Suitability for Managed Aquifer Recharge (MAR)

Suitability for Managed Aquifer Recharge (MAR)
Projects within the Pajaro Valley:
Update on GIS Analysis and Percolation
Evaluation for MAR potential
T. Russo1, A. T. Fisher1, M. Los Huertos2, N. Jacuzzi2
1
University of California, Santa Cruz
2 California State University, Monterey Bay
Community Dialog #5
Water in the Pajaro Valley
12 July 2011
Watsonville Civic Center
Estimating the suitability for MAR using a
geographic information system (GIS)
MAR
Google maps
• Surface physical data
• Subsurface geology and hydrogeology
• Potential access to a water supply
Estimating the suitability for MAR using a
geographic information system (GIS)
MAR
Google maps
• Surface physical data
• Subsurface geology and hydrogeology
• Potential access to a water supply
(underway)
Surface analysis
Relative MAR suitability
Preliminary
Map based on:
Soil classification,
topography, land use
and bedrock geology
High MAR suitability
Low MAR suitability
Subsurface analysis
Relative recharge suitability
Preliminary
Map based on:
Calculated aquifer
transmissivity and
presence of clay
confining layers
High MAR suitability
Low MAR suitability
Next steps for GIS analysis
• Integrate subsurface and surface analyses
• Complete (physical) analysis of potential water sources
(not political, regulatory, legal)
• Revise analyses of surface data based on feedback, site
specific information, limited field testing
• Make "final" data product available for use by stakeholders
in digital form
• Target date for completion of GIS study: 1-2 months
Nested Approach for Implementation
• GIS analysis is intended to help identify MAR
sites
…but…
• Spatial data may be inaccurate in some locations;
• Establishing pilot field studies is expensive and
can be technically challenging,
…so…
• We designed a 3–10 day percolation testing
system to test sites that have potential for MAR
Field testing of infiltration potential for MAR
• Small, multi-day percolation tests, 0.1 to 10 m2
• Scale up at successful sites
• Monitor infiltration rate
• Expand to additional sites
• Initial support secured from SCC-RCD, NSF
Graduate Fellowship, and by re-scoping funds
previously secured from NIWR
Solar panels
Large volume tank
Top off
fitting
Float
valve
24V R/V
pump
75–200'
hose
Deep cycle
batteries
Heavy duty trailer
Power regulator,
data logger
Solinoid
Flow
meter
Test pit
(0.1 –10 m2)
Float
valve
3 test sites
Survey image from USDA-NRCS, 2010
Infiltration Capacity,
Bokariza-Drobac, Middle pit
Infiltration rate (ft/day)
80.0
70.0
60.0
50.0
~20 ft/day
40.0
30.0
20.0
10.0
0.0
0.0
1.0
2.0
Time (day)
3.0
4.0
5.0
Infiltration rate (ft/day)
Infiltration rate (ft/day)
120
Bokariza-Drobac, Northern pit
Preliminary
100
80
~40 ft/day
60
40
20
0
0.00
0.05
0.10
Time (day)
0.15
0.20
Bokariza-Drobac, Southern pit
Preliminary
12
10
~6 ft/day
8
6
4
2
0
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
Time (day)
0.10
0.12
~20-40 ft/day
~6 ft/day
Survey image from USDA-NRCS, 2010
Next steps…
• Integration of GIS maps
• Continue percolation testing
- Additional tests at Bokariza-Drobac
- New sites
• Modification of the PVWMA-USGS
groundwater model
Many thanks for collaboration, advice…
Maria Osiadacz, Brian Lockwood, Mike Cloud,
Jonathan Lear, Randy Hanson, Noah Finnegan
…and for support that helps to make this work possible…
Questions?