Appendix A: November 8, 2010 TSC Meeting … A: November 8, 2010 TSC Meeting Presentation Slides....

Lower Tuscan Aquifer Monitoring, Recharge and Data Management Project Third Quarter 2010 Quarterly Report

A

Final Third Quarter 2010.doc

Appendix A: November 8, 2010 TSC Meeting Presentation Slides

1/7/2011

1

Technical Steering Committee, November 8, 2010

Lower Tuscan AquiferMonitoring, Recharge & Data Management Project

Technical Steering CommitteeNovember 8, 2010


Presentation Overview

IntroductionsTSC RoleProject Purpose ReviewM ti PMeeting PurposePreliminary Field DataNext StepsDiscussion

2


IntroductionsButte County Staff– Paul Gosselin– Kristen McKillopBrown and Caldwell Team– Joe Turner, Project Manager

A d K i P bli O t h d S i T h i l R i– Andy Kopania, Public Outreach and Senior Technical Review– Tim Godwin, Field Manager– John Ayres, OutreachSteering Committee Members

3


TSC RoleAdvisory role

Report and Technical Memorandum review

TSC will meet twice a year

4


Project Purpose

Field Investigation that seeks to improve the scientific understanding of the properties of the Lower Tuscan Aquifer system (LTA).– Physical parameters affecting percolation of surface water to the LTA

Interaction between surface water and groundwater– Interaction between surface water and groundwater– Recharge contribution from other aquifers to the LTA– Measure standard aquifer properties and their variability– Identify natural recharge areas under current hydrologic conditions– Identify recharge areas under increase utilization– How additional pumping may impact the aquifer and surface water

5


Meeting Purpose

Project status updateShare initial/preliminary results of field activitiesDiscussionU i A ti itiUpcoming Activities

6

1/7/2011

2


Field Activities Performed

Monitoring Well Installation and DrillingDual Ring Infiltrometer TestingStream Gauge Installation and MonitoringT t G di t W ll I t ll tiTemperature Gradient Well Installation

7


Installation of Groundwater Monitoring Wells

Locations include– M&T Ranch– CSU Chico Farms– Hackett Property

8


Installation of Groundwater Monitoring WellsOverview

Multiple completion wells are used to assess interaction between distinct zones of Lower TuscanAdditional refinement of understanding

f b f h d lof subsurface hydrogeologyWells small diameter (2.5 inch) cannot be used as production wells.

9


Installation of Groundwater Monitoring Wells Drilling MethodsDual-Tube Reverse circulation– Depth discrete sampling

LithologyWater ProductionField testing of water qualityField testing of water quality

Flooded Reverse Circulation– Same as dual tube but uses a water column to assist

with cuttings recovery– Loose ability to assess water quality during drillingMud Rotary Reaming method– Allowed E-log and Caliper run for each borehole

10



11



Discussion– Drilling Methodology– Lithologic Samples– Groundwater Samples

12

1/7/2011

3


Dual-ring Infiltrometer Testing

Seven site completedSoils types range from– Lower Tuscan Outcrop (Rock)– Soils Immediately overlying

Lower Tuscan– Thin Mapped alluvium

overlying Lower Tuscan– Thin soil overlying Upper

Tuscan

13


Dual Ring Infiltrometer TestingLocation SI-DR-12

14


Dual Ring Infiltrometer Testing

Discussion– Variable results– Will Compare to published soils data for each site– Flow is not necessarily vertical. Once soil column saturated horizontal

flow is observedflow is observed– Difficult driving– Variable soil thickness

15


Stream Gauge Installation and Monitoring

Gauges installed in– Mill Creek– Little Dry CreekWaiting for Access on– Deer Creek– Big Chico Creek– Butte Creek

16



Gauges installed on Mill and Little Dry CreeksStage Discharge Ratings curve development

17

– Stream Pro for discharge measurements

– Transducers in staff gauges



18

1/7/2011

4


Stream Gauge Installation and MonitoringDiscussion– Use of velocity profiles– Error Analysis– Ratings Curves

19


20


Temperature Gradient Well Installation

Pilot Test at 3 locations– Mill Creek– Big Chico Creek– Butte CreekWill expand if viable

21



Groundwater temperature profiles adjacent to streamsTesting methodology at Mill Creek, Butte Creek, and Big Chi C k ( di )Chico Creek (pending access)Temperature data logger to be installed soon.

22



Discussion– Mill Creek – Lower Tuscan rock outcrop Test Location– Big Chico Creek – Lower Tuscan rock outcrop Test Location– Butte Creek – Thin alluvium over Lower TuscanPilot test the methodology at these locations to determine if appropriate.Wells currently installed at Mill Creek.– Two boreholes were advanced to 10 feet.– 5 feet from waters edge conditions were moist.– 25 feet from waters edge conditions were dry.

23


Data Collected and Entered into Database

24

1/7/2011

5


Next StepsWinter 2010 / Spring 2011 Schedule

Establish background monitoring of Groundwater levelsCollect stream discharge measurements and stage dataComplete gauge installation as access becomes available

25

Perform Pilot Test of Temperature gradient wellsReview existing Aquifer TestsPrepare for Aquifer Testing during Pumping season 2011.


B


Appendix B: Preliminary Infiltrometer Test Plots

0 20 40 60 80 100 120

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

Time (Minutes)

Dep

th (

Feet

)SI-DR-1 Infiltration Rate

Depth (Feet)

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

Time (Minutes)

Dep

th (

Feet


Depth (Feet)

0 20 40 60 80 100 120

-0.1

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

Time (Minutes)

Dep

th (

Feet


Depth (Feet)

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

Time (seconds)

De

pth

(Fe

et)

SI-DR-5 Raw Data

Series1

0 20 40 60 80 100 120

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

Time (Minutes)

Dep

th (

Feet


Depth (Feet)

0 20 40 60 80 100 120

-0.3

-0.2

-0.1

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

Time (Minutes)

Dep

th (

Feet


Depth (Feet)

0 50 100 150 200 250

0.5

0.55

0.6

0.65

0.7

0.75

0.8

0.85

0.9

0.95

Time (Minutes)

Dep

th (

Feet


Depth (Feet)


C


Appendix C: Preliminary Summary Well Profiles, Geophysical Logs, and Grain Size Analysis

CSU Farms E-logs

Hackett E-logs

M & T E-logs

2

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

140

PE

RC

EN

T FI

NE

R B

Y W

EIG

HT

mediumcoarse

4

45

10

15

20

25

3

30

Classification

0.01

40

0.1

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

100

35

0.001

95

0

5

100 10 1

CSU-1-550 7.0

GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS

SILT OR CLAY

0.9CSU-1-310 4.7

CSU-1-750

Sample No.

4.9610.9721.3450.511

200

CSU-1-270

0.750.740.830.95

2.8

3

56.880.892.195.5

2.0

Sample No. D10

POORLY GRADED SAND with GRAVEL(SP)POORLY GRADED SAND(SP)

POORLY GRADED SAND(SP)

coarse

Geocon Consultants, Inc.3160 Gold Valley Drive, Suite 800Rancho Cordova, CA 95742Telephone: (916) 852-9118Fax: (916) 852-9132

Project: Lower Tuscan Aquifer (138604.400)Location: Chico, CANumber: S9555-06-01Figure: 1


Cu

14.5

CSU-1-270CSU-1-310CSU-1-550CSU-1-750

4

Cc

GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION

COBBLES

1.8

%Silt

6050

fine

D100 D60

40

fine

%Gravel %Sand

HYDROMETERU.S. SIEVE OPENING IN INCHES U.S. SIEVE NUMBERS

25

D30

16 20 301.56 100

Water Content (%)

GRAVEL

1/2

19.548.604.893.32

.

41.1

SAND

0.154

GR

AIN

SIZ

E W

ITH

MO

ISTU

RE

(NO

PR

EFI

X B

) S

9555

-06-

01 L

OW

ER

TU

SC

AN

AQ

UIF

ER

.GP

J U

S_L

AB

.GD

T 1

0/7/

10

12.519

0.9710.2860.5540.273

0.254%Clay

0.275

3/8 6 810 141 3/4

37.50.113

SILT OR CLAYGRAVEL SAND

65

100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001

45

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

60

5

55

0

50

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Sample No. & Depth (ft)

0.216

fine

2519

37.5

0.1640.7070.964

%Silt

60

fine

D100 D60

40


POORLY GRADED SAND with GRAVEL(SP)

HP-1-80

HP-1-330

HP-1-530

HP-1-80

0.35

HP-1-5300.91


Project: Lower Tuscan Aquifer (138604.400)

Location: Chico, CA

Number: S9555-06-01

HP-1-330

6 810 14

coarse medium

6

0.644.4730.97

33.512.547.8

COBBLES

Cu

3

PI Cc


coarse

140

D10

41 3/4 1/23/8 100

Classification.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

2.4771.5636.694

2001.5

%Clay

50.6

19.11.91.7


47.4

2U.S. SIEVE OPENING IN INCHES

16 20 30 50G

RA

IN S

IZE

(NO

FIG

UR

E)

S95

55-0

6-01

LO

WE

R T

US

CA

N A

QU

IFE

R.G

PJ

US

_LA

B.G

DT

10/

18/1

0

PE

RC

EN

T FI

NE

R B

Y W

EIG

HT

PL

D30

85.5

LL

U.S. SIEVE NUMBERS

Sample No. & Depth (ft)

3

%Gravel %Sand

HYDROMETER4

PE

RC

EN

T FI

NE

R B

Y W

EIG

HT

.

.

.

.

.

1402

mediumcoarse

4

0.001

60

65

70

75

100 10 1 0.01

45

80

85

90

95

100

0.1

5

55

0

50

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

M&T-580


SILT OR CLAY

30.3M&T-370 2.6

M&T-800

Sample No.

10.5750.7011.291

200

.

.

.

.

.

.

68.72.33.0

1.79

2.39

8.2

COBBLES

3

28.767.488.8

D10Sample No.

coarse


Project: Lower Tuscan Aquifer (138604.400)Location: Chico, CANumber: S9555-06-01Figure: 2

WELL-GRADED GRAVEL with SAND(GW)M&T-370M&T-580M&T-800

4

Cu

Cc


12.34

20 30 50

%Silt

60

fine

U.S. SIEVE OPENING IN INCHES

3

Classification

%Gravel %Sand

16HYDROMETER

D60

U.S. SIEVE NUMBERS

1.5

D30

3/4 1/23/8

%Clay

100

Water Content (%)

10

GRAVEL SAND

6G

RA

IN S

IZE

WIT

H M

OIS

TUR

E (N

O P

RE

FIX

B)

S95

55-0

6-01

LO

WE

R T

US

CA

N A

QU

IFE

R.G

PJ

US

_LA

B.G

DT

10/

7/10

4.441

10.13

40

fine

37.5

1

12.5

14

0.568

1.044

0.105

6 8

D100

9.5

Appendix A: November 8, 2010 TSC Meeting … A: November 8, 2010 TSC Meeting Presentation Slides....

Documents

Transcript of Appendix A: November 8, 2010 TSC Meeting … A: November 8, 2010 TSC Meeting Presentation Slides....