EKI TECHNICAL PRESENTATION #9 - Water Forumcosumnes.waterforum.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/...Jul...

Draft – For discussion purposes only

EKI TECHNICAL PRESENTATION #9COSUMNES SUBBASIN GSP DEVELOPMENT

17 JULY 2019COSUMNES SUBBASIN WORKING GROUP / TAC MEETING

1


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


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


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


GROUNDWATER MODELING COORDINATION (1 OF 4)July 12, 2019 Grid Development Update, Woodard & Curran

5



6



7



8


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


10

7/10/19 ESJ GWA ADVISORY/BOARD MEETING (1 OF 5)


11



12


Cosumnes Subbasinprovide comments on the Public Draft

Draft documents available for download from ESJ website: http://www.esjgroundwater.org/

http://www.esjgroundwater.org/


ESJ GWA 7/10/19 ADVISORY MEETING (5 OF 5)

13


14

ESJ GWA 7/10/19 ADVISORY/BOARD MEETING (4 OF 5)


AGENDA ITEM #2 GROUNDWATER SUSTAINABILITY PLAN UPDATES

Basin Setting

15

Hydrogeological Conceptual ModelWater Budget Groundwater Conditions+ +


§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


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


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



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



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)


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


BASIN WATER LEVEL TRENDS

35


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)


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]


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


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


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


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


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


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)


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


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


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

EKI TECHNICAL PRESENTATION #9 - Water Forumcosumnes.waterforum.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/...Jul...

Documents

Transcript of EKI TECHNICAL PRESENTATION #9 - Water Forumcosumnes.waterforum.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/...Jul...