Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Draft UWMP
TRUCKEE WATER SYSTEM 2015 URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN Adopted June ???, 2016 Board of Directors Joseph R. Aguera Jeff Bender Bob Ellis Tony Laliotis Paul Warmerdam Prepared by: Neil Kaufman Water System Engineer DRAFT TABLE OF CONTENTS Page i SECTION 1 – INTRODUCTION PUBLIC PARTICIPATION ........................................................................................................ 1-1 INTERAGENCY COORDINATION ......................................................................................... 1-2 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW .................................................................................................. 1-2 PLAN ADOPTION ...................................................................................................................... 1-2 FORMAT OF THE PLAN........................................................................................................... 1-2 SUBJECT OF THE PLAN .......................................................................................................... 1-3 SECTION 2 – SERVICE AREA DISTRICT HISTORY AND BACKGROUND .......................................................................... 2-1 CLIMATE .................................................................................................................................... 2-4 CURRENT AND PROJECTED POPULATION ........................................................................ 2-4 SECTION 3 – EXISTING WATER FACILITIES PRESSURE ZONES .................................................................................................................... 3-1 GROUNDWATER WELLS ........................................................................................................ 3-1 WATER TREATMENT FACILITIES ........................................................................................ 3-1 OTHER WATER SUPPLY SOURCES ...................................................................................... 3-4 PUMPING STATIONS ............................................................................................................... 3-4 STORAGE TANKS ..................................................................................................................... 3-4 CONTROL VALVE STATIONS ................................................................................................ 3-7 PIPELINES .................................................................................................................................. 3-7 SECTION 4 – SYSTEM WATER USE HISTORIC POTABLE WATER DEMANDS ............................................................................ 4-1 EXISTING WATER DEMANDS ............................................................................................... 4-1 FUTURE WATER DEMANDS .................................................................................................. 4-4 CURRENT AND POTENTIAL USE OF RECYCLED WATER .............................................. 4-5 WATER DEMAND FOR LOW-INCOME HOUSING .............................................................. 4-6 SECTION 5 – SB X7-7 BASELINES AND TARGETS BASELINE WATER USAGE CALCULATION ....................................................................... 5-1 DEMAND REDUCTION TARGET CALCULATION .............................................................. 5-1 METHODS TO ACHIEVE THE DEMAND REDUCTION TARGET ..................................... 5-3 SECTION 6 – WATER SYSTEM SUPPLIES MARTIS VALLEY GROUNDWATER BASIN ........................................................................ 6-1 QUANTITY OF GROUNDWATER IN THE MARTIS VALLEY BASIN .............................. 6-1 DRAFT Table of Contents Page ii RELIABILITY OF THE WATER SUPPLY ............................................................................... 6-2 MANAGEMENT OF THE MARTIS VALLEY GROUNDWATER BASIN ........................... 6-4 WATER SUPPLY QUALITY ..................................................................................................... 6-4 GROUNDWATER WITHDRAWALS ....................................................................................... 6-4 EXISTING PRODUCTION CAPACITY IN RELATION TO PROJECTED DEMANDS ....... 6-4 WASTEWATER AND RECYCLED WATER ........................................................................... 6-5 FUTURE WATER SUPPLIES .................................................................................................... 6-7 BUILDOUT WATER DEMANDS ............................................................................................. 6-7 ADDITIONAL POTABLE WATER PRODUCTION CAPACITY ........................................... 6-7 SECTION 7 – WATER SHORTAGE CONTINGENCY PLAN WATER CONSERVATION PROGRAM .................................................................................. 7-1 WATER CONSERVATION ORDINANCE ............................................................................... 7-4 POTENTIAL FINANCIAL IMPACTS ....................................................................................... 7-4 SECTION 8 – WATER DEMAND MANAGEMENT MEASURES WATER WASTE PROVENTION ORDINANCES ................................................................... 8-1 METERING ................................................................................................................................. 8-1 CONSERVATION PRICING ..................................................................................................... 8-2 PUBLIC EDUCATION AND OUTREACH............................................................................... 8-2 PROGRAMS TO ASSESS AND MANAGE DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM REAL LOSS .......... 8-3 WATER CONSERVATION PROGRAM COORDINATION AND STAFFING SUPPORT .. 8-4 OTHER DEMAND MANAGEMENT MEASURES ................................................................. 8-4 WATER CONSERVATION DMM EFFECTIVENESS ............................................................ 8-5 APPENDIX A – TEXT OF THE URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLANNING ACT APPENDIX B – WATER CONSERVATION ACT OF 2009 APPENDIX C – MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR THE MARTIS VALLEY GROUNDWATER BASIN APPENDIX D - ORDINANCE NO. 2014-05, FINDING THE NECESSITY FOR AND ADOPTING A WATER CONSERVATION PROGRAM IN THE EVENT OF A WATER SUPPLY EMERGENCY APPENDIX E – RESOLUTION NO. 2016- XX, ADOPTION OF THE URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN DRAFT LIST OF TABLES Page iii SECTION 2 – SERVICE AREA Table 2-1, Historic Population Data ............................................................................................ 2-5 SECTION 3 – EXISTING WATER FACILITIES Table 3-1, Summary of Pressure Zone Data ................................................................................ 3-2 Table 3-2, Summary of Data for Potable Wells ........................................................................... 3-4 Table 3-3, Summary of Pumping Station Data ............................................................................ 3-7 Table 3-4, Summary of Storage Tank Data ................................................................................. 3-9 Table 3-5, Summary of Control Valve Station Data .................................................................. 3-10 SECTION 4 – SYSTEM WATER USE Table 4-1, Historic Potable Water Production ............................................................................. 4-3 Table 4-2, Demands for Potable Water and Raw Water – Actual - 2015 .................................... 4-4 Table 4-3, Demands for Potable Water and Raw Water - Projected ........................................... 4-5 SECTION 5 – SB X7-7 BASELINES AND TARGETS Table 5-1, Calculation of Baseline Per Capita Water Usage ....................................................... 5-2 Table 5-2, Confirmation of Minimum Reduction for 2020 Target .............................................. 5-2 Table 5-3, Calculation of 2015 Interim Target GPCD ................................................................ 5-3 SECTION 6 – WATER SYSTEM SUPPLIES Table 6-1, Groundwater Volume Pumped by the Districts.......................................................... 6-4 Table 6-2, Volume Pumped from the Martis Valley Groundwater Basin in 2015 ...................... 6-5 Table 6-3, Anticipated Martis Valley Groundwater Basin Withdrawals at Buildout .................. 6-8 SECTION 7 – WATER SHORTAGE CONTINGENCY PLAN Table 7-1, Water Conservation Stages......................................................................................... 7-1 DRAFT LIST OF FIGURES Page iv SECTION 2 – SERVICE AREA Figure 2-1, Location Map ............................................................................................................ 2-2 Figure 2-2, Water System Services Areas ................................................................................... 2-3 Figure 2-3, Historic And Projected Population, 1980-2040 ........................................................ 2-6 SECTION 3 – EXISTING WATER FACILITIES Figure 3-1, Location of Water Production Facilities ................................................................... 3-5 Figure 3-2, Location of Pumping Stations ................................................................................... 3-6 Figure 3-3, Location of Storage Tanks and Control Valve Stations ............................................ 3-8 SECTION 4 – SYSTEM WATER USE Figure 4-1, Historic Potable Water Demands, 1970-2015 ........................................................... 4-2 SECTION 6 – WATER SYSTEM SUPPLIES Figure 6-1, Donner Summit Snowfall and Snowpack Winters, 1879-2015 ................................ 6-3 Figure 6-2, Projected Potable Water Demand vs. Existing Supply Capacity, 1995-2035 ........... 6-6 Figure 6-3, Projected Potable Water Demand vs. Proposed Supply Capacity, 1995-2035 ......... 6-9 DRAFT SECTION 1 INTRODUCTION DRAFT SECTION 1 INTRODUCTION Page 1-1 The California Water Code requires all urban water suppliers within the state to prepare urban water management plans and update them every five years. These plans satisfy the requirements of the Urban Water Management Planning Act of 1983 (Act) including amendments that have been made to the Act. Sections 10610 through 10656 of the California Water Code detail the information that must be included in these plans, as well as who must file them. Appendix A contains the text of the Act. Amendments to the Act now require that total projected water use be compared to water supply sources over the next 20 years in 5-year increments. The Act also requires the information be shown for a single dry water year and multiple dry water years. Additionally, the Act requires that all plans include a water recycling analysis that includes a description of the wastewater collection and treatment system within the agency’s service area along with current and potential recycled water uses. According to the Act, “The conservation and efficient use of urban water supplies are of statewide concern; however, the planning for that use and the implementation of those plans can best be accomplished at the local level.” The Act requires that each urban water supplier, providing water for municipal purposes either directly or indirectly to more than 3,000 customers or supplying more than 3,000 acre-feet of water annually, shall prepare, update and adopt its urban water management plan (UWMP) at least once every five years. In 2009, the Water Conservation Act of 2009 (as known as SB X7-7) was adopted. This legislation created additional requirements regarding urban water management plans. These requirements are documented in Section 10608 of the California Water Code. Appendix B contains the text of SB X7-7. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION In accordance with the Act, the Truckee Donner Public Utility District (District) is required to make the plan available for public review and to hold a public hearing prior to adoption of the UWMP. This public hearing was held at the District’s regularly scheduled Board Meeting on June 1, 2016. Notices of the meeting were published in the Sierra Sun on _____ and ______, 2011. Letters were mailed directly to the following agencies advising them of the public hearing: • Town of Truckee • Nevada County • Placer County • Northstar Community Services District (NCSD) • Truckee Sanitation District • Tahoe-Truckee Sanitation Agency Prior to the meeting, draft copies of the UWMP were made available for public review at the District’s office at 11570 Donner Pass Road, Truckee, California. DRAFT Section 1 - Introduction Page 1-2 INTERAGENCY COORDINATION In accordance with the Act, the District is required to coordinate preparation of its UWMP with other local agencies. In the past, the District has worked cooperatively with NCSD and the Placer County Water Agency (PCWA) to study the available water supplies in the Truckee and Martis Valley area. Two major studies that were jointly funded by all three agencies have been completed: • Ground Water Availability In The Martis Valley Ground Water Basin, Nevada And Placer Counties, California, prepared by Nimbus Engineers, Reno, Nevada, March 2001. • Martis Valley Groundwater Management Plan, prepared by Brown and Caldwell and Balance Hydrologics, Reno, Nevada, April 2013. Preparation of the April 2013 document also included development of a finite element model for the Martis Valley Groundwater Basin by the Desert Research Institute. Development of this model was funded by the three local agencies and the US Bureau of Reclamation. This effort is documented in: • Integrated Surface and Groundwater Modeling of Martis Valley, California, for Assessment of Potential Climate Change Impacts on Basin-Scale Water Resources, prepared by Desert Research Institute, Reno, Nevada, April 2015. In October 2015, NCSD took ownership of the PCWA Zone 4 water system in the Martis Valley and PCWA no longer has a local presence. The District anticipates that it will continue to work cooperatively with NCSD on issues related to the Martis Valley Groundwater Basin in the future. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The preparation of an Urban Water Management Plan is specifically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Therefore, a CEQA review has not been performed in conjunction with the preparation of this document. However, the exemption only applies to preparation of the UWMP and the District will have to conduct environmental reviews in order to physically construct any of the projects described in this UWMP. PLAN ADOPTION The District’s Board of Directors adopted the 2015 Urban Water Management Plan on June 1, 2016. A copy of the adopting resolution is included in Appendix E. FORMAT OF THE PLAN The State of California has developed a number of standard tables to be included in an UWMP. The format of this UWMP differs from that of the District’s previous plans (2005 and 2011) in order to include these standard tables. In a number of cases, these standard tables include or discuss data that is not relevant to the District. One example is water used for “saline water intrusion barriers.” These unmodified standard tables are included in order to comply with State reporting and filing requirements. DRAFT Section 1 - Introduction Page 1-3 SUBJECT OF THE PLAN The District operates two water systems in the Truckee area: the Hirschdale System (PWS CA2910010) and the Truckee System (PWS CA2910003). The Truckee System serves 12,473 accounts. The Hirschdale System serves 24 accounts. The two systems are physically separate and not interconnected. Based upon guidance from the California Department of Water Resources, an UWMP is not required for the Hirschdale system. Therefore, this document addresses the Truckee System only. DRAFT SECTION 2 SERVICE AREA DRAFT SECTION 2 SERVICE AREA Page 2-1 The Truckee Donner Public Utility District (District) provides water service to portions of the town of Truckee, California, along with adjacent unincorporated areas of Nevada and Placer Counties. The District operates two water systems in the Truckee area: the Hirschdale System (PWS CA2910010) and the Truckee System (PWS CA2910003). The general location of the town of Truckee is given in Figure 2-1 and the boundaries of the District’s water system service areas are shown in Figure 2-2. DISTRICT HISTORY AND BACKGROUND Public water service in the Truckee area began in 1880, when the Schaeffer Lumber Company developed the Tonini Springs to serve what is now downtown Truckee. In 1883, the McGlashen infiltration gallery was constructed, along with a transmission system to convey water to the downtown area. In 1885, the adjacent McGlashen Springs was developed. In 1927, the Truckee Donner Public Utility District was formed to provide electrical service to the Truckee area. In 1935, the District began providing water service with the purchase of the McGlashen water system. In 1943, the Southside Spring was acquired by the District and in 1953, the Tonini Springs water system was obtained by the District. Originally, the District’s water system provided service to only the downtown area. The system was expanded to serve the Gateway and Meadow Park areas in the late 1940s. Significant expansion of the District’s service area occurred in the 1960s as new residential subdivisions were constructed in the area. Service was extended to the Olympic Heights area in the early 1960s, and the Sierra Meadows area in the mid-1960s. The Tahoe Donner, Prosser Lakeview and Ponderosa Palisades areas were developed in the late 1960s, and the Armstrong area in the late 1970s. Prior to 2001, there were two other water purveyors in the Truckee area. In the Summer of 2001, the District took possession of the Donner Lake Water System. In February of 2002, the District took possession of the Glenshire Mutual Water Company’s system. Significant development occurred during the 2000s. New residential developments included Gray’s Crossing, Old Greenwood, Spring Creek and Winter Creek. Non-residential development included the Alder Creek Middle School, Pioneer Commerce Center and the Sierra College campus. A large number of infill homes were also constructed on vacant lots in the older subdivisions. From 2008 to the present, there has been minimal new development within the service area and growth has mainly involved infill construction of new homes within previously created subdivisions. DRAFT DRAFT PLACER COUNTYPLACER COUNTY NEVADA COUNTYNEVADA COUNTY Truckee Water SystemService Area Hirschdale Water SystemService Area Town of TruckeeTown Limit Northstar CommunityService District 0 1 Mile 1 INCH = 1 MILE Figure 2-2Water System Service AreasTRUCKEE DONNERPUBLIC UTILITY DISTRICT TDPUD Water System Service Areas Northstar Community Services District Town of Truckee County Boundary LEGEND NORTHDRAFT Section 2 – Service Area Page 2-4 CLIMATE The District’s service area is located in the eastern Sierra Nevada mountains at the east end of Donner Pass. Water system service elevations range from 5700 to over 7300 feet above mean sea level. The area receives substantial amounts of precipitation during the winter as both rain and snow. Average high temperatures range from the low 80s in Summer to the low 40s in Winter. Average low temperatures range from the low 40s in Summer to the mid-teens in Winter. CURRENT AND PROJECTED POPULATION The Town of Truckee and surrounding areas have been experiencing slow to moderate growth over the past 50 years. Population within the town has increased from 5,539 in 1980 to a current population of 16,211. Table 2-1 shows this historic population data. The Town of Truckee’s current General Plan was adopted in 2006. The General Plan projects population growth in the area to occur at a rate of two percent per year, eventually reaching a buildout population of about 28,300 permanent residents. Based upon the projected growth rate in the General Plan, historic and projected population totals are given in Figure 2-3, with the buildout population occurring in 2044. The projected population is summarized in Table 2-2. The economy of Truckee and the surrounding area relies upon tourism as the main industry. There are a significant number of residential units used as vacation homes that are not occupied on a full-time basis with estimates ranging as high as 75 to 80 percent for certain portions of the service area. The General Plan cites an estimate that 54 percent of all housing units are occupied full-time on a town-wide basis. However, the District is not aware of any other studies that have confirmed these estimates. This part time occupancy is reflected in the General Plan, showing a total of 19,901 dwelling units at buildout with a corresponding population of only 28,300 for a density of 1.42 persons per dwelling unit. It should be noted that the District’s water system service area extends outside the Town of Truckee limits encompassing small adjoining areas of unincorporated Nevada and Placer Counties. There are also small developed areas within the Town of Truckee that utilize private wells and are not supplied water by the District. However, for the purposes of this study, it is assumed that the Town of Truckee’s population as determined by the California Department of Finance is equal to the population of the District’s water service area. DRAFT Section 2 – Service Area Page 2-5 Table 2-1. Historic Population Data Year Truckee Area Population Data Source 1980 5,539 1995 Water System Master Plan 1981 6,371 1995 Water System Master Plan 1982 6,844 1995 Water System Master Plan 1983 7,136 1995 Water System Master Plan 1984 7,254 1995 Water System Master Plan 1985 7,631 1995 Water System Master Plan 1986 7,800 1995 Water System Master Plan 1987 7,950 1995 Water System Master Plan 1988 8,240 1995 Water System Master Plan 1989 8,471 1995 Water System Master Plan 1990 8,912 Town of Truckee General Plan, 1996 1991 9,482 1995 Water System Master Plan 1992 9,975 1995 Water System Master Plan 1993 10,250 1995 Water System Master Plan 1994 11,150 California Department of Finance a 1995 11,800 California Department of Finance a 1996 12,050 California Department of Finance a 1997 12,600 California Department of Finance a 1998 13,000 California Department of Finance a 1999 13,300 California Department of Finance a 2000 13,864 US Census Bureau, Census 2000 2001 14,148 California Department of Finance b 2002 14,583 California Department of Finance b 2003 14,784 California Department of Finance b 2004 15,098 California Department of Finance b 2005 15,448 California Department of Finance b 2006 15,651 California Department of Finance b 2007 15,837 California Department of Finance b 2008 16,085 California Department of Finance b 2009 16,230 California Department of Finance b 2010 16,180 US Census Bureau, Census 2010 2011 16,002 California Department of Finance c 2012 15,981 California Department of Finance c 2013 16,046 California Department of Finance c 2014 16,087 California Department of Finance c 2015 16,211 California Department of Finance c a State of California, Department of Finance, Revised Historical City, County and State Population Estimates, 1991-2000, with 1990 and 2000 Census Counts. Sacramento, California. March 2002. b State of California, Department of Finance, E-4 Population Estimates for Cities, Counties and the State, 2001–2010, with 2000 Benchmark. Sacramento, California, May 2010. c State of California, Department of Finance, E-4 Population Estimates for Cities, Counties and the State, 2011–2015, with 2015 Benchmark. Sacramento, California, May 2015. DRAFT 05,00010,00015,00020,00025,00030,0001980 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040PopulationYearFigure 2-3. Historic and Projected Population, 1980-2040Historic PopulationPopulation Projection Based on General Plan Growth RateYear - Population2015 - 16,2112020 - 17,8982025 - 19,7612030 - 21,8182035 - 24,0892040 - 26,596DRAFT SECTION 3 EXISTING WATER FACILITIES DRAFT SECTION 3 EXISTING WATER FACILITIES Page 3-1 The District’s water system is reasonably complicated with 46 pressure zones, 25 pumping stations, 15 active wells and 32 active storage tanks. All demands in the Truckee systems are currently served by groundwater wells, although natural springs and surface water have been used as a water supply in the past. PRESSURE ZONES There are currently 46 pressure zones in the service area, with service elevations ranging from 5745 feet in the Martis Valley to 7370 feet at the highest point in Tahoe Donner. Static service pressures ranges from a high of about 200 psi to a low of about 20 psi. Approximate minimum and maximum ground elevations and static service pressures in the pressure zones are given in Table 3-1. GROUNDWATER WELLS The District currently has 12 active wells that are used to supply potable water to customers. The total production capacity of the active potable water wells is about 9,920 gpm (14.3 mgd). The wells are located at various locations throughout the distribution system. The locations of the wells are shown in Figure 3-1 and selected well characteristics are shown in Table 3-2. Three additional wells are used to serve non-potable water demands. The Donner Creek Well is connected to a separate piping system that is used to provide irrigation water to the Coyote Moon Golf Course. The Fibreboard Well is connected to a separate piping system that is used to provide irrigation water to the Gray’s Crossing and Old Greenwood golf courses. The Southside No. 1 well is used to supply construction water for contractor use during the Summer construction season. There are three other wells that are not currently used by the District. They are the B, Biltz, and Bingham Place wells. All three of these wells are low in capacity and the District does not intend to use these wells in the future. However, they have not been abandoned in accordance with California State requirements and are therefore considered inactive. WATER TREATMENT FACILITIES All of the District’s active potable water wells are equipped with disinfection systems utilizing liquid chlorine. There is an additional treatment system at the Northside well to remove excess levels of arsenic. Water supplied to the District’s customers complies with the appropriate federal and State standards. DRAFT Section 3 – Water System Facilities Page 3-2 Table 3-1. Summary of Pressure Zone Data Pressure Zone Target HGL, feet Lowest Service Elevation, feet Highest Static Service Pressure, psi Highest Service Elevation, feet Lowest Static Service Pressure, psi 6040 6040 5838 87 5927 49 6170 6170 5880 125 6050 52 Alder Creek 6610 6300 134 6440 74 Armstrong 6334 5959 162 6200 58 Bennett Flat 6352 6196 68 6225 55 Coldstream 6080 6080 5920 69 5930 65 DL-6124 6124 5940 80 6050 32 DL-6323 6323 5950 161 6245 34 DL-Northeast 6085 5940 63 5975 48 DL-Red Mountain 6200 6100 43 6110 39 DL-Wolfe 6220 6035 80 6140 35 Donner Trails 6160 5932 99 6005 67 Donner View 6894 6612 122 6806 38 Donner View Hydro 6990 6820 74 6890 43 Gateway 6040 5825 93 5990 22 Glacier 7500 7210 126 7370 56 Glenshire 1 6341 5880 200 6203 60 Glenshire 2 6163 5823 147 6038 54 Heidi Way 6815 6595 95 6645 74 Heights Hydro 6415 6183 100 6325 40 Hillside 6660 6357 131 6526 58 Icknield 6058 5840 94 5850 90 Innsbruck 6493 6157 145 6455 16 Lower Lakeview 6130 5820 134 6040 40 Lower Ski Run 7088 6850 103 6954 58 Lower Skislope 7015 6752 114 6830 80 Martiswoods 6360 6210 65 6255 45 Middle Skislope 7172 6800 161 7010 70 Palisades Hydro 6390 6180 91 6220 74 Pinnacle 6843 6588 110 6756 38 Pinnacle Hydro 6950 6752 86 6820 56 Ponderosa Palisades 6298 6025 118 6220 34 Prosser Heights 6338 6000 146 6180 68 Riverview 6020 5790 100 5875 63 Roundhill Hydro 6790 6618 74 6660 56 Sierra Meadows 6146 5880 115 6030 50 Sitzmark Hydro 6580 6435 63 6440 61 Soma Sierra 6286 6000 124 6200 37 Stockholm 6708 6395 135 6641 29 Town 6024 5745 121 5950 32 Trout Creek 6550 6550 6375 76 6420 56 Upper Lakeview 6230 5975 110 6100 56 Upper Ski Run 7193 No Customers NA No Customers NA Upper Skislope 7366 7010 154 7274 40 Waterloo 6071 5825 106 5876 84 West Palisades Hydro 6250 6100 65 6210 17 HGL = Hydraulic Grade Line DRAFT GLENSHIRE 2 NORTHSIDE WELL PROSSER ANNEX WELL PROSSER HEIGHTS WELL B WELL (INACTIVE) A WELL AIRPORT WELL SANDERS WELL GLENSHIRE DRIVE WELL SOUTHSIDE WELL NO. 2 DONNER CREEK WELL (IRRIGATION USE ONLY)BINGHAM PLACE WELL (INACTIVE) MARTIS VALLEY WELL NO. 1 WELL NO. 20 HIRSCHDALE WELL BILTZ WELL (INACTIVE) GREENPOINT SPRINGS (INACTIVE) MCGLASHEN SPRINGS (INACTIVE) HOFERT SPRINGS (INACTIVE) TO SHEEPHERDER SPRINGS (INACTIVE) (APPROX. 3 MILES SOUTH ON CA 89) TONINI SPRINGS (INACTIVE) SOUTHSIDE SPRINGS (INACTIVE) PROSSER VILLAGE WELL SOUTHSIDE WELL NO. 1 (CONSTRUCTION WATER ONLY) ACTIVE POTABLE WATER WELL LEGEND INACTIVE SURFACE WATER SOURCE INACTIVE POTABLE WATER WELL ACTIVE NON-POTABLE WATER WELL OLD GREENWOOD WELL FIBREBOARD WELL (IRRIGATION USE ONLY) NORTH NOT TO SCALE TRUCKEE DONNER Public Utility District Figure 3-1 Location of Water Production Facilities DRAFTDRAFT Section 3 – Water System Facilities Page 3-4 Table 3-2. Summary of Data for Potable Wells Name Current Capacity, gpm A Well 135 Airport 2,585 Glenshire Drive 1,480 Martis Valley Well No. 1 1,525 Northside 520 Old Greenwood 915 Prosser Annex 500 Prosser Heights 410 Prosser Village 800 Sanders 290 Southside No. 2 220 Well No. 20 540 Total 9,920 Note: Current capacity given is based on most recent data OTHER WATER SUPPLY SOURCES In the past, the District has used natural springs as water supply sources and has also withdrawn water from Donner Lake. There are four springs: Greenpoint; McGlashen; Southside; and Tonini; at which the District has facilities. These springs are not currently used due to their low capacity and the need to treat the water supply in accordance with the Surface Water Treatment Rule. In addition, the District owns water rights to the Sheepherder Springs and Hofert Springs, although no facilities exist to utilize these supplies. Figure 3-1 shows the locations of these springs. The District has abandoned the Intake Pump Station that was used to withdraw water from Donner Lake. PUMPING STATIONS The Truckee System currently has 24 pumping stations located throughout the distribution system. These pumping stations move water from lower pressure zones to higher pressure zones to serve demands in higher elevations of the service area. The different pumping stations have a variety of configurations, with some facilities taking suction directly from distribution system pipelines, while others are located at reservoir sites and use the reservoir as a forebay. Similarly, there is a variety of vertical turbine, end suction and horizontal split case pumps. All of the pumps are driven by electric motors. Some of the pumping stations are equipped with diesel powered generators as a backup power supply. The locations of the pumping stations are shown in Figure 3-2, and selected pump characteristics are shown in Table 3-3. STORAGE TANKS The Truckee System has 35 storage tanks – 32 active and 3 inactive. Most of the tanks provide gravity pressure to a portion of the distribution system. Some also function as a forebay for a pumping station. The total storage capacity of the active water tanks is about 9.4 mg. Storage tank locations are shown in Figure 3-3 and their characteristics are given in Table 3-4. DRAFT GLENSHIRE 2GLENSHIRE 2 PINNACLE HYDROPNEUMATIC PUMPING STATION STOCKHOLM PUMPING STATION ALDER CREEK PUMPING STATION SKI LODGE PUMPING STATION SKI RUN PUMPING STATION ROUNDHILL HYDROPNEUMATIC PUMPING STATION SITZMARK HYDROPNEUMATIC PUMPING STATION PROSSER HEIGHTS HYDROPNEUMATIC PUMPING STATION DONNER VIEW HYDROPNEUMATIC PUMPING STATION INNSBRUCK PUMPING STATION HERRINGBONE PUMPING STATION SOMA SIERRA PUMPING STATION DONNER TRAILS PUMPING STATION WEST PALISADES HYDROPNEUMATIC PUMPING STATION MARTISWOODS PUMPING STATION PALISADES HYDROPNEUMATIC PUMPING STATION SIERRA MEADOWS PUMPING STATION AIRPORT PUMPING STATION FALCON POINT PUMPING STATION WOLFE HYDROPNEUMATIC PUMPING STATION RED MOUNTAIN HYDROPNEUMATIC PUMPING STATION STRAND PUMPING STATION RICHARDS BLVD PUMPING STATION CHINA CAMP PUMPING STATION NORTH NOT TO SCALE TRUCKEE DONNER Public Utility District Figure 3-2 Location of Pumping Stations DRAFTDRAFT Section 3 – Water System Facilities Page 3-6 Table 3-3. Summary of Pumping Station Data Name Suction Pressure Zone Discharge Pressure Zone Number of Pumps Total Power, hp Airport --- 6170 4 400 Alder Creek Stockholm Donner View 2 60 China Camp 6170 Prosser Heights 3 90 Donner Trails Gateway Soma Sierra 4 600 Donner View Hydro Donner View Donner View Hydro 2 30 Falcon Point Innsbruck Stockholm 3 225 Herringbone Stockholm Donner View 3 150 Innsbruck Innsbruck Stockholm 4 200 Martiswoods Ponderosa Palisades Martiswoods 2 15 Pinnacle Hydro Pinnacle Pinnacle Hydro 2 27.5 Palisades Hydro Ponderosa Palisades Palisades Hydro 3 60 Prosser Heights Hydro Prosser Heights Prosser Heights Hydro 2 70 Red Mountain Hydro DL-6124 Red Mountain 2 30 Richards Boulevard Gateway Armstrong/DL-6323 3 300 Roundhill Hydro Stockholm Roundhill Hydro 2 30 Sierra Meadows 6170/Sierra Meadows Ponderosa Palisades 3 90 Sitzmark Hydro Innsbruck Sitzmark Hydro 2 30 Ski Lodge Donner View Upper Ski Run 2 80 Ski Run Upper Ski Run Upper Glacier 2 50 Soma Sierra Soma Sierra Innsbruck 4 600 Stockholm Stockholm Pinnacle 3 150 Strand 6170/Glenshire 2 Glenshire 1 3 120 West Palisades Hydro Ponderosa Palisades West Palisades Hydro 1 3 Wolfe Hydro DL-6124 Wolfe 2 45 CONTROL VALVE STATIONS There are 40 control valve stations located throughout the Truckee System – 34 active and 6 inactive. These stations provide service to small pressure zones, allow a means to relieve pressure in zones not directly served by a reservoir and provide additional water for fire flow demands. The locations of the stations are shown on Figure 3-3 and selected data on the stations is given in Table 3-5. PIPELINES The existing distribution system consists of about 216 miles of pipeline ranging from 2-inches to 24-inches in diameter. The majority of the pipelines are between 4-inches and 8-inches in diameter. The oldest piping in the system dates to the 1940s, with the great majority of the system having been installed since 1960. There are a number of different pipeline materials throughout the system. The majority of the distribution pipelines are steel, with large portions of ductile iron pipe as well. DRAFT GLENSHIRE 2GLENSHIRE 2GLENSHIRE 2 GLACIER TANK SKI RUN TANK SKI LODGE TANK STOCKHOLM TANK PINNACLE TANK DONNER VIEW TANK HERRINGBONE TANK INNSBRUCK TANK ROUNDHILL TANK FALCON POINT TANK SITZMARK TANK PROSSER HEIGHTS TANK PROSSER ANNEX TANK PROSSER LAKEVIEW TANK ARMSTRONG TANK SOMA SIERRA TANK DONNER TRAILS TANKS GATEWAY TANK NORTHSIDE TANK SIERRA MEADOWS TANK PONDEROSA PALISADES TANK MARTISWOODS TANK AND MARTISWOODS TOWER AIRPORT TANK BRIDGE STREET 6170 TANK DONNER LAKE 6323 TANK WOLFE TANK RED MOUNTAIN TANK (INACTIVE) BILTZ TANK (INACTIVE) FEATHERSTONE 5988 TANK (INACTIVE) UPPER GLENSHIRE TANKS LOWER GLENSHIRE TANKS HIRSCHDALE TANK ALDER CREEK PRV STATION SNOWSHOE PRV STATIONEAST HILLSIDE PRV STATION WEST HILLSIDE PRV STATION 16133 PRV STATION 14526 PRV STATION 13770 PRV STATION NORTH BENNETT FLAT PRV STATION SOUTH BENNETT FLAT PRV STATION HEIDI WAY PRV STATION DONNER TRAILS PRV STATION RAINBOW PRV STATION PROSSER PRV STATION (INACTIVE) 13330 PRV STATION MORAINE ROAD PRV STATION (INACTIVE) MARTIS VALLEY ROAD PRV STATION WELLINGTON PRV STATION ICKNIELD PRV STATION DONNINGTON PRV STATION WATERLOO PRV STATION TUDOR PRV STATION BILTZ PRV STATION (INACTIVE) LOCH LEVEN PRV STATION GLENSHIRE DRIVE PRV STATION COLDSTREAM 6080 PRV STATION EAST NORTHSIDE FCV STATIONWEST NORTHSIDE FCV STATION LAURELWOOD PRV STATION (INACTIVE) OLD GREENWOOD NO. 2 PRV STATION (INACTIVE) OLD GREENWOOD NO. 1 PRV STATION (INACTIVE) OLD GREENWOOD NO. 3 PRV STATION OLD GREENWOOD NO. 4 PRV STATION SUMMIT DRIVE PRV STATION TROUT CREEK 6550 PRV STATION WEST REED FCV STATION ACTIVE STORAGE TANK SITE LEGEND INACTIVE CONTROL VALVE STATION ACTIVE CONTROL VALVE STATION INACTIVE STORAGE TANK SITE COLLEGE PRV STATION ESTATES PRV STATION REYNOLD PRV STATION GATEWAY PRV STATION GHIRARD PRV STATION NORTH NOT TO SCALE TRUCKEE DONNER Public Utility District Figure 3-3 Location of Storage Tanks and Control Valve Stations DRAFTDRAFT Section 3 – Water System Facilities Page 3-8 Table 3-4. Summary of Storage Tank Data Storage Tank Volume, mg Diameter, feet Floor Elevation Shell Height, feet Overflow Elevation Year Built Airport 0.60 70 5886 20 5906 1979 Armstrong 0.10 27 6310 24 6334 1979 Biltz 0.085 25 6350 24 6374 1985 Bridge Street 6170 1.50 90 6139 32 6171 2002 Donner Trails 1 0.15 36 6022 20 6042 1973 Donner Trails 2 0.15 36 6022 20 6042 1990 Donner Lake 6323 0.30 40 6291 32 6323 2005 Donner View 0.35 40 6861 32 6893 1973 Falcon Point 0.20 39 6469 24 6493 1974 Featherstone 5988 0.36 44 5956 32 5988 2002 Gateway 0.45 60 6021 24 6045 1995 Glacier 0.15 36 7476 24 7500 1972 Herringbone 0.30 40 6676 32 6708 1973 Innsbruck 0.20 39 6469 24 6493 1972 Lower Glenshire 1 0.42 55 6139 24 6163 1993 Lower Glenshire 2 0.32 48 6139 24 6163 1972 Martiswoods 0.20 40 6276 22 6298 1982 Martiswoods Tower 0.10 20 6338 22 6360 1982 Northside 0.40 55 6003 24 6027 1974 Pinnacle 0.18 31.5 6811 32 6843 1973 Ponderosa Palisades 0.20 40 6276 22 6298 1972 Prosser Annex 0.215 40 6314 24 6338 1994 Prosser Heights 0.215 40 6314 24 6338 1963 Prosser Lakeview 0.25 40 6102 28 6130 1971 Red Mountain 0.21 39 6100 24 6124 1963 Roundhill 0.30 40 6676 32 6708 1974 Sierra Meadows 0.25 34 6110 36 6146 1971 Sitzmark 0.20 39 6469 24 6493 1973 Ski Lodge 0.35 50 6870 24 6894 1971 Ski Run 0.10 26 7163 30 7193 1972 Soma Sierra 0.20 40 6262 24 6286 1972 Stockholm 0.32 42 6676 32 6708 1972 Upper Glenshire 1 0.28 45 6315 24 6339 1991 Upper Glenshire 2 0.21 39 6315 24 6339 1989 Wolfe 0.23 42 6100 24 6124 1993 Total 10.05 DRAFT Section 3 – Water System Facilities Page 3-9 Table 3-5. Summary of Control Valve Station Data Name Upstream Pressure Zone Downstream Pressure Zone Notes 13330 Skislope Middle Skislope Lower Skislope 13770 Skislope Upper Skislope Middle Skislope 14526 Skislope Glacier Upper Skislope 16133 Skislope Upper Ski Run Lower Ski Run Alder Creek Stockholm Alder Creek Biltz Biltz Tank Armstrong Inactive Coldstream 6080 DL-6323 Coldstream 6080 College 6170 Gateway Donner Trails Soma Sierra Donner Trails Donnington Glenshire 1 Glenshire 2 East Hillside Stockholm Hillside East Northside 6170 Town Estates 6170 Riverview Gateway 6170 Gateway Ghirard 6170 Lower Lakeview Glenshire Drive 6170 6040 Heidi Way Stockholm Innsbruck Icknield Glenshire 2 Icknield Laurelwood Upper Lakeview Lower Lakeview Inactive Loch Leven DL-6323 DL-Northeast Martis Valley Road Ponderosa Palisades Sierra Meadows Moraine Road Armstrong DL-Northeast Inactive North Bennett Flat Innsbruck Bennett Flat Old Greenwood No. 1 6170 6040 Inactive Old Greenwood No. 2 6170 6040 Inactive Old Greenwood No. 3 6170 6040 Old Greenwood No. 4 6170 6040 Prosser Prosser Heights Upper Lakeview Inactive Rainbow Upper Lakeview Lower Lakeview Reynold 6170 Riverview Snowshoe Upper Lakeview Lower Lakeview South Bennett Flat Innsbruck Bennett Flat Summit Drive DL-6323 DL-Northeast Trout Creek 6550 Stockholm Trout Creek 6550 Tudor Glenshire 2 Icknield Waterloo Glenshire 2 Waterloo Wellington Glenshire 2 Waterloo West Hillside Stockholm Hillside West Northside 6170 Gateway West Reed DL-6323 DL-6124 DRAFT SECTION 4 SYSTEM WATER USE DRAFT SECTION 4 SYSTEM WATER USE Page 4-1 This section describes the historic and future water demands for the Truckee System. HISTORIC POTABLE WATER DEMANDS Potable water demand in the Truckee System reached a historic peak in 2007 with an average day demand of 6.67 mgd and a maximum day demand of 14.84 mgd. Since 2007, there has been a 51 percent reduction in potable water usage with an average day demand of 3.26 mgd and a maximum day demand of 7.72 mgd for the year 2015. Figure 4-1 shows the historical trend of water demand for the Truckee System and Table 4-1 gives this information in tabular form. There are four main factors that contribute to the reduction in potable water demand since 2007. 1) Beginning in 2007, the District markedly expanded its pipeline replacement program in an effort to reduce the volume of water being lost due to leakage from District-owned pipes. The District has been able to replace about 67,250 feet of pipeline since that time. 2) The Fibreboard Well was placed into service in the Fall of 2009. This well supplies non- potable irrigation water to two golf courses that were previously supplied from the District’s potable water system. This non-potable well has offset average day potable water production by about 0.4 mgd and maximum day potable water production by about 1.3 mgd. 3) In 2010, the District implemented volume-based billing in order to comply with California AB 2572. Prior to 2010, the District did not read meters that were installed on its residential customers and billed residential customers a flat unmetered rate for service. The District also installed an automated meter reading (AMR) system. With this AMR system, the District discovered that about 10 percent of its customer base had a leak on the customer-owned piping. A few of these leaks were as large as 10 gallons per minute. Some of these customer-side leaks had been occurring for a significant period of time prior to the installation of the meter, however the District had no method to detect the leak and then inform the customer. With the AMR system, the District has developed procedures for informing customers of leaks in a timely manner in order to reduce the amount of water lost to leakage and to minimize any property damage that may be caused by these customer-side leaks. 4) Water production in 2014 and 2015 was significantly lower due to mandates issued by the State of California. For 2015, the District was assigned a water conservation target of 28 percent. EXISTING WATER DEMANDS Potable water production for the year 2015 averaged 3.26 million gallons per day (mgd) with a peak of 7.72 mgd that occurred on June 20, 2015. Total potable water production was about 1,191 million gallons. An additional 193 million gallons of raw water was produced to serve golf course irrigation demands. Table 4-2 gives a breakdown of this demand by customer category. DRAFT 0.02.04.06.08.010.012.014.016.01970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015Demand, mgdYearFigure 4-1. Historic Potable Water Demands, 1970 - 2015Historic Average Day DemandHistoric Maximum Day DemandEstimated Maximum Day DemandHistoric Minimum Day DemandDRAFT Section 4 – System Water Use Page 4-3 Table 4-1. Historic Potable Water Production Average Day Maximum Day Peaking Year mgd gpm mgd gpm Factor 1980 1.30 901 NA NA NA 1981 1.47 1,021 NA NA NA 1982 1.53 1,060 NA NA NA 1983 1.64 1,138 NA NA NA 1984 1.70 1,182 NA NA NA 1985 1.91 1,328 NA NA NA 1986 1.95 1,353 NA NA NA 1987 2.32 1,611 NA NA NA 1988 2.31 1,606 NA NA NA 1989 2.56 1,775 NA NA NA 1990 2.89 2,005 NA NA NA 1991 3.07 2,131 NA NA NA 1992 2.61 1,810 NA NA NA 1993 2.81 1,954 NA NA NA 1994 3.28 2,277 6.78 4,708 2.07 1995 3.10 2,150 5.78 4,016 1.86 1996 3.47 2,407 6.49 4,505 1.87 1997 3.52 2,445 6.64 4,611 1.89 1998 3.47 2,413 7.22 5,014 2.08 1999 4.08 2,833 7.63 5,299 1.87 2000 4.33 3,004 8.46 5,877 1.96 2001 4.65 3,228 8.76 6,085 1.88 2002 6.09a 4,229 11.47a 7.965 1.88 2003 6.05 4,204 11.50 7,986 1.90 2004 6.64 4,614 12.61 8,759 1.90 2005 6.11 4,244 12.66 8,790 2.07 2006 6.50 4,514 13.01 9,034 2.00 2007 6.67 4,631 14.84 10,304 2.23 2008 6.29 4,371 12.65 8,783 2.01 2009 5.63 3,913 12.71 8,826 2.26 2010 4.53 3,149 9.53 6,616 2.10 2011 4.25 2,952 8.72 6,055 2.05 2012 4.35 3,019 8.42 5,847 1.94 2013 4.50 3,124 9.64 6,692 2.14 2014 3.98 2,761 8.13 5,643 2.04 2015 3.26 2,266 7.72 5,362 2.37 a Large increase in production for 2002 results from acquisition of Donner Lake and Glenshire Water Systems DRAFT Section 4 – System Water Use Page 4-4 Table 4-2. Demands for Potable Water and Raw Water – Actual - 2015 Use Type Additional Description Level of Treatment Volume (million gals) Single-Family Drinking Water 602 Multi-Family Drinking Water 69 Commercial Drinking Water 91 Industrial Drinking Water 0 Institutional/Governmental Drinking Water 40 Landscape Drinking Water 44 Saline Water Intrusion Barrier Drinking Water 0 Agricultural Irrigation Drinking Water 0 Wetlands or Wildlife Habitat Drinking Water 0 Sales/Transfers to Other Agencies Drinking Water 0 Losses Drinking Water 345 Other Irrigation Raw Water 193 Total 1,384 FUTURE WATER DEMANDS Water demand projections for buildout conditions have been calculated based upon anticipated development of all currently vacant parcels. Currently developed parcels were assumed to continue into the future with no change in land use. A projected buildout demand was then calculated for each vacant parcel based on the anticipated land use and the size of the parcel. This analysis resulted in a buildout average day potable water demand of 8.66 mgd and a buildout maximum day potable water demand of 17.07 mgd. Detailed information regarding these buildout projections is given in the report entitled Buildout Water Demand Projections, September 2015. These buildout water demand projections assumed that the percentage of non- revenue water remained unchanged in the future. It is expected that the State of California will prioritize reducing the level of non-revenue water (NRW) experienced by urban water suppliers. The District recognizes the need to reduce its NRW and has increased its efforts in the areas of water main replacement, leak detection surveys, leak repairs and water system metering over the past few years. The District plans to continue these increased efforts in the foreseeable future. Based upon these increased efforts, a revised buildout average day potable water demand of 7.49 mgd was calculated. Table 4-3 gives the projected breakdown of future water demand by category in 5-year increments. DRAFT Section 4 – System Water Use Page 4-5 Table 4-3. Demands for Potable Water and Raw Water – Projected Volume (million gals) Use Type Additional Description 2020 2025 2030 2035 Single-Family Drinking Water 709 816 924 1,030 Multi-Family Drinking Water 141 200 259 318 Commercial Drinking Water 143 181 219 257 Industrial Drinking Water 1 1 2 2 Institutional/Governmental Drinking Water 106 157 209 261 Landscape Drinking Water 83 92 102 112 Saline Water Intrusion Barrier Drinking Water 0 0 0 0 Agricultural Irrigation Drinking Water 0 0 0 0 Wetlands or Wildlife Habitat Drinking Water 0 0 0 0 Sales/Transfers Drinking Water 0 0 0 0 Losses Drinking Water 345 335 305 261 Other Raw Water 240 240 240 240 Total 1,768 2,022 2,260 2,481 CURRENT AND POTENTIAL USE OF RECYCLED WATER In November 1990, the Truckee-Carson-Pyramid Lake Water Rights Settlement Act, Title II of Public Law 101-618 [104 Stat. 3289, 3294] was signed into law by the US Government. Section 204.c.1.G of that Act essentially prohibits the reduction in return flow of treated wastewater to the Truckee River and thereby precludes use of recycled water in the Truckee area. The text of the Section is given below: G) if the Tahoe-Truckee Sanitation Agency or its successor (hereafter 'TTSA') changes in whole or in part the place of disposal of its treated wastewater to a place outside the area between Martis Creek and the Truckee River below elevation 5800 NGVD Datum, or changes the existing method of disposing of its wastewater, which change in place or method of disposal reduces the amount or substantially changes the timing of return flows to the Truckee River of the treated wastewater, TTSA shall: (i) acquire or arrange for the acquisition of preexisting water rights to divert and use water of the Truckee River or its tributaries in California or Nevada and discontinue the diversion and use of water at the preexisting point of diversion and place of use under such rights in a manner legally sufficient to offset such reduction in the amount of return flow or change in timing, and California's Truckee River basin gross diversion allocation shall continue to be charged the amount of the discontinued diversion; or (ii) in compliance with California law, extract and discharge into the Truckee River or its tributaries an amount of Truckee River basin groundwater in California sufficient to offset such reduction or change in timing, subject to the following conditions: (a) extraction and discharge of Truckee River Basin groundwater for purposes of this paragraph shall comply with the terms and conditions of subparagraphs 204(c)(1) (B) and (D) and shall not be deemed use of Truckee River basin groundwater within the State of Nevada within the meaning of subparagraph 204(c)(1)(D); and DRAFT Section 4 – System Water Use Page 4-6 (b) California's Truckee River basin gross diversion allocation shall be charged immediately with the amount of groundwater discharged and, when California's Truckee River Basin gross diversion allocation equals 22,000 acre-feet or when the total of any reductions resulting from the changes in the place or method of disposal exceed 1000 acre-feet, whichever occurs first, the California Truckee River basin gross diversion allocation shall thereafter be charged with an additional amount of water required to compensate for the return flows which would otherwise have accrued to the Truckee River basin from municipal and industrial use of the discharged groundwater. In no event shall the total of California's Truckee River gross diversions and extractions exceed 32,000 acre-feet. (iii) For purposes of this paragraph, the existing method of disposal shall include, in addition to underground leach field disposal, surface spray or sprinkler infiltration of treated wastewater on the site between Martis Creek and the Truckee River referred to in this subsection. (iv) The provisions of this paragraph requiring the acquisition of water rights or the extraction and discharge of groundwater to offset reductions in the amount or timing of return flow to the Truckee River shall also apply to entities other than TTSA that may treat and dispose of wastewater within the California portion of the Truckee River basin, but only if and to the extent that the treated wastewater is not returned to the Truckee River or its tributaries, as to timing and amount, substantially as if the wastewater had been treated and disposed of by TTSA in its existing place of disposal and by its existing method of disposal. The provisions of this paragraph shall not apply to entities treating and disposing of the wastewater from less than eight dwelling units. WATER DEMAND FOR LOW-INCOME HOUSING The current Town of Truckee Housing Element was adopted in January of 2015. According to that document, there is a need for 1,270 low-income housing units. Based upon the 325 gallons per connection per day described in the Buildout Water Demand Projections report, there is a need for about 0.41 million gallons per year to serve these housing units. This demand is included in the existing and future water demands described earlier in this section. DRAFT SECTION 5 SBX7-7 BASELINES AND TARGETS DRAFT SECTION 5 SB X7-7 BASELINES AND TARGETS Page 5-1 The Water Conservation Act of 2009, also known as the SB X7-7, set a goal of reducing statewide urban water use by 20 percent by the year 2020. Each retail urban water supplier is required to determine water use during its baseline period and target water use for the years 2015 and 2020 in order to help the State achieve the 20 percent reduction. BASELINE WATER USAGE CALCULATION SB X7-7 requires calculation of per capita water usage for a continuous 10-year period ending no earlier than December 31, 2004 and no later than December 31, 2010. As discussed in Section 2, the District acquired the Donner Lake Water System in May 2001 and the Glenshire Water System in February 2002. The District does not have accurate records regarding production and water usage in the Donner Lake area for early 2001 and prior years. Additionally, the District does not have accurate historical data regarding population in different parts of Truckee for 2001. Therefore, the nine-year period of 2002 to 2010 is utilized for the baseline calculation. The District has accurate data for this time period and the water system service area during this time more closely matches the Town of Truckee limits and its corresponding population estimates. The baseline water usage is 407 gallons per capita per day (gpcd) as documented in Table 5-1. It should be noted that the baseline water usage value is significantly higher than the 243 gpcd baseline established by the Department of Water Resources for the North Lahontan region. One main reason for this difference is that the calculation methodology does not adjust for the part- time population in the Truckee area. It only considers the permanent population. As noted in Section 2, the Town of Truckee has estimated that about half of the housing stock in the Truckee area is occupied on a part time basis. This part-time population can easily lead to a doubling of the number of people served at any given time, along with a significant increase in water demand. Additionally, there are numerous part-time occupancy properties that are equipped with timer-controlled irrigation systems. These properties exert an irrigation demand even though there is no corresponding population. DEMAND REDUCTION TARGET CALCULATION SB X7-7 requires that a water supplier develop a year 2020 water use target and a year 2015 interim target using one of four methods. These targets are intended to meet the goal of reducing statewide per capita water consumption by 20 percent by the year 2020, as established by the California Legislature. As defined in SB X7-7, there are four allowable methods for determining the 2020 target. The District has selected Method 1, which is “Eighty percent of the water supplier’s baseline per capita water use.” Therefore, the District’s water demand targets are: 2015: 407 x 90% = 367 gpcd 2020: 407 x 80% = 326 gpcd DRAFT Section 5 – SB X7-7 Baselines and Targets Page 5-2 Table 5-1. Calculation of Baseline Per Capita Water Usage Baseline Year Service Area Population Gross Water Use (millions of gallons) Daily Per Capita Water Use (GPCD) 10 to 15 Year Baseline GPCD Year 1 2002 14,583 2,307 433 Year 2 2003 14,784 2,272 421 Year 3 2004 15,098 2,505 455 Year 4 2005 15,448 2,271 403 Year 5 2006 15,651 2,457 430 Year 6 2007 15,837 2,526 437 Year 7 2008 16,085 2,396 408 Year 8 2009 16,230 2,163 365 Year 9 2010 16,180 1,852 314 10-15 Year Average Baseline GPCD 407 5 Year Baseline GPCD Baseline Year Service Area Population Gross Water Use (millions of gallons) Daily Per Capita Water Use (GPCD) Year 1 2006 15,651 2,457 430 Year 2 2007 15,837 2,526 437 Year 3 2008 16,085 2,396 408 Year 4 2009 16,230 2,163 365 Year 5 2010 16,180 1,852 314 5 Year Average Baseline GPCD 391 2015 Compliance Year GPCD 2015 16,211 1,384 234 SB X7-7 also requires the determination of a minimum water use reduction. This calculation is documented in Table 5-2. Table 5-2. Confirmation of Minimum Reduction for 2020 Target 5 Year Baseline GPCD Maximum 2020 Target* Calculated 2020 Target Confirmed 2020 Target 391 371 326 326 * Maximum 2020 Target is 95% of the 5 Year Baseline GPCD With the minimum water use reduction being met, demand reduction targets are calculated for the years 2015 and 2020 as shown in Table 5-3. DRAFT Section 5 – SB X7-7 Baselines and Targets Page 5-3 Table 5-3. Calculation of 2015 Interim Target GPCD Confirmed 2020 Target 10-15 year Baseline GPCD 2015 Interim Target GPCD 326 407 367 METHODS TO ACHIEVE THE DEMAND REDUCTION TARGET As shown in Table 5-1, per capita water usage for the year 2010 was 314 gpcd. Per capita water usage for 2015 was 234 gpcd. These values comply with the District’s year 2020 target of 326 gpcd target. Over the next few years, the District intends to complete its water meter installation program. Once the meter installation program is completed, additional funds should be available to supplement the District’s pipeline replacement program. By replacing additional pipelines in poor condition, the District should be able to further reduce its system losses and water production. The District intends to continue its current practices of monitoring and notification regarding customer-side water leaks. The District also intends to maintain its current slate of demand management measures (DMMs) that are discussed in Section 8. DRAFT SECTION 6 WATER SYSTEM SUPPLIES DRAFT SECTION 6 WATER SYSTEM SUPPLIES Page 6-1 This section provides a discussion of the available water supplies to meet the existing and future water demands through buildout of the District’s service area. MARTIS VALLEY GROUNDWATER BASIN The District currently obtains its all of its water supply thro ugh the pumping of groundwater from the Martis Valley Groundwater Basin (MVGB). The MVGB is a multiple aquifer system consisting of basin-fill sedimentary units and interlayered basin-fill volcanic units. Detailed information regarding geology of the MVGB can be found in a number of sources, including: • Availability of Ground Water. Prepared for the Truckee Donner Public Utility District by Hydro-Search Inc. Reno, Nevada. February 1975. • Truckee and Vicinity Ground-Water Resource Evaluation. Prepared for Dart Resorts Inc. by Hydro-Search Inc. Reno, Nevada. April 1980. • Ground-Water Management Plan, Phase 1, Martis Valley Ground-Water Basin, Basin No. 6-67, Nevada and Placer Counties. Prepared for the Truckee Donner Public Utility District by Hydro-Search Inc. Reno, Nevada. January 1995. • Ground Water Resource Evaluation. Prepared For The Truckee Donner Public Utility District by Nimbus Engineers. Reno, Nevada. November 2000. • Ground Water Availability In The Martis Valley Ground Water Basin, Nevada and Placer Counties, California. Prepared for the Truckee Donner Public Utility District, Placer County Water Agency and Northstar Community Services District by Nimbus Engineers. Reno, Nevada. March 2001. • Supplemental Report to California’s Groundwater – Bulletin 118, Update 2003. Prepared by the California Department of Water Resources. Sacramento, California. October 2003. • Martis Valley Groundwater Management Plan. Prepared for the Truckee Donner Public Utility District, Placer County Water Agency and Northstar Community Services District by Brown and Caldwell and Balance Hydrologics, Reno, Nevada, April 2013. The California Department of Water Resources has not determined that the MVGB is being overdrafted and there are not any known instances of contamination of the MVGB. The MVGB is currently unadjudicated and none of the groundwater users has expressed a desire to have the basin adjudicated. QUANTITY OF GROUNDWATER IN THE MARTIS VALLEY BASIN A number of studies have been conducted over the past 30 years to investigate and quantify the amount of water available in the MVGB. As knowledge regarding the geologic characteristics of the MVGB has improved over the years, the estimates of available water have been refined and DRAFT Section 6 – Water System Supplies Page 6-2 therefore, the most recent studies are considered to have the best information regarding water availability. The 1975 study by Hydro-Search estimated annual recharge to the MVGB at 18,200 acre-feet per year (AFY) with a total subsurface storage volume of 1,050,000 acre-feet. The 1975 study also concluded that 13,000 AFY was available for consumptive uses. The 1980 and 1995 studies were essentially updates of the 1975 study and provided additional information regarding the MVGB. However, a new evaluation of groundwater availability was not conducted as part of those efforts. The 2001 study represented the first reconsideration of the MVGB water availability since the 1975 study. This 2001 study concluded that total subsurface storage volume is 484,000 acre-feet, with an annual recharge of 29,165 AFY. Additional water is recharged to the upper layer of the MVGB by the Tahoe-Truckee Sanitation Agency’s (TTSA’s) wastewater treatment plant. This 2001 study concluded that the sustainable yield of the MVGB is 24,000 AFY. In 2002, a study entitled Independent Appraisal of Martis Valley Ground Water Availability, Nevada and Placer Counties was conducted by Kennedy/Jenks Consultants. This study agreed with the sustainable yield estimate of 24,000 AFY by Nimbus Engineers in 2001. The Kennedy/Jenks study also concluded that the 24,000 AFY likely underestimates the amount of water available on a sustainable basis since the 2001 Nimbus study underestimated both basin recharge and ground water discharge to tributary streams. In April 2003, a study conducted by InterFlow Hydrology and Cordilleran Hydrology entitled Measurement of Ground Water Discharge to Streams Tributary to the Truckee River in Martis Valley, Nevada and Placer Counties, California examined the issue of ground water discharge to tributary streams and concluded that about 34,000 AFY of water is available on a sustainable basis. As noted above, the MVGB is unadjudicated and will likely remain unadjudicated in the future. Therefore, it is reasonable to assume that, at a minimum, the 24,000 AFY (7,820 million gallons) of water cited in the Nimbus study is available to support development in Truckee and the surrounding areas. RELIABILITY OF THE WATER SUPPLY The great majority of groundwater basin recharge results from snowfall and snowmelt during the winter period. Summer thunderstorms can produce high intensity rainfall events of short duration. However, these storms do not make a significant contribution to basin recharge. Figure 6-1 shows historic snowfall and snowpack data at Donner Summit for the period of 1879-2015 as measured by the Central Sierra Snow Laboratory. As shown in this graph snowfall (and corresponding basin recharge) can vary significantly from year to year. The driest single year occurred in 2015 with total snowfall of about 11 feet. The 3-year period with the minimum snowfall occurred in 2013- 2015 with a total of about 45 feet. Considering the large amount of water in storage in relation to the projected buildout demand, one year (or even multiple years) of below average precipitation and basin recharge would not have a significant impact upon the water supply. Therefore, the 24,000 AFY (7,820 million gallons) noted above also considered the 3-year minimum water supply. DRAFT 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 187918811883188518871889189118931895189718991901190319051907190919111913191519171919192119231925192719291931193319351937193919411943194519471949195119531955195719591961196319651967196919711973197519771979198119831985198719891991199319951997199920012003200520072009201120132015feetcentimetersWinter Donner Summit Snowfall and Snowpack Winters 1879-2015 Total Snowfall Maximum Snow Depth Data Sources 1879-1945,1953-1957 Southern Pacific Railroad 1946-1952, 1958-2015 Central Sierra Snow Laboratory n = 137 snowfall (cm) ave = 1031 snowpack (cm) ave = 354 University of California, Berkeley Central Sierra Snow Laboratory PO Box 810 Soda Springs, CA 95728 USA (530) 426-0318 http://research.chance.berkeley.edu DRAFT Section 6 – Water System Supplies Page 6-4 MANAGEMENT OF THE MARTIS VALLEY GROUNDWATER BASIN A management plan for the Martis Valley Groundwater Basin was prepared in 2013. A copy of this groundwater management plan is included in Appendix C. WATER SUPPLY QUALITY As noted in the District’s 2015 Water Quality Report, all water supplied to potable water customers is in compliance with State and Federal regulations. The District does operate a treatment system at the Northside well to remove excess levels of arsenic. The quality of the existing sources has been consistent and the District does not anticipate any future changes in the quality of its existing sources. GROUNDWATER WITHDRAWALS The major producers of water in the MVGB are the District, the Northstar Community Services District, five golf courses and Teichert Aggregates. There are also a number of small wells supporting individual residences along with some other uses such as the Martis Creek Campground and the TNT Materials concrete plant. For 2015, withdrawals from the MVGB by the District totaled 1,191 million gallons for potable water purposes and an additional 193 million gallons of raw water for irrigation and construction water purposes. Historic groundwater pumping by the District is summarized in Table 6-1. Total groundwater withdrawals from the MVGB for 2015 are estimated at 2,411 million gallons. This data is summarized in Table 6-2. Table 6-1. Groundwater Volume Pumped by the District Groundwater Type Location or Basin Name 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Alluvial Basin Martis Valley 1,727 1,857 1,846 1,682 1,384 TOTAL (millions of gallons)1,727 1,857 1,846 1,682 1,384 EXISTING PRODUCTION CAPACITY IN RELATION TO PROJECTED DEMANDS The current maximum day potable water demand for the Truckee System is 7.7 mgd. It is anticipated that this maximum day demand will increase to 9.5 mgd and 10.6 mgd by the years 2020 and 2025, respectively. Average day potable water demand will increase from 3.7 mgd currently to 4.7 mgd in the year 2020 and 5.3 mgd in the year 2025. The anticipated growth in maximum day potable water demand is shown graphically in Figure 6-2. The District currently operates 12 potable water wells. The total capacity of these wells is about 9,920 gpm (14.3 mgd). The overall system potable water production capacity is adequate to serve projected demands through the year 2041. However, the firm capacity of these existing facilities will be exceeded in the year 2025, since a failure of Airport Well would leave a production capacity of only 10.6 mgd. DRAFT Section 6 – Water System Supplies Page 6-5 Table 6-2. Volume Pumped from the Martis Valley Groundwater Basin in 2015 Entity Treatment Estimated Withdrawal (millions of gallons) Data Source/Notes Former PCWA Zone 4 Potable 82 Mike Staudenmayer, NCSD GM Northstar CSD (incl. snowmaking) Potable 355 Mike Staudenmayer, NCSD GM TDPUD Potable 1,191 TDPUD – Golf Course Irrigation Non-Potable 193 Tahoe Donner Golf Course Non-Potable 69 Estimated from 2013 Groundwater Management Plan Ponderosa Golf Course Non-Potable 5 Mike Stemen, TDRPD Maintenance Martis Camp Golf Course Non-Potable 81 Estimated from 2013 Groundwater Management Plan Lahontan Golf Course Non-Potable 81 Estimated from 2013 Groundwater Management Plan Schaeffer’s Mill Golf Course Non-Potable 81 Estimated from 2013 Groundwater Management Plan Individual Wells 252 Antonucci, 2001 State & Federal 21 Antonucci, 2001 Total (millions of gallons) 2,412 WASTEWATER AND RECYCLED WATER The District does not provide either wastewater collection or treatment to customers within its service area. The great majority of the District’s water customers are served by a centralized wastewater collection system owned by the Truckee Sanitary District (TSD). This TSD maintained system collects the wastewater and conveys it to the Tahoe-Truckee Sanitation Agency’s (TTSA) regional water reclamation plant. The remainder of the District’s water customers is not served by centralized wastewater collection and treatment. Water customers in the Olympic Heights, Prosser Heights, Prosser Lakeview, Ponderosa Palisades and Martiswoods areas are served by individual septic tank and leachfield systems. TSD also provides wastewater conveyance service for portions of Placer County outside of the District’s service area. All wastewater collected by TSD is conveyed to the TTSA Water Reclamation Plant for treatment. The TTSA plant has a peak capacity of 9.6 mgd and treats wastewater from the entire Truckee/North Lake Tahoe area within the state of California. During 2015, TSD conveyed about 394 million gallons of wastewater to the treatment plant. About 80 percent of TSD’s current total wastewater flow is generated within the District’s water service territory. No data is available to quantify the amount of wastewater treated by individual septic tank and leachfield systems. DRAFT 0.05.010.015.020.025.0199520002005201020152020202520302035Demand, mgdYearFigure 6-2. Projected Potable Water Demand vs. Existing Production Capacity, 1995-2035Historic Maximum Day DemandFuture Maximum Day Demand ProjectionPotable Water Production CapacityFirm Potable Water Production CapacityDRAFT Section 6 – Water System Supplies Page 6-7 The treatment process at the TTSA plant involves full tertiary treatment including phosphorus and nitrogen removal. Treated effluent is discharged into the uppermost layer of the groundwater aquifer using subsurface percolation. Sludge generated by the wastewater treatment process is conveyed to either Orient Farms in Gerlach, Nevada, or the Lockwood Regional Landfill for disposal. During 2015, the TTSA plant processed about 1,250 million gallons of wastewater. FUTURE WATER SUPPLIES Currently, the District uses groundwater as its sole source of supply. In the past, a number of local springs were utilized. Their use was discontinued due to the limited capacity and need for more extensive treatment as required by the Surface Water Treatment Rule. Construction of a surface water treatment plant to utilize surface water from Donner Lake was undertaken by a developer in the early 1970s, but was halted due to political issues and questions regarding the status of water rights. The District does not currently use recycled water and does not anticipate using recycled water in the future as discussed in Section 4. The use of surface water, either through a treatment plant or wells with filtration, requires that a number of technical, legal and environmental issues be investigated and addressed. There is sufficient groundwater available to meet the District’s needs at buildout conditions and the District anticipates that groundwater will remain its main supply source. Importation of water from other areas, water transfers and water exchanges have not been investigated since they are unnecessary. Similarly, the use of desalinated water has not been investigated. Considering that the Truckee area is about 200 miles from the ocean, the use of desalination is considered extremely unpractical. BUILDOUT WATER DEMANDS As discussed in Section 4, buildout potable water demand for the Truckee System is estimated to be 2,733 million gallons per year. An additional 240 million gallons per year of non-potable water demand is also expected. When other users of the MVGB are considered, total withdrawals at buildout conditions are estimated to be 4,217 million gallons as noted in Table 6-3. With a total water supply of at least 24,000 AFY (7,820 million gallons), there is adequate water supply to meet the projected buildout conditions. There are 484,000 acre-feet (157,701 million gallons) of water in storage in the MVGB. The projected total demand of 4,217 million gallons at buildout is equal to about three percent of the capacity of the MVGB and there is adequate water to provide for over 37 years worth of demand even if no recharge of the basin were to occur. ADDITIONAL POTABLE WATER PRODUCTION CAPACITY The available production capacity is sufficient to meet current demands. Based upon the projected growth, the potable water production facilities will be unable to meet projected maximum day demands in the year 2041. However, the firm capacity will be exceeded in 2025. Based on the 14.3 mgd of total available capacity, an additional 2.5 mgd of production capacity is needed over the next 20 years to meet projected demands and to provide adequate firm capacity to the system. DRAFT Section 6 – Water System Supplies Page 6-8 Table 6-3. Anticipated Martis Valley Groundwater Basin Withdrawals at Buildout Entity Treatment Estimated Withdrawal (millions of gallons) Data Source/Notes Former PCWA Zone 4 Potable 261 PCWA 2010 UWMP Northstar CSD (incl. snowmaking) Potable 391 Mike Staudenmayer, NCSD GM TDPUD Potable 2,733 TDPUD – Golf Course Irrigation Non-Potable 240 Tahoe Donner Golf Course Non-Potable 69 Estimated from 2013 Groundwater Management Plan Ponderosa Golf Course Non-Potable 7 Martis Camp Golf Course Non-Potable 81 Estimated from 2013 Groundwater Management Plan Lahontan Golf Course Non-Potable 81 Estimated from 2013 Groundwater Management Plan Schaeffer’s Mill Golf Course Non-Potable 81 Estimated from 2013 Groundwater Management Plan Individual Wells 252 Antonucci, 2001 State & Federal 21 Antonucci, 2001 Total (millions of gallons) 4,217 For the purposes of water supply planning, it is assumed that new wells will have a capacity of 850 gpm each. Therefore, it is expected that two new water supply wells will be needed in the period of 2025 to 2035, with two more wells required to meet buildout conditions. These wells should be constructed as growth and increases in water demand dictate. Figure 6-3 gives the relationship of projected demand to the recommended water production improvements. If the capacity of new wells differs significantly from the assumed 850 gpm value, the recommendations given herein should be adjusted accordingly. In 2002 and 2003, the District drilled a number of exploration wells in order to identify locations for future groundwater wells. As a result of this exploration well program, the District acquired four well sites. The Prosser Village Well was constructed in 2004 and the Old Greenwood Well was constructed in 2006 at two of these sites. The Fibreboard Well was constructed in 2009 at the third site. The water produced by this well exceeds the MCL for arsenic and is considered non-potable water. However, this water is perfectly suited for irrigation purposes and supplies water to the Gray’s Crossing and Old Greenwood golf courses. This well allowed for the removal of about 1.3 mgd of maximum day demand from the potable water system. There is one remaining well site where property rights have been secured by the District. The District plans to conduct additional investigations using the finite element model recently developed by Brown and Caldwell to provide information regarding behavior of the groundwater basin. Once this work is completed, the District should have sufficient information to identify additional well sites and can investigate the drilling of additional test wells. DRAFT 0.05.010.015.020.025.0199520002005201020152020202520302035Demand, mgdYearFigure 6-3. Projected Potable Water Demand vs. Proposed Production Capacity, 1995-2035Historic Maximum Day DemandFuture Maximum Day Production ProjectionPotable Water Production CapacityFirm Potable Water Production CapacityDRAFT Section 6 – Water System Supplies Page 6-10 It should also be noted that some of the existing wells may be reaching the end of their useful lives towards the year 2025. Production from the wells should be monitored over time and redevelopment of existing wells may be necessary to maintain an adequate water supply. Of particular concern is the long-term viability of the existing Airport Well. The existing wellhole and casing are not completely vertical and there is a significant offset in the casing. As a result of this offset, the well shaft experiences accelerated wear and requires replacement every four years. DRAFT SECTION 7 WATER SHORTAGE CONTINGENCY PLAN DRAFT SECTION 7 WATER SHORTAGE CONTINGENCY PLANNING Page 7-1 The effective management of water supply shortages is an important responsibility of water agencies. Shortages may be caused by drought, failures of major water supply facilities, natural disasters, or other adverse conditions. Therefore, it is necessary to have an effective management program to mitigate water supply shortages. As described in Section 6, the District uses groundwater as its sole source of supply. The Martis Valley Groundwater Basin has a storage volume of about 484,000 acre-feet (157,701 million gallons) and is able support annual withdrawals of at least 24,000 acre-feet (7,820 million gallons) per year. Based upon current withdrawals of about 2,412 million gallons per year, there is over 65 years worth of water supply available even if there was zero recharge of the groundwater basin. A three year minimum supply of 24,000 AFY has been assumed. The most likely cause of a water supply shortage would be the failure of a major water supply facility such as a well, pump station or transmission pipeline. Such an occurrence could be caused by a number of factors including earthquake, fire or major equipment failure. As a result, water supply shortages are expected to be somewhat short in duration (days or possibly weeks), but may occur without any warning. The District’s water system consists of five major components: control valve stations, groundwater wells, pipelines, pump stations and storage tanks. In May 2004, the District completed a Vulnerability Assessment that identified the number of customers that would be impacted by major failure of a given facility. In conjunction with the Vulnerability Assessment, the District periodically updates its Emergency Response Plan which identifies actions to be taken in the event of a major failure of a given facility. Historically, the water supply system has been most impacted by power outages. In response, the District has installed external generator connections and manual transfer switches at all of its pump stations and well sites. The District currently owns two large trailer-mounted portable generators that can be mobilized to any of the District’s pump facilities in the event of a power outage. In addition, the District has installed permanently-mounted diesel-powered backup generators at 17 pump station sites. These generators are equipped with automatic transfer switches and will activate in the event of a power outage. WATER CONSERVATION PROGRAM Depending upon the type of water supply restriction, its location and the number of customers affected, it would be necessary for the District to implement some form of water conservation – either voluntary or mandatory. Table 7-1 identifies the various stages of water conservation measures that would be implemented. Table 7-1. Water Conservation Stages Stage Water Conservation Requirement Compliance Level 1 Targeted 10% Reduction in Usage Voluntary 2 Targeted 20% Reduction in Usage Mandatory 3 Targeted 30% Reduction in Usage Mandatory 4 Targeted 40% Reduction in Usage Mandatory 5 Targeted 50% Reduction in Usage Mandatory DRAFT Section 7 – Water Shortage Contingency Planning Page 7-2 Stage 1 Water Conservation Stage 1 would apply during periods where up to 10 percent of the water supply is unavailable. A corresponding reduction in water usage of 10 percent would be required. This would be achieved through voluntary measures such as: • Irrigation with potable water of ornamental landscapes and turf would be limited to every other day • The application of potable water to driveways and sidewalks would be prohibited unless for driveway sealing or construction • The use of a hose that dispenses potable water to wash a motor vehicle, except where the hose is fitted with a shut-off nozzle, would be prohibited Stage 2 Water Conservation Stage 2 would apply during periods where up to 20 percent of the water supply is unavailable. A corresponding reduction in water usage of 20 percent would be required. Compliance with water conservation requirements is mandatory for Stage 2 and above. Water conservation measures in Stage 2 include: • Irrigation with potable water of ornamental landscapes and turf would be limited to every other day • The application of potable water to driveways and sidewalks would be prohibited unless for driveway sealing or construction • The use of a hose that dispenses potable water to wash a motor vehicle, except where the hose is fitted with a shut-off nozzle, would be prohibited • Customers may be subject to fines and penalties for failure to comply with these requirements Stage 3 Water Conservation Stage 3 would apply during periods where up to 30 percent of the water supply is unavailable. A corresponding reduction in water usage of 30 percent would be required. Compliance is mandatory. Water conservation measures in Stage 3 include: • Irrigation of ornamental landscapes and turf (using either potable or non-potable water) would be limited to 3-days per week • The application of potable water to driveways and sidewalks would be prohibited • The use of a hose that dispenses potable water to wash a motor vehicle, except where the hose is fitted with a shut-off nozzle, would be prohibited DRAFT Section 7 – Water Shortage Contingency Planning Page 7-3 • The District may install flow restricting devices on a customer’s service • Customers may be subject to fines and penalties for failure to comply with these requirements Stage 4 Water Conservation Stage 4 would apply during periods where up to 40 percent of the water supply is unavailable. A corresponding reduction in water usage of 40 percent would be required. Compliance is mandatory. Water conservation measures in Stage 4 include: • Irrigation of ornamental landscapes and turf (using either potable or non-potable water) would be limited to 2-days per week • The application of potable water to driveways and sidewalks would be prohibited • The use of potable water to wash a motor vehicle, except where the hose is fitted with a shut-off nozzle, would be prohibited • Any customer leak in plumbing and / or irrigation systems would be repaired when found, but in any case within ten (10) days of notice by the District to repair. The District may perform the repair or hire a contractor to perform the repair, and then invoice the customer for those costs • The District may install flow restricting devices on a customer’s service • Customers may be subject to fines and penalties for failure to comply with this requirement Stage 5 Water Conservation Stage 5 would apply during periods where up to 50 percent of the water supply is unavailable. A corresponding reduction in water usage of 50 percent would be required. Compliance is mandatory. Water conservation measures in Stage 5 include: • All outdoor water uses would be prohibited in the area affected by the water conservation requirement. The District may discontinue service to irrigation services • Any customer leak in plumbing and / or irrigation systems would be repaired when found, but in any case within ten (10) days of notice by the District to repair. The District may perform the repair or hire a contractor to perform the repair, and then invoice the customer for those costs • The District may install flow restricting devices on a customer’s service • The District may implement mandatory water rationing through the use of forced rolling outages DRAFT Section 7 – Water Shortage Contingency Planning Page 7-4 • Customers may be subject to fines and penalties for failure to comply with this requirement Effectiveness of the Water Conservation Program The District currently monitors total production for all sources on a daily basis. This monitoring would be the primary tool to gauge the effectiveness of the water conservation program. Total water production would be compared with production for the same time in prior years and with days prior to implementation of the water conservation program. Other measures would likely include drive-by inspections of customers to verify irrigation practices and monitoring of customer usage through the District’s AMR system. WATER CONSERVATION ORDINANCE In September 2014, the District adopted Ordinance 2014-05 which describes the water conservation program to be implemented in the event of a water supply or drought emergency. A copy of the ordinance is given in Appendix D. The ordinance outlines five stages of water alerts that describe different required conservation efforts. These conservation savings range from voluntary compliance with reasonable conservation efforts in Stage 1 to a mandatory 50 percent reduction in Stage 5. The ordinance authorizes the General Manager of the District to implement these measures immediately upon occurrence of an event requiring such conservation measures. A public meeting of the Board of Directors would then be scheduled as soon as possible to inform the Board and the public of the emergency, the actions taken by the District and the expected duration until the problem could be corrected. POTENTIAL FINANCIAL IMPACTS In 2009, the District retained HDR to perform a water rate study and assist in the development of the District’s new metered rate structure. This new rate structure became effective in January of 2010. One of the major objectives in developing this new rate structure was to closely match the District’s variable revenue stream with its variable expenses and to match its fixed revenue stream with its fixed expenses. About 85 percent of the Water Department’s expenses are fixed and do not vary with the amount of water sold to customers. The remaining 15 percent of expenses is for the costs of pumping and treatment and will vary with customer usage. HDR performed water rate study updates in 2013 and 2015. Water rates were adjusted based upon these studies but the basic concept of matching variable revenues with variable expenses and fixed revenues with fixed expenses was maintained. In October 2014, the District implemented Stage 2 of its Water Shortage Contingency Plan. This was followed by the implementation of Stage 4 in June 2015. These actions were taken in response to mandates issued by the State of California. The District had adequate water supplies and was not experiencing a water shortage during this entire period. For 2015, the financial impact of these actions was a reduction in revenue of about $172,500 for decreased water sales. This was about two percent of budgeted water sales revenue. There was corresponding reduction in operational expenses of about $197,000. This was about four percent DRAFT Section 7 – Water Shortage Contingency Planning Page 7-5 of budgeted operational expenses. The District also incurred an additional $120,000 in expenses mainly related to increased public education efforts and increased labor for customer notification and customer service. These costs were covered by a reduction in planned capital expenditures and the use of reserves. In the event that a prolonged Stage 5 conservation requirement (50 percent reduction in water usage) was imposed for a significant length of time (a number of months), the District would expect to see a revenue reduction of about six percent. Similar to 2015, there would be additional costs associated with public education, customer notification and customer service. There would also be a corresponding reduction in operational expenses associated with less water being treated and pumped to customers. Any remaining differences between revenue and expenses would likely be covered through the use of reserves. The District would then have to evaluate its overall financial situation during the next annual budget cycle. At that time, the District would review whether rate adjustments were necessary to ensure the financial stability of the Water Department. In the event of a major water supply facility failure, unforeseen expenses can be expected. District staff and/or outside contractors may be required to work overtime and weekends to repair the damaged facility, install a temporary facility or adjust system operations in order to maintain water service to District customers. Similar to a drought-related water shortage, it is expected that the immediate cost impacts would be covered through the use of reserve funds. The District would then review its financial situation once the facility has been repaired. DRAFT SECTION 8 WATER DEMAND MANAGEMENT MEASURES DRAFT SECTION 8 WATER DEMAND MANAGEMENT MEASURES Page 8-1 Demand management, or water conservation, is frequently the lowest-cost resource available to a water agency. The goals of the District’s water conservation program are to reduce demand for water at peak times, demonstrate continued commitment to appropriate demand management measures (DMMs) and to ensure a reliable future water supply. The California Water Code requires that an Urban Water Management Plan discuss DMMs in seven areas: • Water waste prevention ordinances • Metering • Conservation pricing • Public education and outreach • Programs to assess and manage distribution system real loss • Water conservation program coordination and staffing support • Other demand management measures that have a significant impact on water use as measured in gallons per capita per day, including innovative measures, if implemented WATER WASTE PREVENTION ORDINANCES The District’s Codes and Policies contain a provision whereby the District may disconnect water service to a customer that is found to be wasting water. Chapter 5.12.040 reads as follows: 5.12.040 Discontinuance of Water Service by the District 5.12.040.1 With notice - A customer's water service may be discontinued by the District upon at least five days' prior written notice in the event of: 5.12.040.1(A) Non-payment of bills for water service at any location within 30 days of presentation; 5.12.040.1(B) Violation of these codes; 5.12.040.1(C) Negligent or wasteful use of water, as determined by the District. 5.12.040.1(D) Failure to provide documents or payment as requested by a Notice to Comply. Requested items may include, but are not limited to, service applications, lease agreements, home ownership documents, signed payment agreement and payment by cash or money order for a check returned unpaid by the bank. The District does not have any direct prohibitions on specific types of water usage and does not have an ordinance banning water softeners. Hardness and TDS levels in the District’s water supply are low and the District is not aware of any water softeners installed by customers. The Town of Truckee has also adopted water efficient landscape standards as required by California AB 1881. These requirements are given in Section 18.40.060 of the Town of Truckee Development Code. METERING In 2010, the District began reading all of its existing meters as required by AB 2572. As of January 1, 2016, over 95 percent of the residential accounts and all of the commercial accounts are equipped with a meter. The District currently anticipates that all water system customers will DRAFT Section 8 – Water Demand Management Measures Page 8-2 be equipped with a meter by December 2019. This is five years ahead of the deadline established by AB 2572. The District has implemented volume-based billing for those customers equipped with a meter. For residential customers, the volume-based rate has a two-tier inclining block structure. For commercial customers, the volume-based rate has a single tier. There is no usage allowance for either customer class and all water used is billed to the customer. CONSERVATION PRICING As discussed above, the District has implemented volume-based billing for those customers equipped with a meter. For residential customers, the volume-based rate has a two-tier inclining block structure consistent with the requirements of Proposition 218. For commercial customers, the volume-based rate has a single tier. There is no usage allowance for either customer class and all water used is billed to the customer. PUBLIC EDUCATION AND OUTREACH The District conducts public education and information programs on water conservation through a number of means: • Bill Inserts: The District periodically includes water conservation reminders with monthly service bills. The District also publishes a semi-annual newsletter that is mailed with a service bill. • Water Conservation Education/Handouts: The District has developed water conservation information packets and brochures for community-wide distribution. Charts and handouts are also available that determine how much water is needed to water grasses Spring through Fall. • Print Advertising: The District has developed a print ad series on Water Wise Landscaping practices that is published in local newspapers (Sierra Sun, Moonshine Ink, etc). This advertising is performed in cooperation with local landscape companies. • TV Commercials: The District has produced television commercials asking District customers to voluntarily use landscape water wisely. These commercials were aired on the local cable public access channel. • School Education Programs: The District funds the purchase of landscape water conservation educational materials that are distributed to local children through the Tahoe-Truckee Unified School District. In recent years, the District has partnered with the Sierra Watershed Education Partnership (SWEP) and the Truckee High School ‘Envirolution Club’ to distribute water-saving measures and information to every elementary school and middle school child in the District’s territory through an innovative, and award winning, ‘Trashion Show’ format. The ‘Trashion Shows’ are general assembly presentations by the Envirolution Club members who make fashion outfits out of garbage and recycled materials with each outfit delivering an interpretive message on living sustainably (including water conservation). DRAFT Section 8 – Water Demand Management Measures Page 8-3 • Demonstration Gardens: The District maintains a demonstration garden at its main office complex. The garden showcases ideas for creating a water-efficient garden and landscape plan using native and drought tolerant plants, bunch grass meadow replacements for lawns, hardscaping/mulching techniques, and water efficient irrigation. The District has also posted information and links regarding efficient landscaping on its web site. The District worked with the community to develop a low-water use demonstration garden at the former Tahoe Berry restaurant. This demonstration garden contains low-water using plant types as well as a drip irrigation system. The District also collaborated on the creation of a native species demonstration garden at Truckee High School. • Water-Wise Gardening Web-Based Resource: In conjunction with the demonstration gardens, a web-based resource has been developed. This resource details the garden design, plant and material lists, gardening techniques, and other information intended to assist customers in conserving water for landscaping. • Landscaping and Irrigation Seminars: In cooperation with local landscapers and nurseries, the District conducts periodic seminars on landscaping and irrigation practices appropriate for the local climate. PROGRAMS TO ASSESS AND MANAGE DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM REAL LOSS The District conducts a number of programs to identify and reduce water system losses: • The District has an active leak repair program. Any reported or suspected leaks are verified by testing the water for chlorine residual. The leak is then excavated and repaired. During the Summer months, the District has a crew that spends about 90 percent of its time repairing leaks. • The District has retained outside contractors to perform distribution system leak surveys. During the Summer of 2015, one field technician was assigned on a full-time basis to conduct leak surveys throughout the distribution system. • For 2016, the District has budgeted for the purchase of a number of remote leak detection correlators. It is expected that deployment of this equipment will occur in the Summer of 2016. • The District has an ongoing pipeline replacement program. Each Summer, the District awards one or more construction contracts for the replacement or rehabilitation of existing water pipelines that are in poor condition. Since 2007, the District has been able to replace about 67,250 feet of main. • The District is in the process of installing water meters and pressure monitors on all of its wells, pump stations and control valve stations. Once these metering and monitor devices are installed, the District conducts area-specific mass-balances on a monthly DRAFT Section 8 – Water Demand Management Measures Page 8-4 basis to identify areas of concern. This information is used to set priorities for the field technician assigned to leak detection surveys. WATER CONSERVATION PROGRAM COORDINATION AND STAFFING SUPPORT The District has a Conservation Department consisting of three full-time staff members – the Conservation Manager, Conservation Administrator, and Conservation Program Specialist. These individuals are responsible for implementing and promoting the District’s conservation programs for both its electric and water utilities. About one third of the staff time is spent on water conservation issues. The Conservation Manager serves as the Water Conservation Coordinator. OTHER DEMAND MANAGEMENT MEASURES The District conducts a number of other water conservation programs. These include: • High-Efficiency Washing Machine Rebates: The District offers a rebate of $100 for the purchase of “energy star” clothes washers. The District has a simple one page form to be completed by the property owner, accompanied by a copy of the sales receipt. This rebate program has been advertised on inserts included with monthly bills for service. The District is working to expand this program to include high-efficiency washing machines. • Residential Ultra-Low-Flush Toilet Replacement Program: The District offers a $100 rebate to those customers that replace an existing older toilet with a new toilet that uses 1.28 gallons per flush or less. Customers are required to provide the District with evidence that the old toilet has been removed from service and disposed of. The District has also created a partnership with a local plumbing supply company (Western Nevada Supply) where customers can bring their old toilet to the store and exchange it for a new water efficient replacement at no cost. There are two options available for direct exchange, or the customer may apply the $100 value towards the purchase of a more expensive toilet. • Water Leak Repair Rebate: With implementation of the automated meter reading system, the District has been able to identify leaks on customer-owned piping. The District has developed procedures for notifying customers by telephone or letter depending upon the severity of the leak. The District has a Customer Leak Repair Rebate program to encourage customers to repair leaks on the customer-side of the meter. The District offers a rebate of up to $100 as an incentive towards repair of these leaks. To qualify for this rebate, customers must have received prior notification from the District regarding the leak, they must provide documentation regarding the leak itself and the cost to repair it, and the District must verify that the leak has been corrected. • Water Survey Programs for Residential Customers: The District performs water surveys upon request of the property owner. The survey involves an inspection of the DRAFT Section 8 – Water Demand Management Measures Page 8-5 property along with recommendations for water conservation measures. Typical recommendations involve installation of low-flow showerheads, high-efficiency clothes washers, low-flow toilets and use of native plants for landscaping. • Residential Plumbing Retrofit: Upon request, the District provides to its customers, at no charge, the following water conservation devices: • Low-flow showerheads • Faucet aerators • Sprinkler/rainfall measurement gauges • Low-flow outside hose nozzles The availability of these water conserving devices has been advertised on inserts included with monthly bills for service. For a number of years, the District also has sponsored a booth at the annual Truckee Home & Garden Show held on Memorial Day weekend. The District distributes water conservation literature, low-flow showerheads and sprinkler/rainfall measurement gauges at this booth along with information regarding the District’s electricity conservation programs. The District has also maintained a table at ‘Truckee Thursdays.’ This is a weekly event held in downtown Truckee during the Summer to promote the local merchants and other local events. • Large Landscape Conservation Programs and Incentives: The District distributes sprinkler/rainfall measurement gauges free of charge. Upon request of the property owner, the District will also make recommendations regarding landscaping and plants that are appropriate to the local climate. The District has also conducted a program where smart water controllers were installed on nine commercial properties. These water controllers utilize 2-way radio communication in conjunction with weather observations and evapo-transpiration data to optimize watering schedules. • Irrigation System Rain Sensors: In response to the Emergency Drought Regulations, the District launched a new program in 2015 whereby rain sensors are distributed at no charge. These sensors interact with automated sprinkler control systems to prevent irrigation during and 48 hours after measurable precipitation events. WATER CONSERVATION DMM EFFECTIVENESS As discussed in Section 4, there has been an ongoing decrease in potable water production over the past few years. As discussed in Section 5, the District has met its water demand reduction requirements under SB X7-7. The District intends to continue the DMMs and programs described above. In addition, the District will continue to identify additional water conservation programs and implement these programs when they are cost effective. DRAFT APPENDIX A TEXT OF THE URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLANNING ACT DRAFT Appendix A Urban Water Management Planning Act Final A ‐ 2 California Water Code Division 6, Part 2.6. Chapter 1. General Declaration and Policy §10610‐10610.4 Chapter 2. Definitions §10611‐10617 Chapter 3. Urban Water Management Plans Article 1. General Provisions §10620‐10621 Article 2. Contents of Plans §10630‐10634 Article 2.5. Water Service Reliability §10635 Article 3. Adoption And Implementation of Plans §10640‐10645 Chapter 4. Miscellaneous Provisions §10650‐10656 Chapter 1. General Declaration and Policy SECTION 10610-10610.4 10610. This part shall be known and may be cited as the "Urban Water Management Planning Act." 10610.2. (a) The Legislature finds and declares all of the following: (1) The waters of the state are a limited and renewable resource subject to ever- increasing demands. (2) The conservation and efficient use of urban water supplies are of statewide concern; however, the planning for that use and the implementation of those plans can best be accomplished at the local level. (3) A long-term, reliable supply of water is essential to protect the productivity of California's businesses and economic climate. (4) As part of its long-range planning activities, every urban water supplier should make every effort to ensure the appropriate level of reliability in its water service sufficient to meet the needs of its various categories of customers during normal, dry, and multiple dry water years. (5) Public health issues have been raised over a number of contaminants that have been identified in certain local and imported water supplies. (6) Implementing effective water management strategies, including groundwater storage projects and recycled water projects, may require specific water quality and salinity targets for meeting groundwater basins water quality objectives and promoting beneficial use of recycled water. (7) Water quality regulations are becoming an increasingly important factor in water agencies' selection of raw water sources, treatment alternatives, and modifications to existing treatment facilities. DRAFT Appendix A Urban Water Management Planning Act Final A ‐ 3 (8) Changes in drinking water quality standards may also impact the usefulness of water supplies and may ultimately impact supply reliability. (9) The quality of source supplies can have a significant impact on water management strategies and supply reliability. (b) This part is intended to provide assistance to water agencies in carrying out their long-term resource planning responsibilities to ensure adequate water supplies to meet existing and future demands for water. 10610.4. The Legislature finds and declares that it is the policy of the state as follows: (a) The management of urban water demands and efficient use of water shall be actively pursued to protect both the people of the state and their water resources. (b) The management of urban water demands and efficient use of urban water supplies shall be a guiding criterion in public decisions. (c) Urban water suppliers shall be required to develop water management plans to actively pursue the efficient use of available supplies. Chapter 2. Definitions SECTION 10611-10617 10611. Unless the context otherwise requires, the definitions of this chapter govern the construction of this part. 10611.5. “Demand management" means those water conservation measures, programs, and incentives that prevent the waste of water and promote the reasonable and efficient use and reuse of available supplies. 10612. "Customer" means a purchaser of water from a water supplier who uses the water for municipal purposes, including residential, commercial, governmental, and industrial uses. 10613. "Efficient use" means those management measures that result in the most effective use of water so as to prevent its waste or unreasonable use or unreasonable method of use. 10614. "Person" means any individual, firm, association, organization, partnership, business, trust, corporation, company, public agency, or any agency of such an entity. 10615. "Plan" means an urban water management plan prepared pursuant to this part. A plan shall describe and evaluate sources of supply, reasonable and practical efficient uses, DRAFT Appendix A Urban Water Management Planning Act Final A ‐ 4 reclamation and demand management activities. The components of the plan may vary according to an individual community or area's characteristics and its capabilities to efficiently use and conserve water. The plan shall address measures for residential, commercial, governmental, and industrial water demand management as set forth in Article 2 (commencing with Section 10630) of Chapter 3. In addition, a strategy and time schedule for implementation shall be included in the plan. 10616. "Public agency" means any board, commission, county, city and county, city, regional agency, district, or other public entity. 10616.5. "Recycled water" means the reclamation and reuse of wastewater for beneficial use. 10617. "Urban water supplier" means a supplier, either publicly or privately owned, providing water for municipal purposes either directly or indirectly to more than 3,000 customers or supplying more than 3,000 acre-feet of water annually. An urban water supplier includes a supplier or contractor for water, regardless of the basis of right, which distributes or sells for ultimate resale to customers. This part applies only to water supplied from public water systems subject to Chapter 4 (commencing with Section 116275) of Part 12 of Division 104 of the Health and Safety Code. Chapter 3. Urban Water Management Plans Article 1. General Provisions SECTION 10620-10621 10620. (a) Every urban water supplier shall prepare and adopt an urban water management plan in the manner set forth in Article 3 (commencing with Section 10640). (b) Every person that becomes an urban water supplier shall adopt an urban water management plan within one year after it has become an urban water supplier. (c) An urban water supplier indirectly providing water shall not include planning elements in its water management plan as provided in Article 2 (commencing with Section 10630) that would be applicable to urban water suppliers or public agencies directly providing water, or to their customers, without the consent of those suppliers or public agencies. (d) (1) An urban water supplier may satisfy the requirements of this part by participation in areawide, regional, watershed, or basinwide urban water management planning where those plans will reduce preparation costs and contribute to the achievement of conservation and efficient water use. (2) Each urban water supplier shall coordinate the preparation of its plan with other appropriate agencies in the area, including other water suppliers that DRAFT Appendix A Urban Water Management Planning Act Final A ‐ 5 share a common source, water management agencies, and relevant public agencies, to the extent practicable. (e) The urban water supplier may prepare the plan with its own staff, by contract, or in cooperation with other governmental agencies. (f) An urban water supplier shall describe in the plan water management tools and options used by that entity that will maximize resources and minimize the need to import water from other regions. 10621. (a) Each urban water supplier shall update its plan at least once every five years on or before December 31, in years ending in five and zero, except as provided in subdivision (d). (b) Every urban water supplier required to prepare a plan pursuant to this part shall, at least 60 days before the public hearing on the plan required by Section 10642, notify any city or county within which the supplier provides water supplies that the urban water supplier will be reviewing the plan and considering amendments or changes to the plan. The urban water supplier may consult with, and obtain comments from, any city or county that receives notice pursuant to this subdivision. (c) The amendments to, or changes in, the plan shall be adopted and filed in the manner set forth in Article 3 (commencing with Section 10640). (d) Each urban water supplier shall update and submit its 2015 plan to the department by July 1, 2016. Article 2. Contents of Plan SECTION 10630-10634 10630. It is the intention of the Legislature, in enacting this part, to permit levels of water management planning commensurate with the numbers of customers served and the volume of water supplied. 10631. A plan shall be adopted in accordance with this chapter that shall do all of the following: (a) Describe the service area of the supplier, including current and projected population, climate, and other demographic factors affecting the supplier's water management planning. The projected population estimates shall be based upon data from the state, regional, or local service agency population projections within the service area of the urban water supplier and shall be in five-year increments to 20 years or as far as data is available. (b) Identify and quantify, to the extent practicable, the existing and planned sources of water available to the supplier over the same five-year increments described in subdivision (a). If groundwater is identified as an existing or planned source of DRAFT Appendix A Urban Water Management Planning Act Final A ‐ 6 water available to the supplier, all of the following information shall be included in the plan: (1) A copy of any groundwater management plan adopted by the urban water supplier, including plans adopted pursuant to Part 2.75 (commencing with Section 10750), or any other specific authorization for groundwater management. (2) A description of any groundwater basin or basins from which the urban water supplier pumps groundwater. For basins that a court or the board has adjudicated the rights to pump groundwater, a copy of the order or decree adopted by the court or the board and a description of the amount of groundwater the urban water supplier has the legal right to pump under the order or decree. For basins that have not been adjudicated, information as to whether the department has identified the basin or basins as overdrafted or has projected that the basin will become overdrafted if present management conditions continue, in the most current official departmental bulletin that characterizes the condition of the groundwater basin, and a detailed description of the efforts being undertaken by the urban water supplier to eliminate the long-term overdraft condition. (3) A detailed description and analysis of the location, amount, and sufficiency of groundwater pumped by the urban water supplier for the past five years. The description and analysis shall be based on information that is reasonably available, including, but not limited to, historic use records. (4) A detailed description and analysis of the amount and location of groundwater that is projected to be pumped by the urban water supplier. The description and analysis shall be based on information that is reasonably available, including, but not limited to, historic use records. (c) (1) Describe the reliability of the water supply and vulnerability to seasonal or climatic shortage, to the extent practicable, and provide data for each of the following: (A) An average water year. (B) A single-dry water year. (C) Multiple-dry water years. (2) For any water source that may not be available at a consistent level of use, given specific legal, environmental, water quality, or climatic factors, describe plans to supplement or replace that source with alternative sources or water demand management measures, to the extent practicable. DRAFT Appendix A Urban Water Management Planning Act Final A ‐ 7 (d) Describe the opportunities for exchanges or transfers of water on a short-term or long-term basis. (e) (1) Quantify, to the extent records are available, past and current water use, over the same five-year increments described in subdivision (a), and projected water use, identifying the uses among water use sectors, including, but not necessarily limited to, all of the following uses: (A) Single-family residential. (B) Multifamily. (C) Commercial. (D) Industrial. (E) Institutional and governmental. (F) Landscape. (G) Sales to other agencies. (H) Saline water intrusion barriers, groundwater recharge, or conjunctive use, or any combination thereof. (I) Agricultural. (J) Distribution system water loss. (2) The water use projections shall be in the same five-year increments described in subdivision (a). (3) (A) For the 2015 urban water management plan update, the distribution system water loss shall be quantified for the most recent 12-month period available. For all subsequent updates, the distribution system water loss shall be quantified for each of the five years preceding the plan update. (B) The distribution system water loss quantification shall be reported in accordance with a worksheet approved or developed by the department through a public process. The water loss quantification worksheet shall be based on the water system balance methodology developed by the American Water Works Association. (4) (A) If available and applicable to an urban water supplier, water use projections may display and account for the water savings estimated to result from adopted codes, standards, ordinances, or transportation and land use plans identified by the urban water supplier, as applicable to the service area. DRAFT Appendix A Urban Water Management Planning Act Final A ‐ 8 (B) To the extent that an urban water supplier reports the information described in subparagraph (A), an urban water supplier shall do both of the following: (i) Provide citations of the various codes, standards, ordinances, or transportation and land use plans utilized in making the projections. (ii) Indicate the extent that the water use projections consider savings from codes, standards, ordinances, or transportation and land use plans. Water use projections that do not account for these water savings shall be noted of that fact. (f) Provide a description of the supplier's water demand management measures. This description shall include all of the following: (1) (A) For an urban retail water supplier, as defined in Section 10608.12, a narrative description that addresses the nature and extent of each water demand management measure implemented over the past five years. The narrative shall describe the water demand management measures that the supplier plans to implement to achieve its water use targets pursuant to Section 10608.20. (B) The narrative pursuant to this paragraph shall include descriptions of the following water demand management measures: (i) Water waste prevention ordinances. (ii) Metering. (iii) Conservation pricing. (iv) Public education and outreach. (v) Programs to assess and manage distribution system real loss. (vi) Water conservation program coordination and staffing support. (vii) Other demand management measures that have a significant impact on water use as measured in gallons per capita per day, including innovative measures, if implemented. (2) For an urban wholesale water supplier, as defined in Section 10608.12, a narrative description of the items in clauses (ii), (iv), (vi), and (vii) of subparagraph (B) of paragraph (1), and a narrative description of its distribution system asset management and wholesale supplier assistance programs. (g) Include a description of all water supply projects and water supply programs that may be undertaken by the urban water supplier to meet the total projected water DRAFT Appendix A Urban Water Management Planning Act Final A ‐ 9 use, as established pursuant to subdivision (a) of Section 10635. The urban water supplier shall include a detailed description of expected future projects and programs that the urban water supplier may implement to increase the amount of the water supply available to the urban water supplier in average, single-dry, and multiple-dry water years. The description shall identify specific projects and include a description of the increase in water supply that is expected to be available from each project. The description shall include an estimate with regard to the implementation timeline for each project or program. (h) Describe the opportunities for development of desalinated water, including, but not limited to, ocean water, brackish water, and groundwater, as a long-term supply. (i) For purposes of this part, urban water suppliers that are members of the California Urban Water Conservation Council shall be deemed in compliance with the requirements of subdivision (f) by complying with all the provisions of the "Memorandum of Understanding Regarding Urban Water Conservation in California," dated December 10, 2008, as it may be amended, and by submitting the annual reports required by Section 6.2 of that memorandum. (j) An urban water supplier that relies upon a wholesale agency for a source of water shall provide the wholesale agency with water use projections from that agency for that source of water in five-year increments to 20 years or as far as data is available. The wholesale agency shall provide information to the urban water supplier for inclusion in the urban water supplier's plan that identifies and quantifies, to the extent practicable, the existing and planned sources of water as required by subdivision (b), available from the wholesale agency to the urban water supplier over the same five-year increments, and during various water-year types in accordance with subdivision (c). An urban water supplier may rely upon water supply information provided by the wholesale agency in fulfilling the plan informational requirements of subdivisions (b) and (c). 10631.1. (a) The water use projections required by Section 10631 shall include projected water use for single-family and multifamily residential housing needed for lower income households, as defined in Section 50079.5 of the Health and Safety Code, as identified in the housing element of any city, county, or city and county in the service area of the supplier. (b) It is the intent of the Legislature that the identification of projected water use for single-family and multifamily residential housing for lower income households will assist a supplier in complying with the requirement under Section 65589.7 of the Government Code to grant a priority for the provision of service to housing units affordable to lower income households. DRAFT Appendix A Urban Water Management Planning Act Final A ‐ 10 10631.2. (a) In addition to the requirements of Section 10631, an urban water management plan may, but is not required to, include any of the following information: (1) An estimate of the amount of energy used to extract or divert water supplies. (2) An estimate of the amount of energy used to convey water supplies to the water treatment plants or distribution systems. (3) An estimate of the amount of energy used to treat water supplies. (4) An estimate of the amount of energy used to distribute water supplies through its distribution systems. (5) An estimate of the amount of energy used for treated water supplies in comparison to the amount used for nontreated water supplies. (6) An estimate of the amount of energy used to place water into or withdraw from storage. (7) Any other energy-related information the urban water supplier deems appropriate. (b) The department shall include in its guidance for the preparation of urban water management plans a methodology for the voluntary calculation or estimation of the energy intensity of urban water systems. The department may consider studies and calculations conducted by the Public Utilities Commission in developing the methodology. 10631.5. (a) (1) Beginning January 1, 2009, the terms of, and eligibility for, a water management grant or loan made to an urban water supplier and awarded or administered by the department, state board, or California Bay-Delta Authority or its successor agency shall be conditioned on the implementation of the water demand management measures described in Section 10631, as determined by the department pursuant to subdivision (b). (2) For the purposes of this section, water management grants and loans include funding for programs and projects for surface water or groundwater storage, recycling, desalination, water conservation, water supply reliability, and water supply augmentation. This section does not apply to water management projects funded by the federal American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Public Law 111-5). (3) Notwithstanding paragraph (1), the department shall determine that an urban water supplier is eligible for a water management grant or loan even though the supplier is not implementing all of the water demand management measures described in Section 10631, if the urban water supplier has DRAFT Appendix A Urban Water Management Planning Act Final A ‐ 11 submitted to the department for approval a schedule, financing plan, and budget, to be included in the grant or loan agreement, for implementation of the water demand management measures. The supplier may request grant or loan funds to implement the water demand management measures to the extent the request is consistent with the eligibility requirements applicable to the water management funds. (4) (A) Notwithstanding paragraph (1), the department shall determine that an urban water supplier is eligible for a water management grant or loan even though the supplier is not implementing all of the water demand management measures described in Section 10631, if an urban water supplier submits to the department for approval documentation demonstrating that a water demand management measure is not locally cost effective. If the department determines that the documentation submitted by the urban water supplier fails to demonstrate that a water demand management measure is not locally cost effective, the department shall notify the urban water supplier and the agency administering the grant or loan program within 120 days that the documentation does not satisfy the requirements for an exemption, and include in that notification a detailed statement to support the determination. (B) For purposes of this paragraph, "not locally cost effective" means that the present value of the local benefits of implementing a water demand management measure is less than the present value of the local costs of implementing that measure. (b) (1) The department, in consultation with the state board and the California Bay- Delta Authority or its successor agency, and after soliciting public comment regarding eligibility requirements, shall develop eligibility requirements to implement the requirement of paragraph (1) of subdivision (a). In establishing these eligibility requirements, the department shall do both of the following: (A) Consider the conservation measures described in the Memorandum of Understanding Regarding Urban Water Conservation in California, and alternative conservation approaches that provide equal or greater water savings. (B) Recognize the different legal, technical, fiscal, and practical roles and responsibilities of wholesale water suppliers and retail water suppliers. (2) (A) For the purposes of this section, the department shall determine whether an urban water supplier is implementing all of the water demand management measures described in Section 10631 based on either, or a combination, of the following: DRAFT Appendix A Urban Water Management Planning Act Final A ‐ 12 (i) Compliance on an individual basis. (ii) Compliance on a regional basis. Regional compliance shall require participation in a regional conservation program consisting of two or more urban water suppliers that achieves the level of conservation or water efficiency savings equivalent to the amount of conservation or savings achieved if each of the participating urban water suppliers implemented the water demand management measures. The urban water supplier administering the regional program shall provide participating urban water suppliers and the department with data to demonstrate that the regional program is consistent with this clause. The department shall review the data to determine whether the urban water suppliers in the regional program are meeting the eligibility requirements. (B) The department may require additional information for any determination pursuant to this section. (3) The department shall not deny eligibility to an urban water supplier in compliance with the requirements of this section that is participating in a multiagency water project, or an integrated regional water management plan, developed pursuant to Section 75026 of the Public Resources Code, solely on the basis that one or more of the agencies participating in the project or plan is not implementing all of the water demand management measures described in Section 10631. (c) In establishing guidelines pursuant to the specific funding authorization for any water management grant or loan program subject to this section, the agency administering the grant or loan program shall include in the guidelines the eligibility requirements developed by the department pursuant to subdivision (b). (d) Upon receipt of a water management grant or loan application by an agency administering a grant and loan program subject to this section, the agency shall request an eligibility determination from the department with respect to the requirements of this section. The department shall respond to the request within 60 days of the request. (e) The urban water supplier may submit to the department copies of its annual reports and other relevant documents to assist the department in determining whether the urban water supplier is implementing or scheduling the implementation of water demand management activities. In addition, for urban water suppliers that are signatories to the Memorandum of Understanding Regarding Urban Water Conservation in California and submit biennial reports to the California Urban Water Conservation Council in accordance with the memorandum, the department may use these reports to assist in tracking the implementation of water demand management measures. DRAFT Appendix A Urban Water Management Planning Act Final A ‐ 13 (f) This section shall remain in effect only until July 1, 2016, and as of that date is repealed, unless a later enacted statute, that is enacted before July 1, 2016, deletes or extends that date. 10631.7. The department, in consultation with the California Urban Water Conservation Council, shall convene an independent technical panel to provide information and recommendations to the department and the Legislature on new demand management measures, technologies, and approaches. The panel shall consist of no more than seven members, who shall be selected by the department to reflect a balanced representation of experts. The panel shall have at least one, but no more than two, representatives from each of the following: retail water suppliers, environmental organizations, the business community, wholesale water suppliers, and academia. The panel shall be convened by January 1, 2009, and shall report to the Legislature no later than January 1, 2010, and every five years thereafter. The department shall review the panel report and include in the final report to the Legislature the department's recommendations and comments regarding the panel process and the panel's recommendations. 10632. (a) The plan shall provide an urban water shortage contingency analysis that includes each of the following elements that are within the authority of the urban water supplier: (1) Stages of action to be undertaken by the urban water supplier in response to water supply shortages, including up to a 50 percent reduction in water supply, and an outline of specific water supply conditions that are applicable to each stage. (2) An estimate of the minimum water supply available during each of the next three water years based on the driest three-year historic sequence for the agency's water supply. (3) Actions to be undertaken by the urban water supplier to prepare for, and implement during, a catastrophic interruption of water supplies including, but not limited to, a regional power outage, an earthquake, or other disaster. (4) Additional, mandatory prohibitions against specific water use practices during water shortages, including, but not limited to, prohibiting the use of potable water for street cleaning. (5) Consumption reduction methods in the most restrictive stages. Each urban water supplier may use any type of consumption reduction methods in its water shortage contingency analysis that would reduce water use, are DRAFT Appendix A Urban Water Management Planning Act Final A ‐ 14 appropriate for its area, and have the ability to achieve a water use reduction consistent with up to a 50 percent reduction in water supply. (6) Penalties or charges for excessive use, where applicable. (7) An analysis of the impacts of each of the actions and conditions described in paragraphs (1) to (6), inclusive, on the revenues and expenditures of the urban water supplier, and proposed measures to overcome those impacts, such as the development of reserves and rate adjustments. (8) A draft water shortage contingency resolution or ordinance. (9) A mechanism for determining actual reductions in water use pursuant to the urban water shortage contingency analysis. (b) Commencing with the urban water management plan update due July 1, 2016, for purposes of developing the water shortage contingency analysis pursuant to subdivision (a), the urban water supplier shall analyze and define water features that are artificially supplied with water, including ponds, lakes, waterfalls, and fountains, separately from swimming pools and spas, as defined in subdivision (a) of Section 115921 of the Health and Safety Code. 10633. The plan shall provide, to the extent available, information on recycled water and its potential for use as a water source in the service area of the urban water supplier. The preparation of the plan shall be coordinated with local water, wastewater, groundwater, and planning agencies that operate within the supplier's service area, and shall include all of the following: (a) A description of the wastewater collection and treatment systems in the supplier's service area, including a quantification of the amount of wastewater collected and treated and the methods of wastewater disposal. (b) A description of the quantity of treated wastewater that meets recycled water standards, is being discharged, and is otherwise available for use in a recycled water project. (c) A description of the recycled water currently being used in the supplier's service area, including, but not limited to, the type, place, and quantity of use. (d) A description and quantification of the potential uses of recycled water, including, but not limited to, agricultural irrigation, landscape irrigation, wildlife habitat enhancement, wetlands, industrial reuse, groundwater recharge, indirect potable reuse, and other appropriate uses, and a determination with regard to the technical and economic feasibility of serving those uses. DRAFT Appendix A Urban Water Management Planning Act Final A ‐ 15 (e) The projected use of recycled water within the supplier's service area at the end of 5, 10, 15, and 20 years, and a description of the actual use of recycled water in comparison to uses previously projected pursuant to this subdivision. (f) A description of actions, including financial incentives, which may be taken to encourage the use of recycled water, and the projected results of these actions in terms of acre-feet of recycled water used per year. (g) A plan for optimizing the use of recycled water in the supplier's service area, including actions to facilitate the installation of dual distribution systems, to promote recirculating uses, to facilitate the increased use of treated wastewater that meets recycled water standards, and to overcome any obstacles to achieving that increased use. 10634. The plan shall include information, to the extent practicable, relating to the quality of existing sources of water available to the supplier over the same five-year increments as described in subdivision (a) of Section 10631, and the manner in which water quality affects water management strategies and supply reliability. Article 2.5. Water Service Reliability SECTION 10635 10635. (a) Every urban water supplier shall include, as part of its urban water management plan, an assessment of the reliability of its water service to its customers during normal, dry, and multiple dry water years. This water supply and demand assessment shall compare the total water supply sources available to the water supplier with the total projected water use over the next 20 years, in five-year increments, for a normal water year, a single dry water year, and multiple dry water years. The water service reliability assessment shall be based upon the information compiled pursuant to Section 10631, including available data from state, regional, or local agency population projections within the service area of the urban water supplier. (b) The urban water supplier shall provide that portion of its urban water management plan prepared pursuant to this article to any city or county within which it provides water supplies no later than 60 days after the submission of its urban water management plan. (c) Nothing in this article is intended to create a right or entitlement to water service or any specific level of water service. DRAFT Appendix A Urban Water Management Planning Act Final A ‐ 16 (d) Nothing in this article is intended to change existing law concerning an urban water supplier's obligation to provide water service to its existing customers or to any potential future customers. Article 3. Adoption and Implementation of Plans SECTION 10640-10645 10640. Every urban water supplier required to prepare a plan pursuant to this part shall prepare its plan pursuant to Article 2 (commencing with Section 10630). The supplier shall likewise periodically review the plan as required by Section 10621, and any amendments or changes required as a result of that review shall be adopted pursuant to this article. 10641. An urban water supplier required to prepare a plan may consult with, and obtain comments from, any public agency or state agency or any person who has special expertise with respect to water demand management methods and techniques. 10642. Each urban water supplier shall encourage the active involvement of diverse social, cultural, and economic elements of the population within the service area prior to and during the preparation of the plan. Prior to adopting a plan, the urban water supplier shall make the plan available for public inspection and shall hold a public hearing thereon. Prior to the hearing, notice of the time and place of hearing shall be published within the jurisdiction of the publicly owned water supplier pursuant to Section 6066 of the Government Code. The urban water supplier shall provide notice of the time and place of hearing to any city or county within which the supplier provides water supplies. A privately owned water supplier shall provide an equivalent notice within its service area. After the hearing, the plan shall be adopted as prepared or as modified after the hearing. 10643. An urban water supplier shall implement its plan adopted pursuant to this chapter in accordance with the schedule set forth in its plan. 10644. (a) (1) An urban water supplier shall submit to the department, the California State Library, and any city or county within which the supplier provides water supplies a copy of its plan no later than 30 days after adoption. Copies of amendments or changes to the plans shall be submitted to the department, the California State Library, and any city or county within which the supplier provides water supplies within 30 days after adoption. (2) The plan, or amendments to the plan, submitted to the department pursuant to paragraph (1) shall be submitted electronically and shall include any standardized forms, tables, or displays specified by the department. DRAFT Appendix A Urban Water Management Planning Act Final A ‐ 17 (b) (1) Notwithstanding Section 10231.5 of the Government Code, the department shall prepare and submit to the Legislature, on or before December 31, in the years ending in six and one, a report summarizing the status of the plans adopted pursuant to this part. The report prepared by the department shall identify the exemplary elements of the individual plans. The department shall provide a copy of the report to each urban water supplier that has submitted its plan to the department. The department shall also prepare reports and provide data for any legislative hearings designed to consider the effectiveness of plans submitted pursuant to this part. (2) A report to be submitted pursuant to paragraph (1) shall be submitted in compliance with Section 9795 of the Government Code. (c) (1) For the purpose of identifying the exemplary elements of the individual plans, the department shall identify in the report water demand management measures adopted and implemented by specific urban water suppliers, and identified pursuant to Section 10631, that achieve water savings significantly above the levels established by the department to meet the requirements of Section 10631.5. (2) The department shall distribute to the panel convened pursuant to Section 10631.7 the results achieved by the implementation of those water demand management measures described in paragraph (1). (3) The department shall make available to the public the standard the department will use to identify exemplary water demand management measures. 10645. Not later than 30 days after filing a copy of its plan with the department, the urban water supplier and the department shall make the plan available for public review during normal business hours. Chapter 4. Miscellaneous Provisions SECTION 10650-10656 10650. Any actions or proceedings to attack, review, set aside, void, or annul the acts or decisions of an urban water supplier on the grounds of noncompliance with this part shall be commenced as follows: (a) An action or proceeding alleging failure to adopt a plan shall be commenced within 18 months after that adoption is required by this part. DRAFT Appendix A Urban Water Management Planning Act Final A ‐ 18 (b) Any action or proceeding alleging that a plan, or action taken pursuant to the plan, does not comply with this part shall be commenced within 90 days after filing of the plan or amendment thereto pursuant to Section 10644 or the taking of that action. 10651. In any action or proceeding to attack, review, set aside, void, or annul a plan, or an action taken pursuant to the plan by an urban water supplier on the grounds of noncompliance with this part, the inquiry shall extend only to whether there was a prejudicial abuse of discretion. Abuse of discretion is established if the supplier has not proceeded in a manner required by law or if the action by the water supplier is not supported by substantial evidence. 10652. The California Environmental Quality Act (Division 13 (commencing with Section 21000) of the Public Resources Code) does not apply to the preparation and adoption of plans pursuant to this part or to the implementation of actions taken pursuant to Section 10632. Nothing in this part shall be interpreted as exempting from the California Environmental Quality Act any project that would significantly affect water supplies for fish and wildlife, or any project for implementation of the plan, other than projects implementing Section 10632, or any project for expanded or additional water supplies. 10653. The adoption of a plan shall satisfy any requirements of state law, regulation, or order, including those of the State Water Resources Control Board and the Public Utilities Commission, for the preparation of water management plans or conservation plans; provided, that if the State Water Resources Control Board or the Public Utilities Commission requires additional information concerning water conservation to implement its existing authority, nothing in this part shall be deemed to limit the board or the commission in obtaining that information. The requirements of this part shall be satisfied by any urban water demand management plan prepared to meet federal laws or regulations after the effective date of this part, and which substantially meets the requirements of this part, or by any existing urban water management plan which includes the contents of a plan required under this part. 10654. An urban water supplier may recover in its rates the costs incurred in preparing its plan and implementing the reasonable water conservation measures included in the plan. Any best water management practice that is included in the plan that is identified in the "Memorandum of Understanding Regarding Urban Water Conservation in California" is deemed to be reasonable for the purposes of this section. 10655. If any provision of this part or the application thereof to any person or circumstances is held invalid, that invalidity shall not affect other provisions or applications of this part which can be given effect without the invalid provision or application thereof, and to this end the provisions of this part are severable. 10656. An urban water supplier that does not prepare, adopt, and submit its urban water management plan to the department in accordance with this part, is ineligible to receive funding pursuant to Division 24 (commencing with Section 78500) or Division 26 DRAFT Appendix A Urban Water Management Planning Act Final A ‐ 19 (commencing with Section 79000), or receive drought assistance from the state until the urban water management plan is submitted pursuant to this article. DRAFT APPENDIX B WATER CONSERVATION ACT OF 2009 DRAFT Appendix B Sustainable Water Use and Demand Reduction (SB X7‐7) Final B ‐ 2 California Water Code Division 6, Part 2.55. Chapter 1. General Declarations and Policy §10608‐10608.8 Chapter 2. Definitions §10608.12 Chapter 3. Urban Retail Water Suppliers §10608.16‐10608.44 Chapter 4. Agricultural Water Suppliers §10608.48 Chapter 5. Sustainable Water Management §10608.50 Chapter 6 Standardized Data Collection §10608.52 Chapter 7 Funding Provisions §10608.56‐10608.60 Chapter 8 Quantifying Agricultural Water Use Efficiency §10608.64 Chapter 1. General Declarations and Policy SECTION 10608-10608.8 10608. The Legislature finds and declares all of the following: (a) Water is a public resource that the California Constitution protects against waste and unreasonable use. (b) Growing population, climate change, and the need to protect and grow California's economy while protecting and restoring our fish and wildlife habitats make it essential that the state manage its water resources as efficiently as possible. (c) Diverse regional water supply portfolios will increase water supply reliability and reduce dependence on the Delta. (d) Reduced water use through conservation provides significant energy and environmental benefits, and can help protect water quality, improve streamflows, and reduce greenhouse gas emissions. (e) The success of state and local water conservation programs to increase efficiency of water use is best determined on the basis of measurable outcomes related to water use or efficiency. (f) Improvements in technology and management practices offer the potential for increasing water efficiency in California over time, providing an essential water management tool to meet the need for water for urban, agricultural, and environmental uses. (g) The Governor has called for a 20 percent per capita reduction in urban water use statewide by 2020. (h) The factors used to formulate water use efficiency targets can vary significantly from location to location based on factors including weather, patterns of urban and suburban development, and past efforts to enhance water use efficiency. DRAFT Appendix B Sustainable Water Use and Demand Reduction (SB X7‐7) Final B ‐ 3 (i) Per capita water use is a valid measure of a water provider's efforts to reduce urban water use within its service area. However, per capita water use is less useful for measuring relative water use efficiency between different water providers. Differences in weather, historical patterns of urban and suburban development, and density of housing in a particular location need to be considered when assessing per capita water use as a measure of efficiency. 10608.4. It is the intent of the Legislature, by the enactment of this part, to do all of the following: (a) Require all water suppliers to increase the efficiency of use of this essential resource. (b) Establish a framework to meet the state targets for urban water conservation identified in this part and called for by the Governor. (c) Measure increased efficiency of urban water use on a per capita basis. (d) Establish a method or methods for urban retail water suppliers to determine targets for achieving increased water use efficiency by the year 2020, in accordance with the Governor's goal of a 20-percent reduction. (e) Establish consistent water use efficiency planning and implementation standards for urban water suppliers and agricultural water suppliers. (f) Promote urban water conservation standards that are consistent with the California Urban Water Conservation Council's adopted best management practices and the requirements for demand management in Section 10631. (g) Establish standards that recognize and provide credit to water suppliers that made substantial capital investments in urban water conservation since the drought of the early 1990s. (h) Recognize and account for the investment of urban retail water suppliers in providing recycled water for beneficial uses. (i) Require implementation of specified efficient water management practices for agricultural water suppliers. (j) Support the economic productivity of California's agricultural, commercial, and industrial sectors. (k) Advance regional water resources management. 10608.8. (a) (1) Water use efficiency measures adopted and implemented pursuant to this part or Part 2.8 (commencing with Section 10800) are water conservation measures subject to the protections provided under Section 1011. (2) Because an urban agency is not required to meet its urban water use target until 2020 pursuant to subdivision (b) of Section 10608.24, an urban retail water supplier's failure to meet those targets shall not establish a violation of law for purposes of any state administrative or judicial proceeding prior to DRAFT Appendix B Sustainable Water Use and Demand Reduction (SB X7‐7) Final B ‐ 4 January 1, 2021. Nothing in this paragraph limits the use of data reported to the department or the board in litigation or an administrative proceeding. This paragraph shall become inoperative on January 1, 2021. (3) To the extent feasible, the department and the board shall provide for the use of water conservation reports required under this part to meet the requirements of Section 1011 for water conservation reporting. (b) This part does not limit or otherwise affect the application of Chapter 3.5 (commencing with Section 11340), Chapter 4 (commencing with Section 11370), Chapter 4.5 (commencing with Section 11400), and Chapter 5 (commencing with Section 11500) of Part 1 of Division 3 of Title 2 of the Government Code. (c) This part does not require a reduction in the total water used in the agricultural or urban sectors, because other factors, including, but not limited to, changes in agricultural economics or population growth may have greater effects on water use. This part does not limit the economic productivity of California's agricultural, commercial, or industrial sectors. (d) The requirements of this part do not apply to an agricultural water supplier that is a party to the Quantification Settlement Agreement, as defined in subdivision (a) of Section 1 of Chapter 617 of the Statutes of 2002, during the period within which the Quantification Settlement Agreement remains in effect. After the expiration of the Quantification Settlement Agreement, to the extent conservation water projects implemented as part of the Quantification Settlement Agreement remain in effect, the conserved water created as part of those projects shall be credited against the obligations of the agricultural water supplier pursuant to this part. Chapter 2 Definitions SECTION 10608.12 10608.12. Unless the context otherwise requires, the following definitions govern the construction of this part: (a) "Agricultural water supplier" means a water supplier, either publicly or privately owned, providing water to 10,000 or more irrigated acres, excluding recycled water. "Agricultural water supplier" includes a supplier or contractor for water, regardless of the basis of right, that distributes or sells water for ultimate resale to customers. "Agricultural water supplier" does not include the department. (b) "Base daily per capita water use" means any of the following: (1) The urban retail water supplier's estimate of its average gross water use, reported in gallons per capita per day and calculated over a continuous 10- year period ending no earlier than December 31, 2004, and no later than December 31, 2010. DRAFT Appendix B Sustainable Water Use and Demand Reduction (SB X7‐7) Final B ‐ 5 (2) For an urban retail water supplier that meets at least 10 percent of its 2008 measured retail water demand through recycled water that is delivered within the service area of an urban retail water supplier or its urban wholesale water supplier, the urban retail water supplier may extend the calculation described in paragraph (1) up to an additional five years to a maximum of a continuous 15-year period ending no earlier than December 31, 2004, and no later than December 31, 2010. (3) For the purposes of Section 10608.22, the urban retail water supplier's estimate of its average gross water use, reported in gallons per capita per day and calculated over a continuous five-year period ending no earlier than December 31, 2007, and no later than December 31, 2010. (c) "Baseline commercial, industrial, and institutional water use" means an urban retail water supplier's base daily per capita water use for commercial, industrial, and institutional users. (d) "Commercial water user" means a water user that provides or distributes a product or service. (e) "Compliance daily per capita water use" means the gross water use during the final year of the reporting period, reported in gallons per capita per day. (f) "Disadvantaged community" means a community with an annual median household income that is less than 80 percent of the statewide annual median household income. (g) "Gross water use" means the total volume of water, whether treated or untreated, entering the distribution system of an urban retail water supplier, excluding all of the following: (1) Recycled water that is delivered within the service area of an urban retail water supplier or its urban wholesale water supplier. (2) The net volume of water that the urban retail water supplier places into long- term storage. (3) The volume of water the urban retail water supplier conveys for use by another urban water supplier. (4) The volume of water delivered for agricultural use, except as otherwise provided in subdivision (f) of Section 10608.24. (h) "Industrial water user" means a water user that is primarily a manufacturer or processor of materials as defined by the North American Industry Classification System code sectors 31 to 33, inclusive, or an entity that is a water user primarily engaged in research and development. (i) "Institutional water user" means a water user dedicated to public service. This type of user includes, among other users, higher education institutions, schools, courts, churches, hospitals, government facilities, and nonprofit research institutions. DRAFT Appendix B Sustainable Water Use and Demand Reduction (SB X7‐7) Final B ‐ 6 (j) "Interim urban water use target" means the midpoint between the urban retail water supplier's base daily per capita water use and the urban retail water supplier's urban water use target for 2020. (k) "Locally cost effective" means that the present value of the local benefits of implementing an agricultural efficiency water management practice is greater than or equal to the present value of the local cost of implementing that measure. (l) "Process water" means water used for producing a product or product content or water used for research and development, including, but not limited to, continuous manufacturing processes, water used for testing and maintaining equipment used in producing a product or product content, and water used in combined heat and power facilities used in producing a product or product content. Process water does not mean incidental water uses not related to the production of a product or product content, including, but not limited to, water used for restrooms, landscaping, air conditioning, heating, kitchens, and laundry. (m) "Recycled water" means recycled water, as defined in subdivision (n) of Section 13050, that is used to offset potable demand, including recycled water supplied for direct use and indirect potable reuse, that meets the following requirements, where applicable: (1) For groundwater recharge, including recharge through spreading basins, water supplies that are all of the following: (A) Metered. (B) Developed through planned investment by the urban water supplier or a wastewater treatment agency. (C) Treated to a minimum tertiary level. (D) Delivered within the service area of an urban retail water supplier or its urban wholesale water supplier that helps an urban retail water supplier meet its urban water use target. (2) For reservoir augmentation, water supplies that meet the criteria of paragraph (1) and are conveyed through a distribution system constructed specifically for recycled water. (n) "Regional water resources management" means sources of supply resulting from watershed-based planning for sustainable local water reliability or any of the following alternative sources of water: (1) The capture and reuse of stormwater or rainwater. (2) The use of recycled water. (3) The desalination of brackish groundwater. DRAFT Appendix B Sustainable Water Use and Demand Reduction (SB X7‐7) Final B ‐ 7 (4) The conjunctive use of surface water and groundwater in a manner that is consistent with the safe yield of the groundwater basin. (o) "Reporting period" means the years for which an urban retail water supplier reports compliance with the urban water use targets. (p) "Urban retail water supplier" means a water supplier, either publicly or privately owned, that directly provides potable municipal water to more than 3,000 end users or that supplies more than 3,000 acre-feet of potable water annually at retail for municipal purposes. (q) "Urban water use target" means the urban retail water supplier's targeted future daily per capita water use. (r) "Urban wholesale water supplier," means a water supplier, either publicly or privately owned, that provides more than 3,000 acre-feet of water annually at wholesale for potable municipal purposes. Chapter 3 Urban Retail Water Suppliers SECTION 10608.16-10608.44 10608.16.(a) The state shall achieve a 20-percent reduction in urban per capita water use in California on or before December 31, 2020. (b) The state shall make incremental progress towards the state target specified in subdivision (a) by reducing urban per capita water use by at least 10 percent on or before December 31, 2015. 10608.20.(a) (1) Each urban retail water supplier shall develop urban water use targets and an interim urban water use target by July 1, 2011. Urban retail water suppliers may elect to determine and report progress toward achieving these targets on an individual or regional basis, as provided in subdivision (a) of Section 10608.28, and may determine the targets on a fiscal year or calendar year basis. (2) It is the intent of the Legislature that the urban water use targets described in paragraph (1) cumulatively result in a 20-percent reduction from the baseline daily per capita water use by December 31, 2020. (b) An urban retail water supplier shall adopt one of the following methods for determining its urban water use target pursuant to subdivision (a): (1) Eighty percent of the urban retail water supplier's baseline per capita daily water use. (2) The per capita daily water use that is estimated using the sum of the following performance standards: DRAFT Appendix B Sustainable Water Use and Demand Reduction (SB X7‐7) Final B ‐ 8 (A) For indoor residential water use, 55 gallons per capita daily water use as a provisional standard. Upon completion of the department's 2016 report to the Legislature pursuant to Section 10608.42, this standard may be adjusted by the Legislature by statute. (B) For landscape irrigated through dedicated or residential meters or connections, water efficiency equivalent to the standards of the Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance set forth in Chapter 2.7 (commencing with Section 490) of Division 2 of Title 23 of the California Code of Regulations, as in effect the later of the year of the landscape's installation or 1992. An urban retail water supplier using the approach specified in this subparagraph shall use satellite imagery, site visits, or other best available technology to develop an accurate estimate of landscaped areas. (C) For commercial, industrial, and institutional uses, a 10-percent reduction in water use from the baseline commercial, industrial, and institutional water use by 2020. (3) Ninety-five percent of the applicable state hydrologic region target, as set forth in the state's draft 20x2020 Water Conservation Plan (dated April 30, 2009). If the service area of an urban water supplier includes more than one hydrologic region, the supplier shall apportion its service area to each region based on population or area. (4) A method that shall be identified and developed by the department, through a public process, and reported to the Legislature no later than December 31, 2010. The method developed by the department shall identify per capita targets that cumulatively result in a statewide 20-percent reduction in urban daily per capita water use by December 31, 2020. In developing urban daily per capita water use targets, the department shall do all of the following: (A) Consider climatic differences within the state. (B) Consider population density differences within the state. (C) Provide flexibility to communities and regions in meeting the targets. (D) Consider different levels of per capita water use according to plant water needs in different regions. (E) Consider different levels of commercial, industrial, and institutional water use in different regions of the state. (F) Avoid placing an undue hardship on communities that have implemented conservation measures or taken actions to keep per capita water use low. (c) If the department adopts a regulation pursuant to paragraph (4) of subdivision (b) that results in a requirement that an urban retail water supplier achieve a reduction in daily per capita water use that is greater than 20 percent by December 31, 2020, an urban retail water supplier that adopted the method DRAFT Appendix B Sustainable Water Use and Demand Reduction (SB X7‐7) Final B ‐ 9 described in paragraph (4) of subdivision (b) may limit its urban water use target to a reduction of not more than 20 percent by December 31, 2020, by adopting the method described in paragraph (1) of subdivision (b). (d) The department shall update the method described in paragraph (4) of subdivision (b) and report to the Legislature by December 31, 2014. An urban retail water supplier that adopted the method described in paragraph (4) of subdivision (b) may adopt a new urban daily per capita water use target pursuant to this updated method. (e) An urban retail water supplier shall include in its urban water management plan due in 2010 pursuant to Part 2.6 (commencing with Section 10610) the baseline daily per capita water use, urban water use target, interim urban water use target, and compliance daily per capita water use, along with the bases for determining those estimates, including references to supporting data. (f) When calculating per capita values for the purposes of this chapter, an urban retail water supplier shall determine population using federal, state, and local population reports and projections. (g) An urban retail water supplier may update its 2020 urban water use target in its 2015 urban water management plan required pursuant to Part 2.6 (commencing with Section 10610). (h) (1) The department, through a public process and in consultation with the California Urban Water Conservation Council, shall develop technical methodologies and criteria for the consistent implementation of this part, including, but not limited to, both of the following: (A) Methodologies for calculating base daily per capita water use, baseline commercial, industrial, and institutional water use, compliance daily per capita water use, gross water use, service area population, indoor residential water use, and landscaped area water use. (B) Criteria for adjustments pursuant to subdivisions (d) and (e) of Section 10608.24. (2) The department shall post the methodologies and criteria developed pursuant to this subdivision on its Internet Web site, and make written copies available, by October 1, 2010. An urban retail water supplier shall use the methods developed by the department in compliance with this part. (i) (1) The department shall adopt regulations for implementation of the provisions relating to process water in accordance with subdivision (l) of Section 10608.12, subdivision (e) of Section 10608.24, and subdivision (d) of Section 10608.26. (2) The initial adoption of a regulation authorized by this subdivision is deemed to address an emergency, for purposes of Sections 11346.1 and 11349.6 of the Government Code, and the department is hereby exempted for that purpose from the requirements of subdivision (b) of Section 11346.1 of the DRAFT Appendix B Sustainable Water Use and Demand Reduction (SB X7‐7) Final B ‐ 10 Government Code. After the initial adoption of an emergency regulation pursuant to this subdivision, the department shall not request approval from the Office of Administrative Law to readopt the regulation as an emergency regulation pursuant to Section 11346.1 of the Government Code. (j) (1) An urban retail water supplier is granted an extension to July 1, 2011, for adoption of an urban water management plan pursuant to Part 2.6 (commencing with Section 10610) due in 2010 to allow the use of technical methodologies developed by the department pursuant to paragraph (4) of subdivision (b) and subdivision (h). An urban retail water supplier that adopts an urban water management plan due in 2010 that does not use the methodologies developed by the department pursuant to subdivision (h) shall amend the plan by July 1, 2011, to comply with this part. (2) An urban wholesale water supplier whose urban water management plan prepared pursuant to Part 2.6 (commencing with Section 10610) was due and not submitted in 2010 is granted an extension to July 1, 2011, to permit coordination between an urban wholesale water supplier and urban retail water suppliers. 10608.22. Notwithstanding the method adopted by an urban retail water supplier pursuant to Section 10608.20, an urban retail water supplier's per capita daily water use reduction shall be no less than 5 percent of base daily per capita water use as defined in paragraph(3) of subdivision (b) of Section 10608.12. This section does not apply to an urban retail water supplier with a base daily per capita water use at or below 100 gallons per capita per day. 10608.24.(a) Each urban retail water supplier shall meet its interim urban water use target by December 31, 2015. (b) Each urban retail water supplier shall meet its urban water use target by December 31, 2020. (c) An urban retail water supplier's compliance daily per capita water use shall be the measure of progress toward achievement of its urban water use target. (d) (1) When determining compliance daily per capita water use, an urban retail water supplier may consider the following factors: (A) Differences in evapotranspiration and rainfall in the baseline period compared to the compliance reporting period. (B) Substantial changes to commercial or industrial water use resulting from increased business output and economic development that have occurred during the reporting period. (C) Substantial changes to institutional water use resulting from fire suppression services or other extraordinary events, or from new or expanded operations, that have occurred during the reporting period. (2) If the urban retail water supplier elects to adjust its estimate of compliance daily per capita water use due to one or more of the factors described in DRAFT Appendix B Sustainable Water Use and Demand Reduction (SB X7‐7) Final B ‐ 11 paragraph (1), it shall provide the basis for, and data supporting, the adjustment in the report required by Section 10608.40. (e) When developing the urban water use target pursuant to Section 10608.20, an urban retail water supplier that has a substantial percentage of industrial water use in its service area may exclude process water from the calculation of gross water use to avoid a disproportionate burden on another customer sector. (f) (1) An urban retail water supplier that includes agricultural water use in an urban water management plan pursuant to Part 2.6 (commencing with Section 10610) may include the agricultural water use in determining gross water use. An urban retail water supplier that includes agricultural water use in determining gross water use and develops its urban water use target pursuant to paragraph (2) of subdivision (b) of Section 10608.20 shall use a water efficient standard for agricultural irrigation of 100 percent of reference evapotranspiration multiplied by the crop coefficient for irrigated acres. (2) An urban retail water supplier, that is also an agricultural water supplier, is not subject to the requirements of Chapter 4 (commencing with Section 10608.48), if the agricultural water use is incorporated into its urban water use target pursuant to paragraph (1). 10608.26.(a) In complying with this part, an urban retail water supplier shall conduct at least one public hearing to accomplish all of the following: (1) Allow community input regarding the urban retail water supplier's implementation plan for complying with this part. (2) Consider the economic impacts of the urban retail water supplier's implementation plan for complying with this part. (3) Adopt a method, pursuant to subdivision (b) of Section 10608.20, for determining its urban water use target. (b) In complying with this part, an urban retail water supplier may meet its urban water use target through efficiency improvements in any combination among its customer sectors. An urban retail water supplier shall avoid placing a disproportionate burden on any customer sector. (c) For an urban retail water supplier that supplies water to a United States Department of Defense military installation, the urban retail water supplier's implementation plan for complying with this part shall consider the conservation of that military installation under federal Executive Order 13514. (d) (1) Any ordinance or resolution adopted by an urban retail water supplier after the effective date of this section shall not require existing customers as of the effective date of this section, to undertake changes in product formulation, operations, or equipment that would reduce process water use, but may provide technical assistance and financial incentives to those customers to implement efficiency measures for process water. This section shall not limit DRAFT Appendix B Sustainable Water Use and Demand Reduction (SB X7‐7) Final B ‐ 12 an ordinance or resolution adopted pursuant to a declaration of drought emergency by an urban retail water supplier. (2) This part shall not be construed or enforced so as to interfere with the requirements of Chapter 4 (commencing with Section 113980) to Chapter 13 (commencing with Section 114380), inclusive, of Part 7 of Division 104 of the Health and Safety Code, or any requirement or standard for the protection of public health, public safety, or worker safety established by federal, state, or local government or recommended by recognized standard setting organizations or trade associations. 10608.28.(a) An urban retail water supplier may meet its urban water use target within its retail service area, or through mutual agreement, by any of the following: (1) Through an urban wholesale water supplier. (2) Through a regional agency authorized to plan and implement water conservation, including, but not limited to, an agency established under the Bay Area Water Supply and Conservation Agency Act (Division 31 (commencing with Section 81300)). (3) Through a regional water management group as defined in Section 10537. (4) By an integrated regional water management funding area. (5) By hydrologic region. (6) Through other appropriate geographic scales for which computation methods have been developed by the department. (b) A regional water management group, with the written consent of its member agencies, may undertake any or all planning, reporting, and implementation functions under this chapter for the member agencies that consent to those activities. Any data or reports shall provide information both for the regional water management group and separately for each consenting urban retail water supplier and urban wholesale water supplier. 10608.32. All costs incurred pursuant to this part by a water utility regulated by the Public Utilities Commission may be recoverable in rates subject to review and approval by the Public Utilities Commission, and may be recorded in a memorandum account and reviewed for reasonableness by the Public Utilities Commission. 10608.36. Urban wholesale water suppliers shall include in the urban water management plans required pursuant to Part 2.6 (commencing with Section 10610) an assessment of their present and proposed future measures, programs, and policies to help achieve the water use reductions required by this part. 10608.40. Urban water retail suppliers shall report to the department on their progress in meeting their urban water use targets as part of their urban water management plans DRAFT Appendix B Sustainable Water Use and Demand Reduction (SB X7‐7) Final B ‐ 13 submitted pursuant to Section 10631. The data shall be reported using a standardized form developed pursuant to Section 10608.52. 10608.42.(a) The department shall review the 2015 urban water management plans and report to the Legislature by July 1, 2017, on progress towards achieving a 20-percent reduction in urban water use by December 31, 2020. The report shall include recommendations on changes to water efficiency standards or urban water use targets to achieve the 20-percent reduction and to reflect updated efficiency information and technology changes. (b) A report to be submitted pursuant to subdivision (a) shall be submitted in compliance with Section 9795 of the Government Code. 10608.43. The department, in conjunction with the California Urban Water Conservation Council, by April 1, 2010, shall convene a representative task force consisting of academic experts, urban retail water suppliers, environmental organizations, commercial water users, industrial water users, and institutional water users to develop alternative best management practices for commercial, industrial, and institutional users and an assessment of the potential statewide water use efficiency improvement in the commercial, industrial, and institutional sectors that would result from implementation of these best management practices. The taskforce, in conjunction with the department, shall submit a report to the Legislature by April 1, 2012, that shall include a review of multiple sectors within commercial, industrial, and institutional users and that shall recommend water use efficiency standards for commercial, industrial, and institutional users among various sectors of water use. The report shall include, but not be limited to, the following: (a) Appropriate metrics for evaluating commercial, industrial, and institutional water use. (b) Evaluation of water demands for manufacturing processes, goods, and cooling. (c) Evaluation of public infrastructure necessary for delivery of recycled water to the commercial, industrial, and institutional sectors. (d) Evaluation of institutional and economic barriers to increased recycled water use within the commercial, industrial, and institutional sectors. (e) Identification of technical feasibility and cost of the best management practices to achieve more efficient water use statewide in the commercial, industrial, and institutional sectors that is consistent with the public interest and reflects past investments in water use efficiency. 10608.44. Each state agency shall reduce water use at facilities it operates to support urban retail water suppliers in meeting the target identified in Section 10608.16. DRAFT Appendix B Sustainable Water Use and Demand Reduction (SB X7‐7) Final B ‐ 14 Chapter 4 Agricultural Water Suppliers SECTION 10608.48 10608.48.(a) On or before July 31, 2012, an agricultural water supplier shall implement efficient water management practices pursuant to subdivisions (b) and (c). (b) Agricultural water suppliers shall implement all of the following critical efficient management practices: (1) Measure the volume of water delivered to customers with sufficient accuracy to comply with subdivision (a) of Section 531.10 and to implement paragraph (2). (2) Adopt a pricing structure for water customers based at least in part on quantity delivered. (c) Agricultural water suppliers shall implement additional efficient management practices, including, but not limited to, practices to accomplish all of the following, if the measures are locally cost effective and technically feasible: (1) Facilitate alternative land use for lands with exceptionally high water duties or whose irrigation contributes to significant problems, including drainage. (2) Facilitate use of available recycled water that otherwise would not be used beneficially, meets all health and safety criteria, and does not harm crops or soils. (3) Facilitate the financing of capital improvements for on-farm irrigation systems. (4) Implement an incentive pricing structure that promotes one or more of the following goals: (A) More efficient water use at the farm level. (B) Conjunctive use of groundwater. (C) Appropriate increase of groundwater recharge. (D) Reduction in problem drainage. (E) Improved management of environmental resources. (F) Effective management of all water sources throughout the year by adjusting seasonal pricing structures based on current conditions. (5) Expand line or pipe distribution systems, and construct regulatory reservoirs to increase distribution system flexibility and capacity, decrease maintenance, and reduce seepage. DRAFT Appendix B Sustainable Water Use and Demand Reduction (SB X7‐7) Final B ‐ 15 (6) Increase flexibility in water ordering by, and delivery to, water customers within operational limits. (7) Construct and operate supplier spill and tailwater recovery systems. (8) Increase planned conjunctive use of surface water and groundwater within the supplier service area. (9) Automate canal control structures. (10) Facilitate or promote customer pump testing and evaluation. (11) Designate a water conservation coordinator who will develop and implement the water management plan and prepare progress reports. (12) Provide for the availability of water management services to water users. These services may include, but are not limited to, all of the following: (A) On-farm irrigation and drainage system evaluations. (B) Normal year and real-time irrigation scheduling and crop evapotranspiration information. (C) Surface water, groundwater, and drainage water quantity and quality data. (D) Agricultural water management educational programs and materials for farmers, staff, and the public. (13) Evaluate the policies of agencies that provide the supplier with water to identify the potential for institutional changes to allow more flexible water deliveries and storage. (14) Evaluate and improve the efficiencies of the supplier's pumps. (d) Agricultural water suppliers shall include in the agricultural water management plans required pursuant to Part 2.8 (commencing with Section 10800) a report on which efficient water management practices have been implemented and are planned to be implemented, an estimate of the water use efficiency improvements that have occurred since the last report, and an estimate of the water use efficiency improvements estimated to occur five and 10 years in the future. If an agricultural water supplier determines that an efficient water management practice is not locally cost effective or technically feasible, the supplier shall submit information documenting that determination. (e) The data shall be reported using a standardized form developed pursuant to Section 10608.52. (f) An agricultural water supplier may meet the requirements of subdivisions (d) and (e) by submitting to the department a water conservation plan submitted to the United States Bureau of Reclamation that meets the requirements described in Section 10828. DRAFT Appendix B Sustainable Water Use and Demand Reduction (SB X7‐7) Final B ‐ 16 (g) On or before December 31, 2013, December 31, 2016, and December 31, 2021, the department, in consultation with the board, shall submit to the Legislature a report on the agricultural efficient water management practices that have been implemented and are planned to be implemented and an assessment of the manner in which the implementation of those efficient water management practices has affected and will affect agricultural operations, including estimated water use efficiency improvements, if any. (h) The department may update the efficient water management practices required pursuant to subdivision (c), in consultation with the Agricultural Water Management Council, the United States Bureau of Reclamation, and the board. All efficient water management practices for agricultural water use pursuant to this chapter shall be adopted or revised by the department only after the department conducts public hearings to allow participation of the diverse geographical areas and interests of the state. (i) (1) The department shall adopt regulations that provide for a range of options that agricultural water suppliers may use or implement to comply with the measurement requirement in paragraph (1) of subdivision (b). (2) The initial adoption of a regulation authorized by this subdivision is deemed to address an emergency, for purposes of Sections 11346.1 and 11349.6 of the Government Code, and the department is hereby exempted for that purpose from the requirements of subdivision (b) of Section 11346.1 of the Government Code. After the initial adoption of an emergency regulation pursuant to this subdivision, the department shall not request approval from the Office of Administrative Law to readopt the regulation as an emergency regulation pursuant to Section 11346.1 of the Government Code. Chapter 5 Sustainable Water Management Section 10608.50 10608.50.(a) The department, in consultation with the board, shall promote implementation of regional water resources management practices through increased incentives and removal of barriers consistent with state and federal law. Potential changes may include, but are not limited to, all of the following: (1) Revisions to the requirements for urban and agricultural water management plans. (2) Revisions to the requirements for integrated regional water management plans. (3) Revisions to the eligibility for state water management grants and loans. DRAFT Appendix B Sustainable Water Use and Demand Reduction (SB X7‐7) Final B ‐ 17 (4) Revisions to state or local permitting requirements that increase water supply opportunities, but do not weaken water quality protection under state and federal law. (5) Increased funding for research, feasibility studies, and project construction. (6) Expanding technical and educational support for local land use and water management agencies. (b) No later than January 1, 2011, and updated as part of the California Water Plan, the department, in consultation with the board, and with public input, shall propose new statewide targets, or review and update existing statewide targets, for regional water resources management practices, including, but not limited to, recycled water, brackish groundwater desalination, and infiltration and direct use of urban stormwater runoff. Chapter 6 Standardized Data Collection SECTION 10608.52 10608.52.(a) The department, in consultation with the board, the California Bay-Delta Authority or its successor agency, the State Department of Public Health, and the Public Utilities Commission, shall develop a single standardized water use reporting form to meet the water use information needs of each agency, including the needs of urban water suppliers that elect to determine and report progress toward achieving targets on a regional basis as provided in subdivision (a) of Section 10608.28. (b) At a minimum, the form shall be developed to accommodate information sufficient to assess an urban water supplier's compliance with conservation targets pursuant to Section 10608.24 and an agricultural water supplier's compliance with implementation of efficient water management practices pursuant to subdivision (a) of Section 10608.48. The form shall accommodate reporting by urban water suppliers on an individual or regional basis as provided in subdivision (a) of Section 10608.28. Chapter 7 Funding Provisions Section 10608.56-10608.60 10608.56.(a) On and after July 1, 2016, an urban retail water supplier is not eligible for a water grant or loan awarded or administered by the state unless the supplier complies with this part. (b) On and after July 1, 2013, an agricultural water supplier is not eligible for a water grant or loan awarded or administered by the state unless the supplier complies with this part. DRAFT Appendix B Sustainable Water Use and Demand Reduction (SB X7‐7) Final B ‐ 18 (c) Notwithstanding subdivision (a), the department shall determine that an urban retail water supplier is eligible for a water grant or loan even though the supplier has not met the per capita reductions required pursuant to Section 10608.24, if the urban retail water supplier has submitted to the department for approval a schedule, financing plan, and budget, to be included in the grant or loan agreement, for achieving the per capita reductions. The supplier may request grant or loan funds to achieve the per capita reductions to the extent the request is consistent with the eligibility requirements applicable to the water funds. (d) Notwithstanding subdivision (b), the department shall determine that an agricultural water supplier is eligible for a water grant or loan even though the supplier is not implementing all of the efficient water management practices described in Section 10608.48, if the agricultural water supplier has submitted to the department for approval a schedule, financing plan, and budget, to be included in the grant or loan agreement, for implementation of the efficient water management practices. The supplier may request grant or loan funds to implement the efficient water management practices to the extent the request is consistent with the eligibility requirements applicable to the water funds. (e) Notwithstanding subdivision (a), the department shall determine that an urban retail water supplier is eligible for a water grant or loan even though the supplier has not met the per capita reductions required pursuant to Section 10608.24, if the urban retail water supplier has submitted to the department for approval documentation demonstrating that its entire service area qualifies as a disadvantaged community. (f) The department shall not deny eligibility to an urban retail water supplier or agricultural water supplier in compliance with the requirements of this part and Part 2.8 (commencing with Section 10800), that is participating in a multiagency water project, or an integrated regional water management plan, developed pursuant to Section 75026 of the Public Resources Code, solely on the basis that one or more of the agencies participating in the project or plan is not implementing all of the requirements of this part or Part 2.8 (commencing with Section 10800). 10608.60.(a) It is the intent of the Legislature that funds made available by Section 75026 of the Public Resources Code should be expended, consistent with Division 43 (commencing with Section 75001) of the Public Resources Code and upon appropriation by the Legislature, for grants to implement this part. In the allocation of funding, it is the intent of the Legislature that the department give consideration to disadvantaged communities to assist in implementing the requirements of this part. (b) It is the intent of the Legislature that funds made available by Section 75041 of the Public Resources Code, should be expended, consistent with Division 43 (commencing with Section 75001) of the Public Resources Code and upon appropriation by the Legislature, for direct expenditures to implement this part. DRAFT Appendix B Sustainable Water Use and Demand Reduction (SB X7‐7) Final B ‐ 19 Chapter 8 Quantifying Agricultural Water Use Efficiency SECTION 10608.64 10608.64. The department, in consultation with the Agricultural Water Management Council, academic experts, and other stakeholders, shall develop a methodology for quantifying the efficiency of agricultural water use. Alternatives to be assessed shall include, but not be limited to, determination of efficiency levels based on crop type or irrigation system distribution uniformity. On or before December 31, 2011, the department shall report to the Legislature on a proposed methodology and a plan for implementation. The plan shall include the estimated implementation costs and the types of data needed to support the methodology. Nothing in this section authorizes the department to implement a methodology established pursuant to this section. DRAFT APPENDIX C MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR THE MARTIS VALLEY GROUNDWATER BASIN DRAFT Client Logo (optional) Free space Free spaceNorthstar Community Services District Martis ValleyGroundwater Management Plan April, 2013 Prepared for Northstar Community Services District Placer County Water Agency Truckee Donner Public Utility DistrictDRAFT Martis Valley Groundwater Management Plan Prepared for Truckee Donner Public Utility District, Truckee, California Placer County Water Agency, Auburn, California Northstar Community Services District, Northstar, California April 18, 2013 140691 DRAFT 10540 White Rock Road, Suite 180 Rancho Cordova, California 95670 MARTIS VALLEY GROUNDWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN NEVADA AND PLACER COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA SIGNATURE PAGE Signatures of principal personnel responsible for the development of the Martis Valley Groundwater Management Plan are exhibited below: ______________________________ Tina M. Bauer, P.G. #6893, CHG #962 Brown and Caldwell, Project Manager ______________________________ David Shaw, P.G. #8210 Balance Hydrologics, Inc., Project Geologist ______________________________ John Ayres, CHG #910 Brown and Caldwell, Hydrogeologist DRAFT 10540 White Rock Road, Suite 180 Rancho Cordova, California 95670 This Groundwater Management Plan (GMP) was prepared by Brown and Caldwell under contract to the Placer County Water Agency, Truckee Donner Public Utility District and Northstar Community Services District. The key staff involved in the preparation of the GMP are listed below. Brown and Caldwell Tina M. Bauer, PG, CHg, Project Manager John Ayres, PG,CHg, Hydrogeologist and Public Outreach Brent Cain, Hydrogeologist and Principal Groundwater Modeler Paul Selsky, PE, Quality Assurance/Quality Control Tina Crawford, GIS Specialist Christy Probst, Graphics Specialist Dawn Schock, Production Coordinator Balance Hydrologics (Geology) David Shaw, PG, Geologist Mark Woyshner, Principal Hydrologist, Quality Assurance/Quality Control Barry Hecht, CEG, CHg, Principal-in-Charge Colleen Haraden, GIS Specialist DRAFT ii P:\40000\140691 - PCWA Martis Valley GWP\GMP\Report\Final\Martis Valley GMP Final 4-18-13.docx Table of Contents List of Figures ...................................................................................................................................................... v List of Tables ...................................................................................................................................................... vi List of Abbreviations ......................................................................................................................................... vii 1. Introduction ............................................................................................................................................... 1-1 1.1 Purpose of the Groundwater Management Plan ......................................................................... 1-1 1.2 Groundwater Management Plan Authority and Administration .................................................. 1-1 1.3 Groundwater Management Plan Development Process ............................................................. 1-3 1.4 Groundwater Management Goal ................................................................................................... 1-5 1.5 Basin Management Objectives ..................................................................................................... 1-5 1.6 Plan Components ........................................................................................................................... 1-6 1.7 Area Covered by the GMP .............................................................................................................. 1-8 1.8 Public Outreach and Education ..................................................................................................... 1-8 1.9 Groundwater Model ....................................................................................................................... 1-8 1.10 Document Organization ................................................................................................................. 1-9 2. Physical Setting ........................................................................................................................................ 2-1 2.1 Topography ..................................................................................................................................... 2-1 2.2 Climate ............................................................................................................................................ 2-1 2.2.1 Climate Variability ............................................................................................................ 2-4 2.2.2 Climate Change ................................................................................................................ 2-6 2.3 Surface Water Hydrology ............................................................................................................... 2-6 2.3.1 Truckee River ................................................................................................................... 2-6 2.3.2 Martis Creek ................................................................................................................... 2-10 2.3.3 Donner and Cold Creeks ................................................................................................ 2-10 2.3.3.1 Cold Creek .............................................................................................................. 2-10 2.3.4 Trout Creek ..................................................................................................................... 2-10 2.3.5 Prosser Creek ................................................................................................................. 2-11 2.3.6 Truckee Corridor ............................................................................................................. 2-11 2.3.7 Other impoundments ..................................................................................................... 2-11 2.4 Geology ......................................................................................................................................... 2-11 2.4.1 Geologic Database Development ................................................................................. 2-11 2.4.2 Stratigraphy .................................................................................................................... 2-18 2.4.3 Structure ......................................................................................................................... 2-18 2.5 Groundwater Occurrence and Movement .................................................................................. 2-20 2.5.1 Water-bearing Units and Properties .............................................................................. 2-20 2.5.2 Surface-groundwater interaction .................................................................................. 2-22 2.5.3 Groundwater levels and Land Subsidence ................................................................... 2-22 2.5.3.1 Land Subsidence ................................................................................................... 2-23 DRAFT Martis Valley Groundwater Management Plan Table of Contents iii P:\40000\140691 - PCWA Martis Valley GWP\GMP\Report\Final\Martis Valley GMP Final 4-18-13.docx 2.6 Groundwater Well Infrastructure ................................................................................................. 2-23 2.7 Groundwater Quality .................................................................................................................... 2-26 2.8 Land Use ....................................................................................................................................... 2-27 2.9 Groundwater Recharge ................................................................................................................ 2-27 2.10 Water Use ..................................................................................................................................... 2-28 3. Plan Implementation ................................................................................................................................ 3-1 3.1 Implementation Actions that Support BMO #1 - Manage Groundwater to Maintain Established and Planned Uses...................................................................................................... 3-1 3.1.1 Develop and implement a summary report every five years ......................................... 3-1 3.1.2 Compile an annual summary of groundwater monitoring data .................................... 3-2 3.1.3 Partner agencies to meet annually to discuss GMP implementation .......................... 3-2 3.1.4 Support TROA provisions associated with well construction, repair, modification, and destruction ................................................................................................................ 3-2 3.1.5 Evaluate and consider taking a position on relevant water resources-related policies, programs, and projects under consideration by local, State and Federal agencies ... 3-2 3.1.6 Pursue opportunities for improved groundwater basin monitoring and reporting with local, State, and Federal agencies .......................................................................... 3-2 3.1.7 Evaluate the need for programs to facilitate saline intrusion control, mitigate the migration of contaminated groundwater, facilitate conjunctive use, and to mitigate overdraft ............................................................................................................ 3-2 3.1.8 Consider development of contamination cleanup, recharge, storage, conservation and water recycling projects ........................................................................................... 3-3 3.1.9 Pursue funding sources for implementation of plan policies, programs, reporting and projects ...................................................................................................................... 3-3 3.1.10 Participate in the evaluation of relevant local projects to maintain groundwater quantity and quality ......................................................................................................... 3-4 3.1.11 Summary of BMO #1 Actions .......................................................................................... 3-4 3.2 Implementation Actions that Support BMO #2 - Manage Groundwater within the Provisions of TROA ......................................................................................................................... 3-4 3.2.1 Continue coordination and collaboration with TROA agencies on groundwater management issues and source well development ...................................................... 3-5 3.2.2 Summary of BMO #2 Actions .......................................................................................... 3-5 3.3 Implementation Actions that Support BMO #3 - Collaborate and Cooperate with Groundwater Users and Stakeholders in the Martis Valley Groundwater Basin ....................... 3-5 3.3.1 Formalize and institute a Stakeholder Working Group to meet at least annually or as needed on GMP implementation activities and updates ..................................... 3-5 3.3.2 Collaborate with the LRWQCB to limit the migration of contaminated groundwater and in development of large scale contamination clean up programs ........................ 3-6 3.3.3 Work cooperatively with local stakeholders and local, State and Federal agencies on groundwater management activities, projects, and studies .................................... 3-6 3.3.4 Identify opportunities for public involvement during GMP implementation ................. 3-6 3.3.5 Summary of BMO #3 Actions .......................................................................................... 3-6 3.4 Implementation Actions that Support BMO #4 - Protect Groundwater Quantity and Quality ... 3-7 3.4.1 Establish and maintain a California Statewide Groundwater Elevation Monitoring compliant monitoring program ..................................................................... 3-7 DRAFT Martis Valley Groundwater Management Plan Table of Contents iv P:\40000\140691 - PCWA Martis Valley GWP\GMP\Report\Final\Martis Valley GMP Final 4-18-13.docx 3.4.2 Continue and Encourage Water Conservation Activities and Public Education ........... 3-9 3.4.3 Work with local stakeholders and DWR to identify areas that may need additional groundwater level and groundwater quality monitoring based on identified data gaps or negative performance trends ............................................................................ 3-9 3.4.4 Coordinate with other agencies, including DWR and the USGS to identify opportunities for land subsidence monitoring ............................................................... 3-9 3.4.5 Evaluate the need for, and advocate for, as necessary, a wellhead protection, groundwater recharge area protection, and other programs as necessary in MVGB ........................................................................................................ 3-10 3.4.6 Map and share groundwater recharge zones .............................................................. 3-10 3.4.7 Provide relevant information to land use agencies regarding groundwater availability ....................................................................................................................... 3-10 3.4.8 Summary of BMO #4 Actions ........................................................................................ 3-10 3.5 BMO #5 - Pursue and use the best available science and technology to inform the decision making process. ............................................................................................................ 3-11 3.5.1 Work with State and Federal agencies to attempt to secure funding for expansion of the partner agencies’ monitoring grid .................................................... 3-11 3.5.2 Maintain relationship with DWR for groundwater monitoring and database management activities .................................................................................................. 3-12 3.5.3 Identify opportunities for collecting water quality monitoring data ............................ 3-12 3.5.4 Use and consider updating the hydrologic model to improve understanding of groundwater in the MVGB ......................................................................................... 3-13 3.5.5 Seek new tools, technology, and information that may improve the understanding of the water resources in the MVGB and watershed.......................... 3-13 3.5.6 Summary of BMO #5 Actions ........................................................................................ 3-13 3.6 Implementation Actions that Support BMO #6 - Consider the environment and participate in the stewardship of groundwater resources ......................................................... 3-14 3.6.1 Consider local, State, or Federal riparian, surface water, or surface water- groundwater interaction investigations, studies or programs in the MVGB ............... 3-14 3.6.2 Continue support and collaboration with local groups that identify, coordinate, or implement projects that support the overall sustainability of the MVGB ................... 3-14 3.6.3 Summary of BMO #6 Actions ........................................................................................ 3-14 4. References ................................................................................................................................................ 4-1 Appendix A: Resolutions of Intent to Adopt a Groundwater Management Plan ............................................. A Appendix B: Resolutions Adopting the Groundwater Management Plan ....................................................... B Appendix C: Public Outreach Plan ..................................................................................................................... C Appendix D: CASGEM Monitoring Plan ............................................................................................................. D Appendix E: Groundwater Quality Reports ........................................................................................................E Appendix F: DRI Technical Note ......................................................................................................................... F DRAFT Martis Valley Groundwater Management Plan Table of Contents v P:\40000\140691 - PCWA Martis Valley GWP\GMP\Report\Final\Martis Valley GMP Final 4-18-13.docx List of Figures Figure 1-1. Groundwater Management Plan Area ....................................................................................... 1-2 Figure 1-2. GMP Development Process ........................................................................................................ 1-4 Figure 2-1. Groundwater Basin Location and Physiography ....................................................................... 2-2 Figure 2-2. Mean Annual Precipitation ......................................................................................................... 2-3 Figure 2-3. Mean Monthly Precipitation, Truckee Ranger Station, from 1904 to 1919 and 1935 to 2009.................................................................................................................................... 2-4 Figure 2-4. Percent Deviation from Mean Annual Precipitation at the Truckee Ranger Station and Total Annual Streamflow at Farad .................................................................................................... 2-5 Figure 2-5. Hydrography and Long-Term Monitoring Stations .................................................................... 2-7 Figure 2-6. Mean Monthly Streamflows in the Middle Truckee River Watershed ..................................... 2-9 Figure 2-7. Stratigraphic Column showing Primary Hydrostratigraphic Units .......................................... 2-12 Figure 2-8. Well Locations ........................................................................................................................... 2-13 Figure 2-9. Geologic Map and Cross Section Locations ............................................................................ 2-14 Figure 2-10. Cross-section A-A’ ................................................................................................................... 2-15 Figure 2-11. Cross-section B-B’ .................................................................................................................... 2-16 Figure 2-12. Cross-section C-C’ ................................................................................................................... 2-17 Figure 2-13. Locations of Springs and Mapped Faults (active and inferred) ........................................... 2-19 Figure 2-14a. Lousetown Volcanic Outcrop ............................................................................................... 2-21 Figure 2-14b. Prosser Formation Outcrop Underlying Glacial Outwash ................................................... 2-21 Figure 2-15. Water Levels in DWR Long-term Groundwater Monitoring Wells ........................................ 2-23 Figure 2-16. Department of Water Resources Monitoring Wells and Select Hydrographs ..................... 2-24 Figure 2-17. Depth Distribution of Wells in the Martis Valley Groundwater Basin .................................. 2-26 Figure 2-18. Average Annual Groundwater Recharge 1988 to 2011 ...................................................... 2-29 Figure 2-19. Annual Groundwater Recharge Dry Year 1988 .................................................................... 2-30 Figure 2-20. Annual Groundwater Recharge Wet Year 1995 ................................................................... 2-31 Figure 3-1. CASGEM and DWR Groundwater Monitoring Wells .................................................................. 3-8 DRAFT Martis Valley Groundwater Management Plan Table of Contents vi P:\40000\140691 - PCWA Martis Valley GWP\GMP\Report\Final\Martis Valley GMP Final 4-18-13.docx List of Tables Table 1-1. Stakeholder Working Group Members ....................................................................................... 1-3 Table 1-2. Required Components and Associated Report Section ............................................................. 1-6 Table 1-3. Voluntary Components and Associated Report Section ............................................................ 1-7 Table 1-4. Recommended Components and Associated Report Section .................................................. 1-7 Table 2-1. Average Monthly Streamflow on the Truckee River and Select Tributaries ............................ 2-8 Table 2-2. Estimated Yield of Public Agency Production Wellsa ................................................................ 2-25 Table 2-3. Summary of Average Annual Groundwater Recharge Estimates for the MVGB ................... 2-27 Table 2-4. Estimated Current Groundwater Production ............................................................................ 2-28 Table 3-1. Summary BMO#1 Supporting Implementation Actions ............................................................. 3-4 Table 3-2. Summary BMO#2 Supporting Implementation Actions ............................................................. 3-5 Table 3-3. Summary BMO#3 Supporting Implementation Actions ............................................................. 3-6 Table 3-4. Summary BMO#4 Supporting Implementation Actions ........................................................... 3-10 Table 3-5. Summary BMO#5 Supporting Implementation Actions ........................................................... 3-13 Table 3-6. Summary BMO#6 Supporting Implementation Actions ........................................................... 3-14 DRAFT Martis Valley Groundwater Management Plan Table of Contents vii P:\40000\140691 - PCWA Martis Valley GWP\GMP\Report\Final\Martis Valley GMP Final 4-18-13.docx List of Abbreviations AB 3030 Assembly Bill 3030 ac-ft/yr acre-feet per year BMOs Basin Management Objectives CASGEM California cfs cubic feet per second CWC California Water Code DPH Department of Public Health DRI Desert Research Institute DWR Department of Water Resources DWSAP Drinking Water Source Assessment Program GAMA Groundwater Ambient Monitoring and Assessment GCM general circulation model GMP Groundwater Management Plan gpm gallons per minute GSFLOW Ground-water and Surface-water Flow Model IRWMP Integrated Regional Water Management Plan LGA Local Groundwater Assistance LLNL Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory LRWQCB Lahontan Regional Water Quality Control Board LUST leaking underground storage tank MCL Maximum Contaminant Level mgd million gallons per day MODFLOW Modular Three-Dimensional Finite- Difference Groundwater Flow Model msl mean sea level MVGB Martis Valley Groundwater Basin NCSD Northstar Community Services District NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association PCWA Placer County Water Agency PRMS Precipitation Runoff Modeling System PUC Public Utilities Commission SB Senate Bill sq mi square miles SWG Stakeholder Working Group SWRCB State Water Resources Control Board TDPUD Truckee Donner Public Utility District TDS Total Dissolved Solids TROA Truckee River Operating Agreement T-TSA Tahoe-Truckee Sanitation Agency USACE United States Army Corps of Engineers USFS United State Forest Service USGS United States Geologic Survey UZF Unsaturated Zone Flow DRAFT 1-1 P:\40000\140691 - PCWA Martis Valley GWP\GMP\Report\Final\Martis Valley GMP Final 4-18-13.docx Section 1 Introduction In 1992, the State Legislature enacted the California Groundwater Management Act through Assembly Bill 3030 (AB 3030) to encourage local public agencies to adopt plans to manage groundwater resources within their jurisdictions. Provisions were created in the California Water Code (CWC) Sections 10750 et.seq. to manage the safe production, quality, and proper storage of groundwater and AB 3030 codified voluntary components of a Groundwater Management Plan (GMP). In 2002, Senate Bill 1938 (SB 1938) was signed into law which amended the CWC with required components of a GMP for any public agency seeking State funds administered through the California Department of Water Resources (DWR) for groundwater projects. In 2003, DWR published Bulletin 118 – Update 2003, California’s Groundwater which includes seven recommended components of a GMP. This GMP includes the following components: the partner agencies’ authority, physical setting including groundwater conditions, management goals and Basin Management Objectives (BMOs), and GMP implementation activities. 1.1 Purpose of the Groundwater Management Plan The Truckee Donner Public Utility District (TDPUD), Northstar Community Services District (NCSD), and Placer County Water Agency (PCWA) have voluntarily partnered to develop the Martis Valley GMP, a collaborative planning tool that assists the partner agencies with efforts to ensure long term quality and availability of shared groundwater resources in the Martis Valley Groundwater Basin (MVGB). This GMP is a “living document” that includes an overall goal, BMOs, and implementation actions that will be periodically updated to reflect changes in groundwater management and progress in meeting its goal and objectives. The purpose of the Martis Valley GMP is to improve the understanding and management of the groundwater resource in Martis Valley, while providing a framework for the partner agencies to align policy and implement effective and sustainable groundwater management programs. This GMP is not: mandatory, regulatory, an enforcement effort, or land use or zoning ordinances. Older groundwater management plans by TDPUD (1995) and PCWA (1998) are herein updated by this GMP which has been designed to meet the requirements set by SB 1938, addresses the voluntary and recommended components included in AB 3030, as well as address recommendations outlined in Bulletin 118-2003. The area covered by the Martis Valley GMP, as shown in Figure 1-1, includes each partner agencies’ jurisdictional boundaries within Nevada and Placer Counties. 1.2 Groundwater Management Plan Authority and Administration Each partner agency is an authorized groundwater management agency within the meaning of CWC § 10753 (a). In April of 2011, each partner agency adopted respective resolutions of intent to develop a GMP; the resolutions are included as Appendix A. DRAFT Lake Tahoe Stampede Reservoir Donner Lake BocaReservoir Prosser Creek Res IndependenceLake Dry Lake MartisCreek Lake Donner Euer Valley Mtn Meadow Lake Truckee ¬«267 ¬«89 ¬«89 MARTISCRA lderCreek TRUCKEERColdCreekJun iperCreek SAGEHEN CR Middle MartisCree k D o n n e rCr e e k DryCreekINDEPENDENCECR SouthForkP r o s s e r C re e kTRUCKEER§¨¦I-80 Source: Esri, i-cubed, USDA, USGS, AEX, GeoEye, Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN, IGP, and the GIS User Community Martis Valley, CaliforniaPROJECTDATESITE TITLE Figure1-1 140691 Groundwater Management Plan Area P:\40000\140691 - PCWA Martis Valley GWP\GIS\MAPDOCS\WORKING\Fig1-1_MV_PlanArea_8x11_20120821.mxd10/18/2012 NORTH Miles 0 2 Legend Truckee River Streams Martis Valley Groundwater Basin Groundwater Management Plan Area Boundary Northstar CSD Service Area PCWA Zone 4 Service Area Placer County within MVGB Truckee Donner PUD Service Area Source: Placer County Water Agency; Truckee DonnerPublic Utility District; Northstar Community Services DistrictDRAFT Martis Valley Groundwater Management Plan Section 1 1-3 P:\40000\140691 - PCWA Martis Valley GWP\GMP\Report\Final\Martis Valley GMP Final 4-18-13.docx 1.3 Groundwater Management Plan Development Process During the course of preparing the GMP, various entities were involved in developing, approving, and adopting the GMP. In addition to the partner agencies, a Stakeholder Working Group (SWG) was created to provide local knowledge, data and information, opinions, and review and comment on material prepared by the GMP team. The SWG was comprised of representatives of Federal, State, and local governments, environmental and special interest groups, and local land use interests. Four SWG meetings were held with the partner agencies during GMP development. SWG participants and the agency represented are presented in Table 1-1. Table 1-1. Stakeholder Working Group Members Working Group Participant Representing Chris Bonds Department of Water Resources, Central Region Office Steven Springhorn Department of Water Resources, Central Region Office Ron Parr DMB Highlands Group LLC Rick Stephens Lahontan Community Association John Eaton Mountain Area Preservation Foundation Kaitlin Backlund Mountain Area Preservation Foundation Michael Johnson Placer County Community Development Marcia Beals Tahoe Truckee Sanitation Agency Tony Lashbrook Town of Truckee Jeff Boyer Truckee River Operating Agreement Dave Wathen Truckee River Operating Agreement Lisa Wallace Truckee River Watershed Council Kenneth Parr United States Bureau of Reclamation Tom Scott United States Bureau of Reclamation Joanne Roubique United States Forest Service, Truckee District Andrew Strain Heavenly Mountain Resort/Northstar California Resort Adam Spear Vail Resorts Steve Maglisceau Marlin Atlantis/Schaffer’s Mill Tony Firenzi Placer County Water Agency Steven Poncelet Truckee Donner Public Utility District Mike Staudenmayer Northstar Community Services District There are five main steps in the development of a GMP, as defined under CWC §10753.2 through 10753.6, and the agencies’ actions to follow them are shown in Figure 1-2 and are summarized below: Step 1 – Provide public notification of a hearing on whether or not to adopt a resolution of intention to draft a GMP and subsequently complete a hearing on whether or not to adopt a resolution of intention to draft a GMP. Following the hearing, draft a resolution of intention to draft a GMP. The agencies provided public notification and held their respective hearings in March 2011. Copies of newspaper notifications are included in Appendix A. DRAFT Martis Valley Groundwater Management Plan Section 1 1-4 P:\40000\140691 - PCWA Martis Valley GWP\GMP\Report\Final\Martis Valley GMP Final 4-18-13.docx Step 2 – Adopt a resolution of intention to draft a GMP and publish the resolution of intention in accordance with public notification. The partner agencies’ adopted their respective resolutions of intention to develop a GMP in April 2011. The resolutions are included as Appendix A. Figure 1-2. GMP Development Process DRAFT Martis Valley Groundwater Management Plan Section 1 1-5 P:\40000\140691 - PCWA Martis Valley GWP\GMP\Report\Final\Martis Valley GMP Final 4-18-13.docx Step 3 – Prepare a draft GMP within two years of resolution of intention adoption. Provide to the public a written statement describing the manner in which interested parties may participate in developing the GMP. The agencies provided notification and held three SWG meetings where meeting attendees gave input on the GMP goal, BMOs, and implementation actions. The agencies also held a public meeting on July 20, 2011 to receive public input. Step 4 – Provide public notification of a hearing on whether or not to adopt the GMP, followed by holding a hearing on whether or not to adopt the GMP. Public notices of the scheduled hearings were provided in the Auburn Journal and the Sierra Sun newspapers and proof of publications are included in Appendix B. Step 5 – The plan may be adopted within 35 days after the completion of Step 4 above if protests are received for less than 50 percent of the assessed value of property in the plan area. If protests are received for greater than 50 percent of the assessed value of the property in the plan area, the plan will not be adopted. No public comments were received during the public comment period. In February 2013 each partner agency adopted the Martis Valley GMP and their respective resolutions are included in Appendix B. 1.4 Groundwater Management Goal The GMP’s goal provides the overarching purpose of the GMP, is used to identify the desired outcome of GMP implementation, is general in nature, and does not include quantitative components: The goal of the Martis Valley GMP is to ensure long term quality and availability of groundwater in the Martis Valley Groundwater Basin. 1.5 Basin Management Objectives The BMOs provide more specific direction to the GMP; they are generally protective of the groundwater resource and the environment, and each BMO identifies a distinct portion of the overarching goal which provides specific areas for focus. Summarized below are six primary areas that are emphasized and embodied in the BMO’s that support the GMP goal: 1. Manage groundwater to maintain established and planned uses. Because the MVGB is the primary source of water to multiple users under separate jurisdictions, this objective encourages the partner agencies to pursue management of groundwater that is within their jurisdiction in order to protect existing uses. 2. Manage groundwater use within the provisions of the Truckee River Operating Agreement. The Truckee-Carson-Pyramid Lake Water Rights Settlement Act (Settlement Act), Public Law 101- 618 (1990), established entitlements to the waters of Lake Tahoe, the Truckee River and its tributaries and how the storage reservoirs of the Truckee River are operated. Section 205 of the Settlement Act directs the Secretary of the Department of the Interior to negotiate an operating agreement for the operation of Truckee River reservoirs, between California, Nevada, Sierra Pacific Power Company, Pyramid Tribe, and the United States. The operating agreement is known as the Truckee River Operating Agreement (TROA). This objective documents the partner agencies’ commitment to continue to comply with provisions of the TROA. Some provisions in TROA apply to groundwater and water wells within the Truckee River Basin (which includes the Martis Valley) to address potential adverse impacts to surface water. DRAFT Martis Valley Groundwater Management Plan Section 1 1-6 P:\40000\140691 - PCWA Martis Valley GWP\GMP\Report\Final\Martis Valley GMP Final 4-18-13.docx 3. Collaborate and cooperate with groundwater users and stakeholders in the MVGB. Collaborating and sharing information and resources with other groundwater users in the MVGB helps promote GMP goals. This objective encourages the partner agencies to reach out to other groundwater users within the MVGB. 4. Protect groundwater quantity and quality. Groundwater performs an integral function in a watershed, one of which is satisfying water supply needs. Improving the understanding of the groundwater basin is a critical step in protecting and sustaining the Martis Valley groundwater supply. 5. Pursue and use the best available science and technology to inform the decision making process. Science and technology continue to develop new tools that may improve the understanding of the MVGB. This objective encourages the partner agencies to take actions that work with the best available science to help make informed agency decisions. 6. Consider the environment and participate in the stewardship of groundwater resources. The partner agencies are dedicated to stewardship of groundwater resources and this BMO ensures that stewardship is part of the GMP. 1.6 Plan Components Required GMP components and their location in the GMP are summarized in Table 1-2, Voluntary GMP components and their location in the GMP are summarized in Table 1-3, and recommended GMP components and their location in the GMP are summarized in Table 1-4. Table 1-2. Required Components and Associated Report Section Category Required GMP Components Required Components: (10753.7.) Report Section 1 Establish Basin Management Objectives (BMOs) Section 1.5 2 Include components relating to the monitoring and management of: groundwater levels, groundwater quality, and inelastic land subsidence Section 3.4 3 Include components relating to changes in surface flow and surface water quality that directly affect groundwater levels or quality or are caused by groundwater pumping in the basin Section 3.2 4 Include description of how recharge areas identified in the GMP substantially contribute to the replenishment of the groundwater basin Section 2.9 5 Prepare a GMP that enables the partner agencies to work cooperatively with other public entities whose service area falls within the plan area and overlies the groundwater basin Section 3.1 Section 3.4 6 Prepare a map that details the area of the groundwater basin, the area subject to the GMP, and the boundaries of other local agencies that overlie the basin Section 1.1 7 Prepare a map identifying the recharge areas for the groundwater basin Section 2.9 8 Adopt monitoring protocols that detect changes in: groundwater levels, groundwater quality, inelastic land subsidence, and surface water flow or quality that affects groundwater or groundwater pumping that affects surface water flow or quality Section 3.4 9 If the GMP area includes areas outside a groundwater basin as defined in Bulletin 118, the partner agencies will use the required components, and geologic and hydrologic principles appropriate for the area Throughout GMP DRAFT Martis Valley Groundwater Management Plan Section 1 1-7 P:\40000\140691 - PCWA Martis Valley GWP\GMP\Report\Final\Martis Valley GMP Final 4-18-13.docx Table 1-3. Voluntary Components and Associated Report Section Category Voluntary GMP Components Voluntary Components (10753.8.) Report Section 1 Control of saline intrusion Section 3.1 2 Identification and management of wellhead protection Section 3.4 3 Regulation of the migration of contaminated groundwater Section 3.1 Section 3.2 4 Administration of a well abandonment and well destruction program Section 3.1 5 Mitigation of conditions of overdraft Section 3.1 6 Replenishment of groundwater extracted by water producers Section 3.1 7 Monitoring of groundwater levels and storage Section 3.4 8 Facilitating conjunctive use operations Section 3.1 9 Identification of well construction policies Section 3.4 10 Construction and operation by the partner agencies of groundwater contamination cleanup, recharge, storage, conservation, water recycling, and extraction projects Section 3.1 Section 3.2 11 Development of relationships with state and Federal regulatory agencies Section 3.1 Section 3.2 Section 3.5 12 Review of land use plans and coordination with land use planning agencies to assess activities that create a reasonable risk of groundwater contamination Section 3.4 Table 1-4. Recommended Components and Associated Report Section Category Recommended GMP Components Recommended Components (From Bulletin 118-2003 Appendix C) Report Section 1 Document public involvement and ability of the public to participate in development of the GMP, this may include a Technical Advisory Committee (Stakeholder Working Group) Section 1.3 2 Establish an advisory committee of stakeholders within the plan area that will help guide the development and implementation of the GMP and provide a forum for the resolution of controversial issues Section 1.3 Section 3.1 3 Describe the area to be managed under the GMP including: • The physical structure of the aquifer system • A summary of available historical data and issues of concern related to groundwater levels, groundwater quality, inelastic land subsidence, and surface water flow or quality that effects groundwater or groundwater pumping that effects surface water flow or quality • A general discussion of historical and projected water demands and supplies Section 2 4 Establish management objectives (MOs) for the groundwater basin subject to the GMP Section 1.5 5 Describe the GMP’s monitoring program Section 3.4 DRAFT Martis Valley Groundwater Management Plan Section 1 1-8 P:\40000\140691 - PCWA Martis Valley GWP\GMP\Report\Final\Martis Valley GMP Final 4-18-13.docx Table 1-4. Recommended Components and Associated Report Section Category Recommended GMP Components Recommended Components (From Bulletin 118-2003 Appendix C) Report Section 6 Describe efforts to coordinate with land use, zoning, or water management planning agencies or activities Section 3.4 7 Create a summary of monitoring locations with frequency of wells monitored Appendix D 8 Provide periodic reports summarizing groundwater conditions and management activities including: • A summary of monitoring results, with a discussion of historical trends • A summary of management actions during the period covered by the report • A discussion of whether actions are achieving progress towards meeting BMOs • A summary of proposed management actions for the future • A summary of any GMP changes that occurred during the period covered by the report • A summary of actions taken to coordinate with other water and land agencies and other government agencies Section 3.1 9 Provide for the periodic re-evaluation of the entire plan by the managing entity Section 3.1 1.7 Area Covered by the GMP The Martis Valley GMP includes the service areas of the TDPUD, PCWA, and NCSD that overlay and extend beyond the MVGB boundary, as well as the Placer County portion of the MVGB. It is important to note that at the time of GMP development, there were no other agencies within the Placer County portion of the MVGB that fall within the service area of another local agency, water corporation regulated by the Public Utility Commission (PUC), or mutual water company without the agreement of the overlying agency, as defined in the CWC (CWC § 10750.7(a)). Figure 1-1 shows the Martis Valley GMP area. 1.8 Public Outreach and Education The partner agencies developed a Public Outreach Plan to guide development of the GMP. Public outreach included the formation of a Stakeholder Working Group to provide input on GMP development, two informative public meetings, and publically noticed public hearings (Appendix A) on the intent to draft and adopt the GMP. The Public Outreach Plan is included in Appendix C. 1.9 Groundwater Model The partner agencies are currently collaborating with the Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) and their subcontractor, Desert Research Institute (DRI), to develop an integrated watershed-groundwater model in conjunction with the Martis Valley GMP. The geologic investigation conducted and documented in Section 2 of this report has been used to develop a geologic framework database, which was used to guide the conceptual and numerical model components for the hydrogeology components (groundwater model) of the integrated watershed model. The integrated watershed model is under development in parallel with the GMP and is not completed at the time of the issuance of the final GMP. The integrated watershed model is comprised of a Precipitation Runoff Modeling System (PRMS) and Modular Three-Dimensional Finite-Difference Groundwater Flow Model (MODFLOW) coupled together using an Unsaturated Zone Flow (UZF) package. PRMS is used to model surface water within the watershed, whereas MODFLOW is used to model groundwater within the MVGB. The UZF model package DRAFT Martis Valley Groundwater Management Plan Section 1 1-9 P:\40000\140691 - PCWA Martis Valley GWP\GMP\Report\Final\Martis Valley GMP Final 4-18-13.docx is a kinematic wave vadose zone model used to simulate the interaction between surface water and groundwater. Each model will be calibrated separately, and then calibrated together over a ten year period using a coupled ground-water and surface-water Flow Model (GSFLOW). Predictive model simulations will be performed using multiple general circulation model (GCM) projections of precipitation and temperature to estimate the influence of future climate on water resources within the MVGB. Calibration targets for fully coupled, GSFLOW model will include head values measured from wells, meadow and spring locations, streamflows, measured snow depth, and remotely sensed snow cover. The integrated model’s model domain will cover the entire Martis Valley Watershed, which includes the MVGB, as well as the watersheds that contribute surface water to the region, including Lake Tahoe. The model grid’s cells are 300 meters by 300 meters in size. To date, DRI has used the PRMS component of the integrated modeling tool to estimate groundwater recharge across the MVGB, and is discussed in more detail in Section 2.9. 1.10 Document Organization The Martis Valley GMP is organized into the following sections: Section 2 Physical Setting: describes the physical setting of Martis Valley including items such as geologic setting, land use, water sources, and well infrastructure Section 3 Plan Implementation: discusses the implementation actions included in the Martis Valley GMP Section 4 References Appendices DRAFT 2-1 P:\40000\140691 - PCWA Martis Valley GWP\GMP\Report\Final\Martis Valley GMP Final 4-18-13.docx Section 2 Physical Setting The MVGB is located in the transition zone between the Sierra Nevada and the Basin and Range Geomorphic Provinces, east of the Sierra Nevada crest and part of the larger Tahoe-Truckee River Basin of California and Nevada. Martis Valley is the principal topographic feature within the MVGB. The surrounding landscape is mountainous, underlain by volcanic and, to some extent, granitic bedrock, with apparent faulting and some portions that have been glaciated. A significant portion of the land within the MVGB boundary is privately owned with some areas managed as forest, open space and/or for recreation by special districts or agencies, including the U.S. Forest Service. This section of the GMP characterizes the physical setting of the MVGB, including: topography, climate, surface water hydrology, geology, hydrogeology, and water use. 2.1 Topography The MVGB encompasses roughly 57 square miles, and lies within the Middle Truckee River Watershed. Elevations of the valley floor range from 5,700 to 5,900 feet above mean sea level (msl). The valley is accented by hills rising above the valley floor and mountains to the south and east of the valley. High points within or immediately adjacent to the MVGB include Bald Mountain at an elevation of 6,760 feet and Alder Hill at 6,733 feet, located on the western margin of the MVGB, and Lookout Mountain at 8,104 feet and Mt. Pluto at 8,617 feet, located on its the southern fringe. Martis Peak, further to the east, is at 8,742 feet. Figure 2-1 illustrates the MVGB location and topography. 2.2 Climate The Tahoe-Truckee region experiences warm and dry summers, and cold, wet and snowy winters. Elevation and rain shadow play major roles in the spatial distribution of temperature and precipitation. Precipitation is highest at upper elevations in the western portion of the basin, toward the Sierra Crest, and decreases with elevation in the eastern portion of the basin (Figure 2-2). Mean annual precipitation (as snow water equivalent) ranges from approximately 30 inches below 6,500 feet to over 45 inches above 6,500 feet. Precipitation falls mostly as snow between October and April, though runoff and streamflow also responds to periodic mid-winter rain-on-snow events. Annual peak streamflow typically occurs during spring snowmelt in May or June. A small proportion of the total annual precipitation falls during brief thunderstorms in the summer months. Average monthly precipitation is shown in Figure 2-3, as recorded at the United States Forest Service (USFS) Truckee Ranger Station, near the center of the watershed (California Data Exchange Center Station TKE). Average temperatures range from daily lows of 15ºF in December and January to daily highs of 82ºF in July, as recorded at SNOTEL Station Truckee #2. DRAFT DRAFT PROJECT TITLE DATE SITE9-7-12 140691 Mean Annual Precipitation Martis Valley Groundwater Basin, California Figure 2-2 P:\40000\140691 - PCWA Martis Valley GWP\GMP\Report\1st Draft\FiguresMartis Valley Groundwater Basin DRAFT Martis Valley Groundwater Management Plan Section 2 2-4 P:\40000\140691 - PCWA Martis Valley GWP\GMP\Report\Final\Martis Valley GMP Final 4-18-13.docx Figure 2-3. Mean Monthly Precipitation, Truckee Ranger Station, from 1904 to 1919 and 1935 to 2009 2.2.1 Climate Variability The region experiences a wide range in climate variability. Variability is marked by periods of greater than average precipitation (‘wet periods’) and periods of below average precipitation or drought periods. Droughts have been historically common in the Sierra Nevada; Figure 2-4 illustrates the annual percent deviation from mean annual precipitation in Truckee and annual streamflow recorded at Farad from 1910 to 2009. The data shows that recent dry periods (periods of below average precipitation) generally have longer duration (e.g., 1971-1978, 1987-1994) than wet periods, which are typically short-lived and more extreme (e.g., 1962-1965, 1982-1983). The gray shading shows periods of incomplete annual precipitation data. The worst drought in the 110 records of recorded streamflows at Farad was from 1987 to 1994. A similar pattern is recorded in tree-ring data since 1600 (Fritts and Gordon, 1980), with longer, more extreme droughts recorded. Lindstrom and others (2000) have described climate changes and details of wet and dry periods over the past 10,000 years, noting evidence of several dry periods when Lake Tahoe, and Donner and Independence Lakes dropped below their natural rims for consecutive years or decades (700 to 500 years ago and 200 to 100 years ago). 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DECMean monthly precipitation (inches)DRAFT Martis Valley Groundwater Management Plan Section 2 2-5 P:\40000\140691 - PCWA Martis Valley GWP\GMP\Report\Final\Martis Valley GMP Final 4-18-13.docx Figure 2-4. Percent Deviation from Mean Annual Precipitation at the Truckee Ranger Station and Total Annual Streamflow at Farad ‐80 ‐60 ‐40 ‐20 0 20 40 60 80 190419071910191319161919192219251928193119341937194019431946194919521955195819611964196719701973197619791982198519881991199419972000200320062009Percent deviation from mean annual precipitation0 200000 400000 600000 800000 1000000 1200000 1400000 1600000 1800000 2000000 190419071910191319161919192219251928193119341937194019431946194919521955195819611964196719701973197619791982198519881991199419972000200320062009Total annual streamflow at Farad (acre-feet)mean: 547,000 ac-ft/yrDRAFT Martis Valley Groundwater Management Plan Section 2 2-6 P:\40000\140691 - PCWA Martis Valley GWP\GMP\Report\Final\Martis Valley GMP Final 4-18-13.docx 2.2.2 Climate Change The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association (NOAA) and Coats and others (2010) have predicted a future shift from snowfall to rain in the next century in this region as a result of projected increases in average, minimum, and maximum air temperatures. Associated changes in surface water hydrology include potential increases in the frequency and magnitude of major flooding, such that more water may leave the basin as runoff, rather than infiltrating and recharging groundwater resources. NOAA has also predicted that climate change may result in increased drought frequency, and generally reduced water supplies (U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, 2011). The U.S. Bureau of Reclamation manages water supply in the Truckee River Basin, and is undertaking a number of studies to evaluate the degree to which water supply and demand may be impacted by future changes in climate. This includes the Truckee River Basin Study, as well as funding researchers at DRI to develop an integrated groundwater, surface water, and climate change model of the MVGB. 2.3 Surface Water Hydrology The Truckee River bisects the MVGB, with several tributaries upstream, within, and downstream of the MVGB. This section provides a brief discussion of the flow regimes of the Truckee River and the primary tributaries within the MVGB. Watershed areas are based on data available from CalAtlas, but subwatersheds shown have been modified in places for consistency with other regional studies, including the Water Quality Assessment and Modeling of the California portion of the Truckee River Basin (McGraw and others, 2001), the Truckee River Water Quality Monitoring Plan (Nichols Engineers, 2008), and the Martis Watershed Assessment (Shaw and others, 2012). 2.3.1 Truckee River The Middle Truckee River1 flows out of Lake Tahoe at Tahoe City with a number of tributaries contributing streamflow upstream of Martis Valley, including Bear, Squaw, Deer, Pole, Silver, and Cabin Creeks. The Truckee River then enters the MVGB near the junction of State Highway 89 and Interstate 80, flows west to east across Martis Valley before exiting the basin near Boca, just upstream of its confluence with the Little Truckee River. Main tributaries within Martis Valley are Donner, Cold2, Trout, Martis and Prosser Creeks (Figure 2-5). Below Boca, the Truckee River descends into the Truckee Canyon before flowing through Reno and Sparks, Nevada, and terminating at Pyramid Lake. Streamflow from Lake Tahoe, Donner Lake, Martis Creek, and Prosser Creek is controlled by major dams or impoundments, with the timing of releases and streamflows guided by a number of court decrees, agreements, and regulations that govern the flow rate from California to Nevada. These streamflow rates are known as ‘Floriston Rates’ and measured at Farad, California just upstream of the State line. The Truckee River is currently operated according to the Truckee River and Reservoir Operations Model (Berris and others, 2001). The Truckee River falls under the jurisdiction of TROA, which is further discussed in Section 3.2. 1 Definitions of the Upper, Middle, and Lower Truckee River vary among numerous published studies. The definition used in this report of the “Middle Truckee River” definition used in this report conforms to nomenclature used by the California Lahontan Regional Water Quality Control Board, but differs from that used by the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation. 2 Though it is not a direct tributary to the Truckee River, Cold Creek flows into Donner Creek below Donner Lake, approximately 1.5 miles upstream of the confluence with the Truckee River, and therefore accounts for a significant portion of the unregulated flow into the MVGB. DRAFT A AAA A A AA A A A A #* #* #* #* #* Martis Creek Prosser Creek Donner/Cold Creeks Truckee River Truckee Corridor T ro u tC ree kProsserCreek D o nner Cre e kTrout Creek Mtn Meadow Lake Truckee ¬«267 ¬«89 ¬«28 ¬«89 MartisCreekA lderCreek TruckeeRiverColdCreekJuniperCreek SagehenCreek MiddleMartisCr e e k DryCreek SouthForkP r o s s e rC re e k TruckeeRiver§¨¦I-80 §¨¦I-80 Lake Tahoe Donner Lake Boca Reservoir Prosser Creek Res Independence Lake Stampede Reservoir Dry Lake Frog Lake Martis Creek Lake Lake Mary Lake Angela Donner Euer Valley Flora Lake Summit Lake Source: Esri, i-cubed, USDA, USGS, AEX, GeoEye, Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN, IGP, and the GIS User Community Martis Valley Groundwater Basin, CaliforniaPROJECTDATESITE TITLE Figure2-5 14069111-2-2012 Hydrography and long-term monitoring stations Martis Figure2_5_Hydrography.mxdLegend #*USGS Gaging Stations A DWR long-term monitoring wells Martis Valley Groundwater Basin Cold Stream-Little Truckee River Donner Creek Martis Creek Prosser Creek Squaw Creek-Truckee River Trout Creek Truckee River NORTH Miles 0 2DRAFT Martis Valley Groundwater Management Plan Section 2 2-8 P:\40000\140691 - PCWA Martis Valley GWP\GMP\Report\Final\Martis Valley GMP Final 4-18-13.docx Table 2-1 summarizes historical monthly and average annual flow of the Truckee River and its tributaries, and Figure 2-6 correspondingly shows the average monthly streamflow at a number of gaging stations in the Truckee Basin. This data illustrates how the regulation of streamflows in the Truckee Basin alters the timing of discharge. Unregulated streams in this region tend to experience seasonal low flows in the late summer and early fall, with the bulk of total annual runoff occurring as snowmelt in May and June. This pattern is illustrated by monthly streamflow data collected at Sagehen Creek, an unregulated watershed approximately 5 miles north of the MVGB. In contrast, streams in the MVGB tend to have the total annual streamflow more uniformly distributed during the year, due to timed releases from the various impoundments. Table 2-1. Average Monthly Streamflow on the Truckee River and Select Tributaries Sagehen Creek Donner Creek below Donner Lake Truckee River near Truckee Prosser Creek below Prosser Dam Martis Creek above Martis Dam Truckee River at Boca Truckee River at Farad USGS Station ID 10343500 10338500 10338000 10340500 10344505 10346000 Watershed Size (sq mi) 10.5 14.3 553.0 52.9 37.2 873 932 Period of record 1953- present 1931-present 1945-present 1964-present 1959-1971; 1973-2007 2002-present 1910-present (cfs) Oct 3 30 175 85 11 382 388 Nov 5 27 179 36 14 277 412 Dec 7 30 256 53 20 341 520 Jan 8 33 293 74 29 390 586 Feb 8 32 315 68 34 348 641 Mar 10 38 305 111 47 540 788 Apr 24 52 372 119 57 835 1240 May 43 86 532 190 52 1190 1680 Jun 25 45 457 112 26 900 1240 Jul 7 11 306 63 14 658 659 Aug 3 7 285 52 10 499 515 Sept 3 27 239 102 11 493 473 Mean annual (cfs) 12 35 310 89 27 571 762 Mean annual (ac-ft) 8,772 25,236 224,068 64,252 19,629 413,445 551,542 Source: U.S. Geological Survey; U.S. Army Corps of Engineers cfs: cubic feet per second ac-ft: acre-feet DRAFT Martis Valley Groundwater Management Plan Section 2 2-9 P:\40000\140691 - PCWA Martis Valley GWP\GMP\Report\Final\Martis Valley GMP Final 4-18-13.docx Figure 2-6. Mean Monthly Streamflows in the Middle Truckee River Watershed DRAFT Martis Valley Groundwater Management Plan Section 2 2-10 P:\40000\140691 - PCWA Martis Valley GWP\GMP\Report\Final\Martis Valley GMP Final 4-18-13.docx 2.3.2 Martis Creek Martis Creek generally flows from south to north in the southern portion of the groundwater basin, with four named tributaries; Martis, West, Middle, and East Martis Creeks comprising the majority of its 42.7 square-mile watershed. Martis Creek Dam was completed in 1972 in order to provide storage for flood control, recreation, and potential water supply (USACE, 1985). Shortly following construction, seepage was observed in the dam face, posing a significant failure risk. As a result, the reservoir has rarely been filled to capacity, and is now maintained at a minimum pool elevation located entirely within the boundaries of the MVGB. The maximum outlet capacity of the dam is 580 cfs prior to spilling and 4,640 cfs at maximum spilling capacity. The United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) currently operates the dam in a ‘gates wide open’ position, such that minimal regulation or disruptions in the timing of streamflow occurs under most circumstances. The United States Geologic Survey (USGS) maintained a streamflow gaging station on Martis Creek between Martis Dam and the Truckee River from October 1959 through September 2010, and recently transferred the gage to the USACE in October 2010. Since Martis Dam was constructed in 1972, this data has been used by the USACE, along with Martis Reservoir water level data and stage-storage information, to develop a record of inflow to Martis Reservoir. Daily reservoir inflow data is available for water years 1972 to 2008, and indicate average annual runoff into and out of the reservoir to be on the order of 19,629 acre-feet (27.1 cfs). 2.3.3 Donner and Cold Creeks Donner Lake has a watershed area of approximately 14.3 square miles, all of which lies west of the MVGB boundary. The lake discharges into Donner Creek near the western boundary of the groundwater basin, and then flows toward the east and into the Truckee River (Figure 2-5). A dam was constructed at the lake outlet in 1928 (Berris and others, 2001) allowing for a reservoir capacity of 9,500 ac-ft. The Donner Lake dam is operated by the Nevada Energy (formerly Sierra Pacific Power Company), with a typical release season to provide flood control space from September 1 to November 15. The USGS has maintained a streamflow station on Donner Creek below Donner Lake (Station 10338500) since 1931. Average annual streamflow is 25,794 acre-feet (35.9 cfs), and Figure 2-6 illustrates the effect of dam operations on the timing of streamflow during the year. 2.3.3.1 Cold Creek Cold Creek has a watershed area of approximately 12.5 square miles and flows from Coldstream Canyon into Donner Creek in the western portion of the groundwater basin. The confluence of these streams historically migrated across the Coldstream Canyon alluvial fan, but now both channels area confined by transportation infrastructure and historical aggregate mining operations. Cold Creek is the largest unregulated watershed that flows into the MVGB; with a runoff regime typical of a snowmelt-dominated system, with peak flows in May and June and low flows in the late summer and early fall. A streamflow gage was installed on Cold Creek by Balance Hydrologics for the Truckee River Watershed Council in October, 2010. Cold Creek is the only significant tributary to Donner Creek between USGS gaging station 10338000 (Donner Creek at Donner Lake) and 10338700 (Donner Creek at Highway 89), therefore, historical streamflow estimates were inferred by calculating the difference in streamflow between these stations. Based on these data, average annual streamflow from Cold Creek is approximately 26,731 ac-ft (36.9 cfs). 2.3.4 Trout Creek With a watershed area of approximately 5 square miles, Trout Creek is the only other unregulated stream (besides Cold Creek) which flows into the MVGB. The headwaters of Trout Creek are located within the Tahoe-Donner residential subdivision, part of the Town of Truckee and largely within the boundaries of DRAFT Martis Valley Groundwater Management Plan Section 2 2-11 P:\40000\140691 - PCWA Martis Valley GWP\GMP\Report\Final\Martis Valley GMP Final 4-18-13.docx the MVGB. The runoff regime is predominately snow-melt dominated, but with portions of the watershed covered with impervious surfaces such as roads and rooftops, rainfall events result in slightly more runoff and less infiltration and recharge from this watershed compared to others. A streamflow gage on Trout Creek was installed in January 2011 for the Truckee River Watershed Council so long-term streamflow statistics are not available. 2.3.5 Prosser Creek Prosser Creek’s approximately 32 square-mile watershed area includes Alder Creek and lies largely outside the MVGB. Prosser Creek Reservoir however, is entirely within the groundwater basin and is operated by the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation for water supply and flood control. Reservoir releases for flood control typically occur between September 1 and October 31 (Berris and others, 2001), as reflected in the pattern of average monthly flows depicted in Figure 2-6. 2.3.6 Truckee Corridor The Truckee Corridor includes intervening areas that do not drain to the tributaries mentioned above. This includes the Union Creek subwatershed, which encompasses much of the Glenshire subdivision in the eastern portion of the MVGB, as well as urban and open space areas within the Town of Truckee. 2.3.7 Other impoundments A number of small impoundments are located within the boundaries of the MVGB, including Union Mills Pond in the Glenshire subdivision, Dry Lake adjacent to the Waddle Ranch Preserve, and Gooseneck Reservoir, near the Lahontan Golf Club. Though originally constructed for cattle-grazing and/or millpond operations, these impoundments are now managed primarily for open space, recreational/aesthetic, or wildlife purposes. 2.4 Geology The Martis Valley is located in the Sierra Nevada physiographic region, which is composed primarily of igneous and metamorphic rocks, with sedimentary rocks in its valleys. The MVGB’s complex geology is dominated by sedimentary deposits left by glaciations, volcanic rocks, and faulting. A component of the Martis GMP was the development of geologic cross-sections to improve the understanding of MVGB geology and stratigraphy. 2.4.1 Geologic Database Development Approximately 200 well logs obtained from the DWR, TDPUD, PCWA, NCSD, and the Tahoe-Truckee Sanitation Agency (T-TSA) were interpreted to better understand depths and thicknesses of the various geologic formations comprising the MVGB. The filtered geologic and selected well data were entered into an ESRI ArcGIS Geodatabase, a spatially-referenced database. The benefit of the Geodatabase allowed a visual representation of the geologic data and was also used as the geologic framework for the DRI groundwater model that provides consistency between the GMP geologic interpretation and the groundwater model. The geochronology and stratigraphic relationships of water-bearing formations was based on Birkeland’s (1961; 1963; 1964) work, as well as subsequent investigations by Latham (1985), and Hydro-Search (1995), and mapping published by Saucedo (2005) and Melody (2009). The stratigraphic relationships, lithologies, and formation locations described in these studies, as well as through field observations, formed the basis for the designation of the primary hydrostratigraphic units, as displayed in Figure 2-7. Figure 2-8 shows the approximate locations of wells used to develop the geologic database. DRAFT Martis Valley Groundwater Management Plan Section 2 2-12 P:\40000\140691 - PCWA Martis Valley GWP\GMP\Report\Final\Martis Valley GMP Final 4-18-13.docx Figure 2-7. Stratigraphic Column showing Primary Hydrostratigraphic Units Stratigraphic interpretations shown in Figure 2-7 and in Section 2.4.3 (below) are consistent with published geologic maps of the basin (Birkeland, 1961; Birkeland, 1963; Saucedo, 2005; Melody, 2009), and delineate four primary water-bearing stratigraphic units that make up the aquifer, and underlying rocks that are considered to be relatively water-limited (see Figure 2-9). The primary units shown in Figure 2-7 include a number of subunits mapped by previous investigators and shown on Figure 2-9 and noted in parenthesis with the descriptions below. When available, information regarding potentially confining (fine grained) or water-bearing (coarse) subunits are also delineated. Following well log interpretation, three representative geologic cross-sections were located and developed. Figure 2-9 shows the cross-section locations; Figure 2-10 shows cross-section A-A’; Figure 2-11 shows cross-section B-B’, and Figure 2-12 shows cross-section C-C’. It should be noted that Figure 2-9, a geologic map of the MVGB and surrounding areas, is based on published geologic mapping by Saucedo (2005), Melody (2009), and Saucedo and Wagner (1992). The Saucedo and Wagner (2009) mapping was completed at a statewide scale and is therefore, less precise than other portions of the map and geological cross-sections. Accordingly, portions of the geologic map in Figure 2-9 do not correspond to the more detailed geological mapping and cross-sections. DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT Martis Valley Groundwater Management Plan Section 2 2-18 P:\40000\140691 - PCWA Martis Valley GWP\GMP\Report\Final\Martis Valley GMP Final 4-18-13.docx 2.4.2 Stratigraphy The uplift along the faults that created the MVGB probably began during the late Pliocene and into the early Pleistocene, with relatively low-permeability Tertiary volcanics forming the bottom of the basin (considered basement rocks in this report). Prior to and throughout the middle Pliocene, the sedimentary material of the Truckee Formation was deposited in the MVGB, directly overlying andesite tuff breccias, andesite flows, and intrusive rocks of Tertiary age. Following deformation, the general topography of the Martis Valley was probably somewhat similar to today’s topography (Birkeland, 1963), with the Truckee River flowing out of the MVGB near where it does today, cutting a canyon through the pre-Pleistocene rocks of the Carson Range. During the Pleistocene, a series of volcanic flows occurred in the regional Truckee area. At least 20 distinct flows have been recognized (Birkeland, 1961), mostly (but not exclusively) consisting of fine- grained latites and basalts, and are noted as being fairly local in extent. Flows found in the MVGB include the Dry Lake Flows (QPvd), the Bald Mountain olivine latite (Qvbm), Alder Hill Basalt, Polaris olivine latite, and Hirschdale olivine latite. Collectively, these units are referred to as Lousetown volcanics (Qv) based on Birkeland’s (1963) correlation to other Lousetown flows in the Carson Range. Also included within the in the Lousetown Formation are interbedded Lousetown sediments (Qps); fluvial (stream) and lacustrine (lake) deposits accumulating, and thereby raising land surface elevation, in the valley between flow events. As volcanic activity waned, one of the last flows, the Hirschdale Olivine Latite, flowed across the Truckee River Canyon, damming the basin and causing widespread sediment accumulation and deposition of the Prosser Formation (Qpc), a partly-lacustrine and partly fluvial sedimentary unit (Birkeland, 1963). Brown (2010) has subdivided the Prosser Formation into Upper, Middle, and Lower Members. For geodatabase development purposes, interbedded Lousetown sediments are defined as being capped by volcanics, while the Prosser Formation is not. It is recognized however, that the lower Prosser Formation may have been deposited concurrently with the interbedded Lousetown sediments, and in some cases, may be correlated to these upper sediments where capping volcanics pinch out laterally. During this same period, Juniper Flat alluvium was being deposited in the Glenshire area with sediment derived from the paleo-Juniper Creek watershed and alluvium derived from the west. The Prosser Formation and volcanics in other areas are capped by glacial deposits, derived from glacial advances and retreats during a number of glacial episodes (Birkeland, 1961). In the MVGB, most of the deposits consist of glacial outwash deposits of varying age (Qgo). The outwash deposits consist of loose and unconsolidated boulder, cobble, gravel, and sand. In the vicinity of the Truckee River, three distinct outwash deposits (Qogo, Qtao, and Qti) are apparent and form terraces along the course of the river (Birkeland, 1961). A number of glacial moraines were also deposited, and are visible today in the vicinity of Donner Lake, the Tahoe-Donner residential neighborhood, and the Gateway Neighborhood of Truckee. 2.4.3 Structure The MVGB lies within the Truckee Basin, a structural trough formed at the boundary of the Sierra Nevada and Basin and Range Geomorphic Provinces. Tectonics in this zone are complex and include active right-lateral (strike-slip) shear associated with the Pacific-North American Plate boundary and North Walker Lane Belt, as well as extensional (normal) faulting associated with the Basin and Range Province. The uplift along the faults that created the basin probably began during the late Pliocene and into the early Pleistocene (Birkeland, 1963), while right-lateral faulting is inferred to have occurred into the Holocene (Melody, 2009; Brown, 2010; Hunter and others, 2011). Most recently, the Polaris Fault has been mapped as an active North-South Holocene fault across the center of the MVGB. Identified faults are shown in Figure 2-13. DRAFT DRAFT Martis Valley Groundwater Management Plan Section 2 2-20 P:\40000\140691 - PCWA Martis Valley GWP\GMP\Report\Final\Martis Valley GMP Final 4-18-13.docx 2.5 Groundwater Occurrence and Movement The geologic units described above are interlayered, with complex spatial relationships, and as such, the occurrence and movement of groundwater within and between these units is variable. For this report, the low-permeability Miocene (Tertiary) volcanic rocks are considered the bottom of the MVGB. This section discusses where groundwater occurs, groundwater and surface water interaction, and water levels over time. 2.5.1 Water-bearing Units and Properties The Truckee Formation (Tt) is composed of interlayered silts, sands, and clays, and therefore has variable groundwater availability. Well driller’s logs document sands and gravels within the Truckee Formation in the center of the basin, near the Truckee Tahoe Airport, at depths of approximately 900 to 1,000 feet, and from 200 to 700 feet in the southern portion of the basin near Shaffer’s Mill and Lahontan Golf Clubs. Well yields in the Truckee Formation range from 280 gallons per minute (gpm) in the eastern portion of the basin (Hydro-Search, 1995) to more than 1,000 gpm in faulted areas underlying the Bald Mountain volcanics in the southwestern portions of the MVGB (Herzog, 2001). Water is found along faults and fractures within the Lousetown volcanics (Qv), though portions of the volcanic flows are massive and unfractured. Figure 2-14a is a photo of a Lousetown volcanic outcrop and illustrates the range of fracture concentrations that can occur in this unit. In most cases, water encountered in this fractured system is pressurized, rising to a static level several hundred feet higher than where initially encountered, suggesting the presence of confining units above these fracture zones. Wells located in the southern portion of the groundwater basin have been found to be artesian, or flowing, along fractures interpreted as faults (Herzog and Whitford, 2001), with yields ranging from approximately 250 to 1,000 gpm. A number of distinct fault blocks are present in this area, with unique and heterogeneous aquifer properties where faults serve as barriers to groundwater flow (ECO:LOGIC, 2006; ECO:LOGIC, 2007; Bugenig, 2007; Bugenig, 2006; Peck and Herzog, 2008). Groundwater discharge areas in the form of seeps and springs are also found within these areas and along the periphery of the MVGB (Figure 2-13), including thermal springs in the vicinity of the recently-mapped Polaris Fault (Hunter and others, 2011). The Prosser Formation (Qpc) includes interlayered silts, sands, and clays and has variable water bearing capacity. Figure 2-14b shows an outcrop of the Prosser Formation, where coarser materials such as sand and gravel are present, and moderate groundwater yields may be encountered. Water-bearing portions of the Prosser Formation may also be hydrologically connected to overlying glacial outwash and potentially surface water bodies as well. Well yields in these alluvial formations typically range from 12 to 100 gpm, though larger-diameter production wells have estimated yields as high as 500 gpm according to State well driller’s logs. Hydraulic properties of the glacial moraines contrast sharply with those of the glacial outwash deposits; the moraines consist of poorly-sorted clay to boulder-size materials, while the glacial outwash deposits are primarily well-sorted sands and gravels. As a result, the glacial outwash tends to transmit water relatively easily, while moraines are typically water-limited. DRAFT Martis Valley Groundwater Management Plan Section 2 2-21 P:\40000\140691 - PCWA Martis Valley GWP\GMP\Report\Final\Martis Valley GMP Final 4-18-13.docx Figure 2-14a. Lousetown Volcanic Outcrop Figure 2-14b. Prosser Formation Outcrop Underlying Glacial Outwash DRAFT Martis Valley Groundwater Management Plan Section 2 2-22 P:\40000\140691 - PCWA Martis Valley GWP\GMP\Report\Final\Martis Valley GMP Final 4-18-13.docx 2.5.2 Surface-groundwater interaction Generalized groundwater flow directions were inferred by Hydro-Search (1995) and were based on static water levels reported in State well drillers reports and DWR’s long-term well monitoring data, and indicated groundwater flow directions toward the Truckee River. A more detailed surface water and groundwater interaction study (Interflow Hydrology, 2003) was completed for the TDPUD. The Interflow Hydrology study provides estimates of the magnitude of stream losses and gains to and from groundwater across the Martis Valley during summer 2002, in the middle of a multi-year dry period. Observations made during the course of the study showed Martis Creek to be a ‘gaining stream’ (receiving groundwater discharge) across the Lahontan Golf Club, upstream of Martis Valley; West Martis Creek was found to be a ‘losing stream’ as it enters Martis Valley, recharging groundwater between the Northstar Golf Course and its confluence with Martis Creek; and Middle Martis Creek showed no loss or gain across the valley floor. Groundwater discharge in the form of springs generally support perennial flows in Lower East Martis and Dry Lake Creeks, as well as from the hillside adjacent to Martis Reservoir. Interflow Hydrology (2003) computed a basic water balance based on late season low flow measurements in the watershed and found that in October 2002, total streamflow losses across the Martis Valley floor were on the order of 0.65 cfs (approximately 9 percent of the total baseflow into the MVGB from Martis Creek), while losses at Martis Creek Lake were on the order of 1.55 cfs (approximately 29 percent of the total flow at that point). Evaporation and evapotranspiration by plants were not measured as part of the study; however, these data suggest that the Martis Valley floor potentially serves as a groundwater recharge area during the late summer and fall months. In addition, Interflow Hydrology (2003) identified groundwater recharge occurring where Prosser Creek enters the MVGB, just upstream of Prosser Reservoir. All other tributaries, including Cold, Donner, and Trout Creeks were concluded to be supported by groundwater discharge. 2.5.3 Groundwater levels and Land Subsidence Groundwater levels have been generally stable in the Martis Valley with some declines occurring in specific regions. Figure 2-15 presents groundwater level monitoring data throughout much of the MVGB as measured by DWR since 1990 in a single set of hydrographs. This graph shows that overall groundwater levels have been stable in the MVGB, including during the drought of the early 1990s, and the wet years of the late 1990s. Figure 2-16 shows the locations of the 16 DWR monitoring wells and selected respective hydrographs. The hydrographs indicate that groundwater is locally variable in the MVGB, as levels may decline in some wells and rise in other wells over the same period of time. These data suggest that there may be several water-bearing zones in the MVGB that may or not be hydraulically connected. The hydrographs also provides the following well specific information: Well 17N16E11F001M (northeast of downtown Truckee) experienced a nearly 50-foot rise in water level in the late 1990s, and then declined steadily over the following decade. This rise coincides with above-average precipitation and streamflow (Figure 2-4). Levels in Well 17N17E29B001M (Northstar) and 17N17E19K001M (Truckee Airport) were relatively steady throughout the monitoring period until summer 2007, when seasonal fluctuations began to occur. Water levels have declined seven feet between 2007 and 2012. Groundwater levels in well 17N17E05D001M (Truckee River east of Truckee) have increased steadily over the period of record, rising over 10 feet from 1990 to 2012. In well 17N1E17F002M (Donner Creek area), groundwater levels fluctuated seasonally but generally remained constant year to year). DRAFT Martis Valley Groundwater Management Plan Section 2 2-23 P:\40000\140691 - PCWA Martis Valley GWP\GMP\Report\Final\Martis Valley GMP Final 4-18-13.docx Figure 2-15. Water Levels in DWR Long-term Groundwater Monitoring Wells 2.5.3.1 Land Subsidence Permanent land subsidence can occur when groundwater is removed by pumpage or drainage due to irreversible compression of aquitard materials. Limited data on land subsidence within the MVGB is available, but no indications of land subsidence have been reported in the documents reviewed as part of this evaluation. 2.6 Groundwater Well Infrastructure The three partner agencies, hundreds of domestic pumpers, and a number of golf courses rely on the MVGB for drinking water and irrigation supplies. The TDPUD provides water service to portions of the Town of Truckee and adjacent unincorporated areas of Nevada and Placer Counties. The TDPUD currently has 13 active production wells for potable water service, plus 3 wells to serve non-potable water demands. PCWA’s Eastern Water System (Zone 4) currently includes two production wells, Lahontan Well #1 and Lahontan Well #2, to serve the Lahontan Golf Club, Shaffer’s Mill Golf Club, Hopkins Ranch, and Martis Camp Residences. PCWA is planning to develop a third permanent groundwater production well to serve planned development in and around the existing communities, including Shaffer’s Mill Golf Club (Tully and Young, 2011). NCSD supplies water to residents and guests in the Northstar community, producing water from one production well (TH-2) with an estimated yield of 800 gpm. NCSD is currently working to bring a second well (TH-1) online during summer 2012 with a similar anticipated yield. Table 2-2 summarizes the estimated yields and production rates associated with these wells. 5600 5650 5700 5750 5800 5850 5900 5950 6000 6050 6100 6150 1990199119921993199419951996199719981999200020012002200320042005200620072008200920102011Water Surface Elevation (feet)17N16E11F001M 17N16E13H001M 17N16E13K001M 17N16E13K003M 17N16E13K004M 17N16E17F002M 17N16E19G001M 17N17E05D001M 17N17E06D001M 17N17E07P001M 17N17E18C001M 17N17E18E001M 17N17E19K001M 17N17E29B001M 18N16E22H001M 18N17E33L001M DRAFT DRAFT Martis Valley Groundwater Management Plan Section 2 2-25 P:\40000\140691 - PCWA Martis Valley GWP\GMP\Report\Final\Martis Valley GMP Final 4-18-13.docx Table 2-2. Estimated Yield of Public Agency Production Wellsa Well Name Estimated Maximum Yield (gpm) NCSD TH-2 800 TH-1 (anticipated in 2012) 800 (estimated) PCWA Lahontan Well 1 1,400 Lahontan Well 2 1,400 TDPUD A Well 160 Airport 2,140 Prosser Annex 460 Glenshire Drive 1,725 Martis Valley No. 1 1,585 Northside 575 Southside No. 2 200 Southside No. 1 (non-potable) N/A Sanders 290 Old Greenwood 870 Hirschdale 35 Prosser Heights 360 Prosser Village 800 Well No. 20 540 Fibreboard (non-potable) N/A Donner Creek (non-potable) N/A a Well Yield information provided by NCSD, PCWA (Tully and Young, 2011), and TDPUD (Kaufman, 2011) A number of private wells are distributed across the basin, and a number of residential neighborhoods or tracts have relatively higher concentrations of wells. Martis Camp operates 2 irrigation wells for their own use and provides Northstar with water from these wells for snowmaking and irrigation purposes as well (Josh Detweiller, NCSD, pers. comm.). At higher elevations in the eastern portion of the basin, the Juniper Hills area includes a number of estates, most of which rely on private wells drilled deep (typically 500 to 800 feet) into uplifted Lousetown volcanics and/or deeper volcanics. In the center of the MVGB, a high density of relatively shallow (200 to 300 feet deep) private wells have been drilled and are in use along Prosser Dam Road. Many of these are drilled into shallow Lousetown volcanics, while others are drilled into glacial outwash and the Prosser Formation. In the northwestern portion of the MVGB a number of homes located on Alder Hill have domestic wells drilled primarily into uplifted Lousetown volcanics and range in depth from 300 to 800 feet. DRAFT Martis Valley Groundwater Management Plan Section 2 2-26 P:\40000\140691 - PCWA Martis Valley GWP\GMP\Report\Final\Martis Valley GMP Final 4-18-13.docx Figure 2-17 is a cumulative frequency plot derived from DWR data, and shows the number of public and domestic wells drilled at various depths in the MVGB. These data show that the vast majority of domestic wells drilled in the area are relatively shallow, with 50% of domestic wells being installed at depths of 300 feet below ground surface or less, while the public production wells range widely in depth. Figure 2-17. Depth Distribution of Wells in the Martis Valley Groundwater Basin 2.7 Groundwater Quality Groundwater quality in the MVGB is generally of good quality and is currently monitored as part of the agencies’ agreements with DPH. Each agency releases an annual water quality report for their service areas in the MVGB; the 2011 annual reports are included in Appendix E. The USGS carried out groundwater monitoring activities in the MVGB in cooperation with the California State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) as part of the California Groundwater Ambient Monitoring and Assessment (GAMA) Program (Fram and others, 2007), and sampled 14 wells in the MVGB for a wide range of constituents during summer 2007. The concentrations of most constituents detected in these samples were below drinking-water thresholds, with some exceptions: a) concentrations of arsenic were above the Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) in 4 of the 14 wells sampled, and b) manganese concentrations were elevated above the MCL in one well. Arsenic levels above the MCL have also been reported by the TDPUD. The T-TSA operates a water reclamation plant which includes the discharge of tertiary-treated effluent into glacial outwash and Prosser Formation alluvium downstream of the Town of Truckee on the south side of the Truckee River. Hydrogeologic investigations in the vicinity of the plant indicate that effluent flows laterally toward the Truckee River and Martis Creek, discharging to these water bodies after a DRAFT Martis Valley Groundwater Management Plan Section 2 2-27 P:\40000\140691 - PCWA Martis Valley GWP\GMP\Report\Final\Martis Valley GMP Final 4-18-13.docx minimum 50 day travel time (CH2MHill, 1974). DWR (2003) noted that a water quality monitoring program is in place to evaluate potential changes to ground- and surface-water quality. Sixty-three leaking underground storage tank (LUST) cleanup sites have been identified by the SWRCB’s GeoTracker database in the MVGB. Of these 63 sites, cleanup actions for 49 are documented as “completed”, while 14 are listed as “open” or “active.” All the sites are located in the Town of Truckee, except for one active site in Hirschdale. 2.8 Land Use Prior to the 1950s, land use in Martis Valley and the Truckee area was primarily ranching and timber related (Shaw and others, 2012). During the 1950s, 60s, and 70s, the rural ranching- and timber-based economy began shifting to more recreational and community development. Today, the primary land uses in the MVGB are residential and ski and/or golf resort related communities with commercial centers in and near downtown Truckee and at the Truckee Airport. Timber and sand and gravel mining operations still continue to operate on a seasonal basis (Shaw and others, 2012). 2.9 Groundwater Recharge Several previous studies estimated groundwater recharge within the MVGB using water balance and empirical data, resulting in a range from 18,000 to 34,560 acre-feet per year. Recently, DRI has developed annual groundwater recharge estimates using the physically-based PRMS. Table 2-3 summarizes previous and current studies including the study’s author, year, and average annual groundwater recharge estimates. Table 2-3. Summary of Average Annual Groundwater Recharge Estimates for the MVGB Author Year Recharge (ac-ft/yr) Hydro-Search 1974, 1980, 1995 18,000 Nimbus Engineers 2001 24,700 Kennedy/Jenks Consultants 2001 none Interflow Hydrology, Inc. and Cordilleran Hydrology, Inc 2003 34,560 DRI, PRMS estimate DRI, modified Maxey-Eakin method 2012 32,745 35,168 DRI outlines its scientific and technical methods, including the climate data used, the PRMS method, and total recharge estimates in a Technical Note, which is included in Appendix F. PRMS simulates land surface hydrologic processes of evapotranspiration, runoff, infiltration, and interflow by balancing energy and mass budgets of the plant canopy, snowpack, and soil zone on the basis of distributed climate information. The PRMS computed recharge consists of the sum of shallow infiltrated water that discharges into the Truckee River and its tributaries as well as deep percolation of ground water to deeper aquifers with water supply wells (Rajagopal and others, 2012). DRI’s study “…also applied a modified Maxey-Eakin (1949) method to estimate recharge which relates mean annual precipitation to recharge using recharge coefficients applied to precipitation amounts.” The PRMS is modeled for the years 1983 to 2011 with annual recharge estimates ranging from 12,143 ac-ft/yr (dry year) to 56,792 ac-ft/yr (wet year), with an average annual recharge estimate of 32,745 ac-DRAFT Martis Valley Groundwater Management Plan Section 2 2-28 P:\40000\140691 - PCWA Martis Valley GWP\GMP\Report\Final\Martis Valley GMP Final 4-18-13.docx ft/yr. Because annual precipitation drives recharge, the PRMS simulated recharge varies from year to year. DRI included in its Technical Note annual recharge efficiency, or the ratio of annual recharge to annual precipitation. For the MVGB, the calculated annual recharge efficiency is 18-26%. Figure 2-18 shows the average annual groundwater recharge as simulated by the PRMS model, for a period of record from 1983 to 2011. Figure 2-19 shows the annual recharge for the year 1988, a dry year. Figure 2-20 shows the annual recharge for the year 1995, a wet year. 2.10 Water Use Groundwater use in the MVGB is primarily for municipal, domestic, and recreational uses. The TDPUD and PCWA have summarized water supply and demand as part of Urban Water Management Plans completed for their respective service areas (Tully and Young, 2011; Kaufman, 2011). Average potable day demand served by the TDPUD in 2010 was reported to be 4.53 million gallons per day (mgd); 5,073 acre-feet per year (ac-ft/yr)). From 2005 to 2009, production from PCWA wells has increased from an average day demand of 0.04 to 0.13 mgd (44 to 141 ac-ft/yr). NCSD meets demand primarily from its Big Springs collection system, outside of the MVGB, and uses water pumped from TH-2 (and in the future, TH-1) to augment this supply (J. Detwiler, pers. comm.). Demand on the MVGB imposed by NCSD operations is best represented by pumping records from Well TH-2. Annual water volumes pumped by NCSD averaged 0.18, 0.36, and 0.29 mgd (200, 398, and 320 ac-ft/yr) in water years 2008, 2009, and 2010, respectively. Nine golf courses depend on the MVGB for irrigation supply; four are supplied by TDPUD (one uses a potable supply and 3 are non-potable), 1 is supplied by NCSD (potable), and 4 are supplied privately and assumed to be all non-potable. Using the partner agencies records of non-potable water pumped and supplied to the majority of the courses, the average non-potable demands range from 0.19 ac-ft/yr to 0.25 ac-ft/yr (210 ac-ft/yr to 279 ac-ft/yr), with an average of 0.24 mgd (272 ac-ft/yr). This average demand rate of 0.24 mgd is applied to the four privately-supplied courses for an estimated production of 993 ac-ft/yr. Based on the available data and summarized in Table 2-4, current annual production from the MVGB is estimated to be approximately 9,341 ac-ft/yr. Kaufman (2011) estimates buildout water demand for all users in the MVGB to be approximately 21,000 ac-ft/yr. Table 2-4. Estimated Current Groundwater Production mgd ac-ft/yr TDPUD Potable - Average (2007-2010) 5.78 6,475 Golf Course non-potable – Average (2001-2011) 0.75 837 PCWA Potable – Average (2009) 0.10 141 NCSD Potable - Average (2008-2010) 0.08 96 Golf Course (potable) – Average (2009-2011) 0.19 210 Snowmaking (Water Year 2011) 0.53 589 Privately Supplied Golf Courses Total estimated non-potable production 0.96 993 Estimated Total Demand 8.39 9,341 DRAFT Lake Tahoe Stampede Reservoir Donner Lake BocaReservoir Prosser Creek Res IndependenceLake Dry Lake MartisCreek Lake Donner Euer Valley Mtn Meadow Lake Truckee 267 89 28 89 MARTIS CRA lder Creek TRUCKEE RCold CreekJun iper Creek SAGEHEN CR Middle Martis Cree k D o n n e r Cr e e k Dry CreekINDEPENDENCE CRSouth Fork P r o s s e r C re e kTRUCKEE RI-80 I-80 Martis Valley Groundwater Basin, CaliforniaDATESITE TITLE Figure2-18 9-17-12 Average Annual Groundwater Recharge 1983-2011 P:\40000\140691 - PCWA Martis Valley GWP\GIS\MAPDOCS\WORKING\Fig2-18_MV_Recharge1988_8x11_20120820.mxdLegend Martis Valley Groundwater Basin Truckee River Streams Groundwater Recharge 1983-2011 Average Inches / Year 0 0 - 5 5 - 10 10 - 15 15 - 20 20 - 25 PROJECT140691 NORTH 2 Miles 0 Source: 2012 Desert Research Institute (DRI)DRAFT Lake Tahoe Stampede Reservoir Donner Lake BocaReservoir Prosser Creek Res IndependenceLake Dry Lake MartisCreek Lake Donner Euer Valley Mtn Meadow Lake Truckee 267 89 28 89 MARTIS CRA lder Creek TRUCKEE RCold CreekJun iper Creek SAGEHEN CR Middle Martis Cree k D o n n e r Cr e e k Dry CreekINDEPENDENCE CRSouth Fork P r o s s e r C re e kTRUCKEE RI-80 I-80 Martis Valley Groundwater Basin, CaliforniaDATESITE TITLE Figure2-19 9-17-12 Annual Groundwater Recharge 1988 P:\40000\140691 - PCWA Martis Valley GWP\GIS\MAPDOCS\WORKING\Fig2-19_MV_Recharge1988_8x11_20120820.mxdLegend Martis Valley Groundwater Basin Truckee River Streams Groundwater Recharge 1988 Inches / Year 0 0 - 2 2 - 4 4 - 6 6 - 8 8 - 10 10 - 12 PROJECT140691 NORTH 2 Miles 0 Source: 2012 Desert Research Institute (DRI)DRAFT Lake Tahoe Stampede Reservoir Donner Lake BocaReservoir Prosser Creek Res IndependenceLake Dry Lake MartisCreek Lake Donner Euer Valley Mtn Meadow Lake Truckee 267 89 28 89 MARTIS CRA lder Creek TRUCKEE RCold CreekJun iper Creek SAGEHEN CR Middle Martis Cree k D o n n e r Cr e e k Dry CreekINDEPENDENCE CRSouth Fork P r o s s e r C re e kTRUCKEE RI-80 I-80 Martis Valley Groundwater Basin, CaliforniaDATESITE TITLE Figure2-20 9-7-12 Annual Groundwater Recharge 1995 P:\40000\140691 - PCWA Martis Valley GWP\GIS\MAPDOCS\WORKING\Fig2-20_MV_Recharge1995_8x11_20120820.mxdLegend Martis Valley Groundwater Basin Truckee River Streams Groundwater Recharge 1995 Inches / Year 0 0 - 5 5 - 10 10 - 15 15 - 20 20 - 25 25 - 30 30 - 35 PROJECT140691 NORTH 2 Miles 0 Source: 2012 Desert Research Institute (DRI)DRAFT 3-1 P:\40000\140691 - PCWA Martis Valley GWP\GMP\Report\Final\Martis Valley GMP Final 4-18-13.docx Section 3 Plan Implementation The partner agencies are already performing many of the groundwater management activities associated with an AB 3030 GMP. Through GMP implementation, the partner agencies formalize their groundwater management goal, BMOs, and implementation actions that elaborate on both current actions and planned future actions under the GMP. As discussed in Section 1.6 and shown on Tables 1-2, 1-3, and 1-4, a number of required, voluntary, and suggested components constitute a GMP. This chapter discusses implementation actions that are grouped under each BMO. The BMOs are fully described in Section 1.5, and are listed below: 1. Manage groundwater to maintain established and planned uses. 2. Manage groundwater use within the provisions of the Truckee River Operating Agreement. 3. Collaborate and cooperate with groundwater users and stakeholders in the Martis Groundwater Basin. 4. Protect groundwater quantity and quality. 5. Pursue and use the best available science and technology to inform the decision making process. 6. Consider the environment and participate in the stewardship of groundwater resources. 3.1 Implementation Actions that Support BMO #1 - Manage Groundwater to Maintain Established and Planned Uses The MVGB is the primary source of water to multiple users under separate jurisdictions. BMO #1 encourages the partner agencies to pursue management of groundwater that is within their jurisdiction in order to protect existing uses. Implementation actions identified as falling under BMO #1 facilitate the management of groundwater in the MVGB. These implementation actions are focused on regular communication and consideration of future programs intended to protect the groundwater resource from degradation and depletion. 3.1.1 Develop and implement a summary report every five years This action is intended to concentrate and document GMP activity, data, and management decisions into periodic reports for use by partner agencies, Stakeholders, and local planning agencies for continual groundwater management decisions and maintenance. This implementation action provides a report every five years that summarizes groundwater conditions and management activities, and presents an opportunity to update and improve the GMP. The summary report will include: A summary of monitoring results with a discussion of historical trends. A summary of management actions during the period covered by the report. A discussion of whether actions are achieving progress towards meeting BMOs. A summary of proposed management actions for the future. A summary of any GMP changes that occurred during the period covered by the report. A summary of actions taken to coordinate with other water and land agencies and other government agencies. DRAFT Martis Valley Groundwater Management Plan Section 3 3-2 P:\40000\140691 - PCWA Martis Valley GWP\GMP\Report\Final\Martis Valley GMP Final 4-18-13.docx Recommendation of updates and changes to the GMP. 3.1.2 Compile an annual summary of groundwater monitoring data This action will compile, organize and evaluate groundwater level elevation and groundwater quality monitoring data collected during the previous year. The annual summary of monitoring data will include groundwater level monitoring information from the partner agencies water level monitoring efforts, and water quality data collected by the partner agencies from production wells. The annual summary of groundwater monitoring data will be used by the agencies at the annual GMP implementation meeting described in Section 3.1.3 to evaluate the need to implement other portions of the GMP that are contingent on monitoring data. The annual summary of groundwater monitoring data will also be included in the five year summary report. 3.1.3 Partner agencies to meet annually to discuss GMP implementation This action will require the partnership agencies to meet at least once annually to discuss GMP implementation. Currently, the partner agencies meet in the Truckee area annually and GMP implementation will be added as an agenda item during this annual meeting. 3.1.4 Support TROA provisions associated with well construction, repair, modification, and destruction The Settlement Act may eventually establish additional requirements for the siting and construction of wells drilled in the Truckee River Basin, which includes the MVGB. Section 6.E of TROA outlines Truckee River basin allocation procedures including well construction, repair, modification and destruction to address groundwater-surface water interactions within the Truckee River Basin including areas of Martis Valley. Section 204(c)(1)(B) of the Settlement Act provides that, “...all new wells drilled after the date of enactment of this title shall be designed to minimize any short-term reductions of surface streamflows to the maximum extent feasible.” This implementation action supports the implementation of TROA’s well construction guidelines. 3.1.5 Evaluate and consider taking a position on relevant water resources-related policies, programs, and projects under consideration by local, State and Federal agencies Throughout the state, surface water and groundwater resource management are becoming critical components of meeting growing water supply demands. As part of this implementation action, the partner agencies will actively evaluate and consider policies, programs and projects that may impact water resources quality and/or quantity within the Martis Valley. 3.1.6 Pursue opportunities for improved groundwater basin monitoring and reporting with local, State, and Federal agencies This implementation action prompts the partner agencies to continuously pursue opportunities and funding that may provide additional groundwater data collection and/or reporting. Groundwater monitoring is a critical component in understanding the physical condition of the groundwater basin and is further described in Section 3.3.1. 3.1.7 Evaluate the need for programs to facilitate saline intrusion control, mitigate the migration of contaminated groundwater, facilitate conjunctive use, and to mitigate overdraft This implementation action includes evaluation of a variety of potential programs to manage groundwater within the jurisdiction of the partner agencies. As part of this action, the agencies will DRAFT Martis Valley Groundwater Management Plan Section 3 3-3 P:\40000\140691 - PCWA Martis Valley GWP\GMP\Report\Final\Martis Valley GMP Final 4-18-13.docx evaluate the need for saline intrusion controls, mitigation of the migration of contaminated groundwater, conjunctive use programs, and overdraft mitigation. Currently, the groundwater supply in Martis Valley is not threatened by saline intrusion, contaminant plumes, or in a state of overdraft that would warrant immediate steps for mitigation. Saline intrusion is a primary concern along coastal areas with intruding sea water, which is high in Total Dissolved Solids (TDS) that may threaten fresh groundwater supplies. Saline conditions may also occur in interior basins. In the Martis Valley, groundwater monitoring (discussed under Section 3.4), will assist in identifying saline issues. Should future monitoring indicate that saline intrusion is a potential problem in the MVGB, the partner agencies will evaluate development of a saline intrusion control program. Groundwater contamination in the MVGB falls under the jurisdiction of the Lahontan Regional Water Quality Control Board (LRWQCB). Should monitoring indicate a large scale groundwater contamination issue, the partner agencies will share knowledge of the issue and collaborate with the LRWQCB. If monitoring indicates that contaminated groundwater is migrating, the partner agencies will further collaborate with the LRWQCB to mitigate the migration. Conjunctive use is the management of surface water and groundwater to optimize the yield of the overall water resource. One method would be to rely primarily on surface water in wet years and groundwater in dry years. Other methods employ artificial recharge, where surface water is intentionally stored into aquifers for later use. NCSD currently manages both its springwater and groundwater supply and TDPUD currently relies solely on groundwater but maintains water rights to several springs. Groundwater is PCWA’s only supply source. The partner agencies will evaluate opportunities to increase the use of conjunctive management as they arise within the MVGB. Groundwater overdraft occurs when pumping exceeds recharge to a groundwater basin. If monitoring indicates through declining groundwater levels that groundwater overdraft is occurring, the partner agencies will consider development of programs to mitigate the groundwater overdraft. 3.1.8 Consider development of contamination cleanup, recharge, storage, conservation and water recycling projects This implementation action includes evaluation of a variety of potential programs to manage groundwater within the jurisdiction of the partner agencies. As part of this action, the partner agencies will consider development of projects that cleanup contamination, increase groundwater recharge and storage, or increase conservation and water recycling. The LRWQCB is responsible for developing and enforcing water quality objectives and plans that best protect the State’s waters within its hydrologic area. Should monitoring indicate that contaminated groundwater is a threat to groundwater supplies, the partner agencies will consider collaborating with the LRWQCB. During GMP implementation, opportunities may arise for the partner agencies to engage in activities related to groundwater recharge, storage, conservation and recycling. As those opportunities arise, the agencies will consider participating in projects to improve groundwater recharge, storage, conservation and recycling efforts. 3.1.9 Pursue funding sources for implementation of plan policies, programs, reporting and projects This implementation action directs the partner agencies to pursue funds from Federal, State and other sources as they become available and are beneficial to pursue. Funding sources may include Local Groundwater Assistance (LGA) grants and Integrated Regional Water Management Planning (IRWMP) DRAFT Martis Valley Groundwater Management Plan Section 3 3-4 P:\40000\140691 - PCWA Martis Valley GWP\GMP\Report\Final\Martis Valley GMP Final 4-18-13.docx grants from DWR, grants from the California Department of Public Health (DPH), various funds available through collaboration with the U.S. Bureau of the Interior, and other agencies. 3.1.10 Participate in the evaluation of relevant local projects to maintain groundwater quantity and quality Local groups and local, State or Federal agencies may develop opportunities that seek support or assistance for projects that affect groundwater quantity and/or quality in the Martis Valley. This action directs the partner agencies to participate in relevant local projects as appropriate and reasonable. 3.1.11 Summary of BMO #1 Actions Table 3-1 presents a summary of implementation actions to be undertaken by the partner agencies that support BMO #1 including the anticipated schedule of implementation. Table 3-1. Summary BMO#1 Supporting Implementation Actions Description of Action Implementation Schedule 1-1 Develop and implement a summary report every five years that includes: A summary of monitoring results, with a discussion of historical trends A summary of management actions during the period covered by the report A discussion of whether actions are achieving progress towards meeting BMOs A summary of proposed management actions for the future A summary of any GMP changes that occurred during the period covered by the report A summary of actions taken to coordinate with other water and land agencies and other government agencies Review of the GMP and consider updates to the GMP Once every five years, first summary report to be completed in 2018 1-2 Compile an annual summary of groundwater monitoring data Annually 1-3 Partner agencies to meet annually to discuss GMP implementation Annually 1-4 Support TROA provisions associated with well construction, repair, modification, and destruction As Needed 1-5 Evaluate and consider taking a position on relevant water resource-related policies, programs, and projects under consideration by local, State and Federal agencies As Needed 1-6 Pursue opportunities for improved groundwater basin monitoring and reporting with local, State, and Federal agencies As Needed 1-7 Evaluate the need for programs to facilitate saline intrusion control, mitigate the migration of contaminated groundwater, facilitate conjunctive use, and to mitigate overdraft As Needed 1-8 Consider development of contamination cleanup, recharge, storage, conservation and water recycling projects As Needed 1-9 Pursue funding sources for implementation of plan policies, programs, reporting and projects Ongoing 1-10 Participate in the evaluation of relevant local projects to maintain groundwater quantity and quality As Needed 3.2 Implementation Actions that Support BMO #2 - Manage Groundwater within the Provisions of TROA The Settlement Act, Public Law 101-618 (1990), established entitlements to the waters of Lake Tahoe, the Truckee River and its tributaries, and how the storage reservoirs of the Truckee River are operated. Section 205 of the Settlement Act directs the Secretary of the Department of the Interior to negotiate an operating agreement for the operation of Truckee River reservoirs, between DWR, Nevada, Nevada DRAFT Martis Valley Groundwater Management Plan Section 3 3-5 P:\40000\140691 - PCWA Martis Valley GWP\GMP\Report\Final\Martis Valley GMP Final 4-18-13.docx Energy (formerly Sierra Pacific Power Company), Pyramid Tribe, and the United States Bureau of Reclamation. The operating agreement is known as TROA. Section 204(c)(1) of the Settlement Act outlines the allocation of 32,000 acre-feet of water (both surface and groundwater) to the State of California from within the Truckee River Basin. The Settlement Act may eventually establish additional requirements for the siting and construction of wells drilled in the Truckee River Basin, which includes the MVGB. Section 6.E of TROA outlines Truckee River Basin allocation procedures including surface water diversions and water accounting procedures. Article 10 of TROA identifies well construction, repair, modification and destruction to address groundwater-surface water interactions within the Truckee River Basin including areas of Martis Valley. Section 204(c)(1)(B) of the Settlement Act provides that, “...all new wells drilled after the date of enactment of this title shall be designed to minimize any short-term reductions of surface streamflows to the maximum extent feasible.” Article 10 of TROA requires that new water supply wells be designed to minimize impacts to surface water and outlines siting and design processes. Wells drilled or under construction before May 1, 1996 are presumed to comply with the Settlement Act. This BMO documents the partner agencies’ commitment to continue to comply with provisions of TROA. There are provisions in TROA that apply to groundwater and water wells within the Truckee River Basin (which includes the Martis Valley) to address potential adverse impacts to surface water. 3.2.1 Continue coordination and collaboration with TROA agencies on groundwater management issues and source well development This implementation action directs the partner agencies to coordinate and collaborate with TROA agencies as necessary to be compliant with the Settlement Act. To meet this implementation action, the agencies will continue regular contact with TROA agencies as appropriate. 3.2.2 Summary of BMO #2 Actions Table 3-2 presents a summary of implementation actions to be undertaken by the partner agencies that support BMO #2 including the anticipated schedule of implementation. Table 3-2. Summary BMO#2 Supporting Implementation Actions Description of Action Implementation Schedule 2-1 Continue coordination and collaboration with TROA agencies on groundwater management issues and source well development Ongoing 3.3 Implementation Actions that Support BMO #3 - Collaborate and Cooperate with Groundwater Users and Stakeholders in the Martis Valley Groundwater Basin With one common groundwater supply it makes sense to share information and resources toward similar goals. This objective encourages the partner agencies to reach out to other agencies and groundwater users within the MVGB. 3.3.1 Formalize and institute a Stakeholder Working Group to meet at least annually or as needed on GMP implementation activities and updates The SWG has been a key component of the GMP development process and will be continued into the implementation phase. This implementation action directs the partner agencies to continue using a DRAFT Martis Valley Groundwater Management Plan Section 3 3-6 P:\40000\140691 - PCWA Martis Valley GWP\GMP\Report\Final\Martis Valley GMP Final 4-18-13.docx SWG during implementation of the GMP. The SWG will continue to work cooperatively with the partner agencies and will meet at least once a year to discuss GMP implementation. 3.3.2 Collaborate with the LRWQCB to limit the migration of contaminated groundwater and in development of large scale contamination clean up programs This implementation action directs the partner agencies to communicate, collaborate, and coordinate with the LRWQCB on groundwater contamination issues. There are no currently identified large scale groundwater contamination issues in the Martis Valley at this time. Communication with the LRWQCB allows for collaboration in the event of the identification of groundwater contamination and collaboration with the LRWQCB on the prevention of contaminant migration. 3.3.3 Work cooperatively with local stakeholders and local, State and Federal agencies on groundwater management activities, projects, and studies Strong relationships with Federal, State, and local agencies and stakeholders are critical in developing and implementing many of the GMP’s implementation actions. The partner agencies are already working cooperatively with local stakeholders and agencies on groundwater management, as evidenced by the use of the SWG during GMP development. This implementation action directs the partner agencies to communicate and work cooperatively with local groundwater interests, and includes outreach activities aimed to educate agencies and stakeholders on groundwater management opportunities and activities in the MVGB. 3.3.4 Identify opportunities for public involvement during GMP implementation Informing the public of GMP implementation activities increases local understanding and support of GMP activities. This implementation action encourages the partner agencies to inform and invite the public to participate in GMP implementation activities. Public information and involvement may take place in the form of a specific webpage designed to communicate GMP implementation actions, public meetings, and at agency board meetings, as well as other activities. 3.3.5 Summary of BMO #3 Actions Table 3-3 presents a summary of implementation actions to be undertaken by the partner agencies that support BMO #3 including the anticipated schedule of implementation. Table 3-3. Summary BMO#3 Supporting Implementation Actions Description of Action Implementation Schedule 3-1 Formalize and institute a Stakeholder Working Group to meet at least annually or as needed on GMP implementation activities and updates. Annually 3-2 Collaborate with the LRWQCB to limit the migration of contaminated groundwater and in development of large scale contamination clean up programs As Needed 3-3 Work cooperatively with local stakeholders and local, State and Federal agencies on groundwater management activities, projects and studies Ongoing 3-4 Identify opportunities for public involvement during plan implementation Ongoing DRAFT Martis Valley Groundwater Management Plan Section 3 3-7 P:\40000\140691 - PCWA Martis Valley GWP\GMP\Report\Final\Martis Valley GMP Final 4-18-13.docx 3.4 Implementation Actions that Support BMO #4 - Protect Groundwater Quantity and Quality Groundwater performs an integral function in a watershed, one of which is satisfying water supply needs. Improving the understanding of the regional supplies is a critical step in protecting and sustaining the Martis Valley groundwater supply. The collection, evaluation and analysis of groundwater monitoring data including water quality and water levels on a regular basis is the cornerstone in understanding the MVGB’s groundwater resources and provides critical information for management decisions. Groundwater level monitoring can identify areas of overdraft, enabling appropriate management decisions and responses. Groundwater quality monitoring can help identify areas of degrading water quality, potentially identifying specific water quality issues. Ongoing groundwater monitoring provides information needed to document current conditions, assess long-term trends, and to support development and implementation of GMP components. Groundwater data is collected by both DWR and the partner agencies on a regular basis; and by the USGS on a less regular basis. Accumulating, processing, evaluating, summarizing and reporting the available data for discussion and distribution will be required to make informed decisions regarding continued groundwater supply and demand. Additionally, surface water data is collected by local, State, and Federal agencies and is evaluated by the appropriate agency for their own purpose. These data are critical and can be used in conjunction with the accumulated groundwater data to help improve the understanding of surface water-groundwater relationships. 3.4.1 Establish and maintain a California Statewide Groundwater Elevation Monitoring compliant monitoring program This implementation action directs the partner agencies to continue their California Statewide Groundwater Elevation Monitoring (CASGEM) compliant monitoring program (included as Appendix D). Figure 3-1 shows the locations of CASGEM monitoring wells in the MVGB. CASGEM monitoring results will be used in the annual groundwater monitoring summary prepared under implementation action 1-2. DRAFT DRAFT Martis Valley Groundwater Management Plan Section 3 3-9 P:\40000\140691 - PCWA Martis Valley GWP\GMP\Report\Final\Martis Valley GMP Final 4-18-13.docx 3.4.2 Continue and Encourage Water Conservation Activities and Public Education The partner agencies currently implement significant water conservation and public outreach programs per State requirements. All three agencies hold public board meetings and maintain informative websites for public outreach purposes at the following web addresses: www.tdpud.org www.pcwa.net www.northstarcsd.org This implementation action encourages the partner agencies to continue to implement conservation activities and continue public outreach activities as opportunities become available. 3.4.3 Work with local stakeholders and DWR to identify areas that may need additional groundwater level and groundwater quality monitoring based on identified data gaps or negative performance trends Currently, groundwater is monitored by the partner agencies under CASGEM, and by DWR, who monitors a number of wells in the MVGB. DWR monitoring wells are shown in Figure 3-1. This implementation action requires the partner agencies to work with local stakeholders and DWR to identify areas in need of additional monitoring. The SWG included two DWR North Central Region office staff and future members of the SWG should continue to include DWR staff. Through the SWG, the partner agencies will be working with local stakeholders and DWR, and will discuss identification of additional monitoring areas at the SWG annual meetings. 3.4.4 Coordinate with other agencies, including DWR and the USGS to identify opportunities for land subsidence monitoring Inelastic land subsidence is caused by dewatering of aquifers and the compressing of clays. As water is removed from the aquifer, it is transported through interconnected pore spaces between grains of sand and gravel. If an aquifer has intervals of clay or silt within it, the lowered water pressure in the sand and gravel results in the slow drainage of water from the clay and silt beds. The decreased water pressure reduces the support for the clay and silt beds. Because these beds are compressible, they compact (become thinner) and the effects are seen as a lowering of the land surface. The lowering of the land surface elevation from this process is often permanent (inelastic). Recharge of the aquifer will not result in an appreciable recovery of the land-surface elevation. The partner agencies have not developed a network of extensometers to measure inelastic land subsidence. Groundwater level monitoring indicates that groundwater levels have not been significantly lowered, a condition required for land subsidence due to groundwater extraction to occur. Additionally, the geology (Section 2.4) in the MVGB does not consist of large layers of clay to be compressed, and is unlikely to experience inelastic land subsidence even if groundwater levels begin to decline. Based on a review of groundwater elevation trends over time, it can reasonably be assumed that significant land subsidence has not occurred on a regional scale due to groundwater extraction within the MVGB. Under this implementation action, the partner agencies will coordinate with DWR and the USGS to identify opportunities for collaboration to detect land subsidence. Because inelastic land subsidence is tied to groundwater levels, the primary means for early detection include: Monitor and analyze groundwater levels, watching for significant declines Inspect wells for anecdotal evidence of subsidence during groundwater level monitoring Monitoring groundwater levels with concurrent inspections for anecdotal evidence of subsidence is the least expensive, and least reliable, method to monitor for land subsidence. Declines in groundwater levels can be a precursor to land subsidence. Staff performing water level monitoring can inspect the DRAFT Martis Valley Groundwater Management Plan Section 3 3-10 P:\40000\140691 - PCWA Martis Valley GWP\GMP\Report\Final\Martis Valley GMP Final 4-18-13.docx monitoring well for indicators of subsidence. Anecdotal subsidence indicators include cracks in the well pad, elevation of the well casing in comparison to the ground surface, and cracks in the ground surface. 3.4.5 Evaluate the need for, and advocate for, as necessary, a wellhead protection, groundwater recharge area protection, and other programs as necessary in MVGB Wellhead protection is a component of the Drinking Water Source Assessment and Protection (DWSAP) program administered by the DPH. The purpose of the DWSAP program is to protect groundwater sources of public drinking water supplies from contamination, thereby eliminating the need for costly treatment to meet drinking water standards. There are three major components to the DWSAP program, including: Delineation of capture zones around source wells, inventory of potential contaminating activities within protection areas, and analysis of vulnerabilities. The partner agencies are in compliance with the DWSAP program, will work to comply with the DWSAP program into the future, and will consider supporting programs that will protect groundwater quality in the MVGB. 3.4.6 Map and share groundwater recharge zones This GMP identifies preliminary areas of groundwater recharge in the MVGB in Section 2.9. Once the groundwater model is calibrated and finalized, groundwater recharge zones will be updated during the scheduled plan update identified in Section 3.1.1. This implementation action encourages the partner agencies to share the recharge zone maps developed in this GMP with local land use agencies to consider in land use decisions. 3.4.7 Provide relevant information to land use agencies regarding groundwater availability Through GMP implementation activities, such as CASGEM monitoring, groundwater monitoring summary reports and annual meetings of the SWG, the partner agencies will develop water resources information about the MVGB. As development increases in the MVGB, local land use agencies will be faced with decisions regarding zoning and permitting. In Placer County, the Community Development Resource Agency leads development of the County’s general plan and land development activities. The Nevada County Community Development Agency is responsible for the Nevada County General Plan and zoning, and the Town of Truckee has developed its own general plan and zoning. This implementation action directs the partner agencies to communicate relevant groundwater information to the appropriate planning agencies to assist them in making informed land use decisions. 3.4.8 Summary of BMO #4 Actions Table 3-4 presents a summary of implementation actions to be undertaken by the partner agencies that support BMO #3 including the anticipated schedule of implementation. Table 3-4. Summary BMO#4 Supporting Implementation Actions Description of Action Implementation Schedule 4-1 Establish and maintain a CASGEM compliant monitoring program Ongoing 4-2 Continue and encourage water conservation activities and public education Ongoing 4-3 Work with local stakeholders and DWR to identify areas that may need additional groundwater level and groundwater quality monitoring based on identified data gaps or negative performance trends Annually DRAFT Martis Valley Groundwater Management Plan Section 3 3-11 P:\40000\140691 - PCWA Martis Valley GWP\GMP\Report\Final\Martis Valley GMP Final 4-18-13.docx Table 3-4. Summary BMO#4 Supporting Implementation Actions Description of Action Implementation Schedule 4-4 Coordinate with other agencies, including DWR and the USGS to identify opportunities for land subsidence monitoring As Needed 4-5 Evaluate the need for, and advocate for, as necessary, a wellhead protection, groundwater recharge area protection, and other programs as necessary in MVGB As Needed 4-6 Map and share groundwater recharge zones Ongoing 4-6 Provide relevant information to land use agencies regarding groundwater availability As Needed 3.5 BMO #5 - Pursue and use the best available science and technology to inform the decision making process. Science and technology continue to develop new tools that may improve our understanding of the MVGB. This objective encourages the partner agencies to take actions that work with the best available science to help make informed agency decisions. The partner agencies are currently working to develop the best groundwater science available by collaborating with the Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) and DRI to develop an integrated watershed-groundwater model in conjunction with the Martis Valley GMP. The geologic investigation conducted and documented in Section 2 of this report has been used to shape a bi-modal geologic framework which was used to develop the conceptual model for the hydrogeology of the subsurface components of the integrated watershed model. The integrated model is under development in parallel with the GMP and is not completed at the time of the issuance of the draft GMP. The integrated watershed model is comprised of a PRMS and MODFLOW coupled together using an UZF package. The PRMS is used to model surface water within the watershed, the MODFLOW is used to model groundwater within the MVGB, and UZF is a kinematic wave vadose zone model used to model the interaction between surface water and groundwater. Each model will be calibrated separately, and then calibrated together over a ten year period using a coupled GSFLOW. Calibrations will be conducted using multiple GCM projections of precipitation and temperature to investigate the influence of future climate on water resources. Calibration targets for GSFLOW will include head values measured from wells, meadow and spring locations, streamflows, measured snow depth, and remotely sensed snow cover. The integrated model’s model domain will cover the entire MVGB, and the watersheds that contribute surface water to the region up to Lake Tahoe. The model grid’s cells are 300 meters by 300 meters in size. The partner agencies will obtain a copy of the groundwater model component for future use. 3.5.1 Work with State and Federal agencies to attempt to secure funding for expansion of the partner agencies’ monitoring grid Increasing the number of monitoring points and frequency of monitoring provides for better long term understanding of groundwater trends in the MVGB. Monitoring locations can be added by drilling new, dedicated monitoring wells, and by reaching agreements with well owners that have wells suitable for monitoring activities. Suitable wells will have a driller’s log that describes well construction and sediments encountered, a short screened interval, a sanitary seal to prevent surface water from entering the well, and cannot be municipal supply wells. DRAFT Martis Valley Groundwater Management Plan Section 3 3-12 P:\40000\140691 - PCWA Martis Valley GWP\GMP\Report\Final\Martis Valley GMP Final 4-18-13.docx The partner agencies are currently working with DWR to expand the monitoring grid by submitting a competitive grant application under DWR’s LGA program. The agencies’ application includes plans to drill and install three monitoring wells located across the Martis Valley. This implementation action directs the partner agencies to collaborate with State agencies such as DWR, DPH, and others, as well as Federal agencies such as Reclamation, to acquire funding for improvements to the groundwater monitoring grid in the MVGB. 3.5.2 Maintain relationship with DWR for groundwater monitoring and database management activities The partner agencies are a designated monitoring entity under DWR’s CASGEM program. DWR staff have been an integral part of the SWG during GMP development and their contribution in the SWG is anticipated during GMP implementation. This implementation action directs the partner agencies to continue to maintain a collaborative relationship with DWR for monitoring and database management activities in the MVGB. A continued relationship with DWR benefits the GMP by continuing the monitoring of long-term monitoring wells (especially those with long periods of records), and ensures that DWR groundwater expertise is involved during plan implementation activities through the SWG. 3.5.3 Identify opportunities for collecting water quality monitoring data The purpose of water quality monitoring as a GMP implementation action is to assess regional trends in water quality that may be caused by changes in groundwater-related activities. For example, groundwater pumping may induce groundwater flow from deeper aquifers or hard rock areas that are less desirable, such as water with a high mineral content or arsenic. Groundwater quality monitoring from a basin-wide perspective is focused on information that is indicative of overall groundwater basin conditions and not focused on individual anthropogenic contaminants. Localized anthropogenic groundwater quality contaminants fall under the jurisdiction of the LRWCQB. Groundwater quality is currently monitored as part of the agencies’ agreements with DPH. Each agency releases an annual water quality report for their service areas in the MVGB, and maintains databases of water quality information. Partner agency annual water quality reports are included in Appendix E. Additional opportunities exist to collect groundwater quality information by collaborating with other State and Federal programs, such as the USGS funded California Groundwater Ambient Monitoring and Assessment Special Studies Program (GAMA). The 2007 GAMA study collected water quality data in the MVGB from 52 groundwater wells. The GAMA fact sheet for the MVGB is included in Appendix E. Another example of how the partner agencies optimize collaboration opportunities occurred in February, 2012. The partner agencies teamed with Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL) to conduct a water aging study that will help improve the understanding of how the MVGB functions. The LLNL study is funded by the GAMA Special Studies Program. Results of the LLNL study will supplement and validate the DRI integrated Martis Valley surface-groundwater model. This implementation action encourages the partner agencies to continue to identify opportunities, both within the agencies’ operations and by collaborating with State and Federal agencies to improve groundwater quality data collection in the MVGB. Data collected for GMP implementation will be focused on identifying long-term water quality trends as they are related to groundwater use. DRAFT Martis Valley Groundwater Management Plan Section 3 3-13 P:\40000\140691 - PCWA Martis Valley GWP\GMP\Report\Final\Martis Valley GMP Final 4-18-13.docx 3.5.4 Use and consider updating the hydrologic model to improve understanding of groundwater in the MVGB The implementation action directs the partner agencies to use the groundwater model component of the integrated watershed model (when completed) to improve local hydrogeologic understanding within the MVGB. This may be achieved by revising the future regional groundwater model to include the following: Development of a focused MVGB hydrogeologic conceptual model; Refinement of the numerical groundwater model grid size and model extent; Revisions to numerical groundwater model layering and parameterization to reflect updates in the conceptual model; and, Establishment of appropriate stress periods and time scales for transient model simulations. Incorporation of these revisions to the DRI-developed groundwater model will improve the tool so that it can be used to characterize groundwater flow patterns originating from key recharge zones; to quantify potential impacts on groundwater resources resulting from localized extractions; and to evaluate current and future impacts on base flows within the Truckee River as a result of groundwater pumping within the MVGB. 3.5.5 Seek new tools, technology, and information that may improve the understanding of the water resources in the MVGB and watershed The partner agencies strive to have the best possible understanding of water resources in the MVGB, and prepare reports on water resources such as urban water management plans, water supply analyses, and water master plans in accordance to State requirements. This implementation action directs the partner agencies to actively seek out tools, technology, and compiled information in order to improve the understanding of water resources in the MVGB. The agencies will share and compare their water resources planning documents to identify similarities and differences. Additionally the agencies will continue to be proactive in looking for methods, approaches, and analysis that improves understanding of water in the MVGB. 3.5.6 Summary of BMO #5 Actions Table 3-5 presents a summary of implementation actions to be undertaken by the partner agencies that support BMO #5 including the anticipated schedule of implementation. Table 3-5. Summary BMO#5 Supporting Implementation Actions Description of Action Implementation Schedule 5-1 Work with State and Federal agencies to attempt to secure funding for expansion of the Partner Agencies monitoring grid Ongoing 5-2 Maintain relationship with DWR for groundwater monitoring and database management activities Ongoing 5-3 Identify opportunities for collecting water quality monitoring data As Available 5-4 Use and consider updating the hydrologic model to improve understanding of groundwater in the MVGB Ongoing 5-5 Seek new tools, technology, and information that may improve the understanding of the water resources in the MVGB and watershed Ongoing 5-6 Use the best available data to inform and link agency interdependent planning documents (i.e. urban water management plans, water supply analyses, and water master plans) Ongoing DRAFT Martis Valley Groundwater Management Plan Section 3 3-14 P:\40000\140691 - PCWA Martis Valley GWP\GMP\Report\Final\Martis Valley GMP Final 4-18-13.docx 3.6 Implementation Actions that Support BMO #6 - Consider the environment and participate in the stewardship of groundwater resources The partner agencies are dedicated stewards of the Martis Valley groundwater resources. The partner agencies’ mission statements reflect the importance of managing their respective agencies in an environmentally sound manner, such as minimizing negative impacts of operations on the environment. This BMO directs the partner agencies to continue their leadership in the stewardship of the groundwater, watershed and natural infrastructure. 3.6.1 Consider local, State, or Federal riparian, surface water, or surface water- groundwater interaction investigations, studies or programs in the MVGB This implementation action directs the partner agencies to consider existing and future studies and investigations of riparian habitat, surface water, and surface- groundwater interaction investigations. Wetlands and riparian areas play an important role in protecting water quality and reducing adverse water quality impacts (EPA, 2005). This implementation action, while not solely focused on pollution prevention, may address issues with such through traditional point sources and non-point sources. Many pollutants are delivered to surface waters and to groundwater from diffuse sources, such as urban runoff, agricultural runoff, and atmospheric deposition of contaminants. Pollution of surface water can impact groundwater quality and conversely pollution of groundwater can impact surface water. The agencies will evaluate the need to consider studies, guidance documents, and programs that investigate the linkages between ground and surface waters. 3.6.2 Continue support and collaboration with local groups that identify, coordinate, or implement projects that support the overall sustainability of the MVGB This implementation action directs the partner agencies to support and collaborate with local groups that improve sustainability in the MVGB. The partner agencies will continue support and collaboration with groups and agency members of the SWG, and through public involvement and outreach, identify additional groups to include in GMP implementation. 3.6.3 Summary of BMO #6 Actions Table 3-6 presents a summary of implementation actions to be undertaken by the partner agencies that support BMO #3 including the anticipated schedule of implementation. Table 3-6. Summary BMO#6 Supporting Implementation Actions Description of Action Implementation Schedule 6-1 Consider local, State, or Federal riparian, surface water, or surface water- groundwater interaction investigations, studies or programs in the MVGB. As Needed 6-2 Continue support and collaboration with local groups that identify, coordinate, or implement projects that support the overall sustainability of the MVGB. Ongoing DRAFT 4-1 P:\40000\140691 - PCWA Martis Valley GWP\GMP\Report\Final\Martis Valley GMP Final 4-18-13.docx Section 4 References Berris, S.N., Hess, G.W., and Bohman, L.R., 2001, River and Reservoir Operations Model, Truckee River Basin, California and Nevada, 1998, U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report 01-4017, 137 p. + plate. Birkeland, P.W., 1961, Pleistocene history of the Truckee area, north of Lake Tahoe, California: Stanford University, Ph.D. dissertation, 126 p. + plates Birkeland, P.W., 1963, Pleistocene volcanism and deformation of the Truckee Area, north of Lake Tahoe, California, Geological Society of America Bulletin, v. 64, p. 1453-1464. Birkeland, P.W., 1964, Pleistocene glaciation of the northern Sierra Nevada, north of Lake Tahoe, California, The Journal of Geology, v. 72 n. 6, p. 810-825. Brown, V.E., 2010, Geotechnical Investigations at Martis Creek Dam, Truckee, California, Proceedings of the 30th annual USSD Conference: Collaborative Management of Integrated Watersheds, Sacramento, California, April 12-16, 2010. Bugenig, D., and Hanneman, M., 2006, Review of Eaglewood Well #3 construction and testing report: ECO:LOGIC Engineering technical memo prepared for PCWA Lahontan, 9 p. Bugenig, D., 2007, Analysis of pumping test data for the August 27 through 31, 2007 test of Timilick Well #3: ECO:LOGIC Engineering technical memo prepared for Leslie Gault, PE, Placer County Water Agency, 19 p. + location map. California Department of Water Resources, 2003, California’s Groundwater: Bulletin 118 – Update 2003, 213 p. + figures, tables, and appendices. Coats, R., Reuter, J., Dettinger, M., Riverson, J., Sahoo, G., Schladow, G., Wolfe, B., and Costa-Cabral, M., 2010, The effects of climate change on Lake Tahoe in the 21st Century: Meteorology, hydrology, loading and lake response. Report prepared for Pacific Southwest Research Station, Tahoe Environmental Science Center, Incline Village, NV., 200 p. CH2MHill, 1974, Hydrogeological investigation of land disposal of reclaimed wastewater near Truckee, California: report prepared for Tahoe-Truckee Sanitation Agency. Environmental Protection Agency, 2005, National Management Measures to Protect and Restore Wetlands and Riparian Areas for the Abatement of Nonpoint Source Pollution, EPA 841-B-05-003, July, 2005. Available at www.epa.gov/owow/nps/wetmeasures/ Fram, M.S., Munday, C., Belitz, K., 2007, Groundwater quality data for the Tahoe-Martis Study Unit, 2007: Results from the California GAMA Program, US Geological Survey Data Series 432, 88 p. Available at http://pubs.usgs.gov/ds/432/ Fritts, H.C., and Gordon, G.A., 1980, Annual precipitation for California since 1600 reconstructed from western North American tree rings: Laboratory of Tree-Ring Research, University of Arizona, Tucson, under California Department of Water Resources Agreement No. B53367, July 1980, 45 p. Herzog, D.J., and Whitford, W.B., 2001, Summary of hydrogeological Services, Phase 2 Water Resources Investigation, Northstar-at-Tahoe, Truckee, Caliofornia: Kleinfelder consulting report prepared for Auerbach Engineering Group, 11 p. + tables, plates, and appendices. Hunter, L.E., Howle, J.F., Rose, R.S., and Bawden, G.W., 2011, LiDAR-Assisted identification of an active fault near Truckee, California, Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, v.101 n.3, p.1162-1181. California, Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, v. 101, n. 3, p. 1162-1181. Hydro-Search, Inc., 1995. Ground Water Management Plan Phase 1 Martis Valley Ground-Water Basin No. 6-67 Nevada and Placer counties, California. Prepared for Truckee Donner Public Utility District January 31, 1995. DRAFT Martis Valley Groundwater Management Plan Section 4 4-2 P:\40000\140691 - PCWA Martis Valley GWP\GMP\Report\Final\Martis Valley GMP Final 4-18-13.docx Interflow Hydrology and Cordilleran Hydrology, 2003, Measuremet of ground water discharge to streams tributary to the Truckee River in Martis Valley, Placer and Nevada Counties, California: consulting report prepared for Placer County Planning Department, 30 p. + tables, figures, and appendices. Josh Detweiller, NCSD, personal communication, May 2012 Kaufman, N., 2011, Truckee Donner Public Utility District Urban Water Management Plan, Adopted June 1, 2011, 122 p. incl. tables, figures + appendices.Lathham, T.S., 1985, Stratigraphy, structure, and geochemistry of Plio-Pleistocene volcanic rocks of the western Basin and Range Province, near Truckee, California, unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of California, Davis, 341 p. Lindström, S., Rucks, P., and Wigand, P., 2000, A contextual overview of human land use and environmental conditions: in Lake Tahoe Watershed Assessment, Volume 1, Dennis Murphy and Christopher M.Knopp (eds.). U.S. Forest Service General Technical Report PSW-GTR-174. Maxey, G.B., and T.E. Eakin, 1949. Ground water in White River Valley, White Pine, Nye, and Lincoln counties, Nevada. State of Nevada, Office of the State Engineer, Water Resources Bulletin 8.Melody, A., 2009, Active faulting and Quaternary paleohydrology of the Truckee Fault Zone north of Truckee, California; MS thesis, Humbolt State University, Humbolt, CA 71 p. Nimbus Engineers, 2001, Ground water availability in the Martis Valley Groundwater Basin, Nevada and Placer Counties, California: consulting report prepared for Truckee Donner Public Utility District, Placer County Water Agency, and Northstar Community Services District42 p. + tables and figures. Nichols Consulting Engineers, 2008, Truckee River Water Quality Monitoring Plan, Final Plan: consulting report prepared for Placer County and the Town of Truckee, 267 p. + appendices. Peck, B.J., and Herzog, D.J., 2008, Response to ECO:LOGIC Memos dated October 18, 2007 and January 3, 2008 review of Eaglewood No. 4 construction and testing report: Kleinfelder letter report prepared for Mr. Roger Cook, 10 p. + plates. Rajagopal, S., Reeves, D.M., Huntington, J., Pohll, G., 2012, Desert Research Institute Technical Note to PCWA: Estimates of Ground Water Recharge in the Martis Valley Ground Water Basin: prepared for PCWA. Saucedo, G.J., 2005, Geologic Map of the Lake Tahoe Basin, California and Nevada, 2005, California Department of Conservation California Geological Survey Regional Geologic Map Series, Map No. 4, 1:100,000 scale. Saucedo, G.J., and Wagner, D.L., 1992, Geologic Map of the Chico Quadrangle, 1:250,000: California Division of Mines and Geology Regional Map Series, v. 7A Tully and Young, 2011, Placer County Water Agency 2010 Urban Water Management Plan: report prepared for the Placer County Water Agency, 126 p. incl. tables + figures. Shaw, D., Hastings, B., Drake, K., Hogan, M., and Lindstrom, S., 2012, Martis Watershed Assessment: Balance Hydrologics consulting report prepared for the Truckee River Watershed Council. 66 p. + figures, tables, and appendices. U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Reclamation, 2011, Truckee Basin Study Plan of Study. 22 p. + appendices and attachments. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2005, National Management Measure to Protect and Restore Wetlands and Riparian Areas for the Abatement of Nonpoint Source Pollution, EPA-841-B-05-003. U.S. Forest Service, 2011, Monthly and annual precipitation records (1904-2010) for Truckee ranger station, Truckee, California, station #49043 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1985, Truckee River Basin Reservoirs, Truckee River, Nevada and California: Water Control Manual, 71 p. + Tables, Plates, and Exhibits U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 2002, Truckee River Basin, California/Nevada, Martis Creek Spillway Adequacy Study, Hydrology Office Report, 16 p. + Tables, Figures, Charts, and Plates. DRAFT Martis Valley Groundwater Management Plan A P:\40000\140691 - PCWA Martis Valley GWP\GMP\Report\Final\Martis Valley GMP Final 4-18-13.docx Appendix A: Resolutions of Intent to Adopt a Groundwater Management Plan DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT NORTHSTAR COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT NOTICE OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS DATE: MARCH 16, 2011 TIME: 9 A.M. PLACE: NORTHSTAR FIRE STATION, 910 NORTHSTAR DRIVE I. CALL TO ORDER, PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE, ROLL CALL II. PUBLIC COMMENTS Any member of the public may address the Board after roll call on any topic related to the District that is not on the agenda. Public comment will be taken on agenda action items immediately prior to Board action. III. RECURRING BUSINESS 1. Approval and Discussion of the minutes of the February 15, 2011 Finance Committee Meeting and the February 16, 2011 Regular Meeting. 2. Meetings attended by NCSD Board Members – Discussion. IV. NEW BUSINESS 3. East West Partners – Update. 4. Northstar Property Owners Association – Update. 5. CAMCO – Update. 6. Northstar-at-Tahoe/Vail – Update. 7. Martis Valley Groundwater Management Plan – Action to set Public Hearing on Resolution of Intention to cooperate in the preparation of the Martis Valley Groundwater Management Plan – Discussion – Action. 8. Resolution 11-03 “Resolution Approving the Department of Forestry and Fire Protection Agreement for Services from July 1, 2010 to June 30, 2013” – Discussion – Action. 9. Approval of Shift Proposal for Strategic Communications and Community Engagement Strategies – Martis Valley Regional Trail – Discussion – Action. 10. Approval of Memorandum of Agreement Between the North Lake Tahoe Resort Association and the Northstar Community Services District for use of Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT) Infrastructure Funds – Discussion – Action. 11. Approval of Exempt Employee Flexible Work Schedule Policy – Discussion – Action. V. ATTORNEYS REPORT VI. CLOSED SESSION 12. Conference with Legal Counsel – Existing Litigation [California Government Code Section 54956.9(a)]; Two cases: 1) Name of Case: Community Facilities District #1 of the Northstar Community Services District vs. Highlands Hotel Residences Company, LLC, Bank of America, et al, Placer County, California Superior Court #SCV0027907. 2) Name of Case: Bank of America & Thomas Morone, as Receiver for Highlands Hotel Company vs. NCSD & Community Facilities District No. 1 of NCSD, Placer County, California Superior Court #SCV0028495. DRAFT Page 2 of 2 of the Agenda of the March 16, 2011 Regular Board Meeting N ORTHSTAR C OMMUNITY S ERVICES D ISTRICT • 908 N ORTHSTAR D RIVE, N ORTHSTAR, CA 96161 • PAGE 2 OF 2 13. Public Employee Performance Evaluation (Government Code Section 54957) – Titles: Engineering and Mapping Department: Information Systems Supervisor, Director of Public Works, Associate Engineer, GIS Analyst – Administration Department: Controller, Administrative Manager, Administrative Assistant, Human Resource Director 14. Conference with Labor Negotiators (Government Code §54957.6) – Agency designated representatives: Jim Bowling, Mark Shadowens. Employee organization: Employee Representation – Fire Department employees. VII. DIRECTOR REPORTS Individual directors may give brief reports on miscellaneous items for the information of the other members of the board and NCSD staff. No action will be taken. VIII. OPERATION REPORTS 15. General Managers Report – Staudenmayer – Discussion. 16. Fire Department Report – Shadowens – Discussion. 17. Director of Public Works Report – Geary – Discussion. 18. Utilities Department Report – Ryan – Discussion. 19. Administration Department Report – Tanner/Lewis/Bowling – Discussion. IX. WARRANT REGISTER & MELLO-ROOS REQUISITIONS 20. Approval of the Warrant Register. 21. Ratification of Mello-Roos Requisitions in the amount of $15,353.42. X. ADJOURNMENT Items may not be taken in the order listed above. In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you are a disabled person and you need a disability-related modification or accommodation to participate in this meeting, then please contact Myra Tanner at (530) 562-0747 or (530) 562-1505 (fax). Requests must be made as early as possible and at least one-full business day before the start of the meeting. DRAFT Martis Valley Groundwater Management Plan B P:\40000\140691 - PCWA Martis Valley GWP\GMP\Report\Final\Martis Valley GMP Final 4-18-13.docx Appendix B: Resolutions Adopting the Groundwater Management Plan DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT Martis Valley Groundwater Management Plan C P:\40000\140691 - PCWA Martis Valley GWP\GMP\Report\Final\Martis Valley GMP Final 4-18-13.docx Appendix C: Public Outreach Plan DRAFT Technical Memorandum 10540 White Rock Road, Suite 180 Rancho Cordova, CA 95670 Tel: 916-444-0123 Fax: 916-635-8805 Project Title: Martis Valley Groundwater Management Plan Project No: 140691 Public Outreach Plan Technical Memorandum (Deliverable Task 1.2) Date: May 25, 2011 To: Tony Firenzi, Brian Martin, Michael Holley, Steven Poncelet, and Mike Staudenmayer From: Tina Bauer, Project Manager Prepared by: John Ayres, Task One Manager Reviewed by: Tina M. Bauer, Project Manager DRAFT Martis Valley GMP – Draft Public Outreach Plan 2 P:\40000\140691 - PCWA Martis Valley GWP\Public Outreach\Public Outreach Plan\Martis Valley GMP Public Outreach Plan Final 5-25-11.docx Introduction The partnership of Placer County Water Agency (PCWA), Truckee Donner Public Utilities District (TDPUD), and Northstar Community Services District (NCSD), herein referred to as the partnership agencies, are working together to update a Groundwater Management Plan (GMP) for the Martis Valley in accordance with the California Water Code, Article 107050. The overall goal of the GMP is to develop a framework that main- tains groundwater quantity and quality, thereby providing a sustainable, high-quality supply for beneficial use in the Martis Valley. Brown and Caldwell (BC) has been contracted by the partnership to prepare the GMP and perform public outreach activities. The reasons for updating the Martis Valley GMP are to: • Reflect current water resources planning in the region, • Update the understanding of the underlying groundwater basin, and • Prepare the plan in partnership with basin water purveyors in an effort to work collaboratively and align policy. In addition to updating the GMP a computer model of the groundwater basin will be developed by the Desert Research Institute (through a grant from the Bureau of Reclamation) which will assimilate available data and enhance the understanding of the basin. This groundwater model will be used as a tool to improve basin understanding during GMP development. Public outreach as described herein is a key component of the process in preparing the GMP. Public Outreach Objectives This plan’s outreach activities are designed to meet the following outreach objectives: • Inform the public regarding the development of the GMP. • Provide meaningful opportunities for stakeholders and the general public to contribute to the develop- ment of the GMP. • Incorporate stakeholder input regarding the GMP. • Document stakeholder recommendations in a clear, complete manner. • Develop public understanding and support of the GMP. To pursue these objectives effectively, various outreach methods will be necessary to reach the groups targeted for inclusion in the planning process. Groundwater Management Plan Preparation During the course of preparing the GMP, various entities will be involved in developing, approving, and adopting the GMP. Their roles and responsibilities are as follows: Partnership Agencies – Each individual agency will follow the GMP adoption process. As such, each agency will conduct two public hearings. The first hearing will be to adopt a resolution of intent to prepare a GMP and the second hearing will be to determine whether or not to adopt the GMP. These hearings will be conducted in compliance with the California Water Code, Article 10753.2 through Article 10753.6. Hearings were held by each agency in April 2011 to indicate to the public the intent of the agencies to develop a GMP. The public was notified in advance in accordance with the California Water Code. Groundwater Management Plan Team – The GMP team consists of the partnership agencies, BC, and BC’s subcontractor, Balance Hydrologics, Inc of Truckee, Ca. Brown and Caldwell will perform the majority of the technical work and analyses, conduct and document the public outreach effort, conduct public meetings and SWG meetings, develop and maintain a website so that information on the project is available to interested DRAFT Martis Valley GMP – Draft Public Outreach Plan 3 P:\40000\140691 - PCWA Martis Valley GWP\Public Outreach\Public Outreach Plan\Martis Valley GMP Public Outreach Plan Final 5-25-11.docx parties, and prepare newsletters and notifications of meetings and events. The partnership agencies will provide available resource data, GIS information, and review BC’s work. The partnership agencies will provide the names and addresses of special interest groups and interested public members, and assist in distributing newsletters and notifications of meetings and events through the media. The Partnership Agencies will also provide available data and information related to land and water use policies and ordin- ances affecting water management in Martis Valley. Stakeholder Working Group – The Stakeholder Working Group (SWG) will be comprised of representatives of federal, state, and local governments, environmental and special interest groups, local land use interests, and the general public selected by the partnership agencies. The SWG will provide local knowledge, data and information, opinions, and review and comment on material prepared by the GMP team. Five meetings with the SWG are anticipated to occur at strategic times for addressing particular items, as appropriate. General Public – The public will be invited to participate in two public hearings for each partnership agency and two public workshops. The first workshop will explain the process of GMP development and present groundwater model concepts (July 2011). The second workshop will be conducted near project completion and will provide an overview of GMP content. The first agency public hearings have been completed. The second agency public hearings will be conducted at project completion (anticipated November 2012). All agency public hearings will be in compliance with the California Water Code, Article 107050. Communications and Notifications Communication and notification is an important aspect of effective outreach. Various means of communica- tion and notification will be utilized to implement this Public Outreach Plan including the following: Notifications - Notifications are the primary method of outreach used to inform the public of upcoming meetings and hearings. Notifications will be published in the Sierra Sun and the Auburn Journal and will be prepared and submitted to the review group approximately one week prior to the planned publication date. Website - During project implementation, a public website will be developed and hosted. The website will also contain basic information about the project, including project goals, sponsoring agencies, and who to contact for more information. The website will be updated monthly to supply regular information updates to the public about project progress, data gathered, and decisions made. The website will have pages dedicat- ed to GMP development, groundwater model development, and a page that provides notices, newsletters, and quarterly reports. Mailing/Contact List - A list of the names and addresses of participants and interested parties will be created by BC and used for communicating information regarding meetings and materials related to the GMP. Newsletters - Public outreach will include three newsletters. Newsletters will consist of a double-sided full page color flyer that provides basic information about the project including the project goal, sponsoring agencies, and who to contact for more information. Each newsletter will address specific components of the project. The newsletters will be distributed at each partnership agency office and be uploaded onto the website. Public Workshops, Public Hearings, and SWG Meetings An important part of the public outreach will be the communications provided by the GMP team and com- ments provided by those participating in a particular forum. In general, the framework for the various forums conducted by Brown and Caldwell will be as described below. The timing for conducting the respective forums is shown on attached Table 1. Communications and notifications will be made in advance of each forum using the means noted. DRAFT Martis Valley GMP – Draft Public Outreach Plan 4 P:\40000\140691 - PCWA Martis Valley GWP\Public Outreach\Public Outreach Plan\Martis Valley GMP Public Outreach Plan Final 5-25-11.docx Public Workshops – Two public workshops will be conducted. The 1st public workshop will be held to explain the process of GMP and model development to the public. This goal of this workshop is to inform the public of the purpose of the GMP and expected outcomes of GMP and model development. The second public workshop will provide an overview of GMP content and present groundwater modeling results. The goal of this workshop is to build public support of the GMP and model. Public workshops will be held using an open format, with presenters at multiple stations in different parts of the meeting room. Each presenter will be focused on a specific component of project development, and will have visual materials with them to facili- tate explanation of the subject matter. Meeting participants will move from station to station according to their interests and time constraints. Public Hearings – Two public hearings are required to adopt a GMP in compliance with the California Water Code, Article 17050. The first public hearing is conducted to adopt a resolution of intent to prepare a GMP and the second public hearing will be conducted to determine whether or not to adopt the GMP. Hearings were held by each partnership agency in April, 2011 to indicate to the public the intent of the agencies to develop a GMP. Stakeholder Working Group Meetings – During the course of the project, meetings will be held with the partnership agencies and the SWG. All meetings will have an agenda and PowerPoint presentation with copies of pertinent information, as appropriate. Notes of the meetings will be prepared to document the salient items discussed. The anticipated content of the SWG meetings are as follows: • The 1st SWG meeting will be held to introduce SWG members to the project and solicit their involvement. Presentation materials will include an overview of GMP content, discussion of the GMP’s relationship with the groundwater model, and discussion of SWG member’s local knowledge and the SWG’s role during GMP development. • The 2nd SWG meeting will present the conceptual model and physical conditions of the groundwater basin to SWG members. The physical conditions of the Martis Valley groundwater basin will be presented, in- cluding cross sections, monitoring well hydrographs, and other information as appropriate. The goal of this meeting is form consensus on what groundwater resources are present in the basin to be managed by the GMP. • The 3rd SWG meeting will present preliminary GMP goals and management objectives for comment and suggestions to SWG members. The goal of this meeting is to build consensus about the identified goal and management objectives of the GMP. • The 4th SWG meeting will present preliminary implementation actions and implementation schedule to the SWG for comment and suggestions. The goal of this meeting is to fully identify implementation ac- tions for the GMP. • The goal of the 5th SWG meeting is to discuss steps taken after adoption of the GWMP. Summary of Opportunities for Public Participation The partnership agencies are providing numerous opportunities for the public to participate in and to stay informed throughout the GMP planning process. A summary of the opportunities noted above with the anticipated timing of the event, as shown on the Outreach Activity Schedule, include the following: • Partnership agency meetings and public hearings. • Public Workshops. In addition, a website will be available to the public to facilitate being informed of meeting dates, draft documents, notices, newsletters, and contact information. DRAFT P P:\40000\140691 - PCW WA Martis Valley GWP\Public Outreach\Public Outreeach Plan\Martis Valley GMTable 1MP Public Outreach Plan 1 Outreach ScheduFinal 5-25-11.docx ule Martis Valley GMP – Draft Public Outreach Plan 5 DRAFT Martis Valley Groundwater Management Plan D P:\40000\140691 - PCWA Martis Valley GWP\GMP\Report\Final\Martis Valley GMP Final 4-18-13.docx Appendix D: CASGEM Monitoring Plan DRAFT Martis Valley Groundwater Monitoring Program California Statewide Groundwater Elevation Monitoring (CASGEM) Placer County Water Agency Truckee Donner Public Utilities District Northstar Community Services District December 2011 Revised July 12, 2012DRAFT Table of Contents i TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................... 1-1 2.0 BACKGROUND ..................................................................................................... 2-1 3.0 MONITORING NETWORK .................................................................................... 3-1 4.0 MONITORING EQUIPMENT AND PREPARATION .............................................. 4-1 5.0 DEPTH-TO-GROUNDWATER PROCEDURES AND FREQUENCY OF MONITORING AND REPORTING ............................................................................... 5-1 6.0 RECORDING OF MONITORING DATA, DATA MANAGEMENT AND THE CASGEM REQUIREMENTS ........................................................................................ 6-1 APPENDICES Appendix A – CASGEM Guidelines Appendix B – CASGEM Monitoring Plan Summary DRAFT Introduction 1-1 1.0 INTRODUCTION This Martis Valley (MV) Groundwater Monitoring Program (Monitoring Program) report serves to describe the activities related to the monitoring of groundwater elevations in the MV area, as shown on Figure 1-1. The elevation data gathered as part of this program will be included as part of the California Statewide Groundwater Elevation Monitoring (CASGEM) Program recently adopted by the California Department of Water Resources (DWR) as part of their mandated monitoring requirements under Senate Bill (SB) 61 of the State Water Code. This report strongly encourages the reader to review and understand the full text of the CASGEM Well Monitoring Guidelines, attached as Appendix A. This Monitoring Program pulls together the efforts completed to date in the identification of existing and future well monitoring sites that satisfy the local and state requirements for a monitored groundwater basin. In addition, the Monitoring Program prepares the MV groundwater users to initiate a semi-annual monitoring event, which started with its first measurements in fall of 2011. Placer County Water Agency (PCWA), Truckee Donner Public Utilities District (TDPUD), and Northstar Community Services District (NCSD) are the three partners in MV area, in which their respective services areas are presented in Figure 1-1. All field forms and measurement methods are included herein for the sole purpose of providing monitoring staff with easy access to printing and using these forms as part of their monitoring activities. The MV Monitoring Program report is a living document subject to change over time as more information is collected on the wells, and as technologies change to provide the best measurement of groundwater levels and water quality, and as more wells become available. 1 SB 6 requires collaboration between local monitoring parties, or entities, and DWR to collect groundwater elevations statewide and that this information is made available to the public. SB 6 provides that: Local parties may assume responsibility for monitoring and reporting groundwater elevations. DWR work cooperatively with local Monitoring Entities to achieve monitoring programs that demonstrate seasonal and long-term trends in groundwater elevations. DWR accept and review prospective Monitoring Entity submittals, then determine the designated Monitoring Entity, notify the Monitoring Entity, and make that information available to the public. DWR perform groundwater elevation monitoring in basins where no local party has agreed to perform the monitoring functions. If local parties (for example, counties) do not volunteer to perform the groundwater monitoring functions, and DWR assumes those functions, then those parties become ineligible for water grants or loans from the State. DRAFT Introduction 1-2 FIGURE 1-1. MAP OF GROUNDWATER BASIN TO BE MONITORED DRAFT Introduction 1-3 1.1 ORGANIZATION OF REPORT The Monitoring Program will be described in the sections summarized below: Section 1. Introduction – An initial summary of the report’s contents and goals while highlighting the reasons for the Monitoring Program. Section 2. Background – A brief understanding of the groundwater aquifer is provided to ensure a minimum level of understanding by field staff of the conditions taking place below the ground. Section 3. Monitoring Network – Criteria for selection of monitoring wells is described and the current list of wells to be monitored is provided. Section 4. Monitoring Equipment and Preparation – Each monitoring event requires an inventory of the equipment that will be taken out into the field and to have staff trained to conduct the measurement and interface with the well owners. Section 5. Depth-to-Groundwater Procedures and Frequency of Monitoring and Reporting – The resolution of measurement data is described with a brief discussion of the pros and cons of high and low sampling frequency. Section 6. Recording of Monitoring Data, Data Management and the CASGEM Requirements – Once data is brought back from the field (and laboratory); all data will need to be uploaded to the State. DWR will allow batch uploading and downloading using the CASGEM database and graphical user interface. DRAFT Background 2-1 2.0 BACKGROUND This section briefly describes the MV groundwater basin. The MV basin is located beneath the Truckee River, near Truckee, CA, in which the Truckee River crosses the basin from south to east in a shallow, incised channel. Principal tributaries to the Truckee River are Donner Creek, Martis Creek, and Prosser Creek. Major surface water storage reservoirs include Donner Lake, Martis Creek Lake, and Prosser Creek Reservoir. State driller logs required as part of the well construction process provide the lithology (i.e., soil types and thickness) to characterize the water-bearing formations. Figure 1 delineates the MV groundwater basin along with overlying geography and the alignment of three basin cross sections. These cross sections are presented in Plates 1, 2, and 3. The geological formations in the MV basin include basement rocks, sedimentary deposits, and volcanic deposits. The two types of basement rock in this region are Cretaceous-Jurassic plutonic/metamorphic rocks and Miocene volcanic units. Plutonic/metamorphic rocks appear east of the basin and Miocene volcanic units which ranges from andesite to basalt appear adjacent to the basin. These basement rocks contain a very small portion of the groundwater. Sedimentary deposits which include stream/lake deposits and alluvial material provide storage for groundwater. Volcanic deposits include basaltic andesite lava, tuff breccia and volcaniclastic deposits, and also provide storage for groundwater. Municipal and private wells in the basin primarily extract from the Prosser Creek Alluvium and Truckee Formation, with some Shallow wells also extracting from Outwash Deposits. DRAFT o0 0.5 1 1.5 2Miles210142 X-sec locations.mxdFigure 1.Geologic cross-section locations, Martis Groundwater Management Plan,Placer and Nevada Counties, California2011 Balance Hydrologics, Inc.LegendCross-section locationMartis Groundwater BasinLakeTahoeTRUCKEELACER COUNTYNEVADA COUNTYSIERRA COUNTYAA'BB'CC'DRAFT ????????????????????????????????5000010,00020,00030,00040,00050,00060,000600070004000DISTANCE IN FEETELEVATION (FEET NAVD88)55004500650075005000600070004000ELEVATION (FEET NAVD88)550045006500750075001365668101008155710323656E008545421088301841312958733244733247372325429743119958433365ANorthA’SouthQvQvQgoQpcQpcQgoQPsQpcQvQvQvQvQvTvTvTvTvTtTtTtQgoQPsProsser CreekReservoirProsser CreekReservoirFault ZoneTruckee-TahoeAirportTruckee RiverInterstate 80County LineCalifornia StateRoute 267 Nevada PlacerCross-Section B-B’Cross-Section C-C’Polaris Fault Plate 1: Cross-section A-A’Martis Groundwater Basin,Placer and Nevada Counties, California ©2011 Balance Hydrologics, Inc. \\192.168.1.152\gis\Projects\210142 Martis GMP\CrossSection\110925_Plate01_ProfileA-A_FinalDraft.ai NOTES:1. Approximate vertical exaggeration = 5x.2. Elevation profile developed from 30-meter digital elevation model,downloaded from National Elevation Dataset (http://seamless.usgs.gov/index.php).3. Well log locations are approximate within 600 feet. 4. Fault locations are approximate, based on Saucedo, “Geologic Map of Lake Tahoe Basin,” 2005 and Hunter and others, 2011. 5. Surficial geology inferred from Saucedo, 2005.6. Significant sand, gravel, and clay beds shown where noted in well logs.7. Fracture zones shown where noted in well logs. References:Birkeland, P.W., 1963 Pleistocene History of the Truckee area, north of Lake Tahoe, California, Geological Society of America Bulletin, v. 64, p. 1453-1464.Hunter, L.E., Howle, J.F., Rose, R.S., and Bawden, G.W., 2011, LiDAR – assisted identification of an active fault near Truckee, California, Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, v. 101, n. 3, p. 1162-1181.Latham, T.S., 1985, Stratigraphy, structure, and geochemistry of Plio-Pleistocene volcanic rocks of the western Basin and Range Province, near Truckee, California, unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of California, Davis, 341 p.Melody, A., 2009, Active faulting and Quaternary paleohydrology of the Truckee Fault Zone north of Truckee, California, MS Thesis, Humboldt State University, Humboldt, CA 71 p.Saucedo, G.J., 2005, Geologic Map of Lake Tahoe Basin, California and Nevada, California Geological Survey Regional Geologic Map Series, Map No. 4, 1:100,000 scale.Vertical Exaggeration ~5x Glacial Till/Moraine QgProsser Creek alluvium(Pleistocene) QpcLousetown Volcanics (Pleistocene)QvLousetown Interbedded Sediments (Unnamed gravels, sand and alluvium) (Pliocene and (or) Pleistocene)QPsTruckee Formation (Lake and Stream Deposits)TtGlacial Outwash deposits QgoTertiary VolcanicsTvClay BedSands and GravelsTuff/AshInterbedded Basaltand Andesite BasaltLithologic ContactInferred Lithologic Contact?Fault, direction of displacement(dashed where inferred)Fracture ZoneWell log429743DRAFT Plate 2: Cross-section B-B’Martis Groundwater Basin,Placer and Nevada Counties, CaliforniaGlacialTill/Moraine QgLandslide depositsQlsProsser Creek alluvium(Pleistocene) QpcLousetown Volcanics (Pleistocene)QvLousetown Interbedded Sediments (Unnamed gravels, sand and alluvium) (Pliocene and (or) Pleistocene)QPsTruckee Formation (Lake and Stream Deposits)TtGlacial Outwash deposits QgoTertiary VolcanicsTvClay BedSands and GravelsTuff/AshInterbedded Basaltand Andesite BasaltLithologic ContactInferred Lithologic Contact?Fault, direction of displacement(dashed where inferred)Fracture Zone©2011 Balance Hydrologics, Inc. Juniper Flat alluvium (Pleistocene)Qjf\\192.168.1.152\gis\Projects\210142 Martis GMP\CrossSection\110925ProfileB_BFinalDraft.aiNOTES:1. Approximate vertical exaggeration = 5x.2. Elevation profile developed from 30-meter digital elevation model,downloaded from National Elevation Dataset (http://seamless.usgs.gov/index.php).3. Well log locations are approximate within 600 feet. 4. Fault locations are approximate, based on Saucedo, “Geologic Map of Lake Tahoe Basin,” 2005 and Hunter and others, 2011. 5. Surficial geology inferred from Saucedo, 2005.6. Significant sand, gravel, and clay beds shown where noted in well logs.7. Fracture zones shown where noted in well logs. References:Birkeland, P.W., 1963 Pleistocene History of the Truckee area, north of Lake Tahoe, California, Geological Society of America Bulletin, v. 64, p. 1453-1464.Hunter, L.E., Howle, J.F., Rose, R.S., and Bawden, G.W., 2011, LiDAR – assisted identification of an active fault near Truckee, California, Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, v. 101, n. 3, p. 1162-1181.Latham, T.S., 1985, Stratigraphy, structure, and geochemistry of Plio-Pleistocene volcanic rocks of the western Basin and Range Province, near Truckee, California, unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of California, Davis, 341 p.Melody, A., 2009, Active faulting and Quaternary paleohydrology of the Truckee Fault Zone north of Truckee, California, MS Thesis, Humboldt State University, Humboldt, CA 71 p.Saucedo, G.J., 2005, Geologic Map of Lake Tahoe Basin, California and Nevada, California Geological Survey Regional Geologic Map Series, Map No. 4, 1:100,000 scale.?????????????????5000010,00020,00030,00040,000600070004000DISTANCE IN FEETELEVATION (FEET NAVD88)5500450065007500500060007000ELEVATION (FEET NAVD88)550045006500750075294518056031295631298535480775302538890 323656 153113 186854 119903 290858 233993 Prosser Village Well712059 181525 753383233946433600 65421561677 769296290853 BWestB’EastVertical Exaggeration ~5x QgoQgoQpcQgoQpsQpsQpcQpcQvQvQvQvQvQjfQjfQvQvTvTvTvTvTtTtTtTtQgoQgoQlsTruckee RiverPolaris FaultHighway 89Cross-Section A-A’Well log429743DRAFT 5000010,00020,00030,00040,000600070004000ELEVATION (FEET NAVD88)55004500650075005000600070004000ELEVATION (FEET NAVD88)55004500650075001061262503354809116952Southside62502323549119914733244422739233973575706119946 712334733241116960575720CWestC’EastDISTANCE IN FEETQgoQgoQgoQgoQpcQpcQpsQpsQpcQvQvQvQvQvQgTvTvTvTvTvTtTtTtTtTtTtTruckee-TahoeAirportMartis CreekTahoe MoraineDry LakeCross-Section A-A’Polaris Fault?????????????? Plate 3: Cross-section C-C’Martis Groundwater Basin,Placer and Nevada Counties, California©2011 Balance Hydrologics, Inc. \\192.168.1.152\gis\Projects\210142 Martis GMP\CrossSection\110925_Plate03_ProfileC_C_FinalDraft.aiNOTES:1. Approximate vertical exaggeration = 5x.2. Elevation profile developed from 30-meter digital elevation model,downloaded from National Elevation Dataset (http://seamless.usgs.gov/index.php).3. Well log locations are approximate within 600 feet. 4. Fault locations are approximate, based on Saucedo, “Geologic Map of Lake Tahoe Basin,” 2005 and Hunter and others, 2011. 5. Surficial geology contacts inferred from Saucedo, 2005.6. Significant sand, gravel, and clay beds shown where noted in well logs.7. Fracture zones shown where noted in well logs. References:Birkeland, P.W., 1963 Pleistocene History of the Truckee area, north of Lake Tahoe, California, Geological Society of America Bulletin, v. 64, p. 1453-1464.Hunter, L.E., Howle, J.F., Rose, R.S., and Bawden, G.W., 2011, LiDAR – assisted identification of an active fault near Truckee, California, Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, v. 101, n. 3, p. 1162-1181.Latham, T.S., 1985, Stratigraphy, structure, and geochemistry of Plio-Pleistocene volcanic rocks of the western Basin and Range Province, near Truckee, California, unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of California, Davis, 341 p.Melody, A., 2009, Active faulting and Quaternary paleohydrology of the Truckee Fault Zone north of Truckee, California, MS Thesis, Humboldt State University, Humboldt, CA 71 p.Saucedo, G.J., 2005, Geologic Map of Lake Tahoe Basin, California and Nevada, California Geological Survey Regional Geologic Map Series, Map No. 4, 1:100,000 scale.Vertical Exaggeration ~5x Glacial Till/Moraine QgProsser Creek alluvium(Pleistocene) QpcLousetown Volcanics (Pleistocene)QvLousetown Interbedded Sediments (Unnamed gravels, sand and alluvium) (Pliocene and (or) Pleistocene)QPsTruckee Formation (Lake and Stream Deposits)TtGlacial Outwash deposits QgoTertiary VolcanicsTvClay BedSands and GravelsTuff/AshInterbedded Basaltand Andesite BasaltLithologic ContactInferred Lithologic Contact?Fault, direction of displacement(dashed where inferred)Fracture ZoneWell log429743DRAFT Monitoring Network 3-1 3.0 MONITORING NETWORK The following sections describe the rationale for selection of monitoring wells to be included in the monitoring network. Because surface water and groundwater may interact, the monitoring network may need to be expanded at some future date to include data available from surface water monitoring of major rivers and local streams. The partners involved in this Monitoring Program are also underway in preparing an updated Groundwater Management Plan (GMP) and groundwater model. It is anticipated that knowledge gained from that effort will help inform the partners and the State on where additional monitoring points, in the ground and at the surface, should be located. If existing wells are not available at such locations, the partners will seek opportunities to construct new ones in data gap areas. 3.1 RATIONALE OF MONITORING NETWORK In order to manage groundwater resources for long-term sustainability, key issues in the basin that need to be documented include: Identification of sources of recharge and the protection of recharge areas Changes in groundwater elevations that affect groundwater storage Groundwater quality and changes over time The following sections describe the rationale for selecting the MV monitoring network well sites. MV groundwater monitoring wells will be selected to provide regional coverage that can be economically accomplished yet provide high quality, reliable data that adequately characterizes basin conditions over time. The location and spacing of the MV monitoring wells are expected to vary, dependent upon a group of selected characteristics (i.e., geographic location, accessibility, age, well construction, well log availability, etc.). The approach described herein is intended to assist in the selection of monitoring locations that are sufficiently distinct from each other and address the issues bulleted above. 3.2 GROUNDWATER WELL NETWORK DEVELOPMENT PROCESS A database of wells in Martis Valley was developed as part of the GMP and modeling effort. The State well logs provided more than 700 wells; however, these were filtered to omit wells that had limited information available, shallow depths, and other factors that rendered them not useful for hydrogeologic evaluation. The database includes 197 wells that are presented in Figure 3-1, in which wells owned and operated by the three partners are distinguished from the others. These wells include municipal and private, monitoring and production, and are generally concentrated in the lowland areas of the basin surrounding the Truckee River and other surface waters. In addition to these wells, wells currently monitored by the State Department of Water Resources (DWR) are presented. DRAFT Monitoring Network 2-3 FIGURE 3-1. EXISTING WELLS IN MARTIS VALLEY 17N17E19K001M 18N17E33L001M DWR CASGEM WellDRAFT Monitoring Network 3-3 Development of a full well monitoring network will be a long-term process that is based on the scientific knowledge gained from the GMP and modeling effort that is currently underway. The network is currently limited to monitoring wells owned by TDPUD. This network includes a total of three wells that are presented in Table 3-1 along with pertinent well information. It is expected that ideal monitoring locations as related to the issues bulleted above will be scientifically resolved in the next few years. If existing wells, such as those shown in Figure 3-1, meet the monitoring well requirements described below and can be made available, they will be used. If existing wells cannot be used, the partners will seek funding and property rights to construct designated monitoring wells in these locations. It is anticipated that desired new monitoring sites will be prioritized based on value, availability of existing wells, feasibility of installing new wells, and cost. This prioritization will ensure optimal value relative to these constraints in establishing new monitoring locations until the full network is established. 3.3 MONITORING WELL REQUIREMENTS The following are criteria for selecting monitoring wells in the MV groundwater basin. Wells selected for monitoring should have: A State Well Driller Log that describes the well construction details and a description of the sediments encountered A detailed description of the well’s location A brief description of the well’s use (i.e. irrigation, residential) A relatively short screen interval in only one aquifer A sanitary seal to prevent surface water from entering the well Wells cannot be municipal (public) production wells for water supply The most desirable wells to be included in the monitoring network are wells with short screen intervals completed within a specified aquifer. However, some wells with longer screen intervals may need to be initially included in the network when no others are available. Wells with long screen intervals may also be designated for monitoring because their long historic records provide valuable trending information. Data obtained from the longer screen wells usually represents an average of groundwater elevations across the unconfined and semi-confined aquifers. DRAFT Figure 3‐1 Reference Index 1 2 3 State Well Number 17N16E01 17N16E01 17N16E13 Reference Point Elevation (ft ‐ NAVD88)5,843 5,904 5,796 Reference Point Description Ground Surface Elevation (ft ‐ NAVD88)5,839 5,900 5,792 Method of Determining Elevation Accuracy of Elevation (ft) Well Use Well Status Geographic Coordinates (NAD83, CA Z2) Latitude:39.354541 39.344834 39.325769 Longitude:‐120.14377 ‐120.156033 ‐120.143471 Method of Determining Coordinates Accuracy of Coordinates (ft) Well Completion Type Casing Diameter (in.)868 Total Depth (ft)1,197 1,220 1,040 Screen Intervals (2 ea.) (ft) First Screen:360 to 620 120 to 160 315 to 633 Second Screen:760 to 1,160 200 to 240 707 to 978 Well Completion Report Number 733242 E008043 733241 Year Drilled 2000 2003 2000 Common Name Prosser Village Fibreboard Martis Valley Well Location Description 12546 Fairway Drive 75 Yards Southwest of Building 12650 Caleb Circle On Path to Pond 12201 Joerger Road 50 Yards East of Building Single (All Three) TABLE 3‐1. SELECTED INFORMATION FOR CURRENT MONITORING WELLS IN MARTIS VALLEY GROUNDWATER BASIN Top of Casing (All Three) Digital Terrain Model (All Three) +/‐ 3 (All Three) Monitoring (All Three) Active (All Three) GPS (All Three) +/‐ 3 (All Three)DRAFT Figure 3‐1 Reference Index 17N17E19K001M 18N17E33L001M State Well Number 17N17E19K001M 18N17E33L001M Reference Point Elevation (ft‐ NAVD88)5862.8 5922.5 Reference Point Description Top of PVC Casing Top of PVC Casing Ground Surface Elevation (ft‐ NAVD88)5860 5920 Method of Determining Elevation Accuracy of Elevation (ft) Well Use Observation Observation Well Status Active Active Geographic Coordinates (NAD83) Latitude:39.3072 39.3653 Longitude -120.1315 -120.099 Method of Determining Elevation Accuracy of Elevation (ft) Well Completion Type Single Well Single Well Casing Diameter (in.)22 Total Depth (ft)201 200 Screen Intervals (ft)187‐197 180‐190 Well Completion Report Number N/A 365669 Year Drilled 1990 1990 Well Location Description 50 ft. South of Martis Creek Rd. 1000 ft. east of the intersection of Martis Creek Rd. and Hwy 267. Truckee Fire Protection District P.O. Box 686 Truckee, CA Unkown Surveying Within 0.1 ft. TABLE 3‐1 CONTINUED. SELECTED INFORMATION FOR DWR CASGEM MONITORING WELLS IN MARTIS VALLEY GROUNDWATER BASIN UnkownDRAFT Monitoring Network 3-5 3.4 REQUIRED STEPS IN SELECTING A NEW MV MONITORING WELL Upon selection of any new well, that is not currently a MV monitoring well, to be potentially included in the monitoring network, a site visit will be necessary to assess the field conditions. The conditions necessary for a well to be used in the network include: A well owner (and tenant) who will allow access for monitoring. All-weather access, key to locked gates or fences, and no guard dogs. Ability to survey the ground elevation and reference point elevation of the well. See Page 9 of the DWR Groundwater Elevation Monitoring Guidelines for details establishing the reference point. A clear access point through the pump or well casing for water-level sounders. Figure 3- 2 shows a typical well sounding location detail. An assessment to determine if lubrication oil from a turbine pump has accumulated in the well or if there are obstructions in the well that would prevent obtaining repeat and reliable measurements. If currently in use, to have access in shutting a well down for a minimum 2-hour period (24-hous preferred) for reaching quasi-equilibrium. For wells that are owned by others, private or public, the protocols discussed below shall be followed for explaining the project purpose and establishing rights for access. If a new monitoring well is to be installed, appropriate hydrogeologic investigation shall be made, a design that considers the specific needs of monitoring shall be prepared, and the well shall be drilled under the observation and direction of a hydrogeologist. DRAFT Monitoring Network 3-6 FIGURE 3-2. ACCESS POINT ON A WELL Before knocking on the door of potential well owners, every effort should be made to justify the need for the owner’s well in the network. Staff shall coordinate with Right-of-Way personnel to arrange a field visit if the owner allows it. The reason for monitoring and the benefits to long- term sustainability shall be described. Additionally, practical details about site access and how measurements are made shall be discussed. If the owner is interested in allowing their well into the network, the well shall be inspected for adequacy based on the bulleted criteria above. If the well is adequate, formal rights of entry shall be prepared by Right-of-Way personnel before proceeding. Any special contact information to perform the monitoring should also be noted along with information related to sites where a tenant is renting from the property owner. These steps will ensure consistent monitoring even though monitoring staff, tenants and well site access may change over time. Monitoring Access Point DRAFT Monitoring Equipment and Preparation 4-1 4.0 MONITORING EQUIPMENT AND PREPARATION This section provides the MV monitoring entities with a “how to” manual for accessing monitoring wells and, taking depth-to-groundwater measurements and water quality samples. The range of equipment and protocols covered in this section will assist monitoring staff with the challenges that exist in the field. Each time a well is accessed as part of a monitoring event, staff needs to conduct themselves in a professional manner by being prepared with the right equipment and looking prepared with the correctly labeled vehicle and clothing, and pertinent staff identification. Staff should also strive to maintain a good relationship with the well owners and demonstrate genuine courtesy. This section also provides relevant portions of the CASGEM Groundwater Elevation Monitoring Guidelines (Guidelines) handbook attached as Appendix A. The CASGEM handbook is intended for the following purpose: …Guidelines were developed to assist DWR by establishing criteria for the selection and measurement of monitoring wells in the event that DWR is required to perform the groundwater monitoring functions in lieu of a local monitoring agency pursuant to Water Code Section 10933.5(a). The Guidelines also imply that a local agency that wishes to take over an existing monitoring well or create a new monitoring well should follow a documented consistent approach for each well over the life of the well. Given the unique location, construction technique, and down-hole equipment installation, measurement of each well should endeavor to follow the Guidelines knowing that field conditions may require slight deviations. This endeavor leads to the need of having a specialized documented procedure for each monitoring well that ensures a consistent measurement technique over time (some wells dating back to the 1930s). Changes in the well setting, use, and equipment may change over time, requiring changes in monitoring techniques. Wells constructed for and devoted to monitoring the groundwater can also change depending on activities around the well that may artificially change the static condition of groundwater levels (e.g., construction and use of a nearby high-production municipal well) or the elevation of the well head (e.g., well is located in proposed paved area where the well head will be cut below grade with a sealed and locked access chamber flush to pavement). 4.1 PERSONNEL TRAINING All well monitoring programs are subject to turnover in agency staff. The best and most effective way of transitioning and training new staff is to have new staff work alongside the experienced staff during a transition period. Absent this on-the-job-training, thorough record keeping, periodic updating of the monitoring plan, and review of this document will expose new staff to the wells and the protocols followed from previous measurements. DRAFT Monitoring Equipment and Preparation 4-2 4.2 WELL MONITORING LOG BOOK (WMLB) The WMLB is the definitive field document that contains the following: Well owner and contact information Special entrance instructions (e.g., call at gate, honk horn, or dog off leash) A schematic identifying the location of the well (high-resolution aerial imagery can also be used if the monitoring well can be clearly identified) Pictures of the well including reference point and access port (See Figure 4-1) Checklist of special instructions based on well owner requirements or special conditions (i.e. – closed gates, protected wetlands, electrical power shut off, etc.) Equipment needed for measurement (i.e., some wells require walking a fair distance into the field, wrench to remove access plug) Ground and reference point elevations and source of measurement List of historical measurements and codes identifying questionable measurements or field conditions making measurements impossible Multiple wells can be in the same WMLB for convenience out in the field. This will likely be the case if multiple agencies will be making measurements within their respective jurisdiction. An example of the minimum data form and information kept for each well is taken from the CASGEM Guidelines, as shown on Figure 4-1. 4.2.1 Required Equipment The monitoring agency will need to compile a set of tools and have them stored in a designated location at the monitoring agency’s premises. The equipment should be in a locked toolbox that can easily be carried by one person, if needed. The CASGEM Guidelines include a list of field equipment needed for the initial well measurements, as shown on Figure 4-2. Once all wells have established reference points and measurement conditions, a shorter list of supplies can be assembled for field measurements as follows: Digital camera Crescent wrench (large and small) Channel lock pliers (large and small) Small hammer and rubber mallet DRAFT Monitoring Equipment and Preparation 4-3 Source: Table 3. General Well Data Form, CASGEM Guidelines, DWR, December 2010 FIGURE 4-1. GENERAL WELL DATA FORM (DWR FORM 429) DRAFT Monitoring Equipment and Preparation 4-4 FIGURE 4-2. CASGEM FIELD EQUIPMENT LIST Source: Table 4- Equipment and Supply List, CASGEM Guidelines, DWR, December 2010 DRAFT Monitoring Equipment and Preparation 4-5 Keys for gates and monitoring well covers Stop watch Wasp or hornet nest spray Twelve-foot tape measure Pencil and graph paper First aid kit Minimum Tools needed for actual in the field depth-to-groundwater measurements include: 200-foot well sounding steel tape measure Blue chalk for metal tape 200-foot electronic well sounding probe (See Figure 4-3) Soap, high-purity water, and spray bottle for cleaning tape and probe Sterilizer solution for tape and probe to prevent introducing contaminants to a the well FIGURE 4-3. WELL SOUNDING PROBE AND TAPE DRAFT Monitoring Equipment and Preparation 4-6 4.3 CHALLENGES TO BE PREPARED FOR The steps necessary to complete a measurement of depth to groundwater are different for each monitoring well. See Pages 14 through 28 of the DWR Groundwater Elevation Monitoring guidelines for details on measuring water levels. Monitoring staff will need to understand these steps before accessing the well’s property location. The WMLB will include a written and graphical stepwise illustration to fully inform monitoring staff. Consideration of how diversified the steps could be are illustrated in the following real-life examples: Well is located on hilly terrain with no defined access trail or markers – This type of well benefits from training new staff for at least two monitoring events. Absent the on- the-job experience the WMLB should be detailed enough in its descriptions and images to find the well. Steeper terrain may also require several trips to the vehicle for equipment to ensure free hands are available in case of a fall. Well has no access port or casing bolt – Many of the older wells and private domestic wells were not designed for dropping a tape measure or probe into the well. In these cases, the monitoring staff should clearly identify the access point by using orange utility marking spray paint while being careful to not get paint overspray into the well itself. Absent the paint identifier, the tape chalk can be used as well, but it may disappear over time due to rain and wind. Wells with only a small slit at the base of the concrete casing interface will require a tape measurement. Well can only be accessed when owner is home – This occurs in many cases where the well owner has to unlock a gate or simply wants to be home when the monitoring event occurs. In this case, an appointment is made by phone providing owner with a 1 hour or less window when monitoring staff will show up. In cases where this is needed to open a locked gate, the owner may allow access and then request that the gate be closed and locked when finished. Review the checklist in the WMLB before leaving the monitoring well. Well is running when monitoring staff arrive – If the well is a municipal production well or large agricultural well, it is best to work with the well owner to allow a 24-hour period of off-time before taking a measurement. If the well owner is not responsive to this request, ask to turn off the well upon arrival and monitor recovery. If the well is a private domestic well, ask if the water use can be turned off (typically a hydropneumatic tank will allow small quantities of water use without the well turning on) and monitor recovery as explained in next chapter. Well casing is set flush to the ground – This occurs when a well uses a submersible pump or no pump and no onsite hydropneumatic tank– in most cases this is a private well that may be abandoned or the tank is located away from well. In addition, wells with no visible casing can become covered with vegetation or debris and be difficult to find. In both cases, monitoring staff should stake the well and paint the wood stake orange. DRAFT Monitoring Equipment and Preparation 4-7 Reference point is missing or the wellhead has been replaced – This occurs if the reference point is not a permanent mark such as a cut or welded steel marker. This will also occur when a well is deepened or redrilled and the upper casing has been replaced. Monitoring staff will need to select a permanent mark (e.g., top of casing, monitoring hole) where the depth to groundwater can be measured. Monitoring staff should also measure the distance between the new reference point and the ground elevation at the base of the well. This measurement should be noted in the logbook.2 2 The elevation of the new reference point will be calculated by the assigned data entry personnel using the ground elevation from the original survey and the reference point distance measured by field staff. The data entry personnel will need to be careful if the groundwater elevation is an automated calculation (i.e., past measurements will need to keep the old reference point) in a spreadsheet or DMS. DRAFT Depth-to-groundwater Procedures and Frequency of Monitoring and Reporting 5-1 5.0 DEPTH-TO-GROUNDWATER PROCEDURES AND FREQUENCY OF MONITORING AND REPORTING The following section describes the frequency for monitoring and reporting and describes the depth-to-groundwater measurement during each of the designated monitoring periods. Figure 5- 1 provides a form for documenting these described field measurements. An alternate form can be used if desired as long as the salient information is included. See also Pages 5 through 7 of the DWR Groundwater Elevation Monitoring Guidelines for additional details. 5.1 SEMIANNUAL GROUNDWATER-LEVEL MONITORING Groundwater levels from all designated monitoring wells listed in Table 3-1 will be measured in the spring and fall (semiannually). Spring is generally considered to be the first week in May. Fall is generally considered to be the first week of November. If possible, all groundwater-level measurements should be taken within a 2-week period and, if possible, coordinate groundwater- level monitoring with DWR and its semiannual measurements. 5.2 DEPTH-TO-GROUNDWATER MONITORING PROCEDURES DWR’s Groundwater Elevation Monitoring Guidelines (see Appendix A) provide a complete set of procedures for measuring the depth to groundwater. The following procedures are included to supplement the CASGEM’s broader guidelines. Over time, as monitoring staff become familiar with the well sites, a customized list can be documented. Staff will find that steps and monitoring equipment identified in the Guidelines do not apply to the wells being measured in the MV region or additional steps are required. The one exception to the MV monitoring wells is those that are measured through a continuous data logger. It is expected that the agency owning these wells will be downloading data collected by these devices separately from the MV Monitoring Program. This section focuses on measuring the depth to groundwater at designated MV monitoring well sites using a sounding probe or metal tape. Water-level measurements will be collected semiannually to assess the groundwater flow direction and to detect trends that can lead to improved management of the groundwater resources. Each well has been assigned a unique Well Log identification (ID) number. The numbers and pertinent information for each well are listed in Table 3-1. Figure 6-1 (DWR Form 429, Page 11) extracted from the DWR’s CASGEM Monitoring Guideline Handbook, along with the time and date of the measurement is recorded with groundwater-level measurements during the semiannual monitoring event. DRAFT Depth-to-groundwater Procedures and Frequency of Monitoring and Reporting 5-2 FIGURE 5-1. GROUNDWATER-LEVEL DATA FORM FOR MANUAL MEASUREMENTS DRAFT Depth-to-groundwater Procedures and Frequency of Monitoring and Reporting 5-3 The depth-to-static-groundwater level will be obtained at each well using an electric water-level sounder with a cable graduated in increments of 0.01 foot. Before measurement, monitoring staff will need to review the WMLB for the location of the reference point and measurement access port. A crescent wrench may be needed to access the well casing for measurement. Monitoring staff will need to also review past measurements in the WMLB to allow for careful lowering of the probe or tape.3 To obtain a depth-to-water measurement, the electric sounder cable or tape will be lowered into the well to within 20 feet short of past measurements taken in the same season of the year, spring or fall. Monitoring staff will continue to slowly lower the probe through the access port until the sounder indicates submergence by either a beeping sound or a light, depending on the type of signal installed for that particular model. At this point, the sampling personnel will note the depth to water (to the nearest 0.01 foot) from the reference point. The depth will be confirmed by lifting the sounder above the water surface by about 2 to 3 feet and then remeasuring the depth to water. If the depth remains constant, the depth to water will be recorded on Figure 6-1 (DWR Form 1213, Page 18). If measurements are showing change with each measurement, the monitoring staff will indicate the issue on the form and, with it, attach a graphic curve of the variable nature of the measurement, and its possible cause (e.g., bouncing, recovering water level). 5.3 QUALITY CONTROL After completing their field work, the monitoring staff will enter the data into an electronic database management system. The monitoring staff will review the groundwater-level and water quality data for accuracy within 5 days of obtaining the measurements. Should a measurement appear suspicious, a groundwater level confirmation reading will be obtained. 3 Tape measurements will require chalking of the tape and repeated measurements as per the CASGEM Guidelines (Page 15). DRAFT Recording of Monitoring Data, Data Management and the CASGEM Requirements 6-1 6.0 RECORDING OF MONITORING DATA, DATA MANAGEMENT AND THE CASGEM REQUIREMENTS Once data is brought back from the field it will need to be digitized and loaded onto the CASGEM website. The partners will be collecting data from their respective wells and distributing it to the plan administrator, which is currently Placer County Water Agency. The Agency will function as the clearinghouse of all data that is relevant to the MV groundwater basin. In addition, the Agency will be the primary point of contact for the CASGEM Program and will upload all relevant data in a timely manner. The steps laid out currently for CASGEM participation are described as follows (see Appendix C, On-line Submittal System Manual): Phase 1 of the CASGEM System was released in December, 2010, and allows prospective Monitoring Entities to do the following: Create, edit, and submit notifications to become a Monitoring Entity Create and manage user accounts Create and manage agency information Submit GIS shapefiles of mapped monitoring areas Phase 2 of the CASGEM System, released in May, 2011, makes the following additional functions available to prospective Monitoring Entities: Submittal of groundwater monitoring plans Submittal of well construction and location information on monitoring wells proposed to be monitored Allow corrections to initial Monitoring Entity notifications or submittal of additional information requested by DWR Ability to view and query maps of groundwater basins, proposed monitoring areas, monitored wells, and other geographic information associated with the CASGEM Program Phase 3 of the CASGEM System, scheduled for release in late fall, 2011, will allow designated Monitoring Entities to do the following: DRAFT Recording of Monitoring Data, Data Management and the CASGEM Requirements 6-2 Submit groundwater elevation measurement data View and update their CASGEM data, as needed With Phase 3 of the CASGEM System, public access to the Statewide CASGEM data will be available. Users will be able to download data and view spatial and temporal groundwater elevation trends in the GIS viewer application. (URL: http://www.water.ca.gov/groundwater/casgem/submittal_system.cfm, On-line Submittal System, DWR) The Agency has already completed Phase 1 of the CASGEM Program. The next step requires entry of data for each of the monitoring wells included as part of this Monitoring Program. Figure 6-1 is taken from the CASGEM On-line System manual. The manual states that “Data may be entered on a well‐by‐well basis on a system data entry screen, or users can do a batch upload of information from multiple wells (using a spreadsheet template available for download within the system).” The latter will likely be the best method for entering the data given that most of the well information is already captured in an Excel Workbook. Data entry for groundwater elevations is not fully described but will likely be similar to the well inventory where a spreadsheet template can be uploaded for all groundwater-elevation data. The conversion of groundwater-elevation data from a database (including GIS) platform is typically straight forward with a copy-and-paste step or a small routine that outputs the data in the desired format. The inventory of Martis Valley well data will be based on DWR’s CASGEM Monitoring Plan Summary attached as Appendix B. The set of data fields used for each well will require a decision on its need based on Appendix B requirements. DRAFT Recording of Monitoring Data, Data Management and the CASGEM Requirements 6-3 FIGURE 6-1. CASGEM’S WELL INVENTORY INPUT FORMDRAFT Appendix A CASGEM Guidelines DRAFT Department of Water Resources Groundwater Elevation Monitoring Guidelines December 2010 DWR Groundwater Elevation Monitoring Guidelines DRAFT DWR Groundwater Elevation Monitoring Guidelines ii TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction to the CASGEM Program .......................................................................................................... 1 Purpose of Guidelines for DWR Monitoring ................................................................................................. 1 Network Design Concepts ............................................................................................................................. 2 Selection of Monitoring Wells for Monitoring Plans ................................................................................ 2 Frequency of Water‐Level Measurements ............................................................................................... 5 Field Guidelines for CASGEM Water‐Level Measurements .......................................................................... 8 Introduction .............................................................................................................................................. 8 Establishing the Reference Point .............................................................................................................. 9 Guidelines for Measuring Water Levels .................................................................................................. 14 Glossary of Terms .................................................................................................................................... 29 References .............................................................................................................................................. 33 DRAFT INTRODUCTION TO THE CASGEM PROGRAM On November 4, 2009 the state legislature amended the Water Code with SB 6, which mandates a statewide, locally-managed groundwater elevation monitoring program to track seasonal and long-term trends in groundwater elevations in California’s groundwater basins. To achieve that goal the amendment requires collaboration between local Monitoring Entities and the Department of Water Resources (DWR) to collect groundwater elevation data. In accordance with the amendment, DWR developed the California Statewide Groundwater Elevation Monitoring (CASGEM) program. If no local entities volunteer to monitor groundwater elevations in a basin or part of a basin, DWR may be required to develop a monitoring program for that part. If DWR takes over monitoring of a basin, certain entities in the basin may not be eligible for water grants or loans administered by the state. DWR will report findings of the CASGEM program to the Governor and the Legislature by January 1, 2012 and thereafter in years ending in 5 or 0. PURPOSE OF GUIDELINES FOR DWR MONITORING The following Guidelines were developed to assist DWR by establishing criteria for the selection and measurement of monitoring wells in the event that DWR is required to perform the groundwater monitoring functions in lieu of a local monitoring agency pursuant to Water Code Section 10933.5(a). The primary objective of the CASGEM monitoring program is to define the seasonal and long-term trends in groundwater elevations in California’s groundwater basins. The scale for this evaluation should be the static, regional groundwater table or potentiometric surface. A secondary objective is to provide sufficient data to draw representative contour maps of the elevations. These maps could be used to estimate changes in groundwater storage and to evaluate potential areas of overdraft and subsidence. Although it is not an objective of the CASGEM program, it would be valuable to include monitoring wells near localized features that impact more dynamic groundwater elevations. These features would include wells near aquifer storage and recovery projects, near high volume pumping wells, and near rivers. DWR Groundwater Elevation Monitoring Guidelines 1 DRAFT NETWORK DESIGN CONCEPTS SELECTION OF MONITORING WELLS FOR MONITORING PLANS The number of groundwater wells that need to be monitored in a basin to adequately represent static water levels (and corresponding elevations) depends on several factors, some of which include: the known hydrogeology of the basin, the slope of the groundwater table or potentiometric surface, the existence of high volume production wells and the frequency of their use, and the availability of easily-accessible monitoring wells. Dedicated groundwater monitoring wells with known construction information are preferred over production wells to determine static water levels, and monitoring wells near rivers or aquifer storage and recovery projects should be avoided due to the potential for rapidly fluctuating water levels and engineered groundwater systems. The selection of wells should be aquifer-specific and wells which are screened across more than one aquifer should not be candidates for selection. Heath (1976) suggested a density of groundwater monitoring wells ranging from 2 wells per 1,000 square miles (mi2) for a large area in which only major features are to be mapped, to 100 wells per 1,000 mi2 for a complex area to be mapped in considerable detail. The objective of the Heath (1976) design was to evaluate the status of groundwater storage and the areal extent of aquifers. Sophocleous (1983) proposed a redesign of a water-level monitoring program for the state of Kansas based on efficiency, economics, statistical analysis, comparison of water-level hydrographs, and consistency across the state. The Sophocleous study recommended a “square well network” with a density of 1 observation well per 16 mi2. The Texas Water Development Board proposed varying well network densities for counties according to the amount of groundwater pumpage. These densities range from 0.7 wells per 100 mi2 for counties with 1,000-2,500 acre-feet per year (AF/yr) of pumpage to 4 wells per 100 mi2 for counties with over 100,000 AF/yr of pumpage (Hopkins, 1994). These densities were converted to pumpage per 100 mi2 area by dividing by the size of an average county in Texas of about 1,000 mi2 (Table 2) Most designs of water-level monitoring programs rely on a probabilistic approach. Alley (1993) discussed four probabilistic designs: (1) simple random sampling throughout an aquifer; (2) stratified random sampling within different strata of an aquifer; (3) systematic grid sampling (e.g., at the midpoint of each section within an aquifer); and (4) random sampling within blocks (e.g., randomly selected wells within each section of an aquifer). The Sophocleous (1983) program used the third approach, systematic grid sampling. The guidelines on well density from the programs mentioned above are summarized in Table 2. Based on the few referenced studies with specific recommendations, the consensus appears to fall between 2 and 10 groundwater monitoring wells per 100 mi2. The DWR Groundwater Elevation Monitoring Guidelines 2 DRAFT exceptions to this density range include the lower end of the Heath (1976) range and the low-use counties in Texas. There will always be a tradeoff between the improved spatial (and temporal) representation of water levels in an aquifer and the expense of monitoring. A higher- resolution contour map would be warranted in an area with a greater reliance upon groundwater in order to anticipate potential problems, such as supply and groundwater contamination concerns, while a lower-resolution contour map might be sufficient in an area with few people or a low reliance upon groundwater. Ideally, areas with relatively steep groundwater gradients or areas of high recharge or discharge would have a greater density of monitoring wells. The illustrations in Figure 1 show a local groundwater elevation contour map developed with different numbers of wells. The examples cover the same area and use the same dataset, with wells randomly deleted by grid area from the full dataset to create a less dense network of wells. The resulting range of plotting density is 2 to 20 groundwater monitoring wells per 100 mi2. The contours in Figure 1 show how the accuracy and resolution of the contour map increases with the density of wells used for plotting. To avoid presenting misleading contour maps, only wells with the best possible elevation accuracies should be used. These accuracies are a combination of the accuracies in the water-level measurement and the reference point (RP) measurement. Unless the RP elevation has been surveyed, it will be the limiting factor on elevation accuracy. Program and(or) Reference Density of monitoring wells (wells per 100 mi2) Heath (1976) 0.2 – 10 Sophocleous (1983) 6.3 Hopkins (1994) (a) Basins with >10,000 AF/yr groundwater pumping per 100 mi2 area 4.0 (b) Basins with 1,000‐10,000 AF/yr groundwater pumping per 100 mi2 area 2.0 (c) Basins with 250‐1,000 AF/yr groundwater pumping per 100 mi2 area 1.0 (d) Basins with 100‐‐250 AF/yr groundwater pumping per 100 mi2 area 0.7 Table 1. Recommended density of monitoring wells for groundwater-level monitoring programs. DWR Groundwater Elevation Monitoring Guidelines 3 DRAFT Figure 1 per 100 undwater Ele 1. Contour mi2) compa evation Monit maps – Co ared to a lo toring Guideli ontours of a ow-density w a very high- well networ -density we rk (about 2 ell network ( wells per 1 (about 20 w 00 mi2). wells DWR Gro ines 4 DRAFT FREQUENCY OF WATER‐LEVEL MEASUREMENTS To determine and define seasonal and long-term trends in groundwater levels a consistent measurement frequency must be established. At minimum, semi-annual monitoring of the designated wells in each basin or subbasin should be conducted to coincide with the high and low water-level times of year for each basin. However, quarterly- or monthly-monitoring of wells provides a better understanding of groundwater fluctuations. The DWR office responsible for monitoring a particular basin should use independent judgment to determine when the high and low water-level times occur in a groundwater basin, and to provide a justification for measurement rationale. The semi-annual frequency is a compromise between more frequent measurements (continuous, daily, monthly, or quarterly) and less frequent measurements (annual). A good discussion of water level measurement frequency and other issues related to the design of water-level monitoring programs can be found in the USGS Circular 1217 (Taylor and Alley, 2001). An example of the effect of different measurement frequencies on the water-level hydrographs in a Northern California well is shown in Figure 2. The data shows that higher-frequency monitoring (e.g., daily or monthly) best captures the seasonal fluctuations in the groundwater levels, quarterly monitoring identifies some of the elevation change, but semi-annual measurements often miss the true seasonal highs and lows. Figure 2. Groundwater Hydrographs – Groundwater elevation changes in a monitoring well over time comparing various measurement frequencies. DWR Groundwater Elevation Monitoring Guidelines 5 DRAFT The Subcommittee on Ground Water of the Advisory Committee on Water Information generally recommends more frequent measurements than are being required by the CASGEM program; quarterly to annually for aquifers with very few groundwater withdrawals, monthly to quarterly for aquifers with moderate groundwater withdrawals, and daily to monthly for aquifers with many groundwater withdrawals (Table 2). The general effect of environmental factors on the recommended measurement frequency is illustrated in Figure 3. Measurement Type Aquifer Type Nearby Long‐Term Aquifer Withdrawals Very Few Withdrawals Moderate Withdrawals Many Withdrawals Baseline Measurements All aquifer types Once per month Once per day Once per hour Surveillance Measurements All aquifer types: “low” hydraulic conductivity (<200 ft/d), “low” recharge (<5 in/yr) Once per year Once per quarter Once per month All aquifer types: “high” hydraulic conductivity (>200 ft/d), “high” recharge (>5 in/yr) Once per quarter Once per month Once per day Data made available to NGWMN All aquifer types, throughout range of hydraulic conductivity As stored in local database, but at least annually As stored in local database, but at least annually As stored in local database, but at least annually Table 2. Information on recommended minimum water-level measurement frequency from the Subcommittee on Ground Water of the Advisory Committee on Water Information (2009) (abbreviations: ft/d, feet per day; in/yr, inches per year; NGWMN, National Ground Water Monitoring Network). NOTE: These are not recommendations of the CASGEM program. DWR Groundwater Elevation Monitoring Guidelines 6 DRAFT Figure 3. Common environmental factors that influence the choice of frequency of water-level measurements (from Taylor and Alley, 2001). DWR Groundwater Elevation Monitoring Guidelines 7 DRAFT FIELD GUIDE INTRODUCTION LINES FOR CASGEM WATER-LEVEL MEASUREMENTS This document presents guidelines for measuring groundwater levels in wells for the CASGEM program to ensure consistency between DWR offices. Following these guidelines will help ensure that groundwater level measurements are accurate and consistent in both unconfined and confined aquifers. Although a well network comprised entirely of dedicated monitoring wells (hereafter referred to as monitoring wells) is preferred, by necessity active production wells used for irrigation or domestic purposes and abandoned production wells that were used for domestic, irrigation, and public supply purposes will also need to be included. The portions of these guidelines that apply to only production wells will be shown in bold throughout. DWR does not currently plan to include public supply wells in the CASGEM well networks due to security concerns of the California Department of Public Health. The main reference used for these guidelines is the United States Geological Survey (USGS) National Field Manual (NFM) (U.S. Geological Survey, 2006). The final report of the Subcommittee on Groundwater (SOGW) of the Advisory Committee on Water Information was also used as a main reference, although in general it relied on the USGS guidelines (Subcommittee on Ground Water of the Advisory Committee on Water Information, 2009). The water-level measurement portion of the USGS guidelines were written for monitoring wells and not for production wells (Taylor and Alley, 2001; U.S. Geological Survey, 2006). Thus, although the USGS guidelines have been adopted with only minor modifications for the monitoring well guidelines of the CASGEM program, additional modifications have been incorporated in the guidelines for production wells. The most significant changes made to the USGS guidelines for production wells are: (1) reducing the required precision for consecutive depth to water measurements, (2) checking for obstructions in the well, and (3) not attaching weights to the steel tape so as not to hang up on obstructions. The guidelines presented in this document are for the use of steel tape, electric sounding tape, sonic water-level meters, or pressure transducers. Although the semi- annual measurements required by the CASGEM program can be satisfied with the use of a steel or electric sounding tape or sonic meter, a pressure transducer with a data logger provides a much better picture of what is happening with water levels over time. The use of the air-line or flowing-well methods should not be needed in most basins. However, if they are, guidelines for these methods are available in sections A4-B-4 (pages B17-B20) and A4-B-5 (pages B21-B24), respectively of the NFM (U.S. Geological Survey, 2006). DWR Groundwater Elevation Monitoring Guidelines 8 DRAFT ESTABLISHING THE REFERENCE POINT Water-level measurements from a given well must be referenced to the same datum (the reference point, or RP) to ensure data comparability (see Figure 4). For monitoring wells, the RP should be marked on the top of the well casing. For production wells, the RP will most likely be the top of the access tube or hole to the well casing. The RP must be as permanent as possible and be clearly visible and easily located. It can be marked with a permanent marker, paint, imprinting a mark with a chisel or punch, or by cutting a slot in the top of the casing. In any case, the location of the RP should be clearly described on DWR Form 429 (see Table 3). A photograph of the RP, with clear labeling, should be included in the well folder. In some cases, it may be valuable to establish multiple RPs for a well, depending on the consistent accessibility of the primary RP. In this case, each RP should be clearly described on DWR Form 429 and labeled in the field. The RP should be established with the following coordinate system: horizontal location (decimal latitude and longitude referenced to the North American Datum of 1983; NAD83) and vertical elevation (referenced to the North American Vertical Datum of 1988; NAVD88, in feet). The land-surface datum (LSD) is established by the person making the initial water-level measurement at the well. The LSD is chosen to represent the average elevation of the ground around the well. Because LSD around a well may change over time, the distance between the RP and LSD should be checked every 3 to 5 years. If appropriate, a concrete well pad or well vault may be chosen as the LSD, since they will be more permanent than the surrounding ground surface. The elevation of the RP can be determined in several ways: (1) surveying to a benchmark, (2) using a USGS 7.5’ quadrangle map, (3) using a digital elevation model (DEM), or (4) using a global positioning system (GPS). While surveying is the most accurate (± 0.1 ft), it is also the most expensive. Depending on the distance to the nearest benchmark, the cost can be prohibitive. The latitude and longitude of the well can be established accurately using a handheld GPS. From this information, the LSD can be located on a USGS quadrangle and the elevation estimated. However, the accuracy is only about ± one half of the contour interval. Thus, for a contour interval of 5 feet, the accuracy of the elevation estimate would be about ± 2.5 feet. The contour interval of high quality DEMs is currently about 30 feet. Therefore, the accuracy of using DWR Groundwater Elevation Monitoring Guidelines 9 DRAFT Figure 4. Groundwater-level measurements using a graduated steel tape (modified fro m U.S. Geological Survey, 2006). Reference Point (RP) Well Casing 1' 2' 3' 4' 5' 6' 7' 8' 9' 10' 11' 12' 1' 14' 13' 15' 16' Land Surface Datum (LSD)15.00' (Tape at RP)Water Surface (WS)Tape at Water Surface 12.10' (RP to WS)1.07'11.03' (LSD to WS)Calculation of Depth to Water Tape at RP 15.00' - Tape at WS -2.90' = RP to WS 12.10' - LSD to RP -1.07' = LSD to WS 11.03'2.9' (Tape at WS)DWR Groundwater Elevation Monitoring Guidelines 10 DRAFT able 3. General well data form (DWR Form 429). T DWR Groundwater Elevation Monitoring Guidelines 11 DRAFT DEMs to determine the elevation of the LSD is about ± 15 feet. While a handheld GPS unit is not very accurate for determining elevation, more expensive units with the Wide Area Augmentation System can be more accurate. However, GPS readings are subject to environmental conditions, such as weather conditions, overhead vegetative cover, topography, interfering structures, and location. Thus, the most common method of determining the elevation will probably be the use of USGS quadrangles. The method used needs to be identified on DWR Form 429 (Table 3). The important matter is that all measurements at a well use the same RP, as the elevation of that point can be more accurately established at a later date. The equipment and supplies needed for establishing the RP are shown in Table 4. If possible, establish a clearly displayed reference mark (RM) in a location near the well; for example, a lag bolt set into a nearby telephone pole or set in concrete in the ground. The RM is an arbitrary datum established by permanent marks and is used to check the RP or to re-establish an RP should the original RP be destroyed or need to be changed. Clearly locate the RP and RM on a site sketch that goes into the well folder (see Table 3). Include the distance and bearing between the RP and the RM and the height of the lag bolt above the ground surface. Photograph the site, including the RP and RM locations; draw an arrow to the RP and RM on the photograph(s) using an indelible marker, and place the photos in the well file. Table 4. Equipment and Supply List Equipment and supplies needed for (a) all measurements, (b) establishing permanent RP, (c) steel tape method, (d) electric sounding tape method, (e) sonic water-level meter, and (f) automated measurements with pressure transducer. (a) All measurements GPS instrument, digital camera, watch, calculator, and maps General well data form (DWR Form 429; see Table 3) Pens, ballpoint with non-erasable blue or black ink, for writing on field forms and equipment log books Well file with previous measurements Measuring tape, graduated in feet, tenths, and hundredths of feet Two wrenches with adjustable jaws and other tools for removing well cap Key(s) for opening locks and clean rags (b) Establishing a permanent reference point Steel tape, graduated in feet, tenths, and hundredths of feet Calibration and maintenance log book for steel tape Paint (bright color), permanent marker, chisel, punch, and(or) casing-notching tool DWR Groundwater Elevation Monitoring Guidelines 12 DRAFT Table 4. Equipment and Supply List (continued) (c) Steel tape method DWR field form 1213 (see Table 5) Steel tape, graduated in feet, tenths, and hundredths of feet Calibration and maintenance log book for steel tape Weight (stainless steel, iron, or other noncontaminating material – do not use lead) Strong ring and wire, for attaching weight to end of tape. Wire should be strong enough to hold weight securely, but not as strong as the tape, so that if the weight becomes lodged in the well the tape can still be pulled free. Carpenters’ chalk (blue) or sidewalk chalk Disinfectant wipes, and deionized or tap water for cleaning tape. (d) Electric sounding tape method DWR field form 1213 (see Table 5) Steel tape, graduated in feet, tenths, and hundredths of feet An electric tape, double-wired and graduated in feet, tenths, and hundredths of feet, accurate to 0.01 ft. Electric sounding tapes commonly are mounted on a hand-cranked and powered supply reel that contains space for the batteries and some device (“indicator”) for signaling when the circuit is closed. Electric-tape calibration and maintenance log book; manufacturer’s instructions. Disinfectant wipes, and deionized or tap water for cleaning tape. Replacement batteries, charged. (e) Sonic water-level meter method DWR field form 1213 (see Table 5) Temperature probe with readout and cable Sonic water-level meter with factory cover plate Custom sized cover plates for larger well diameters Replacement batteries (f) Automated measurements with pressure transducer Transducer field form (see Figures 1 and 2 in Drost, 2005: http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2005/1126/pdf/ofr20051126.pdf ) Transducer, data logger, cables, suspension system, and power supply. Data readout device (i.e., laptop computer loaded with correct software) and data storage modules. Spare desiccant, and replacement batteries. Well cover or recorder shelter with key. Steel tape (with blue carpenters’ chalk or sidewalk chalk) or electric sounding tape, both graduated in hundredths of feet. T e ools, including high-impedance (digital) multimeter, connectors, crimping tool, and contact-burnishing tool or artist’s raser. DWR Groundwater Elevation Monitoring Guidelines 13 DRAFT GUIDELINES FOR MEASURING WATER LEVELS Monitoring wells typically have a cap on the wellhead. After the cap is removed, the open top of the well is easily accessible for sampling water levels and water quality. If the well is to be sampled for water quality in addition to water level, the water-level measurement should be made before the well is purged. Before discussing the detailed measurement steps for different methods, some guidance is provided on the common issues of well caps, recovery time after pumping, and cascading water in a well. Well caps are commonly used in monitoring wells to prevent the introduction of foreign materials to the well casing. There are two general types of well caps, vented and unvented. Vented well caps allow air movement between the atmosphere and the well casing. Unvented well caps provide an airtight seal between the atmosphere and the well casing. In most cases it is preferred to use vented well caps because the movement of air between the atmosphere and the well casing is necessary for normal water level fluctuation in the well. If the cap is not vented the fluctuation of groundwater levels in the well will cause increased or decreased air pressure in the column of air trapped above the water in the casing. The trapped air can prevent free movement of the water in the casing and potentially impact the water level that is measured. Vented caps will allow both air and liquids into the casing so they should not be used for wells where flooding with surface water is anticipated or contamination is likely from surface sources near the well. Unvented well caps seal the top of the well casing and prevent both air and liquid from getting into the well. They are necessary in areas where it is anticipated that the well will be flooded from surface water sources or where contamination is likely if the casing is not sealed. Because the air above the water in the casing is trapped in the casing and cannot equalize with the atmospheric pressure, normal water level fluctuation may be impeded. When measuring a well with an unvented cap it is necessary to remove the cap and wait for the water level to stabilize. The wait time will vary with many different factors, but if several sequential water-level measurements yield the same value it can be assumed the water level has stabilized. Unlike monitoring wells, production wells have obstructions in the well unless it is an abandoned production well and the pump has been removed. In addition, the wellhead is not always easily accessible for monitoring water levels. Since pumping from the production wells will create a non-static water level, the water- level measurement should ideally not be made until the water level has returned to static level. However, this recovery time will vary from site to site. Some wells will recover from pumping level to static level within a few hours, while many wells will take much longer to recover. Some wells will recover from pumping level to static level within a few hours, while many wells will take much longer to recover. Thus, as a general recommendation, measurements should not be collected until 24 hours after pumping has ceased, however, site specific DWR Groundwater Elevation Monitoring Guidelines 14 DRAFT conditions may require deviating from this. The time since pumping should be noted on the field form. Water may enter a well above the water level, drip or cascade down the inside of the well, and lead to false water level measurements. Sometimes cascading water can be heard dripping or flowing down the well and other times it is discovered when water levels are abnormally shallow and/or difficult to determine. Both steel tapes and electric sounding tapes can give false readings. A steel tape may be wet from the point where water is entering the well making it hard to see the water mark where the tape intersects the water level in the well. An electric sounding tape signal may start and then stop as it is lowered down the well. If this happens, you can lightly shake the tape. The signal often becomes intermittent when water is running down the tape, but remains constant in standing water. On most electric sounding tapes, the sensitivity can be turned down to minimize false readings. It should be noted when a water level measurement is taken from a well with cascading water. (1) Steel Tape Method The graduated steel-tape (wetted-tape) procedure is considered to be the most accurate method for measuring water levels in nonflowing wells. A graduated steel tape is commonly marked to 0.01 foot. When measuring deep water levels (>500 ft), thermal expansion and stretch of the steel tape starts to become significant (Garber and Koopman, 1968). The method is most accurate for water levels less than 200 feet below land surface. The equipment and supplies needed for this method are shown in Table 4. The following issues should be considered with this method: • It may be difficult or impossible to get reliable results if water is dripping into the well or condensing on the well casing. • If the well casing is angled, instead of vertical, the depth to water should be corrected, if possible. This correction should be recorded in the field folder. • Check that the tape is not hung up on obstructions. Before making a measurement: 1. Maintain the tape in good working condition by periodically checking the tape for rust, breaks, kinks, and possible stretch. Record all calibration and maintenance data associated with the steel tape in a calibration and maintenance log book. 2. If the steel tape is new, be sure that the black sheen on the tape has been dulled so that the tape will retain the chalk. 3. Prepare the field forms (DWR Form 1213; see Table 5). Place any previous measured water-level data for the well into the field folder. DWR Groundwater Elevation Monitoring Guidelines 15 DRAFT 4. Check that the RP is clearly marked on the well and accurately described in the well file or field folder. If a new RP needs to be established, follow the procedures above. 5. In the field, wipe off the lower 5 to 10 feet of the tape with a disinfectant wipe, rinse with de-ionized or tap water, and dry the tape. 6. If possible, attach a weight to the tape that is constructed of stainless steel or other noncontaminating material to protect groundwater quality in the event that the weight is lost in the well. Do not attach a weight for production wells. Making a measurement: 1. If the water level was measured previously at the well, use the previous measurement(s) to estimate the length of tape that should be lowered into the well. Preferably, use measurements that were obtained during the same season of the year. 2. Chalk the lower few feet of the tape by pulling the tape across a piece of blue carpenter’s chalk or sidewalk chalk (the wetted chalk mark identifies that part of the tape that was submerged). 3. Slowly lower the weight (for monitoring wells only) and tape into the well to avoid splashing when the bottom end of the tape reaches the water. Develop a feel for the weight of the tape as it is being lowered into the well. A change in this weight will indicate that either the tape is sticking to the side of the casing or has reached the water surface. Continue to lower the end of the tape into the well until the next graduation (a whole foot mark) is at the RP and record this number on DWR Form 1213 (Table 5) next to “Tape at RP” as illustrated on Figure 4. 4. Rapidly bring the tape to the surface before the wetted chalk mark dries and becomes difficult to read. Record the number to the nearest 0.01 foot in the column labeled as “Tape at WS.” 5. If an oil layer is present, read the tape at the top of the oil mark to the nearest 0.01 foot and use this value for the “Tape at WS” instead of the wetted chalk mark. Mark an “8” in the QM column of DWR Form 1213 (see Table 5) to indicate a questionable measurement due to oil in the well casing. There are methods to correct for oil, such as the use of a relatively inexpensive water-finding paste. The paste is applied to the lower end of the steel tape and the top of the oil shows as a wet line and the top of the water shows as a distinct color change. Since oil density is about three-quarters that of water, the water level can be estimated by adding three-quarters of the thickness of the oil layer to the oil-water interface elevation (U.S. Geological Survey, 2006). DWR Groundwater Elevation Monitoring Guidelines 16 DRAFT 6. Subtract the “Tape at WS” number from the “Tape at RP” number and record the difference (to the nearest 0.01 ft) as “RP to WS”. This reading is the depth to water below the RP. 7. Wipe and dry off the tape and re-chalk based on the first measurement. 8. Make a second measurement by repeating steps 3 through 5, recording the time of the second measurement on the line below the first measurement (Table 5). The second measurement should be made using a different “Tape at RP” than that used for the first measurement. If the second measurement does not agree with the original within 0.02 of a foot (0.2 of a foot for production wells), make a third measurement, recording this measurement and time on the row below the second measurement with a new time. If more than two readings are taken, record the average of all reasonable readings. After making a measurement: 1. Clean the exposed portion of the tape using a disinfectant wipe, rinse with de-ionized or tap water, and dry the tape. Do not store a steel tape while dirty or wet. DWR Groundwater Elevation Monitoring Guidelines 17 DRAFT Table 5. Groundwater level data form for manual measurements (DWR Form 1213). DWR Groundwater Elevation Monitoring Guidelines 18 DRAFT (2) Electric Sounding Tape Method The electric sounding tape procedure for measuring depth to the water surface is especially useful in wells with dripping water or condensation, although there are still precautions needed as noted in the beginning of this section. Other benefits of this method include: • Easier and quicker than steel tapes, especially with consecutive measurements in deeper wells. • Better than steel tapes for making measurements in the rain. • Less chance for cross-contamination of well water than with steel tapes, as there is less tape submerged. The accuracy of electric sounding tape measurements depends on the type of tape used and whether or not the tape has been stretched out of calibration after use. Tapes that are marked the entire length with feet, tenths, and hundredths of a foot should be read to 0.01 ft. Electric sounding tapes are harder to keep calibrated than are steel tapes. As with steel tapes, electric sounding tapes are most accurate for water levels less than 200 ft below land surface, and thermal expansion and stretch start to become significant factors when measuring deep water levels (>500 ft) (see Garber and Koopman, 1968). Equipment and supplies needed for this method are shown in Table 4. The following issues should be considered with this method: • If the well casing is angled, instead of vertical, the depth to water will have to be corrected, if possible. This correction should be recorded in the field folder. • Check that the electric sounding tape is not hung up on an obstruction in the well. • The electric sounding tape should be calibrated annually against a steel tape in the field (using monitoring wells only) as follows: Compare water-level measurements made with the electric sounding tape to those made with a steel tape in several wells that span the range of depths to water encountered in the field. The measurements should agree to within ± 0.02 ft. If this accuracy is not met, a correction factor should be applied. All calibration and maintenance data should be recorded in a calibration and maintenance log book for the electric sounding tape. • Oil on the surface of the water may interfere with obtaining consistent readings and could damage the electrode probe. If oil is present, switch to a steel tape for the water-level measurement. • If using a repaired/spliced tape: see section A4-B-3(b) (page B16) of the NFM (U.S. Geological Survey, 2006). Before making a measurement: 1. Inspect the electric sounding tape and electrode probe before using it in the field. Check the tape for wear, kinks, frayed electrical connections and possible stretch; the DWR Groundwater Elevation Monitoring Guidelines 19 DRAFT cable jacket tends to be subject to wear and tear. Test that the battery and replacement batteries are fully charged. 2. Check the distance from the electrode probe’s sensor to the nearest foot marker on the tape, to ensure that this distance puts the sensor at the zero foot point for the tape. If it does not, a correction must be applied to all depth-to-water measurements. Record this in an equipment log book and on the field form. 3. Prepare the field forms (DWR Form 1213; see Table 5) and place any previous measured water-level data for the well into the field folder. 4. After reaching the field site, check that the RP is clearly marked on the well and is accurately described in the well file or field folder. If a new RP needs to be established, follow the procedures above. 5. Check the circuitry of the electric sounding tape before lowering the electrode probe into the well. To determine proper functioning of the tape mechanism, dip the electrode probe into tap water and observe whether the indicator needle, light, and/or beeper (collectively termed the “indicator” in this document) indicate a closed circuit. For an electric sounding tape with multiple indicators (sound and light, for instance), confirm that the indicators operate simultaneously. If they do not operate simultaneously, determine which is the most accurate and use that one. 6. Wipe off the electrode probe and the lower 5 to 10 feet of the tape with a disinfectant wipe, rinse with de-ionized or tap water, and dry. Making a measurement: 1. If the water level was measured previously at the well, use the previous measurement(s) to estimate the length of tape that should be lowered into the well. Preferably, use measurements that were obtained during the same season of the year. 2. Lower the electrode probe slowly into the well until the indicator shows that the circuit is closed and contact with the water surface is made. Avoid letting the tape rub across the top of the well casing. Place the tip or nail of the index finger on the insulated wire at the RP and read the depth to water to the nearest 0.01 foot. Record this value in the column labeled “Tape at RP”, with the appropriate measurement method code and the date and time of the measurement (see Table 5). 3. Lift the electrode probe slowly up a few feet and make a second measurement by repeating step 2 and record the second measurement with the time in the row below the first measurement in Table 5. Make all readings using the same deflection point on the indicator scale, light intensity, or sound so that water levels will be consistent between measurements. If the second measurement does not agree with the first measurement within 0.02 of a foot (0.2 of a foot for production wells), make a third measurement, DWR Groundwater Elevation Monitoring Guidelines 20 DRAFT recording this measurement with the time in the row below the second measurement. If more than two readings are taken, record the average of all reasonable readings. After making a measurement: 1. Wipe down the electrode probe and the section of the tape that was submerged in the well water, using a disinfectant wipe and rinse thoroughly with de-ionized or tap water. Dry the tape and probe and rewind the tape onto the tape reel. Do not rewind or otherwise store a dirty or wet tape. (3) Sonic Water-Level Meter Method This meter uses sound waves to measure water levels. It requires an access port that is 5/8 – inch or greater in diameter and measurement of the average air temperature in the well casing. The meter can be used to quickly measure water levels in both monitoring wells and production wells. Also, since this method does not involve contact of a probe with the water, there is no concern over cross contamination between wells. However, the method is not as accurate as the other methods, with a typical accuracy of 0.2 ft for water levels less than 100 ft or 0.2% for water levels greater than 100 ft. Equipment and supplies needed for this method are shown in Table 4. The following issues should be considered with this method: • The accuracy of the meter decreases with well diameter and should not be used with well diameters greater than 10 inches. • An accurate air temperature inside the well casing is necessary so that the variation of sound velocity with air temperature can be accounted for. • Obstructions in the well casing can cause erroneous readings, especially if the obstruction is close to half the well diameter or more. Before making a measurement: 1. Check the condition of the meter, especially the batteries. Take extra batteries to the field. 2. Take a temperature probe with a readout and 50-ft cable. 3. If open wellheads with diameter greater than the factory cover plate and less than 10 inches will be monitored, fabricate appropriately-sized cover plates using plastic or sheet metal. DWR Groundwater Elevation Monitoring Guidelines 21 DRAFT 4. Prepare the field forms (DWR Form 1213; see Table 5). Place any previous measured water-level data for the well into the field folder. 5. Check that the RP is clearly marked on the well and accurately described in the well file or field folder. If a new RP needs to be established, follow the procedures above. Making a measurement: 1. If the water level was measured previously at the well, lower the temperature probe to about half that distance in the well casing. Preferably, use measurements that were obtained during the same season of the year. 2. Record this temperature in the comments column of DWR form 1213 (see Table 5). Use this temperature reading to adjust the temperature toggle switch on the sonic meter. 3. Select the appropriate depth range on the sonic meter. 4. For a covered wellhead, insert the meter duct into the access port and push the power-on switch. Record the depth from the readout. 5. For an open wellhead, slip the provided cover plate onto the wellhead to provide a seal. If the cover plate is not large enough, use a fabricated cover plate for diameters up to 10 inches. Record the depth from the readout. After making a measurement: 1. Make sure the temperature probe and the sonic meter are turned off and put away in their cases. (4) Pressure Transducer Method Automated water-level measurements can be made with a pressure transducer attached to a data logger. Care should be taken to choose a pressure transducer that accurately measures the expected range of groundwater levels in a well. Pressure- transducer accuracy decreases linearly with increases in the depth range (also known as pressure rating). A pressure transducer with a depth range of 0 to 10 ft (0 to 4.3 psi) has an accuracy of 0.01 ft while a pressure transducer with a depth range of 0 to 100 ft (0 to 43 psi) has an accuracy of 0.1 ft. But if the measurement range exceeds the depth range of a pressure transducer, it can be damaged. So it is important to have a good DWR Groundwater Elevation Monitoring Guidelines 22 DRAFT idea of the expected range of groundwater levels in a well, and then refer to the manufacturer’s specification when selecting a pressure transducer for that well. Some of the advantages of automated monitoring include: • No correction is required for angled wells, as pressure transducers only measure vertical water levels. • A data logger can be left unattended for prolonged periods until data can be downloaded in the field. • Downloaded data can be imported directly into a spreadsheet or database. Some of the disadvantages of automated monitoring include: • It may be necessary to correct the data for instrument drift, hysteresis, temperature effects, and offsets. Most pressure transducers have temperature compensation built-in. • Pressure transducers operate only in a limited depth range. The unit must be installed in a well in which the water level will not fluctuate outside the operable depth range for the specific pressure transducer selected. Wells with widely fluctuating water levels may be monitored with reduced resolution or may require frequent resetting of the depth of the pressure transducer. • With some data loggers, previous water-level measurements may be lost if the power fails. There are two types of pressure transducers available for measuring groundwater levels; non-vented (absolute) and vented (gauged). A non-vented pressure transducer measures absolute pressure, is relative to zero pressure, and responds to atmospheric pressure plus pressure head in a well (see Figure 5). A vented pressure transducer measures gauge pressure, is relative to atmospheric pressure, and only responds to pressure head in a well. Non-vented pressure transducer data require post processing. Barometric pressure data must be collected at the same time as the absolute pressure data at the well, and subtracted from each absolute pressure data record before the data can be used to calculate groundwater levels. Thus, if a non-vented pressure transducer is used, a barometric pressure transducer will also be needed near the well. This subject is usually covered in more detail by the manufacturer of the pressure transducer. In an area with little topographic relief, a barometer at one site should be sufficient for use by other sites within a certain radius (9 miles reported by Schlumberger http://www.swstechnology.com/ groundwater-monitoring/groundwater- dataloggers/baro-diver and 100 miles reported by Global Water http://www.globalw.com/support/barocomp.html). In an area of significant topographic relief, it would be advisable to have a barometer at each site. DWR Groundwater Elevation Monitoring Guidelines 23 DRAFT Vented pressure transducers can be programmed so no post processing of the data is necessary. The vent is usually a small tube in the communication cable that runs from the back of the pressure transducer to the top of the well. This vent enables the pressure transducer to cancel the effect of atmospheric pressure and record groundwater level as the distance from the RP to the WS (see Figure 5). However, if the vent is exposed to excessive moisture or submerged in water it can cause failure and damage to the pressure transducer. The existing well conditions should be considered when deciding which type of pressure transducer to use. Non-vented pressure transducers should be used when the top of a well or its enclosure may at any time be submerged in water. This can happen when artesian conditions have been observed or are likely, the well is completed at or below the LSD, or the well or its enclosure are susceptible to periods of high water. Otherwise, it is advisable to use a vented pressure transducer. The following guidelines are USGS guidelines from Drost (2005) and Freeman and others (2004) for the use of pressure transducers. These USGS guidelines have not been incorporated as yet in the NFM. The equipment and supplies needed for automated measurements of water level using a pressure transducer are shown in Table 4. DWR Groundwater Elevation Monitoring Guidelines 24 DRAFT Top of Casing (RP) Well Casing Land Surface Datum (LSD)Hanging DepthWater Surface (WS)RP to WSLSD to WS Pressure Head Hanging Point Pressure Transducer Barometer Suspension Cable (P baro) (P meas) (Pw) Figure 5. Groundwater-level measurements using a pressure transducer (vented or non-vented) (modified from Drost, 2005). DWR Groundwater Elevation Monitoring Guidelines 25 DRAFT Before making a measurement: 1. Keep the pressure transducer packaged in its original shipping container until it is installed. 2. Fill out the DWR field form (Table 6), including the type, serial number, and range of measurement device; and what units are being measured (ft, psi). 3. Take a reading from the pressure transducer before placing into the well. For a vented pressure transducer the reading should be zero. For a non-vented pressure transducer the reading should be a positive number equivalent to atmospheric pressure. Configure the units (ft, psi) on a barometric pressure transducer the same as the non- vented pressure transducer. A reading from the barometric pressure transducer should be the same as the non-vented pressure transducer reading. 4. Lower the pressure transducer into the well slowly. Conduct a field calibration of the pressure transducer by raising and lowering it over the anticipated range of water-level fluctuations. Take two readings at each of five intervals, once during the raising and once during the lowering of the pressure transducer. Record the data on the DWR field form (see Table 6). If using a non-vented pressure transducer, take a reading from the barometric pressure transducer at the same time as the other readings. 5. Lower the pressure transducer to the desired depth below the water level (caution: do not exceed the depth range of the pressure transducer). 6. Fasten the cable or suspension system to the well head using tie wraps or a weatherproof strain-relief system. If the vent tube is incorporated in the cable, make sure not to pinch the cable too tightly or the vent tube may be obstructed. 7. Make a permanent mark on the cable at the hanging point, so future slippage, if any, can be determined. 8. Measure the static water level in the well with a steel tape or electric sounding tape. Repeat if measurements are not consistent within 0.02 ft (0.2 ft for production wells). 9. Record the well and RP configuration, with a sketch. Include the RP height above the LSD, the hanging point, and the hanging depth (see Figure 5). DWR Groundwater Elevation Monitoring Guidelines 26 DRAFT Table 6. Groundwater level data form for vented or non-vented pressure transducer with data logger. DWR Groundwater Elevation Monitoring Guidelines 27 DRAFT 10. Connect the data logger, power supply, and ancillary equipment. Configure the data logger to ensure the channel, scan intervals, units, etc., selected are correct. Activate the data logger. Most data loggers will require a negative slope in order to invert water levels for ground-water applications (i.e., distance from the RP to the WS). If using a non-vented pressure transducer the data logger will not require a negative slope, but atmospheric pressure data will need to be collected by a barometric pressure transducer. Making a measurement: 1. Retrieve water-level data (to 0.01 ft) using instrument or data logger software. If using a non-vented pressure transducer, retrieve barometric pressure data. 2. Measure the water level with a steel tape or electric sounding tape (to 0.01 ft) and compare the reading with the value recorded by the pressure transducer and data logger. Record the reading and time in the file folder. If using a non-vented pressure transducer, subtract the barometric pressure value from the transducer pressure value to obtain the water level pressure value. The water level pressure can then be multiplied by 2.3067 to convert from psi of pressure to feet of water (Freeman and others, 2004). Report the calculated water level to the nearest 0.01 ft. 3. If the tape and pressure transducer readings differ by more than (the greater of 0.2 ft or) two times the accuracy of the specific pressure transducer, raise the pressure transducer out of the water and take a reading to determine if the cable has slipped, or whether the difference is due to drift. The accuracy of a pressure transducer is typically defined as 0.001 times the full scale of the pressure transducer (e.g., a 0 to 100 ft pressure transducer has a full scale of 100 ft). The accuracy of a specific pressure transducer should be specified by the manufacturer’s specifications. 4. If drift is significant, recalibrate the pressure transducer as described using a steel tape. If using a non-vented pressure transducer, keep the pressure transducer out of the water and calibrate to the barometric pressure transducer value. If field calibration is not successful, retrieve the transducer and send back to the manufacturer for re- calibration. 5. Use the multimeter (see Table 4) to check the charge on the battery, and the charging current supply to the battery. Check connections to the data logger, and tighten as necessary. Burnish contacts if corrosion is occurring. 6. Replace the desiccant, battery (if necessary), and data module. Verify the data logger channel and scan intervals, document any changes to the data logger program and activate the data logger. 7. If possible, wait until data logger has logged a value, and then check for reasonableness of data. DWR Groundwater Elevation Monitoring Guidelines 28 DRAFT GLOSSARY OF TERMS The following terms are used in this document. Although many are commonly used in the groundwater- and data-management fields, they are defined here to avoid confusion. Aquifer – A geologic formation from which useable quantities of groundwater can be extracted. A confined aquifer is bounded above and below by a confining bed of distinctly less permeable material. The water level in a well installed in a confined aquifer stands above the top of the confined aquifer and can be higher or lower than the water table that may be present in the material above it. In some cases, the water level can rise above the ground surface, yielding a flowing well. An unconfined aquifer is one with no confining beds between the saturated zone and the ground surface. The water level in a well installed in an unconfined aquifer stands at the same level as the groundwater outside of the well and represents the water table. An alternative and equivalent definition for an unconfined aquifer is an aquifer in which the groundwater surface is at atmospheric pressure. Atmospheric or barometric pressure – The force per unit area exerted against a surface by the weight of the air above that surface at any given point in the Earth’s atmosphere. At sea level, the atmospheric pressure is 14.7 psi. As elevation increases, atmospheric pressure decreases as there are fewer air molecules above the ground surface. The atmospheric pressure is measured by a barometer. This pressure reading is called the barometric pressure. Weather conditions can increase or decrease barometric pressure. Blue carpenter’s chalk – A primarily calcium carbonate chalk with some silica. It is primarily used to make chalk-lines for long lasting bright marks. Some other formulations of chalk (e.g., sidewalk chalk) substitute different ingredients such as rice starch for silica. Data logger – A microprocessor-based data acquisition system designed specifically to acquire, process, and store data. Data usually are downloaded from onsite data loggers for entry into office data systems. The storage device within a data logger is called the data module. A desiccant, such as, silica gel, calcium sulfate, or calcium chloride, is used to absorb and keep moisture away from the data module. Dedicated monitoring well – A well designed for the sole purpose of long-term monitoring. DWR Groundwater Elevation Monitoring Guidelines 29 DRAFT Domestic well – A water well used to supply water for the domestic needs of an individual residence or systems of four or fewer service connections. DWR Bulletin 118 – DWR publication on the status of California’s groundwater. Prior to this 2003 update, the latest Bulletin 118 was published in 1980. This publication defines the 515 basins to be monitored in the SB 6 monitoring program. The report reference is: California Department of Water Resources, 2003, California’s groundwater: Bulletin 118, 246 p., available online at: http://www.water.ca.gov/pubs/groundwater/bulletin_118/california's_groundwater__b ulletin_118_-_update_2003_/bulletin118_entire.pdf Electric sounding tape – This term is used in this document to mean both the electric tape and the electrode probe attached to the end of the tape. This water-level measuring device is also known by many other names, including a sounder, an electric tape, an E tape, an electric sounder, an electric well sounder, a depth sounder, etc. Electrode probe – This is the electronic sensor in the electronic sounder attached to the end of the electric tape. It senses water based on the electrical conductivity and triggers an alert. GPS – This stands for global positioning system. These devices come in many sizes and costs. The handheld devices are capable of very accurate locations in the xy plane (latitude longitude). However, only very expensive and large GPS units are currently capable of accurate readings for the altitude (z direction). Groundwater – Water occurring beneath the ground surface in the zone of saturation. Groundwater basin – An alluvial aquifer or a stacked series of alluvial aquifers with reasonably well-defined boundaries in a lateral direction and having a definable bottom. Groundwater elevation – The elevation (generally referenced to mean sea level as the datum) to which water in a tightly cased well screened at a given location will rise. Other terms that may be used include groundwater level, hydraulic head, piezometric head, and potentiometric head. Groundwater surface – The highest elevation at which groundwater physically occurs in a given location in an aquifer (i.e., top of aquifer formation in a confined aquifer and the groundwater level or water table in an unconfined aquifer). Also referred to as a water surface in this document. DWR Groundwater Elevation Monitoring Guidelines 30 DRAFT Groundwater subbasin – A subdivision of a groundwater basin created by dividing the basin using geologic and hydrologic conditions or institutional boundaries. Hysteresis – The maximum difference in output, at any measured value within the specified range, when the value is approached first with an increasing and then a decreasing measured property. Hysteresis is expressed in percent of the full-scale output. Instrument Drift – A change in instrument output over a period of time that is not a function of the measured property. Drift is normally specified as a change in zero (zero drift) over time and a change in sensitivity (sensitivity drift) over time. Irrigation well – A well used to irrigate farmland. The water from the well is not intended for domestic purposes. Metadata – “data about data”; it is the data describing context, content and structure of records and their management through time. NFM – This stands for National Field Manual. This is a living, online, document of the USGS. It is the protocol document for USGS methods of surface water, groundwater, and water quality field activities. The portion of the NFM that related to the field methods of collecting groundwater levels is in the following reference: U.S. Geological Survey, 2006, Collection of water samples (ver. 2.0): U.S. Geological Survey Techniques of Water-Resources Investigations, book 9, chap. A4, September, accessed 12/30/09 at: http://pubs.water.usgs.gov/twri9A4/ Nonflowing well – A well in which the water level is below the land surface. Pressure head – The height of a column of groundwater above a point that is supported by pressure at that point. Pressure transducer – A type of measurement device that converts pressure-induced mechanical changes into an electrical signal. Production well – A well with a pump installed that is used to bring groundwater to the land surface. This is a general term that can be applied to a domestic well, irrigation well, or public-supply well. DWR Groundwater Elevation Monitoring Guidelines 31 DRAFT Public-supply well – A well that pumps groundwater from a relatively extensive saturated area and is used as part of a public water system, supplying water for human consumption to at least 3,300 people. SOGW – This stands for Subcommittee on Groundwater. This is a subcommittee of the Advisory Committee on Water Information, which is developing a national framework for groundwater in the United States. The reference for the SOGW work is: Subcommittee on Ground Water of the Advisory Committee on Water Information, 2009, A national framework for ground-water monitoring in the United States: final version approved by the Advisory Committee on Water Information, June 2009, 78 p., accessed 1/11/10 at: http://acwi.gov/sogw/pubs/tr/index.html Static water level – Groundwater level in a well during non-pumping conditions. Vent tube – A tube in the cable which connects to the pressure transducer, allowing atmospheric pressure to be in contact with one side of the strain gauge in the pressure sensor. It cancels out the barometric effects in the readings. Well casing – The metal or plastic pipe separating the well from the surrounding geologic material. Wellhead – The top of the well containing the casing hanger and the point at which the motor is attached for a vertical line shaft turbine pump or where the seal is secured for a submersible pump. Well purging – Pumping out standing groundwater from a monitoring well. This is done prior to water quality sampling of wells, but not before taking a water-level measurement. DWR Groundwater Elevation Monitoring Guidelines 32 DRAFT REFERENCES Alley, W.M., ed., 1993, Regional ground-water quality: New York, Van Nostrand Reinhold, 634 p. Department of Water Resources, 2003, California’s groundwater: Bulletin 118, 246 p., available online at: http://www.water.ca.gov/pubs/groundwater/bulletin_118/california's_groundwater__b ulletin_118_-_update_2003_/bulletin118_entire.pdf Drost, B.W., 2005, Quality-assurance plan for ground-water activities, U.S. Geological Survey, Washington Water Science Center: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2005-1126, 27 p., available online at: http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2005/1126/pdf/ofr20051126.pdf Freeman, L.A., Carpenter, M.C., Rosenberry, D.O., Rousseau, J.P., Unger, R., and McLean, J.S., 2004, Use of submersible pressure transducers in water-resources investigations: U.S. Geological Survey Techniques of Water-Resources Investigations, book 8, chapter A3, 52 p., available online at: http://pubs.usgs.gov/twri/twri8a3/pdf/twri8-a3.pdf Garber, M.S., and Koopman, F.C., 1968, Methods of measuring water levels in deep wells: U.S. Geological Survey Techniques of Water-Resources Investigations, book 8, chap. A1, 23 p., available online at: http://pubs.usgs.gov/twri/twri8a1/pdf/twri_8- A1_a.pdf Heath, R.C., 1976, Design of ground-water level observation-well programs: Ground Water, v. 14, no. 2, p. 71–77. Hopkins, J., 1994, Explanation of the Texas Water Development Board groundwater level monitoring program and water-level measuring manual: UM-52, 53 p., available online at: http://www.twdb.state.tx.us/publications/manuals/UM-52/Um-52.pdf Sophocleous, M., 1983, Groundwater observation network design for the Kansas groundwater management districts, U.S.A.: Journal of Hydrology, vol. 61, pp. 371-389. Subcommittee on Ground Water of the Advisory Committee on Water Information, 2009, A national framework for ground-water monitoring in the United States: final version approved by the Advisory Committee on Water Information, June 2009, 78 p., accessed 1/11/10 at: http://acwi.gov/sogw/pubs/tr/index.html DWR Groundwater Elevation Monitoring Guidelines 33 DRAFT DWR Groundwater Elevation Monitoring Guidelines 34 Taylor, C.J., and Alley, W.M., 2001, Ground-water-level monitoring and the importance of long-term water-level data: U.S. Geological Survey Circular 1217, 68 p., available online at: http://pubs.usgs.gov/circ/circ1217/pdf/circ1217_final.pdf U.S. Geological Survey, 2006, Collection of water samples (ver. 2.0): U.S. Geological Survey Techniques of Water-Resources Investigations, book 9, chap. A4, September, accessed 12/30/09 at: http://pubs.water.usgs.gov/twri9A4/ DRAFT Appendix B CASGEM Monitoring Plan Summary DRAFT 1 CASGEM Monitoring Plan Summary The goal of the CASGEM program is to regularly and systematically monitor groundwater elevations that demonstrate seasonal and long-term trends in California’s groundwater basins and to make this information readily and widely available to the public. The CASGEM program will rely and build on the many, established local long- term groundwater monitoring and management programs. In determining what information should be reported to DWR, the department will defer to existing monitoring programs if those programs result in information that demonstrates seasonal and long-term trends in groundwater elevations. Monitoring Entities may submit an existing groundwater monitoring plan that is part of a groundwater adjudication program, an AB3030 program, an IRWM program, or any other groundwater management program that satisfies the goals of CASGEM. If there are future changes in a monitoring plan that is already established with CASGEM, the Monitoring Entity should provide an update to DWR at that time. Monitoring Plan Overview Phase 2 of the CASGEM Online Submittal System will be available on May 18, 2011 for prospective Monitoring Entities to submit their groundwater elevation monitoring plans and detailed well information. Each CASGEM monitoring plan should describe the monitoring network and the monitoring plan rationale. The description of the well network should allow users of the CASGEM database to understand well coverage within the basin or subbasin. The monitoring plan rationale explains how the proposed monitoring is designed to capture the seasonal highs and lows and long-term groundwater elevation trends. The basic components of a CASGEM monitoring plan include the following: • discussion of the well network, • map(s) of the well network, • monitoring schedule, • description of field methods, • discussion of the role of cooperating agencies, if applicable, and • description of the monitoring plan rationale. The monitoring rationale, which explains how the plan will result in groundwater elevation data that demonstrates seasonal and long-term trends, may discuss any or all of the following information: • history of groundwater monitoring in the basin, • principal aquifer features of the basin (for example, multiple aquifers), DRAFT 2 • groundwater conditions in the basin (for example, types, locations and timing of recharge and discharge), • selection of wells for the CASGEM monitoring program (number, depths and distribution of the wells), and • selection of the monitoring schedule. If the well network contains any data gaps, the monitoring plan should also discuss the following: • location and reason for gaps in the well monitoring network, • local issues and circumstances that limit or prevent groundwater monitoring, and • recommendations for future well locations (assuming funding for new wells or permission for access to existing wells becomes available). Maps The monitoring plan can include maps that show well locations, the boundaries of the area to be monitored and, ideally, the Monitoring Entity’s jurisdictional boundary. The optimal density of monitoring locations will depend on the complexity of the basin. If multiple aquifers are present in a basin, maps depicting how each of the aquifers is monitored are useful. The location of gaps in the monitoring network and the location of potential future monitoring wells can also be identified on each map. A table that provides a list of wells could also be used to identify the wells in the network. Schedule The monitoring schedule should provide a clear description of the frequency and timing of monitoring. To demonstrate seasonal and long-term trends in groundwater elevations, basin-wide monitoring should be conducted at least twice a year to measure the seasonal high and seasonal low groundwater elevations for the basin. The seasonal high and low groundwater elevations typically occur in early spring and in summer or fall, respectively, but may vary from basin to basin. Monitoring data collected in more frequent intervals can also be submitted to CASGEM. The online system will be designed to accept a maximum frequency of daily measurements for each well. To ensure that each round of monitoring represents a snapshot in time for conditions in the basin or subbasin, it will be important to schedule each round of measurements for all the wells in the network within the narrowest possible window of time. To provide the details of the monitoring schedule, the plan should contain a table detailing the time and frequency of monitoring for each of the wells in the monitoring network. Field Methods Field methods are the standard procedures for the collection and documentation of groundwater elevation data. A description of field methods provides an indicator of the DRAFT 3 quality, consistency and reliability of monitoring data to the users of the CASGEM database. Many Monitoring Entities already have established field methods for their groundwater monitoring programs that meet the following basic requirements: • step-by-step instructions to establish the Reference Point, • methods for recording measurements, • methods to ensure the measurement of static (non-pumping) groundwater conditions, • step-by-step instructions to measure depth to water, and • forms for recording measurements. Each Monitoring Entity will develop and implement monitoring protocols appropriate for the local groundwater basin conditions. Monitoring Entities who do not have established monitoring protocols can request assistance from DWR Region Offices to help develop appropriate protocols. Well Information In addition to the monitoring plan, each Monitoring Entity will also input the following detailed well information into the CASGEM Online Submittal System: • Local well ID and/or State Well Number • Reference Point Elevation (feet, NAVD88) • Reference Point description • Ground Surface Elevation (feet NAVD88) • Method of determining elevation • Accuracy of elevation method • Well Use • Well Status (active or inactive) • Well coordinates (decimal lat/long, NAD83) • Method of determining coordinates • Accuracy of coordinate method • Well Completion type (single or multi-completion) • Total depth (feet) • Top and bottom of screened intervals (up to 10 intervals) • Well Completion Report number • Groundwater basin of well (or subbasin or portion) • Written description of well location • Any additional comments Groundwater Elevation Information (to be developed under Phase 3) Phase 3 development of the CASGEM Online Submittal System will be available in late fall 2011. Phase 3 will enable Monitoring Entities to submit their groundwater elevation data and will provide public access to view the CASGEM database. DRAFT 4 Monitoring Entities will submit the following groundwater elevation information for each well during each round of monitoring: • Well identification number • Measurement date • Reference point elevation of the well (feet) using NAVD88 vertical datum • Elevation of land surface datum at the well (feet) using NAVD88 vertical datum • Depth to water below reference point (feet) (unless no measurement was taken) • Method of measuring water depth • Measurement Quality Codes o If no measurement is taken, a specified “no measurement” code, must be recorded. Standard codes will be provided by the online system. If a measurement is taken, a “no measurement” code is not recorded.) o If the quality of a measurement is uncertain, a “questionable measurement” code can be recorded. Standard codes will be provided by the online system. If no measurement is taken, a “questionable measurement” code is not recorded.) • Measuring agency identification • Measurement time (PST/PDT with military time/24 hour format) • Comments about measurement, if applicable DRAFT Martis Valley Groundwater Management Plan E P:\40000\140691 - PCWA Martis Valley GWP\GMP\Report\Final\Martis Valley GMP Final 4-18-13.docx Appendix E: Groundwater Quality Reports DRAFT IN THIS ISSUE: WATER QUALITY REPORT MARTIS VALLEY WATER SYSTEM for 2011 (Reported in 2012) PPlacer County Water Agency isproud to supply safe andhealthy water. We are pleasedto report that the drinking water sup-plied to you meets or exceeds stateand federal public health standardsfor drinking water quality and safety. California water retailers, includ-ing PCWA, are required by law toinform customers about the qualityoftheir drinking water. The resultsof PCWA’s testing and monitoringprograms of 2011 are reported inthis newsletter. If you have any questions aboutthis report, please contact the PCWACustomer Services Center at (530)823-4850 or (800) 464-0030. PCWA Water is Safe and Healthy About YourDrinking Water DDrinking water, including bottledwater,may reasonably beexpected to contain at leastsmall amounts of some contaminants.The presence of contaminants doesnot necessarily indicate that water posesa health risk. More information aboutcontaminants and potential healtheffects can be obtained by calling theU.S. Environmental ProtectionAgency's Safe Drinking WaterHotline:1-800-426-4791 Groundwater SupplyThe Source of Your Water Supply WWater for the PCWA Martis Valley service area in eastern Placer County ispumped from the Martis Valley aquifer. Groundwater is drawn from twowells, approximately 900 feet in depth, located adjacent to Lahontan Driveand Schaffer Mill Road. Water is distributed to customers via pipeline. Martis Valley Service Area Ensuring The Safety ofYour Drinking Water Supply II n order to ensure that tap water is safe to drink, the U.S. EnvironmentalProtection Agency (USEPA) and the state Department of Public Health pre-scribe regulations which limit the amount of certain contaminants in waterprovided by public water systems. State regulations also establish limits forcontaminants in bottled water that must provide the same protection for pub-lic health. UPDATEUPDATE PLACER COUNTY WATER AGENCY VOL 26 NO 2 APRIL-MAY 2012 DRAFT PAGE 2 • PCWA UPDATE Placer County Water AgencyConsumer Confidence Report for 2011 (Reported in 2012)MARTIS VALLEY Water System Primary Drinking Water Standards Constituent Units State MCL PHG (MCLG) Range and Typical Source or {MRDL} or {MRDLG} Average of Contaminant or (HRAA) Chlorine mg/L {4}{4}0.4-1.17 Drinking water disinfectant (0.89)added for treatment Arsenic ug/L 10 0.004 0-2 Erosion of natural deposits; runoff 1 from orchards, glass and electronics production wastes Secondary Drinking Water Standards Total Dissolved Solids mg/L 1000 None 120-130 Runoff, leaching 125 from natural deposits Specific Conductance uS/cm 1600 None 180-190 Substances that form 185 Ions when in water Chloride mg/L 500 None 1.3-1.8 Runoff, leaching 1.55 from natural deposits Sulfate mg/L 500 None 0.93-1.3 Runoff, leaching 1.12 from natural deposits MCL: Maximum Contaminant Level. The highest level of a contaminant that is allowed in drinking water. Primary MCL’s are set as close to the PHG’s (or MCLG’s) as is economically and technologically feasible. Secondary MCL's are set to protect the odor, taste and appearance of drinking water. MCLG: Maximum Contaminant Level Goal.The level of a contaminant in drinking water below which there is no known or expected risk to health. Set by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. MRDL: Maximum Residual Disinfectant Level.The highest level of a disinfectant allowed in drinking water. There is convincing evidence that addition of a disinfectant is necessary for control of microbial contami- nants. MRDLG: Maximum Residual Disinfectant Level Goal.The level of a drinking water disinfectant below which there is no known or expected risk to health. MRDLG’s do not reflect the benefits of the use of disinfectants to control microbial contaminants. Primary Drinking Water Standard.MCL's and MRDL’s for contaminants that affect health along with their monitoring and reporting requirements, and water treatment requirements. PHG: Public Health Goal.The level of a contaminant in drinking water below which there is no known or expected risk to health. PHG's are set by the California Environmental Protection Agency. AL: Action Level.The concentration of a contaminant, which if exceeded, triggers treatment or other requirements which a water system must follow. NTU: Nephelometric Turbidity Units.A measure of the clarity of water. Turbidity is monitored because it is a good indicator of water quality. High turbidity can hinder the effectiveness of disinfectants. TT: Treatment Technique. A required process intended to reduce the level of a contaminant in drinking water. pCi/L: picocuries per liter.A measure of radiation. mg/L: milligrams per liter or parts per million (ppm) ug/L: micrograms per liter or parts per billion (ppb) uS/cm: MicroSiemens per centimeter. HRAA: Highest Running Annual Average <: Less Than ND: ND or Non-Detected:An analysis result below detectable levels. NA: Non-Applicable DEFINITIONS: Understanding Your Water Quality Report Constituent No. of 90th Percentile No. of Sites AL PHG Typical Source Samples Level Detected exceeding AL of Contaminant Collected Copper (mg/L) 5 0.14 0 1.3 0.3 Internal corrosion of household water plumbing systems; erosion of natural deposits; leaching from wood preservatives STATEMENT ON LEAD (None found in this system),If present, elevated levels of lead can cause serious health problems, especially for pregnant women and young children. Lead in drinking water is primarily from materials and components associated with service lines and home plumbing. PCWA is responsible for providing high quality drinking water, but cannot control the variety of materials used in plumbing components. When your water has been sitting for several hours, you can minimize the potential for lead exposure by flushing your tap for 30 seconds to 2 minutes before using water for drinking or cooking. If you are concerned about lead in your water, you may wish to have your water tested. Information on lead in drinking water, testing methods, and steps you can take to minimize exposure is available from the Safe Drinking Water Hotline or at http://www.epa.gov/safewater/lead.DRAFT PAGE 3 • PCWA UPDATE Este informe contiene información muy importante sobre su agua potable. Tradúzcalo o hable con alguien que lo entienda bien. Monitoring of Unregulated Substances Constituent Units State MCL PHG (MCLG) Range Typical Source (or MRDL)(or MRDLG) (Average) of Contaminant Sodium mg/L None None 7.9-8.7 Runoff, leaching from (8.3)natural deposits Hardness mg/L None None 75-80 Runoff, leaching from (77.5)natural deposits Radon 222 pCi/L None None 930-1600 Erosion of (1198)natural deposits Radon samples were last collected in 2001. There is no current requirement to monitor for Radon in drinking water. See below. TThe sources of drinking water (both tap and bottledwater) include rivers, lakes, streams, ponds, reser-voirs, springs and wells. As water travels over thesurface of the land or through the ground, it dis-solves naturally-occurring minerals and, in somecases, radioactive material, and can pick up substances resultingfrom the presence of animals or from human activity. Contaminants that may be present in source water include:• Microbial contaminants, such as viruses and bacteria, whichmay come from sewage treatment plants, septic systems, agricul-tural livestock operations, and wildlife.• Inorganic contaminants, such as salt and metals, which can be naturally-occurring or result from urban storm water runoff,industrial or domestic wastewater discharges, oil and gas produc-tion, mining or farming.• Pesticides and herbicides, that may come from a variety ofsources such as agriculture, urban storm water runoff and resi-dential uses.• Organic chemical contaminants, including synthetic andvolatile organic chemicals, which are by-products of industrialprocesses and petroleum production, and can also come from gasstations, urban storm water runoff, agricultural application andseptic systems.• Radioactive contaminants, that can be naturally-occurring orbe the result of oil and gas production and mining activities. 2011 Testing ResultsMeasurements reported here were collected in 2011 (unlessotherwise noted).In accordance with federal regulations,data isfrom the most recent tests. We are allowed to monitor for somecontaminants less than once per year because concentrations ofthese contaminants do not change frequently. Note to At-Risk Water Users SSome people may be more vulnerable to contaminants indrinking water than the general population. Immuno-compromised persons such as persons with cancer under-going chemotherapy, persons who have undergone organ trans-plants, people with HIV/AIDS or other immune system disor-ders, some elderly, and infants can be particularly at risk frominfections. These people should seek advice about drinking waterfrom their health care providers. USEPA/Centers for DiseaseControl (CDC) guidelines on appropriate means to lessen the riskof infection by Cryptosporidium and other microbial contami-nants are available from the Safe Drinking Water Hotline at (800)426-4791. Environmental Influences on Drinking Water Martis Valley System About Your Water Supply Note on RadonRadon is a radioactive gas that you can’t see, smell, ortaste. It is found throughout the U.S. Radon can moveup through the ground and into a home through cracksand holes in the foundation. Radon can build up to highlevels in all types of homes. Radon can also get intoindoor air when released from tap water from showering,washing dishes, and other household activites. Comparedto radon entering a home through soil, radon enteringthrough tap water will in most cases be a small source ofradon in indoor air. Radon is a known human carcino-gen. Breathing air containing radon can lead to lung can-cer.Drinking water containing radon may also causeincreased risk of stomach cancer. If you are concernedabout radon in your home, test the air. Testing is inex-pensive and easy. Fix your home if the level of radon is4 pCi/L or higher. There are simple ways to fix a radonproblem that aren’t too costly.For additional information, call your State radon pro-gram (800-745-7236), the EPA Safe Drinking Water ActHotline (800-426-4791) or the National Safe CouncilRadon Hotline (1-800-SOS-RADON). FOR INFORMATION on water quality or questions about this report, customers are invited to contact the Placer County Water Agency Customer Services Center at (530) 823-4850 or (800) 464-0030.DRAFT Annual Water Quality Report to PCWA Customers (For 2011)Martis ValleyTreated Water System PLACER COUNTY WATER AGENCY144 Ferguson Road (P.O. Box 6570) Auburn, California 95604 Public MeetingsThe Placer County Water Agency Board of Directors meetsregularly the first and third Thursdays of each month at 2 p.m.at the Placer County Water Agency Business Center, 144Ferguson Road, in Auburn.The public is welcome. Contacting Your Elected DirectorsDISTRICT 1: Gray AllenDISTRICT 2: Alex Ferreira DISTRICT 3: Lowell JarvisDISTRICT 4 & 2012 Board Chair: Mike LeeDISTRICT 5 & 2012 Vice Chair: Ben MavyIf you would like to contact a member of the board, please call the PCWACustomer Service Center at (530) 823-4850 or (800) 464-0030. We will bepleased to put you in touch with the elected representative from your area. This newsletter is published as a public service of the PLACER COUNTY WATER AGENCY144 Ferguson Road (P.O. Box 6570)Auburn, California 95604 (530) 823-4850 • (800) 464-0030 General Manager: David A. BreningerNewsletter Editor: Dave Carterwww.pcwa.netDRAFT Radon Radon is a radioactive gas that you cannot see, taste, or smell. It is found throughout the U.S. Radon can move up through the ground and into a home through cracks and holes in the foundation. Radon can build up to high levels in all types of homes. Ra- don can also get into indoor air when released from tap water from showering, wash- ing dishes, and other household activities. Compared to radon entering the home through soil, radon entering the home through tap water will in most cases be a small source of radon in indoor air. Radon is a known human carcinogen. Breathing air containing radon can lead to lung cancer. Drinking water containing radon may also cause increased risk of stomach cancer. If you are concerned about radon in your home, test the air in your home. Testing is inexpensive and easy. You should pursue radon removal for your home if the level of radon in your air is 4 picocuries per liter of air (pCi/L) or higher. There are simple ways to fix a radon problem that are not too costly. For additional information, call your State radon program (1-800-745-7236), the EPA Safe Drinking Water Hotline (1-800-426-4791), or the National Safety Council Radon Hotline (1-800-SOS-RADON). Lead If present, elevated levels of lead can cause serious health problems, especially for pregnant women and young children. Lead in drinking water is primarily from materi- als and components associated with service lines and home plumbing. Truckee Don- ner Public Utility District is responsible for providing high quality water, but cannot con- trol the variety of materials used in plumbing components. When your water has been sitting for several hours, you can minimize the potential for lead exposure by flushing your tap for 30 seconds to 2 minutes before using water for drinking or cooking. If you are concerned about lead in your water, you may wish to have your water tested. In- formation on lead in drinking water, testing methods, and steps you can take to mini- mize exposure is available from the Safe Drinking Water Hotline or at http:// www.epa.gov/safewater/lead. No Cryptosporidium or Giardia in District Water You may have seen or heard news reports about Cryptosporidium and Giardia, microscopic organisms that can enter surface waters from run-off containing animal wastes. If ingested, Cryptospridium and Giardia can cause diarrhea, fever and other gastro-intestinal symptoms. Because the Truckee Donner Public Utility District’s water comes from deep wells rather than surface water, it is almost impossible to have these contaminants in the District’s water supply. Primary Business Address Your Address Line 2 Your Address Line 3 Your Address Line 4 2011 Water Quality Report Truckee Main Water System #2910003 Truckee Donner Public Utility District (TDPUD) vigilantly safeguards its mountain groundwater supplies Last year, your tap water met all EPA and State drinking water health standards. This brochure is a snapshot of the quality of water provided to customers for the 2011 calendar year. Included in this pamphlet are details about where your water comes from, what it contains, and how it compares to State and USEPA Standards. TDPUD is committed to providing you with the information about your water supply because customers who are well informed are the Dis- trict’s best allies in supporting improvements that are necessary to maintain the highest drinking water standards. For More Information About this report or the water treatment process, contact Truckee Donner Public Utility District’s Senior Water Quality Tech, Paul Rose at (530) 582-3926. About a group or class presentation, contact the Truckee Donner Public Utility District at (530) 587 -3896. About water conservation and efficiency, the TDPUD has new water conservation programs that will help customers save water and save money. Information can be found on the TDPUD’s website at www.tdpud.org or by calling (530) 582-3931. Customer Views Are Welcome If you are interested in participating in the decision-making process of the Truckee Donner Public Utility District, you are welcome to attend Board meetings. The Board of Directors meet at 6:00 PM on the first and third Wednesday of each month in the TDPUD Board room located at 11570 Donner Pass Road, Truckee, California. Agendas for upcoming meetings may be obtained on our website at www.tdpud.org or from the Deputy District Clerk’s office, (530) 582-3909. Este informe contiene información muy importante sobre su agua potable. Tradúzcalo ó hable con alguien que lo entienda bien. Where Does Our Water Come From? The drinking water served to Truckee Donner Public Util- ity District customers in the Truckee system is groundwa- ter coming from 12 deep wells. Each week the system is sampled for microbial quality. Because of natural filtration, the groundwater aquifer is protected from surface con- tamination. This gives us high quality water. Source Water Assessment A source water assess- ment was prepared in 2002 for the wells serving the Truckee area. The wells are considered most vulnerable to the following activities not associated with any detected contaminants: sewer collec- tion systems, utility stations, railroads, and herbicide use. A copy of the complete as- sessment may be viewed at the Truckee Donner Public Utility District office located at 11570 Donner Pass Road, Truckee, CA or by calling Mark Thomas at (530) 582- 3957. Some people may be more vulnerable to contami- nants in drinking water than the general population. Im- muno-compromised persons such as persons with cancer undergoing chemotherapy, people who have undergone organ transplants, people with HIV/AIDS or other immune system disorders, some el- derly, and infants can be par- ticularly at risk from infec- tions. These people should seek advice about drinking water from their health care providers. USEPA/Centers for Disease Control (CDC) guidelines on appropriate means to lessen the risk of infection by Cryptosporidium and other microbial contami- nants are available from the Safe Drinking Water Hotline at 1-800-426-4791. Truckee Donner Public Utility District Truckee Donner Public Utility District 11570 Donner Pass Road Truckee, CA 96161 DRAFT DETECTED COMPOUNDS Primary Contaminants (PDWS) MCL PHG (MCLG) Airport Well Northside Well Martis Valley Well Southside Well # 2 “A” Well Glenshire Dr Well Sanders Well Prosser Annex Well Prosser Heights Well Well 20 Prosser Village Well Old Greenwood Well Violation Major Origins in Drinking Water Arsenic (ppb) 10 0.004 9.8 N/D 8 N/D N/D 9.4 8.9 N/D N/D N/D N/D 2.4 NO Erosion of natural deposits Fluoride (ppm) 2 1 N/D 0.011 N/D N/D N/D N/D N/D 0.05 N/D N/D 0.11 N/D NO Nitrate (asNO3) (ppm) 45 45 2.9 N/D 1.9 3.7 N/D 2 N/D N/D N/D 1.2 2.1 N/D NO Leaching of natural deposits, sewage, runoff from fertilizer use. Nitrite (ppm) 1 1 N/D N/D N/D N/D N/D N/D N/D N/D N/D N/D N/D 0.79 NO Radionuclides Radon (pCi/L) N/A N/A 1600 990 N/T 885 540 765 1050 740 N/D 293 560 530 N/A Erosion of natural deposits Regulated Contaminants with Secondary MCLs (a) (SDWS) Color (ACU) 15 15 N/D N/D N/D N/D N/D N/D N/D N/D 3 N/D 5 N/D NO Natural-occurring organic materials Odor 3 3 2 1 N/D 1 1 N/D 1 1 1 1 N/D 1 NO Iron (ppb) 300 300 N/D N/D 6 N/D N/D N/D N/D N/D N/D N/D N/D N/D NO Leaching from natural deposits Chloride (ppm) 500 500 5.5 17 7.1 5.7 N/D 12 53 N/D N/D N/D 6.4 2.2 NO Copper (ppm) 1 1 N/D N/D 87 0.04 N/D N/D 0.28 0.02 N/D N/D N/D N/D NO Manganese (ppb) 50 50 N/D N/D 6.4 N/D N/D N/D N/D N/D N/D N/D N/D 26 NO Total Dissolved Solids (ppm) 1000 1000 126 170 120 112 68 140 230 112 110 110 108 110 NO Sulfate (ppm) 500 500 4.1 8.9 3.5 1.3 N/D 6.7 16 N/D N/D N/D 1.4 1.1 NO Specific Conductance (μS/cm) 1600 1600 187 241 160 160 107 200 360 166 166 166 180 160 NO Substances that form ions when in water pH N/A N/A 8.1 8.3 8.1 7.1 7.4 8.3 8 8.1 8.3 8.1 8.2 8 N/A Leaching of natural deposits Unregulated General Minerals Hardness (ppm) N/A N/A 67 77 57 92 44 72 97 41 72 56 55 62 N/A Leaching of natural deposits Sodium (ppm) N/A N/A 10 32 9.3 4.9 3.5 12 29 15 6.4 12 16 8.5 N/A Microbial Contaminants MCL TDPUD System Highest Month Total Coliform Bacteria > Than 2 positive samples or more than 5% positive samples per month 0.0 % NO Naturally present in the environment Copper/Lead AL MCLG TDPUD Water System 90th Percentile Value # of Sites Sampled # of Sites that Exceeded Action Level Copper (ppm) 1.3 0.3 0.074 30 0 NO Corrosion of household plumbing systems. Flushing prior to use recommended Lead (ppb) 15 2 2 30 0 NO Disinfection Residual MRDL MRDLG Average Range for TDPUD Water System Chlorine (ppm) 4 4 0.35 0.32 - 0.47 NO Drinking Water Disinfectant added for treatment Disinfection Byproducts MCL PHG (MCLG) Average Range for TDPUD Water System Sample Date Total Trihalomethanes (ppb) 80 N/A 3.8 N/D - 6.2 08/04/2011 NO By-product of drinking water disinfection The data presented in this table is from the most recent monitoring done in compliance with regulations. Some data is more than a year old. Arsenic above 5 ppb up to 10 ppb: While your drinking water meets the current Federal and State standards for arsenic, it does contain low levels of arsenic. The standard balances the current understanding of arsenic’s possible health effects against the costs of removing arsenic from drinking water. The USEPA continues to research the health effects of low levels of arsenic, which is a mineral known to cause cancer in humans at high concentrations and is linked to other health effects such as skin damage and circulatory problems. GENERAL INFORMATION The sources of drinking water (both tap water and bottled water) include rivers, lakes, streams, ponds, reservoirs, springs and wells. As water travels over the surface of the land or through the ground, it dissolves naturally- occurring minerals and, in some cases, radioactive material, and can pick up substances resulting from the presence of animals or from human activity. Contaminants that may be present in source water include: Microbial contaminants, such as viruses and bacteria, that may come from sewage treatment plants, septic systems, agricultural livestock operations and wildlife. Inorganic contaminants, such as salts and metals, that can be naturally-occurring or result from urban storm- water runoff, industrial or domestic wastewater discharges, oil and gas production, mining, or farming. Pesticides and herbicides, that may come from a variety of sources such as agricultural, urban storm -water runoff and residential uses. Organic chemical contaminants, including synthetic and volatile organic chemicals, that are by-products of industrial processes and petroleum production, and can also come from gas stations, urban storm-water runoff, agricultural application, and septic systems. Radioactive contaminants, that can be naturally-occurring or be the result of oil and gas production and min- ing activities. In order to ensure that tap water is safe to drink, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) and the State Department of Public Health (Department) prescribe regulations that limit the amount of certain contaminants in water provided by public water systems. Department regulations also establish limits for contaminants in bottled water that must provide the same protection for public health. Drinking water, including bottled water, may reasonably be expected to contain at least small amounts of some contaminants. The presence of contaminants does not necessarily indicate that water poses a health risk. More information about contaminants and potential health effects can be obtained by calling the USEPA’s Safe Drinking Water Hotline at 1-800-426-4791 or at http://water.epa.gov/drink/index.cfm. TERMS USED IN THIS REPORT Detected Compounds: The State allows us to monitor for some contaminants less than once per year because the concentrations of these contaminants do not change frequently. Some of our data, though representative, are more than one year old. Not listed are the hundreds of other compounds for which we tested that were not detected. Regulated Contaminants with Secondary MCLs (a): There are no PHGs, MCLGs, or mandatory standard health effects language for these constituents because secondary MCLs are set on the basis of aesthetics. Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL): The highest level of a contaminant that is allowed in drinking water. Prima- ry MCLs are set as close to the PHGs (or MCLGs) as is economically and technologically feasible. Secondary MCLs are set to protect the odor, taste and appearance of drinking water. Maximum Contaminant Level Goal (MCLG): The level of a contaminant in drinking water below which there is no known or expected risk to health. MCLGs are set by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Public Health Goal (PHG): The level of a contaminate in drinking water below which there is no known or expected risk to health. PHGs are set by the California Environmental Protection Agency. Primary Drinking Water Standards (PDWS): MCLs and MRDLs for contaminants that affect health along with their monitoring and reporting requirements, and water treatment requirements. Maximum Residual Disinfectant Level (MRDL): The highest level of a disinfectant allowed in drinking water. There is convincing evidence that addition of a disinfectant is necessary for control of microbial contaminants. Maximum Residual Disinfectant Level Goal (MRDLG): The level of a drinking water disinfectant below which there is no known or expected risk of health. MRDLGs do not reflect the benefits of the use of disinfectants to con- trol microbial contaminants. Secondary Drinking Water Standards (SDWS): MCLs for contaminants that affect taste, odor, or appearance of the drinking water. Contaminants with SDWSs do not affect the health a the MCL levels. Regulatory Action Level (AL) : The concentration of a contaminant which, if exceeded, triggers treatment or other requirements which a water system must follow. Radiochemical Parameters—Compounds found in drinking water which emit radiation. Microbial Parameters—Disease-causing organisms that, at certain levels, may be harmful. Additional information about Cryptosporidium and Giardia is supplied in this report. Unregulated Compounds Analyzed—Unregulated Compounds Analyzed— Unregulated compounds that the Truckee Donner Public Utility District has tested for. These compounds are not known to be associated with adverse health effects. N/D– not detectable at testing limit ppm—Parts per million, or milligrams per liter (mg/L) ppb—Parts per billion, or micrograms per liter (ug/L) μS/cm—Micro Siemens per centimeter > - Greater than pCi/L (Picocuries per Liter) - A measure of radioactivity. N/T– not tested N/A—Not Applicable ACU (Apparent Color Unit) - A measure of color in drinking water. DRAFT Drinking water, including bottled water, may reasonably be expected to contain at least small amounts of some contaminants. The pres- ence of contaminants does not necessarily indicate that the water poses a health risk. More information about contaminants an d potential health effects can be obtained by calling the USEPA’s Safe Drinking Water Hotline (1 -800-426-4791). Some people may be more vulnerable to contaminants in drinking water than the general population. Immuno -compromised persons such as persons with cancer undergoing chemotherapy, persons who have undergone organ transplants, people with HIV/AIDS or ot her immune system disorders, some elderly, and infants can be particularly at risk from infections. These people should seek advi ce about drinking water from their health care providers. USEPA/Centers for Disease Control (CDC) guidelines on appropriate means to l essen the risk of infection by Cryptosporidium and other microbial contaminants are available from the Safe Drinking Water Hotline (1 -800-426- 4791). The sources of drinking water (both tap water and bottled water) include rivers, lakes, streams, ponds, reservoirs, springs, and wells. As water travels over the surface of the land or through the ground, it dissolves naturally-occurring minerals and, in some cases, radioactive material, and can pick up substances resulting from the presence of animals or from human activity. In 2003, the NCSD conducted a source water assessment on the Big Springs source. The source is considered most vulnerable to the following activities: recreational areas, sewer collection systems, automobile repair shops, chemical/petroleum pipelines, an d machine shops. These activities are not associated with any detected contaminants. In order to ensure that tap water is safe to drink, the USEPA and the State Department of Public Health (Department) prescribe regu- lations that limit the amount of certain contaminants in water provided by public water systems. Department regulations also establish limits for contaminants in bottled water that provide the same protection for public health. Contaminants that may be present in source water include: Microbial contaminants, such as viruses and bacteria, that may come from sewage treatment plants, septic systems, agricultural live- stock operations, pets and wildlife. Inorganic contaminants, such as salts and metals that can be naturally-occurring or result from urban stormwater runoff, industrial or domestic wastewater discharges, oil and gas production, mining, or farming. Pesticides and herbicides that may come from a variety of sources such as agriculture, urban stormwater runoff, and residential uses. Organic chemical contaminants, including synthetic and volatile organic chemicals, that are byproducts of industrial processes and petroleum production, and can also come from gas stations, urban stormwater runoff, agricultural application, and septic syst ems. Radioactive contaminants that can be naturally-occurring or be the result of oil and gas production and mining activities. If present, elevated levels of lead can cause serious health problems, especially for pregnant women and young children. Lead in drinking water is primarily from materials and components associated with service lines and home plumbing. The NCSD is responsible for providing high quality drinking water, but cannot control the variety of materials used in plumbing components. When your water has been sitting for several hours, you can minimize the potential for lead exposure by flushing your tap for 30 seconds to 2 min utes before using water for drinking or cooking. If you are concerned about lead in your water, you may wish to have your water tested. Information on lead in drinking water, testing methods, and steps you can take to minimize exposure is available from the Safe Drinking W ater Hot- line or at http://www.epa.gov/safewater/lead. Northstar Community Services District 908 Northstar Drive Northstar, Calif. 96161 Northstar Community Services District Annual Water Quality Report 2011 This state-mandated annual report contains important information about the quality of your drinking water. DRAFT KEY WATER QUALITY TERMS AL —Regulatory Action Level: The concentration of a contaminant which, if exceeded, triggers treatment or other requirements which a water system must follow. MCL—Maximum Contaminant Level: The highest level of a contaminant that is allowed in drinking water. Primary MCLs are set as close to the MCLGs as is economically and technologically fea- sible. Secondary MCLs are set to pro- tect the odor, taste, and appearance of drinking water. MCLG—Maximum Contaminant Level Goal: The level of a contaminant in drinking water below which there is no known or expected risk to health. MCLGs are set by the U.S. Environmen- tal Protection Agency (USEPA). MRDL—Maximum Residual Disinfect- ant Level: The level of a disinfectant added for water treatment that may not be exceeded at the consumer’s tap. ND: Not Detectable at testing limit. PHG—Public Health Goal: The level of a contaminant in drinking water below which there is no known or expected risk to health. PHGs are set by the Cali- fornia Environmental Protection Agency. ppm: parts per million or milligrams per liter (mg/L) ppb: parts per billion or micrograms per liter (ųg/L) TT—Treatment Technique: A required process intended to reduce the level of a contaminant in drinking water. The Northstar Community Services District (NCSD) is proud to pro- vide some of the nation’s cleanest drinking water. In 2011, as in years past, our water met or exceeded federal and state standards for drinking water. The State of California mandates that we send this Annual Water Quality Report to you, which includes important information about your drinking water. The NCSD draws its source water from two locations. The first source is a natural mountain spring located in the mid-mountain region of the Northstar-at-Tahoe Resort. The water is collected in the Big Springs collection system and then treated at the District’s state-of-the-art Water Treatment Facility prior to being delivered to the customers’ tap. The second source is a well (TH -2) located in the Martis Valley that was developed in 2007 to help meet fu- ture water demands as the community continues to expand. We are committed to delivering the highest quality drinking water, ensuring that our customers receive clean, safe water from their taps. In 2011 the District delivered over 182 million gallons of drinking water through 30 miles of pipeline to over 1,800 residential and commercial services throughout the Northstar community. Should you have any questions or would like to obtain additional information, please contact the Northstar Community Services Dis- trict: Phone: (530) 562-0747 Fax: (530) 562-1505 www.northstarcsd.com Dear Dear Customer:Customer: Want More Information? The NCSD Board of Directors meets regularly each month. Please feel free to participate in the- se meetings. For meeting dates, times and locations please contact our main office at (530) 562-0747. You may also find more information by visiting our website: www.northstarcsd.org. Este informe contiene información muy importante sobre su agua pota- ble. Tradúzcalo ó hablcon alguien que lo entienda bien. In case of a water or sewer emergency, please call 530-562-0747 Tables 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 list all of the drinking water contaminants that were detected during the most recent sampling for the constituent. The presence of these contaminants in the water does not necessarily indicate that the water pos- es a health risk. The Department allows us to monitor for certain contaminants less than once per year because the concentrations of these contaminants do not change frequently. Some of the data, though representative of the water quality, are more than one year old. DRAFT U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey Fact Sheet 2011–3143 April 2012 U.S. Geological Survey and the California State Water Resources Control Board Groundwater Quality in the Tahoe and Martis Basins, California Groundwater provides more than 40 percent of California’s drinking water. To protect this vital resource, the State of California created the Groundwater Ambient Monitoring and Assessment (GAMA) Program. The Priority Basin Project of the GAMA Program provides a comprehensive assessment of the State’s groundwater quality and increases public access to groundwater-quality information. The Tahoe and Martis Basins and sur- rounding watersheds constitute one of the study units being evaluated. Printed on recycled paper Organic constituentsInorganic constituents High Moderate CONSTITUENT CONCENTRATIONS Low or not detected Values are a percentage of the area of the primary aquifers with concentrations in the three specified categories. Values on pie chart may not equal 100 due to rounding of percentages. 67 20 13 98 1 1 The Tahoe-Martis Study Unit The Tahoe-Martis study unit is approximately 460 square miles and includes the groundwater basins on the south, north, and west shores of Lake Tahoe, and the Martis Valley groundwater basin (California Department of Water Resources, 2003). The study unit was divided into three study areas based primarily on geography: the Tahoe study area composed of the three Tahoe Valley basins, the Martis study area, and the Hard Rock study area com- posed of the parts of the watersheds surrounding the basins (Fram and others, 2009). The primary aquifers in the Tahoe study area consist of glacial outwash sediments (mix- tures of sand, silt, clay, gravel, cobbles, and boulders), interbedded with lake sediments. The primary aquifers in the Martis study area are interbedded volcanic lavas, volcanic sediments, and glacial outwash sediments. In the Hard Rock study area, groundwater is present in frac- tured granitic rocks in the south and fractured volcanic rocks in the north. Aquifers composed of different materials commonly contain ground- water with different chemical compositions. The primary aquifers in the study unit are defined as those parts of the aquifers correspond- ing to the screened or open intervals of wells listed in the California Department of Public Health database. In the Tahoe study area, these wells typically are drilled to depths between 175 and 375 feet, consist of solid casing from land surface to a depth of about 75 to 125 feet, and are screened or open below the solid casing. In the Martis study area, these wells typically are 200 to 900 feet deep, and are screened or open below 75 to 300 feet. Water quality in the shallower and deeper parts of the aquifer system may differ from that in the primary aquifers.The Hard Rock study area includes wells and developed springs. The Tahoe-Martis study unit has warm, dry summers and cold, wet winters. Average annual precipitation ranges from 30 inches at Lake Tahoe to 80 inches in the surrounding mountains, and the majority of precipitation falls as snow. Land use in the study unit is approximately 88 percent (%) undeveloped (forests, grasslands, and bare rock), and 12% urban. The undeveloped lands are used mostly for recreation. The largest urban areas are the cities of South Lake Tahoe and Truckee. Municipal and community water supply accounts for nearly all of the total water use in the study unit, with most of the remainder used for recreation, including landscape irrigation and snow-making. Groundwater provides nearly all of the water supply in the study unit, with limited use of surface water in some areas. Recharge to the groundwater flow system is mainly from mountain-front recharge at the margins of the basins, stream-channel infiltra- tion, and direct infiltration of precipitation. Groundwater leaves the aquifer system when it is pumped for water supply or flows into streams and lakes. Overview of Water Quality GAMA’s Priority Basin Proj- ect evaluates the quality of untreated groundwater. However, for context, benchmarks established for drinking- water quality are used for comparison. Benchmarks and definitions of high, moderate, and low concentrations are discussed in the inset box on page 3. Many inorganic constituents occur naturally in groundwater. The concen- trations of the inorganic constituents can be affected by natural processes as well as by human activities. In the Tahoe- Martis study unit, one or more inorganic constituents were present at high con- centrations in about 20% of the primary aquifers and at moderate concentrations in 13%. Human-made organic constituents are found in products used in the home, business, industry, and agriculture. Organic constituents can enter the envi- ronment through normal usage, spills, or improper disposal. In this study unit, one or more organic constituents were present at high concentrations in about 1% of the primary aquifers and at mod- erate concentrations in about 1%.TruckeeTruckeeRiverUpperRiverLAKE TAHOE Martis study areaMartis study area Hard Rock study area Hard Rock study area Tahoe study areaTahoe study area Watershed boundary 0 8 Miles4 0 8 Kilometers4 Nevada County Placer County El Dorado County Alpine CountyNEVADANEVADACALIFORNIACALIFORNIATruckee South Lake TahoeDRAFT RESULTS: Groundwater Quality in the Tahoe-Martis Study Unit Inorganic Constituents with Human-Health Benchmarks Trace and minor elements are naturally present in the minerals in rocks and soils, and in the water that comes into contact with those materials. In the Tahoe- Martis study unit, trace elements were present at high concentrations in about 19% of the primary aquifers, and in moderate concentrations in about 4%. Arsenic was the trace element that most frequently occurred at high and moderate concentra- tions. Three trace elements with non-regulatory health-based benchmarks, boron, molybdenum, and strontium, also were detected at high concentrations. Radioactivity is the emission of energy or particles during spontaneous decay of unstable atoms. Humans are exposed to small amounts of natural radioactivity every day. Most of the radioactivity in groundwater comes from decay of naturally occurring uranium and thorium in minerals in the rocks or sediments of the aqui- fers. Radioactive constituents occurred at high levels in about 3% of the primary aquifers, and at moderate levels in about 12%. Gross alpha particle and radon-222 activities were the radioactive constituents that most frequently occurred at high and moderate levels. Nutrients, such as nitrogen, are naturally present at low concentrations in groundwater. High and moderate concentrations generally occur as a result of human activities. Common sources of nutrients include fertilizer applied to crops and landscaping, seepage from septic systems, and human and animal waste. In the Tahoe-Martis study unit, nutrients were not detected at high or moderate concentra- tions in the primary aquifers. Inorganic Constituents with Non-Health Benchmarks (Not included in water-quality overview charts shown on the front page) Some constituents affect the aesthetic properties of water, such as taste, color, and odor, or may create nuisance problems, such as staining and scaling. The State of California has a recommended and an upper limit for total dissolved solids (TDS). All water naturally contains TDS as a result of the weathering and dissolu- tion of minerals in soils and rocks. Iron and manganese are naturally occurring constituents that commonly occur together in groundwater. Anoxic conditions in groundwater (low amounts of dissolved oxygen) may result in release of manganese and iron from minerals into groundwater. In the Tahoe-Martis study unit, TDS was present at high concentrations (greater than the upper limit) in about 8% of the primary aquifers, and at low con- centrations (less than the recommended limit) in about 92% of the primary aquifers. Manganese, with or without iron, was present at high concentrations in about 14% of the primary aquifers. Perchlorate (Not included in water-quality overview charts shown on the front page) Perchlorate is an inorganic constituent that has been regulated in California drinking water since 2007. It is an ingredient in rocket fuel, fireworks, safety flares, and other products, may be present in some fertilizers, and occurs naturally at low concentrations in groundwater. Perchlorate was not detected in the primary aquifers. Trace elements Total dissolved solids Radioactive constituents Nutrients Manganese Perchlorate INORGANIC CONSTITUENTS INORGANIC CONSTITUENTSSPECIAL-INTEREST CONSTITUENTS 77 19 4 3 85 12 92 100 100 86 14 8 DRAFT Solvents Pesticides Other volatile organic compounds ORGANIC CONSTITUENTS 1 <1 98 100 100 RESULTS: Groundwater Quality in the Tahoe-Martis Study Unit Organic Constituents The Priority Basin Project uses laboratory methods that can detect the presence of low concentrations of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and pesticides, far below human-health benchmarks. VOCs and pesticides detected at these low concentrations can be used to help trace water from the landscape into the aquifer system. Volatile Organic Compounds with Human-Health Benchmarks VOCs are in many household, commercial, industrial, and agricultural products, and are characterized by their tendency to volatilize (evaporate) into the air. Solvents are used for a number of purposes, including manufacturing and cleaning. In the Tahoe-Martis study unit, solvents were present at high concentrations in about 1% of the primary aquifers. The solvent detected at high concentrations was tetrachlo- roethylene (PCE), which mainly was used in dry-cleaning businesses. Solvents were present at moderate concentrations in about 1% of the primary aquifers, and at low concentrations (or not detected) in about 98%. Other VOCs include trihalomethanes, gasoline additives and oxygenates, refriger- ants, and organic synthesis reagents. Trihalomethanes form during disinfection of water supplies, and may enter groundwater by the infiltration of landscape irrigation water, or leakage from distribution lines. Gasoline additives and oxygenates increase the effi- ciency of fuel combustion. Other VOCs were not detected at high or moderate concen- trations in the primary aquifers. Trihalomethanes and gasoline oxygenates were detected at low concentrations in the primary aquifers. Pesticides with Human-Health Benchmarks Pesticides, including herbicides, insecticides, fungicides, and fumigants, are applied to crops, gardens, lawns, around buildings, and along roads to help control unwanted vegetation (weeds), insects, fungi, and other pests. In the Tahoe-Martis study unit, pesticides were not detected at high or moderate concentrations in the primary aquifers. Herbicides were occasionally detected at low concentrations. BENCHMARKS FOR EVALUATING GROUNDWATER QUALITY GAMA’s Priority Basin Project uses benchmarks established for drinking water to provide context for evaluating the quality of untreated groundwater. After withdrawal, groundwater may be disinfected, filtered, mixed, and exposed to the atmosphere before being delivered to consumers. Federal and California regulatory benchmarks for pro- tecting human health (Maximum Contaminant Level, MCL) were used when available. Nonregulatory benchmarks for protecting aesthetic properties, such as taste and odor (Secondary Maximum Contaminant Level, SMCL), and nonregulatory benchmarks for protecting human health (Notification Level, NL, and Lifetime Health Advisory, HAL) were used when Federal or California regulatory benchmarks were not available. High, moderate, and low concentrations are defined relative to benchmarks Concentrations are considered high if they are greater than a benchmark. For inorganic constituents, concentrations are moder- ate if they are greater than one-half of a benchmark. For organic constituents and perchlorate, concentrations are moderate if they are greater than one-tenth of a benchmark; this lower threshold was used because organic constituents are generally less prevalent and have smaller concentrations relative to benchmarks than inorganic constituents. Low values include nondetections and values less than moderate concentrations. Methods for evaluating water quality are discussed in Fram and Belitz (2012). High concentrations Moderate concentrations Low concentrationsEXAMPLE Values are a percentage of the area of the primary aquifers with concentrations in the three specified categories. Values on pie chart may not equal 100 due to rounding of percentages. CONSTITUENT CONCENTRATIONSDRAFT ARSENIC, IN MICROGRAMS PER LITER100 10 1 0.1 pH, IN STANDARD UNITS 6 7 8 9 Aquifer rock type granitic rock sedimentary volcanic rock anoxic oxic Relative- Concentration HighModerateLow EXPLANATION Factors that Affect Groundwater Quality In the Tahoe-Martis study unit, arsenic was the constituent that most frequently occurred at high concentrations. About 18% of the primary aquifers had arsenic concen- trations greater than the human-health regulatory benchmark Federal MCL) of 10 µg/L (micrograms per liter). Natural sources of arsenic to groundwater include dissolution of arsenic-bearing sulfide minerals, desorption of arsenic from the surfaces of manganese- or iron-oxide minerals (or dissolution of those oxide minerals), and mixing with geother- mal waters (Welch and others, 2000). By Miranda S. Fram and Kenneth Belitz SELECTED REFERENCES California Department of Water Resources, 2003, California’s groundwater: California Department of Water Resources Bulletin 118, 246 p. http://www.water.ca.gov/groundwater/bulletin118/update2003. cfm. Fram, M.S., Munday, Cathy, and Belitz, Kenneth, 2009, Groundwater quality data for the Tahoe-Martis study unit, 2007—Results from the California GAMA Program: U.S. Geological Survey Data Series 432, 87 p. (Also available at http://pubs.usgs.gov/ds/432/.) Fram, M.S., and Belitz, Kenneth, 2012, Status and understanding of groundwater quality in the Tahoe- Martis, Central Sierra, and Southern Sierra study units,2006–2007—California GAMA Program Priority Basin Project: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2011-5216, 222 p. (Also available at http://pubs.usgs.gov/sir/2011/5216.) Smedley, P.L., and Kinniburgh, D.G., 2002, A review of the source, behavior, and distribution of arsenic in natural waters: Applied Geochemistry, v. 17, p. 517–568. Welch, A.H., Westjohn, D.B., Helsel, D.R., and Wanty, R.B., 2000, Arsenic in ground water of the United States—occurrence and geochemistry: Ground Water, v. 38, no. 4, p. 589–604. Priority Basin Assessments GAMA’s Priority Basin Project (PBP) assesses water quality in that part of the aquifer system used for drinking water, primarily public supply. Water quality in the primary aquifers, assessed by the PBP, may differ from that in the deeper parts of the aquifer, or from the shallower parts, which are being assessed by GAMA’s Domestic Well Project. Ongoing assessments are being conducted in more than 120 basins throughout California. The PBP assessments are based on a comparison of constituent concen- trations in untreated groundwater with benchmarks established for protec- tion of human health and for aesthetic concerns. The PBP does not evaluate the quality of drinking water delivered to consumers. The PBP uses two scientific approaches for assessing groundwa- ter quality. The first approach uses a network of wells to statistically assess the status of groundwater quality. The second approach combines water- quality, hydrologic, geographic, and other data to help assess the factors that affect water quality. In the Tahoe- Martis study unit, data were collected by the PBP in 2007, and from the CDPH database for 2004–2007. The PBP includes chemical analyses gener- ally not available as part of regulatory compliance monitoring, including measurements at concentrations much lower than human-health benchmarks, and measurement of constituents that can be used to trace the sources and movement of groundwater. For more information Technical reports and hydrologic data collected for the GAMA PBP Pro- gram may be obtained from: GAMA Project Chief U.S. Geological Survey California Water Science Center 4165 Spruance Road, Suite 200 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone number: (619) 225-6100 WEB: http://ca.water.usgs.gov/gama GAMA Program Unit State Water Resources Control Board Division of Water Quality PO Box 2231, Sacramento, CA 95812 Telephone number: (916) 341-5779 WEB: http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/gama In the Tahoe-Martis study unit, elevated arsenic concentrations likely are caused by two different processes (Fram and Belitz, 2012). In aquifers composed of sediments or volcanic rocks, high and moderate arsenic concentrations were found in groundwater that was oxic (high dissolved oxygen concentration) and alkaline (pH values greater than about 8). The elevated arsenic concentration in oxic, alkaline groundwater likely is due to desorption of arsenic from the surfaces of manganese- and iron-oxide minerals (Smedley and Kinniburgh, 2002). Oxic, alkaline conditions increase arsenic solubility in groundwater by inhibiting arsenic from adhering to mineral surfaces (sorption). In aquifers composed of granitic and volcanic rocks, high arsenic concentrations also were found in anoxic (low dissolved oxygen concentration) groundwater with low pH values. Dissolution of manganese- and iron-oxide minerals under anoxic conditions likely results in release of arsenic associated with these minerals.DRAFT Martis Valley Groundwater Management Plan F P:\40000\140691 - PCWA Martis Valley GWP\GMP\Report\Final\Martis Valley GMP Final 4-18-13.docx Appendix F: DRI Technical Note DRAFT SCIENCE • ENVIRONMENT • SOLUTIONS 2215 Raggio Parkway, Reno, Nevada 89512-1095 Phone (775) 673-7300 Fax (775) 673-7363 755 E. Flamingo Road, Las Vegas, Nevada 89119-7363 Phone (702) 862-5400 Fax (702) 862-5427 Division of Hydrologic Sciences Technical Note To: Tony Firenzi, Placer County Water Agency; Tina Bauer, Brown and Caldwell From: Seshadri Rajagopal, Donald M. Reeves, Justin Huntington, Greg Pohll (Desert Research Institute) Date: September 10, 2012 Re: Estimates of Ground Water Recharge in the Martis Valley Ground Water Basin Purpose and Scope This technical note provides spatially-distributed estimates of annual ground water recharge in the Martis Valley Ground Water Basin using a physically-based hydrologic model: Precipitation Runoff Modeling System (PRMS). PRMS simulates land surface hydrologic processes of evapotranspiration, runoff, infiltration, and interflow by balancing energy and mass budgets of the plant canopy, snowpack, and soil zone on the basis of distributed climate information (Leavesley et al., 1983), and has been used in several other basins to estimate ground water recharge (e.g., Lichty and McKinley, 1995; Vaccaro and Olsen, 2007; Cherkauer and Ansari, 2005; Cherkauer, 2004). Recharge in the current study is defined as the infiltration of water to the subsurface beyond the root zone (where present) or the soil zone, in case of bare soil absent of vegetation (Figure 1). Thus, the recharge estimates contained within this report represent total annual recharge within the delineated Martis Valley Ground Water Basin. The Martis Valley Ground Water Basin was first delineated by Hydro-Search, Inc. and was later adopted by the California DWR as the official ground water basin. In this report we refer to this region as the HSI ground water basin or Martis Valley Ground Water Basin (Figure 2). Total recharge consists of both recharge to the deep ground water system and shallow recharge that ultimately discharges into streams. The technical note describes the use of climate data in PRMS, the PRMS method used to compute recharge, and recharge estimates. Recharge estimates from previous studies and an additional method are provided to place the PRMS computed results in the context of other estimates. Previous Estimates of Recharge for Martis Valley Past studies primarily relied on empirical and water balance methods to estimate recharge within the Martis Valley Ground Water Basin (Figure 2). One of the earliest recharge studies was conducted by Hydro-Search, Inc. (1974) which was subsequently updated in 1980 and 1995. Hydro-Search Inc. (HSI) DRAFT Page 2 of 11 utilized a water balance method to estimate ground water recharge to the Martis Valley Ground Water Basin of approximately 18,000 ac-ft/yr. In 2001 Nimbus Engineers used a water balance approach to compute a recharge value of 24,700 ac-ft/yr to the ground water basin. Kennedy/Jenks Consultants in 2001 published a report titled “Independent Appraisal of Martis Valley Ground Water Availability, Nevada and Placer Counties, California” where they concluded that the earlier studies by Hydro-Search, Inc (1974 and updates) and Nimbus Engineers (2001) were conservative, as the total amount of ground water discharge to streams was considered under predicted; however, updated recharge estimates were not provided in this report. Interflow Hydrology, Inc. and Cordilleran Hydrology, Inc. prepared a 2003 report indicating that ground water discharge to tributary Truckee River streams in the Martis Valley Ground Water Basin is 34,560 ac-ft/yr, of which approximately 24,240 ac-ft/yr is contributed by high altitude areas of the basin (e.g., in the vicinity of Northstar) and the remaining 10,320 ac-ft/yr occurs in lower elevation areas. In summary, previous recharge estimates based on water balance approaches range from 18,000 to 34,560 ac-ft/yr. Description of PRMS Recharge Method The PRMS model (Leavesley et al., 1983) is driven by daily values of precipitation and maximum and minimum air temperature, and simulates snow accumulation, ablation, canopy interception, evapotranspiration, surface runoff, infiltration, water storage in the soil zone and deep percolation through the bottom of the root or soil zone – PRMS recharge is defined as the model computed excess water leaving the root or soil zone after abstractions for surface runoff and evapotranspiration are accounted for (Figure 1). The system is modeled in its natural transient state from 1981 to 2011. Reservoir operations, irrigation within the basin, septic drainfields, and diversion of effluent to the Truckee Tahoe Sanitation Agency and subsequent release of treated effluent to the Truckee River are not explicitly simulated in the model. However, the Martis Valley PRMS model utilizes naturalized flows that remove the effects of reservoir operations during model calibration. The current PRMS model developed for Martis Valley encompasses the entire Martis Valley hydrologic basin (Figure 2), and is subdivided into 14 watersheds for model calibration to internal stream gauges. Computation of recharge for the Martis Valley Ground Water Basin requires aggregation of the PRMS results for all cells within the delineated ground water basin (Figure 3). The model domain was discretized into square grid cells of 300 m resolution; each of these cells represents a hydrologic response unit (HRU). The model is parameterized from the National Elevation Dataset (NED), STATSGO soils database, and USGS land use land cover (LULC) dataset. The depth of the root or soil zone is determined by the LULC of the HRU. Five categories of LULC are used to assign these depths viz. bare soils, grasses, shrubs, trees, and water. For the category water, recharge is assumed zero. Daily weather data from the Truckee #2 SNOTEL site is used to drive the PRMS model. This station is used to develop monthly ratios based on PRISM maps to distribute precipitation over the entire basin. To account for days when temperature inversions within the valley occur, an additional weather station, Mt. Rose SNOTEL, is implemented. PRMS Recharge Estimates The estimated mean annual ground water recharge for the Martis Valley Ground Water Basin computed from PRMS is presented in Figure 4. PRMS simulated recharge varies from year to year based DRAFT Page 3 of 11 on annual cycles of precipitation (Figure 5). The annual average recharge estimate from the PRMS model is 32,745 ac-ft, which is slightly lower than the Interflow Hydrology 2003 estimate of 34,560 ac-ft. We also applied a modified Maxey-Eakin (1949) method to estimate recharge which relates mean annual precipitation to recharge using recharge coefficients applied to precipitation amounts (Figure 3) (Epstein et al., 2010). Epstein et al., 2010 computed revised Maxey-Eakin coefficients that are based on the PRISM precipitation distribution (Daly et al., 1994), which was used in this study. As shown in Figure 3, the modified Maxey-Eakin estimate of 35,168 ac-ft/yr is very close to the Interflow Hydrology estimate. Figure 6 shows the ratio of recharge computed by the PRMS model to annual precipitation. This ratio, which we term as ‘recharge efficiency’, can be used to describe the fraction (or percentage) of precipitation that is converted to recharge. Computed recharge efficiencies for the Martis Valley ground water basin varies annually within a range of 18-26%. Discussion of Recharge Estimates PRMS computed recharge presented in Figures 4, 6 and 8 show that recharge to the Martis Valley Ground Water Basin varies both spatially and temporally. The spatial variability in recharge is primarily driven by precipitation trends (Figures 7 and 8). This is clearly observed in Figure 7 where the higher elevation areas, in general, receive greater amounts of precipitation than the rest of the basin. Note that the PRMS recharge shown in Figure 8 represents infiltrated water given the processes presented in Figure 1. The PRMS model neglects the influence of low permeable bedrock areas on the potential reduced rate of infiltration of precipitation. For example, the highest infiltration rates correspond to areas with the most precipitation. In reality, the highest elevation areas within the basin that receive the greatest amount of precipitation are located in the low-permeability mountain block. The low-permeability of the mountain block restricts the amount of infiltrating water, and forces water to redistribute as run-off and infiltrate downslope near the ‘bench’ areas of the slope with deposits of higher permeability alluvium. This redistribution has been simulated in integrated models (e.g., Huntington et al. 2012, in press) and inferred from ground water isotopes (Singleton et al., 2010). Thus, the spatial distribution of recharge, as shown in Figure 8, will change once the PRMS modeled recharge is combined with MODFLOW. This spatial redistribution will primarily change the pattern of recharge in the mountain block watersheds with only minimal changes to the lower elevation areas, and minimal changes in the total volume of recharge. Previous recharge estimates by Interflow Hydrology (34,560 ac-ft/yr), the Maxey-Eakin method (35,168 ac-ft/yr), and mean annual PRMS (32,745 ac-ft/yr) estimates are very similar and in agreement. Only the PRMS estimates provide insight as to annual variability in recharge with a range between 12,143 and 56,792 ac-ft/yr (Figure 4). These fluctuations in annual ground water recharge estimates are natural and primarily based on fluctuations in annual precipitation (Figure 5). Perhaps most importantly are the water years when the amount of recharge is lower than the mean (~33,000 ac-ft). As shown in Figure 4, this variability can be significant with ‘wet’ and ‘dry’ year-end members. Pumpage during dry years may deplete the ground water basin as water is extracted from storage, whereas wet years increase the storage of water in the basin. If the number of wet and dry years and the amount of recharge oscillates evenly, then the mean recharge estimates from Interflow, modified Maxey-Eakin and PRMS methods are suitable for mean annual water budget analysis. However, future changes in temperature and/or precipitation (both timing and annual quantity) can disrupt the balance between pumping and basin storage. The PRMS computed recharge consists of the sum of shallow infiltrated water that discharges into the Truckee River and its tributaries as well as deep percolation of ground water to deeper aquifers DRAFT Page 4 of 11 with water supply wells. Perennial basin yield, defined by the State of Nevada as the maximum amount of groundwater that can be salvaged each year over the long term without depleting the ground water reservoir, is not an appropriate metric to determine sustainable basin pumpage as values of perennial yield for a basin are usually limited to the maximum amount of natural discharge. Natural discharge from Martis Valley Basin consists of groundwater evapotranspiration, groundwater discharge to the Truckee River, along with a small quantity of groundwater outflow. As an alternative, we suggest that an analysis that utilizes the Martis Valley ground water model to define the ‘capturable’ amount of streamflow by pumping within the basin (e.g., Leake and Haney, 2010) would better quantify the relationship between sustainable pumpage and natural discharge. Figure 1. PRMS conceptual model schematic highlighting all simulated hydrologic processes and how ground water recharge is computed in the model (based on Leavesley et al., 1983). Precipitation Air Temperature Interception Snowpack Snowmelt Through fall Impervious-zone reservoir Recharge zone Soil-zone reservoir Soil-zone Subsurface recharge Subsurface reservoir Ground-water recharge Ground-water recharge Surface runoff Surface runoff Subsurface flow Transpiration Transpiration Evaporation Sublimation Rain Rain Evaporation Sublimation Evaporation Lower zone Solar Radiation Ground-water sink Evapotranspiration PRECIPITATION- RUNOFF MODELING SYSTEM Ground-water reservoir Ground-water flow Streamflow DRAFT Page 5 of 11 Figure 2. PRMS model domain with 14 sub-watersheds denoted by color. Stream gauges used in the PRMS calibration are denoted by triangles. DRAFT Page 6 of 11 Figure 3. PRMS model domain with a portion of the sub-watersheds combined to adhere to the delineated Martis Valley Ground Water Basin inset (blue). All recharge estimates in this study are computed over the blue area. The Martis Valley Ground Water Basin area was delineated by Hydro Search Inc. (HSI). DRAFT Page 7 of 11 Figure 4. Annual recharge volumes computed by PRMS with comparison to recharge estimates from other methods and past studies. Figure 5. Annual precipitation volume over the Martis Valley Ground Water Basin DRAFT Page 8 of 11 Figure 6. Value of recharge efficiency computed as the ratio of annual recharge to annual precipitation. The mean recharge efficiency value is 23%. DRAFT Page 9 of 11 Figure 7. Mean annual precipitation (inches) in the Martis Valley PRMS model domain from PRISM (Daly et al., 1994). DRAFT Page 10 of 11 Figure 8. Mean annual recharge (inches) in the Martis Valley PRMS model domain. Note that the greatest quantities of recharge occurs in the high elevation areas which receive more precipitation (Figure 7). DRAFT Page 11 of 11 References Cherkauer, D. S., and S.A. Ansari, 2005. Estimating ground water recharge from topography, hydrogeology and land cover, Ground Water, 43(1), 102-112 Cherkauer, D. S., 2004. Quantifying ground water recharge at multiple scales using PRMS and GIS, Ground Water, 42(1), 97-110. Daly, C., R. P. Neilson, and D. L. Phillips, 1994. A statistical-topographic model for mapping climatological precipitation over mountainous terrain. Journal of Applied Meteorology 33, 140- 158 Epstein, B.J., G.M. Pohll, J. Huntington, and R.W.H. Carroll, 2010. Development and uncertainty analysis of an empirical recharge prediction model for Nevada’s desert basins, Journal of the Nevada Water Resources Association 5(1). Hardman, G., 1936. Precipitation map of Nevada. Nevada Agricultural Experiment Station. Huntington, J.L. and R.G. Niswonger, 2012. Role of surface water and groundwater interactions on projected baseflows in snow dominated regions: an integrated modeling approach. Water Resources Research, in press. Hydro-Search, Inc., 1995. Ground Water Management Plan Phase 1 Martis Valley Ground-Water Basin No. 6-67 Nevada and Placer counties, California. Prepared for Truckee Donner Public Utility District January 31, 1995. Interflow Hydrology, Inc. and Cordilleran Hydrology, Inc., 2003. Measurement of Ground Water Discharge to Streams Tributary to the Truckee River in Martis Valley, Placer and Nevada Counties, California. IFH Report 2003-02, April 2003. Kennedy/Jenks Consultants, 2002. Independent Appraisal of Martis Valley Ground Water Availability Nevada and Placer Counties, California, December 2002. Leake, S.A. and J. Haney, 2010. Possible effects of groundwater pumping on surface water in the Verde Valley, Arizona, U.S. Geological Survey Fact Sheet 2010-3108. Leavesley, G.H., R.W. Lichty, B.M. Troutman, and L.G. Saindon, 1983. Precipitation-runoff modeling system—user’s manual. U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report 83-4238, 207 p., accessed Aug 2012, at http://pubs.er.usgs.gov/usgspubs/wri/wri834238. Lichty, R. W. and P.W. McKinley, 1995. Estimates of ground water recharge rates for two small basins in central Nevada. U.S. Geological Survey Water Resources Investigations Report 94-4104 Maxey, G.B., and T.E. Eakin, 1949. Ground water in White River Valley, White Pine, Nye, and Lincoln counties, Nevada. State of Nevada, Office of the State Engineer, Water Resources Bulletin 8. Nimbus Engineers, 2001. Ground Water Availability in the Martis Valley Ground Water Basin. Nimbus Job No. 0043. Singleton, M.J. and J.E. Moran, 2010. Dissolved noble gas and isotopic tracers reveal vulnerability of groundwater in a small, high-elevation catchment to predicted climate changes. Water Resources Research, 46, W00F06, doi:10.1029/2009WR008718. Vaccaro, J.J. and T.D. Olsen, 2007. Estimates of ground-water recharge to the Yakima River Basin aquifer system, Washington, for predevelopment and current land-use and land-cover conditions. U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2007-5007, 30 p. DRAFT Prepared by Sacramento 10540 White Rock Road, Suite 180 Rancho Cordova, California 95670 Tel: 916.444.0123 DRAFT APPENDIX D ORDINANCE NO. 2014-05, FINDING THE NECESSITY FOR AND ADOPTING A WATER CONSERVATION PROGRAM IN THE EVENT OF A WATER SUPPLY EMERGENCY DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT APPENDIX E RESOLUTION 2016-XX ADOPTION OF THE URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN DRAFT To Be Included DRAFT