[Scorecard] scheduling conversations

Tue Jul 15 11:01:21 MDT 2008

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

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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://sonomacreek.net/pipermail/scorecard_sonomacreek.net/attachments/20080715/86bb78f7/attachment-0001.html 