The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1-13-21 TAC Meeting PresentationUkiah Valley Groundwater Sustainability Plan Development Update January 13, 2021 Ukiah Valley Basin Groundwater Sustainability Agency Technical Advisory Committee Topic Agenda ◼Integrated Modeling Update ◼Interconnected SW and GDE SMC ◼Introduction to Projects and Management Actions ◼GSP’s 3-month Outlook 2 Integrated Modeling Update Integrated Modeling Update 4 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 Final Calibration IDC or GSFLOW Agriculture Model Streamflow Routing (SFR) in the MODFLOW Groundwater Model PRMS Rainfall Runoff Watershed Model ET demand for crops is met by irrigation with groundwater or surface water SW/GW for Urban and Domestic Use SW/GW for Ag Calibration Process 5 ◼Goal: Tune aquifer and hydrological parameters within reasonable ranges to obtain acceptable fit with available observations of groundwater heads and streamflow measurements. ◼Calibration Period: Due to limited GW head observations, calibration period is limited to 2014-2018 ◼Calibration Process: ⚫Individual Models were calibrated using UCODE. ◼MODFLOW was calibrated to GW heads (CASGEM Wells) and streamflow measurements (USGS Gages at West Fork, Talmage, and Hopland along with CLSI gages). ◼PRMS was calibrated to USGS Streamflow measurements at Hopland. ⚫Sensitivity analysis was performed on combined GSFLOW. ◼Observations were grouped to GW heads and 4 Streamflow groups: low-flows, medium-flows, and high-flows for Russian River USGS gages using quantiles (25% and 75%), and tributary flows for CLSI gages. ⚫Calibration was performed on GSFLOW using UCODE. Groundwater Flow Observations 6 ◼We are using all CASGEM data available for the period 2014- 2018. ◼CASGEM data are accessible to view using SGMA Data Viewer or from this link: https://larrywalkerassociates.github.io/sites/data/ukiah_gwl/ Streamflow Observations (CFS) 7 Streamflow Observations (CFS) 8 Sensitivity Analysis And Calibration: Preliminary Results 9 Horizontal Hydraulic Conductivity (MODFLOW) Storage Parameters (MODFLOW) Streambed Conductance (MODFLOW) Runoff and Soil Zone Parameters (PRMS) GSFLOW Heads 10 ◼Preliminary Results ◼Heads are in meters. GSFLOW USGS Gage Flows 11 ◼Preliminary Results ~61 CFS 12 ◼Preliminary Results GSFLOW USGS Gage Flows ~52 CFS 13 ◼Preliminary Results GSFLOW USGS Gage Flows ~3.2 CFS ~1.4 CFS 14 ◼Preliminary Results Tributary Gaged Flows Interconnected SW and GDE SMC Upper Russian River Watershed USGS Stream Gage Analysis USGS Gage List USGS ID Start End Short ID 11460940 9/1/1963 9/29/1968 RRR 11461000 10/1/1911 12/8/2020 RRU 11462000 9/1/1911 10/1/2011 EF (Lake Mendocino outflow) 11462080 8/6/2009 12/8/2020 TAL 11462500 10/1/1939 12/8/2020 HOP 11463000 8/1/1951 12/8/2020 CLV Approach •Mass balance of gaged flows Goal •Data driven description of surface water routing and seepage trends Assumptions/Caveats •No accounting of accretionary (ungagged surface flows). •Uses daily average flow. •Gaged flows may have errors up to 10%. •Correlations suggest no downstream time-lag required between subsequent gages. Difference Negative Positive Downstream -Upstream Losses (ET, seepage, bank storage); diversions; or uncertainty Groundwater discharge; return flows; accretionary flow Data Driven SW Depletion Analysis RRR to RRU n = 1856 Negative Positive >>>> RRU-RRR 1.2%98.8% Few negatives (n = 22) and only 1 negative value exceeded combined 10% gage error (assumed maximum uncertainty)Takeaways •This is what would be expected in upper basin. Monthly averaged, median, 25th and 75th percentiles of daily downstream-to-upstream differences in discharge[Q] (cfs) Data Driven SW Depletion Analysis 17% of negatives exceed combined 10% error in gages. n = 787 Negative Positive >>>>TAL -EF -RRU 45.1%54.9% Month Acre-feet of difference 2009 2010 2011 6 -613 511 7 --1382 -1392 8 -1077 -1047 -1870 9 -1832 -1080 -1991 10 -529 40 -37 11 -656 1403 - Sum (-)values -4094 -3509 -5290 RRU+EF to TAL Sum of daily differences converted to acre-feet Takeaways & Considerations •Negative values concentrated and frequent in summer months. •Negatives largely exceed potential gaging errors. •~7 miles at typical seepage rate of 0.5-4 cfs/mile (3.5-28 cfs of loss). •72% of daily negatives > -28 cfs. Month ~2016 Diversions (AF) 6 451 7 474 8 423 9 219 10 91 11 6 Total 1665 Data Driven SW Depletion Analysis n = 4139 Negative Positive >>>> HOP-TAL 35.7%64.3% TAL to HOP Sum of daily differences converted to acre-feet Only 3.1% (n=46) of negatives exceed combined 10% error in gages. Takeaways & Considerations •Negative values still concentrated in summer. •Negatives smaller than RRU-TAL reach. •Approximate 2016 diversions account for 25- 100% of monthly mass balance difference (39% of total difference). •~8 miles at typical seepage rate of 0.5-4 cfs/mile (4-32 cfs of loss). 96% of daily negatives > -32 cfs. Month Acre-feet of difference 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 6 NA 1012 1426 508 -443 -361 -162 -97 837 -21 893 -193 7 NA 377 791 -190 -653 -783 -711 -736 -163 -530 1129 -766 8 20 -54 184 -543 -629 -520 -164 -946 -327 -398 -85 -726 9 58 228 -40 -139 -294 -672 -311 -675 -361 0 184 -486 10 294 2493 518 -532 -280 -465 -325 -182 -361 -181 522 -463 11 490 2495 -87 1315 -115 -582 90 3027 -63 -298 559 -282 Sum (-) values 0 -54 -127 -1404 -2412 -3382 -1673 -2637 -1275 -1429 -85 -2916 Month ~2016 Diversion (AF) 6 184 7 246 8 361 9 167 10 68 11 8 Total 1035 Data Driven SW Depletion Analysis n = 21063 Negative Positive >>>> HOP -EF -RRU 41.0%59.0% RRU+EF to HOP 20% (n=1732) of negatives exceed combined 10% error in gages. Month Acre-feet of difference 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 6 4409 620 -1745 -1323 -443 1624 1937 7 -436 -2199 -3529 -2651 -1723 -1005 -601 8 -2736 -2553 -3071 -1854 -1383 -1101 -1685 9 -1977 -2479 -2817 -1729 -1774 -852 -2030 10 -1825 -1988 -1669 -672 -236 2534 -25 11 12 -873 -1003 259 -166 3898 0 Sum (-) values -6975 -10092 -13835 -8229 -5726 -2958 -4341 Sum of daily differences converted to acre-feet Month 2016 Diversion (AF) 6 635 7 720 8 784 9 386 10 160 11 15 Total 2700 Takeaways & Considerations •Negatives larger in magnitude but also more potential for seepage and diversion. •~15 miles at typical seepage rate of 0.5-4 cfs/mile (7.5-60 cfs of loss). 93% of daily negatives > -60 cfs. Data Driven SW Depletion Analysis n = 25331 Negative Positive >>>> CLV -HOP 28.3%71.7% HOP to CLV Takeaways & Considerations •Less frequent and lower magnitudes of negative values. •Estimated diversions are lower than upstream reaches. •Suggests lower seepage rates. Only 4.4% (n=317) of negatives exceed combined 10% error in gages. Data Driven SW Depletion Analysis Interim Summary ◼Mass balance shows frequent surface water loss occurring downstream of RRU all the way to CLV in most summer months. ◼Diversions account for a portion of the losses. ◼Losses are generally within range of seepage rates. ◼Greatest volume of losses occurs from RRU+EF to TAL. ◼Rough estimates of seepage rates are: ⚫RRU+EF to TAL reach: 2.5 cfs/mile ⚫TAL to HOP reach: 0.84 cfs/mile ⚫HOP to CLV reach: 0.82 cfs/mile ◼Possible that ET of riparian vegetation may account for >30% of seepage volume. ◼Analysis doe not address potential gaining conditions. Data Driven SW Depletion Analysis GW trends •Levels increase during early wet season (Nov –Feb); •Decrease slightly from Feb –May; and •Fluctuate in early summer eventually declining in Sep/Oct. Increasing Declining Interpretations •Sparse data makes detailed interpretation difficult. •Possible that seepage is involved in early summer GW level resiliency? Surface water (SW) and Groundwater (GW) trends RRU & EF to TAL SW differences Period of Comparison Elevation Difference Estimated Storage Change AF1,2 Fall 2008 -Spring 2009 2.2 1980 Spring 2009 -Winter 2009 -11.0 -9900 Winter 2009 -Spring 2010 18.1 16290 Spring 2010 -Fall 2010 -10.7 -9630 Fall 2010 -Spring 2011 7.0 6255 Spring 2011 -Winter 2011 -9.2 -8280 1 Change in storage = elevation difference*basin area*area correction coefficient*specific yield 2 Basin area = 35,000 acres; area coefficient = 0.3; specific yield = 0.08 Interpretations •During period of SW losses GW levels still tend to decline. •Possible there is a lag in GW response, seepage contributions are not captured by GW monitoring data, seepage is still contributing but overall trend still declining. Month Acre-feet of difference 2009 2010 2011 6 -613 511 7 --1382 -1392 8 -1077 -1047 -1870 9 -1832 -1080 -1991 10 -529 40 -37 11 -656 1403 - Sum (-)values -4094 -3509 -5290 Basinwide median GW measurements Data Driven SW Depletion Analysis TAL to HOP SW differences Basinwide median GW measurements Month Acre-feet of difference 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 6 NA 1012 1426 508 -443 -361 -162 -97 837 -21 893 -193 7 NA 377 791 -190 -653 -783 -711 -736 -163 -530 1129 -766 8 20 -54 184 -543 -629 -520 -164 -946 -327 -398 -85 -726 9 58 228 -40 -139 -294 -672 -311 -675 -361 0 184 -486 10 294 2493 518 -532 -280 -465 -325 -182 -361 -181 522 -463 11 490 2495 -87 1315 -115 -582 90 3027 -63 -298 559 -282 Sum (-) values 0 -54 -127 -1404 -2412 -3382 -1673 -2637 -1275 -1429 -85 -2916 1 Change in storage = elevation difference*basin area*area correction coefficient*specific yield 2 Basin area = 35,000 acres; area coefficient = 0.3; specific yield = 0.08 Period of Comparison Elevation Difference Estimated Storage Change AF1,2 Fall 2008 -Spring 2009 2.2 1980 Spring 2009 -Winter 2009 -11.0 -9900 Winter 2009 -Spring 2010 18.1 16290 Spring 2010 -Fall 2010 -10.7 -9630 Fall 2010 -Spring 2011 7.0 6255 Spring 2011 -Winter 2011 -9.2 -8280 Winter 2011 -Spring 2012 9.85 8865 Spring 2012 -Winter 2012 -7.9 -7110 Winter 2012 -Spring 2013 4.45 4005 Spring 2013 -Winter 2013 1.65 1485 Winter 2013 -Spring 2014 1.5 1350 Spring 2014 -Fall 2014 -24.285 -21856.5 Fall 2014 -Spring 2015 23.835 21451.5 Spring 2015 -Fall 2015 -28.15 -25335 Fall 2015 -Spring 2016 25.385 22846.5 Spring 2016 -Fall 2016 -11.235 -10111.5 Fall 2016-Spring 2017 14.325 12892.5 Spring 2017 -Fall 2017 -14.995 -13495.5 Fall 2017 -Spring 2018 16.02 144180 10 20 30 40 50 60 Sep-17 Jan-18 May-18 Oct-18 Feb-19 Jun-19 Oct-19 Feb-20 Jun-20 Oct-20 Me d i a n G W D e p t h B G S ( f t ) Date Increasing Declining Interpretations •During period of SW losses GW levels still tend to decline: •Lag in GW response; •Seepage contributions not captured by GW monitoring data; •Seepage contributing but overall trend still declining. •System appears resilient. Data Driven SW Depletion Analysis and Integrated Model Results 27 ◼Data driven analysis provides a big picture for SW depletion in the basin that can inform integrated model. ◼Integrated model will produce results on gaining and losing streams. Mainstem results can be confirmed by looking at this type of analysis. ◼This analysis will be a first step into SW/GW interaction discussion using model outputs. Questions? Groundwater Dependent Ecosystem (GDE) Analysis 29 Mapped Potential GDEs ◼Natural Communities Commonly Associated with Groundwater Dataset (NC dataset) ⚫Collaboration between DWR, CDFW, and The Nature Conservancy (TNC) ◼Comprised of 2 datasets ⚫Vegetation ◼“Vegetation” field Ukiah: Fremont Cottonwood, Willow –Alder, and Riparian Mixed Hardwood ⚫Wetlands ◼“Wetland_NA” field Ukiah Ex: Palustrine, Scrub-Shrub, Seasonally Flooded ◼Available via DWR’s “NC Dataset Viewer”30 Mapped Potential GDEs 31 NC Datasets Local Vegetation Datasets TAC/WG Review Mapped Potential GDEs Vegetation Rooting Zone Depths Vegetation Class Source Assumed Rooting Depth (ft.) TNC Rec’d Root Depth (ft.) Fremont Cottonwood NC Dataset -Vegetation 30 Riparian Mixed Hardwood NC Dataset -Vegetation 30 Will -Alder NC Dataset -Vegetation 30 Palustrine, Emergent, Persistent, Seasonally Flooded NC Dataset -Wetlands 30 Palustrine, Forested, Seasonally Flooded NC Dataset -Wetlands 30 Palustrine, Scrub-Shrub, Seasonally Flooded NC Dataset -Wetlands 30 Riverine, Lower Perennial, Unconsolidated Bottom, Permanently Flooded NC Dataset -Wetlands 30 Riverine, Lower Perennial, Unconsolidated Shore, Seasonally Flooded NC Dataset -Wetlands 30 Riverine, Unknown Perennial, Unconsolidated Bottom, Semi-permanently Flooded NC Dataset -Wetlands 30 Riverine, Upper Perennial, Unconsolidated Bottom, Permanently Flooded NC Dataset -Wetlands 30 Riverine, Upper Perennial, Unconsolidated Shore, Seasonally Flooded NC Dataset -Wetlands 30 Seep or Spring NC Dataset -Wetlands 30 32 Depth to Groundwater 33 ◼Grid-Based Analysis ⚫Interpolated groundwater elevations using Kriging ⚫Series of statistical representations ◼Fall/Spring 2015 ◼Rolling multi-year averages ◼Current conditions ◼Point-Based Analysis ⚫Area of influence (AOI) for each well ⚫Time-series representation of groundwater elevations for GDEs within AOI MCWA 390664N1231491W001 Depth to Groundwater 34 Grid-Based Representations Point-Based Time Series Example not from Ukiah Relationship Between Rooting Zone and Groundwater Depths 35 Grid-Based Analysis 1. GDE with rooting zone (RZ) depth = 14 ft. 2. Area-weighted depth to groundwater (GW) within GDE (zonal statistics) 3. Comparison of RZ and GW depths Point-Based Time Series 1. GDE with rooting zone (RZ) depth = 15 ft. 2. Comparison of RZ and GW depths 3. Frequency of RZ reaching GW Potential GDE Characterization 36 Not a GDE Likely Disconnected ConnectedLikely ConnectedDisconnected Potential GDE Characterization Example 37 Grid-Based Analysis ◼GDE with rooting zone (RZ) depth = 14 ft. ◼Fall 2017 (dry WY) depth to GW = 19 ft. ◼Spring 2017 (wet WY) depth to GW = 11 ft. Point-Based Time Series ◼GDE with rooting zone (RZ) depth = 14 ft. ◼3 of 4 springs connected ◼4 of 4 falls disconnected Potential GDE Characterization Example 38 Not a GDE Likely Disconnected ConnectedLikely ConnectedDisconnected Introduction to Projects and Management Actions Projects and Management Actions ◼Why do we need projects and management actions (PMAs)? ⚫To achieve the sustainability goal by 2042 and avoid undesirable results through 2072 ⚫To respond to changing conditions in the Basin ⚫Each of the PMAs may support achieving sustainability for one or more sustainability indicators ◼Can be categorized into ⚫Existing PMAs ⚫Proposed or planned PMAs to reach sustainability ⚫PMAs to be evaluated in the future 40 Projects and Management Actions To evaluate impacts of implementing PMAs, they should be identified well in advance and introduced to the numerical model as future scenarios. We need to start identifying PMAs now. ◼Projects generally refer to structural features: ⚫Flood and stormwater capture ⚫Water recycling ◼Management actions are typically non‐structural programs or policies: ⚫Water conservation and demand management ⚫Curtailment, restrictions, or redistribution of groundwater pumping ⚫Water Banking ⚫Water Transfers ⚫GW Recharge 41 ⚫Surface water storage ⚫Injection wells ⚫Well rehabilitation Projects and Management Actions ◼Can be categorized into ⚫Existing PMAs ⚫Proposed or planned PMAs to reach sustainability ⚫PMAs to be evaluated in the future ◼Key Information ⚫Project Goal(s) ⚫Costs –Capital and O&M ⚫Completion status/date ⚫Impacts on the system ⚫Single or multiphase ⚫Targeted sustainability indicator(s) 42 PROJECTS & MANAGEMENT ACTIONS Date Project Title PROJECT PROPONENT Agency Name Key Contact Email Phone PROJECT LOCATION Map PROJECT DESCRIPTION Description of Project Elements Actions Project Goals Project Benefits Project Impacts Project Costs/Financing PROJECT STATUS Concept ☐ Planned ☐ In-Design ☐ Under Construction ☐ Completed ☐ Project Schedule Projects and Management Action ◼Existing PMAs were extracted from reports and databases: Draft 2015 Urban Water Management Plan:includes the following management actions ◼Water waste prevention ordinances:to achieve the City’s water use targets by minimizing nonessential water uses ◼Metering:implemented on an ongoing basis to replace old meters to provide more accurate readings of water use ◼Conservation pricing:to ensure the true cost of water is paid and to adequately fund water system O&M costs ◼Programs to assess and manage distribution system real loss:to identify sources of water loss quickly so repairs can be made, and losses minimized ◼Water conservation program coordination and staffing support:all City staff perform the duties that would be assigned to an individual conservation coordinator to make water conservation a priority ◼Large Landscape Irrigation Conservation Program:to avoid landscaping that would require extensive irrigation ◼Commercial, Industrial, Institutional Customers Conservation Programs:to track water use of large industrial customers and alerting the customer to substantial changes in water use 43 Existing Small Scale Water Projects Most water needs for irrigated agriculture and rural residences are met through small-scale water projects including: ❑Individual surface water projects within Russian River Watershed ❑Storage ponds (CLSI work with local farmers) ❑Groundwater pumping Which one of these existing projects can be included in the GSP? Integrated Model and PMAs ◼What the Integrated Model Provides: ⚫Simulates existing and potential PMAs to assess their impact in terms of the relative change between baseline and projected conditions. ⚫Helps evaluate how such impacts would translate to SMC settings and achieving the sustainability goal ⚫Final projected model will include all relevant PMAs agreed upon for the GSP that allow maintenance of SMCs over the 50-year planning and implementation horizon. ◼What It Needs: ⚫Detailed information that quantifies projects in a manner that is implementable in the model 44 Proposed Themes for Scenarios Using Possible PMAs ◼Conjunctive Use ⚫Components may include: Stormwater Capture, Groundwater Well Rehabilitation, Active Groundwater Recharge (structural and non-structural), Irrigation Ponds ⚫May consider various levels of implementation ◼Wastewater Reuse for Irrigation ⚫Use and expansion of City of Ukiah’s RW program ◼Demand Management ⚫City and Water Districts’ demand management program and conservation planning ◼Other suggestions? 45 Examples and Next Steps 46 PROJECTS & MANAGEMENT ACTIONS Date 2020 (Completion of Phase III out of IV) Project Title Purple Pipe Project PROJECT PROPONENT Agency Name City of Ukiah’s Water Resources Department Key Contact Jarod Thiele, Public Works Management Analyst Email jthiele@cityofukiah.com Phone (707) 463-6755 PROJECT LOCATION Map PROJECT DESCRIPTION Description of Project Elements The Purple Pipe Project is a recycled water project that includes nearly eight miles of pipeline, a 66-million-gallon water storage reservoir, upgraded treatment facilities and improved water and wastewater infrastructure on Oak Manor Drive. Actions Design and construction of about 8miles of recycled water pipeline to serve agricultural and urban irrigation and frost protection demands of about 1,320 AFY. The project also includes design and construction of associated storage and pump stations. The project will serve about 59 parcels of land. Project Goals Construction of pipelines, storage, and pump station to deliver recycled water for irrigation and agriculture. Project Benefits This allows the City to serve approximately 325 million gallons of water to farmers, parks, and schools. This project promotes a vibrant agricultural region, reducing diversions from the Russian River, assisting in conformation to State conservation objectives and improving environmental habitat by providing an alternative source for frost protection. Project Impacts Project Costs/Financing $32,085,000.00 PROJECT STATUS Concept ☐ Planned ☐ In-Design ☐ Under Construction ☐ Completed ☒ Project Schedule The first three phases were completed in 2020 and Phase IV is planned to be completed in 2021. Potential Recharge Project Locations: ⚫To assess potential with model and setup special studies ⚫We need multiple locations for geophysical study feasibility. ◼Next Steps: ⚫Need your input on existing and potential projects such as potential recharge locations or RW water project ⚫Detailed information to quantify scenarios and model forecast ⚫Interview with stakeholders to explore, assess, and confirm PMAs Ex i s t i n g P r o j e c t Potential Project GSP’s 3-month Outlook Questions? Ukiah Public SGMA Thank you!