[Scorecard] scheduling conversations

Tue Jul 15 09:06:17 MDT 2008

I am available any of those times.

Alex

  _____  

From: scorecard-bounces at sonomacreek.net
[mailto:scorecard-bounces at sonomacreek.net] On Behalf Of sec-deanne at vom.com
Sent: Tuesday, July 15, 2008 8:02 AM
To: scorecard at sonomacreek.net
Subject: [Scorecard] scheduling conversations

How is late this afternoon or tomorrow afternoon for a phone call on the
groundwater questions Bob raises (see below) and any other indicator issues
that are still hanging? An alternative is Friday- Peter will be back that
day. I'd also like to have a separate phone call on the production of the
scorecard materials, and plan our next Project Team meeting.

How about:
Today 4:00 for groundwater chat. Or tomorrow 4:00 if that doesn't work.
Friday 10-11:30 am for the Scorecard Products and back-up for the indicators
discussion.

Thanks!
Deanne

Hi everybody,

I have studied Chris's protocol & found it very helpful.  Thanks, Chris!  I
think that we should follow it in general, but I do have 3 specific
suggestions to make:
1.    Grouping of wells:  the downloaded data do not include any information
to group the wells by, but we do have geographic locations.  Therefore I
suggest we confine our grouping effort to making a relatively simple
division by surface location.  For Napa the 24 wells divide into 7 in the
Milliken-Sarco-Tulucay area and 17 in the main basin, with none in Carneros;
for Sonoma we can use the two-part division Chris mentioned if Lisa & Alex
agree.
2.    Base period:  I have plotted data on total vineyard acres for the
period of GW data.  The plot suggests to me that the base period should be
either 1980-1994 (a period of relatively uniform rise in total vyd acres) or
1980-1999 (including 5 additional years when vyd acreage remains relatively
flat).  Probably the latter is best, since it includes a full 20 years.  It
would be convenient if this worked out for Sonoma as well, but it's not
essential that we have the same base period.
3.    Averaging:  Chris's example seems to suggest that the procedure be
followed for each well separately.  I don't know why we can't use the
datasets Alex & I have prepared, which give an average water level for all
sites, and carry out Chris's procedure using average values, instead of
doing the analysis separately for each well.  Of course the wells need to be
grouped as discussed under item no. 1 above, but my suggestion is to use the
average for the group rather than individual wells.  Based on the work I did
on the 24 Napa wells, I think the simple unweighted average would be
adequate;  I found that weighting the average according to surface area was
fairly time-consuming and made very little difference for the Napa data.

I am ready to try this out on the Napa data, but I would like guidance from
SEC before I do so.  Deanne, can you let me know how you folks want to
proceed?  After Lisa looks at this, I am available for a brief phone call on
this topic if you like.  Thanks again to Chris.

Bob 

From: Christopher D Farrar [mailto:cdfarrar at usgs.gov] 
Sent: Wednesday, July 09, 2008 10:52 AM
To: Bob Zlomke; deanne at sonomaecologycenter.org
Cc: Christopher D Farrar
Subject: Napa-Sonoma ground-water scoring

Bob and Deanne, 

The Word file gives a description of one possible way of handling the
scoring of ground water use, storage, and recharge.  The Excel file shows
graphs of the example data.  This is focused on one well.  To score for
multiple wells, one approach would just sum the individual scores and divide
by the number to get an average for each group (perhaps the median would be
more robust).  The grouping of wells could be geographic or depth, or
aquifer, or some mix of these criteria.  The relative area monitored by a
particular well could be accounted for by the method Alex showed us at the
last meeting, but should only include wells for a particular group.  As far
as groups go, Sonoma could be divided by upper valley (Glen Ellen to
Kenwood) and lower valley or split lower valley in two (this might be
important for looking at the saline water intrusion problem and to separate
out the City from rural areas).  Napa is bigger and maybe more complicated,
but certainly MST and Carneros could be treated individually, then maybe an
upper and lower valley division but that might not be needed.  If DWR has
aquifers for each well in their network that could be used for Napa Valley. 

This is all just food for thought, so let's discuss this along with any
ideas others put forward. 
Chris 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
Christopher D. Farrar                
U.S. Geological Survey                
PO Box 1360                                   
5229 N. Lake Blvd                            
Carnelian Bay CA 96140                  

Email:  cdfarrar at usgs.gov
Office:  530.546.0187  [press 4 to leave me a message]
Fax:      530.546.8532

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://sonomacreek.net/pipermail/scorecard_sonomacreek.net/attachments/20080715/711775fd/attachment.html 