<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40" xmlns:v =
"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o =
"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w =
"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:st1 =
"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags"><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=us-ascii">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.6000.16674" name=GENERATOR><!--[if !mso]>
<STYLE>v\:* {
BEHAVIOR: url(#default#VML)
}
o\:* {
BEHAVIOR: url(#default#VML)
}
w\:* {
BEHAVIOR: url(#default#VML)
}
.shape {
BEHAVIOR: url(#default#VML)
}
</STYLE>
<![endif]--><o:SmartTagType name="PlaceType"
namespaceuri="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags"></o:SmartTagType><o:SmartTagType
name="PlaceName"
namespaceuri="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags"></o:SmartTagType><o:SmartTagType
name="City"
namespaceuri="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags"></o:SmartTagType><o:SmartTagType
name="place"
namespaceuri="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags"></o:SmartTagType><!--[if !mso]>
<STYLE>st1\:* {
BEHAVIOR: url(#default#ieooui)
}
</STYLE>
<![endif]-->
<STYLE>@font-face {
font-family: Tahoma;
}
@page Section1 {size: 8.5in 11.0in; margin: 1.0in 1.25in 1.0in 1.25in; }
P.MsoNormal {
FONT-SIZE: 12pt; MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; FONT-FAMILY: "Times New Roman"
}
LI.MsoNormal {
FONT-SIZE: 12pt; MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; FONT-FAMILY: "Times New Roman"
}
DIV.MsoNormal {
FONT-SIZE: 12pt; MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; FONT-FAMILY: "Times New Roman"
}
A:link {
COLOR: blue; TEXT-DECORATION: underline
}
SPAN.MsoHyperlink {
COLOR: blue; TEXT-DECORATION: underline
}
A:visited {
COLOR: purple; TEXT-DECORATION: underline
}
SPAN.MsoHyperlinkFollowed {
COLOR: purple; TEXT-DECORATION: underline
}
SPAN.EmailStyle17 {
COLOR: navy; FONT-FAMILY: Arial; mso-style-type: personal-reply
}
DIV.Section1 {
page: Section1
}
</STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY lang=EN-US vLink=purple link=blue>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=116040117-15072008><FONT face=Arial
color=#0000ff size=2>Today doesn't work for me. The other times are
good.</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=116040117-15072008><FONT face=Arial
color=#0000ff size=2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=116040117-15072008><FONT face=Arial
color=#0000ff size=2>Bob</FONT></SPAN></DIV><BR>
<DIV class=OutlookMessageHeader lang=en-us dir=ltr align=left>
<HR tabIndex=-1>
<FONT face=Tahoma size=2><B>From:</B> scorecard-bounces@sonomacreek.net
[mailto:scorecard-bounces@sonomacreek.net] <B>On Behalf Of </B>Alex
Young<BR><B>Sent:</B> Tuesday, July 15, 2008 8:06 AM<BR><B>To:</B>
sec-deanne@vom.com; scorecard@sonomacreek.net<BR><B>Subject:</B> Re: [Scorecard]
scheduling conversations<BR></FONT><BR></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV class=Section1>
<P class=MsoNormal><FONT face=Arial color=navy size=2><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: navy; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">I am available any of
those times.<o:p></o:p></SPAN></FONT></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><FONT face=Arial color=navy size=2><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: navy; FONT-FAMILY: Arial"><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></FONT></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><FONT face=Arial color=navy size=2><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: navy; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">Alex<o:p></o:p></SPAN></FONT></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><FONT face=Arial color=navy size=2><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: navy; FONT-FAMILY: Arial"><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></FONT></P>
<DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="TEXT-ALIGN: center" align=center><FONT
face="Times New Roman" size=3><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt">
<HR tabIndex=-1 align=center width="100%" SIZE=3>
</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><B><FONT face=Tahoma size=2><SPAN
style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Tahoma">From:</SPAN></FONT></B><FONT
face=Tahoma size=2><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Tahoma">
scorecard-bounces@sonomacreek.net [mailto:scorecard-bounces@sonomacreek.net]
<B><SPAN style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold">On Behalf Of
</SPAN></B>sec-deanne@vom.com<BR><B><SPAN
style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold">Sent:</SPAN></B> Tuesday, July 15, 2008 8:02
AM<BR><B><SPAN style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold">To:</SPAN></B>
scorecard@sonomacreek.net<BR><B><SPAN
style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold">Subject:</SPAN></B> [Scorecard] scheduling
conversations</SPAN></FONT><o:p></o:p></P></DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=3><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt"><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></FONT></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN-BOTTOM: 12pt"><FONT face="Times New Roman"
size=3><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt">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.<BR><BR>How about:<BR>Today 4:00 for groundwater chat. Or tomorrow 4:00
if that doesn't work.<BR>Friday 10-11:30 am for the Scorecard Products and
back-up for the indicators
discussion.<BR><BR>Thanks!<BR>Deanne<BR><BR><BR><BR>Hi everybody,<BR> <BR>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:<BR>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
<st1:City w:st="on">Napa</st1:City> the 24 wells divide into 7 in the
Milliken-Sarco-Tulucay area and 17 in the main basin, with none in
Carneros; for <st1:City w:st="on"><st1:place
w:st="on">Sonoma</st1:place></st1:City> we can use the two-part division Chris
mentioned if Lisa & Alex agree.<BR>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 <st1:City w:st="on"><st1:place
w:st="on">Sonoma</st1:place></st1:City> as well, but it's not essential that we
have the same base period.<BR>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 <st1:City
w:st="on">Napa</st1:City> 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 <st1:City
w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">Napa</st1:place></st1:City> data.<BR> <BR>I
am ready to try this out on the <st1:City w:st="on"><st1:place
w:st="on">Napa</st1:place></st1:City> 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.<BR> <BR>Bob
<BR><BR>From: Christopher D Farrar [mailto:cdfarrar@usgs.gov] <BR>Sent:
Wednesday, July 09, 2008 10:52 AM<BR>To: Bob Zlomke;
deanne@sonomaecologycenter.org<BR>Cc: Christopher D Farrar<BR>Subject:
Napa-Sonoma ground-water scoring<BR><BR><BR>Bob and Deanne, <BR><BR>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,
<st1:City w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">Sonoma</st1:place></st1:City> 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). <st1:City
w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">Napa</st1:place></st1:City> 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 <st1:place w:st="on"><st1:PlaceName w:st="on">Napa</st1:PlaceName>
<st1:PlaceType w:st="on">Valley</st1:PlaceType></st1:place>. <BR><BR>This is all
just food for thought, so let's discuss this along with any ideas others put
forward. <BR>Chris
<BR><BR><BR>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------<BR>Christopher
D.
Farrar
<BR>U.S. Geological
Survey
<BR>PO Box
1360
<BR>5229 N. Lake
Blvd
<BR>Carnelian Bay CA
96140
<BR><BR>Email: cdfarrar@usgs.gov<BR>Office: 530.546.0187
[press 4 to leave me a message]<BR>Fax:
530.546.8532<BR><BR>---------------------------------------------------------------------------------<o:p></o:p></SPAN></FONT></P></DIV></BODY></HTML>