Grassland Water District
USBR Cooperative Agreement: R10AC20661
Water Quality Monitoring
in the Grassland Resource Conservation District
Draft Annual Report – June 2011
David L. Widell, Project Manager, Director, Principal Investigator
Patrick Rahilly, Environmental Specialist, Lead Author
Ricardo Ortega, Environmental Scientist, co-Author
Grassland Water District
22759 S. Mercy Springs Road
Los Banos, CA 93635
Nigel W.T. Quinn, PhD, P.E., USBR Technical Advisor
Berkeley National Laboratory
1 Cyclotron Road, Bld 70A-3317H
Berkeley, CA 94720
July 5, 2011
R10AC20661 2011
2
R10AC20661 2011
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. PROJECT SUMMARY AND PURPOSE…………………………………………………
4
2. PROJECT SCOPE AND GOALS ………………………………………………….……… 4
2.1 Objectives……………………………………………………………………….…… 4
2.2 Scope of Work ………………………………………………………………………. 4
3. ACTIVITIES COMPLETED …………………………………………………………..….. 5
3.1 Task 1: Project Administration …..………………………………………………. 5
3.2 Task 2: Develop Quality Assurance Project Plan...…………………………………. 5
3.3 Task 3: Design and Installation of Monitoring Stations…………………………..…. 6
3.4 Task 4: Summary Reports/Deliverables………………………………………………8
3.5 Task 5: Outreach……………………………………………………………………. 33
4. ASSESSMENT OF PROGRAM EFFECTIVENESS ……………………………………33
3
R10AC20661 2011
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Real-time water quality monitoring station location map………………………………………8
Figure 2. GRCD comparison of specific conductivity and total dissolved solids………………………..12
Figure 3. Santa Fe Canal, Post Arroyo – illustration of sensor redundancy……………………...............15
Figure 4. MACE depth disparity versus redundant sensor in high velocities…………………….………16
Figure 5. Charts illustrating the relationship between deployed EC sensor and QA EC sensor…………19
Figure 6. Chart illustrating the post processing and correction of EC calibration error………………….19
Figure 7. Volta Wasteway average daily flow, EC and calculated salt load with QA...……………..……21
Figure 8. Hollow Tree Drain average daily flow, EC and calculated salt load with QA…………………22
Figure 9. S-Lake Drain average daily flow, EC and calculated salt load with QA…………………...….23
Figure 10. Los Banos Creek at Highway 140 average daily flow, EC and calculated salt load with QA..25
Figure 11. Fremont Canal at Gun Club Road average daily flow, EC and calculated salt load with QA..26
Figure 12. Mud Slough at Gun Club Road average daily flow, EC and calculated salt load with QA…..27
Figure 13. Agatha Canal average daily flow, EC and calculated salt load with QA…………………….29
Figure 14. Camp 13 average daily flow, EC and calculated salt load with QA………………………....30
Figure 15. Poso Drain average daily flow, EC and calculated salt load with QA……………………….31
Figure 16. Bennett Ditch average daily flow, EC and calculated salt load with QA…………………….32
Figure 17. Santa Fe Canal, Pre Arroyo average daily flow, EC and calculated salt load with QA……...33
Figure 18. Santa Fe Canal at HWY 152 average daily flow, EC and calculated salt load with QA….…34
Figure 19. San Luis Canal, Pre Splits average daily flow, EC and calculated salt load with QA……….35
Figure 20. San Luis Canal, SL1 average daily flow, EC and calculated salt load with QA…………..…37
Figure 21. Cross Channel average daily flow, EC and calculated salt load with QA……………………38
Figure 22. Wolfsen Drain average daily flow, EC and calculated salt load with QA……………………39
Figure 23. CDFG, Robin’s Nest average daily flow, EC and calculated salt load with QA …………….42
Figure 24. CDFG, Gadwall Unit Drain average daily flow, EC and calculated salt load with QA……...43
Figure 25. Santa Fe Canal, Kesterson Supply average daily flow, EC and calculated salt load with QA.44
Figure 26. San Luis Canal, Blue Goose Unit average daily flow, EC and calculated salt load with QA..46
Figure 27. USFWS West Gadwall Drain average daily flow, EC and calculated salt load with QA…….47
Figure 28. USFWS West Big Lake Drain average daily flow, EC and calculated salt load with QA……48
Figure 29. USFWS Zahm’s Lake Drain average daily flow, EC and calculated salt load with QA……..49
4
R10AC20661 2011
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. Laboratory results from grab samples in the GRCD……………………………………………13
Table 2. Summarized statistics of disparity of MACE depth and redundant depth in high velocities…...17
Table 3. Dates and locations of calibration error due to faulty QA EC sensor………………………… ..18
Table 4. Summarized statistics of differences between deployed EC sensor and QA EC sensor…….....18
Table 5. Volta Wasteway Quality Assurance…………………………………………………………….20
Table 6. Hollow Tree Drain Quality Assurance……………………………………………………….…21
Table 7. S-Lake Drain Quality Assurance……………………………………………………………….23
Table 8. Los Banos Creek at Highway 140 Quality Assurance………………………………………….24
Table 9. Fremont Canal at Gun Club Road Quality Assurance………………………………………….25
Table 10. Mud Slough at Gun Club Road Quality Assurance……………………………………………26
Table 11. Agatha Canal Quality Assurance………………………………………………………………28
Table 12. Camp 13 Quality Assurance…………………………………………………………………...29
Table 13. Poso Drain Quality Assurance…………………………………………………………………30
Table 14. Bennett Ditch Quality Assurance……………………………………………………………...31
Table 15. Santa Fe Canal, Pre Arroyo Quality Assurance……………………………………………….32
Table 16. Santa Fe Canal at Highway 152 Quality Assurance…………………………………………...34
Table 17. San Luis Canal, Pre Splits Quality Assurance…………………………………………………35
Table 18. San Luis Canal, SL1 Quality Assurance………………………………………………………36
Table 19. Cross Channel Quality Assurance……………………………………………………………..38
Table 20. Wolfsen Drain Quality Assurance……………………………………………………………..39
Table 21. CDFG, Robin’s Nest Quality Assurance.……………………………………………………...40
Table 22. CDFG, Gadwall unit Drain Quality Assurance………………………………………………..42
Table 23. Santa Fe Canal, Kesterson Supply Quality Assurance………………………………………..44
Table 24. San Luis Canal, Blue Goose Unit Quality Assurance…………………………………………45
Table 25. USFWS West Gadwall Drain Quality Assurance……………………………………………..46
Table 26. USFWS West Big Lake Drain Quality Assurance…………………………………………….47
Table 27. USFWS Zahm’s Lake Drain Quality Assurance………………………………………………48
5
R10AC20661 2011
Water Quality Monitoring
in the Grassland Resource Conservation District
1. PROJECT SUMMARY AND PURPOSE
The Water Supply, Reliability, and Environmental Improvement Act of 2004 (H.R. 2828)
requires, among other mandates, that the Secretary of Interior “shall develop and implement a
best management practices plan to reduce the impact of the discharges from wildlife refuges that
receive water from the federal government and discharge salt or other constituents in the San
Joaquin River”. Water use and water quality in the San Joaquin Valley are long standing issues
both for agricultural and natural resource purposes. The northern portion of the San Joaquin
Valley (Merced County) has a significant area of seasonal wetlands and is a major wintering area
of national importance to waterfowl. Wetland managers need information on water volumes and
water quality to optimize water use on their wetlands for the benefit of wildlife and optimal
habitat diversity. The project has augmented existing water quality monitoring throughout the
Grassland Resource Conservation District (GRCD), including Private, Federal (USFWS) and
State (CDFG) lands, located within Merced County near the town of Los Banos, California.
Data from this monitoring effort has to date, provided information to land use managers which
has served to help better understand the dynamics of water quantity and quality used to manage
the Grassland ecosystem.
2.
PROJECT SCOPE AND GOALS
2.1.
Objectives
This pilot project is a four-year collaborative effort between USFWS, CDFG, and Grassland
Water District (GWD) to characterize the volume of water and salt load entering and leaving the
wetlands of the GRCD. This project divides the region into service areas and drainage units
where analyses of water and salt dynamics can be documented and evaluated. The final product
will be a report on the quantity and quality (salt load) of water entering (delivered and drainage)
and leaving the GRCD.
2.2.
Scope of Work
The scope of this project encompasses the installation, management, and maintenance of a webenabled real-time water quality monitoring network as well as the reporting of water quality and
flow data from key supplies, inter-district conveyance, and drainages of the GRCD. Other
efforts include the continued maintenance of 13 legacy real-time monitoring stations located on
impoundments within CDFG Wildlife Areas and private lands. Project efforts to date include the
installation, operation and maintenance of 44 water monitoring stations while maintaining a
vigorous Quality Assurance/Quality Control protocol to guarantee the integrity of the monitoring
network and insure data is representative and comprehensive. In addition to providing monthly
progress reports on operations, GWD provides annual reports on the dynamics of water and salt
load entering and leaving the districts conveyance and sampled impoundments.
6
R10AC20661 2011
3.
3.1.
ACTIVITIES COMPLETED
Task 1: Project Administration
The project scope encompasses the diverse landscape of the GRCD incorporating data
acquisition from Private, State, and Federal lands. David Widell, General Manager of Grassland
Water District, is the Project Manager/ Director/ Principal Investigator, has been responsible for
the day-to-day management of the project, all project progress reports and all project public
outreach. The project accounting and financial management has been undertaken by Veronica
Woodruff, the GWD Office Manager. GWD has hired four full-time term employees to
accomplish the goals and obligations set out by the grant.
With cooperation from Private landowners, CDFG and USFWS management staff, the project
has moved forward smoothly. Many of the private landowners, CDFG and USFWS
management staff, as well as GWD water management staff now utilize the monitoring network
acknowledging its utility to assist in water conservation and water quality management decision
support. The utilization of the monitoring network by the local wetland community has been
instrumental in advancing the concept of real-time water quality monitoring based decision
support in this region. Management and Stakeholder adoption of the monitoring network
emphasizes the importance of a publicly accessible web enabled real-time water quality
monitoring data.
3.2.
Task 2: Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP)
A comprehensive project Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP) was developed for the project
in collaboration with USBR and accepted scientific practices. This report was provided to the
USBR in February 2009. The Quality Assurance protocol for continuous data collection and
processing was based on the protocol adopted for the Grasslands Bypass Project and previous
assessments administered by GWD including the Irrigated Lands Regulatory Program (ILRP)
Agricultural Waiver Monitoring Program, and SWRCB funded project, Adaptive, Coordinated
Real-Time Management of Wetland Drainage (Agreement # 04-312-555-1). This project has
improved upon these protocols by utilizing real-time data (15 minute) through the YSI EcoNet
commercial website and the NIVIS Data Center. This has allowed more frequent assessment of
sensor performance at each of the monitoring stations and rapid response to problems identified
through the daily inspection of the data. Given the highly variable flow conditions at these
monitoring stations and the high susceptibility for fouling by algae, sediment or vegetation, the
web enablement has helped to reduce station “down-time” and resulted in more representative
and comprehensive data sets than has been observed during previous efforts.
7
R10AC20661 2011
Figure 1. Real-time water quality monitoring station locations in the Grassland Resource Conservation District.
8
R10AC20661 2011
3.3.
Task 3: Design and Installation Monitoring Stations
GWD has installed and now manages 44 real-time web-enabled flow and water quality
monitoring stations at key locations within the GRCD. Utilizing refurbished legacy and new
equipment, each monitoring station is outfitted with YSI EcoNet data loggers and telemetry
enabling the real time reporting and backup through the NIVIS database. Real-time water
quality monitoring data from the 43 stations in the network are available for public viewing at
the following link:
http://www.ysieconet.com/public/WebUI/Default.aspx?hidCustomerID=99 .
Each monitoring station has been outfitted with an YSI Sonde 600XL multi-parametric sensor
monitoring EC, pH, temperature, and stage. On-board logging Doppler flow meters have been
installed at each station to characterize both depth and velocity. Open channels are equipped
with a SONTEK Argonaut SL Flow Meters and the piped structures are equipped with MACE
Flow Meters. Where possible for additional stage sensors have been added to provide a level of
redundancy to provide post-processing capabilities for calculating flow.
GWD/CDFG site retrofitting
The ILRP Ag-Waiver stations are located at one supply and five drainages of the GRCD. The
supply monitoring station is located on the Volta Wasteway within the CDFG Volta Wildlife
Area. The Volta Wasteway terminates at Volta WA’s Pond 10. From Pond 10, three diversions
are made to the North Division of GRCD servicing a large portion of the wetlands that drain into
Los Banos Creek and Mud Slough. Five stations located at the major drainage points of North
GRCD include the Hollow Tree Drain, S-Lake Drain, Fremont Canal at Gun Club Road, Mud
Slough at Gun Club Road, and Los Banos Creek at Highway 140. Although only recently
enabled for web enabled real-time data transfer, the Mud Slough and Fremont Canal monitoring
stations have been in operational since 2000; Hollow Tree, S-Lake and Los Banos Creek have
been operational since 2001, and the Volta Wasteway since 2002. All legacy canister style
SONTEK Argonaut SL Doppler flow meters have now been refurbished and reinstalled. All
legacy Cambell Scientific EC probes and data loggers have now been replaced with YSI Sonde
multi-parametric sensors and YSI EcoNet data loggers. In addition, all of the legacy gauge
station houses have been replaced with discrete electrical boxes that are more easily climate
controlled (i.e. humidity) as well as preventing insects (wasps) and rodents from entering, all of
which all pose treat to the integrity of the delicate instrumentation.
GWD/CDFG new installations
The site locations of the new installations were chosen by GRCD representatives from USFWS,
CDFG, and GWD to characterize the quality of deliveries, the quality of inter-district deliveries
and the quality of key drainage locations not covered by the Ag-Waiver stations. In total, 12
new stations were installed and equipped with YSI Econet web-enabled real-time water quality
monitoring data loggers, modems, YSI Sondes, and either a SONTEK Argonaut-SL or MACE
9
R10AC20661 2011
Flow Meters. The Central California Irrigation District (CCID) deliveries to GWD into the
South GRCD are the Agatha and Camp 13 canals, both supplied by the Main Canal and are were
instrumented in July of 2009. Other supplies monitored into the South Grasslands include the
Bennett Ditch and the Poso Drain. The Bennett ditch, fed by CCID supply operational spill that
the district receives from an adjacent conveyance to the Agatha Canal, was also instrumented in
July of 2009. The Poso Drain, supplied by high quality agricultural spill and enters the South
GRCD, was instrumented in July of 2009. The major inter-district conveyance points between
the Southern and Northern District Divisions are the Mud Slough Bypass (Santa Fe Canal – pre
Arroyo), Santa Fe Canal – post Arroyo both operational since July of 2009, San Luis Canal – pre
Splits, installed in December of 2009, and the San Luis Canal @ SL1 (post Splits), instrumented
at the beginning of May 2009. The two Santa Fe Canal monitoring stations allow for the
characterization of the San Luis Canal Company’s Arroyo Canal, which is also operational spill.
Although the San Luis Canal and Santa Fe Canals merge at the “splits”, the two San Luis Canal
stations and the two Santa Fe Canal stations allow for the independent characterization of quality
and flows leaving the South Grasslands delivered to the North Grasslands. Additionally, real
time data from these stations allows for operational decision support to maximize water
conservation and water quality. The San Luis Canal at SL-1 monitoring station allows for the
water quality characterization of deliveries to CDFG – Los Banos Wildlife Area.
Three drainage monitoring locations and one supply were strategically located to determine
CDFG wetland salt load contributions to the San Joaquin River which are located at the Gadwall
Unit and Drain, Los Banos Wildlife Area (LBWA) Button Willow Lake Drain, and the Wolfsen
Drain (Salt Slough Unit). The Gadwall Unit has one major inlet, the Robin’s Nest, and one drain
making it an ideal unit for mass balance assessments. The monitoring stations at these two
locations will allow for a comprehensive salt and water balance characterization of 1600 acres of
seasonal wetland impoundments. The Button Willow Lake is a temporary holding reservoir
which receives the majority of the drainage from the LBWA and maybe a future location to
regulate discharges to Mud Slough and the San Joaquin River. Although a current monitoring
station exists at the CDFG Button Willow Lake location a structure replacement is scheduled for
late summer of 2011, as outlined in the SOW, due to the inability to accurately characterize flow
accurately at this site. The Wolfsen Drain accounts for the drainage of the western portion of the
Salt Slough Unit.
GWD/DFG current monitoring efforts
The scope of this project also encompasses the continued maintenance and monitoring of 25
stations associated with the SWRCB, USBR, and CALFED funded Modified Hydrology Project.
The 25 stations represented a total of 13 wetland impoundments. Project participants prioritized
6 of the 13 impoundments for continued monitoring to refine impoundment level water and salt
mass balances. The remaining legacy equipment was relocated to strategic locations throughout
the GRCD. Currently, monitoring continues at 6 impoundments, consisting of 13 monitoring
stations, located at the Ducky Strike Hunt Club North Pond, CDFG Mud Slough Unit’s fields 3B
10
R10AC20661 2011
and 4B, LBWA Field 33, Salt Slough Unit Field 24, and Volta WA Field 23. Equipment from
the dismantled stations were relocated to LBWA Field 30, Volta WA Liberty drain, and the San
Luis Delta Mendota Water Authority Cross Channel which is a major supply to the Santa Fe
Canal and the North Grasslands. Additional relocations include the Bennett Ditch, Gadwall
Unit’s inlet and outlet, Santa Fe Canal North of Cross Channel Confluence, Santa Fe Canal at the
Kesterson unit delivery, Helm Canal at Duck’s home ditch, San Luis Canal at SL1, and the Santa
Fe Canal post confluence of the Arroyo Canal.
USFWS new installations
Within the USFWS refuges, five locations were selected by the Service for monitoring
encompassing two supplies and three drainages. Prior to this study, GWD maintained MACE
Doppler Flow Meters on the Santa Fe Canal supply to the Kesterson Unit and on the San Luis
Canal supply to the Blue Goose Unit however both stations needed refurbishment, lacked EC
probes and telemetry. The station at the supply to the Kesterson unit was retrofitted with a multiparametric YSI Sonde, and an YSI EcoNet data logger/telemetry. The station at the San Luis
Canal delivery point to the Blue Goose Unit required the replacement of MACE data logger, two
new velocity sensors, a redundant downward looking EcoPod depth sensor, to characterize flows
above 7 ft/sec and YSI EcoNet telemetry. The key USFWS drainage points are the West
Gadwall Drain (Kesterson Unit), West Big Lake Drain (Freitas Unit), and Zham’s Lake Drain
(Freitas Unit). The West Gadwall and Big Lake Drains flow to Mud Slough where as Zham’s
Lake Drain flows into Salt Slough. Zham’s lake required the installation of new structure and a
trash rack to inhibit beaver dam construction which might have prevented accurate flow
characterization.
Real-time weather station installations
New additions to the monitoring network were the installation of two Vaisala WXT520 multiparameter weather stations in January of 2011. These compact, single units measure wind speed
and direction, temperature, relative humidity, barometric pressure, total precipitation and rainfall
intensity. The weather station parameters stream in real-time via SDI-12 which connects directly
to the current YSI radio loggers and modems. One weather station was installed at Ducky Strike
west inlet (DSW) and the other at the Cross Channel (X-Chnl) near the northern border of the
Volta Wildlife Area. Due to the rain shadow of the coast range, there is large disparity of
weather between the north and south Grassland Wetlands these locations were chosen in order to
obtain representative weather from the center of the south Grasslands (DSW) and the west center
of north Grasslands (X-Chnl).
The weather monitoring, especially rainfall, is extremely valuable in water management. During
an intense storm event, thousands of acre feet of water as rainfall can fall across the wetland
landscape. If rainwater falls during times of water deliveries, the major delivery volumes can be
scaled back, utilizing rainwater flows while conserving limited CVP supplies. Another benefit
11
R10AC20661 2011
of weather monitoring is the potential to develop evapo-transpiration rates helping to develop
wetland water use mass balances.
3.4.
Task 4: Summary Reports/Deliverables
Summarized data are provided below for 23 major points of delivery, drainages, and key
confluences from March 1, 2010 through March 31, 2011. The final report will include
summarized data from the impoundments located on DFG and private lands. QA/QC values
have been plotted against the raw real-time data stream. Salt load in tons/day have been
calculated using a conversion factor of 1 dS/m : 0.61 g/L. Data provided are provisional and are
subject to change. Real-time raw data for the presented stations, as well as all the other stations
associated with the GWD water quality monitoring network, can be viewed at the following link:
http://www.ysieconet.com/public/WebUI/Default.aspx?hidCustomerID=99 .
Relationship between salinity and total dissolved solids: laboratory results
Grab samples have been collected monthly throughout the district primarily focusing on the
major drains and delivery points to USFWS and CDFG refuges. With this data (n=44), a strong
relationship was determined with a conversion ration of 1.0:0.61, EC:TDS (R2=0.9906). This
value was used to calculate salt load in tons per day.
12
R10AC20661 2011
Figure 2. Comparison of specific conductivity (EC) and total disolved solids (TDS) from laboratory results of six
major drainages of the Grassland Water District. TDS data presented was measure gravimetrically.
Table 1. Results of grab samples from GRCD drains as tested by APPL laboratory, Clovis California.
APPL
APPL
APPL
9/14/2010 11/11/2010 12/14/2010
Skeleton Weir - North Santa Fe Canal, Terminus
Boron (ug/L)
340
833
1850
Se (ug/L)
<1
<1
<1
EC (uS/cm)
628
1340
TDS (mg/L)
401
831
EC:TDS
0.639
0.620
Mud Slough @ Gun Club Road
Boron (ug/L)
1070
Se (ug/L)
<1
EC (uS/cm)
1700
TDS (mg/L)
1060
EC:TDS
0.624
1730
<1
1510
937
0.621
13
APPL
1/6/2011
APPL
2/9/2011
APPL
3/9/2011
1340
<1
1040
645
0.620
1530
<1
1430
862
0.603
1360
<1
1360
799
0.588
1740
<1
1530
960
0.627
1870
<1
2260
1370
0.606
2050
<1
2390
1460
0.611
APPL
4/13/2011
APPL
5/11/2011
741
<1
566
354
0.625
1790
<1
1820
1100
0.604
R10AC20661 2011
Fremont Canal @ Gun Club Road
Boron (ug/L)
773
Se (ug/L)
<1
EC (uS/cm)
TDS (mg/L)
EC:TDS
1550
<1
1240
784
0.632
1250
<1
1170
727
0.621
1350
<1
1410
838
0.594
1340
<1
1260
766
0.608
2120
<1
1870
1150
0.615
Hollow Tree Drain
Boron (ug/L)
Se (ug/L)
EC (uS/cm)
TDS (mg/L)
EC:TDS
983
<1
2070
<1
1950
1230
0.631
2610
<1
2160
1390
0.644
2350
<1
2430
1500
0.617
2240
<1
2240
1400
0.625
2560
<1
2790
1790
0.642
718
<1
1580
<1
1380
839
0.608
1780
<1
1560
969
0.621
1970
<1
1960
1170
0.597
2250
<1
2260
1350
0.597
1880
<1
2190
1330
0.607
2170
<1
1730
1050
0.607
1980
<1
1800
1120
0.622
3430
<1
3960
2270
0.573
1920
<1
1930
1160
0.601
2220
<1
2390
1480
0.619
S-Lake
Boron (ug/L)
Se (ug/L)
EC (uS/cm)
TDS (mg/L)
EC:TDS
Los Banos Creek @ HWY140
Boron (ug/L)
877
Se (ug/L)
<1
EC (uS/cm)
1340
TDS (mg/L)
791
EC:TDS
0.590
1950
<1
1660
1060
0.639
EC:TDS total mean
Data Processing and Meta Data
Averaging 15 minute data to 24 hour intervals
15 minute raw data has been summarized into daily averages.
conducted using formulas in Microsoft Excel.
The daily averages were
Quality Control for determining accuracy of streaming data
Sensor drift, sensor fowling, and sediment/vegetation issues are a constant issue in collecting
continuous water quality data in the earth and vegetation lined conveyance of the wetland
complex. The web enabled aspect of real-time environmental data collection significantly
reduces the occurrence of extended periods of unrepresentative or missing data. These problems
are minimized through the use of redundant sensors, web based visual interrogation of trend data,
14
0.614
R10AC20661 2011
knowledge of site location environmental condition fluctuations, and regular QA/QC with
detailed notes. In the post processing of data, the detailed QA/QC values and notes are vital.
The high level of detail allows the processor to determine when errors occurred and the duration
of the anomalies. In many cases QA and redundant sensor data can allow for data salvaging.
Redundancy in sensors for Quality Control
Because of the nature of sensors and instrumentation, where possible, redundant sensors have
been installed to ensure quality and representativeness of streaming data. In addition to ensuring
quality control, redundant sensors also help with web diagnostics to ensure accurate reporting
while minimizing unnecessary trips to stations outside of routine QA/QC visits.
One major problem with the SONTEK SL units is that they are prone to collecting floating
vegetation. The vegetation collects at the surface above the SONTEK unit blocking the vertical
beam (depth measurement) resulting in reduced depth measurement or no depth measurement at
all. The depth measurement is needed to calculate flow in real-time. When the SONTEK
vertical beam blocked or reduced, real-time flow measurements are inaccurate and require post
processing through the use of redundant pressure transducers. To minimize the loss of accurate
data, each site has a vented Sonde that has been calibrated with the SONTEK depth. Because the
Sonde is vented, the sensor automatically adjusts to barometric changes resulting in accurate and
stable stage measurements. Therefore, if there are discrepancies between the SONTEK and
Sonde stage, there is most likely a problem with vegetation or other objects obscuring the
SONTEK vertical beam. The redundancy in sensors allows the QA team to diagnose such
problems in the office and allow for quick turnaround in resolving the problem. Figure 3
illustrates an instance where vegetation has obscured the SONTEK vertical beam while the
Sonde stage remains stable. Such issues are usually resolved within a day thanks to real-time
stream of data. If the team was reliant on weekly or even monthly site visits and data downloads,
very valuable information during the time period would have been lost or unavailable to water
managers as water conservation and quality decision support. In addition, the redundancy helps
with post processing and proofing of data.
15
R10AC20661 2011
6
300
5
250
4
200
3
150
2
100
Flow (cfs)
Depth (ft)
Santa Fe Canal, Post Arroyo - 15 min data
Depth, Vented Sonde ft
1
50
Depth, SONTEK ft
Flow ft3/sec
2/
1/
20
11
1
1/
27
/2
01
1
1/
22
/2
01
1
1/
17
/2
01
1
1/
11
/2
01
1/
6/
20
11
1/
1/
20
11
10
0
12
/2
7/
20
Da
te
0
Figure 3. Santa Fe Canal, Post Arroyo vented Sonde depth (black line), SONTEK depth (red line) plotted against
flow (blue line, bottom, secondary axis) illustrating problem with vegetation blocking the SONTEK vertical depth
beam resulting in reduced flow calculation. Note the quick turnaround time in resolving the problems thanks to web
enabled real-time streaming data.
An issue identified early on by this project is associated with the monitoring of piped structures
and the effects of extreme velocities on our MACE pressure transducers. The MACE sensors are
robust and accurate in a broad range of conditions and because of the sleek, compact design of
their depth/velocity sensors, they are ideal for measuring minimal flow as well as large volumes
in full pipe conditions. However, in extreme velocities (>7 ft/sec), the pressure transducer fails.
In such instances, the extreme velocities lift the pressure disk effectively reducing the depth
measurement, resulting in a significantly reduced flow calculation. This problem has not gone
unseen by MACE and they have produced a solution for these situations. The MACE FloPro has
the capability of interfacing a redundant downward looking Doppler depth sensor (Flowline,
EcoPod) which determines the depth to water surface, effectively deducing the depth of water in
the pipe. MACE software also allows the client to mix and match parameters for multiple flow
calculations. Knowing the pipe diameter, the velocity can be used to calculate flow with both the
MACE pressure transducer as well as the redundant EcoPod allowing both flow calculations to
stream in real-time. In installations where there are extreme velocities, the redundant EcoPod
depth meter has been installed and EcoPod depth/flow calculation is streaming.
16
R10AC20661 2011
Figure 4 illustrates the situation where extreme velocities cause the pressure disc to fail and the
utility of the redundant downward looking depth sensor. At this location, Wolfsen Drain, CDFG
Salt Slough Unit’s major drain, there are usually velocities in excess of 7.0 ft/sec. Figure 4
illustrates the disparity in flow calculations using the MACE pressure transducer (blue line) and
the flow calculations using the EcoPod depth sensor (red line); velocity measurement is the black
line. Although visually there is separation of the two flow calculations with velocities above 6.0
ft/sec, the disparity is not significant until velocities are greater than 8.0 ft/sec (Table 2). The
statistical discrepancies between flows calculated with the MACE pressure transducer and the
flows calculated using the EcoPod with velocities ranging from 0.5 ft/sec and 6.0 ft/sec (Table
2).
Figure 4. Chart visually illustrating the separation of flows as calculated with MACE pressure transducer (blue
line) and flow calculated with EcoPod (red line) as velocities increase.
17
R10AC20661 2011
Table 2. Summarized statistics table of difference of flow calculated using built in MACE pressure transducer
(MFlw) and flow calculated using an external EcoPod depth sensor (EcoFlw) at Wolfsen Drain, CDFG Salt Slough
Unit versus MACE Velocity illustrating significant pressure transducer failure at velocities above 8.0 ft/s. Both
MACE and EcoPod flows were calculated using the MACE velocity values.
Velocity
Range (ft/s)
0.0-0.5
0.6-0.9
1.0-1.9
2.0-2.9
3.0-3.9
4.0-4.9
5.0-5.9
6.0-6.9
7.0-7.9
8.0-8.9
9.0-9.9
10.0-10.9
11.0-11.9
12.0-12.9
Velocity
Mean of
Standard
measurements (MFlw/EcoFlw) Deviation
n=x
of Mean
10
2.25
0.51
13
0.95
0.06
14
0.89
0.04
3
0.89
0.02
7
0.86
0.09
5
0.87
0.38
5
0.80
0.27
13
0.84
0.09
15
0.77
0.11
29
0.51
0.18
50
0.63
0.12
27
0.63
0.06
13
0.60
0.04
19
0.63
0.03
Sum of
Squares
of Mean
44.01
11.77
11.19
2.38
5.18
4.41
3.46
9.38
8.88
8.55
20.73
10.53
4.66
7.53
Max of
Min of
(MFlw/EcoFlw) (MFlw/EcoFlw)
3.00
1.14
0.96
0.91
1.05
1.42
1.22
1.02
0.93
0.80
0.80
0.71
0.66
0.68
1.55
0.90
0.81
0.87
0.76
0.34
0.47
0.65
0.44
0.26
0.30
0.48
0.52
0.57
QA/QC EC sensor error resulting in real-time stream EC error
During the processing of the real-time data for this report an anomaly with regard to specific
conductivity (EC) data was noticed at a number of station locations. Specifically, between late
December, 2010 and mid January 2011, at 11 locations the streaming EC data stream jumped
dramatically nearly doubling values. At first, it was thought that this anomaly was associated
with the heavy rain events and flooding creating exaggerated head on the shallow ground water
forcing the saline ground water to accrete into the conveyance and drain ditches. However, upon
closer investigation, this hypothesis was abandoned as the spikes in EC did not coincide with the
heavy rain events. After a thorough investigation of the QA/QC data and notes, it was
determined that the QA EC sensor had been improperly calibrated. The dates and station
locations with this error prior to sensor calibration error, date of the calibration error, date the
calibration error was corrected, and the QA post correction of calibration error are summarized
in table 3.
18
R10AC20661 2011
Table 3. Dates and locations of calibration error due to faulty QA EC sensor; (a) good values prior to calibration
error, (b) date of the calibration error, (c) date when calibration error was corrected, (d) QA date with properly
calibrated QA EC sensor.
(a) Pre Calibration
Error
(b) Calibration
Error
(c) Post Calibration
Error - QA Correct
(d) Deployed -vsQA sensor Post Feb
Camp 13
12/20/2010
1/11/2011
2/17/2011
2/23/2011
Cross Channel
12/6/2010
1/17/2011
2/1/2011
3/1/2011
Fremont GCR
12/7/2010
1/5/2011
1/19/2011
2/4/2011
Hollow Tree
11/23/2010
12/30/2010
1/18/2011
2/9/2011
LB Creek @ 140
12/21/2010
1/10/2011
1/24/2011
2/16/2011
Mud Slough GCR
12/7/2010
1/5/2011
1/19/2011
2/4/2011
No. SFC, Kesterson
11/30/2010
12/30/2010
1/3/2011
2/24/2011
S-Lake
11/23/2010
12/30/2010
1/18/2011
2/9/2011
SFC Pre Arroyo
12/28/2010
1/11/2011
1/19/2011
2/2/2011
SLC Pre Splits
11/3/2010
1/11/2011
2/10/2011
3/1/2011
Wolfsen Drain
12/2/2010
1/10/2011
2/8/2011
3/2/2011
After the dates of pre calibration error, calibration error, correction of calibration error, and then
the QA event following the correction of the error, statistics were calculated to determine the
percent error of each of the locations. The statistics are summarized in table 4. With the logic
that the values from the QA prior to the calibration error was nearly a 1:1 relationship between
deployed EC sensor and properly calibrated QA EC sensor (table 4a, figure 4a R2 = 0.996), the
difference between the deployed EC sensor and the faulty QA EC sensor (mean error
0.538:1.000 table 4b, figure 4b R2 = 0.994) would correct the mis-calibration. The mean error
difference of 0.538 was used as a correction factor for the mis-calibrated values between the
dates of table 3b and table 3c. An example of the results from the pre corrected values and post
corrected values during the time frame of the calibration error of 3 of the 11 problem locations is
illustrated in figure 6.
Table 4. Summarized statistics of the difference between deployed EC sensor and QA EC sensor; (a) good values
prior to calibration error, (b) date of the calibration error, (c) date when calibration error was corrected, (d) QA date
with properly calibrated QA EC sensor. The mean value of the difference of deployed EC and QA EC from (b,
mean=0.538) was used as a correction factor
(a) Pre Calibration
Error
(b) Calibration
Error
(c) Post Calibration
Error - QA Correct
(d) Deployed -vsQA sensor Post Feb
11
11
11
11
Mean
0.994
0.538
1.850
0.992
St. Dev.
0.031
0.019
0.055
0.016
Min
0.964
0.513
1.776
0.962
Max
1.062
0.567
1.954
1.011
n=x
19
R10AC20661 2011
Figure 5. Charts illustrating the ralationship between deployed EC sensor and QA EC sensor; (a) good values prior
to calibration error, (b) date of the calibration error, (c) date when calibration error was corrected, (d) QA date with
properly calibrated deployed EC and QA EC sensor. Pre-calibration error (a) and QA date with properly calibrated
sensors (d) represent nearly a 1:1 relationship. All values are in uS/cm.
Specific Conductivity Error Calibration
5000
Specific Conductivity (uS/cm)
LB Cre e k - 140 SpCond Corre cte d
LB Cre e k - 140 - ERROR
4000
SLC Pre Spl i ts SpCond Corre cte d
SLC Pre Spl i ts - ERROR
3000
SFC-Pre Arroyo SpCond Corre cte d
SFC-Pre Arroyo - ERROR
2000
1000
1
1/
29
/2
01
1
1/
24
/2
01
1
1/
19
/2
01
1
1/
14
/2
01
1/
9/
20
11
1/
4/
20
11
10
12
/3
0/
20
10
12
/2
5/
20
10
12
/2
0/
20
12
/1
5/
20
10
0
Figure 6. Chart illustrating the post processing and correction of three of the eleven problem locations; the thin
lines with stars are the error values and the solid line in between are the corrected values. The mean value of the
difference of deployed EC and QA EC from (Table X b, mean = 0.538) was used as a correction factor for the time
period of EC sensor error.
20
R10AC20661 2011
GWD/CDFG Retrofitted Monitoring Locations
Summarized data are provided below for the six ILRP sites from March 1, 2010 through March
31, 2011. QA/QC values have been plotted against the raw real-time data stream. Salt loads in
tons/day have been calculated using a conversion factor of 1 dS/m : 0.61 g/L. Data provided are
provisional and are subject to change.
Volta Wasteway
The YSI Sonde was deployed on May 5, 2009 and has since been sending constant and reliable
EC values to the web. The SONTEK SL deployed at Volta Wasteway was not functional and
was refurbished by another unit. The refurbished SONTEK SL was re-deployed on April 13,
2010. Due to a faulty radio, the station did not report from December 13, 2010 to January 17,
2011. Regular QA/QC continued through the entire reporting period March 1, 2010 to March 1,
2010.
Table 5. Volta Wastway Quality Assurance.
Volta
Wasteway
Date
EC
pH
Velocity
Flow
Depth
uS/cm
#
ft/s
cfs
ft
4/8/2010
4/15/2010
5/14/2010
5/20/2010
6/21/2010
7/7/2010
8/17/2010
8/24/2010
9/3/2010
9/7/2010
10/1/2010
10/14/2010
11/15/2010
12/13/2010
1/7/2011
1/17/2011
2/15/2011
1677
1866
1605
554
709
1224
600
567
537
512
1028
1531
2323
1087
8.7
8.9
8.9
8.2
8.5
9.7
6.2
7.4
7.2
8.2
8.2
8.2
8.1
7.9
8.2
0.16
0.11
0.20
0.68
0.15
0.10
0.16
0.12
0.93
0.87
1.62
0.93
0.05
0.01
0.04
-0.02
0.05
13.94
10.76
23.92
115.15
20.29
10.48
21.29
18.48
188.55
180.95
397.34
203.64
11.11
-2.07
10.07
-3.70
11.32
2.35
2.65
3.00
3.75
3.00
2.75
3.00
4.70
4.50
3.20
5.00
4.75
3.00
4.25
2.80
21
R10AC20661 2011
Volta Wasteway - 24hr avg
3000
Fl ow ft3/s ec
400
Sa l t Loa d tons /da y
2500
QA/QC FLOW cfs
350
SpCond uS/cm
300
2000
QA/QC EC uS/cm
250
1500
200
150
1000
100
500
Specific Conductivity (uS/cm)
Flow (cfs) and Salt Load (tons/day)
450
50
0
3/
1/
20
10
4/
1/
20
10
5/
1/
20
10
6/
1/
20
10
7/
1/
20
10
8/
1/
20
10
9/
1/
20
10
10
/1
/2
01
0
11
/1
/2
01
0
12
/1
/2
01
0
1/
1/
20
11
2/
1/
20
11
3/
1/
20
11
0
Figure 7. Volta Wasteway average daily flow (cfs), EC (uS/cm), and calculated salt load (tons/day) with QA.
Hollow Tree Drain
The YSI Sonde was deployed on September 11, 2009 and has since been sending constant and
reliable EC values and depth values to the web. The YSI Sonde depth has been calibrated to the
staff gauge that is associated with the broad crested weir of which all the drain’s flow passes
through.
The flow was calculated using historic flow to depth relationship
(y=22.813x2+9.3215x: R2 = 0.9979). Regular QA/QC continued through the entire reporting
period. QA flow was also calculated using this equation. Reporting period March 1, 2010 to
March 31, 2011.
Table 6. Hollow Tree Drain Quality Assurance.
Hollow Tree
Drain
Date
EC
pH
Flow
Depth
uS/cm
#
cfs
ft
3/22/2010
4/28/2010
5/17/2010
6/9/2010
7/7/2010
10/26/2010
11/23/2010
3227
4529
4085
1773
0
1270
1677
8.1
7.9
7.7
0.0
7.4
8.0
7.38
65.31
0.00
4.85
0.00
22.06
22.98
0.40
1.50
0.50
0.30
0.00
0.80
0.82
22
R10AC20661 2011
12/30/2010
1/18/2011
2/9/2011
3/14/2011
9/14/2011
2408
2528
3309
560
8.1
7.9
8.0
7.7
8.1
10.36
8.81
7.77
0.92
0.70
0.50
0.45
0.41
0.08
Hollow Tree Drain - 24hr avg
500
400
6000
Fl ow cfs (y=22.813x2+9.3215x)
Sa l t Loa d tons /da y
QA FLOW
HT SpCond uS/cm
QA EC
5000
4000
300
3000
200
2000
100
1000
0
Specific Conductivity (uS/cm)
Flow (cfs) and Salt Load (tons/day)
600
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
1
0
0
0
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
/2
/2
/2
/2
/2
/2
/2
/2
/2
/2
/2
/2
/2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
/
/
/
3/
4/
5/
6/
7/
8/
9/
1/
2/
3/
10
11
12
Figure 8. Hollow Tree Drain average daily calculated flow (cfs), EC (uS/cm), and calculated salt load (tons/day) with
QA. Flow was calculated using historic depth to flow data relationship: Equation: y=22.813x2+9.3215x
(R2 = 0.9979) where x is depth (ft.) and y is flow (cfs).
S-Lake Drain
The YSI Sonde was deployed on May 29, 2009 and has since been sending constant and reliable
EC and depth values to the web. Through the entirety of the reporting period, the drain has been
choaked with cattails which have interfered with the SONTEK transducer velocity measurements
and producing noisy and un-reliable data. Because of the high flow volumes that are sometimes
conveyed by the Hollow Tree Drain which cause back-water flow condition, a depth to flow
relationship could not be established. The S-Lake drain is often stagnant or in a back-water
condition. The YSI Sonde depth has been reported to complement the EC data. Regular QA/QC
continued through the entire reporting period March 1, 2010 to March 31, 2010.
23
R10AC20661 2011
Table 7. S-Lake Quality Assurance.
S-Lake
Date
EC
uS/cm
pH
#
Velocity
ft/sec
Flow
cfs
Depth
ft
3/22/2010
4/28/2010
5/17/2010
6/9/2010
7/7/2010
9/14/2010
10/26/2010
11/23/2010
12/30/2010
1/18/2011
2/9/2011
3/14/2011
1873
2420
2446
1520
2795
1123
1028
1080
1567
1981
1988
2297
7.9
7.9
7.7
8.5
8.0
8.0
7.9
8.2
7.8
8.0
7.9
0.13
0.05
0.03
0.01
0.00
0.00
0.33
0.41
0.20
0.17
0.27
0.12
12.05
1.03
0.38
0.36
0.00
0.00
28.86
40.30
21.26
16.00
18.29
11.32
1.30
0.90
1.60
0.50
1.15
3.60
4.00
4.30
4.00
2.75
3.75
S - Lake - 24hr avg
80
70
Fl ow ft3/s ec
QA/QC FLOW cfs
Sa l t Loa d tons /da y
S Lk SpCond uS/cm
QA/EC EC uS/cm
3500
3000
2500
60
50
2000
40
1500
30
1000
20
500
10
0
3/
1/
20
10
4/
1/
20
10
5/
1/
20
10
6/
1/
20
10
7/
1/
20
10
8/
1/
20
10
9/
1/
20
10
10
/1
/2
01
11
0
/1
/2
01
12
0
/1
/2
01
0
1/
1/
20
11
2/
1/
20
3/ 11
1/
20
11
0
Figure 9. S-Lake average daily depth (ft) and EC (uS/cm) with QA EC and flow (cfs).
24
Specific Conductivity (uS/cm)
Flow (cfs) and Salt Load (tons/cay)
90
R10AC20661 2011
Los Banos Creek at Highway 140
A refurbished SONTEK SL was deployed June 4, 2009. The YSI Sonde was deployed on June
24, 2009. Both sensors have been sending constant and reliable data since deployment. Regular
QA/QC continued through the entire reporting period. Gaps in the flow data represent periods of
time where either vegetation blocked the SONTEK from sensing an accurate depth reading or
when the SONTEK had insufficient depth above the sensor needed to sense an accurate depth
reading. Reporting period March 1, 2010 to March 31, 2011.
Table 8. Los Banos Creek Quality Assurance.
Los Banos Creek
@ HWY140
Date
EC
pH
Velocity
Flow
Depth
uS/cm
#
ft/sec
cfs
ft
3/31/2010
4/22/2010
5/25/2010
6/9/2010
6/28/2010
7/7/2010
8/17/2010
10/4/2010
11/19/2010
11/22/2010
12/21/2010
1/10/2011
2/16/2011
3/14/2011
2595
2257
1191
1356
1523
1560
860
1444
1637
2088
2700
2491
8.5
8.1
7.6
7.6
8.3
9.1
7.2
8.8
7.8
7.9
8.1
8.0
7.6
0.62
0.56
0.61
0.41
0.43
0.40
0.55
0.40
0.64
0.58
0.53
0.46
0.65
45.52
42.38
42.17
21.01
18.81
8.99
9.07
17.66
15.82
45.77
71.07
34.83
21.05
48.44
4.00
3.55
3.50
2.60
2.50
1.75
2.00
2.65
4.00
5.60
3.75
2.50
3.80
25
R10AC20661 2011
500
3500
450
400
350
300
Fl ow ft3/s ec
Sa l t Loa d tons /da y
3000
QA/QC FLOW cfs
SpCond uS/cm
QA/QC EC uS/cm
2500
2000
250
200
1500
150
1000
100
500
50
0
3/
1/
20
10
4/
1/
20
10
5/
1/
20
10
6/
1/
20
10
7/
1/
20
10
8/
1/
20
10
9/
1/
2
10 010
/1
/2
01
11
0
/1
/2
01
12
/1 0
/2
01
0
1/
1/
20
11
2/
1/
20
3/ 11
1/
20
11
0
Specific Conductivity (uS/cm)
Flow (cfs) and Salt Load (tons/day)
Los Banos Creek @ SR140 - 24hr avg
Figure 10. Los Banos Creek average daily flow (cfs), EC (uS/cm), and calculated salt load with QA.
Fremont Canal at Gun Club Road
The YSI Sonde was deployed May 12, 2009. A new SONTEK SL was deployed December 31,
2009. Both sensors have been sending constant and reliable data since deployment. Regular
QA/QC continued through the entire reporting period March 1, 2010 to March 31, 2011.
Table 9. Fremont Canal @ Gun Club Road Quality Assurance.
Fremont
Canal
Date
EC
pH
Velocity
Flow
Depth
uS/cm
#
ft/sec
cfs
ft
3/31/2010
4/15/2010
7/7/2010
8/13/2010
8/18/2010
8/23/2010
9/7/2010
9/24/2010
10/11/2010
10/27/2010
11/10/2010
12/7/2010
1729
1892
1047
910
873
806
707
763
1042
966
1052
1143
7.7
7.1
8.9
7.7
8.0
7.2
8.2
8.0
8.1
7.7
8.0
0.28
1.09
0.92
0.37
0.00
0.33
0.17
0.20
6.51
11.61
5.42
3.58
0.00
13.01
5.23
6.85
2.25
1.30
0.75
1.25
1.65
1.70
2.50
3.00
2.50
3.00
26
R10AC20661 2011
Flow (cfs) and Salt Load (tons/day)
60
1285
1327
1511
1434
7.9
8.0
7.8
7.7
0.38
0.49
0.26
0.57
19.80
13.20
7.11
19.37
4.00
2.50
2.40
2.75
Fremont Canal, Gun Club Road - 24hr avg
3000
Fl ow ft3/s ec
Sa l t Loa d tons /da y
QA FLOW
SpCond uS/cm
QA EC
50
2500
40
2000
30
1500
20
1000
10
500
0
3/
1/
20
10
4/
1/
20
10
5/
1/
20
10
6/
1/
20
10
7/
1/
20
10
8/
1/
20
10
9/
1/
20
10
10
/1
/2
01
0
11
/1
/2
01
0
12
/1
/2
01
0
1/
1/
20
11
2/
1/
20
11
3/
1/
20
11
0
Specific Conductivity (uS/cm)
1/5/2011
2/4/2011
2/11/2011
3/15/2011
Figure 11. Fremont Canal, Gun Club Road average daily flow (cfs), EC (uS/cm) and calculated slat load with QA.
Mud Slough at Gun Club Road
The YSI Sonde was deployed May 4, 2009. A new SONTEK SL was deployed October 19,
2009. Both sensors have been sending constant and reliable data since deployment. Regular
QA/QC continued through the entire reporting period March 1, 2010 to March 31, 2011.
Table 10. Mud Slough @ Gun Club Road Quality Assurance.
Mud Slough
Gun Club Road
Date
EC
pH
Velocity
Flow
Depth
uS/cm
#
ft/sec
cfs
ft
3/31/2010
4/15/2010
4/27/2010
5/10/2010
7/7/2010
8/13/2010
2376
2840
2642
3532
1645
1989
8.0
7.3
7.9
8.7
8.6
7.4
0.36
0.28
0.13
0.22
0.08
-
24.86
13.97
4.49
2.28
2.02
-
2.90
1.20
-
27
R10AC20661 2011
8/18/2010
9/7/2010
9/24/2010
10/11/2010
10/27/2010
11/10/2010
12/7/2010
1/5/2011
1/19/2011
2/4/2011
2/11/2011
3/15/2011
3/23/2011
0
900
1269
1233
1466
1633
1690
1954
2332
2293
2241
2065
2365
0.0
8.2
8.2
7.8
7.6
7.8
8.1
7.8
7.9
7.9
7.7
8.1
0.00
0.84
0.37
0.33
0.29
0.28
0.30
0.54
0.24
0.33
0.32
0.00
10.80
6.95
25.65
27.78
23.26
28.51
62.45
18.43
25.60
26.71
0.00
1.50
1.25
3.00
3.70
3.25
3.75
4.50
3.25
3.00
3.50
Mud Slough, Gun Club Road - 24hr avg
4500
Fl ow ft3/s ec
200
Sa l t Loa d tons /da y
4000
QA/QC FLOW cfs
SpCond uS/cm
3500
QA/QC EC uS/cm
3000
150
2500
2000
100
1500
1000
50
Specific Conductivity (uS/cm)
Flow (cfs) and Salt Load (tons/day)
250
500
0
3/
1/
20
10
4/
1/
20
5/ 10
1/
20
10
6/
1/
20
10
7/
1/
20
10
8/
1/
20
10
9/
1/
20
10
10
/1
/2
01
11
0
/1
/2
12 010
/1
/2
01
0
1/
1/
20
11
2/
1/
20
3/ 11
1/
20
11
4/
1/
20
11
0
Figure 12. Mud Slough @ Gun Club Road average daily flow (cfs) EC (uS/cm), and calculated salt load with QA.
28
R10AC20661 2011
GWD/CDFG New Installations
Summarized data are provided below for the ten new installations from 1 March, 2010 through
31 March, 2011. Not all of the presented flow and EC data sets are complete for the
aforementioned time frame due to technological transitions and sensor failures. QA/QC values
have been plotted against the raw real-time data stream. Salt loads in tons/day have been
calculated using a conversion factor of 1 dS/m : 0.61 g/L. Data provided are provisional and are
subject to change.
Agatha Canal @ Helm Canal
The YSI Sonde was deployed September 19, 2009. A new SONTEK SL was deployed October
19, 2009. Both sensors have been sending constant and reliable data since deployment. Regular
QA/QC continued through the entire reporting period March 1, 2010 to March 31, 2011.
Table 11. Agatha canal Quality Assurance.
Agatha
Date
EC
uS/cm
pH
#
Velocity
ft/sec
Flow
cfs
Depth
ft
3/1/2010
3/25/2010
4/6/2010
4/19/2010
5/12/2010
6/4/2010
7/15/2010
8/16/2010
9/16/2010
10/20/2010
11/30/2010
12/29/2010
1/20/2011
2/17/2011
2/23/2011
3/22/2011
707
1488
3224
1718
276
353
402
540
617
512
674
1029
185
250
487
250
8.5
8.3
8.0
7.8
8.2
8.6
8.2
8.2
8.5
8.0
8.1
7.8
8.2
8.2
8.2
0.02
0.03
0.45
0.86
0.00
0.38
1.03
0.65
0.30
0.11
0.37
0.21
0.30
2.96
2.40
56.05
130.38
0.00
41.18
165.75
118.18
32.97
11.77
61.49
26.43
27.75
4.00
2.50
4.00
3.10
5.50
3.50
4.50
6.00
5.50
4.50
4.10
4.80
4.50
3.99
29
R10AC20661 2011
Agatha - 24hr avg
4000
Flow ft3/sec
180
Salt Load tons/day
160
QA/QC Flow cfs
140
SpCond uS/cm
120
QA/QC EC uS/cm
3500
3000
2500
100
2000
80
1500
60
1000
40
Specific Conductivity (uS/cm)
Flow (cfs) and Salt Load (tons/day)
200
500
20
0
3/
1/
20
10
4/
1/
20
10
5/
1/
20
10
6/
1/
20
10
7/
1/
20
10
8/
1/
20
10
9/
1/
20
10
10
/1
/2
01
0
11
/1
/2
01
0
12
/1
/2
01
0
1/
1/
20
11
2/
1/
20
11
3/
1/
20
11
0
Figure 13. Agatha canal average daily flow (cfs) EC (uS/cm), and calculated salt load with QA.
Camp 13 @ CCID Main Canal
The YSI Sonde was deployed July 24, 2009. A new SONTEK SL was deployed November 1,
2009. Both sensors have been sending constant and reliable data since deployment. Regular
QA/QC continued through the entire reporting period March 1, 2010 to March 31, 2011.
Table 12. Camp 13 Quality Assurance.
Camp 13
Date
3/1/2010
3/25/2010
4/6/2010
5/5/2010
6/8/2010
7/15/2010
8/16/2010
9/10/2010
11/3/2010
12/20/2010
1/11/2011
2/17/2011
2/23/2011
3/31/2011
EC
uS/cm
pH
#
Velocity
ft/sec
Flow
cfs
Depth
ft
810
706
766
313
365
909
437
560
565
558
462
562
459
8.0
8.1
7.6
8.3
7.7
6.8
7.0
8.1
8.1
8.5
8.3
8.4
8.1
0.13
0.05
0.54
0.52
0.02
0.26
0.39
0.39
0.07
0.08
0.10
0.15
13.56
6.08
28.34
59.92
1.29
24.11
37.82
36.16
6.82
7.73
13.40
19.12
5.45
6.50
6.10
5.00
5.75
4.00
3.75
4.85
5.00
5.25
5.00
6.00
6.00
30
R10AC20661 2011
Camp 13 - 24hr avg
140
1800
120
100
Salt Load tons/day
1600
QA/QC flow cfs
1400
SpCond uS/cm
QA/QC EC uS/cm
1200
80
1000
60
800
600
40
400
20
Specific Conductivity (uS/cm)
Flow (cfs) and Salt Load (tons/day)
Flow ft3/sec
200
0
3/
1/
20
10
4/
1/
20
10
5/
1/
20
10
6/
1/
20
10
7/
1/
20
10
8/
1/
20
10
9/
1/
20
10
10
/1
/2
01
0
11
/1
/2
01
0
12
/1
/2
01
0
1/
1/
20
11
2/
1/
20
11
3/
1/
20
11
0
Figure 14. Camp 13 average daily flow (cfs) EC (uS/cm), and calculated salt load with QA.
Poso Drain @ Sante Fe Grade
The YSI Sonde was deployed July 25, 2009. A new SONTEK SL was deployed April 15, 2010.
Both sensors have been sending constant and reliable data since deployment. Regular QA/QC
continued through the entire reporting period March 1, 2010 to March 31, 2011.
Table 13. Poso Drain Quality Assurance.
Poso Drain
Date
EC
uS/cm
pH
#
Velocity
ft/sec
Flow
cfs
Depth
ft
3/2/2010
4/6/2010
5/12/2010
6/22/2010
7/15/2010
8/24/2010
9/15/2010
11/3/2010
12/20/2010
1/20/2011
2/10/2011
3/8/2011
1644
4650
996
1535
1629
1446
1253
1234
1284
4329
1195
2365
8.4
7.4
7.6
8.0
7.8
7.5
7.9
7.6
7.7
8.0
7.6
0.20
0.01
0.03
0.26
0.33
0.15
0.14
0.06
0.03
-0.05
0.06
0.03
24.97
0.72
4.50
22.28
21.18
18.25
20.42
8.62
3.33
-2.27
8.49
4.66
4.00
3.00
4.00
3.00
2.50
3.25
3.50
3.25
2.40
3.00
3.25
2.75
31
R10AC20661 2011
Poso Drain - 24hr avg
7000
Flow ft3/sec
6000
Salt Load tons/day
100
QA/QC Flow cfs
5000
SpCond uS/cm
80
QA/QC EC uS/cm
4000
60
3000
40
2000
20
1000
0
3/
1/
20
10
4/
1/
20
10
5/
1/
20
10
6/
1/
20
10
7/
1/
20
10
8/
1/
20
10
9/
1/
20
10
10
/1
/2
01
11
0
/1
/2
01
12
0
/1
/2
01
0
1/
1/
20
11
2/
1/
20
3/ 11
1/
20
11
0
Specific Conductivity (uS/cm)
Flow (cfs) and Salt Load (tons/day)
120
Figure 15. Poso Drain average daily flow (cfs) EC (uS/cm), and calculated salt load with QA.
Bennett Drain @ Britto Road
The YSI Sonde and MACE FloPro were deployed May 4, 2009. In August 2010, a second
culvert was installed, subsequently, a second MACE depth/velocity sensor was also installed.
Both sensors have been sending constant and reliable data since deployment. Regular QA/QC
continued through the entire reporting period March 1, 2010 to March 31, 2011.
Table 14. Bennett Drain Quality Assurance.
West
Velocity
ft/sec
West
Flow
cfs
East
Depth
East
Velocity
East
Flow
Combined
Flow
#
West
Depth
ft
7.5
8.0
8.5
7.5
7.8
8.0
7.8
8.0
-
2.90
1.50
1.90
1.70
2.75
2.50
2.50
2.70
2.10
2.00
2.08
1.01
0.54
1.10
0.11
0.80
1.02
1.48
0.96
0.00
14.55
3.56
4.55
4.55
0.74
5.03
6.42
9.91
5.07
0.00
-
-
-
14.55
3.56
4.55
4.55
0.74
5.03
6.42
9.91
5.07
0.00
Bennett
Ditch
date
EC
pH
uS/cm
3/11/2010
3/25/2010
4/12/2010
5/3/2010
5/20/2010
6/24/2010
7/2/2010
7/19/2010
8/4/2010
8/13/2010
1915
2820
2192
1654
1754
8.1
1235
569
792
769
32
R10AC20661 2011
80
623
623
645
1135
943
3755
2508
1154
1442
8.0
7.8
7.8
7.5
7.7
7.6
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
2.80
2.40
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.36
0.00
0.00
1.78
2.36
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
2.54
0.00
0.00
11.20
14.30
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
Bennett Ditch - 24hr avg
Flow (cfs) and Salt Load (tons/day)
Flow ft3/sec
70
Salt Load (tons/day)
60
QA/QC Flow cfs
SpCond uS/cm
50
0.00
0.00
0.98
0.00
1.10
0.56
0.36
0.57
0.07
0.00
0.00
6.93
0.00
7.78
3.95
2.54
4.02
0.49
0.00
0.00
6.93
0.00
10.32
3.95
2.54
15.22
14.79
5000
4500
4000
3500
QA/QC EC uS/cm
3000
40
2500
30
2000
1500
20
1000
10
Specific Conductivity (uS/cm)
9/14/2010
9/20/2010
10/1/2010
11/1/2010
12/1/2010
1/3/2011
2/4/2011
3/7/2011
3/16/2011
500
0
3/
1/
20
4/ 10
1/
20
5/ 10
1/
20
6/ 10
1/
20
7/ 10
1/
20
8/ 10
1/
20
9/ 10
1/
2
10 010
/1
/2
11 010
/1
/2
12 010
/1
/2
0
1/ 10
1/
20
2/ 11
1/
20
3/ 11
1/
20
11
0
Figure 16. Bennett Drain average daily flow (cfs) EC (uS/cm), and calculated salt load with QA.
Santa Fe Canal – Pre Arroyo canal / Mud Slough Bypass
The YSI Sonde was deployed August 11, 2009. A new SONTEK SL was deployed September
25, 2009. Both sensors have been sending constant and reliable data since deployment. Regular
QA/QC continued through the entire reporting period August 11, 2009 to May 12, 2010.
33
R10AC20661 2011
Table 15. Santa Fe Canal – pre Arroyo (Mud Slough Bypass) Quality Assurance.
Santa Fe Canal
Pre - Arroyo
Date
EC
pH
Velocity
Flow
Depth
uS/cm
#
ft/sec
cfs
ft
3/3/2010
4/2/2010
5/4/2010
6/22/2010
7/8/2010
9/9/2010
11/2/2010
12/28/2010
1/11/2011
1/19/2011
2/2/2011
3/10/2011
1889
2190
1142
631
570
750
918
1607
1408
1437
1426
1533
8.0
7.5
7.9
7.6
8.0
7.9
8.0
7.9
7.9
7.9
0.61
0.42
0.34
0.34
0.18
0.64
0.85
0.64
0.56
0.56
0.64
73.05
27.76
19.52
29.49
15.93
63.73
138.22
64.78
66.20
61.51
89.60
3
2.15
1.85
2.25
2.25
2.75
4
2.75
3.5
3
3.6
Santa Fe Canal, Pre Arroyo - 24hr avg
3000
Flow ft3/sec
Salt Load tons/day
500
QA/QC Flow cfs
SpCond uS/cm
400
QA/QC EC uS/cm
2500
2000
300
1500
200
1000
100
500
0
3/
1/
20
10
4/
1/
20
5/ 10
1/
20
10
6/
1/
20
7/ 10
1/
20
10
8/
1/
20
10
9/
1/
2
10 010
/1
/2
01
11
0
/1
/2
12 010
/1
/2
01
0
1/
1/
20
11
2/
1/
20
3/ 11
1/
20
11
0
Specific Conductivity (uS/cm)
Flow (cfs) and Salt Load (tons/day)
600
Figure 17. Santa Fe Canal – pre Arroyo (Mud Slough Bypass) average daily flow (cfs) EC (uS/cm), and calculated
salt load with QA.
34
R10AC20661 2011
Santa Fe Canal @ HWY152 – post Arroyo Canal
The YSI Sonde was deployed June 30, 2009. A new SONTEK SL was deployed September 11,
2009. Both sensors have been sending constant and reliable data since deployment. Regular
QA/QC continued through the entire reporting period March 1, 2010 to March 31, 2011
Table 16. Santa Fe Canal @ 152 – post Arroyo Canal Quality Assurance.
Santa Fe Canal
@ HWY152,
Post Arroyo
Date
EC
pH
Velocity
Flow
Depth
uS/cm
#
ft/sec
cfs
ft
3/3/2010
4/2/2010
5/4/2010
6/22/2010
7/8/2010
10/26/2010
11/10/2010
11/23/2010
12/28/2010
1/19/2011
1/26/2011
2/2/2011
3/10/2011
1735
1792
1155
931
969
916
1010
1024
1585
1342
1279
1221
1330
8.3
7.8
7.9
8.4
7.6
7.6
7.5
7.6
7.7
7.7
7.7
7.7
0.72
0.51
0.28
0.36
0.35
0.75
0.84
0.56
0.50
0.62
0.75
118.80
61.70
32.80
53.65
53.52
160.31
181.11
90.95
73.55
104.40
156.28
4.00
3.25
1.00
1.20
3.60
4.75
4.75
5.20
3.90
3.75
4.10
4.65
35
R10AC20661 2011
Santa Fe Canal @ SR152, Post Arroyo - 24hr avg
450
2500
400
Salt Load tons/day
350
QA/QC Flow cfs
2000
SpCond uS/cm
300
QA/QC EC uS/cm
1500
250
200
1000
150
100
500
Specific Conductivity (tons/day)
Flow (cfs) and Salt Load (tons/day)
Flow ft3/sec
50
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
1
0
0
0
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
/2
/2
/2
/2
/2
/2
/2
/2
/2
/2
/2
/2
/2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
/
/
/
3/
4/
5/
6/
7/
8/
9/
1/
2/
3/
10
11
12
Figure 18. Santa Fe Canal @ 152 – post Arroyo Canal average daily flow (cfs), EC (uS/cm), and calculated salt
load (tons/day) with QA.
San Luis Canal – pre Splits
The YSI Sonde and SONTEK SL were deployed December 12, 2009. Both sensors have been
sending constant and reliable data since deployment. Regular QA/QC continued through the
entire reporting period March 1, 2010 to March 31, 2011.
Table 17. San Luis Canal – pre Splits Quality Assurance.
San Luis Canal
Pre-Splits
Date
EC
pH
Velocity
Flow
Depth
uS/cm
#
ft/sec
cfs
ft
4/1/2010
5/14/2010
6/22/2010
7/8/2010
8/12/2010
9/9/2010
10/13/2010
10/28/2010
11/3/2010
1/11/2011
1/26/2011
2/10/2011
2528
812
1728
1998
591
500
610
641
893
1221
8.7
8.1
8.8
8.7
7.0
7.2
7.3
7.4
8.4
8.0
0.03
0.18
0.02
0.03
0.49
0.75
0.77
0.61
0.10
0.37
0.30
-0.02
1.12
7.68
0.80
1.90
25.55
70.94
85.01
31.90
11.19
23.88
21.15
-0.66
1.40
1.60
1.50
1.25
1.75
2.75
3.00
2.50
2.25
2.00
36
R10AC20661 2011
3/1/2011
3/8/2011
537
703
8.0
8.0
0.50
37.14
2.30
San Luis Canal, Pre Splits - 24hr avg
4500
Flow ft3/day
Salt Load tons/day
QA/QC Flow cfs
SpCond uS/cm
QA/QC EC uS/cm
140
120
4000
3500
3000
100
2500
80
2000
60
1500
40
1000
20
Specific Conductivity (tons/day)
Flow (cfs) and Salt Load (tons/day)
160
500
0
3/
1/
20
10
4/
1/
20
10
5/
1/
20
10
6/
1/
20
10
7/
1/
20
10
8/
1/
20
10
9/
1/
20
10
10
/1
/2
01
11
0
/1
/2
01
12
0
/1
/2
01
0
1/
1/
20
11
2/
1/
20
3/ 11
1/
20
11
0
Figure 19. San Luis Canal – pre Splits average daily flow (cfs), EC (uS/cm), and calculated salt load with QA.
San Luis Canal – SL1, post Splits
The YSI Sonde was deployed May 4, 2009. A new SONTEK SL was deployed October 19,
2009. Both sensors have been sending constant and reliable data since deployment. Regular
QA/QC continued through the entire reporting period March 1, 2010 to March 31, 2011.
Table 18. San Luis Canal – SL1, post Splits Quality Assurance.
San Luis
Canal - SL 1
Date
EC
pH
Velocity
Flow
Depth
uS/cm
#
ft/sec
cfs
ft
3/31/2010
5/12/2010
6/21/2010
7/8/2010
8/12/2010
8/18/2010
8/23/2010
9/30/2010
10/20/2010
11/10/2010
1966
543
901
1012
1022
664
667
640
814
955
7.8
7.9
8.1
8.5
6.8
8.0
7.9
6.4
6.3
6.9
0.50
0.47
0.71
0.50
0.26
1.68
1.01
0.45
61.83
46.51
82.32
47.04
43.63
174.52
142.03
81.89
3.55
2.30
3.60
3.50
3.50
3.90
4.50
5.50
4.25
37
R10AC20661 2011
12/15/2010
1/12/2011
1/19/2011
1/27/2011
2/10/2011
3/1/2011
3/8/2011
3/25/2011
1231
1212
1201
1221
1404
1260
1808
7.8
7.8
7.7
7.8
7.9
7.8
7.9
0.34
0.41
0.17
0.28
0.41
-
56.18
71.94
32.70
47.27
75.68
-
4.15
4.00
3.90
4.25
4.40
-
San Luis Canal, SL 1 - 24hr avg
3000
Flow ft3/sec
Salt Load tons/day
500
2500
QA/QC Flow cfs
SpCond uS/cm
400
2000
QA/QC EC uS/cm
300
1500
200
1000
100
500
0
3/
1/
20
10
4/
1/
20
10
5/
1/
20
10
6/
1/
20
10
7/
1/
20
10
8/
1/
20
10
9/
1/
20
10
10
/1
/2
01
0
11
/1
/2
01
12
0
/1
/2
01
0
1/
1/
20
11
2/
1/
20
11
3/
1/
20
11
0
Specific Conductivity (tons/day)
Flow (cfs) and Salt Load (tons/day)
600
Figure 20. San Luis Canal – SL1, post Splits average daily flow (cfs) EC (uS/cm) and calculated salt load with QA.
Cross Channel – lateral to the SFC from Volta WA pond 10.
The YSI Sonde was deployed on August 8, 2009 and has since been sending constant and
reliable EC values to the web. The SONTEK SL was deployed October 18, 2009. Regular
QA/QC continued through the entire reporting period August 8, 2009 to May 28, 2010.
Table 19. Cross Channel Quality Assurance.
Cross
Channel
Date
3/23/2010
4/22/2010
5/18/2010
5/19/2010
EC
pH
Velocity
Flow
Depth
uS/cm
2140
1790
1067
-
#
8.7
8.8
8.6
-
ft/sec
0.08
0.03
0.03
cfs
10.41
5.82
6.94
ft
3.75
4.25
4.25
38
R10AC20661 2011
5/20/2010
5/25/2010
8/4/2010
8/13/2010
8/23/2010
8/31/2010
9/2/2010
9/3/2010
9/15/2010
9/17/2010
9/21/2010
9/29/2010
10/4/2010
10/5/2010
10/13/2010
11/30/2010
12/6/2010
1/17/2011
2/1/2011
3/1/2011
3/4/2011
525
1293
700
620
543
607
590
537
600
1376
1448
2200
1816
1650
1996
8.0
8.6
6.9
7.8
7.4
8.2
8.4
8.7
8.4
7.9
8.4
7.9
8.8
8.2
7.9
0.36
0.00
0.23
0.20
0.31
0.38
0.42
0.64
0.82
0.81
0.87
0.99
0.82
0.59
0.00
0.00
-0.04
-0.05
0.19
35.59
70.85
0.00
36.53
30.90
81.62
106.73
125.06
180.28
228.96
224.36
243.43
274.29
242.70
169.36
0.00
0.00
-6.00
-9.61
49.70
4.25
4.50
3.25
3.75
4.00
6.75
7.00
7.00
7.25
7.50
7.25
6.80
6.50
3.25
4.00
5.50
3.00
6.00
Cross Channel - 24hr avg
250
Flow ft3/sec
QA/QC Flow cfs
QA/QC EC uS/cm
Salt Load (tons/day)
SpCond uS/cm
3000
2500
200
2000
150
1500
100
1000
50
500
0
3/
1/
20
10
4/
1/
20
10
5/
1/
20
10
6/
1/
20
10
7/
1/
20
10
8/
1/
20
10
9/
1/
20
10
10
/1
/2
01
11
0
/1
/2
01
12
0
/1
/2
01
0
1/
1/
20
11
2/
1/
20
11
3/
1/
20
11
0
Specific Conductivity (uS/cm)
Flow (cfs) and Salt Load (tons/day)
300
Figure 21. Cross Channel average daily flow (cfs), EC (uS/cm), and calculated salt load (tons/day) with QA
39
R10AC20661 2011
CDFG – Buttonwillow Lake, Los Banos Wildlife Refuge
The YSI Sonde was deployed on May 4, 2009 and has since been sending constant and reliable
EC values to the web. A MACE meter and logger was also installed at this time, however the
water control structure has many problems which lead to poor flow values. This structure is
outlined in the grant for replacement which will occur summer 2011.
CDFG – Wolfsen Drain, Salt Slough Management Unit
The YSI Sonde and MACE meter were deployed November 3, 2009 and have since been sending
constant and reliable values to the web. The MACE meter is also equipped with an ECOPOD.
Regular QA/QC continued through the entire reporting period March 1, 2010 to March 31, 2011.
Table 20. Wolfsen Drain Quality Assurance.
Wolfsen
Drain
Date
EC
pH
Velocity
Flow
Depth
uS/cm
#
ft/sec
cfs
ft
3/15/2010
3/26/2010
4/14/2010
4/21/2010
5/6/2010
5/20/2010
6/1/2010
6/25/2010
7/2/2010
8/16/2010
8/23/2010
9/15/2010
10/1/2010
11/4/2010
12/2/2010
1/10/2011
2/8/2011
3/2/2011
3/16/2011
1924
1863
2078
1956
1962
1182
1446
1735
1273
0
0
1091
0
1377
1132
1784
1875
1976
1700
7.5
7.6
7.4
8.1
8.1
0.0
8.5
0.0
8.2
7.3
7.6
7.6
8.0
7.7
7.10
10.00
8.04
10.33
8.51
5.91
0.00
6.33
0.00
4.71
9.65
0.00
8.89
10.76
8.71
7.90
0.94
3.69
20.15
12.79
7.14
16.54
4.34
2.09
0.00
1.78
0.00
1.03
7.47
0.00
5.35
14.87
10.26
4.10
6.24
11.94
1.20
0.71
0.55
0.46
0.83
0.38
0.29
0.04
0.25
0.00
0.21
0.50
0.08
0.42
0.75
0.67
0.38
2.60
1.40
40
R10AC20661 2011
Wolfsen Drain, Salt Slough Unit - 24hr avg
120
100
2500
Eco Flow ft3/sec
Eco Salt Load tons/day
QA/QC Flow cfs
SpCond uS/cm
2000
QA/QC EC uS/cm
1500
80
60
1000
40
500
Specific Conductivity (uS/cm)
Flow (cfs) and Salt Load (tons/day)
140
20
0
3/
1/
20
10
4/
1/
20
10
5/
1/
20
10
6/
1/
20
10
7/
1/
20
10
8/
1/
20
10
9/
1/
20
10
10
/1
/2
01
0
11
/1
/2
01
0
12
/1
/2
01
0
1/
1/
20
11
2/
1/
20
11
3/
1/
20
11
0
Figure 22. Wolfsen Drain average daily flow (cfs), EC (uS/cm), and calculated salt load (tons/day) with QA
216 Drain
The flow and water quality station at the 216 Drain was installed with a YSI Sonde and MACE
meter. However, there were many problems with the telemetry at this location. There is very
poor cellular signal. In an attempt to remediate this problem, another station in close proximity
was installed one mile away on the Santa Fe Canal @ 6-Spot Hunt Club which became the
master node - making the 216 Drain a slave (data) node. However, because of the mass of data
being collected at the 216 Drain, the station consistently fell behind at which point the data
loggers become bogged down and eventually fail to communicate. In light of this problem, a
station was recently installed one mile upstream of the 216 drain on Los Banos Creek, South
(terminus of the Malia Ditch from VoWA Pond 10). The new station was equipped with a
SONTEK and Multi-Parametric Sonde and a slave logger to RF to the previously installed SFC
@ 6-Spot Master node. A slave logger and Sonde remain at the 216 Drain location, however the
MACE unit and velocity sensors were removed. The 216 Drain Sonde is now regularly reporting
to the master node at SFC @ 6-Spot.
The new station at Los Banos Creek South (LBC-So) will ultimately help better manage water in
this portion of the district. For instance, if the water quality at the LBC-South becomes too
saline and likewise the water quality at the 216 Drain is saline, management can order additional
fresh water from Pond 10 via Malia Ditch so that the 216 Drain water is assimilated and
subsequently diluted effectively freshening the quality of water moving north to meet demands
of wetlands in north Grasslands. No data for this site are presented in this report.
41
R10AC20661 2011
GWD/CDFG Current Monitoring Efforts and Relocations
Summarized data are provided below for the three sites from March 1, 2010 to March 31, 2011.
Not all of the presented flow and EC data sets are complete for the aforementioned time frame
due to technological transitions and sensor failures. QA/QC values have been plotted against the
raw real-time data stream. Salt loads in tons/day have been calculated using a conversion factor
of 1 dS/m : 0.61 g/L. Data provided are provisional and are subject to change.
CDFG – Gadwall Unit Inlet and Drain
The MHP water quality stations that were located within the Gadwall Unit have been relocated
to the inlet and outlet of the entire Gadwall Management Unit. The Gadwall Unit has one major
inlet (Robin’s Nest) and one outlet (Gadwall Unit Drain) which, with high quality flow and water
quality data, will help to produce a water and salt mass balance for the wetland complex as a
whole. Reporting period for Robin’s Nest and Gadwall Unit Drain is March 1, 2010 to March
31, 2011.
Table 21. CDFG Gadwall Unit Supply; Robin’s Nest Quality Assurance.
Robin's Nest
Date
3/17/2010
4/16/2010
5/4/2010
5/21/2010
6/24/2010
7/6/2010
7/14/2010
8/13/2010
9/13/2010
9/20/2010
10/1/2010
11/1/2010
12/13/2010
1/6/2011
2/2/2011
3/10/2011
3/22/2011
EC
pH
Velocity
Flow
Depth
uS/cm
#
ft/sec
cfs
ft
833
908
1233
1100
1461
1536
1522
954
634
601
570
810
972
1154
357
570
510
8.2
7.9
8.3
8.4
8.4
8.4
7.6
8.2
8.0
8.3
8.4
7.9
0.67
0.35
1.77
0.36
0.70
0.00
1.88
1.67
1.50
1.53
1.30
0.70
0.18
0.55
0.66
0.53
8.42
3.03
22.24
3.44
8.79
0.00
19.01
21.00
18.85
19.23
16.34
8.80
1.31
6.41
8.29
6.66
4.80
2.80
4.00
2.85
4.00
3.20
3.00
1.11
3.00
2.10
4.00
3.00
2.25
3.50
3.10
4.20
42
R10AC20661 2011
CDFG Gadwall Supply - Robin's Nest, 24hr avg
4500
Flow ft3/sec
Salt Load tons/day
50
40
4000
QA/QC Flow cfs
3500
SpCond uS/cm
3000
QA/QC EC uS/cm
30
2500
2000
20
1500
1000
10
500
0
3/
1/
20
10
4/
1/
20
10
5/
1/
20
10
6/
1/
20
10
7/
1/
20
10
8/
1/
20
10
9/
1/
20
10
10
/1
/2
01
0
11
/1
/2
01
0
12
/1
/2
01
0
1/
1/
20
11
2/
1/
20
11
3/
1/
20
11
0
Specific Conductivity (uS/cm)
Flow (cfs) and Salt Load (tons/day)
60
Figure 23. CDFG – Gadwall Unit Supply, Robin’s Nest, average daily flow (cfs), EC (uS/cm), and calculated salt
load (tons/day) with QA
Table 22. CDFG – Gadwall Unit Drain Quality Assurance
Gadwall Unit
Drain
Date
EC
pH
Velocity
Flow
Depth
uS/cm
#
ft/sec
cfs
ft
3/15/2010
4/12/2010
5/4/2010
5/20/2010
6/24/2010
7/8/2010
7/19/2010
8/11/2010
8/13/2010
9/9/2010
10/1/2010
11/3/2010
12/1/2010
1/19/2011
2/2/2011
3/10/2011
1383
1620
1292
1273
1560
1713
1027
1125
1215
814
1501
1474
1469
2050
1986
1120
8.1
7.8
8.3
8.3
7.8
8.4
8.1
8.1
7.5
7.9
7.7
8.0
7.8
1.47
0.77
0.06
1.44
0.00
0.41
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.07
0.00
1.10
0.60
0.40
0.31
2.01
9.24
3.85
0.19
10.18
0.00
2.32
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.44
0.00
7.78
4.20
2.80
2.17
13.99
2.70
2.00
1.40
3.00
2.00
2.24
1.11
1.50
2.00
2.50
2.30
3.00
2.90
2.90
1.45
2.90
43
R10AC20661 2011
CDFG - Gadwall Unit Drain, 24hr avg
35.00
30.00
2500
Flow ft3/sec
Salt Load tons/day
QA/QC Flow cfs
SpCond uS/cm
2000
QA/QC EC uS/cm
25.00
1500
20.00
1000
15.00
10.00
500
5.00
0
3/
1/
20
10
4/
1/
20
10
5/
1/
20
10
6/
1/
20
10
7/
1/
20
10
8/
1/
20
10
9/
1/
20
10
10
/1
/2
01
0
11
/1
/2
01
0
12
/1
/2
01
0
1/
1/
20
11
2/
1/
20
11
3/
1/
20
11
0.00
Specific Conductivity (uS/cm)
Flow (cfs) and Salt Load (tons/day)
40.00
Figure 24. CDFG – Gadwall Unit Drain average daily flow (cfs), EC (uS/cm), and calculated salt load with QA.
USFWS New Installations
Summarized data are provided below for the five USFWS sites from March 1, 2010 to March 31,
2011. Not all of the presented flow and EC data sets are complete for the aforementioned time
frame due to technological transitions and sensor failures. QA/QC values have been plotted
against the raw real-time data stream. Salt loads in tons/day have been calculated using a
conversion factor of 1 dS/m : 0.61 g/L. Data provided are provisional and are subject to change.
USFWS – Kesterson Supply off the San Luis Canal, Skeleton Weir
The MACE flow and data logger were originally deployed by GWD staff in 2007. This site was
retrofitted with an YSI Sonde and an YSI EcoNet box. The YSI Sonde was deployed on
November 11, 2009 and has since been sending constant and reliable EC values to the web. The
MACE has been reporting to the web since November 20, 2009. Regular QA/QC continued
through the entire reporting period March 1, 2010 to March 2011.
44
R10AC20661 2011
Table 23. Santa Fe canal – Kesterson Supply Quality Assurance.
North Santa Fe Canal
Kesterson Supply
Date
3/5/2010
3/28/2010
4/14/2010
5/6/2010
5/21/2010
6/9/2010
7/7/2010
8/13/2010
9/14/2010
10/26/2010
11/30/2010
12/30/2010
1/14/2011
2/24/2011
EC
pH
Velocity
Flow
Depth
uS/cm
1435
851
1895
1913
920
688
0
0
687
841
1156
1437
879
#
8.0
8.4
8.3
8.4
8.4
0.0
0.0
8.2
8.3
8.2
8.2
7.8
8.0
ft/sec
1.31
0.61
0.00
2.76
1.27
0.00
0.00
2.77
2.65
2.68
1.67
1.76
1.51
cfs
9.25
4.31
0.00
19.50
9.03
0.00
0.00
19.67
18.82
19.03
11.80
12.44
10.74
ft
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
0.00
0.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
Kesterson Supply, North Santa Fe Canal - 24hr avg
45
2500
Flow ft3/sec
Salt Load tons/day
40
QA/QC Flow cfs
35
Santa Fe SpCond uS/cm
30
2000
QA/QC EC uS/cm
1500
25
20
1000
15
10
500
Specific Conductivity (uS/cm)
Flow (cfs) and Salt Load (tons/day)
50
5
0
3/
1/
20
10
4/
1/
20
10
5/
1/
20
10
6/
1/
20
10
7/
1/
20
10
8/
1/
20
10
9/
1/
20
10
10
/1
/2
01
0
11
/1
/2
01
12
0
/1
/2
01
0
1/
1/
20
11
2/
1/
20
11
3/
1/
20
11
0
Figure 25. Santa Fe canal - Kesterson Supply average daily flow (cfs), EC (uS/cm) and calculated salt load with
QA
45
R10AC20661 2011
San Luis Canal @ USFWS Blue Goose Unit inlet
The Mace flow and data logger were originally deployed by GWD staff in 2007. This site was
retrofitted with an YSI Sonde and an YSI EcoNet box. The YSI Sonde and the new Mace logger
were deployed on September 19, 2009 and have since been sending constant and reliable EC and
flow values to the web. Regular QA/QC continued through the entire reporting period March 1,
2010 to March 31, 2011.
Table 24. San Luis Canal @ Blue Goose Unit supply Quality Assurance.
SLC @ Blue Goose Unit
EC
pH
Flow
Depth
Date
uS/cm
#
cfs
ft
3/3/2010
3/15/2010
4/12/2010
5/10/2010
6/25/2010
7/7/2010
8/4/2010
9/14/2010
10/7/2010
11/5/2010
12/22/2010
1/12/2011
2/3/2011
3/2/2011
3/16/2011
1740
1758
2310
693
1105
1004
888
720
812
945
1155
1278
1098
1664
1357
8.0
8.3
0.0
8.4
8.3
7.5
8.0
8.3
8.1
7.9
7.8
7.5
5.40
11.30
17.57
16.63
8.31
7.31
7.58
6.48
23.90
19.10
4.49
12.76
11.78
7.61
6.18
2.50
2.50
2.50
2.50
2.11
2.50
2.42
3.25
4.00
3.40
1.50
3.10
3.90
3.00
2.60
46
R10AC20661 2011
San Luis Canal @ Blue Goose Unit, 24hr avg
2500
60
Flow ft3/sec
Salt Load tons/day
50
QA/QC Flow cfs
SpCond uS/cm
2000
QA/QC EC uS/cm
1500
40
30
1000
20
500
10
0
3/
1/
20
10
4/
1/
20
10
5/
1/
20
10
6/
1/
20
10
7/
1/
20
10
8/
1/
20
10
9/
1/
20
10
10
/1
/2
01
0
11
/1
/2
01
0
12
/1
/2
01
0
1/
1/
20
11
2/
1/
20
11
3/
1/
20
11
0
Specific Conductivity (uS/cm)
Flow (cfs) and Salt Load (uS/cm)
70
Figure 26. San Luis Canal @ Blue Goose Unit supply average daily flow (cfs), EC (uS/cm), and calculated salt
load (tons/day) with QA.
USFWS – West Gadwall Drain @ Mud Slough, Kesterson unit
The YSI Sonde and Mace logger/sensors were deployed November 3, 2009 and have since been
sending constant and reliable EC value and flow values to the web. Regular QA/QC continued
through the entire reporting period March 1, 2010 to March 31, 2011.
Table 25. West Gadwall Drain Quality Assurance.
West Gadwall Drain
EC
pH
Velocity
Flow
Depth
Date
uS/cm
#
ft/sec
cfs
ft
3/5/2010
4/14/2010
5/10/2010
5/21/2010
6/1/2010
7/6/2010
10/25/2010
11/4/2010
12/7/2010
1/4/2011
2/3/2011
3/2/2011
1429
1895
1783
786
970
0
977
942
960
903
1089
1232
na
7.8
7.9
7.7
7.3
0.0
8.4
7.8
7.6
7.9
-
2.56
1.67
2.91
0.88
3.57
0.00
1.19
3.78
4.00
1.72
3.39
4.08
1.95
1.27
1.08
0.54
5.61
0.00
1.18
3.49
2.46
1.85
2.08
2.51
0.58
0.58
0.35
0.50
1.00
0.00
0.71
0.67
0.50
0.75
0.50
0.50
47
R10AC20661 2011
USFWS West Gadwall Drain, 24hr avg
2500
Eco Flow ft3/sec
12
Salt Load tons/day
2000
QA/QC Flow cfs
10
SpCond uS/cm
8
1500
QA/QC EC uS/cm
6
1000
4
500
2
Specific Conductivity (uS/cm)
Flow (cfs) and Salt Load (uS/cm)
14
0
3/
1/
20
10
4/
1/
20
10
5/
1/
20
10
6/
1/
20
10
7/
1/
20
10
8/
1/
20
10
9/
1/
20
10
10
/1
/2
01
0
11
/1
/2
01
0
12
/1
/2
01
0
1/
1/
20
11
2/
1/
20
11
3/
1/
20
11
0
Figure 27. West Gadwall Drain average daily flow (uS/cm), EC (uS/cm), and calculated Salt Load with QA.
USFWS – West Big Lake Drain @ Mud Slough, Freitas Unit
The YSI Sonde and Mace logger/sensor were deployed September 28, 2009 and have since been
sending constant and reliable EC and flow values to the web. However, on two instances (Jan. 1,
2011 – Jan. 18, 2011) and (Mar. 23, 2011 – Mar. 31, 2011), the lake was completely flooded
from Salt Slough and San Joaquin River flows. The water breached the levees of the Lake and
representative flow data could not be collected. Regular QA/QC continued through the entire
reporting period March 1, 2010 to March 31, 2011.
Table 26. West Big Lake Drain Quality Assurance.
USFWS Big Lake
Date
EC
uS/cm
pH
#
Velocity
ft/sec
Flow
cfs
Depth
ft
4/9/2010
5/10/2010
6/1/2010
7/6/2010
10/5/2010
11/4/2010
12/7/2010
1/27/2011
2/3/2011
3/2/2011
3/7/2011
3/15/2011
1502
0
0
0
768
881
957
1609
1544
1321
0
1400
8.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
8.3
8.2
7.6
7.8
8.0
0.0
7.5
1.20
0.00
0.00
0.00
2.21
3.87
3.52
0.37
2.52
0.19
0.00
0.00
0.52
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.51
1.31
1.19
0.58
0.57
0.09
0.00
0.00
0.33
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.25
0.33
0.33
1.08
0.25
0.41
0.00
0.04
48
R10AC20661 2011
USFWS Big Lake Drain, 24hr avg
2500
16
Flow ft3/sec
14
Salt Load tons/day
2000
QA/QC Flow cfs
12
SpCond uS/cm
10
1500
QA/QC EC uS/cm
8
1000
6
4
500
2
0
3/
1/
20
10
4/
1/
20
5/ 10
1/
20
10
6/
1/
20
10
7/
1/
20
10
8/
1/
20
10
9/
1/
20
10
10
/1
/2
0
11 10
/1
/2
0
12 10
/1
/2
01
0
1/
1/
20
11
2/
1/
20
3/ 11
1/
20
11
0
Specific Conductivity (tons/day)
Flow (cfs) and Salt Load (tons/day)
18
Figure 28. West Big Lake Drain average daily flow (uS/cm), EC (uS/cm), and calculated salt load with QA.
USFWS – Zahm’s Lake Drain @ Salt Slough, Freitas Unit
The YSI Sonde and Mace logger/sensor were deployed in September, 2009. The culvert was
retro-fitted during the summer of 2009 with the intent to “beaver proof” the structure. Flow data
remained good until late spring of 2010 when beavers promptly plugged the structure. The
structure continues to be unmaintained and plugged with debris from the beaver activity.
Because of the plugged structure, it is not possible to collect any flow data as the flows are no
longer contained within the metered structure. EC has since been sending constant and reliable
values to the web. Regular QA/QC continued through the entire reporting period March 1, 2010
to March 31, 2011.
Table 27. Zahm’s Lake Drain Quality Assurance.
Zahm's Lake Drain
Date
EC
uS/cm
pH
#
3/17/2010
4/9/2010
5/10/2010
6/1/2010
6/9/2010
7/6/2010
11/16/2010
12/7/2010
1/4/2011
2/3/2011
3/2/2011
3/15/2011
1740
1970
2025
1996
2133
0
1298
1107
1653
1314
1352
1446
1.0
7.8
7.8
767.0
7.7
7.6
7.7
7.5
7.8
49
R10AC20661 2011
USFWS Zahm's Lake Drain, 24hr avg
Specific Conductivity (uS/cm)
4000
3500
SpCond uS/cm
3000
QA/QC EC uS/cm
2500
2000
1500
1000
500
3/
1/
20
10
4/
1/
20
10
5/
1/
20
10
6/
1/
20
10
7/
1/
20
10
8/
1/
20
10
9/
1/
20
10
10
/1
/2
01
11
0
/1
/2
01
12
0
/1
/2
01
0
1/
1/
20
11
2/
1/
20
11
3/
1/
20
11
0
Figure 29. Zahm’s Lake Drain average daily flow (cfs), EC (uS/cm), and calculated salt load with QA.
3.5.
Task 5: Outreach: Articles, Presentations and Posters on Real Time Water
Quality Monitoring in the Grassland Resource Conservation District
2011
May
Gustine, California, Hollister Land and Cattle: Presentation at the annual
Grassland Resource Conservation District Land Owners Meeting
September
California Water Fowl Association Magazine, Winter Edition: Advanced Water
Quality Monitoring in the Grassland Ecological Area
2010
Grassland Water District Explorer Newsletter, September/October 2010:
Grassland Watershed Salt Load Down 77% in 15 years
June
Livingston, California, Riverdance Farms: Educational outreach and poster
presented and the Riverdance “Pick and Gather” Festival
May
Gustine, California, Hollister Land and Cattle: Presentation at the annual
Grassland Resource Conservation District Land Owners Meeting
February
Pacific Grove, California: Presentation at the California Water and Environment
Forum’s Annual Conference
Pacific Grove, California: Poster presented at the California Water and
Environment Forum’s Annual Conference
50
R10AC20661 2011
2009
December
Hawaii: Presentation at the Hawaii International Conference on the System
Sciences.
May
Gustine, California: Hollister Land and Cattle: Presentation at the annual
Grassland Resource Conservation District Land Owners Meeting.
February
Pacific Grove, California: Presentation at the California Water and Environment
Forum’s Annual Conference
January
Grasslands Water District: Presentation for GEA Management and Members of
the Grassland Water District Board of Directors.
4. ASSESSMENT OF PROGRAM AFFECTIVNESS
The primary goals of the “Water Quality Monitoring in the Grassland Resource Conservation
District” project have been to A) coordinate a multi-agency study encompassing advanced realtime water quality monitoring, and B) the quantification and characterization of the salt loads
entering, moving through, and exiting the GRCD. Over the term of this project a total of 44 realtime flow and water quality stations have been installed, relocated, retrofitted and maintained.
All stations are currently reporting in real time to a public access web site with data dating back
to of December 2009 from the majority of the stations.
This project is the first to collect continuous comprehensive flow and water quality datasets from
major points of acceptance and drainage within the GRCD. More accessible real time flow and
water quality data from throughout the district has assisted management in maximizing water
conservation and quality, benefitting both the wetland resource and the San Joaquin River.
This program has demonstrated the first publically accessible real time water quality monitoring
network of this scale and utility within a wetland complex and should be looked at as the
template for the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Boards standard for the Salt and
Boron TMDL additive load allocation to the San Joaquin River.
The technology transfer is challenging in the GRCD which encompasses Private, State, and
Federally managed lands. The outreach to these diverse entities is particularly challenging
considering the GRCD also contains over 160 private refuges, multiple state and federal refuges,
each with their own management structure and techniques. This project has faced and
maneuvered through significant challenges in developing a system that is accessible, user
friendly and that ultimately benefits the resource as a whole.
51