1. Salt and Nitrate Sources Pilot Implementation Study Report Summary
Central Valley Salinity Coalition
Salt and Nitrate Sources Pilot Implementation Study Report Summary
March 11, 2010
Re-formatted team list.
Larry Walker Associates
Systech Water Resources, Inc.
Luhdorff & Scalmanini Consulting Engineers
NewFields Agricultural and Environmental Resources

2. Overall Study Goals
Develop and document procedures and methodologies to quantify, fairly and equitably, the significant salt and nitrate sources in the Central Valley.
Pilot procedures in selected areas to evaluate the appropriateness and region-wide applicability of the procedures.
Provide guidance on approaches and tools to accomplish better salt and nutrient management

3. Selected Pilot Areas Yolo - Active CVHM area Modesto
Cache-Putah Subbasins - Mix of urban, rural, ag - Mix of SW & GW supplies
Modesto
- Parts of Modesto, Turlock,
& Delta Mendota Subbasins - Urban with food processing,
rural, ag - Mix of SW & GW supplies
Tule River - Entire Tule Subbasin, also
parts of Tulare Lake and
Kaweah Subbasins
- Mostly ag land, some urban - Mix of SW & GW supplies
3 sections to survey 3

4. Pilot Area Comparisons
Characteristic
Yolo
Modesto
Tule River
Central Valley
Area (acres)
720,778
548,201
871,083
26,880,000
Population
165,000
523,000
178,000
6,500,000

5. Specific Study Objectives
Define salt and nutrient sources of significance.
Provide methods and manner of collection, characterization, and use of the salt and nutrient source data for the pilot areas.
Outline data currently available and the quality of the data.
ID additional data that should be collected or developed.
Indicate how methodology accounts for total salt loading balance and accumulation and ID critical concentration discharges.

6. Specific Study Objectives
Ensure accurate accounting of all sources.
ID how historic, current, and future source quantities will be determined or estimated to provide trend information.
ID and quantify areas where NO3 impacting beneficial uses of waters.
Select analytical tools and methods that work for the pilot areas as well as other parts of the Central Valley.

7. Potentially Signif. Salt & NO3 Sources/Sinks
SW upstream inflow
SW outflow
Imported SW
SW diversions
Irrigation
Near-surface GW
Fertilizer
Deeper GW
Stormwater discharges
Plant uptake
Septic tank discharges
Reaction decay
Land application, incld. dairies
Gaseous loss, volatiliz.
Point Sources (WWTP & Indus.)
Livestock facilities
Mineral weathering / rxn prod.
Atmospheric deposition
GW extraction (dewatering)

8. Summary of Data Needs Hydrologic Data SW flows (N)
Imported water flows (N)
Water diversions (N)
Point source flows (N/E)
Irrigation return flows (E)
Meteorology/effective rainfall (N)
Land cover classes (N)
ET rates (N)
Irrigation rates (E)
Irrigation efficiency (E)
GW pumpage (N/E)
GW recharge (N/E)
Topography (N)
N = Necessary
E = Typ. Estimated

9. Summary of Data Needs Salt and Nitrate Data Surface water quality (N)
Groundwater quality (N/E)
Point source quality (N/E)
Land cover class (salt) loadings (E)
Fertilizer rates (E)
Land application rates (E)

10. Summary of Data Needs Process Parameters Plant uptake rates (E)
Atmospheric deposition (N)
Soil properties (N/E)
Nitrification rate (M)
Denitrification rate (M)
Mineralization rate (M)
Volatilization rate (M)
Sorption rates (M)
Phytoplankton processes (M)
M = Model Value

11. Salinity Composition

12. Mass Balance – Surface Water TDS
Input
Inflows from Upstream 42%
Inflows from Upstream 53%
Imported Water 39%
Inflows from Upstream 81%
Imported Water 49%
Output
Diversion 17%
Diversion 23%
Outflow to Downstream 38%
Outflow to Downstream 71%
Diversion 61%
Outflow to Downstream 77%

13. Mass Balance – Near-Surface Groundwater TDS
Input
Fertilizer/ Land App 35%
Irrigation 32%
Fertilizer/ Land App 47%
Irrigation 72%
Irrigation 44%
Output
Recharge to Deeper GW 47%
Net Plant Uptake/ Rxn Decay 51%
Recharge to Deeper GW 56%
Outflow to Surface Water 24%
Recharge to Deeper GW 72%

14. Mass Balance – Deeper GW TDS
Input
Recharge from Near-surface GW 100%
Recharge from Near-surface GW 100%
Recharge from Near-surface GW 100%
Output
Pumping for Irrigation 100%
Pumping for Irrigation 95%
Pumping for Mun/Ind 81%

15. Mass Balance – Surface Water Nitrate
Input
Inflows from Near-surface GW 45%
Inflows from Upstream 51%
Inflows from Upstream 63%
Imported Water 46%
Output
Diversion 17%
Diversion 19%
Diversion 44%
Outflow to Downstream 56%
Outflow to Downstream 83%
Outflow to Downstream 80%

16. Mass Balance – Near-Surface GW Nitrate
Input
Mineral weathering/ Rxn product 29%
Fertilizer/ Land App 83%
Fertilizer/ Land App 63%
Fertilizer/ Land App 54%
Output
Net Plant Uptake/ Rxn Decay 36%
Recharge to Deeper GW 32%
Net Plant Uptake/ Rxn Decay 56%
Recharge to Deeper GW 57%
Net Plant Uptake/ Rxn Decay 84%

17. Mass Balance – Deeper GW Nitrate
Input
Recharge from Near-surface GW 100%
Recharge from Near-surface GW 100%
Recharge from Near-surface GW 100%
Output
Pumping for Irrigation 95%
Pumping for Municipal/Industrial 84%
Pumping for Irrigation 100%

18. Mass Balance Summary – TDS
Principal TDS inputs to near-surface GW: irrigation and fertilizer/land application
Other sources contributing >10 percent TDS to near-surface GW:
Yolo and Modesto - atmospheric deposition
Tule River - mineral weathering and reaction products
TDS is accumulating in the near-surface and deeper GW in all three pilot areas.

19. Mass Balance Summary – Nitrate
Principal NO3 inputs to near-surface GW: irrigation and fertilizer/land application.
Other sources contributing >10 percent NO3 to near-surface GW:
Yolo and Tule River - mineral weathering and reaction products
NO3 accumulating in near-surface GW all three pilot areas and in the deeper GW in the Yolo and Modesto areas, but depleting in Tule River area as a whole.

20. Conclusions – Key Project Objectives
Objective 4: Identify additional data that should be collected or developed.
Data collected during study: Adequate to run models and perform mass balance calculations.
Additional data: Likely to improve certainty and accuracy of results.

21. Conclusions – Key Project Objectives
Objective 9: Select analytical tools and methods that work for the pilot areas as well as other parts of the Central Valley.
Analytical tools and methods for study: Are applicable to all parts of the Central Valley.
Primary data for mass balance calculation model: Required meteorologic, hydrologic, and land cover data (readily available for all regions).
Other required data: Typically can be estimated.

22. Conclusions – Key Project Objectives
Overall: ID/assemble input data for available models, then use the models to quantitatively relate salt and nitrate sources and sinks within representative pilot study areas.
WARMF output: Demonstrates use as accounting method for tracking salts and NO3 on and beneath the land surface.
GW models: Demonstrate how these provide complementary data to WARMF model application and insights regarding subsurface distribution of salts and NO3 in GW.

23. Extra or optional slides/Bull Pen

24. Study Tools WARMF Model Groundwater Models Yolo – CVHM (USGS, 2009)
Modesto – MODFLOW Model (USGS, 2007)
Tule River – MODFLOW model (Harter)
Particle tracking MODPATH
Added surface model from Tule River

25. Mass Balance Calculation Elements
Atmospheric Deposition
Inflows
Point Sources
Land Application
Diversion
Irrigation
Uptake
Surface Water
Near-surface Groundwater
Lateral Flow
Outflows
Reactions
Rxns
Recharge
Municipal Pumping
Irrigation Pumping
Deeper Groundwater

26. Recommendations – Other Analysis Tools
Evaluate water, salt, and nitrate balances with whole-systems approach (current and future scenarios)
Evaluate potential effects of future mass loadings on watersheds
Recognize limitations of tools and data sets
Evaluate sensitivity of tools to inputs and assumptions

27. Mass Balance – Surface Water TDS
Process
Yolo
Modesto
Tule R.
Land Area
720,778
548,201
871,083
Total Inputs (lbs/d)
4,050,000
5,580,000
496,000
Total Inputs (lbs/acre/d)
5.6
10.2
0.6
Inflows from Upstream
1,710,000
4,510,000
259,000
Imported Water
1,970,000
408,000
194,000
Inflows from Near-surface GW
241,000
486,000
41,200
Point Sources
127,000
174,000
Reaction Product
765
1,700
1,380
Total Outputs (lbs/d)
3,890,000
5,810,000
519,000
Total Outputs (lbs/acre/d)
5.4
10.6
Bio.Uptake/Rxn Decay/Settling
165,000
2,350
4,250
Diversion
668,000
1,310,000
319,000
Outflow to Downstream
3,060,000
4,500,000
196,000

28. Near-Surface GW Loading to Surface Water by Land Use Class – Modesto
Land Use / Source1
TDS
Nitrate-N
lb/d
lb/ac/yr
lb N/d
lb N/ac/yr
Orchard
155,000
653
1,710
3.6
Perennial forages
115,000
1,420
406
2.49
Other row crops
93,900
1,440
2,490
19.1
Warm season cereals/forages
60,000
817
3,220
21.9
Farmsteads
32,200
919
302
4.32
Grassland/Herbaceous
12,200
322
4.41
0.058
Winter grains & safflower
6,460
443
344
11.8
Urban landscape
4,060
427
52.9
2.78
Land constrained dairy land application
3,680
55.9
12.7
0.097
Unconstrained dairy land application
2,540
38.6
4.56
0.035
Urban residential
2,290
28.9
4.67
0.03
Total
486,000
8,600
1. Top 11 land use sources

29. Mass Balance – Near-Surface Groundwater TDS
Process
Yolo
Modesto
Tule R.
Land area
720,778
548,201
871,083
Total Inputs (lbs/d)
1,720,000
2,330,000
2,450,000
Total Inputs (lbs/acre/d)
2.4
4.3
2.8
Atmospheric Deposition
197,000
423,000
119,000
Irrigation
1,230,000
1,030,000
785,000
Fertilizer / Land Application
221,000
807,000
1,160,000
Point Sources
7,680
22,500
44,000
Septic Systems
998
1,120
10,300
Mineral Weathering / Rxn Product
61,700
49,200
333,000
Total Outputs (lbs/acre/d)
1,670,000
2,050,000
1,890,000
2.3
3.7
2.2
Net Plant Uptake / Reaction Decay
130,000
406,000
959,000
Outflow to SW
241,000
499,000
41,200
Recharge to Deeper GW
1,300,000
1,150,000
889,000
Change in Storage (lbs/d)
48,000
280,000
565,000
Change in Storage (/ac/d)
0.1
0.5
0.6

30. Mass Balance – Deeper GW TDS
Process
Yolo
Modesto
Tule R.
Land Area
720,778
548,201
871,083
Total Inputs (lbs/d)
1,300,000
1,150,000
889,000
Total Inputs (lbs/acre/d)
1.8
2.1
1.0
Recharge from Near-surface GW
Total Outputs (lbs/d)
919,000
1,060,000
713,000
Total Outputs (lbs/acre/d)
1.3
1.9
0.8
Pumping for Irrigation
873,000
203,000
Pumping for Municipal/Industrial Use
46,000
860,000
Change in Storage (lbs/d)
381,000
87,000
176,000
Change in Storage (/ac/d)
0.5
0.2

31. Mass Balance – SW Nitrate
Process
Yolo
Modesto
Tule R.
NO3-N
Chloride
Land Area
720,778
548,201
871,083
Total Inputs (lbs/d)
14,500
173,000
30,100
6,100
Total Inputs (acre/d)
0.02
0.24
0.05
0.01
Inflows from Upstream
3,720
90,300
19,100
3,130
Imported Water
6,670
44,700
415 52
Inflows from Near-surface GW
2,730
9,920
8,600
2,760
Point Sources
1,310
27,600
1,800
Reaction Product 39
191
161
Total Outputs (lbs/d)
14,700
175,000
30,700
6,170
Total Outputs (acre/d)
0.06
Biological Uptake / Rxn Decay / Settling 30
429
Diversion
2,510
39,500
5,950
2,710
Outflow to Downstream
12,200
135,000
24,300
3,460

32. Mass Balance – Near-Surface GW Nitrate
Process
Yolo
Modesto
Tule R.
NO3-N
Chloride
Land Area
720,778
548,201
871,083
Total Inputs (lbs/d)
45,700
94,100
85,300
205,000
Total Inputs (lbs/acre/d)
0.06
0.13
0.16
0.24
Atmospheric Deposition
1,290
3,960
584
2,550
Irrigation
7,890
77,500
9,070
33,400
Fertilizer / Land Application
28,800
9,960
71,900
109,000
Point Sources 43
2,280
495
184
Septic Systems 0*
245
Mineral Weathering / Rxn Prod.
7,650
200
3,320
60,200
Total Outputs (lbs/d)
40,300
89,400
71,000
133,000
Total Outputs (lbs/acre/d)
0.12
0.15
Net Plant Uptake / Rxn Decay
14,500 22
40,000
111,000
Outflow to Surface Water
2,730
13,300
8,610
2,760
Recharge to Deeper GW
23,000
76,100
22,400
19,000
Change in Storage (lbs/d)
5,460
4,700
14,300
Change in Storage (/ac/d)
0.01
0.03
0.08

33. Mass Balance – Deeper GW Nitrate
Process
Yolo
Modesto
Tule R.
NO3-N
Chloride
Land Area
720,778
548,201
871,083
Total Inputs (lbs/d)
23,000
76,100
22,400
19,000
Total Inputs (lbs/acre/d)
0.03
0.11
0.04
0.02
Recharge from Near-surface Groundwater
Total Outputs (lbs/d)
9,920
89,100
19,800
34,600
Total Outputs (lbs/acre/d)
0.01
0.12
Pumping for Irrigation
9,440
84,000
3,100
Pumping for Mun/Industrial Use
481
5,100
16,700
Change in Storage (lbs/d)
13,100
-13,000
2,600
-15,600
Change in Storage (/ac/d)
(0.02)
0.00

34. Trend Analysis: NO3-N Tule (MODPATH)
WARMF Model Download
URL: ftp://systechwater.com username: cvsalts password: nitrate
Questions –  Contact:
Joel Herr
Systech Water Resources, Inc.
Trend Analysis: NO3-N Tule (MODPATH)
Nitrate concentration in the source zone (near water table and areas impacted within 50 years at specified depth below water table.
Note: Groundwater nitrate data averaged and extrapolated across large sub-watersheds. Very coarse-scale approximation.
Source Concentration
(here: measured GW data)

35. List of Data Sources Data Source
No.
Data Source 1.
WARMF Model (default and calibrated values)
10.
Central Valley RWQCB 2.
11.
SWRCB – Calif. Integrated WQ System (CIWQS) 3.
DWR Land Cover Data
12.
Hilmar SEP Report 4.
USGS Land Cover Data
13.
Web H2O 5.
Dairy CARES
14.
Nat’l Atmos. Deposition Program (NADP) 6.
UC Coop. Extension
15.
Clean Air Status and Trend Network (CASTNET) 7.
Western United Dairymen
16.
DWR Hydrologic data 8.
Co. Ag Commissioners
17.
DWR WQ Data 9.
CA Dept. of Food & Ag
18.
EPA-STORET

36. List of Data Sources No. Data Source 19.
California Data Exchange Center (CDEC)
29.
CA Department of Public Health (CDPH)
20.
Bay Delta and Tributary Project
30.
Integrated Groundwater Surface Water Model (IGSM) – Yolo County Area
21.
U.S. Bureau of Reclamation
31.
USGS Central Valley Hydrologic Model (CVHM)
22.
California Irrigation Management Information System (CIMIS)
32.
USGS Water Quality Data
23.
Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP)
33.
Water Resources Information Database (WRID) – Yolo County
24.
USGS Hydrologic Data
34.
CA SWRCB – Geotracker
25.
Local Irrigation and Water Districts
35.
USGS Digital Elevation Models (DEM)
26.
U.S. EPA NPDES Database
36.
Modesto Local MODFLOW Model
27.
SWRCB – (GAMA domestic and LLNL)
37.
Harter Tule River Basin MODFLOW Model
28.
NAWQA
38.
Yolo County Flood Control District

37. Pilot Area Selection Criteria
Major Central Valley hydrologic basins represented (Sacramento River, San Joaquin River, and Tulare Lake)
Advanced application status of WARMF model for the area (previously applied, partially applied, or not currently)
Range of land use classes (including various urban, industrial, commercial, and agricultural)
Relatively advanced status of GW flow models applied
Available GW quality data