DOCSLIB.ORG

Groundwater and Stream Interaction in California's Central Valley: Insights for Sustainable Groundwater Management

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Groundwater and Stream Interaction in California's Central Valley: Insights for Sustainable Groundwater Management Groundwater and Stream Interaction in California's Central Valley: Insights for Sustainable Groundwater Management Completed June 2014 Updated and Released February 2016 Prepared by: Prepared for: Funded by: A Note to Readers This report was undertaken to provide technical information on the state of streams and groundwater resources in the Central Valley. The findings of this report were used to support the need for what is now known as the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA). The intent was to illustrate the physical inter-relationship between the surface and groundwater resources and the potential impacts that groundwater pumping has had and is currently having on our rivers and streams to demonstrate the need for sustainable groundwater management. Based on the scale of the data used in this study, the findings contained herein should not be used as a definitive source in determining whether a particular stream or river reach should or should not be considered as an interconnected surface water for SGMA purposes. Further study at a finer scale would be necessary for such a determination. Suggested Citation The Nature Conservancy. 2014. Groundwater and Stream Interaction in California's Central Valley: Insights for Sustainable Groundwater Management. Table of Contents Section 1 Introduction and Background .......................................................................................... 1 1.1 Goals and Objectives ................................................................................................................ 3 Section 2 C2VSim Model ................................................................................................................ 5 2.1 Model Background and Capabilities ........................................................................................ 5 2.2 Hydrologic Model Platform Selection ...................................................................................... 6 2.3 Revisions Made to the C2VSim Model ..................................................................................... 7 2.3.1 Initial Conditions Update ......................................................................................................... 7 2.3.2 Stream-Bed Conductance Update............................................................................................ 7 2.3.3 Surface Water Supply Data Update ......................................................................................... 8 2.3.4 Small Watershed Parameters Update...................................................................................... 8 2.4 C2VSim Model Update Results ................................................................................................ 8 Section 3 Historical Simulation ..................................................................................................... 10 3.1 Modeling Approach and Assumptions ................................................................................... 11 3.2 Modeling Results .................................................................................................................... 12 3.2.1 Land Use ................................................................................................................................. 12 3.2.2 Surface Water Supply ............................................................................................................. 13 3.2.3 Groundwater Pumping ........................................................................................................... 15 3.2.4 Groundwater Budget and Change in Groundwater Storage ................................................. 19 3.2.5 Groundwater Levels ............................................................................................................... 25 3.2.6 Groundwater Flows to Streams ............................................................................................. 26 Section 4 Baseline for Management Scenario Simulations ............................................................ 29 4.1 Modeling Approach and Assumptions ................................................................................... 29 4.2 Modeling Results .................................................................................................................... 29 4.2.1 Groundwater Budget and Change in Groundwater Storage ................................................. 29 4.2.2 Groundwater Levels ............................................................................................................... 34 4.2.3 Groundwater Flows to Streams ............................................................................................. 35 Section 5 Water Management Scenarios ...................................................................................... 37 5.1 Scenario 1: Groundwater Substitution .................................................................................. 37 5.1.1 Modeling Approach and Assumptions ................................................................................... 37 5.1.2 Results .................................................................................................................................... 38 5.2 Scenario 2: Increased Agricultural Demand ........................................................................... 41 5.2.1 Modeling Approach and Assumptions ................................................................................... 41 5.2.2 Results .................................................................................................................................... 42 5.3 Scenario 3: Increased Irrigation Efficiency ............................................................................. 44 5.3.1 Modeling Approach and Assumptions ................................................................................... 45 5.3.2 Results .................................................................................................................................... 45 Section 6 Conclusions .................................................................................................................. 49 Tables .......................................................................................................................................51 Figures .......................................................................................................................................55 Works Cited ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………126 December 2014 i List of Tables Table 1 - C2VSim Model Features ............................................................................................................... 52 Table 2 - Simulation Year and Water Year Type Mapping for the EC BL and Scenarios ............................. 53 List of Figures Figure 1 - C2VSim Model Origins (IWFM) ................................................................................................... 56 Figure 2 - C2VSim model Grid ..................................................................................................................... 57 Figure 3 - C2VSim model Hydrologic Period ............................................................................................... 58 Figure 4 - Comparison of Observed and Simulated Groundwater Levels - Sacramento Valley.................. 58 Figure 5 - Comparison of Observed and Simulated Groundwater Levels - Sacramento Valley.................. 59 Figure 6 - Comparison of Observed and Simulated Groundwater Levels - Sacramento Valley.................. 59 Figure 7 - Comparison of Observed and Simulated Groundwater Levels - San Joaquin Basin ................... 60 Figure 8 - Comparison of Observed and Simulated Groundwater Levels - San Joaquin Basin ................... 60 Figure 9 - Comparison of Observed and Simulated Groundwater Levels - San Joaquin Basin ................... 61 Figure 10 - Comparison of Observed and Simulated Groundwater Levels - Tulare Basin .......................... 61 Figure 11 - Comparison of Observed and Simulated Groundwater Levels - Tulare Basin .......................... 62 Figure 12 - Comparison of Observed and Simulated Groundwater Levels - Tulare Basin .......................... 62 Figure 13 - Comparison of Observed and Simulated Groundwater Flows to Streams - Stony Creek ........ 63 Figure 14 - Comparison of Observed and Simulated Groundwater Flows to Streams - Tuolumne River .. 63 Figure 15 - Comparison of Observed and Simulated Groundwater Flows to Streams - Merced River ...... 64 Figure 16 - Comparison of Observed and Simulated Groundwater Flows to Streams - Kings River .......... 64 Figure 17 - The Central Valley’s Lost Wetlands - Source: (Hannak, et al., 2011) ........................................ 65 Figure 18 - Sacramento River Unimpaired Runoff and Sacramento Valley Water Year Hydrologic Classification from 1922 to 2009 ....................................................................................................... 66 Figure 19 - San Joaquin River Unimpaired Runoff and San Joaquin Valley Water Year Hydrologic Classification from 1922 to 2009 ....................................................................................................... 66 Figure 20 - Hydrologic Regions of the Central Valley .................................................................................. 67 Figure 21 - Historic Land Use vs. Water Supplies in the Sacramento Valley .............................................. 68 Figure 22 - Historic Cropping
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Managing Storm Water Runoff to Prevent Contamination of Drinking Water
    United States Office of Water EPA 816-F-01-020 Environmental Protection (4606) July 2001 Agency Source Water Protection Practices Bulletin Managing Storm Water Runoff to Prevent Contamination of Drinking Water Storm water runoff is rain or snow melt that flows off the land, from streets, roof tops, and lawns. The runoff carries sediment and contaminants with it to a surface water body or infiltrates through the soil to ground water. This fact sheet focuses on the management of runoff in urban environments; other fact sheets address management measures for other specific sources, such as pesticides, animal feeding operations, and vehicle washing. SOURCES OF STORM WATER RUNOFF Urban and suburban areas are predominated by impervious cover including pavements on roads, sidewalks, and parking lots; rooftops of buildings and other structures; and impaired pervious surfaces (compacted soils) such as dirt parking lots, walking paths, baseball fields and suburban lawns. During storms, rainwater flows across these impervious surfaces, mobilizing contaminants, and transporting them to water bodies. All of the activities that take place in urban and suburban areas contribute to the pollutant load of storm water runoff. Oil, gasoline, and automotive fluids drip from vehicles onto roads and parking lots. Storm water runoff from shopping malls and retail centers also contains hydrocarbons from automobiles. Landscaping by homeowners, around businesses, and on public grounds contributes sediments, pesticides, fertilizers, and nutrients to runoff. Construction of roads and buildings is another large contributor of sediment loads to waterways. In addition, any uncovered materials such as improperly stored hazardous substances (e.g., household Parking lot runoff cleaners, pool chemicals, or lawn care products), pet and wildlife wastes, and litter can be carried in runoff to streams or ground water.
    [Show full text]
  • Surface Water
    Chapter 5 SURFACE WATER Surface water originates mostly from rainfall and is a mixture of surface run-off and ground water. It includes larges rivers, ponds and lakes, and the small upland streams which may originate from springs and collect the run-off from the watersheds. The quantity of run-off depends upon a large number of factors, the most important of which are the amount and intensity of rainfall, the climate and vegetation and, also, the geological, geographi- cal, and topographical features of the area under consideration. It varies widely, from about 20 % in arid and sandy areas where the rainfall is scarce to more than 50% in rocky regions in which the annual rainfall is heavy. Of the remaining portion of the rainfall. some of the water percolates into the ground (see "Ground water", page 57), and the rest is lost by evaporation, transpiration and absorption. The quality of surface water is governed by its content of living organisms and by the amounts of mineral and organic matter which it may have picked up in the course of its formation. As rain falls through the atmo- sphere, it collects dust and absorbs oxygen and carbon dioxide from the air. While flowing over the ground, surface water collects silt and particles of organic matter, some of which will ultimately go into solution. It also picks up more carbon dioxide from the vegetation and micro-organisms and bacteria from the topsoil and from decaying matter. On inhabited watersheds, pollution may include faecal material and pathogenic organisms, as well as other human and industrial wastes which have not been properly disposed of.
    [Show full text]
  • Fresno River Watershed Assessment Project Draft Final Report
    Fresno River Watershed Assessment Project Draft Final Report Prepared for California State Department of Water Resources County of Madera By California State University, Fresno March 2010 This project was funded in part by a grant from the California Department of Water Resources and the County of Madera, California Acknowledgements Special thanks to the Central Sierra Watershed Committee for their support and feedback, which would not be possible without the leadership of Jeannie Habben. Larry Bellew, Tom Wheeler, and Jack Fry provided valuable support and local wisdom. Project director Elissa Brown navigated a diverse interests through logistics including a project freeze. The Madera County Departments of Environmental Health provided critical information and support for GIS-based data and tools. At CSU-Fresno, we thank Dr. Alice Wright and Darrin Alexander who processed all of the bacterial samples. Student Research Assistants Brett Moore, Jorge Baca, Zili He, Steven Gong, Sarah Rutherford, Thomas Gromis, Eddie Alves made the project possible. We also thank the College of Science & Mathematics and Dean Rogerson for support. Finally, thanks to the various landowners in the watershed for your generous property access and concern about your watershed. Table of Contents 1. INTRODUCTION Project Objectives and Tasks 2. MONITORING PLAN Background Selection of Sample Locations and Frequency General Field Measurements and Sample Collection 3. HYDROLOGY, WATER QUALITY AND FIRST FLUSH STUDY 4. SEDIMENTATION STUDY TO QUANTIFY SOIL EROSION AND SEDIMENT TRANSPORT 5. BIOASSESSMENT OF SEDIMENTATION & WATER QUALITY 6. SEPTIC INFLUENCES ON FECAL INDICATOR BACTERIA 7. IMPLICATIONS, DATA GAPS, AND FURTHER STUDIES REFERENCES Appendicies Literature review: Septic influences 1. INTRODUCTION The Fresno River is located in Madera County, California and is the most southerly of major east-side tributaries of the San Joaquin River (Figure 1.1).
    [Show full text]
  • Estimation of Surface Runoff Using NRCS Curve Number in Some Areas in Northwest Coast, Egypt
    E3S Web of Conferences 167, 02002 (2020) https://doi.org/10.1051/e3sconf/202016702002 ICESD 2020 Estimation of surface runoff using NRCS curve number in some areas in northwest coast, Egypt Mohamed E.S1. Abdellatif M.A1. Sameh Kotb Abd-Elmabod2, Khalil M.M.N.3 1 National Authority for Remote Sensing and Space Sciences (NARSS), Cairo, Egypt 2 Soil and Water Use Department, Agricultural and Biological Research Division, National Research Centre, Cairo 12622, Egyp 3 Soil Science Department, Faculty of Agriculture, Zagazig University, Zagazig, Egypt. Abstract. The sustainable agricultural development in the northwest coast of Egypt suffers constantly from the effects of surface runoff. Moreover, there is an urgent need by decision makers to know the effects of runoff. So the aim of this work is to integrate remote sensing and field data and the natural resource conservation service curve number model (NRCS-CN).using geographic information systems (GIS) for spatial evaluation of surface runoff .CN approach to assessment the effect of patio-temporal variations of different soil types as well as potential climate change impact on surface runoff. DEM was used to describe the effects of slope variables on water retention and surface runoff volumes. In addition the results reflects that the magnitude of surface runoff is associated with CN values using NRCS-CN model . The average of water retention ranging between 2.5 to 3.9m the results illustrated that the highest value of runoff is distinguished around the urban area and its surrounding where it ranged between 138 - 199 mm. The results show an increase in the amount of surface runoff to 199 mm when rainfall increases 200 mm / year.
    [Show full text]
  • Introduction and Characteristics of Flow
    Introduction and Characteristics of Flow By James W. LaBaugh and Donald O. Rosenberry Chapter 1 of Field Techniques for Estimating Water Fluxes Between Surface Water and Ground Water Edited by Donald O. Rosenberry and James W. LaBaugh Techniques and Methods Chapter 4–D2 U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey Contents Introduction.....................................................................................................................................................5 Purpose and Scope .......................................................................................................................................6 Characteristics of Water Exchange Between Surface Water and Ground Water .............................7 Characteristics of Near-Shore Sediments .......................................................................................8 Temporal and Spatial Variability of Flow .........................................................................................10 Defining the Purpose for Measuring the Exchange of Water Between Surface Water and Ground Water ..........................................................................................................................12 Determining Locations of Water Exchange ....................................................................................12 Measuring Direction of Flow ............................................................................................................15 Measuring the Quantity of Flow .......................................................................................................15
    [Show full text]
  • River West-Madera Master Plan
    River West-Madera Master Plan APPENDICES Appendix A – River West-Madera Resource Assessment 39 | Page River West-Madera Master Plan River West- Madera Master Plan June 5, 2012 Resource Assessment The River West-Madera area consists of 795 acres of publicly owned land located in Madera County along the northern side of the San Joaquin River between Highway 41 and Scout Island. The Resource Assessment presents the area’s existing characteristics, as well as constraints and opportunities to future planning efforts. River West-Madera Master Plan River West-Madera Master Plan RESOURCE ASSESSMENT FIGURES ............................................................................................................................... 3 TABLES ................................................................................................................................. 4 EXISTING CHARACTERISITICS ............................................................................................. 5 Introduction ................................................................................................................................................ 5 Land Use and History .............................................................................................................................. 7 Cultural History ...................................................................................................................................... 7 Sycamore Island ...................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Findings of Violation and Order of Compliance: Patrick V
    Certified Mail: 7001 0320 0002 4541 0922 Return Receipt Requested Patrick Richiutti 1970 E. Birkhead Avenue Fresno, CA 93720 Re: Findings of Violation and Order for Compliance under sections 308 and 309(a) of the Clean Water Act, EPA Docket No. CWA-404-309(a)-09-005 Dear Mr. Richiutti, The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 9 (“EPA”) has information that, between at least January 2006 and January 2009, you or persons at your direction discharged dredged and/or fill material into the reach of the Fresno River that forms the southern boundary of your property, shown on the Assessor’s Parcel Map as Assessor’s Parcel Nos. 033-160-001 and 033-160-002, without authorization under section 404 of the Clean Water Act. This reach of the Fresno River is an integral part the Federal Flood Control Project designated as the Hidden Lake and Fresno River Project. EPA issues the enclosed Findings of Violation and Order for Compliance (“Order”) pursuant to sections 308 and 309(a) of the Clean Water Act. The Findings describe the nature of the violations and the Order requires you to implement a removal and restoration plan (“R/R Plan”) to remove and legally dispose of the unauthorized material and restore the affected area of the Fresno River to its previous channel dimensions and configuration. The R/R Plan must be submitted to EPA for approval and must, at the minimum, include the following components: • Removal of all unauthorized dredged and fill material from the Fresno River; • Disposal of all removed material at appropriate upland locations,
    [Show full text]
  • Land Degeneration Due to Water Infiltration and Sub-Erosion
    sustainability Article Land Degeneration due to Water Infiltration and Sub-Erosion: A Case Study of Soil Slope Failure at the National Geological Park of Qian-an Mud Forest, China Xiangjian Rui, Lei Nie, Yan Xu * and Hong Wang Construction Engineering College, Jilin University, Changchun 130026, China * Correspondence: [email protected] Received: 7 August 2019; Accepted: 26 August 2019; Published: 29 August 2019 Abstract: Sustainable development of the natural landscape has received an increasing attention worldwide. Identifying the causes of land degradation is the primary condition for adopting appropriate methods to preserve degraded landscapes. The National Geological Park of Qian-an mud forest in China is facing widespread land degradation, which not only threatens landscape development but also endangers many households and farmlands. Using the park as a research object, we identified the types of slope failure and the factors that contribute to their occurrence. During June 2017, a detailed field survey conducted in a representative area of the studied region found two main types of slope failure: soil cave piping and vertical collapse. Physicochemical properties of the soil samples were measured in the laboratory. Results show that soil slope failure is controlled by three factors: (1) the typical geological structure of the mud forest area represented by an upper layer of thick loess sub-sandy soil and the near-vertical slope morphology; (2) particular soil properties, especially soil dispersibility; and (3) special climate conditions with distinct wet and dry seasons. Keywords: landscape; mud forest; land degeneration; water infiltration; sub-erosion; soil slope failure 1. Introduction Recently, the sustainable development of natural landscapes has received an increasing attention worldwide.
    [Show full text]
  • A. INTRODUCTION the Devil's Basin Research Natural Area (DBRNA
    A. INTRODUCTION The Devil's Basin Research Natural Area (DBRNA) lies within the Corning Ranger District, Mendocino National Forest (Maps 1 and 2). The California black oak (Quercus kelloggii1)stands and surrounding areas of Devil's Basin were first reconnoitered in 1984 (Henry 1984), and subsequently proposed as a representative of the California Black Oak Woodland type (Holland 1986). An ecological survey of the basin was completed in 1987 (Newton 1987). Unless otherwise noted, information contained in this Establishment Record is based on this ecological survey. The DBRNA has had no history of intensive use such as logging or grazing. The DBRNA is entirely under public ownership with the Mendocino National Forest. 1) Land Management Planning The establishment of Devil's Basin RNA is recommended and evaluated in the Mendocino National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (LRMP 1995) and the Environmental Impact Statement and Appendices for the LRMP (U.S.D.A. Forest Service 1995a-c). The land allocation for the Devil's Basin RNA was decided by the signing of the Record of Decision (ROD) for the LRMP by the Regional Forester (1995). The establishment of the DBRNA is completed upon signature of this Establishment Record with concurrence of the Station Director. The area lies within the Research Natural Areas Management Area #5 allocated to Management Prescription #11 which emphasizes the preservation of natural conditions and the protection of features for which the RNA was established (Appendix 3). B. OBJECTIVES The primary purpose for establishment of the DBRNA is to preserve a representative of a Black Oak Woodland ecosystem and its associates in a condition minimally modified by humans within the North Coast Physiographic Province for their scientific value and educational importance.
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 3: Introduction to Water Sources
    Introduction to Water Sources Chapter 3 What Is In This Chapter? 1. Definition of surface water 2. Examples of surface water 3. Advantages and disadvantages of surface water 4. Surface water hydrology 5. Raw water storage and flow measurements 6. Surface water intake structures 7. The types of pumps used to collect surface water 8. Definition of groundwater 9. Examples of groundwater 10. Advantages and disadvantages of groundwater 11. Groundwater hydrology 12. Three types of aquifers 13. Well components 14. Data and record keeping requirements 15. Transmission lines and flow meters 16. Groundwater under the direct influence of surface water Key Words • Aquifer • Flume • Porosity • Surface Water • Baseline Data • Glycol • Raw Water • Unconfined Aquifer • Caisson • Groundwater • Recharge Area • Water Rights • Cone of Depression • Impermeable • Riprap • Water Table • Confined Aquifer • ntu • Spring • Watershed • Contamination • Parshall flume • Static Water Level • Weir • Drainage Basin • Permeability • Stratum • Drawdown • Polluted Water • Surface Runoff 62 Chapter 3 Introduction to Water Sources Introduction This lesson is a discussion of the components associated with collecting water from its source and bringing it to the water treatment plant. Lesson Content 1 Surface Water – Water on the earth’s This lesson will focus on surface water1 and groundwater2, hydrology, and the ma- surface as distinguished from water underground (groundwater). jor components associated with the collection and transmission of water to the water 2 Groundwater – Subsurface water treatment plant. occupying a saturated geological for- mation from which wells and springs are fed. Sources of Water Three Classifications The current federal drinking water regulations define three distinct and separate sources of water: • Surface water • Groundwater • Groundwater under the direct influence of surface water (GUDISW) This last classification is a result of the Surface Water Treatment Rule.
    [Show full text]
  • Kansas Surface Water Quality Standards
    KANSAS SURFACE WATER QUALITY STANDARDS Prepared by The Kansas Department of Health and Environment Bureau of Water April 11, 2018 DATE: April 11, 2018 FROM: Michelle Probasco, Unit Chief, Planning and Standards Unit SUBJECT: Unofficial Functional Copy Kansas Water Quality Standards and Supporting Documents The following pages contain an unofficial functional version of the most currently effective Kansas Surface Water Quality Standards (K.A.R. 28-16-28b through 28-16-28h, and 28-16-58), and links to the standards supporting documents. The supporting documents include the Kansas Surface Water Quality Standards: Tables of Numeric Criteria, the Kansas Antidegradation Policy, the Kansas Implementation Procedures: Surface Water Quality Standards, and the Kansas Surface Water Quality Standards Variance Register. The Kansas Surface Water Quality Standards, K.A.R. 28-16-28b and 28-16-28d through 28-16-28h were published in the Kansas Register on February 8, 2018 and became effective on February 23, 2018, and K.A.R. 28-16-28c and 28-16-58 were published in the Kansas Register on March 5, 2015 and became effective on March 20, 2015. The Kansas Surface Water Register, 28-16-28g, was last published in the Kansas Register on June 19, 2014 and became effective on July 7, 2014. There have been many style and editorial changes to the regulations. The major amendments to this set of regulations include: - Adopting revised criteria for ammonia aquatic life criteria; - Adopting revised regulations for water quality variances; - Adopting a new regulation for the adoption of the Kansas Surface Water Quality Standards Variance Register; - Adopting the Multiple-Discharger Wastewater Lagoon Ammonia Variance.
    [Show full text]
  • Pre-Adjudication Plan of Administration for the Fresno River
    MADERA IRRIGATION DISTRICT PRE-ADJUDICATION PLAN OF ADMINISTRATION FOR THE FRESNO RIVER As a condition of its State Water Resources Control Board (the “SWRCB”) License No. 13836, Madera Irrigation District (“MID” or the “District”) is obligated to make releases from Hidden Dam to satisfy downstream rights to the waters of the Fresno River, pursuant to the Fresno River Operations Protocols (the “FROP”) and the Fresno River Allocation Model (the “FRAM”). On October 18, 2018, MID filed a Petition for Adjudication of the Fresno River (the “Petition”) with the SWRCB. The Petition was granted at the SWRCB’s October 20, 2020, meeting (the “Effective Date”). MID expects it will take several years for the issues in the Petition to be fully and finally resolved. As a result, to comply with its obligations under the License, MID anticipates the need to manage releases pursuant to the FROP and the FRAM during this time. Over the past several years, MID has received communications from landowners along the Fresno River concerning MID’s implementation of the FROP and the FRAM pending the SWRCB’s resolution of the Petition. Those communications, among other things, request inclusion of various properties, points of diversion, and diversion capacities within the FRAM for future water years pending the resolution of the Petition. To resolve such requests pending the Petition, the District has prepared this Pre-Adjudication Plan of Administration for the Fresno River (the “PAPA”), which provides the guidelines pursuant to which the District intends to resolve such requests pending adjudication. The guidelines identified in the PAPA are based on two primary considerations.
    [Show full text]