Ukiah Valley Groundwater Sustainability Plan Development Update

DRAFT Ukiah Valley Basin Groundwater Sustainability Agency Technical Advisory Committee Meeting

September 9, 2020 DRAFT

Outline

Monitoring Network and TSS Update

◼ Couple monitoring wells on both sides of streams with stream gage to assess the SW/GW interaction. Stream Gage ◼ Requires continuous measurement of GW levels and streamflow: ⚫ Instrument existing wells ⚫ Drill and instrument new wells (TSS) ⚫ Install new stream gages DRAFT Example Dashboard DRAFT

Monitoring Network and TSS Update

Communicating Added well that with well-owner will be Verbally in agreement to instrument instrumented for drilling new wells. Southern well is a nested well.

Communicating with well-owner to incorporate one of the wells No need to drill Instrumenting two separate wells in Aq 1 and 2. USGS-11462080

Instrumented and ready to use. DRAFT

Monitoring Network and TSS Update DRAFT

Monitoring Network and TSS Update

Will coordinate Still looking for an after finding a well existing well to on the other side instrument or of river permission to drill DRAFT

Monitoring Network and TSS Update

Will coordinate in Verbal agreement to the next round of instrument an existing instrumentation well from the set of GeoTracker wells

One well exist. Seemingly able to drill a new well. We need at least NMFS-West Branch one of the wells Russian River: Not there anymore DRAFT

New Streamflow Gage Installation

◼ Two primary locations are West Fork Russian in Redwood Valley on River Gage to Russian River and replace the NFMS gage in Redwood Forsythe Creek: Valley ⚫ Provide a good picture when incorporated into the Redwood Valley Monitoring Forsythe Creek Transect Gage: The first gage ⚫ Provide a measure of inflow to be installed on to the basin from Russian tributaries for the River plan ⚫ Provide understanding of Forsythe creek as a model tributary in the northern Ukiah Valley Basin (Redwood Valley) 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

Outline

◼ 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. DRAFT Intro to Possible Geophysical Studies that Facilitate Management Actions Towed Time-Domain Electromagnetics (tTEM)

Link to a short video showing the tTEM system in operation: https://youtu.be/8MjKv1rX-_A DRAFT Intro to Possible Geophysical Studies that Facilitate Management Actions Towed Time-Domain Electromagnetics (tTEM)

Link to a short video showing the tTEM system in operation: https://youtu.be/8MjKv1rX-_A 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

Questions? DRAFT

Outline

◼ 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 As we progress DRAFT investigating each SMC we will roll out respective subchapters GSP Chapters Development and Reviewof these two chapters for review starting with Water Quality and A GSP has five chapters: Subsidence in October. Mostly administrative 1. Introduction information Will work with the County to produce 2. Plan Area and Basin Setting Will be completed and sent for review by the end of September. This 3. Sustainable Management Criteria chapter will undergo minor changes up to 4. Projects and Management Actions the end of the GSP writing Will be rolled out with the 5. Plan Implementation completed GSP DRAFT

Next steps

◼ 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 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

Outline

Integrated Model Updates ◼ Status of model in the June meeting

more important

Parameters included in the calibration:

Recharge Horizontal hydraulic

conductivity Relative parameter importance parameter Relative

(Composite Scaled Sensitivity Sensitivity [CSS]) Scaled (Composite Stream conductance Storage properties less important Hydraulic properties (Hydraulic Conductivity, Storage, Stream Conductance) DRAFT

Integrated Model Updates ◼ Status of model in the June meeting

Uncalibrated RMSE = 54 ft

Calibrated RMSE = 28 ft 47% improvement … more is needed

Root Mean Square Error (RMSE) is a measurement of model agreement.

RMSE = 0 = perfect fit

RMSE is in units of length (i.e., ft.) DRAFT

Integrated Model Updates ◼ Status of model in the June meeting DRAFT Integrated Model Updates ◼ What is new ⚫ Different Stream channels are defined for better representation and calibration Initial Stream Type Thickness Hydraulic Conductivity Bedrock canyon Confined Alluvial Channels 0.2 0.001 Semiconfined Alluvial Channels Dissected Alluvium Channels Alluvial Fan Channels 0.6 0.003 Alluvial unconfined streams Main Stem 1 0.01 Regulated Channels 1.5 0.03

33 DRAFT

Integrated Model Updates ◼ What is new ⚫ Different aquifer zones are defined for better parameterization and calibration Zone/Aquifer Aquifer I Aquifer II Aquifer III Stream channels Zone 1 (hk1= 60 m/day) *hk values are suggested values used as initial for calibration Older deposits Zone 2 (hk2= 40 m/day)

Confined deposits Zone 3 (hk3= 1.5 m/day)

Unconfined deposits Zone 4 (hk4= 4.5 m/day)

Underlying Aquifers I and II with significant clay Zone 5 (hk5= 0.03 m/day)

Outcrops Zone 6 (hk6= 0.15 m/day) 34 DRAFT

Integrated Model Updates ◼ What is new ⚫ We now have a Coupled GSFLOW

Calibrate UseUse Run Run CoupleCouple withwith Final Confined CalibratedCalibrated Unconfined Unconfined GSFLOWGSFLOW Calibration Version ValuesValues Version

◼ 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 need to add to Ag Package

35 DRAFT

Historical (1991-2018) Water Budget

◼ No agricultural SW diversion is simulated in this run of the GSFLOW DRAFT

Historical (1991-2018) Water Budget

◼ No agricultural SW diversion is simulated in this run of the GSFLOW DRAFT Historical (1991-2018) Water Budget: Dry Season (April-September)

◼ No agricultural SW diversion is simulated in this run of the GSFLOW DRAFT

Current (2014-2018) Water Budget

◼ No agricultural SW diversion is simulated in this run of the GSFLOW DRAFT

Current (2014-2018) Water Budget

◼ No agricultural SW diversion is simulated in this run of the GSFLOW DRAFT Future Baseline and Climate Change Scenarios Section 354.18(c)(3): …The projected water budget 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 353.2, or other data of comparable quality, to develop the water budget: … (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 subsurface 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

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.

43 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 Yes >50-year simulation period between 1915-2011 that was Run model using these used for future baseline? hydroclimatic data and the most recent data for land No use, diversions, etc.

Does baseline No Is baseline simulate beyond 2011? <50-year?

Yes Yes Aggregate the Use the most similar years DWR provides no guidance. results, summarize within 1915-2011 in terms of Add historical data that them appropriately captures water year types water year type and average trend and frequency in the for presentation P and T for change factors region. Aggregate P/T/ET to Monthly Values Estimate uncertainty Multiply baseline P & ET in projection and by change factors for 2030 Reduce P/T/ET to present it with the and 2070 and generate Daily Values results input climate data 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 Future Baseline (1969-2018 ~ 2020-2070) Water Budget

◼ No agricultural SW diversion is simulated in this run of the GSFLOW DRAFT Future Baseline (1969-2018 ~ 2020-2070) Water Budget

◼ No agricultural SW diversion is simulated in this run of the GSFLOW DRAFT

Outline

◼ 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?) ⚫ Adjust City’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 Consider: ➢ Time and budget constraints Future Scenarios: Summary➢ Feasibility of Scenarioof model simulation ➢ Benefit to this plan and future management Development Survey ➢ Applicability and probability ◼ Future Baseline (50-year period) ⚫ Where and when? ⚫ Most representative synthesis? ⚫ Specifics: acreage, approach, source water, seasonal? ◼ Changes to PVP ◼ Changes in Lake Mendocino Release ⚫ Extent of changes and when they start? ⚫ Does Sonoma Water have prediction ⚫ Other changes that may stem from it and not scenarios we can use? captured naturally by the model? ⚫ Other things we need to consider related to ◼ Resiliency to refilling this release, i.e. instream flow requirements? ⚫ Any scenario suggestion? ◼ Recycled Water ◼ Changes in land use and Ag ⚫ Can we have the specific timing and delivery ⚫ Increase in cannabis: how to simulate? At rates of projects and use areas for next what rate of expansion, where, and when? phases? Other things to consider? ⚫ Urban expansion: same questions and ◼ Changes in river channel morphology cannabis. Should we couple with population ⚫ Anything to add to CLSI proposal? growth as one scenario? ◼ Other suggestions? ◼ Population and water demand changes We want to: ⚫ Rate, where, and when? Should we have ➢ Improve understanding of basin different zones with different factors? ➢ Set SMCs/ develop actions ◼ Recharge projects ➢ Evaluate future changes ➢ Illustrate sustainability DRAFT Future Scenarios: Examples of Simulated Future Scenarios

◼ Climate Change Scenarios (2030 and 2070): PLACEHOLDER DRAFT

Questions?

◼ Other scenarios that we should consider? DRAFT

Outline

Satellite Imagery: Use and Proof of Concept Morrison Creek Tributary Google Earth Pro April 24, 2010

Flowing Dry

Esri’s Way Back Living Atlas June 15, 2010 DRAFT Satellite 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

Flow? Coordinates (UTM) River/Tributary name Month Year Data source Comments (Y(1)/N(0)) 10 S 486442.83 m E 4333456.59 McClure Creek 2 12 1992 Google Earth Pro 1 B&W Image m N 10 S 482444.95 m E 4336610.25 B&W Image, Poor Ackerman Creek 1 7 1993 Google Earth Pro 1 m N resolution 10 S 480228.19 m E 4337041.04 Ackerman Creek 2 7 1993 Google Earth Pro 1 B&W Image m N 10 S 483062.69 m E 4338160.88 Unclear, Poor resolution, East Fork Russian River 7 1993 Google Earth Pro 1 m N B&W 10 S 480943.67 m E 4353135.31 B&W Image, Poor Fisher Creek 7 1993 Google Earth Pro 0 m N resolution 10 S 482107.14 m E 4344642.18 Forsyth Creek 1 7 1993 Google Earth Pro 1 B&W Image m N 10 S 479964.95 M E 4345652.00 Forsyth Creek 2 7 1993 Google Earth Pro 1 B&W Image m N 10 S 482415.12 m E 4337345.98 B&W Image, Poor Hensley Creek 1 7 1993 Google Earth Pro 0 m N resolution 10 S 480803.92 m E 4338174.90 B&W Image, Poor Hensley Creek 2 7 1993 Google Earth Pro 0 m N resolution 10 S 486441.60 m E 4335170.17 B&W Image, Poor Howard Creek 1 7 1993 Google Earth Pro 0 m N resolution 10 S 484854.38 m E 4329017.38 Howell Creek 1 7 1993 Google Earth Pro 1 B&W Image m N 10 S 486410.80 m E 4328639.34 Howell Creek 2 7 1993 Google Earth Pro 0 B&W Image m N 10 S 480775.55 mE 4352986.62 B&W Image, Poor Mariposa Creek 7 1993 Google Earth Pro 1 m N resolution DRAFT Satellite Imagery: Initial Evaluation of Tributaries

Year Type Site/Stream 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 October - July November/December - August October - August October - August River Fisher Creek December/November -May December/November - June December/November -June/July December/November - June

Forsyth Creek 1 December/November -May December/NovemberThese - Augustare usefulOctober for - August November - August Forsyth Creek 2 December/November - July December/Novemberflow/no-flow - June calibrationDecember/November of - August December/November - July Gibson Creek December/November - June December/Novemberour model - April andDecember/November SW/GW - 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/Novemberinteraction - June analysesDecember/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 DRAFT

Satellite Imagery: Springs

◼ PLACEHOLDER DRAFT

Satellite Imagery: Next Steps

◼ PLACEHOLDER DRAFT

Questions?

Thank you!