changes due to climate change impacts and is appropriate for CA where interannual variability is significant. ⚫It, in turn, mirrors the interannual variability of the historical period and cannot assess the impacts of climate change on seasonality, droughts, rainfall duration and intensity, etc. DRAFT Climate Change Impacts based on DWR Change Factors ◼Focus should be on the trend of changes and average magnitude not the timeseries. ◼Precipitation looks to be increasing in the long-term due to higher intensity of rainfall. ◼Detailed changes will be presented by running the calibrated model. DRAFT Climate Change Impacts based on DWR Change Factors ◼Focus should be on the trend of changes and average magnitude not the timeseries. ◼ET looks to be increasing in the future according to both scenarios. ◼Detailed changes will be presented by running the calibrated model. DRAFT Climate Change Impacts based on DWR Change Factors Likely increase in precipitation Likely decrease in precipitation Likely increase in ET across the board DRAFT Questions? DRAFT ◼Monitoring Network and TSS Update ⚫Instrumentation of Existing Wells ⚫New Stream Gage Installation ⚫TSS and Drilled Wells ◼Introduction to Possible Geophysical Studies that Facilitate Management Actions ◼GSP Chapters Development and Review ◼Integrated Model Updates and Preliminary Water Budget ◼Future Scenarios ⚫Summary of Scenario Development Survey ⚫Examples of Simulated Future Scenarios ⚫Development of Further Scenarios ◼Satellite Imagery for SW/GW Interaction and GDEs: Use and Proof of Concept Outline DRAFT Future Scenarios: Summary of Scenario Development Survey ◼Future baseline ⚫Most recent 10-year period has been proposed to be repeated instead of the 50 years that was suggested during the last meeting. ◼Climate change ⚫There is interest in simulating other scenarios using climate change data. ⚫Think again about the limitations we discussed for DWR methods. ◼Changes to PVP ⚫Extent of changes: from 50% reduction to complete loss of inflows. ⚫To happen in 5 years (2025) DRAFT Future Scenarios: Summary of Scenario Development Survey ◼Changes in land use ⚫Simulation of more cannabis, ex: non-vineyard lands are all cannabis + 20% of vineyards ◼Urban expansion ⚫Expansion may be more focused on the City ⚫Adjust population growth to more than what is predicted (Does increase in population relatively converge with urban expansion?) ⚫ djust ity’s water use accordingly ◼Changes in Lake Mendocino Releases ⚫Possible release scenarios from Sonoma Water ⚫Should we couple this with instream flow requirements? ◼Increase in RW consumption ⚫Scenario to be developed in coordination with the City DRAFT Future Scenarios: Summary of Scenario Development Survey ◼We may be able to choose from these suggestions too: ⚫Changes is river morphology: Vary the incision/restoration in river channels. 50 years, watershed-wide, preferably with climate change ⚫Artificial Recharge/Stormwater capture: Do we need them if the basin is recharging almost annually? ⚫Changes is storage methods or converting high-use wells to additional ponds ⚫Resiliency of basin to refilling: Simulation of long-term 5 to 20-year drought is proposed. DRAFT Future Scenarios: Summary of Scenario Development Survey ◼Future Baseline (50-year period) ⚫Most representative synthesis? ◼Changes to PVP ⚫Extent of changes and when they start? ⚫Other changes that may stem from it and not captured naturally by the model? ◼Resiliency to refilling ⚫Any scenario suggestion? ◼Changes in land use and Ag ⚫Increase in cannabis: how to simulate? At what rate of expansion, where, and when? ⚫Urban expansion: same questions and cannabis. Should we couple with population growth as one scenario? ◼Population and water demand changes ⚫Rate, where, and when? Should we have different zones with different factors? ◼Recharge projects ⚫Where and when? ⚫Specifics: acreage, approach, source water, seasonal? ◼Changes in Lake Mendocino Release ⚫Does Sonoma Water have prediction scenarios we can use? ⚫Other things we need to consider related to this release, i.e. instream flow requirements? ◼Recycled Water ⚫Can we have the specific timing and delivery rates of projects and use areas for next phases? Other things to consider? ◼Changes in river channel morphology ⚫Anything to add to CLSI proposal? ◼Other suggestions? Consider: ➢Time and budget constraints ➢Feasibility of model simulation ➢Benefit to this plan and future management ➢Applicability and probability We want to: ➢Improve understanding of basin ➢Set SMCs/ develop actions ➢Evaluate future changes ➢Illustrate sustainability DRAFT Questions? ◼Other scenarios that we should consider? DRAFT ◼Monitoring Network and TSS Update ⚫Instrumentation of Existing Wells ⚫New Stream Gage Installation ⚫TSS and Drilled Wells ◼Introduction to Possible Geophysical Studies that Facilitate Management Actions ◼GSP Chapters Development and Review ◼Integrated Model Updates and Preliminary Water Budget ◼Future Scenarios ⚫Summary of Scenario Development Survey ⚫Examples of Simulated Future Scenarios ⚫Development of Further Scenarios ◼Satellite Imagery for SW/GW Interaction and GDEs: Use and Proof of Concept Outline DRAFT Satellite Imagery: Use and Proof of Concept Google Earth Pro April 24, 2010 Esri’s ay ack Living Atlas June 15, 2010 Morrison Creek Tributary Flowing Dry DRAFTSatellite Imagery: Use and Proof of Concept ◼40 observation sites are defined ⚫3 on Russian River West Fork ⚫1 on Russian River East Fork ⚫36 on Tributaries, mostly 2 per tributary DRAFT Satellite Imagery: Sources ◼High resolution images ◼Infrequent ⚫Once or twice per year ⚫Random months ⚫Skips some years ◼We cannot pinpoint on sub-monthly scale when rivers flowing status changes ◼Low resolution images ⚫We cannot see most of the observation sites clearly to use it ◼Frequent flyover ⚫Twice or more per month ⚫Available for recent years only ◼We can pinpoint on sub-monthly scale when rivers flowing status changes DRAFT Satellite Imagery: Sources DRAFT Satellite Imagery: Preliminary Observation Example Output Coordinates (UTM)River/Tributary name Month Year Data source Flow? (Y(1)/N(0))Comments 10 S 486442.83 m E 4333456.59 m N McClure Creek 2 12 1992 Google Earth Pro 1 B&W Image 10 S 482444.95 m E 4336610.25 m N Ackerman Creek 1 7 1993 Google Earth Pro 1 B&W Image, Poor resolution 10 S 480228.19 m E 4337041.04 m N Ackerman Creek 2 7 1993 Google Earth Pro 1 B&W Image 10 S 483062.69 m E 4338160.88 m N East Fork Russian River 7 1993 Google Earth Pro 1 Unclear, Poor resolution, B&W 10 S 480943.67 m E 4353135.31 m N Fisher Creek 7 1993 Google Earth Pro 0 B&W Image, Poor resolution 10 S 482107.14 m E 4344642.18 m N Forsyth Creek 1 7 1993 Google Earth Pro 1 B&W Image 10 S 479964.95 M E 4345652.00 m N Forsyth Creek 2 7 1993 Google Earth Pro 1 B&W Image 10 S 482415.12 m E 4337345.98 m N Hensley Creek 1 7 1993 Google Earth Pro 0 B&W Image, Poor resolution 10 S 480803.92 m E 4338174.90 m N Hensley Creek 2 7 1993 Google Earth Pro 0 B&W Image, Poor resolution 10 S 486441.60 m E 4335170.17 m N Howard Creek 1 7 1993 Google Earth Pro 0 B&W Image, Poor resolution 10 S 484854.38 m E 4329017.38 m N Howell Creek 1 7 1993 Google Earth Pro 1 B&W Image 10 S 486410.80 m E 4328639.34 m N Howell Creek 2 7 1993 Google Earth Pro 0 B&W Image 10 S 480775.55 mE 4352986.62 m N Mariposa Creek 7 1993 Google Earth Pro 1 B&W Image, Poor resolution DRAFT Satellite Imagery: Initial Evaluation of Tributaries Site/Stream Year Type Dry Normal Wet Generally Flowing Period Flowing Period Flowing Period Flowing Period Ackerman Creek 1 December/November-May November/December -May November/December -June December/November -May Ackerman Creek 2 January/December -July December/November -August October -July November -July Bakers Creek December/November -May December/November -June/May December/November -July December/November -June Corral Creek October -July December/November -June December/November -July November -July East Fork Russian River October -July November/December -August October -August October -August Fisher Creek December/November -May December/November -June December/November -June/July December/November -June Forsyth Creek 1 December/November -May December/November -August October -August November -August Forsyth Creek 2 December/November -July December/November -June December/November -August December/November -July Gibson Creek December/November -June December/November -April December/November -July December/November -May Hensley Creek 1 December/November -May December/November -April December/November -June December/November -May Hensley Creek 2 December/November -May December/November -June December/November -July December/November -June Howard Creek 1 December/November -April December/November -March December/November -June December/November -May Howell Creek 1 December/November -May December/November -May December/November -June December/November -May Howell Creek 2 December/November -March December/November -April December/November -June December/November -May Mariposa Creek October -May December/November -June December/November -July December/November -June McClure Creek 1 December/November -May December/November -June December/November -June October -June These are useful for flow/no-flow calibration of our model and SW/GW interaction analyses DRAFT Satellite Imagery: Next Steps Assessing stream connectivity and impacts to GDEs via satellite remote sensing DRAFT Overview ◼Conceptual model ◼A two-tiered approach based on preliminary findings ◼Preliminary findings that inform the approach DRAFT Small streams (< 10 m) DRAFT Large streams (> 10 m) DRAFT Adjacent GDEs riparian ecosystem maintaining high leaf water content in the absence of surface flows (e.g., a Fall baseline) DRAFT Disconnection events late summer to fall streamflow depletion (drying) that leads to a loss of functional habitat DRAFT Impacts to GDEs groundwater-dependent vegetation that experiences a loss in net primary productivity relative to a Fall baseline DRAFT Can we use satellite-based measurements for historical assessment and ongoing monitoring of stream disconnection and impacts to GDEs? DRAFT A two-tiered approach Tier 1: perform stream disconnection monitoring (qualitative analysis with Planet 50 cm data) •Identify tightly constrained areas of interest (e.g., riparian corridors) •Task Planet satellites to monitor these areas •Qualitatively assess disconnection events •We are investigating if it’s possible to use the same methods in Tier 2 to classify images and calculate summary statistics of land cover change, although the data may not be available. Tier 2: classify seasonal changes in GDEs (quantitative analysis with PS4 3 m data) •Define GDEs based on an initial condition: •select a policy-relevant water year (e.g., 2014 start of SGMA) as an initial condition for GDEs •identify areas with persistent, healthy natural Fall vegetation •Assess impacts from initial condition to present day: •NDVI distribution and summary statistics (e.g., median, SD) for each season •land cover classification maps, and land cover change summary statistics 50 cm 3 m DRAFT Preliminary findings that inform our approach ◼Impacts to GDEs are well quantified between seasons (e.g., spring to fall) by PS4 ⚫Next step: test across years ◼PS4 data (3-4 m) is inadequate to assess streams < 10 m wide, but adequate for streams > 10 m in width ◼Pan-sharpened 30 cm imagery (obtained from Google Earth) robustly characterizes stream disconnection for even the smallest streams (< 10 m wide) ⚫Next step: verify these results with 50 cm SkySat Planet data DRAFT 2019-04-23 ◼For each date, a percentage of the entire AOI is covered by PS4 flyovers, which may be overcome by stitching together multiple images from nearby dates DRAFT 2019-06-20 ◼For each date, a percentage of the entire AOI is covered by PS4 flyovers, which may be overcome by stitching together multiple images from nearby dates DRAFT 2019-08-18 ◼For each date, a percentage of the entire AOI is covered by PS4 flyovers, which may be overcome by stitching together multiple images from nearby dates DRAFT 2019-10-23 ◼For each date, a percentage of the entire AOI is covered by PS4 flyovers, which may be overcome by stitching together multiple images from nearby dates DRAFT 1,000 m scale 100 m scale A Tale of Two Scales DRAFT 1, 0 0 0 m sc a l e April Oct water bare soil vegetation healthy vegetation water bare soil vegetation healthy vegetation DRAFT 100 m scale ◼Small streams < 10m are hard to identify at 3-4 m resolution (PS4 data), which: ⚫challenges classification ⚫will be hard to automate ◼Many shadows on north facing are misclassified as water, which may be fixed by tightly constraining AOIs Parks creek Hole in the Ground creek April Oct waterbare soil vegetation healthy vegetation DRAFT Resolution matters: 30cm is ~ 100x finer PS4 (3-4 m)Google Earth (30 cm) DRAFT Preliminary findings that inform our approach ◼Impacts to GDEs are well quantified between seasons (e.g., spring to fall) by PS4 ⚫Next step: test across years ◼PS4 data (3-4 m) is inadequate to assess streams < 10 m wide, but adequate for streams > 10 m in width ◼Pan-sharpened 30 cm imagery (obtained from Google Earth) robustly characterizes stream disconnection for even the smallest streams (< 10 m wide) ⚫Next step: verify these results with 50 cm SkySat Planet data DRAFT A two-tiered approach Tier 1: perform stream disconnection monitoring (qualitative analysis with Planet 50 cm data) •Identify tightly constrained areas of interest (e.g., riparian corridors) •Task Planet satellites to monitor these areas •Qualitatively assess disconnection events •We are investigating if it’s possible to use the same methods in Tier 2 to classify images and calculate summary statistics of land cover change, although the data may not be available. Tier 2: classify seasonal changes in GDEs (quantitative analysis with PS4 3 m data) •Define GDEs based on an initial condition: •select a policy-relevant water year (e.g., 2014 start of SGMA) as an initial condition for GDEs •identify areas with persistent, healthy natural Fall vegetation •Assess impacts from initial condition to present day: •NDVI distribution and summary statistics (e.g., median, SD) for each season •land cover classification maps, and land cover change summary statistics 50 cm 3 m DRAFT Thank you! Questions?