[Scorecard] FW: Tech Report Draft due Sept 16

[Rainer Hoenicke]

Hi, Bob -

A couple of thoughts and questions on the Cumulative Flow indicator:

At our field trip, we visited a site just south or Carriger Creek where 
a local resident had recorded for many years or even decades at what 
date flow in creek ceased. I seem to remember hearing that flow used to 
last much longer into the dry season until the vineyard next door went 
in. So, it seems that there is, indeed, at least one dataset for a small 
tributary that has a record of when it goes dry. Do I recall that 
correctly? I think Becca mentioned that little anecdote. So, it seems 
that vineyard irrigation would REDUCE dry-season stream flow in general, 
since vines use up more water than rangeland or native vegetation, 
unless the grapes are dry-farmed, which is entirely possible in most 
locations in the Sonoma Valley.

That got me thinking that rainfall isn't necessarily the most important 
correlative factor with days of zero flow, since groundwater elevation 
seems to have a huge influence on stream flow persistence as well. If 
you have a lot of straws in the hyporheic flow (which, according to the 
California Water Code ought to be permitted by the Water Rights Division 
as much as surface flow, but isn't currently), you are going to get a 
lot more days with zero flow, regardless of how much it rained in the 
preceding wet season(s). This is probably true not just for subsurface 
flows but also for aquifers that used to be hydrologically connected 
with the stream. You may want to include that in your write-up with the 
bottom line message that you can't separate groundwater from surface 
water except in those cases where a stream is disconnected from a 
confined aquifer hundreds of feet deep.

Also, the slight dry season flow increases over the measurement period 
are not really surprising if you consider concomitant increases in urban 
surfaces and imports from the Russian River watershed. The excessive 
irrigation water from areas supplied by the SCWA that runs off may show 
up cumulatively in your dry-season flow increases. In addition, aren't 
most of the recipients of water imports from the SCWA on private sewage 
disposal systems, and doesn't a fairly large portion of groundwater get 
transferred into leach fields, of which a fair amount ends up in the 
drainage network? So, the increase may be entirely explainable by 
transfers from groundwater to semi-surface water (if you can call leach 
lines that) and by imports that have to end up somewhere. This is why 
parameterizing our initial conceptual model is so important. Can you 
model what might happen with the 5,000AFY of imports (or whatever the 
exact number is), plus the transfers from groundwater to subsurface 
water (via private sewage disposal systems) available for stream flow 
augmentation and find out if the equation balances out? How many AFY of 
imports are "recycled" at the household level (is Kenwood the only 
non-sewered urban area?), and what is the percentage of the roughly 80 
gallons per household per day used for landscape irrigation that runs 
off unused (formerly referred to as "urban drool" but now considered a 
valuable water resource by LID advocates and stormwater managers)?

Although it's kind of late in the game, what really matters for aquatic 
life uses is critical spring flows and the amount of flow that gets left 
in the creek during outmigration of anadromous fish. Do we see the same 
increase in flow trends over time during a different index period?

Best,

Rainer

Bob Zlomke wrote:
> Attached are the draft sections for dry season flow, storage, and 
> groundwater table, for both watersheds. Alex may have some edits to 
> the score values to add to the Sonoma sections on Monday. He wrote all 
> the Sonoma sections.
> More figures to follow when necessary. Everybody have a great weekend!
> Bob
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *From:* scorecard-bounces at sonomacreek.net 
> [mailto:scorecard-bounces at sonomacreek.net] *On Behalf Of *Frances Knapczyk
> *Sent:* Friday, September 12, 2008 1:12 PM
> *To:* scorecard at sonomacreek.net
> *Subject:* [Scorecard] Tech Report Draft due Sept 16
>
> Hi Team,
>
> The first draft of the Technical Report is due Tuesday September 16. 
> Send your .doc for each watershed to scorecard at sonomacreek.net with 
> your initials in the filename.
>
> Reminders:
>
>    1. There are now 7 indicators, following are the leads (writers)
>       for each indicator & index:
>
> /Supply - Lisa/
>
> Cumulative Flow – Alex
>
> Dry Season Flow - Bob
>
> /Storage - Bob/
>
> Surface Storage - Alex
>
> Groundwater Table - Bob
>
> /Stewardship - Rainer/
>
> Water self reliance – Rainer (w/assistance from Bob on Imports)
>
> Water use - Peter
>
> Water retention – Lisa (w/assistance from Kat on Imperv Area)
>
>    2. The report is to be written for a technical/scientific audience.
>
> More information on our peer review process will come next week.
>
> Best-
>
> Frances Knapczyk
>
> Education Coordinator
>
> Napa County Resource Conservation District
>
> 1303 Jefferson Street Suite 500B
>
> Napa, CA 94559
>
> 707/252-4188 x 120
>
> frances at naparcd.org <mailto:frances at naparcd.org>
>
>
>
> __________ NOD32 3460 (20080922) Information __________
>
> This message was checked by NOD32 antivirus system.
> http://www.eset.com
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> Scorecard mailing list
> Scorecard at sonomacreek.net
> http://sonomacreek.net/mailman/listinfo/scorecard_sonomacreek.net
>   


-- 

Rainer Hoenicke, Ph.D.
Deputy Director
San Francisco Estuary Institute
7770 Pardee Lane
Oakland, CA 94621
510-746-7381
www.sfei.org