DOCSLIB.ORG

North Coast Hydrologic Region

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
North Coast Hydrologic Region 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 NORTH COAST HYDROLOGIC REGION Chapter 3. North Coast Hydrologic Region Groundwater Update Contents Chapter 3. North Coast Hydrologic Region Groundwater Update ........................................... 1 Introduction .................................................................................................................................. 1 Findings, Data Gaps, and Recommendations .............................................................................. 3 Findings ................................................................................................................................... 3 Groundwater Supply and Development ............................................................................... 3 Groundwater Use and Aquifer Conditions........................................................................... 4 Groundwater Monitoring Efforts ......................................................................................... 4 Groundwater Management and Conjunctive Management.................................................. 4 Data Gaps ................................................................................................................................. 5 Data Collection and Analysis ............................................................................................... 5 Groundwater Basin Assessments ......................................................................................... 5 Sustainable Management ..................................................................................................... 6 Recommendations .................................................................................................................... 6 Groundwater Supply and Development ....................................................................................... 7 Alluvial Aquifers ..................................................................................................................... 7 Klamath River Valley Groundwater Basin ........................................................................ 10 Santa Rosa Valley Groundwater Basin .............................................................................. 10 Wilson Grove Formation Highlands Groundwater Basin .................................................. 11 Alexander Valley Groundwater Basin ............................................................................... 11 Eel River Valley Groundwater Basin................................................................................. 11 Butte Valley Groundwater Basin ....................................................................................... 12 Shasta Valley Groundwater Basin ..................................................................................... 12 Scott River Groundwater Basin ......................................................................................... 12 Fractured-Rock Aquifers ....................................................................................................... 13 Klamath River Valley Groundwater Basin ........................................................................ 13 Butte Valley Groundwater Basin ....................................................................................... 14 Shasta Valley Groundwater Basin ..................................................................................... 14 Well Infrastructure ................................................................................................................. 15 CASGEM Basin Prioritization ............................................................................................... 19 Groundwater Use ....................................................................................................................... 22 2005-2010 Average Annual Groundwater Supply ................................................................. 22 Groundwater Use by Planning Area Boundaries ............................................................... 23 Groundwater Use by County Boundaries .......................................................................... 24 Change in Annual Groundwater Use ................................................................................. 25 Groundwater Monitoring Efforts ............................................................................................... 27 Groundwater-Level Monitoring ............................................................................................. 28 Groundwater Quality Monitoring .......................................................................................... 30 Land Subsidence Monitoring ................................................................................................. 31 Aquifer Conditions ..................................................................................................................... 34 Groundwater Occurrence and Movement .............................................................................. 34 Depth to Groundwater........................................................................................................ 35 Groundwater Elevations..................................................................................................... 35 Groundwater-Level Trends ................................................................................................ 36 Hydrograph 48N04E31N002M ...................................................................................... 36 Hydrograph 44N06W10F001M ..................................................................................... 37 Hydrograph 02N01W08B001H ..................................................................................... 40 Hydrograph 06N08W15J003M ...................................................................................... 40 i California's Groundwater Update 2013: A Compilation of Enhanced Content for California Water Plan Update 2013 Change in Groundwater in Storage ........................................................................................ 41 Groundwater Quality ............................................................................................................. 42 Groundwater Quality at Community Drinking Water Wells ............................................. 42 Groundwater Quality Analysis of Domestic Wells ............................................................ 43 Groundwater Quality — GAMA Priority Basin Project .................................................... 45 Land Subsidence .................................................................................................................... 46 Groundwater Management ......................................................................................................... 48 Groundwater Management Plan Inventory ............................................................................ 49 Groundwater Management Plan Assessment ......................................................................... 52 Required GWMP Components .......................................................................................... 53 Basin Management Objectives ....................................................................................... 54 Agency Cooperation ...................................................................................................... 55 Mapping ......................................................................................................................... 55 Monitoring Protocols ..................................................................................................... 55 Voluntary GWMP Components ......................................................................................... 55 Bulletin 118-2003–Recommended GWMP Components .................................................. 57 DWR/ACWA Survey — Key Factors for Successful GWMP Implementation ................ 58 DWR/ACWA Survey — Key Factors Limiting GWMP Success ..................................... 59 DWR/ACWA Survey — Opinions of Groundwater Sustainability ................................... 59 Groundwater Ordinances ....................................................................................................... 59 Special Act Districts .............................................................................................................. 60 Court Adjudication of Groundwater Rights ........................................................................... 61 Other Groundwater Management Planning Efforts ............................................................... 63 Integrated Regional Water Management Plans .................................................................. 63 Urban Water Management Plans ....................................................................................... 64 Agricultural Water Management Plans .............................................................................. 64 Conjunctive Management Inventory .......................................................................................... 66 Conjunctive Management Inventory Results ..................................................................... 68 References .................................................................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Springs of California
    DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR UNITED STATES GEOLOGICAL SURVEY GEORGE OTIS SMITH, DIBECTOB WATER- SUPPLY PAPER 338 SPRINGS OF CALIFORNIA BY GEKALD A. WARING WASHINGTON GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 1915 CONTENTS. Page. lntroduction by W. C. Mendenhall ... .. ................................... 5 Physical features of California ...... ....... .. .. ... .. ....... .............. 7 Natural divisions ................... ... .. ........................... 7 Coast Ranges ..................................... ....•.......... _._._ 7 11 ~~:~~::!:: :~~e:_-_-_·.-.·.·: ~::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ::::: ::: 12 Sierra Nevada .................... .................................... 12 Southeastern desert ......................... ............. .. ..... ... 13 Faults ..... ....... ... ................ ·.. : ..... ................ ..... 14 Natural waters ................................ _.......................... 15 Use of terms "mineral water" and ''pure water" ............... : .·...... 15 ,,uneral analysis of water ................................ .. ... ........ 15 Source and amount of substances in water ................. ............. 17 Degree of concentration of natural waters ........................ ..· .... 21 Properties of mineral waters . ................... ...... _. _.. .. _... _....• 22 Temperature of natural waters ... : ....................... _.. _..... .... : . 24 Classification of mineral waters ............ .......... .. .. _. .. _......... _ 25 Therapeutic value of waters .................................... ... ... 26 Analyses
    [Show full text]
  • Big River Basin Assessment November 2006
    Coastal Watershed Planning Assessment Program Big River Basin Assessment November 2006 State of California Governor, Arnold Schwarzenegger California Resources Agency California Environmental Protection Agency Secretary, Mike Chrisman Secretary, Alan Lloyd North Coast Watershed Assessment Program Participants Contributing Agencies and Departments Department of Fish and Game State Water Resources Control Board Director, Loris “Ryan” Broddrick Chair, Art Baggett Department of Forestry and Fire Protection North Coast Regional Water Director, Dale Gildert Quality Control Board Executive Officer, Catherine Kuhlman Department of Water Resources Department of Conservation Director, Lester A. Snow Interim Director, Debbie Sareeram Big River Assessment Team Assessment Manager Scott Downie California Department of Fish and Game Fisheries: Steve Cannata California Department of Fish and Game Beatrijs deWaard Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission Cynthia LeDoux-Bloom California Department of Fish and Game Forestry and Land Use: Rob Rutland California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection Water Quality: Elmer Dudik North Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board Geology: Karin W. Fresnel Department of Conservation/California Geological Survey Fluvial Geomorphology: Dawn McGuire Department of Conservation/California Geological Survey Currently Department of Fish and Game Geographic Information System, Data Management, Ecological Management Decision System (EMDS) Vikki Avara-Snider – GIS & Document Production Pacific States Marine Fisheries
    [Show full text]
  • CHAPTER 4.1 Hydrology
    CHAPTER 4.1 Hydrology 4.1.1 Introduction This chapter describes the existing hydrologic conditions within the Fish Habitat Flows and Water Rights Project Area. Section 4.1.2, “Environmental Setting” describes the regional and project area environmental setting, including important water bodies and related infrastructure, surface and groundwater hydrology, geomorphology, and flooding. Section 4.1.3, “Regulatory Setting” details the federal, state, and local laws related to hydrology. Potential impacts to these resources resulting from the proposed project are analyzed in Section 4.1.4, “Impact Analysis” in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) significance criteria (CEQA Guidelines, Appendix G) and mitigation measures are proposed that could reduce, eliminate, or avoid such impacts. Other impacts to related resources are addressed in other chapters as follows: impacts to water quality are addressed in Chapter 4.2, Water Quality; impacts to fish are addressed in Chapter 4.3, Fisheries Resources; and impacts to recreation are addressed in Chapter 4.5, Recreation. 4.1.2 Environmental Setting The environmental setting for hydrology includes all areas that could be affected by activities associated with the Proposed Project. As stated in Chapter 3, Background and Project Description, the objective of the Fish Flow Project is to manage Lake Mendocino and Lake Sonoma water supply releases to provide instream flows that will improve habitat for threatened and endangered fish, while updating the Water Agency’s existing water rights to reflect current conditions. The Water Agency would manage water supply releases from Lake Mendocino and Lake Sonoma to provide minimum instream flows in the Russian River and Dry Creek that would improve habitat for listed salmonids and meet the requirements of the Russian River Biological Opinion.
    [Show full text]
  • 1 Collections
    A. andersonii A. Gray SANTA CRUZ MANZANITA San Mateo Along Skyline Blvd. between Gulch Road and la Honda Rd. (A. regismontana?) Santa Cruz Along Empire Grade, about 2 miles north of its intersection with Alba Grade. Lat. N. 37° 07', Long. 122° 10' W. Altitude about 2550 feet. Santa Cruz Aong grade (summit) 0.8 mi nw Alba Road junction (2600 ft elev. above and nw of Ben Lomond (town)) - Empire Grade Santa Cruz Near Summit of Opal Creek Rd., Big Basin Redwood State Park. Santa Cruz Near intersection of Empire Grade and Alba Grade. ben Lomond Mountain. Santa Cruz Along China Grade, 0.2 miles NW of its intersection with the Big Basin-Saratoga Summit Rd. Santa Cruz Nisene Marks State Park, Aptos Creek watershed; under PG&E high-voltage transmission line on eastern rim of the creek canyon Santa Cruz Along Redwood Drive 1.5 miles up (north of) from Monte Toyon Santa Cruz Miller's Ranch, summit between Gilroy and Watsonville. Santa Cruz At junction of Alba Road and Empire Road Ben Lomond Ridge summit Santa Cruz Sandy ridges near Bonny Doon - Santa Cruz Mountains Santa Cruz 3 miles NW of Santa Cruz, on upper UC Santa Cruz campus, Marshall Fields Santa Cruz Mt. Madonna Road along summit of the Santa Cruz Mountains. Between Lands End and Manzanitas School. Lat. N. 37° 02', Long. 121° 45' W; elev. 2000 feet Monterey Moro Road, Prunedale (A. pajaroensis?) A. auriculata Eastw. MT. DIABLO MANZANITA Contra Costa Between two major cuts of Cowell Cement Company (w face of ridge) - Mount Diablo, Lime Ridge Contra Costa Immediately south of Nortonville; 37°57'N, 121°53'W Contra Costa Top Pine Canyon Ridge (s-facing slope between the two forks) - Mount Diablo, Emmons Canyon (off Stone Valley) Contra Costa Near fire trail which runs s from large spur (on meridian) heading into Sycamore Canyon - Mount Diablo, Inner Black Hills Contra Costa Off Summit Dr.
    [Show full text]
  • Late Neogene and Quaternary Landscape Evolution of the Northern California Coast Ranges: Evidence for Mendocino Triple Junction Tectonics
    Late Neogene and Quaternary landscape evolution of the northern California Coast Ranges: Evidence for Mendocino triple junction tectonics Jane Lock† Department of Geosciences, Pennsylvania State University, University Park, Pennsylvania 16802, USA Harvey Kelsey‡ Department of Geology, Humboldt State University, Arcata, California 95521, USA Kevin Furlong§ Department of Geosciences, Pennsylvania State University, University Park, Pennsylvania 16802, USA Adam Woolace# Department of Geology, Humboldt State University, Arcata, California 95521, USA ABSTRACT the double-humped pattern of uplift and our understanding of the lithospheric forces subsidence migrates, and the Coast Ranges that have built the orogen, and recognizing the A landscape records the surface response emerge. Smaller drainages develop and tectonic signal recorded by the landscape. We to tectonics at time scales intermedi- evolve by stream capture and fl ow reversal, describe how the surface responds to tectonics ate between short time-scale information and the two main divides migrate in concert in northern California, and we use the tectonic derived from seismic imaging and global with the triple junction. In contrast to the signal contained in the landscape to test and positioning systems and the long-term geo- systematic development of the small streams, develop our understanding of the geodynamics. logic record. We link late Neogene and the largest trunk streams can maintain grade A variety of mechanisms has been proposed Quaternary deposits and landforms in the through regions of high uplift, and coastal to explain the timing of uplift of the northern northern California Coast Ranges to the tec- river mouths remain stationary despite the California Coast Ranges. Dumitru (1989), using tonics of the Mendocino triple junction.
    [Show full text]
  • 1 CERTIFIED for PUBLICATION in the COURT of APPEAL of the STATE of CALIFORNIA THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Sacramento) ---CENTRAL
    Filed 1/5/18 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Sacramento) ---- CENTRAL COAST FOREST ASSOCIATION et al., C060569 Plaintiffs and Respondents, (Super. Ct. No. 07CS00851) v. OPINION ON REMAND FISH AND GAME COMMISSION, Defendant and Appellant. APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Sacramento County, Gail D. Ohanesian, Judge. (Retired judge of the Sacramento Super. Ct., assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to art. VI, § 6 of the Cal. Const.) Reversed. Edmund G. Brown, Jr., Kamala D. Harris and Xavier Becerra Attorneys General, Mary E. Hackenbracht, Kathleen A. Kenealy and Robert W. Byrne, Assistant Attorneys General, Sara J. Russell, Gavin G. McCabe, Tara L. Mueller and Cecilia L. Dennis, Deputy Attorneys General, for Defendant and Appellant. Deborah A. Sivas, Robb W. Kapla and Molly Loughney for Environmental Law Clinic, Center for Biological Diversity, Turtle Island Restoration Network, California Trout, Central Coast Forest Watch and Lompico Watershed Conservancy as Amici Curiae on behalf of Defendant and Appellant. Murphy & Buchal and James L. Buchal for Plaintiffs and Respondents. Damien M. Schiff and Anthony L. Francois for Pacific Legal Foundation as Amicus Curiae on behalf of Plaintiffs and Respondents. 1 The California Endangered Species Act (Fish & G. Code, § 2050 et seq., hereafter CESA)1 provides that a wild, native, species may be added to or removed from the regulation listing endangered species by a finding of the Fish and Game Commission (Commission) based on scientific information from the Department of Fish and Wildlife (department).2 (§§ 2074.6, 2075.5.) The standard for adding a wild, native species is that it is in serious danger of extinction.
    [Show full text]
  • ELK CONSERVATION and MANAGEMENT PLAN December 2018 CONTENTS
    ELK CONSERVATION AND MANAGEMENT PLAN December 2018 CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 4 I. INTRODUCTION 10 A. Goals and Objectives 13 B. Taxonomy and Historical Distribution 15 C. Life History and Habitat 18 D. Distribution and Population Status Since 1970 22 E. Historical and Ongoing Management Efforts by the Department and California Tribes 30 II. CONSERVATION AND MANAGEMENT 32 A. Adaptive Management 32 B. Population Monitoring 33 C. Population Viability and Genetic Diversity 36 D. Disease Surveillance 38 E. Co-Management with California Federally Recognized Tribes & Tribal Traditional Uses and Knowledge 40 F. Hunting 41 G. Depredation Response and Alleviation 43 H. Human Dimensions 44 2 III. UNRESOLVED MANAGEMENT ISSUES AND INFORMATION NEEDS 45 A. Key Uncertainties 45 B. Research Needs to Inform Management 49 IV. MANAGEMENT ACTIONS 53 A. Strategy for Implementation and Evaluation 53 B. Priority Actions 53 V. PLAN REVIEW AND REVISION 54 VI. LITERATURE CITED 55 VII. GLOSSARY OF ACRONYMS AND TERMS 66 VIII. LIST OF FIGURES and TABLES 67 IX. APPENDICES 68 3 FROM OUR DIRECTOR It is remarkable that in a state with nearly 40 million people, one of the largest, most iconic land mammals in North America is one of our most successful conservation stories. Elk, or Wapiti, meaning “ghost kings” as named by the Shawnee Indians due to the animals’ elusive behavior are coming back from a precipitous population decline. The Department of Fish and Wildlife is proud to present this adaptive, scientifically based management plan that considers the many challenges facing elk in the most populous state in the nation. We’ve come a long way.
    [Show full text]
  • Geology and Ground Water in Russian River Valley Areas and in Round, Laytonville and Little Lake Valleys Sonoma and Mendocino Counties, California
    Geology and Ground Water in Russian River Valley Areas and in Round, Laytonville and Little Lake Valleys Sonoma and Mendocino Counties, California By G. T. CARDWELL GEOLOGICAL SURVEY WATER-SUPPLY PAPER 1548 Prepared in cooperation with the California Department of Jf^ater Resources UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE, WASHINGTON : 1965 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR STEWART L. UDALL, Secretary GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Thomas B. Nolan, Director For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office Washington, D.C. 20402 CONTENTS Page Abstract_____________________________________________________ 1 Introduction... _______________________________________________ 1 Purpose and scope_____-________________-___-_______----__-___- 1 Location of the area______________________-___________-___ ___ 2 Previous investigations.________________________________________ 2 Methods of investigation__________________________.____________ 4 Acknowledgments- _____-___-________-____-_---_-_------._----_ 5 Well-numbering system________________________________________ 5 Geography______________________________________________________ 6 Physiography and drainage_____________________________________ 6 Description of subareas_______________________________________ 8 Climate.____________________________________________________ 11 General features__-__-_-_____---__-_-_----__-__--_-__------ 11 Precipitation..._________________________________________ 12 Cultural features and natural resources.______________________ 12 Water utilization_______________________________________
    [Show full text]
  • North Coast Hydrologic Region
    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 NORTH COAST HYDROLOGIC REGION Chapter 3. North Coast Hydrologic Region Groundwater Update Contents Chapter 3. North Coast Hydrologic Region Groundwater Update ........................................... 1 Introduction .................................................................................................................................. 1 Findings, Data Gaps, and Recommendations .............................................................................. 3 Findings ................................................................................................................................... 3 Groundwater Supply and Development ............................................................................... 3 Groundwater Use and Aquifer Conditions........................................................................... 4 Groundwater Monitoring Efforts ......................................................................................... 4 Groundwater Management and Conjunctive Management.................................................. 4 Data Gaps ................................................................................................................................. 5 Data Collection and Analysis ............................................................................................... 5 Groundwater Basin Assessments
    [Show full text]
  • General Plan Update February 2009 Final Environmental Impact Report I 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.0 INTRODUCTION
    COUNTYOF MENDOCINO G ENERAL P LAN U PDATE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT VOLUME I Prepared for: COUNTY OF MENDOCINO 501 LOW GAP ROAD, ROOM 1440 UKIAH, CA 95482 Prepared by: 1590 DREW AVENUE, SUITE 120 DAVIS, CA 95618 P: (530) 750-7076 F: (530) 750-2811 FEBRUARY 2009 C OUNTYOF M ENDOCINO G ENERAL P LAN U PDATE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT Prepared for: COUNTY OF MENDOCINO 501 LOW GAP ROAD, ROOM 1440 UKIAH, CA 95482 Prepared by: PMC 1590 DREW AVENUE, SUITE 120 DAVIS, CA 95618 FEBRUARY 2009 TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Background and Purpose of the EIR......................................................................................... 1.0-1 1.2 Overview of the General Plan and Environmental Review Process................................... 1.0-1 1.3 Type of Document ....................................................................................................................... 1.0-3 1.4 Intended Uses of the EIR.............................................................................................................. 1.0-3 1.5 Organization and Scope of the Final EIR ................................................................................. 1.0-4 2.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 2.1 Purpose and Scope of the EIR ................................................................................................... 2.0-1 2.2 Project Characteristics................................................................................................................. 2.0-1 2.3 Project Alternatives Summary ...................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • DRAFT INITIAL STUDY NEGATIVE DECLARATION Wastewater
    DRAFT INITIAL STUDY NEGATIVE DECLARATION Wastewater System Rehabilitation Mendocino Woodlands State Park May 2016 State of California DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION Department Mission Statement: To provide for the health, inspiration and education of the people of California by helping to preserve the state’s extraordinary biological diversity, protecting its most valued natural and cultural resources, and creating opportunities for high-quality outdoor recreation. NEGATIVE DECLARATION PROJECT: Wastewater System Rehabilitation LEAD AGENCY: California Department of Parks and Recreation AVAILABILITY OF DOCUMENTS: This Initial Study/Negative Declaration is available for review at: California Department of Parks and Recreation Northern Service Center One Capitol Mall – Suite 410 Sacramento, CA 95814 California Department of Parks and Recreation Sonoma-Mendocino Coast District 25381 Steelhead Blvd. Duncans Mills, CA 95430 Mendocino Community Library 10591 Williams Street Mendocino, CA 95460 California Department of Parks and Recreation Internet Website. CEQA Notices -- Northern California Parks PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The Department of Parks and Recreation proposes to rehabilitate the antiquated, failing wastewater system at Mendocino Woodlands to comply with current Health and Safety standards and improve visitor services. An expanded Project description can be found in Chapter 2, Project Description). A copy of the Initial Study is incorporated into this Negative Declaration. Questions or comments regarding this Initial Study/ Negative
    [Show full text]
  • Draft Elk Conservation and Management Plan
    State of California Natural Resources Agency DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE DRAFT ELK CONSERVATION AND MANAGEMENT PLAN November 2017 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY California supports three of the four remaining North American elk (Cervus canadensis) subspecies. Prior to European arrival and settlement, it is estimated that more than 500,000 elk inhabited parts of the San Joaquin Valley and the Coast Range, and central, northern and northeastern parts of the state into Oregon. During this time, indigenous people managed and utilized elk for food and other purposes. Non- indigenous settlement decimated California’s elk populations, especially tule elk (C. c. nannodes) which only inhabited California. By 1872, only a few tule elk remained in the San Joaquin Valley. Protective conservation measures, successful translocation efforts and natural dispersal of elk into suitable habitat have allowed for recovery in portions of their historical range and allowed expansion into areas previously unoccupied (e.g. Owens Valley). Elk population growth since 1970 has been significant; California now supports approximately 5,700 Roosevelt elk (C. c. roosevelti), 1,500 Rocky Mountain elk (C. c. nelsoni) and 5,700 tule elk. While elk population growth and range expansion may continue in the near future, California most likely will never again support 500,000 elk because of residential and agricultural development and its business and transportation infrastructure. Conflicts between expanding elk and human populations are significant at some locales. Of particular importance are private property conflicts and public health or safety incidents. Section (§) 3952 of the Fish and Game Code (FGC) was adopted in 2003 against the backdrop of increasing conflicts between elk and human populations, and requires the Department of Fish and Wildlife (Department) to develop a statewide elk management plan that is consistent with California’s wildlife policy.
    [Show full text]