[Scorecard] scheduling conversations
Christopher D Farrar
cdfarrar at usgs.gov
Mon Jul 21 11:19:11 MDT 2008
I'm not sure what to do about this. I am totally inundated, I have been
in the field since the 14th, am in the office for a few hours today then
back to the field through July 30. I know there is urgency to finish
this up but I am extremely short on time until August.
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
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Bob Zlomke" <bob at naparcd.org>
Sent by: scorecard-bounces at sonomacreek.net
07/15/2008 10:01 AM
To
"Alex Young" <alex at sonomaecologycenter.org>, <sec-deanne at vom.com>,
<scorecard at sonomacreek.net>
cc
Subject
Re: [Scorecard] scheduling conversations
Today doesn't work for me. The other times are good.
Bob
From: scorecard-bounces at sonomacreek.net
[mailto:scorecard-bounces at sonomacreek.net] On Behalf Of Alex Young
Sent: Tuesday, July 15, 2008 8:06 AM
To: sec-deanne at vom.com; scorecard at sonomacreek.net
Subject: Re: [Scorecard] scheduling conversations
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
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Scorecard mailing list
Scorecard at sonomacreek.net
http://sonomacreek.net/mailman/listinfo/scorecard_sonomacreek.net
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://sonomacreek.net/pipermail/scorecard_sonomacreek.net/attachments/20080721/8163f5e6/attachment.html
More information about the Scorecard
mailing list