Upload
others
View
1
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Draft – For discussion purposes only
EKI TECHNICAL PRESENTATION #9COSUMNES SUBBASIN GSP DEVELOPMENT
17 JULY 2019COSUMNES SUBBASIN WORKING GROUP / TAC MEETING
1
Draft – For discussion purposes only
AGENDA ITEM #1 GROUNDWATER SUSTAINABILITY PLAN UPDATES GSP updates
– Three-month look-ahead
– Groundwater Modeling Coordination with CoSANA
– ESJ Updates – meeting summary
– TSS Grant Applications
Preliminary Water Budget
Data Gap Filling Update
2
Draft – For discussion purposes only
Today
Updated Draft TM#3: Numerical Groundwater Model Evaluations
and Recommendations
THREE MONTH LOOK AHEAD
3
Fill Data Gaps
Develop Basin Setting
Make final decision regarding the numerical groundwater model
Draft – For discussion purposes only
UPCOMING DEADLINES
Task 8: Evaluate Numerical Groundwater Model options
EKI: Conduct the evaluation of numerical groundwater model options and prepare associated work products (Update Draft TM #3 – Numerical Groundwater Model Evaluations and Recommendations – due 9/18/2019).
WG: Review and provide feedback on TM #3; Make final decision regarding the numerical groundwater model by 10/16/2019.
4
Draft – For discussion purposes only
GROUNDWATER MODELING COORDINATION (1 OF 4)July 12, 2019 Grid Development Update, Woodard & Curran
5
Draft – For discussion purposes only
GROUNDWATER MODELING COORDINATION (2 OF 4)July 12, 2019 Grid Development Update, Woodard & Curran
6
Draft – For discussion purposes only
GROUNDWATER MODELING COORDINATION (3 OF 4)July 12, 2019 Grid Development Update, Woodard & Curran
7
Draft – For discussion purposes only
GROUNDWATER MODELING COORDINATION (4 OF 4)July 12, 2019 Grid Development Update, Woodard & Curran
8
Draft – For discussion purposes only
TSS GRANT APPLICATIONS
OHWD submitted DWR well service request
Amador County GMA GSA updates:
– Well drilled at the confluence of Dry Creek and Jackson Creek
– Relocating proposed northern site
9
Amador County GMA TSS Well Locations
OHWDTSS Well Location
Relocating the northern site
Draft – For discussion purposes only
10
7/10/19 ESJ GWA ADVISORY/BOARD MEETING (1 OF 5)
Draft – For discussion purposes only
11
7/10/19 ESJ GWA ADVISORY/BOARD MEETING (2 OF 5)
Draft – For discussion purposes only
12
7/10/19 ESJ GWA ADVISORY/BOARD MEETING (3 OF 5)
Cosumnes Subbasinprovide comments on the Public Draft
Draft documents available for download from ESJ website: http://www.esjgroundwater.org/
Draft – For discussion purposes only
ESJ GWA 7/10/19 ADVISORY MEETING (5 OF 5)
13
Draft – For discussion purposes only
14
ESJ GWA 7/10/19 ADVISORY/BOARD MEETING (4 OF 5)
Draft – For discussion purposes only
AGENDA ITEM #2 GROUNDWATER SUSTAINABILITY PLAN UPDATES
Basin Setting
15
Hydrogeological Conceptual ModelWater Budget Groundwater Conditions+ +
Draft – For discussion purposes only
§354.18. Water Budget
(a) Each Plan shall include a water budget for the basin that provides an accounting and assessment of the total annual volume of groundwater and surface water entering and leaving the basin, including historical, current and projected water budget conditions, and the change in the volume of water stored.
16
WATER BUDGET
Land SurfaceAgricultural Land
Urban Land
Groundwater BasinChange
in Storage
Atmosphere
Groundwater Inflow
Vadose Zone
Imported Water
DeliveriesAgricultural
Pumping
Direct Precipitation
Evapo-transpirationConsumptive
Use
Deep Percolation:Precipitation Surface Water Infiltration Applied Water Infiltration
Pumping:Private Public
Water Budget Domain
Inflow to water budget zoneOutflow from water budget zone
Flow between subdomain
Groundwater Outflow
Natural Surface Water
Flows
Draft – For discussion purposes only
Preliminary Water Budget utilizes DMS to quantify or estimate: Total surface water entering and
leaving the basin by water source type. §354.18.(b)(1)
Inflows to the groundwater system §354.18.(b)(2)
Outflows from the groundwater system §354.18.(b)(3)
The change in the annual volume of groundwater storage §354.18.(b)(4)
17
WATER BUDGET CHECK LIST (1 OF 12)
Check List/Status
Components Required to Calculate WB
Land use summary Rainfall data Evapotranspiration data Pumpage data
Surface water diversions
Imported water totals
Draft – For discussion purposes only
Each GSP will quantify the current, historical, and projected water budget for the basin as follows: Current water budget information shall quantify current inflows and outflows
for the basin using the most recent hydrology, water supply, water demand, and land use information §354.18.(c)(1) [2015-2018]
Historical water budget information shall be used to evaluate availability or reliability of past surface water supply deliveries and aquifer response to water supply and demand trends relative to water year type. §354.18.(c)(2) [1999-2018]
Projected water budgets shall be used to estimate [50-year] future baseline conditions of supply, demand, and aquifer response to Plan implementations, and to identify the uncertainties of these projected water budget components… §354.18.(c)(3)
18
WATER BUDGET CHECK LIST (2 OF 12)
Draft – For discussion purposes only
Preliminary Water Budget Approach (7/17/19): Developed historical annual average water budget (1999-2018) using 2014-
2015 land use and 20-year average water usage and climate data.
Identify potential issues to address with detailed water budget analysis from groundwater model.
Final Water Budget Approach (Spring, 2020): Employ groundwater model to quantify current (2015-2018), historical
(1999-2018), and 50-year projected water budgets for GSP development.
19
WATER BUDGET CHECK LIST (3 OF 12)
Draft – For discussion purposes only
Sources: 2015 DWR Sacramento County Land Use Survey, 2014 LandIQ Land Use 2015 DWR Sacramento Land Use Survey
was used for Sacramento County; 2014 LandIQ Land Use was used for Amador County
Undefined land use areas in Sacramento County used LandIQ Land Use and/or aerial photos.
Undefined land use areas in Amador County specified as native vegetation or water (e.g., Camanche Reservoir)
Detailed land use categories were aggregated into seven categories based on general water use characteristics
20
WATER BUDGET CHECK LIST (4 OF 12)Land Use Summary (2014-2015)
Draft – For discussion purposes only
WATER BUDGET CHECK LIST (5 OF 12)Land use summary (2014-2015)
21
Water Budget Land Use Category
Category Major Subcategories Acres
1 Native Vegetation -- 127,8161 Semi-Agricultural Farmsteads, Dairies, Misc. ag related land 4,2331 Idle -- 2,4891 Urban Vacant -- 2,0501 Barren -- 1,2442 Water -- 4,5302 Riparian -- 3,6053 Deciduous Fruits & Nuts Walnuts, Pistachios, Almonds 1,7234 Pasture Mixed pasture, Alfalfa, Clover 14,2774 Grain & Hay (irrigated) -- 8,8554 Field Crops Corn, Sudan, Beans (dry) 4,7984 Grain & Hay (non-irrigated) -- 7204 Truck crops Tomatoes, Beans (green), Mixed 6965 Urban/Rural Residential Residential, Rural Residential, Industrial 15,2906 Citrus/Subtropical Eucalyptus, Olives 1,1797 Grapes -- 16,771
Total 210,275
Draft – For discussion purposes only
318,000 AFY rainfall based on Sac WSO NOAA station 47633
Range due to uncertainty: 318,000 – 379,000 AFY based on variable station locations (Sac WSO NOAA vs. Camp Pardee CDEC sites)
22
WATER BUDGET CHECK LIST (6 OF 12)Rainfall 18.1 inches
17.9 inches
1999 – 2018Average Annual Rainfall
1888 – 2018Average Annual Rainfall
Draft – For discussion purposes only
Runoff calculated using SCS Curve Number Method– Fraction runoff based on agricultural lands and soil
groups
– Estimated from monthly rainfall (318,000 AFY)
– Total Runoff = 111,000 AFY (35% of rainfall)
– Infiltration = 207,000 AFY
Uncertainty– Rainfall magnitude and distribution across basin
– SCS method applied to monthly versus daily rainfall totals
– Minimum runoff = 64,000 AFY (20% of rainfall)
23
WATER BUDGET CHECK LIST (7 OF 12)Rainfall-Runoff
Draft – For discussion purposes only
Annual reported diversions range from 16,000 to 66,000 AFY:- Most values are estimated
- Questionable reliability (e.g., some diverters report the same value for each month)
- No on-line data available prior to 2009
- “Minor” features not included in mining effort to date
24
WATER BUDGET CHECK LIST (8 OF 12)Surface Water Diversions
Diversions Summary
Registration Type # of Registrations
# of Registrations Searched
Appropriative 130 50Domestic 5 1Livestock 4 0
Statement of Diversion and Use 104 52
Stock pond 95 2Total 338 105
Draft – For discussion purposes only
Reported surface water diversions average 41,000 AFY based on information downloaded from eWRIMS for:
- Cosumnes River
- Dry Creek
- Laguna Creek
- Jackson Creek
- Badger Creek
- Skunk Creek
- Hadselville Creek
- Arkansas Creek
25
WATER BUDGET CHECK LIST (9 OF 12)Surface Water Diversions
Draft – For discussion purposes only
Monthly plant-water demand based on information from ITRC (2003) and climate data from Fair Oaks CIMIS station
Annual plant-water demand estimate = 377,000 AFY
Plant-water demand estimate ranges from 341,000 to 408,000 AFY due to uncertainty in plant-water requirements, cropped area, and climate data
26
WATER BUDGET CHECK LIST (10 OF 12)Evapotranspiration Data
Zone 14
Draft – For discussion purposes only
WATER BUDGET CHECK LIST (11 OF 12)Agricultural Pumpage
Agricultural pumpage (129,000 AFY) is estimated agricultural water requirement (170,000 AFY) less surface water diversions (41,000 AFY).
Uncertainty in agricultural pumpage is 84,000 to 180,000 AFY based on range in Application Efficiency (65% to 85%)
27
GroundwaterBasin
Pumpage
Draft – For discussion purposes only
Agricultural pumpage (est.) = 129,000 AFY
Semi-Ag pumping (aquaculture) = 11,000 AFY (2011 South Basin Groundwater Management Plan)
Urban pumping = 5,000 AFY (reported by City of Galt and Amador Water Agency)
Rural Residential pumping = 4,000 AFY (2011 South Basin Groundwater Management Plan)
28
WATER BUDGET CHECK LIST (12 OF 12)Total Pumpage
Ag
Semi-AgUrban Rural
Residential
Draft – For discussion purposes only
29
WATER BUDGET (1 OF 6)
Check List/Status Required WB Component
Table of total surface water entering and leaving basin by water source type
Total inflows
Total outflows
Annual storage changes between seasonal highs
Quantification of overdraft over a period of years during which water year and water supply conditions approximate average conditions
Water year type associated with the annual supply, demand and change in groundwater stored
Estimate of sustainable yield
Preliminary WB
Final WB developed using groundwater
model
Draft – For discussion purposes only
30
WATER BUDGET (2 OF 7)Average Annual Storage ChangeWater Budget Components
Groundwater Basin
Storage Change
Recharge
1. 155,0002. 9,000
Subsurface Inflow/Outflow
1. 28,000
Runoff ETRainfall
Urban &Rural Residential
Pumpage
LocalDiversions
Leakage from Streams
Land Surface
UrbanLand
AgLand
Ag & Semi-Ag Pumpage
Draft – For discussion purposes only
31
WATER BUDGET (3 OF 7)Land Surface Zone Budget
Groundwater Basin
Storage Change
45,000
1. 155,0002. 9,000 1. 28,000
-111,000 -377,000318,000
140,0009,000
41,00025,000
Land Surface
UrbanLand
AgLand
Component Annual Average (AFY)
Rainfall 318,000Runoff -111,000Evapotranspiration -377,000Pumpage
Agricultural 129,000Semi-Ag 11,000
Urban 5,000Rural Residential 4,000
Imported Water 0Local Surface Water Diversions 41,000Leakage from Streams 25,000
Recharge (Deep Percolation) 45,000
Draft – For discussion purposes only
32
WATER BUDGET (4 OF 7)Average Annual Storage ChangeWater Budget Components
Groundwater Basin
Storage Change
Recharge
1. 155,0002. 9,000
Subsurface Inflow/Outflow
1. 28,000
Runoff ETRainfall
Urban &Rural Residential
Pumpage
LocalDiversions
Leakage from Streams
Land Surface
UrbanLand
AgLand
Ag & Semi-Ag Pumpage
Draft – For discussion purposes only
33
WATER BUDGET CHECK LIST (5 OF 7)Subsurface Flow Annual Average Net Subsurface Flow = 24,000
AFY (sum of northern and southern boundaries). 24,000 AFY is the net total subsurface inflow
calculated between well gradient pairs• 4 well pairs across northern boundary (Cosumnes and
South American subbasins)
• 2 well pairs across southern boundary (Cosumnes and Eastern San Joaquin subbasins).
Models show net outflow of -87,000 AFY -73,000 AFY is modeled subsurface outflow to the
north by the USGS CVHM model
-14,000 AFY is the modeled subsurface outflow to the south by the ESJWRM show net outflow
Estimated subsurface flows range from 24,000 to -87,000 AFY
Draft – For discussion purposes only
34
WATER BUDGET (6 OF 7)Groundwater Zone Budget
Groundwater Basin
Storage Change-80,000
45,000
1. 155,0002. 9,000
24,000
1. 28,000
-140,000-9,000
Land Surface
UrbanLand
AgLand
Component Annual Average (AFY)
Recharge (Deep Percolation) 45,000Pumpage -149,000Subsurface Inflow/Outflow 24,000
Storage Change -80,000
Range owing to uncertainty:Minimum = -22,000 AFYMaximum = -150,000 AFY
Draft – For discussion purposes only
BASIN WATER LEVEL TRENDS
35
Draft – For discussion purposes only
WATER LEVEL-BASED STORAGE CHANGE ESTIMATE (1 OF 4)Measured Water Level Change (1999-2018)
36
Median of all Water
Level Trends-0.5 ft/yr
Statistically significant trends based on ten years or more of measured water levels in wells
Sacramento County- Representative trend -0.5 ft/yr
- Downward trends range from -0.4 ft/yr to -1.1 ft/yr
No consistent trend in Amador County- 5 upward
- 2 downward
- 2 flat (“0” trend)
Draft – For discussion purposes only
WATER LEVEL-BASED STORAGE CHANGE ESTIMATE (2 OF 4)Specific Storage
37
Specific storage (Ss) characterizes aquifer’s capacity to store water
Defined as the water volume released in response to a change in water level
Reported values indicate Ss for Cosumnes Subbasin sediments ranges from 0.00007 to 0.0010 per ft (median value of 0.0003 per ft)
𝑆𝑆𝑠𝑠 =𝑉𝑉𝑉𝑉𝑉𝑉𝑉𝑉𝑉𝑉𝑉𝑉 𝑉𝑉𝑜𝑜 𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑉𝑉𝑊𝑊 𝑅𝑅𝑉𝑉𝑉𝑉𝑉𝑉𝑊𝑊𝑠𝑠𝑉𝑉𝑅𝑅 𝐿𝐿3
𝑉𝑉𝑉𝑉𝑉𝑉𝑉𝑉𝑉𝑉𝑉𝑉 𝑉𝑉𝑜𝑜 𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝑉𝑉𝐴𝐴𝑜𝑜𝑉𝑉𝑊𝑊 𝐿𝐿3 × ∆ℎ [𝐿𝐿]
Draft – For discussion purposes only
WATER LEVEL-BASED STORAGE CHANGE ESTIMATE (3 OF 4)Sacramento County Area
38Sacramento County Basin Area
Sacramento County basin area approximated by area west of Valley Springs Formation
Area = 139,400 acres
More than 70% of wells having ten years or more of continuous annual water level measurements characterized by statistically significant downward trends (declining water levels)
MehrtenFormation
Valley SpringsFormation
Draft – For discussion purposes only
WATER LEVEL-BASED STORAGE CHANGE ESTIMATE (4 OF 4)
39
Median Water Level Trend-0.5 ft/yr
Storage Change = (Basin Area) x (Specific Storage) x (WL Change) x (Thickness)
Sacramento Co. basin area = 139,400 acres Specific Storage = 0.0003 per foot Water level change = -0.5 ft/yr Approximate average thickness = 1,400 feet
Storage change = -29,000 AFY Uncertainty: most wells in DMS are 700 feet
deep or less (~ -14,500 AFY) Uncertainty: variable specific storage values
and water level changes(-6,000 to -130,000 AFY) Sacramento County Basin Area
Draft – For discussion purposes only
WATER BUDGET COMPARISONS
USGS CVHM (1993-2004) = -22,500 AFY
ESJWRM (1996-2015) = 6,600 AFY
Results will be refined as part of groundwater model development and implementation (Spring, 2019)40
-80,000 AFY
-150,000 AFY-22,000 AFY
-6,000 AFY
-29,000 AFY
-130,000 AFY
Water Balance based Water Budget
Water Level based Water Budget (assuming most basin storage change occurs in Sacramento County)
Range of uncertainty
Range of uncertainty
Draft – For discussion purposes only
GSA ASSISTED DATA REFINEMENT &VERIFICATION (1 OF 2)
Cosumnes Subbasin specific climate data- Rainfall stations (JVID, others?)
- ETo (OHWD, others?)
Water Demand and Pumping (estimates and/or verification)- Assumed application efficiency
- Demand estimates by land use type (e.g., application rates)
- Metered pumpage (by season, irrigation event, etc.)
41
Draft – For discussion purposes only
GSA ASSISTED DATA REFINEMENT &VERIFICATION (2 OF 2)
Semi-ag pumping estimates and verification Rural residential pumping Sacramento County- Per acre water use rate.- Residential area (map or acres) in Clay and Herald census designated places.
Rural residential pumping Amador County- Per acre water use rate.- Rural areas.
Surface water diversion data- Pre 2009 data- Verify reported values and inferred area of use- JVID data for Jackson Creek
42
Draft – For discussion purposes only
Imported City of Galt public well data and waste water treatment plant monitoring well data into DMS
Imported Cosumnes River data at Mahon, Rooney, Blodgett, Elk Grove Hop Ranch Dams provided by OHWD into DMS
Downloaded diversion reports for “major” water features from eWRIMS
Mined DWR Well Completion Reports for water level wells and water quality data wells lacking construction information in DMS; updated DMS accordingly
Assembled 1999, 2014, 2015 land use data for recharge and pumpage estimates
43
PROGRESS TOWARDS DATA GAP FILLING (1 OF 3)
Draft – For discussion purposes only
PROGRESS TOWARDS DATA GAP FILLING (2 OF 3)Task Percent
Complete
Mine and Process DWR Well Completion Reports for construction data 25%
Aquifer Parameters- Calculate and evaluate specific capacity data- Compile values from other studies - Analyze lithologic logs and available lithologic data sets to extrapolate parameter
values across Basin
15%
Identify, assemble, and analyze GW/SW data 40%
Download and compile relevant eWRIMS diversion data 35%
Assemble climate and land use data to estimate recharge and agricultural groundwater use (pumping)
35%
44
Draft – For discussion purposes only
PROGRESS TOWARDS DATA GAP FILLING (3 OF 3)
Mine and process DWR Well Completion Reports for lithologic and specific capacity data
Download diversion reports from eWRIMS for additional features
Assemble and process GDE information
City of Galt WWTP well construction information and plant effluent data
Develop monthly land use and water demand estimates (1999-2018)
Rainfall and Diversion data (JVID)
45
Draft – For discussion purposes only
BASIN SETTING PREPARATION TIMELINE
46
Present HCM at August Cosumnes WG Meeting
Present GC at September Cosumnes WG Meeting
Present Preliminary WB at July Cosumnes WG Meeting
TM #6: Groundwater Conditions and Hydrogeologic Conceptual Model 11/30/2019 Feedback on TM #6