DOCSLIB.ORG

California's Groundwater Update 2013: a Compilation of Enhanced Content for California Water Plan Update 2013

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
California's Groundwater Update 2013: a Compilation of Enhanced Content for California Water Plan Update 2013 California’s Groundwater Update 2013 A Compilation of Enhanced Content for California Water Plan Update 2013 April 2015 State of California Natural Resources Agency Department of Water Resources SACRAMENTO RIVER HYDROLOGIC REGION The Sacramento River Hydrologic Region Groundwater Update is dedicated to the memory of our friend and colleague Dean Crippen, whose efforts in the field of groundwater monitoring helped further implement sustainable groundwater management in California. Chapter 7. Sacramento River Hydrologic Region Chapter 7. Sacramento River Hydrologic Region — Table of Contents Chapter 7. Sacramento River Hydrologic Region Groundwater Update .............................................. i Introduction ...............................................................................................................................................1 Findings, Data Gaps, and Recommendations ............................................................................................2 Findings .................................................................................................................................................2 Groundwater Supply and Development ............................................................................................4 Groundwater Use and Aquifer Conditions ........................................................................................4 Groundwater Monitoring Efforts .......................................................................................................5 Groundwater Management and Conjunctive Management ...............................................................5 Data Gaps ..............................................................................................................................................6 Data Collection and Analysis ............................................................................................................6 Basin Assessments.............................................................................................................................6 Sustainable Management ...................................................................................................................7 Recommendations .................................................................................................................................7 Groundwater Supply and Development ....................................................................................................8 Alluvial Aquifers ...................................................................................................................................8 Sacramento Valley Groundwater Basin ..........................................................................................12 Redding Area Groundwater Basin ...................................................................................................13 Alturas Area, Big Valley, and Fall River Valley Groundwater Basins ...........................................13 Irrigation Pump Performance ..........................................................................................................14 Land Subsidence and Aquifer Compaction .....................................................................................16 Fractured-Rock Aquifers .....................................................................................................................17 Well Infrastructure...............................................................................................................................17 CASGEM Basin Prioritization ............................................................................................................22 Groundwater Use .....................................................................................................................................25 2005-2010 Average Annual Groundwater Supply ..............................................................................26 Groundwater Use by County Boundaries ........................................................................................29 Change in Annual Groundwater Use ...............................................................................................30 Groundwater Monitoring Efforts .............................................................................................................32 Groundwater-level Monitoring ............................................................................................................33 Groundwater Quality Monitoring ........................................................................................................38 Land Subsidence Monitoring ..............................................................................................................40 Borehole Extensometer Monitoring ................................................................................................41 GPS Subsidence Monitoring ...........................................................................................................41 Subsidence Monitoring Gaps ..........................................................................................................42 Aquifer Conditions ..................................................................................................................................44 Groundwater Occurrence and Movement............................................................................................45 Depth to Groundwater .....................................................................................................................46 Groundwater Elevations ..................................................................................................................48 Groundwater-level Trends ...............................................................................................................52 Hydrograph 38N07E23E001M....................................................................................................52 Hydrograph 24N02W24D002-4M ..............................................................................................53 i California's Groundwater Update 2013: A Compilation of Enhanced Content for California Water Plan Update 2013 Hydrograph 23N03W13C003-7M .............................................................................................. 53 Hydrograph 21N03W33A004M ................................................................................................. 56 Hydrograph 22N01E28J003M .................................................................................................... 57 Hydrograph 14N01E14G001M ................................................................................................... 58 Hydrograph 15N04E28D001M ................................................................................................... 58 Hydrograph 10N01W06D001M ................................................................................................. 59 Hydrograph 06N01W24N001M ................................................................................................. 59 Hydrograph 07N06E08H001M ................................................................................................... 60 Change in Groundwater in Storage ..................................................................................................... 60 Spring 2005 to Spring 2010 Change in Groundwater in Storage .................................................... 62 Groundwater Quality .......................................................................................................................... 66 Groundwater Quality at Community Drinking Water Wells .......................................................... 67 Groundwater Quality - GAMA Priority Basin Project ................................................................... 68 Groundwater Quality at Domestic Wells ........................................................................................ 73 Groundwater Quality Protection ..................................................................................................... 73 Groundwater Quality Protection Strategy ................................................................................... 75 Salt and Nutrient Management Plans .......................................................................................... 75 Land Subsidence ................................................................................................................................. 76 Groundwater Management ...................................................................................................................... 78 Groundwater Management Plan Inventory ......................................................................................... 81 Groundwater Management Plan Assessment ...................................................................................... 89 Required GWMP Components ....................................................................................................... 89 Basin Management Objectives .................................................................................................... 92 Monitoring Protocols .................................................................................................................. 92 Voluntary GWMP Components ...................................................................................................... 92 Bulletin 118-2003 Recommended
Load more

Recommended publications
  • (P 117-140) Flood Pulse.Qxp
    117 THE FLOOD PULSE CONCEPT: NEW ASPECTS, APPROACHES AND APPLICATIONS - AN UPDATE Junk W.J. Wantzen K.M. Max-Planck-Institute for Limnology, Working Group Tropical Ecology, P.O. Box 165, 24302 Plön, Germany E-mail: [email protected] ABSTRACT The flood pulse concept (FPC), published in 1989, was based on the scientific experience of the authors and published data worldwide. Since then, knowledge on floodplains has increased considerably, creating a large database for testing the predictions of the concept. The FPC has proved to be an integrative approach for studying highly diverse and complex ecological processes in river-floodplain systems; however, the concept has been modified, extended and restricted by several authors. Major advances have been achieved through detailed studies on the effects of hydrology and hydrochemistry, climate, paleoclimate, biogeography, biodi- versity and landscape ecology and also through wetland restoration and sustainable management of flood- plains in different latitudes and continents. Discussions on floodplain ecology and management are greatly influenced by data obtained on flow pulses and connectivity, the Riverine Productivity Model and the Multiple Use Concept. This paper summarizes the predictions of the FPC, evaluates their value in the light of recent data and new concepts and discusses further developments in floodplain theory. 118 The flood pulse concept: New aspects, INTRODUCTION plain, where production and degradation of organic matter also takes place. Rivers and floodplain wetlands are among the most threatened ecosystems. For example, 77 percent These characteristics are reflected for lakes in of the water discharge of the 139 largest river systems the “Seentypenlehre” (Lake typology), elaborated by in North America and Europe is affected by fragmen- Thienemann and Naumann between 1915 and 1935 tation of the river channels by dams and river regula- (e.g.
    [Show full text]
  • Probabilistic Extreme Flood Hydrographs That Use Paleoflood Data for Dam Safety Applications
    Probabilistic Extreme Flood Hydrographs That Use PaleoFlood Data for Dam Safety Applications Dam Safety Office Report No. DSO-03-03 Department of the Interior Bureau of Reclamation June 2003 Contents Page Introduction................................................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Background..................................................................................................................................2 1.2 Objectives....................................................................................................................................4 1.3 Acknowledgements .....................................................................................................................4 Probabilistic Extreme Flood Hydrographs from Streamflow Sampling................................. 5 2.1 General Procedure .......................................................................................................................5 2.2 Example Applications................................................................................................................11 Probabilitic Extreme Flood Hydrographs Using Rainfall-Runoff Models............................ 18 3.1 General Procedure .....................................................................................................................19 3.2 Example Applications s.............................................................................................................20 Reservoir Routing
    [Show full text]
  • Stormwater Design Manual Chapter Three
    CHAPTER 3 HYDROLOGY Chapter 3 HYDROLOGY Table of Contents 3.1 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................... 2 3.2 HYDROLOGIC DESIGN POLICIES........................................................................ 2 3.2.1 FULLY DEVELO PED CONDITIONS......................................................................... 3 3.2.2 DRAINAG E AREA ............................................................................................... 4 3.2.3 RAINFALL DATA AND INTENSITY .......................................................................... 4 3.3 TIME OF CONCENTRATION ................................................................................. 4 3.3.1 SCS METHOD................................................................................................... 5 3.3.1.1 Lag Time .................................................................................................. 5 3.3.1.2 Travel Time .............................................................................................. 5 3.3.1.3 Sheet Flow ............................................................................................... 6 3.3.1.4 Shallow Concentrated Flow....................................................................... 7 3.3.1.5 Channelized Flow ..................................................................................... 7 3.3.2 KIRPICH EQUATION ........................................................................................... 8 3.4 RATIONAL METHOD............................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Impacts of a Flood Pulsing Hydrology on Plants and Invertebrates in Riparian Wetlands
    IMPACTS OF A FLOOD PULSING HYDROLOGY ON PLANTS AND INVERTEBRATES IN RIPARIAN WETLANDS A dissertation submitted to Kent State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy by Maureen K. Drinkard August 2012 Dissertation written by Maureen K. Drinkard B.S., Kent State University, 2003 Ph.D., Kent State University, 2012 Approved by ___Ferenc de Szalay_, Chair, Doctoral Dissertation Committee ___Mark Kershner_______, Members, Doctoral Dissertation Committee _____Oscar Rocha________, ____Mandy Munro-Stasiuk_, Accepted by _____James Blank______, Chair, Department of Biological Sciences ______Raymond Craig___, Dean, College of Arts and Sciences ii TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF FIGURES ............................................................................................................... vi LIST OF TABLES ................................................................................................................. vii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS .................................................................................................... x CHAPTER I. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................ 1 Dissertation Goals ............................................................................................. 1 Definition of the Flood Pulse Concept .............................................................. 2 Ecological and economic importance ............................................................... 3 Impacts of environmental
    [Show full text]
  • Tracing Sediment Sources with Meteoric 10Be: Linking Erosion And
    Tracing sediment sources with meteoric 10Be: Linking erosion and the hydrograph Final Report: submitted June 20, 2012 PI: Patrick Belmont Utah State University, Department of Watershed Sciences University of Minnesota, National Center for Earth-surface Dynamics Background and Motivation for the Study Sediment is a natural constituent of river ecosystems. Yet, in excess quantities sediment can severely degrade water quality and aquatic ecosystem health. This problem is especially common in rivers that drain agricultural landscapes (Trimble and Crosson, 2000; Montgomery, 2007). Currently, sediment is one of the leading causes of impairment in rivers of the US and globally (USEPA, 2011; Palmer et al., 2000). Despite extraordinary efforts, sediment remains one of the most difficult nonpoint-source pollutants to quantify at the watershed scale (Walling, 1983; Langland et al., 2007; Smith et al., 2011). Developing a predictive understanding of watershed sediment yield has proven especially difficult in low-relief landscapes. Challenges arise due to several common features of these landscapes, including a) source and sink areas are defined by very subtle topographic features that often cannot be detected even with relatively high resolution topography data (15 cm vertical uncertainty), b) humans have dramatically altered water and sediment routing processes, the effects of which are exceedingly difficult to capture in a conventional watershed hydrology/erosion model (Wilkinson and McElroy, 2007; Montgomery, 2007); and c) as sediment is routed through a river network it is actively exchanged between the channel and floodplain, a dynamic that is difficult to model at the channel network scale (Lauer and Parker, 2008). Thus, while models can be useful to understand sediment dynamics at the landscape scale and predict changes in sediment flux and water quality in response to management actions in a watershed, several key processes are difficult to constrain to a satisfactory degree.
    [Show full text]
  • September 8, 2008 RUNOFF CALCULATIONS the Following
    BEE 473 Watershed Engineering Fall 2004 RUNOFF CALCULATIONS The following provide the minimum necessary equations for determining runoff from a design storm, i.e., a storm with duration ≈ to the watershed’s time of concentration. When peak flow is the critical design parameter engineers usually design for this storm duration because it represents the most intense storm (shortest duration) for which the entire watershed contributes flow to the outlet. This section emphasizes peak runoff; we will discuss design criteria for runoff volume later in conjunction with ponds, flood routing, and detention basin design A. Time of Concentration: B. Rational Method C. Curve Number Method 1. Calculating Runoff Volume 2. Synthetic Triangular Hydrograph 3. Calculating Peak Runoff (NRCS Graphical Method) September 8, 2008 BEE 473 Watershed Engineering Fall 2004 A. Time of Concentration Equations Dozens of equations have been proposed for the time of concentration. Below are four of the most commonly used that generally agree with each other within 25%. Eqs. A.3 and A.4 consistently predict longer times of concentration, especially for low runoff potentials. The following were adopted from Chow (19XX) 0.77 -0.385 Kirpich (1940): tc = 0.0078L S (A.1) where tc = time of concentration (min.) L = length of channel or ditch from headwater to outlet (ft) S = average watershed slope L1.15 Soil Conservation Service (SCS) (1972): t = (A.2) c 7700H 0.38 where tc = time of concentration (hr) L = length of longest flow path (ft) H = difference in elevation between
    [Show full text]
  • Influences on Watershed Hydrology
    Modeling Sediment Loss on Geomorphic Graded Reforestation Lands in Kentucky Geomorphic Reclamation and Natural Stream Design at Coal Mines: A Technical Interactive Forum Richard C. Warner, Carmen T. Agouridis, and Christopher D. Barton April 29, 2009 1 Sustainable Mining/Reclamation • Similar (minor changes) – Hydrology – Sediment – Water quality • chemistry • organic material • nutrients – Visual • geomorphic – land form – natural streams • forest 2 Objective • Contrast hydrologic and sediment response of two alternative head-of-hollow fill design and reclamation techniques – Traditional (compacted spoil with grass cover) – Geomorphic (landform, natural streams and Forest Reclamation Approach) 3 CURRENT FUTURE Forest Forest Cont our Mining Count our Mining Dit ch Weep Berm Dit ch Weep Berm Dit ch Dit ch Ro ck Rip-Rap Head-of-hollow Ephemeral Head-of-hollow Channel Compact ed Fill Loose-dumped Nat ural St ream Ephemeral Fill Ro ck Two Porous Rip - Rap Check Dams Channel S e d i ment Po nd Flocculat ion S e d i ment Po nd 4 Objective • Design a head-of-hollow fill that mimics the natural landform, forest, hydrology and erosion of pre-development natural Appalachian forest – peak flow – runoff volume – hydrograph characteristics – erosion rates – sediment concentration and loads 5 Key Modeling Timeframes • Natural forest • Traditional head-of-hollow fill – compacted spoil – grass vegetated cover • Geomorphic head-of-hollow – loose-dumped spoil overlays compacted fill – ephemeral and intermittent streams – forest cover 6 Key Modeling Parameters
    [Show full text]
  • Timing of Each Process Forms the Full Hydrograph
    STREAM HYDROGRAPH - PLOT OF DISCHARGE VS TIME AT ONE LOCATION DISCHARGE - VOLUME OF WATER FLOWING PAST A POINT OVER A TIME Timing of each process forms the full hydrograph The RUNOFF CYCLE - Events During Precipitation COMPONENTS OF STREAMFLOW & STREAM/AQUIFER INTERACTION Consider how the timing of these processes affect infiltration and runoff Ground Water RECHARGE is the water that reaches the water table Base Flow is the portion of stream flow from Ground Water that discharges to the stream 1 RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PRECIPITATION AND INFILTRATION Precipitation Rate Infiltration Capacity No depression storage or overland flow ration rate biifiliibecause precip rate << infiltration capacity Infilt infiltration depression storage begins to fill immediately time depression storage due to starthigh overland precip flow rate begins to fill after time t1 depression storage depression storage rate ate ate r start overland flow r overland flow overland flow Infiltration Infiltration Precipitation Precipitation infiltration infiltration time time HYDROGRAPH FOR ONE STORM @ one point DIRECT PERCIPITATION 2 To Manage Water, We Want to Know How Often a Flow Is Equaled or Exceeded DURATION CURVE - % of Time a Flow Is Equaled or Exceeded Plot of Discharge vs Probability of Occurrence To create: Rank Flows, as m, From Highest to Lowest 1 to N If 2 Values Are Equal, Assign Separate Rank P = 100 * (m/(n+1)) Normalize flow by basin area to compare basins of different size More severe floods e. g. crystalline rock, very little soil, poor infiltration,These rapid can be generated runoff, high peak flows, low basefor any flows type of flow: Moderateaverage conditions annual, in averageglacial outwash daily, with good infiltrationlow flow, peak but rapidflow, etcthrough Q___ flow, moderate peak and base flows BasinArea Mild floods e.g.
    [Show full text]
  • First Flush Study 1999-2000 Report
    First Flush Study 1999-2000 Report June 2000 CTSW-RT-00-016 Contents Executive Summary Section 1 Introduction .................................................................................................. 1-1 1.1 Background ...............................................................................................................1-1 1.2 Overview of the First Flush Study .........................................................................1-1 1.2.1................................................................................................. Program Objective 1-1 1.2.2.......................................................................................................... Study Design 1-2 1.3 Report Organization.................................................................................................1-2 Section 2 Monitoring Locations and Equipment..................................................... 2-1 2.1 Monitoring Locations...............................................................................................2-1 2.2 Monitoring Equipment ............................................................................................2-6 Section 3 Sampling Handling, Analytical Methods, and Procedures................. 3-1 3.1 Storm Water Sampling.............................................................................................3-1 3.2 Wet Weather Response ............................................................................................3-1 3.3 Key Water Quality Constituents ............................................................................3-3
    [Show full text]
  • 28. AC20 Penright
    Downstream Sediment Interception A Unique Application for Proprietary Best Management Practice (BMP) Technology Peter Enright My Background Role at • Civil Site and Infrastructure Group • 6.5 years in the water/engineering industry • Design of water/wastewater/stormwater infrastructure • Master planning and hydraulic/hydrologic modelling Today’s Presentation Outline • Rainfall, Runoff and Water Quality • Downstream Structural BMP Application • Regulation of Sediment Removal and Sizing BMPs • Alternative Analysis Methodology • Conclusions Rainfall, Runoff and Water Quality Catchment Response Storm Event Surface Runoff Stormwater • Total Depth • Cover Type • Hydrology of Rainfall • Topography • Inlet Types • Distribution • Infiltration • Land Use Over Time • Connectivity • Pretreatment Hyetograph Hydrograph Catchment Response Examples Parking Lot Catchment Response Examples Sports Field Water Quality Overview Typical Stormwater Pollutants • Sediment AKA Total Suspended Solids (TSS) • Nitrogen, Phosphorus, Chloride, and Hydrocarbons • Micro-organisms and Toxic Organics Predicting Water Quality Factors Effecting Stormwater Pollutant Load • Land Use/Type of Pollutants Present • Frequency of Cleaning/Flushing Rainfall • Hydrology and Treatment Train • Intensity and Duration of Rainfall Event Concept of “First Flush” ➢ Pollutant concentration varies over time Unique BMP Application Existing Upstream Catchment Area Minimal TSS removal Opportunity Downstream Intercept upstream TSS • Retroactive treatment • Minimize downstream maintenance Regulation
    [Show full text]
  • Putah Creek Watershed Watershed Assessment and Water Quality Monitoring Proposal June 28, 2004
    Napa County Putah Creek Watershed Watershed Assessment and Water Quality Monitoring Proposal June 28, 2004 Lower Chiles Valley, Napa County Putah Creek Drainage Prepared By: Phillip Blake, USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service, Napa Sandy Elles & Jennifer Kopp, Napa County Farm Bureau Dave Whitmer, Napa County Agricultural Commissioner Bob Zlomke, Napa Co. Resource Conservation District Napa County Putah Creek Watershed Group Steering Committee: Sally Kimsey Jim Frisinger Tucker Catlin Robert Craig Jack Todeschini Don Clark Advisor: Diane Dillon, Supervisor, Dist. 4 1 2 Introduction In July, 2003, the Napa County Farm Bureau organized an informational meeting of landowners and farm agency representatives, to discuss local ramifications for the removal of agricultural waste discharge waivers in the Putah Creek watershed. Following this initial exploration of information known about Irrigated Lands Waivers, the NC Farm Bureau invited farmers in the Napa County Putah Creek area to join a coalition and apply for a group waiver. The group would organize to share best management practices and conduct water quality monitoring. Since that initial meeting, representatives from Napa County Farm Bureau, USDA Natural Resouces Conservation Service, (NRCS) Napa County Resource Conservation District, (NCRCD), UC Cooperative Extension, and the Napa County Agricultural Commissioner have further studied the issue and determined that irrigated lands in the area are primarily drip-irrigated wine grape vineyards. These farm operations typically employ minimal use of chemical inputs and utilize farm cultural practices that present a very limited potential to impact downstream waters with pollutants of concern. Water quality issues have been extensively discussed and addressed through various processes, including 2 different county watershed task forces and several technical advisory bodies, since 1989.
    [Show full text]
  • Northern Calfornia Water Districts & Water Supply Sources
    WHERE DOES OUR WATER COME FROM? Quincy Corning k F k N F , M R , r R e er th th a a Magalia e Fe F FEATHER RIVER NORTH FORK Shasta Lake STATE WATER PROJECT Chico Orland Paradise k F S , FEATHER RIVER MIDDLE FORK R r STATE WATER PROJECT e Sacramento River th a e F Tehama-Colusa Canal Durham Folsom Lake LAKE OROVILLE American River N Yuba R STATE WATER PROJECT San Joaquin R. Contra Costa Canal JACKSON MEADOW RES. New Melones Lake LAKE PILLSBURY Yuba Co. W.A. Marin M.W.D. Willows Old River Stanislaus R North Marin W.D. Oroville Sonoma Co. W.A. NEW BULLARDS BAR RES. Ukiah P.U. Yuba Co. W.A. Madera Canal Delta-Mendota Canal Millerton Lake Fort Bragg Palermo YUBA CO. W.A Kern River Yuba River San Luis Reservoir Jackson Meadows and Willits New Bullards Bar Reservoirs LAKE SPAULDING k Placer Co. W.A. F MIDDLE FORK YUBA RIVER TRUCKEE-DONNER P.U.D E Gridley Nevada I.D. , Nevada I.D. Groundwater Friant-Kern Canal R n ia ss u R Central Valley R ba Project Yu Nevada City LAKE MENDOCINO FEATHER RIVER BEAR RIVER Marin M.W.D. TEHAMA-COLUSA CANAL STATE WATER PROJECT YUBA RIVER Nevada I.D. Fk The Central Valley Project has been founded by the U.S. Bureau of North Marin W.D. CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT , N Yuba Co. W.A. Grass Valley n R Reclamation in 1935 to manage the water of the Sacramento and Sonoma Co. W.A. ica mer Ukiah P.U.
    [Show full text]