[Scorecard] conference call at 4 today

[Deanne DiPietro]

Hi Folks,

We have scheduled a conversation today at 4 about the ground water  
scoring methods. Please join if you are interested; the number is  
below. Attached is Chris Ferrar's methodology paper and Bob's notes.

Deanne

SEC conference call line:
1. Dial-in to the Conference: 1-800-391-1709
2. Enter the Conference Bridge: 887029
3. If you are first, enter the moderator PIN: 2327

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]
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Ground-Water Assessment Protocol.doc
Type: application/octet-stream
Size: 32256 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://sonomacreek.net/pipermail/scorecard_sonomacreek.net/attachments/20080716/5a50b493/attachment-0001.obj 
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: SC2_analysis.xls
Type: application/vnd.ms-excel
Size: 154112 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://sonomacreek.net/pipermail/scorecard_sonomacreek.net/attachments/20080716/5a50b493/attachment-0001.xls 
-------------- next part --------------

Fax:      530.546.8532