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
  • Mainstem Klamath River Fall Chinook Salmon Redd Survey 2012
    1,839U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Arcata Fisheries Data Series Report DS 2014-39 Mainstem Klamath River Fall Chinook Salmon Redd Survey 2012 Mark Magneson and Philip Colombano U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Arcata Fish and Wildlife Office 1655 Heindon Road Arcata, CA 95521 (707) 882-7201 November 2014 Disclaimers Funding for this study was provided by the Klamath River Habitat Assessment Study administered by the Arcata Fish and Wildlife Office. Disclaimer: The mention of trade names or commercial products in this report does not constitute endorsement or recommendation for use by the Federal government. The Arcata Fish and Wildlife Office Fisheries Program reports its study findings through two publication series. The Arcata Fisheries Data Series was established to provide timely dissemination of data to local managers and for inclusion in agency databases. The Arcata Fisheries Technical Reports publishes scientific findings from single and multi-year studies that have undergone more extensive peer review and statistical testing. Additionally, some study results are published in a variety of professional fisheries journals. Key words: Chinook salmon, Klamath River, redd, escapement, spawning survey. The correct citation for this report is: Magneson, M.D., and P. Colombano. 2014. Mainstem Klamath River Fall Chinook Salmon Redd Survey 2012. U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Arcata Fish and Wildlife Office, Arcata Fisheries Data Series Report Number DS 2014-39, Arcata, California. ii Table of Contents page Introduction ........................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • UKTR Chinook Biological Review Team
    Upper Klamath and Trinity River Chinook Salmon Biological Review Team Report Williams1, T. H., J. C. Garza1, N. Hetrick2, S. T. Lindley1, M. S. Mohr1, J. M. Myers3, M. R. O’Farrell1, R. M. Quiñones4, and D. J. Teel3 1 National Marine Fisheries Service, Southwest Fisheries Science Center, Santa Cruz, California. 2 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Arcata Fish and Wildlife Office, Arcata, California. 3 National Marine Fisheries Service, Northwest Fisheries Science Center, Seattle, Washington. 4 U.S. Forest Service, Klamath National Forest, Yreka, California. December 2011 ii Table of Contents List of Figures.................................................................................................................... iv List of Tables ...................................................................................................................... v 1. Background..................................................................................................................... 1 2. ESU Configuration.......................................................................................................... 2 3. Biological Status of Upper Klamath and Trinity River Chinook Salmon ESU............ 11 4. Conclusions................................................................................................................... 25 5. References..................................................................................................................... 27 iii List of Figures Figure 1. Two generalized patterns of evolution of life-history
    [Show full text]
  • Trinity County Resident Named Volunteer of the Year by California Association of Resource Conservation Districts
    Winter 2010 Vol. XVIII No. 4 Trinity County Resident Named Volunteer of the Year by California Association of Resource Conservation Districts enneth Baldwin of Trinity County was named KVolunteer of the Year by the California Associ- ation of Resource Conservation Districts (CARCD) during its recent annual meeting. Baldwin, a Registered Professional Forester and a long-time resident of Trinity County, was recognized for generously volunteering his expertise on behalf of numerous conservation projects, including the Weaverville Community Forest. Presenting the award is CARCD president Pat Quist. Baldwin has resided in Trinity County since early 1972. He is a partner in Baldwin, Blomstrom, Wilkinson and Associates, a forestry and environ- mental consulting firm based in Arcata with a sat- ellite office in Trinity County. Among the projects Baldwin has helped with in recent years are devel- opment of the Trinity County Community Wild- fire Protection Plan, and fire management plans for the downriver communities of Salyer, Hawk- ins Bar, Grays Flat and part of Willow Creek. Other projects include the fire management plans for the Grass Valley Creek Watershed and for the communities of Covington Mill, Long Canyon and Lake Forest Estates. Baldwin and Also In This Issue: his associates also shaped the Programmatic Timberland Environmental Impact Report Burn Days & Burn Permits ..................2 for 4800 acres in the Weaver Basin which New Watershed Stewards Member .....3 will reduce costs for forest health and fuels River Day at Coffee Creek ................ 4-5 reduction projects on private lands. Trinity River Revegetation Efforts ... 6-7 Baldwin has provided the District with much CWPP Update ....................................
    [Show full text]
  • 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]
  • California Solar Leader
    California solar leader California's Lake County, GE, and SunPower partnered on a multi-site 2.2- megawatt solar power system that-combined with an existing solar power installation-now makes Lake County home to the largest solar power installations on county facilities in California. By Vicky Boyd You could call Lake County ‘the little county that could.' Situated northeast of San Francisco, Lake County is not the most populous county in California, nor is it the richest. But progressive thinking on the part of the board of supervisors and Lake County Sanitation District has allowed the county to become a leader in sustainable resource development and use. In fact, Lake County is now a net energy producer. "The board of supervisors has taken a leadership role of becoming sustainable and becoming energy efficient. They did it prior to a lot of other counties, and we continue to do it," says Denise Rushing, Lake County supervisor representing District 3. "They were very receptive to solar and focused on energy efficiency." As a result, the county now has 3.1 megawatts of solar-generated power, making it the largest solar-energy system on county property in California. But the county probably wouldn't have been able to finance and build such large projects on its own. Rushing credits the SunPower Access Power Purchase Agreement (PPA) as the catalyst. Under that agreement, GE Energy Financial Services financed, and will own, a 2.1 MW project. SunPower Corp. of San Jose designed and built the project and will maintain it for 20 years.
    [Show full text]
  • Estimation of Stream Conditions in Tributaries of the Klamath River, Northern California
    U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Arcata Fisheries Technical Report TR 2018-32 Estimation of Stream Conditions in Tributaries of the Klamath River, Northern California Christopher V. Manhard, Nicholas A. Som, Edward C. Jones, Russell W. Perry U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Arcata Fish and Wildlife Office 1655 Heindon Road Arcata, CA 95521 (707) 822-7201 January 2018 Funding for this study was provided by a variety of sources including the Klamath River Fish Habitat Assessment Program administered by the Arcata Fish and Wildlife Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the Bureau of Reclamation, Klamath Falls Area Office. Disclaimer: The mention of trade names or commercial products in this report does not constitute endorsement or recommendation for use by the Federal Government. The findings and conclusions in this report are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the views of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The Arcata Fish and Wildlife Office Fisheries Program reports its study findings through two publication series. The Arcata Fisheries Data Series was established to provide timely dissemination of data to local managers and for inclusion in agency databases. Arcata Fisheries Technical Reports publish scientific findings from single and multi- year studies that have undergone more extensive peer review and statistical testing. Additionally, some study results are published in a variety of professional fisheries aquatic habitat conservation journals. To ensure consistency with Service policy relating to its online peer-reviewed journals, Arcata Fisheries Data Series and Technical Reports are distributed electronically and made available in the public domain. Paper copies are no longer circulated.
    [Show full text]
  • Fire Vulnerability Assessment for Mendocino County ______
    FIRE VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT FOR MENDOCINO COUNTY ____________________________________________ _________________________________________ August 2020 Mendocino County Fire Vulnerability Assessment ________________________________________________________________________________________ TABLE OF CONTENTS Page SECTION I- OVERVIEW ........................................................................................................... 6 A. Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 6 B. Project Objectives ...................................................................................................................... 6 C. Mendocino County Description and Demographics ................................................................ 7 D. Planning Area Basis .................................................................................................................. 8 SECTION II- COUNTY WILDFIRE ASSESSMENT ............................................................ 9 A. Wildfire Threat ......................................................................................................................... 9 B. Weather/Climate ........................................................................................................................ 9 C. Topography ............................................................................................................................. 10 D. Fuel Hazards ..........................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Klamath River Hydroelectric Settlement Agreement Interim Measure 15
    Klamath River Hydroelectric Settlement Agreement Interim Measure 15: Final 2019 Water Quality Monitoring Study Plan Prepared: January 16, 2019 KHSA IM15 2019 STUDY PLAN Table of Contents 1. Introduction and Overview ............................................................................................. 1 2. Objectives ....................................................................................................................... 3 3. Monitoring Components ................................................................................................. 4 3.1 Public Health Monitoring of Cyanobacteria and Toxins .......................................... 4 3.2 Baseline Water Quality Monitoring of the Klamath River ....................................... 4 4. Quality Assurance, Data Management, and Dissemination ............................................ 5 4.1 KHSA Program Quality Assurance Strategy for 2019 ............................................. 5 5. Sampling Constituents and Frequency............................................................................ 7 5.1 Public Health Monitoring of Cyanobacteria and Toxins .......................................... 7 5.2 Comprehensive Baseline Water Quality Monitoring of the Klamath River ............. 9 6.0 References ................................................................................................................... 13 List of Figures Figure 1. 2019 KHSA IM 15 monitoring stations .............................................................. 2 List of Tables
    [Show full text]
  • Little Shasta River 2017-2019: Pre-Project Assessment of the Proposition 1 Ecosystem Restoration Grant Activities
    Little Shasta River 2017-2019: Pre-Project Assessment of the Proposition 1 Ecosystem Restoration Grant Activities Authors: Amber Lukk, Priscilla Vasquez-Housley, Robert Lusardi, Ann Willis Report prepared for: California Trout and California Wildlife Conservation Board December 2019 Contents Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 1 Study Area ...................................................................................................................................... 1 Methods........................................................................................................................................... 4 Hydrologic Year Type ................................................................................................................. 4 Discharge ..................................................................................................................................... 4 Water Temperature ...................................................................................................................... 5 Water Quality .............................................................................................................................. 5 Aquatic Macroinvertebrates ........................................................................................................ 6 Fish Presence/Absence ...............................................................................................................
    [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]
  • Klamath River Fall Chinook Salmon Age-Specific Escapement, River Harvest, and Run Size Estimates, 2020 Run
    1 Klamath River Fall Chinook Salmon Age-Specific Escapement, River Harvest, and Run Size Estimates, 2020 Run Klamath River Technical Team 15 February 2021 Summary The number of Klamath River fall Chinook Salmon returning to the Klamath River Basin (Basin) in 2020 was estimated to be: Run Size Age Number Proportion 2 9,077 0.17 3 37,820 0.69 4 7,579 0.14 5 8 0.00 Total 54,484 1.00 Preseason forecasts of the number of fall Chinook Salmon adults returning to the Basin and the corresponding post-season estimates are: Adults Preseason Postseason Sector Forecast Estimate Pre / Post Run Size 59,100 45,400 1.30 Fishery Mortality Tribal Harvest 8,600 5,200 1.65 Recreational Harvest 1,300 5,100 0.25 Drop-off Mortality 800 600 1.33 10,700 10,900 0.98 Escapement Hatchery Spawners 12,200 8,300 1.47 Natural Area Spawners 36,200 26,200 1.38 48,400 34,500 1.40 2 Introduction This report describes the data and methods used by the Klamath River Technical Team (KRTT) to estimate age-specific numbers of fall Chinook Salmon returning to the Basin in 2020. The estimates provided in this report are consistent with the Klamath Basin Megatable (CDFW 2021) and with the 2021 forecast of ocean stock abundance (KRTT 2021). Age-specific escapement estimates for 2020 and previous years, coupled with the coded-wire tag (CWT) recovery data from Basin hatchery stocks, allow for a cohort reconstruction of the hatchery and natural components of Klamath River fall Chinook Salmon (Goldwasser et al.
    [Show full text]
  • State Parks Along California's North Coast Natural Beauty Along the Coast
    State Parks Along California's North Coast Natural Beauty Along the Coast California State Parks along the northern California coast offer visitors a chance to enjoy spectacular beauty with rugged beaches and redwood forests. Benbow Lake State Recreation Area (HUMBOLDT COUNTY), located two miles south of Garberville on Highway 101, has more than 600 acres of forest, 32,000 square feet of water, and a half-mile of beach. It's the perfect place for hiking, swimming, fishing, sailing and horseback riding. Occupying a mile of the South Fork of the Eel River, the park has three miles of hiking trails and a campground. Canoes and paddleboats may be available for rent from a concessionaire in the park. During the summer, the park is home to Shakespeare and art festivals. For more information, call (707) 923-3238 or (707) 247-3318. As with all visits to California State Parks, it's always a good idea to call before your visit to check on conditions. Richardson Grove State Park (HUMBOLDT COUNTY), located eight miles south of Garberville on Highway 101, features a forest of towering coast redwoods along the South Fork of the Eel River. The park is one of the oldest state parks. It was acquired in the 1920s and named after the state's 25th governor, Friend W. Richardson. There are developed campsites and a visitor center, built from an old lodge. The park is popular for fishing, with winter runs of silver and king salmon. For more information, call the park at (707) 247-3318. Sinkyone Wilderness State Park (HUMBOLDT and MENDOCNIO COUNTIES)\ Access to the park from the south is 50 miles north of Fort Bragg via Highway 101 and County Road 431 to Usal Beach.
    [Show full text]