Press Alt + R to read the document text or Alt + P to download or print.
This document contains no pages.
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMartis Valley GMP Draft 01-09-13DRAFT
Martis Valley Groundwater Management Plan
Prepared for
Truckee Donner Public Utilities District, Truckee, California
Placer County Water Agency, Auburn, California
Northstar Community Services District, Northstar, California
January 10, 2013
140691
This is a draft and is not intended to be a final representation
of the work done or recommendations made by Brown and Caldwell.
It should not be relied upon; consult the final report
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
Paul Selsky, P.E. #43544
Brown and Caldwell, Quality Control Manager
Balance
Hydrologics, Inc.
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.
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
Balance
Hyftlogic� Inc.
10540 White Rock Road, Suite 180
Rancho Cordova, California 95670
Table of Contents
Listof Figures......................................................................................................................................................v
Listof Tables...................................................................................................................................................... vi
Listof 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 for review purposes only. Use of contents on this sheet is subject to the limitations specified at the end of this document.
P:\40000\140691- PCWA Mantis Valley GWP\GMP\Report\3rd Draft\Martis Valley GMP Draft 01-09-13.docx
Martis Valley Groundwater Management Plan
Table of Contents
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,
anddestruction................................................................................................................
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
Federalagencies..............................................................................................................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
mitigateoverdraft............................................................................................................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
quantityand 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
Provisionsof 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 ....................................
3.3.4 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
DRAFT for review purposes only. Use of contents on this sheet is subject to the limitations specified at the end of this document.
Martis Valley GMP Draft 01-09-13.docx
Martis Valley Groundwater Management Plan
Table of Contents
3.4.1
Establish and maintain a California Statewide Groundwater Elevation
Monitoring compliant monitoring program.....................................................................3-7
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
necessaryin 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
AppendixC: Public Outreach Plan..................................................................................................................... C
Appendix D: CASGEM Monitoring Plan............................................................................................................. D
Appendix E: Groundwater Quality Reports........................................................................................................E
AppendixF: DRI Technical Note.........................................................................................................................F
iv
DRAFT for review purposes only. Use of contents on this sheet is subject to the limitations specified at the end of this document.
Martis Valley GMP Draft 01-09-13.docx
Martis Valley Groundwater Management Plan
Table of Contents
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
Figure2-8. Well Locations...........................................................................................................................2-13
Figure 2-9. Geologic Map and Cross Section Locations............................................................................2-14
Figure2-10. Cross-section A-A'...................................................................................................................2-15
Figure2-11. Cross-section B-B.....................................................................................................................
2-16
Figure2-12. 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
V
DRAFT for review purposes only. Use of contents on this sheet is subject to the limitations specified at the end of this document.
Martis Valley GMP Draft 01-09-13.docx
Martis Valley Groundwater Management Plan
Table of Contents
List of Tables
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
Vi
DRAFT for review purposes only. Use of contents on this sheet is subject to the limitations specified at the end of this document.
Martis Valley GMP Draft 01-09-13.docx
Martis Valley Groundwater Management Plan
Table of Contents
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
vii
DRAFT for review purposes only. Use of contents on this sheet is subject to the limitations specified at the end of this document.
Martis Valley GMP Draft 01-09-13.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.
1-1
DRAFT for review purposes only. Use of contents on this sheet is subject to the limitations specified at the end of this document.
P:\40000\140691- PCWA Mantis Valley GWP\GMP\Report\3rd Draft\Martis Valley GMP Draft 01-09-13.docx
Martis Valley Groundwater Management Plan
Section 1
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.
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
Tahoe Truckee Sanitation Agency
Marcia Beals
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
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
Truckee Donner Public Utilities District
Northstar Community Services District
Steven Poncelet
Mike Staudenmayer
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.
1-3
DRAFT for review purposes only. Use of contents on this sheet is subject to the limitations specified at the end of this document.
P:\40000\140691- PCWA Martis Valley GWP\GMP\Report\3rd Draft\Martis Valley GMP Draft 01-09-13.docx
Martis Valley Groundwater Management Plan
Section 1
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.
The AB 3030 O MP Development Process
Adopt GMP
Figure 1-2. GMP Development Process
DRAFT for review purposes only. Use of contents on this sheet is subject to the limitations specified at the end of this document.
P:\40000\140691- PCWA Martis Valley GWP\GMP\Report\3rd Draft\Martis Valley GMP Draft 01-09-13.docx
1-4
Martis Valley Groundwater Management Plan
Section 1
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.
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. Board meeting minutes reflecting GMP adoption and public comment with responses
are provided 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.
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.
1-5
DRAFT for review purposes only. Use of contents on this sheet is subject to the limitations specified at the end of this document.
P:\40000\140691- PCWA Martis Valley GWP\GMP\Report\3rd Draft\Martis Valley GMP Draft 01-09-13.docx
Martis Valley Groundwater Management Plan
Section 1
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.
Category
GMP Components
Report
Required
Required Components: (10753.7.)
Section
1
Establish Basin Management Objectives (BMOs)
Include components relating to the monitoring and management of:
Section 1.5
2
Section 3.4
groundwater levels, groundwater quality, and inelastic land subsidence
3
Include components relating to changes in surface flow and surface
Section 3.2
water quality that directly affect groundwater levels or quality or are
caused by groundwater pumping in the basin
Include description of how recharge areas identified in the
4
Section 2.9
GMPsubstantially contribute to the replenishment of the groundwater
basin
Prepare a GMP that enables the partner agencies to work cooperatively
Section 3.1
5
with other public entities whose service area falls within the plan area
Section 3.4
and overlies the groundwater basin
Prepare a map that details the area of the groundwater basin, the area
Section 1.1
6
subject to the GMP, and the boundaries of other local agencies that
overlie the basin
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,
Section 3.4
groundwater quality, inelastic land subsidence, and surface waterflow or
quality that affects groundwater or groundwater pumping that affects
surface water flow or quality
If the GMP area includes areas outside a groundwater basin as defined in
Throughout GMP
9
Bulletin 118, the partner agencies will use the required components, and
geologic and hydrologic principles appropriate for the area
1-6
DRAFT for review purposes only. Use of contents on this sheet is subject to the limitations specified at the end of this document.
P:\40000\140691- PCWA Martis Valley GWP\GMP\Report\3rd Draft\Martis Valley GMP Draft 01-09-13.docx
Martis Valley Groundwater Management Plan
Section 1
Category
Voluntary
Table 1-3. Voluntary Components Report
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
10
Identification of well construction policies
Construction and operation by the partner agencies of groundwater
Section 3.4
Section 3.1
contamination cleanup, recharge, storage, conservation, water
Section 3.2
recycling, and extraction projects
11
Development of relationships with state and Federal regulatory
Section 3.1
agencies
Section 3.2
Section 3.5
12
Review of land use plans and coordination with land use planning
Section 3.4
agencies to assess activities that create a reasonable risk of
groundwater contamination
Table 1-4. Recommended Components Report
Category
GMP Components
Report
Recommended
Recommended Components
Section
(From Bulletin 118-2003 Appendix C)
1
Document public involvement and ability of the public to participate in
Section 1.3
development of the GMP, this may include a Technical Advisory
Committee (Stakeholder Working Group)
2
Establish an advisory committee of stakeholders within the plan area
Section 1.3
thatwill help guide the development and implementation of the GMP
Section 3.1
and provide a forum for the resolution of controversial issues
3
Describe the area to be managed underthe 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
DRAFT for review purposes only. Use of contents on this sheet is subject to the limitations specified at the end of this document.
P:\40000\140691- PCWA Martis Valley GWP\GMP\Report\3rd Draft\Martis Valley GMP Draft 01-09-13.docx
1-7
Martis Valley Groundwater Management Plan Section 1
Category GMP Components
Recommended Recommended Components
(From Bulletin 118-2003 Appendix C)
4 Establish management objectives (MOs) for the groundwater basin
subject to the GMP
5 1 Describe the GMP's monitoring program
6 Describe efforts to coordinate with land use, zoning, orwater
management planning agencies or activities
7 Create a summary of monitoring locations with frequency of wells
monitored
8
Report
Section
Section 1.5
Section 3.4
Section 3.4
Appendix D
Provide periodic reports summarizing groundwater conditions and Section 3.1
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
Provide forthe periodic re-evaluation of the entire plan bythe Section 3.1
managing entity
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 Utilities 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
1-8
DRAFT for review purposes only. Use of contents on this sheet is subject to the limitations specified at the end of this document.
P:\40000\140691- PCWA Martis Valley GWP\GMP\Report\3rd Draft\Martis Valley GMP Draft 01-09-13.docx
Martis Valley Groundwater Management Plan
Section 1
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 draft 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
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
1-9
DRAFT for review purposes only. Use of contents on this sheet is subject to the limitations specified at the end of this document.
P:\40000\140691- PCWA Martis Valley GWP\GMP\Report\3rd Draft\Martis Valley GMP Draft 01-09-13.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 15°F in December and January to daily highs of 82°F in July, as recorded at SNOTEL Station
Truckee #2.
2-1
DRAFT for review purposes only. Use of contents on this sheet is subject to the limitations specified at the end of this document.
P:\40000\140691- PCWA Mantis Valley GWP\GMP\Report\3rd Draft\Martis Valley GMP Draft 01-09-13.docx
Pap�atl
�� i� �� MrKYUILYO�uuixlvEsl6eam
p°� I °rM"�xlsln�In�11�Wl��IIIY.��1!iCirn�ulnaoiAx'etaYu�a:71'�k'al�,lllniy ',�'�IIIKimli�lll��
� ulr��xurr�yhr.�r%r�rl:;�xillm i co�R9�s�n snmcl r�Fr�.ilc=�r��l4�kP�
Stampede Reservoir
a -
Martis Valley Groundwater Basin
Truckee Ranger
Memorial State Pork
Donner Lake
Legend
Mean annual Precipation (inches)
■ 180-20.0
' 20.1 - 30.0
30.1 - 40.0
40.1 - 50.0
50.1 - 60.0
50.1 - 70.0
I70.1 - 80.0
Rain Gage
S SNOTEL
DATE PROJECT SITE
9-7-12 140691
TITLE
.� Balance
lIydrolagics,lnc:
Prosser
V 1
SNOTEL Site: Tr
0
Boca Dam
6
Dry Lake
0
Mortis Cred L
N
' 1 0 2
Miles
Martis Valley Groundwater Basin, California
Mean Annual Precipitation
Lake Tahoe
\I
Figure
2-2
Martis Valley Groundwater Management Plan
Section 2
a
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
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).
2-4
DRAFT for review purposes only. Use of contents on this sheet is subject to the limitations specified at the end of this document.
P:\40000\140691- PCWA Martis Valley GWP\GMP\Report\3rd Draft\Martis Valley GMP Draft 01-09-13.docx
Martis Valley Groundwater Management Plan
Section 2
80
60
c
O
a 40
'u
N
C.
20
C
c
m
c
m
£ 0
E
O
o -20
2
G!
c -40
v
u
N
a
60
-80
2000000
1800000
1600000
w
d
u
1400000
m
v
R
`m 1200000
LL
A
0 1000000
E
m
m
y 800000
R
3
C
R 600000
m
0
H
400000
200000
mean: 547,000 ac-ft/yr
0
7 f- M (2 O O N 7 I� O M 0.)N � N V t O M (O � W 7 M (O O)
O O N N(O NOD M M M 7 (O 7 7 l0 10 10 (O (D (O I� n O N W c0 aD W W CODO M O O O
O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O Q1 m O O 0) O 0) O 0) O O O O O O O O O O
Figure 2-4. Percent Deviation from Mean Annual Precipitation at the Truckee Ranger Station
and Total Annual Streamflow at Farad
2-5
DRAFT for review purposes only. Use of contents on this sheet is subject to the limitations specified at the end of this document.
P:\40000\140691- PCWA Martis Valley GWP\GMP\Report\3rd Draft\Martis Valley GMP Draft 01-09-13.docx
Martis Valley Groundwater Management Plan
Section 2
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 River' 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.
' 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.
W
DRAFT for review purposes only. Use of contents on this sheet is subject to the limitations specified at the end of this document.
P:\40000\140691- PCWA Martis Valley GWP\GMP\Report\3rd Draft\Martis Valley GMP Draft 01-09-13.docx
Martis Valley Groundwater Management Plan
Section 2
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.
USGS Station ID
Watershed Size (sq mi)
Period of record
(Cfs)
Donner
Sagehen Creek below Truckee River
Creek Donner Lake nearTruckee
10343500 10338500 10338000
10.5 14.3 553.0
1953- 1931-present 1945-present
present
Prosser Creek Martis Creek
below Prosser above Martis
Dam Dam
10340500
52.9 37.2
1964-present 1959-1971;
1973-2007
Truckee River Truckee River
at Boca at Farad
10344505 10346000
873 932
2002-present
1910-present
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
900
1680
Jun
25
45
457
112
26
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
1 224,068
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
2-8
DRAFT for review purposes only. Use of contents on this sheet is subject to the limitations specified at the end of this document.
P:\40000\140691- PCWA Martis Valley GWP\GMP\Report\3rd Draft\Martis Valley GMP Draft 01-09-13.docx
Martis Valley Groundwater Management Plan
Section 2
5agehen Creek (unregulated snowmeft hydrology, 1945-2010)
7
6
5
4
3
2
1 ,—, j:
0 El
Donner Creek below Donner Lake: USGS Station 10338500 (regulated, 1931-2010)
7
6
E 5
t3' 4
N
3
3 1 ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ [-I ❑
o
E
d Truckee River near Truckee: USGS Station 10338000 (regulated, 1945-2010)
+`+ 7
N 6
C 5
7
4
t 3
y
C 2
O
E 1
d 0OIlm
»
t6
j Prosser Creek below Prosser Dam: USGS Station 10340500 (regulated, 19"2010)
Q 7
6
5
4
3
❑mEl ❑❑❑❑
Truckee River at Farad: USGS Station 10346000 (regulated,1910-2010)
7
6
5
4
3
2
1 t� t� 0 0 0 E]❑ ❑ ❑ o I�
0
Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep
Figure 2-6. Mean Monthly Streamflows in the Middle Truckee River Watershed
DRAFT for review purposes only. Use of contents on this sheet is subject to the limitations specified at the end of this document.
P:\40000\140691- PCWA Martis Valley GWP\GMP\Report\3rd Draft\Martis Valley GMP Draft 01-09-13.docx
2-9
Martis Valley Groundwater Management Plan
Section 2
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
2-10
DRAFT for review purposes only. Use of contents on this sheet is subject to the limitations specified at the end of this document.
P:\40000\140691- PCWA Martis Valley GWP\GMP\Report\3rd Draft\Martis Valley GMP Draft 01-09-13.docx
Martis Valley Groundwater Management Plan
Section 2
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.
2-11
DRAFT for review purposes only. Use of contents on this sheet is subject to the limitations specified at the end of this document.
P:\40000\140691- PCWA Martis Valley GWP\GMP\Report\3rd Draft\Martis Valley GMP Draft 01-09-13.docx
Martis Valley Groundwater Management Plan
Section 2
Ekwadon
(Feet)
D _
-2W _
VM$d-rLpee
AW -
......o... _..o--.a.
o-
• l—w.�y•O'q•O
•`N ...
t��pey�° a°o•�
-wo
Too
_3oo _
svo _
-L000 _
I-106 — rtY rr*T ■ .; ...YT
TrY TYr
P.2C10 .. ,"Y�rrrr rYrTr YY rrrYr�rrrr*`t�
1-8(K)
Geological
Stratigraphic Description
Qgo Glacial Outwash
Unconsolidated boulder and cobble gravel.
sand, and silt with glacial fill.
QJf Juniper Flat Alluvium (Glenshire)
Qpc Prosser Creek Alluvium
lnterfingering lenses of pebble gravel, sand,
and silt, partly alluvial and partly lacustrine.
QV Lousetown Volcanic and
Interbedded Sediments
Basalt, andesite, latite, and limited tuff deposits
QPS Lousetownl Volcanic Sediments
Unnamed gravels, sand, and alluvium
Tt Truckee Formation
interfingering, silt, clay, sand and
gravel lenses
TV Tertiary Valcanics
Andes ite flows, andesite breccia
JKgr Cretaceous Granitice
Figure 2-7. Stratigraphic Column showing Primary Hydrostratigraphic Units
M
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.
2-12
DRAFT for review purposes only. Use of contents on this sheet is subject to the limitations specified at the end of this document.
P:\40000\140691- PCWA Mantis Valley GWP\GMP\Report\3rd Draft\Martis Valley GMP Draft 01-09-13.docx
t c�pJemail
!>
'#Jlx uoca�sa,inm,�ru�r
VWR tat(p ,mouvkul c'x'lft
'S1HAID
]° *v*.MAI
nn�AA}
wV
mmI°mz3uAwP%allb
�D�
wII,tiis l°mz3u:➢LUPxau
j
I�
7
IYiN&Ni.N Qmvembutvl�wVi
MAIlI am acI
wthim;im Pc=L
a•a2w ml—
�r\dI
.�Agwewe.
dalMvAVAIlllY'V U mmillohtakv I'� kaullini, ;za�IIIKi'mie�il�a�
''$iR' IIIII cox'MR-Am
1tip�W3eo
•`F•%f?3) I3)c�?JpJ I ,(%CalC;lh%i
tYl Idb K{wdtc lM��
4b-tiuMzrnrS.mmmainT:Ymm Wlminmrtlrvs
I:%�41 crs-1. mmn,�,y.w�nura.�.�Wwmm�ro
I a.. w:+aamL,:�i,Lx.,:�rz'm:mww.rm�
(1"Alluolum:PWrkmnLmNlkiMmC)
I ITTm-S�Lp1wrlWnmlKSmNLYix P'�uW'a>AD
I I (i�NnwLlHndoP+4{Ildamn.rxi
I mi-nm��clLw�o�{wssnw
Rmu®e)
I a>.�-R9�rr�amL„mm P+y�m
I umwrinbwffiysgolbb�aa•,w„{rrcRmamm.,n
I I ep+n-Rwamaz�ertm{lusnw
I I csnrne�,ma.,nm
I I [MMI-]MVIYmrmmmcawm.P°IEmmmetl
(Y..'M1AcauNanM
pMlmmuemP
I a�.me..lr®ambanrnP".�::L.maaLpl•n.m,�M
�":.;;9 aa.raanemmanwg
aw 'nn
I ILA-IirYrbtlrMlmlwb0rn�::M
�nvl� Lg}R.Ouwla�PwL
I I Iw.n-tsncL�ump�cmm>
9: tlL Imj.:9p
Y.�erae�Nl4)
awwaao,zu.m,awaiimcou..
t�
............................
BI RAHl�BIII $NF.
}Tvnfa 1ntr�n.
�4�iYYd+HrW L
lan�R6Aniluw P•Izmsrs0
aa�-wrmrr�mL�aeti��w,es,e ,min
eni afsalffiLLu. m9rmnh Pu'Favngj
n-1M0a:Y. mlmu. flw:uds
4lnlLv4xVtrevll�Nm $lveLM$
kia-NLednr a.P�LNL�.ffieY'lcw�
ilsffi
m.H-um,�mbm�w =wm��'P
Lben-..a�'w-. y��umwsnimM�rxa
�-atomsono�,.mre�maewroa�mrmmuwmr.D
m-xcr:xrParPRroxrmuameremrsn}
dalIKI MAIIIb,yVm illim AxMwnr 113mAllni, 4a,IIINPmIa 1w1
CaxL�IkL ;q m1w"I (c)wv ;9oIm 11 wful1bflv�
116MiLTM
A
Nodh
'a,l
FSR
rH.�1n
IKxm
1
�1
till
WII
R
1
1
II
g1I
Ihmwn Q]'cele
RTmcs('rcmk
RbMkltnYl l>I
FolkS',aan BJ
In �N: RSroea'
{;II
fmwivfnitlMn
k4^:(]VUIr
Nu:mAm
I
II
N
1
II
1
II
1
gg
II
Goo
,tea
11
Ma
UK
l �. n Ira sl 41 IIE � ' I4
p 11 dn,
PAR
i'nlltni ik�SNNk: ItnYl/nm
Nou /fJ
Il
s
ry d)
Safe
i
u
v
Ji1P
I o Ir
I u p
P 111t it
ICI I o Vcnvkal:SaPRwew.ro-da
afntn:
aIk.nAvpipmalnedmapterai8aaltvn•,`i`rc F.I'-ai lxaYmn ac apprrmruM kaval rn'iaraH,'fxsNagr AAap MYaplaNn Ylxnn: wCM*hH-a—M., P:
lYun Ark'AffmV#.rAgGIeSvm—And .W.. lafi YSx653-161A.
R,noi kq,mrwabwok
ay oltMfindx:arca.:ar4n of Yale l'alwa Csraxna. GaAwjeal:iocetyof nnrm
ti. FiiNra+l ylivry iMerrnl rmim S imH,'Jllfri. Itn:4s. I.Pl. 15aMn. J.1'.. Wr YC.`i., arl Yawden, F:.W.. POP I, ftiAA zrelnl HrnMratwn of an xhw-M8 rcsrinrlsc.
RM1ip'Asrvmlrv.,^9^.%Moide-'I"). 6.'fa,ml—d—J. yr-1. aneld,t nhnm Mm:n:vAr.J in M In,, (alMnnu, Gil I n& Ov, 3nanMynA SrvxtY a1 Nrc nr a. r. Jul.a s, p. l 1 F;/_I In 1.
3. Wdl k'3 kxafiore are appwirearo %atf in COO fat. '/. I''-raaam nuns nhgm Mnm. n-kn t n M k', Iad am.15.. I'9Mv.:%nNyrapTy. rrttAur., aM grxctraaetryr M (1ia(MxBxv:e vdwrr: nuk. M tM .tan aM F'a�a
I"mnrvs:, nrarin -a.' ,Ono u,:np•wn,'I drx]nral Amralatan, Umw I'AM f-nniiaa, floc, 191 p.
Mr1vFY. A. pIXYJ. FKtnr fanlFrvk mM , 1—I iY Par 7 mla�.• W tMlrurkx lane lrm mta allnrlsc. (aldana.
llvz.r.,li:mGhlA.`FaYe: Unur.,41 li:mGhlf, a!I p.
:iawxrAa.C,.I.,>W'i. Cnxkga MaF'cY la6e lahc fsa-n. GYr<aw aM lL b. Cekrorne
(wxhx� I Y.:rvry IGx)xnal (zxAryn. Map Senr}, INap Nn. A, I:If)U,(lW vsln.
I cprnd
Glacial'fill/moraino
Gllaciial f>oVwasa deposits
I^,v on, Croon JdWiom
(P'lpfiSlIDl49IDC)
�•*
Iousctown Nalcanics
(N II"IISI06L ov)
Iv
�•a'i I
I ousotowm Intarbotlded 9Fm ahcntp.
(Unnamood dtavols, cane and alllovlulm)
villlmcono and (or) ^I^islocony
Il:
'ln
I
Lakke.a ndgi,.ircllion
{am 1leposiis)
l RmPm dY,.4ll daianv! I IodmIOIorta, Im_
1V
I Imijary Voicaoics
Litholodic Contact
In9orrod I.itholodic Contact
a 'v.
Sands and Grovels
1'aalq ducalllnn of displal:emcni
Clay tied
@ I
(dashed whercc intcrrccd)
'IUff/Ash
I
Well Inp,
Iml:crbedded basally:
BIIII�
and AndesiiUe basal):
pp
u ..{. i.Illlll
I racture Zone
aln:
IIYAblrlKhi,3\Wedll',VGIYJf411flyjWrMal? "NC5i1(1),Cc'G)IIIfiit10mo1asl
ant:
Cc) rim fi3r iddW ) / .#v
r 1Mn
)IrC�A �InlNrnIIIlI ` I
^y^y I / : ,r/lpr 1'IUul1:F "A-.1Ion
140m,
11 111
wmiI mt
II
III
III
�II
mX) g ili Taro
II'�n"m g�j lInk✓xHal llli � llnrJm Pdl �
m 67
Q) @ ;'2 II av Q
GO
Q n? II > P
ull
(AX)o i
O. tl VI t- II - III Q
i) n rll- k k ✓>\ QCon
3a 8 bage
'In
t`k -,
ul
r I It
ji
Yll
UM SM)
II Y Ip
AM �, ?. 1h lknfaal livp}.weWMn✓>x
" m," 406
N(nrs: DISIANCI: INN R I I71
I. Pyprtw,nalc wsdui fr.,ggcraWm•. Sa. A. IWWt,.11man::yryrmmR,-.W)11. :'bwsPo,. "Cnhvfx: Nlq+�A laF.ralw Ikon.• INAtlaM.f•.w..IG4.lYzMA Mrelawywtlmtinrbs:amx nwMdrxlc TSlvsc. faH�ana. GmMyxvl:iucmtyuf/mna
P. 11,x io n pe I Xµ^kA l kexn 30 mXn� rlvgtal nhatum mvWJ, lf%Y.: avJ l Ln,r.r aryl rMMm, PoJ I I. f1�l4tm, v. F.M1, p. I A!i3-I AFA.
hrmkwhG from HA-1Ihe.Mun I o—a S.:irrfxml ysMx idcrreG from `xnuG,. ?((Ya 11n�kex. 1.P'_. IWmAe. J.I'.. Yau.. KS.. aM iLVQm. G.W.. ?OI I. IiMlt ":un4A tlmldxvf:wn of an rfivc faWf. msr Trnnhs.
aup hn.mgs.yr�nrkx.pfp). b:.:ignilI,,.a o,, "l,a"A r,—A Nvmn wM _rvbxl npvi hgs. 101. n. 3. P. l l f.'J-IINI.
3. Wdl Ivy kwMum aic:gprmmVe sMhin one fc . {.I re>cnr. !A—M .rcA rw111,!,. Ixiaam.l S.. 1:9tb.:ifrndyrnpFy. sf W�rc.. ntl yaxiranerdy �A ltx+v"ICMajc�c uGuar: rueb �A lM. r.�-Lem ilc.naM Knm�
1'mnrvY., marluirhw., CaIM1mnm, n+p�UeJ,nA rYvtnal AmvsGtrm, llniwaMy,A C.Yf,rvn+, llms, 3A 1 p.
rhYNy.A.;V%Ia, MPxe bnitrvA:M(TwW:rnnry pMa,iptlnAwg Wpic TruAs l'aiMl ,nrtM1 ufTnn4ec. (aldamu. lAi
TMCJ. LnivhLCRatelln r�M1Y.ILe l.l—; iCA . p.
.Jul GJ.. pApl. fxahgc NLp W LAc Taivx IYnn. C:ifemw aM N va9a. C:Hemw
syry�l s�nwyu �mwl r,..�l�,y�r. rx�, onn._,. lwp wn. A. l:lnomn. Win.
II c{;^nd
Lmasetnwn lntcrboddod Sedimorin
5211)
XWorbel na:
Glacial'llll/moralno
(q i.
Y�� J
{Unnamed gmvoiS, snail and ail YAvium)
B ..... ..� I
and Andvota ItaSAlll:
`plinconc and (ei) N9lvislecol.)
Wl@¢;
Glacial (aletwash deposits
I I$ I
I'a Tmnl llfla
"f"' I
ZoneYOckco
I'ructur n,
4
«I
(I ahc and S4room 1)npvxitx)
a $
lmndslidc deposits
I 'I(( I
'I crfiary Volcanic6
LitheloPic Contact
fWyl{'
lanlpc, lint speed..
t
d
Interred I.Meade Contact
(plclstpccnp)
1 F
Sands wool Gravels
P
Paid difecillofl W doduccol
I
IYp6xpi {:YC4k all YlVinlll
C I
(dash d ixhercn inf.,md)
Ipos 1pcnmcy
Clay led
--I
I ouxcivwn \Ivleamics
! +
'I itiT/Ash
u
IVleistvicenej
iE II
{ypll Ieg
l FAYIdca, inxv 11.Bk7lanv:IIlyelydvlScG Im_
III:
n'r:3 \WedllC',V Gilri)sWrIftmi 1:3NC511 (1), C�]Ihlkrnma in
Min
IMP
)IrCahgNln)enl ' I G-s9? 111�;�yli�c:
1d(IC19t.
lanes: maniYla
MOD
QHM'
Q
a n
I 600D Go
r "Iwo Cie.
�1
�1
UI
�°I Ilruck00lfaMn> Mcsrlk C'ack
I A'vpart
I 14f1(Ytt R'aulU
u�
I
I
I
m I
U y w
1 N�q mpqYy
N q I c*5 W
h b �
Qda I �
@r L
I!
II il-
) I
1 I
ACGD I,
D IIW176(7 .M W O
DMANCB ]N N 11
ullf:F)
IU
„ I I
II
II
ll
it Mcrtirnl:meFTf+-mk^
IIII II ' dd)IX7 -
:iR>Ytl7D 49,6IID
EM
KKflR'.i:
ae..a
I. nppivnmaCu wGcal rngyXc". 5x
h.la ru vpmwanMr_bcaiAm:uucehn "GxAage Map of Yalx.l'aM1ar,Fbwn."
M.. 15e8ory Mdalii .arn.ro:4Y ofYie laM1or_Calfinm. GxNogeal'xxrAY OYAnnyea
INiMaMAY ..
'l.FhrRrn prtAilr:hw:YpraAfram:Nl mars AgJaleWabm mnrLJ,
%IXY am 6.
CA,'YxRorxae
YM:IYGy v. 4i9, p. I419 IR4t1.
rWvrkw4.rl r�nm NaRnal rlexzum Uatae4
1'.i'ra iAMhrrn,%UI
arrRau4-. aad, frem.`xux:nrka. p0(li.
61mIFes. I of an autiw. Yauk rexlii :.
AA-.. Ker K.`r., ael Yk:nvAsu G.W .'t01 I. L1MR.r4M rle11
a re,y:..gxanrix.plp).
G.:imfxnl d —J,
1.:iigrlvaM:ranA,grand, r:lry b:N..•4Ic'Mrm. n6vA naef Yy..
all'.,15omk.
G? 18
M&v: °r:ea'xt'a':xrvly rFPo .nra, v. 101, n. 9. P. 16%-I If51.
3h Wdl:eartkx
5. Wdl lay loam au.pmwn r MAin GOO f H:.
.n
'Y. YracFmr oar., nkml wMie wGiAin wA lag,.
.F.5.. 1a!Mi
laGom.l:'v.. IORv.:»mNgiaAh'..tn:6nr, are gracPnveNY M (1w:1eeta;ay. iwl. M RM Ikr am F'angr..
F^rnnm:,O. n iuip.:dlnMnl MYral rhrier6 ,,A 41
., lAnves•.M1Y of CaNrwnn, Uavn, 9A 1 p.
-
, ooO 1,
kn F
yy cf oelnrJa¢ IaulF emu naYh of lied .. (sldorre. AA'i
McAaay. A. >IXIJ. FkSmu favlNay art (y,111
llw.y I C°A:aYe:Unra rti41I lakt, 71 P.
P.
I
PW6h lolalC,G!
:iaeaiknxk 9AO`v.. Mao or Lore lilnuli .nail
M:�a^.il(d
W a , 1 00,00CSY4xnia
fxr.Yayal 1.:rvey I4ryvnal G'xNyr. Alap Serves, FAap Na.Nn. A, I :I W,f%lU srie:.
Glacial'lill/moraine:
C
Gllaciial Dollwash doproaits
1^nv an, Creak allueviam
(P'l( IIstgcnnc)
Iousclvixm Nalaanics
Iv
�•A'i I
l e ousotowm Intbodded Neahmonts.
(Unnum od drevols, same and alllovlum)
p4ioucno and (or) 'I^islocony
II:
Ibrmallia.
IO'a.kec
{Ink. aad Stream Deposits)
RuLm dY,.4.0 daian e I llyelmlDlortG lm_
1V I Icatiary Volramics
v. Sands and Gravels
Clay Red
I I 'I'Uff/Ash
Iml:Orbedded basally:
p and AndcsiiNe basal):
P" I racture Zone.
Litholodie Contact
7aP
Inferred I.itholodic Contact
I ..It, tlivectilnn of displecemeni
@
(dashed evho,. infcrrccd)
Well Iop,
Sal
ilYlbla�i3 P'hrd1k',,q(Irnll)Ilri>shy tt� ilt :"'NniluyC IIiRoAnoi i'
mil.
r IMili
�3i�1rOr)I�)�,i��IIII - f
ti'C I\�A l�ilW ft. rm I'IilYi l4Gfi(ll P.MP�
Martis Valley Groundwater Management Plan
Section 2
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.
2-18
DRAFT for review purposes only. Use of contents on this sheet is subject to the limitations specified at the end of this document.
P:\40000\140691- PCWA Mantis Valley GWP\GMP\Report\3rd Draft\Martis Valley GMP Draft 01-09-13.docx
' BbiWP„x,gpmfvz SviuhA,llffima��Y,
agxs+rcaf
�I � Ukgi6'e�VNR96➢num3wrkulNa'u�
xm .m I—
k':cr�mm�m
�` RWaF
uslia�ri�il�Wl�ull Y�;,yCfr�aln�xdAx�taYuhar l'3�aulllni, c'a�IIllOkrnrr��l�a�
II rmoi97Ko1I1m of R)1pAdimT%3 mu"I khm1p1b)CAl1 II f4lull '
gw,Mnm anIDCI iimdr,:;mr.--AD
I W OQ,
All
Martis Valley Groundwater Management Plan
Section 2
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 overtime.
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.
2-20
DRAFT for review purposes only. Use of contents on this sheet is subject to the limitations specified at the end of this document.
P:\40000\140691- PCWA Martis Valley GWP\GMP\Report\3rd Draft\Martis Valley GMP Draft 01-09-13.docx
Martis Valley Groundwater Management Plan
Section 2
Figure 2-14a. Lousetown Volcanic Outcrop
Figure 2-14b. Prosser Formation Outcrop Underlying Glacial Outwash
DRAFT for review purposes only. Use of contents on this sheet is subject to the limitations specified at the end of this document.
P:\40000\140691- PCWA Martis Valley GWP\GMP\Report\3rd Draft\Martis Valley GMP Draft 01-09-13.docx
2-21
Martis Valley Groundwater Management Plan
Section 2
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 TDPLID. 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 Mantis 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 199Os, and
the wet years of the late 199Os.
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 17N16E11FOO1M (northeast of downtown Truckee) experienced a nearly 50-foot rise in water
level in the late 199Os, and then declined steadily over the following decade. This rise coincides with
above -average precipitation and streamflow (Figure 2-4).
• Levels in Well 17N17E29BOO1M (Northstar) and 17N17E19KOO1M (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 17N17EO5DOOIM (Truckee River east of Truckee) have increased steadily
over the period of record, rising over 10 feet from 1990 to 2012.
• In well 17N1E17FOO2M (Donner Creek area), groundwater levels fluctuated seasonally but generally
remained constant year to year).
2-22
DRAFT for review purposes only. Use of contents on this sheet is subject to the limitations specified at the end of this document.
P:\40000\140691- PCWA Martis Valley GWP\GMP\Report\3rd Draft\Martis Valley GMP Draft 01-09-13.docx
Martis Valley Groundwater Management Plan Section 2
6150
6100
6050
6000
N
95950
c
0
.7�
5900
w
m
5850
't
rn
`y 5800
is
5750
5700
5650
5600
C,
01
t 17N16E11F001M
t 17N16E13H001M
-A- 17N16E13K001M
li—.TAT i�1--� -r 17N16E13K003M
-IE-17N16E13K004M
t17N16E17F002M
+ 17N16E19G001M
-6--17N17E05D001M
--0-17N17EO6D001M
--L-Y--17N17E07P001M
-,n,-17N17E18C001M
-A--17N17E18E001M
--e17N17E19K001M
17N17E29B001M
-,o--18N16E22H001M
-a-18N17E33L001M
�- 0 OL
b
Y
N M 7 N t0 I� W O O N M a 0 c0 W O
O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 00 O
O) O) O) O) O) 01 O) O) O) O O O O O O O O O O O O
N N N N N N N N N N N N
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.
2-23
DRAFT for review purposes only. Use of contents on this sheet is subject to the limitations specified at the end of this document.
P:\40000\140691- PCWA Martis Valley GWP\GMP\Report\3rd Draft\Martis Valley GMP Draft 01-09-13.docx
nitiwvmyyos��'eyyi..��. pwr�y�nr�}pgQ��eautro sxanmwue,vaymmiseunm:uau�u�
S d F ii�
w Jv t d
sne•
o7AWrOis0VblllbV &K-ouloKblvifis�r I'�3� iiim, (r4ili� oullb
''1°"' - lik��n�fmroc�o>it Wit' WrY7�fi;K�xr :2s�xuuo
Ik1b nNomrhmt, ffiblllkb eoravl Rml xui IIIV'l mg-T pW,
a eaz 1;2 julm
tnow 5c. Ci
Soorax;:?
ii �,, '!
ll,M,
i fdm
f f t%
Ilir .c�3 ��11
Martis Valley Groundwater Management Plan
Section 2
Table 2-2. Estimated Yield of Public Agency Production
Well Name Estimated Maximum Yield (gpm)
NCSD
TH-2
800
TH-1 (anticipated in 2012)
800 (estimated)
PCWA
Lahontan Well 1
Lahontan Well 2
1,400
1,400
TDPUD
A Well
Airport
Prosser Annex
Glenshire Drive
Martis Valley No. 1
Northside
Southside No. 2
Southside No. 1(non-potable)
160
2,140
460
1,725
1,585
575
200
N/A
Sanders
290
Old Greenwood
870
Hirschdale
35
Prosser Heights
Prosser Village
Well No. 20
Fibreboard (non -potable)
Donner Creek (non -potable)
360
800
540
N/A
I 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.
2-25
DRAFT for review purposes only. Use of contents on this sheet is subject to the limitations specified at the end of this document.
P:\40000\140691- PCWA Martis Valley GWP\GMP\Report\3rd Draft\Martis Valley GMP Draft 01-09-13.docx
Martis Valley Groundwater Management Plan
Section 2
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.
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
c
m
a
LL 50%
.Z
m
tv
E 40%
U
30%
20%
10%
0%
O NlOfl r�0 NLL07 r�ON u0'] 1� ONlsO']o ON LLO'1 O"Or- O N 1a07 r�ON of�0 N IOfI oO NlsO'] O NLLO'Yr0 Nll0 O NLL07r
Well Depth Range (25ftInterval)
Figure 2-17. Depth Distribution of Wells in the Martis Valley Groundwater Basin
2.7 Groundwater Quality
50
40
30
20
10
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
r W.
DRAFT for review purposes only. Use of contents on this sheet is subject to the limitations specified at the end of this document.
P:\40000\140691- PCWA Martis Valley GWP\GMP\Report\3rd Draft\Martis Valley GMP Draft 01-09-13.docx
Martis Valley Groundwater Management Plan
Section 2
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.
Author Year I Recharge (ac-ft/yr)
1974,
Hydro -Search
1980,
18,000
1995
I
Nimbus Engineers
2001
24,700
Kennedy/Jenks Consultants
2001
none
Interflow Hydrology, Inc. and Cordilleran Hydrology, Inc
2003
34,560
DRI, PRMS estimate
2012
32,745
DRI, modified Maxey -Eakin method
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-
2-27
DRAFT for review purposes only. Use of contents on this sheet is subject to the limitations specified at the end of this document.
P:\40000\140691- PCWA Martis Valley GWP\GMP\Report\3rd Draft\Martis Valley GMP Draft 01-09-13.docx
Martis Valley Groundwater Management Plan
Section 2
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.
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
2-28
DRAFT for review purposes only. Use of contents on this sheet is subject to the limitations specified at the end of this document.
P:\40000\140691- PCWA Martis Valley GWP\GMP\Report\3rd Draft\Martis Valley GMP Draft 01-09-13.docx
11-
MAT F
t I \ P'd' A
�. F dOMMINEMMOnLL
■� 1P■■■ ■■■■■■■■ML'\MM
11■'i 1 �!,�■■■■■■■■■■■
1 :0I O■��1■■■■■■■■■■■■
LA ■.\■\'C9\■■■■■■■■■ 'I
hIMI■I,, moan■■ 11111111
� ■■Sri-- -
i SEES■■■ �_�:.� r::/■■
c r■r""or i ■■■Ir l r, _ :011 ■
i■ MEN ■Sri.... �,■■■■■■
Sol b
r,�>■ �■ Loom M■■N■■E■■1.�■ S■■
No MEN SEEM■■■(•I a ■ ■■■
WIN ■■■ ON E■/i/,�h�IA■ ■■■
■ ■ .■ MUSEUM ■■M iM■I1■■\r■■■■■
�/■■ ■ ►i■■■■■ M■■ 0■005 I I■■■■■■m■■
¢# ` t►lr■■■ ■■��/ P' /■■ OMEN ■■Fi■ ■■■l,■E■ a■
ay = ►� SEES■'.I IVAN ■■E NEON MIA■MMMINM■NF■■■ ONE
■■■■lI I■N■■■N No No SEES■■■ C/I■■■■
■■■ ■1I rr:./■-MIN■ ME on ■■■■■■■■ OO■E■■
iii &viMMMMMMMMMMMOVIE 1I-80I-OOOOO■ _■_OBOE■O_(•I
INEI
Legend
r
SEES■■■ a�■■■■■■E�
SEES■■■ I ■! �
SOMEONE 17!
5 VINE■■■_��_■ ;irk ■��■
►: .. I ONE ■■■ 1■
a e�m gWLIMOIL■► mor ONE ►\■ ■
■ 7
�►I��i���.�ll■ ■
Wes./ IANN ON ■ N■■\-q
IF ■Mom IN MEMO
I■ NEON ■MIN■■ ■■■I
I■ NONE ■■MINOR
� iI SEES ■�■■■■■■r:�r:/r.: �IN - ---r _
'�1' :; a I i SEES■■ ► 7■■o■■I■ ■■■I
I■■■■■■■ PA-T
1' NONE ■ ■hi
SEES■ ■ ■■Il■■■ ■■■ ■■1'r/■■■MM
loom r
Valley Groundwater Basi i ■INN ■■■■1".dr
' III-IN■'I
-a River
1��►�■
I-80
I
Brown AND
Caldwell
■■ ■■\'
liii■i� .. 1
mom
S.b
r \ 1-ao
■■■\\■■■■�`� ►�i
p! 1 p■■■ ■■■■■■■■r\'
■■■■■■■►
■■■■■■■■■■
■■■■■■■■■■■
►MMMMMM■■■■■'1
■L' ■■!N■■ 11■ ■
_ \ \INN\ ■ Not ■ , I
I'mombc � \ IiA■
1 ■■■■■m■ ::A■■■
■ li■h, IEEE■■`_`\ I iJ\►J■■■
I ■-■\, I■■■■■■■\.���.■■■■■■■
f.0 4m■■ frSEEN ■■■■■■■■■1.�■■■■■■
ofINME■■■■■■■■■ !■
■■■■��id\■■■■■
J■� II■\\■■■■■■■E■;��i�A`r. WAMMEEM■EW . .I
I■■E11■E■■ ■■■■ ■\d■■E■No
MENEM mom
■■■■■:�,� �L
■■■■■■I■■M■■■■■■■■ ■■ MEMO ■■ mom
■■■■■■ ,
■■Nook I ■■■■■■NNIFA ■■■■■E■ 01■M■■■■■■■MESSES
■O■■M\I ON ■ 1■■■■■■■■■I IE■■O■■.i■E■■■■■ES■E■■■■■■■
OE■■o■k ON■■■■■■■■■■►i-aolE■■ ■■■■■ s,
\■■■■■O■■■sue■E■■■■■■■F-pWo■■■■■ram■■■■O■■O■■■■ mom
■■S■
T :10m■■■E■■E■■E■■E■r:,/■■■M■MEr ■■■■■t•no momE■■ES■■ 1 '
LINE■■O■■■■■O■■■90ISM! m�n-md ■■■■■f lMESSES NONE
I1■m■■O ■N■■E■Z' }II!mr ;■ NONE ■■Eso\NommomOan
■■► _
No NEON MMMVF Mwk,
ILMN soon
W�iiii►i�► NMI ■E■ ■■ 000E■■E■ ■■■E■■E■■m■i:'
�i■iiMENEMOiMEOiiII momiiii iiiNE■ri
r1■O■■■mom E■■O■■EOki mom ■I,■O■■■■■E■■■■moss■Now
■■■■■■■■■E■■E■■E■■!mom EMI■O■■NEMEM■■MOMM■■MEN,
�No SEEM No NONE MMF;dF
■■■E■OMEN E■■■■■■Em■EW.,� --fir •N■E►.ArAm i�
■■■O■■mom E■O,■■■O■■did\ ..A l ■■ I r
iO■■E■■N■■■■■► 100ON , 1 TWA
' r
IES■E■■■■■■E■■E■111 ■�E■■.
1'm■■■■■■E■■E■■■ ■■■P.■
■■■E■■E■■■■■E 4
LegendSEE■■■NONE ■E■■ ■-
��■■■■■NONE ■■III
■
)IN ■■■■■■■■■■Pp!�
■E■ ■■■■■p,.' .
MUM* Truckee River i ■MM■■M■■►.IIIII•
i■P501111W
i��■,,
aStreams
Groundwater Recharge 1988
1
0-2
2-4
4-6
6-8
1 .
■
Brown AND
Caldwell
mom
D
I \ 'd' 1 1-80
11m. .�,�■■■■■■■■■■■
I I 99M R O■Li1■■■■■■■■■■■■
;L'1
hi■1■L, ■■aa■■ •I
_. ,\iiii■ ■ ■■t I, ,
is Ne" IF ,: ■
Indh, i ■iiik1_Na F AAbLAMON
� . u ■ a, i NOON■a.... •.■■■■■■■
r,! a ■■ VIM ■■■■■■■■■�.�■■■■■■
■■N■■M ■■■■■■■�!�/■ i NOON
■■� �i■ ■■■.1■m■■ on Ilm■■n■■M■■■■■■N
■■ ■■p./ �/■■ AMMO ■■�i \�,■M >t■■M■■n■■N\
■■■■a� I ■■ ■■ M■ ■■M■■M■/Isms ■■■M ■M■
■■■ M1� rr:./■■ ■ ■■■A■ ■■■■O■ EN■■ MONO■SON
■■■ a�r1�■M■■M■ ■■■■I Im mr•• •••m■
■■. MONOS■■■■■■m■■■ ■■ '-80AN 1
M■■N■■ ■■■■■■■■■■ ■■■ ■1
m■■ no it � ■
limm■n■ m■■ :�..■ NOON_
!- --..-� I "■■■ ■ ■■■1
Iffidom■► moo ■■■ m M1
41■�� ...:��■ ■ M■1
�_:■ 1 '�■■ ■■ ■►.I
ii 1■■■Niiiii
■■ ZEN ■ ■■■
i , ■i■i■ i;MMMM1
i ■NM■ ► 7■■111
lo■■m No M■I. ;
N■■
. NOON■■■I � No
No
ME
Le River
■ __ J■M 11
■■■■���
ns
■■■�./r
Groun
Inche!
■
■
■
Brown AND
Caldwell
■■ m■■■■ ■m � 1
■■■�s■ ■MONO
ME■■■■ INONEEN
ONE
'
ONES MEN 161V�k
?■■ ONE ■►\
■o■MMn■■■■■ ■M1
■■N■■ ■■N■■ ■■■mo►
■■■■■■■■ MM s■■■■
Monson ■■■,
■■N■■■M■F 1■r
_im ■■PV
AL�.' a
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 13M0 #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.
3-1
DRAFT for review purposes only. Use of contents on this sheet is subject to the limitations specified at the end of this document.
P:\40000\140691- PCWA Mantis Valley GWP\GMP\Report\3rd Draft\Martis Valley GMP Draft 01-09-13.docx
Martis Valley Groundwater Management Plan
Section 3
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
3-2
DRAFT for review purposes only. Use of contents on this sheet is subject to the limitations specified at the end of this document.
P:\40000\140691- PCWA Mantis Valley GWP\GMP\Report\3rd Draft\Martis Valley GMP Draft 01-09-13.docx
Martis Valley Groundwater Management Plan
Section 3
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)
3-3
DRAFT for review purposes only. Use of contents on this sheet is subject to the limitations specified at the end of this document.
P:\40000\140691- PCWA Martis Valley GWP\GMP\Report\3rd Draft\Martis Valley GMP Draft 01-09-13.docx
Martis Valley Groundwater Management Plan
Section 3
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.
1-1
Description of Action
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
1-2 Compile an annual summary of groundwater monitoring data
1-3 Partner agencies to meet annually to discuss GMP implementation
1-4 Support TROA provisions associated with well construction, repair, modification, and destruction
1-5 Evaluate and considertaking a position on relevant water resource -related policies, programs, and projects under
consideration by local, State and Federal agencies
1-6 Pursue opportunities for improved groundwater basin monitoring and reporting with local, State, and Federal
agencies
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
1-8 Consider development of contamination cleanup, recharge, storage, conservation and water recycling projects
1-9 1 Pursue funding sources for implementation of plan policies, programs, reporting and projects
1-10 1 Participate in the evaluation of relevant local projects to maintain groundwater quantity and quality
Implementation
Schedule
Once every five years, first
summary report to be
completed in 2018
Annually
Annually
As Needed
As Needed
As Needed
As Needed
As Needed
Ongoing
As Needed
3.2 Implementation Actions that Support 13M0 #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
3-4
DRAFT for review purposes only. Use of contents on this sheet is subject to the limitations specified at the end of this document.
P:\40000\140691- PCWA Martis Valley GWP\GMP\Report\3rd Draft\Martis Valley GMP Draft 01-09-13.docx
Martis Valley Groundwater Management Plan
Section 3
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.
Continue coordination and collaboration with TROA agencies on groundwater
management issues and source well development
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
3-5
DRAFT for review purposes only. Use of contents on this sheet is subject to the limitations specified at the end of this document.
P:\40000\140691- PCWA Martis Valley GWP\GMP\Report\3rd Draft\Martis Valley GMP Draft 01-09-13.docx
Martis Valley Groundwater Management Plan
Section 3
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.
Description of Action I Implementation Schedule
Formalize and institute a Stakeholder Working Group to meet at least annually
3 1 or as needed on GMP implementation activities and updates. Annually
Collaborate with the LRWQCB to limit the migration of contaminated
3-2 groundwater and in development of large scale contamination clean up As Needed
programs
3 3
Work cooperatively with local stakeholders and local, State and Federal Ongoing
agencies on groundwater management activities, projects and studies
3-4 I Identify opportunities for public involvement during plan implementation IOngoing
3-6
DRAFT for review purposes only. Use of contents on this sheet is subject to the limitations specified at the end of this document.
P:\40000\140691- PCWA Martis Valley GWP\GMP\Report\3rd Draft\Martis Valley GMP Draft 01-09-13.docx
Martis Valley Groundwater Management Plan Section 3
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.
3-7
DRAFT for review purposes only. Use of contents on this sheet is subject to the limitations specified at the end of this document.
P:\40000\140691- PCWA Mantis Valley GWP\GMP\Report\3rd Draft\Martis Valley GMP Draft 01-09-13.docx
Icyy nil
�� �� MmNa'm'illLy L9wim3xcnIlxlSxL:
C ?1111truakm Pdrc.:r
a+"9@SJ
grR.y�
W4, `4^151:�M1Ne6
Y
N1@11Kdb VAII11 vC:r.-LoiixdAx'sFaYum:71 k'WA11nl„ ',ca'l 11 fiawtil61
131`((%VnvrINArc
I�� U4\X]U UA°Al �mldl li) AVRO Cloomiric-Ax' wLn',7 dofifiyc d1lii "WAV 11h
�xl«C>Wiv`C«« �»
Martis Valley Groundwater Management Plan Section 3
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.northstaresd.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
3-9
DRAFT for review purposes only. Use of contents on this sheet is subject to the limitations specified at the end of this document.
P:\40000\140691- PCWA Martis Valley GWP\GMP\Report\3rd Draft\Martis Valley GMP Draft 01-09-13.docx
Martis Valley Groundwater Management Plan
Section 3
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.
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
Work with local stakeholders and DWR to identify areas that may need additional groundwater
4-3 level and groundwater quality monitoring based on identified data gaps or negative performance Annually
trends
DRAFT for review purposes only. Use of contents on this sheet is subject to the limitations specified at the end of this document.
P:\40000\140691- PCWA Martis Valley GWP\GMP\Report\3rd Draft\Martis Valley GMP Draft 01-09-13.docx
3-10
Martis Valley Groundwater Management Plan Section 3
Description of Action I Implementation Schedule
4-4 Coordinate with other agencies, including DWR and the USGS to identify opportunities for land As Needed
subsidence monitoring
4-5 Evaluate the need for, and advocate for, as necessary, a wellhead protection, groundwater As Needed
recharge area protection, and other programs as necessary in MVGB
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.
3-11
DRAFT for review purposes only. Use of contents on this sheet is subject to the limitations specified at the end of this document.
P:\40000\140691- PCWA Martis Valley GWP\GMP\Report\3rd Draft\Martis Valley GMP Draft 01-09-13.docx
Martis Valley Groundwater Management Plan
Section 3
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.
3-12
DRAFT for review purposes only. Use of contents on this sheet is subject to the limitations specified at the end of this document.
P:\40000\140691- PCWA Martis Valley GWP\GMP\Report\3rd Draft\Martis Valley GMP Draft 01-09-13.docx
Martis Valley Groundwater Management Plan
Section 3
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 utilize the groundwater model component of
the integrated watershed model to improve local hydrogeologic understanding within the MVGB. This
may be achieved by revising the current regional groundwater model (when completed) 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.
Description of Action
Implementation Schedule
5 1
Workwith State and Federal agenciesto attemptto secure funding for expansion of the Partner
Ongoing
Agencies monitoring grid
Maintain relationship with DWR for groundwater monitoring and database management
5 2
Ongoing
activities
Identify opportunities for collecting water quality monitoring data
Use and consider updating the hydrologic model to improve understanding of groundwater in
5-3
As Available
5-4
Ongoing
g g
the MVGB
Seek new tools, technology, and information that may improve the understanding of the water
5 5
Ongoing
resources in the MVGB and watershed
Use the best available data to inform and link agency interdependent planning documents (i.e.
5 6
Ongoing
urban water management plans, water supply analyses, and water master plans)
3-13
DRAFT for review purposes only. Use of contents on this sheet is subject to the limitations specified at the end of this document.
P:\40000\140691- PCWA Martis Valley GWP\GMP\Report\3rd Draft\Martis Valley GMP Draft 01-09-13.docx
Martis Valley Groundwater Management Plan Section 3
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.
Description of Action I Implementation Schedule
6-1 Consider local, State, or Federal riparian, surface water, or surface water- As Needed
groundwater interaction investigations, studies or programs in the MVGB.
6 2
Continue support and collaboration with local groups that identify, coordinate, Ongoing
or implement projects that support the overall sustainability of the MVGB.
3-14
DRAFT for review purposes only. Use of contents on this sheet is subject to the limitations specified at the end of this document.
P:\40000\140691- PCWA Martis Valley GWP\GMP\Report\3rd Draft\Martis Valley GMP Draft 01-09-13.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 21s' 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.
4-1
DRAFT for review purposes only. Use of contents on this sheet is subject to the limitations specified at the end of this document.
P:\40000\140691- PCWA Mantis Valley GWP\GMP\Report\3rd Draft\Martis Valley GMP Draft 01-09-13.docx
Martis Valley Groundwater Management Plan
Section 4
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. Lath ham, 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.
Lindstrom, 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.
4-2
DRAFT for review purposes only. Use of contents on this sheet is subject to the limitations specified at the end of this document.
P:\40000\140691- PCWA Martis Valley GWP\GMP\Report\3rd Draft\Martis Valley GMP Draft 01-09-13.docx
Martis Valley Groundwater Management Plan
Appendix A: Resolutions of Intent to Adopt a
Groundwater Management Plan
DRAFT for review purposes only. Use of contents on this sheet is subject to the limitations specified at the end of this document.
P:\40000\140691- PCWA Martis Valley GWP\GMP\Report\3rd Draft\Martis Valley GMP Draft 01-09-13.docx
RESOLUTION NO. 11- 13OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE
PLACER COUNTY WATER AGENCY
DECLARING ITS INTENT TO UPDATE ITS
MARTIS VALLEY GROUNDWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN
AND ADOPT A STATEMENT OF PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
WHEREAS, one of the responsibilities of Placer County Water Agency (Agency) is to
provide for sustainable use of groundwater resources within Placer County; and
WHEREAS, The Agency uses groundwater to serve customers in its Martis Valley water
system located near Truckee, California; and
WHEREAS, the Agency adopted its current Martis Valley Groundwater Management Plan
on October 6, 1998; and
WHEREAS, the current groundwater management plan allows for periodic updates and
advocates working collaboratively with others in Martis Valley; and
WHEREAS, the Agency has established a partnership with Truckee Donner Public Utilities
District and Northstar Community Services District to prepare an updated groundwater management
plan and develop a groundwater model to reflect current water resources planning in Martis Valley
and enhance understanding of the underlying groundwater basin; and
WHEREAS, the Agency intends to prepare, adopt, and implement this updated groundwater
management plan in cooperation with the general public and stakeholders;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Directors of the Placer County
Water Agency that:
l . The Board intends to prepare, adopt, and implement an updated Martis Valley
Groundwater Management Plan. Among other content, the updated groundwater
management plan will include basin management objectives, plan components, and
management actions.
2. The Agency further intends to provide for and encourage public/stakeholder
involvement in the preparation of this updated groundwater management plan.
The foregoing resolution was duly passed at meeting of the Board of Directors of the
Placer County Water Agency held on April 7, 2011, by the following on roll call:
AYES DIRECTORS: Gray Allen, Alex Ferreira, Mike Lee, Ben Mavy,
Chairman Lowell Jarvis
NOES DIRECTORS: None
ABSENT DIRECTORS: None
Signed and approved by me after its passage this 7t' day of April, 2011.
ATTEST:
Clerk, Board of lirectors
Placer County Water Agency
z:/ns.martis valley.resolution.vf
Chair, Board of irecto
Placer County Water A e y
Fa
NeClaSleD
Northstar Community Services District
908 Northstar Drive, Northstar, CA 96161
P: 530.562.0747 • F:530,562,1505 • www,northstarod,com
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
NORTHSTAR COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT
RESOLUTION NO. 11- 05
RESOLUTION OF INTENTION
TO COOPERATE IN THE PREPARATION OF THE UPDATED
MARTIS VALLEY GROUNDWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN
WITH THE PLACER COUNTY WATER AGENCY AND
THE TRUCKEE DONNER PUBLIC UTILITY DISTRICT
Board of Directors
DUANE Evarss
JLANN &iEE6J
NANCY IvLs
FFIANK SEEUti
General Manager
MICHAEL STHUDENMriVER,
AS A BASIS AND PREMISE for this Resolution, the Board of Directors of
NORTHSTAR COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT ("District") finds and states as follows:
The District is a "local agency" as that term is defined in the provisions of the California
Water Code relating to adoption of a Groundwater Management Plan ("Plan").
The District uses groundwater resources available in the Martis Valley.
The Placer County Water Agency ("Agency") and Truckee Donner Public Utilities
District ("TDPUD") also use water from the same or adjoining groundwater aquifers.
The Agency adopted its current Martis Valley Groundwater Management Plan ("Plan")
on October 6, 1998, and the Plan allows for periodic updates and advocates working
collaboratively with others with an interest in groundwater resources in the Martis Valley.
The Agency, the District and TDPUD have determined it is in their best interests to, and
have established a partnership (1) to develop a groundwater model to reflect current water
resources planning and operations in the Martis Valley, (2) to enhance understanding of the
underlying groundwater basin, and (3) to prepare an updated Plan and propose it for adoption by
all three entities as a joint Plan.
On March 16, 2011 this Board directed that notice be given of its desire to adopt this
Resolution of Intention, and such notice has been given as provided by law.
NOW, THEREFORE, the BOARD OF DIRECTORS of the NORTHSTAR
COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT does hereby RESOLVE, DETERMINE, and ORDER as
follows:
1. The District intends to cooperate with the Agency and TDPUD in the
development a groundwater model to reflect current water resources planning and operations in
the Martis Valley and an updated Martis Valley Groundwater Management Plan, and to propose
the Plan for adoption as a joint Plan within the time provided by law.
2. Among other content, the updated Plan will consider inclusion of basin
management objectives, plan components, and management actions.
Together with the Agency and TDPUD, the District further intends to provide for and
encourage public involvement in the preparation of the updated Plan.
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Board of Directors on April 20, 2011 by
the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
Evans, Green, Ives, Moll, Seelig
None
None
None
ATTES :
Jr es Bowling, Assistant Seer--etary of the Board
NORTHSTAR COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT • 908 NORTHSTAR DRIVE, NORTHSTAR, CA 96161 • PAGE
2OF2
Resolution No. 2011 - 01
TRUCKEE DONNER PUBLIC UTILITY DISTRICT
DECLARING ITS INTENT TO UPDATE ITS
MARTIS VALLEY GROUNDWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN
AND ADOPT A STATEMENT OF PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
WHEREAS, groundwater is a valuable natural resource in California and should be managed
to ensure both its safe production and its quality; and,
WHEREAS, one of the responsibilities of Truckee Donner Public Utility District (District) is to
provide for sustainable use of groundwater resources; and
WHEREAS, the District uses groundwater to serve customers from the Martis Valley water
system located near Truckee, California; and
WHEREAS, the District adopted its current Martis Valley Groundwater Management Plan on
January 3, 1995; and
WHEREAS, the current groundwater management plan allows for periodic updates and
advocates working collaboratively with others in Martis Valley; and
WHEREAS, the District has established a partnership with Northstar Community Services
District and Placer County Water Agency to prepare an updated groundwater management
plan and develop a groundwater model to reflect current water resources planning in Martis
Valley and enhance understanding of the underlying groundwater basin; and
WHEREAS, the District intends to prepare, adopt, and implement this updated groundwater
management plan in cooperation with the general public and stakeholders;
WHEREAS, prior to adoption of this resolution, the District has held a public hearing, after
publication of notice pursuant to Section 6066 of the Government Code, on whether or not to
adopt a resolution for intention to update a groundwater management plan;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Directors of the Truckee Donner
Public Utility District that:
1. The Board intends to prepare, adopt, and implement an updated Martis Valley
Groundwater Management Plan. Among other content, the updated groundwater
management plan will include basin management objectives, plan components, and
management actions.
1 Resolution 2011-01
2. The District further intends to provide for and encourage public/stakeholder
involvement in the preparation of this updated groundwater management plan.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Board of Directors of the Truckee Donner Public Utility
District in a meeting duly called and held within said District on the 6th day of April, 2011.
AYES: Directors Aguera, Bender, Hemig, Hillstrom and Laliotis
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: None
g
ER PUBLIC UTILITY DISTRICT
esident
ATTEST:
A--�l -
Michael D. olley, P.E. Clerk of the Board
2 Resolution 2011-01
Agenda Item # 11
ACTION
To: Board of Directors
From: Steven Poncelet
Date: March 16, 2011
Subject: Consideration of Setting a Public Hearing Date to Begin the Martis
Valley Groundwater Management Plan Process
1. WHY THIS MATTER IS BEFORE THE BOARD
The Board is responsible for the long-term stewardship of our water supply. Studying
the Martis Valley aquifer and having an up-to-date Groundwater Management Plan
are important tools for effective stewardship of our water supply.
2. HISTORY
The District has always been concerned with maintaining long-term water supply and
water quality for our community. The Board last adopted a Groundwater Management
Plan in 1995. The opportunity exists to both update this document and to greatly
improve our understanding of how the aquifer functions. This includes better
information on the sustainable yield of the aquifer, how changes in the built
environment may be impacting water quality, and how climate change may be
impacting our long term water supply and quality.
The Board approved the FY09 budget which included $150,000 for a study of the
Martis Valley aquifer and an update of our Groundwater Management Plan. The
District was able to partner with Placer County Water Agency (PCWA) and Northstar
Community Services District (Northstar CSD) to expand the funding for this effort to a
total of $250,000. The Board adopted a Memorandum of Agreement for development
of the Martis Valley Groundwater Management Plan and groundwater model with
PCWA and Northstar CSD at the July 21, 2010 Board meeting. The agency partners
secured an additional approximately $500,000 in grant funding from the Bureau of
Reclamation for Desert Research Institute (DRI) modeling services and integration of
a climate change model. The total project funding is now approximately $750,000.
In late 2010, PCWA, the lead agency, issued a Request for Proposal to hire a
consultant to manage the development of the Martis Valley aquifer model and to
develop a Groundwater Management Plan and associated public outreach. At their
February 7, 2011 Board meeting, a contract was awarded to Brown and Caldwell, with
local Truckee sub -contractor Balanced Hydrologics.
3. NEW INFORMATION
Brown and Caldwell has begun work on the Groundwater Management Plan and
associated public outreach. The State of California has specific requirements for the
development of Groundwater Management Plans. Included in the State requirements
is that the District must hold a public hearing, and adopt a Board Resolution to
announce the intention to update the Groundwater Management Plan. The District
must also hold a second public hearing, and a Board Resolution to adopt the final
Groundwater Management Plan. Staff is recommending that we hold the initial public
hearing and that the Board consider adopting a Resolution for the intention to update
the Groundwater Management Plan at the April 6, 2011 Board meeting.
Brown and Caldwell is developing a final project workplan and schedule. The
development of the Martis Valley aquifer model and Groundwater Management Plan
and associated public outreach is expected to take approximately two years. Key next
steps include:
• Agency partner kick-off meeting with Brown and Caldwell and DRI on March 21,
2011
• Public notice and hearing on the District's intention to update our Groundwater
Management Plan
• Creation of a Stakeholder Working Group which would include a technical
advisory committee
• Development of a project website available to the public
• Kick-off of the Martis Valley aquifer modeling effort by DRI
4. FISCAL IMPACT
Sufficient funds exist within the approved FY11 budget for the project.
5. RECOMMENDATION
Authorize staff to:
• Schedule a public hearing for the April 6, 2011 Board meeting
• Advertise a public notice for the public hearing
Steven Poncelet MichaD. Holley
Public Information & Conservation Manager General Manager
SIERRA SUN
P.O. Box 1888 Carson City, NV 89702
Phone (775) 881-1201
Fax (775) 887-2408
LegalAccount
Placer County Water Agency
P.O. Box 6570
Auburn, CA 95604
Attn: Nicole Snyder
Rachel Renaud says:
That (s)he is a legal clerk of the SIERRA SUN, a
newspaper published Wednesday, Friday, Saturday at
Truckee, in the State of California.
Martis Valley Or''b'undwater Plar.
Ad # 6289415
of which a copy is hereto attached, was published in
said newspaper for the full required period of 2 times
commencing on Match 16, 2011, and ending on March
23, 2011, all days inclusive.
Signed:
STATEMENT:
BALANCE
3/23/11 I $135.26 i $0.00 1 $135.26
VE
Proof and
Statement ofPubficadon
Serring the Truckee Crimmuniry since 1869
P.O. Box 1888 Carson City, NVZ9702
Phone (775) 881-1201
Fax (775) 887-2408
LegalAccount
Placer County Water Agency
P.O. Box 6570
Auburn, CA 95604
Attn: Nicole Snyder
Rachel Renaud says:
That (s)he is a legal clerk of the SIERRA SUN, a
newspaper published Wednesday, Friday, Saturday at
Truckee, in the State of California.
Martis Valley Groundwater Management
Pla-fj
of which a copy is hereto attached, was published in
said newspaper for the full required period of 2 times
commencing on April 13, 2011, and ending on April
20, 2011, all days inclusive.
Ale
Signed:
STATEMENT:
DATE
AMOUNT
CREDIT
BALANCE
4/20/11
$226.63
$0.00
$226.63 1
Proof and.
Statement ofPublication
16391896
PUBLIC NOTICE
The above space mreserved for Court/County Filed Date Stamp
PROOF OF P413LICATIO
(2015.5 C.C.P.) i
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
County of Placer
|emocitizen ofthe United States and employed byepublication
in the County aforesaid. | am over the of eighteen years, and
not a party to the mentioned matter. I am the principal clerk of
The Auburn Journal, a newspaper of general circulation, in the
City of Auburn, which is printed and published in the County of
Placer. This newspaper has been judged a newspaper of
general circulation by the Superior Court of the State of
California, in and for the County of Placer, on the date of May
28. 1952 (Case Number 17407). The nodoe, of which the
attached iamprinted copy (set intype not smaller than nonpareil)
has been published in each regular and entire issue of said
newspaper and not in any supplement thereof on the following
dates, to -wit:
MARCH 16,23
Icertify, under penalty ufperjury, that the foregoing is true and
Clark
Dated iuAuburn, California
MARCH 23'2011
PROOF OFPUBLICATION
THE AUBURN JOURNAL
1O3UHigh Street
16395813
PUBLIC NOTICE
The above space is reserved for Court/County Filed Date Stamp
PROOF OF PUBLICATION
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
County of Placer
|omacitizen ofthe United States and employed byapublication
inthe County aforesaid. |omover the age ofeighteen years, and
not o party tnthe mentioned matter. } am the principal clerk of
The Lincoln News rNeaeenger, o newspaper of general
circu|sdinn, in the City of Linoo|n, which in printed and published
in the County of P|ooer. This newspaper has been judged a
newspaper of general circulation by the Superior Court of the
State of California, in and for the County of P|euer, on the date
of April 3, 1952. Superior Court Order Number 88429. The
notioe, ofwhich the attached is o printed copy (set intype not
smaller than nonpareil) has been published in each regular and
entire issue ofsaid newspaper and not inany supplement thereof
on the following dates, to -wit:
lcertify, under penalty ofperjury, that the foregoing is true and
Dated inLincoln, California
&9BDL20.2D\l
PROOF UFPUBLICATION
THE UNCOLNNEWS MESSENGER
G53FStreet
Board of Directors
❑UANE EVANS
N C SleD
JEANN GREEN
NANCY IVES
Northstar Community Services District
MIKE MOLL
FRANK SEELIG
908 Northstar Drive, Northstar, CA 96161
P; 530.562,0747 • F; 530.562.1505 - www.northstarad,[om
General Manager
MICHAEL STAUDENMAYER
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 ofNCSD, Placer County, California Superior Court #SCV0028495.
Page 2 of 2 of the Agenda of the March 16, 2011 Regular Board Meeting
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.
k3mr-1 roll 71IL/ I I10"
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.
NORTHSTAR COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT • 908 NORTHSTAR DRIVE, NORTHSTAR, CA 96161 • PAGE 2 OF 2
Martis Valley Groundwater Management Plan
Appendix B: Resolutions Adopting the Groundwater
Management Plan
DRAFT for review purposes only. Use of contents on this sheet is subject to the limitations specified at the end of this document.
P:\40000\140691- PCWA Martis Valley GWP\GMP\Report\3rd Draft\Martis Valley GMP Draft 01-09-13.docx
Martis Valley Groundwater Management Plan
Appendix C: Public Outreach Plan
DRAFT for review purposes only. Use of contents on this sheet is subject to the limitations specified at the end of this document.
P:\40000\140691- PCWA Martis Valley GWP\GMP\Report\3rd Draft\Martis Valley GMP Draft 01-09-13.docx
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
Martis Valley GMP - Draft Public Outreach Plan
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
2
P:\40000\140691- PCWA Mantis Valley GWP\Public Outreach\Public Outreach Plan\Mantis Valley GMP Public Outreach Plan Final 5-25-11.docx
Martis Valley GMP - Draft Public Outreach Plan
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.
3
P:\40000\140691- PCWA Mantis Valley GWP\Public Outreach\Public Outreach Plan\Mantis Valley GMP Public Outreach Plan Final 5-25-11.docx
Martis Valley GMP - Draft Public Outreach Plan
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.
4
P:\40000\140691- PCWA Mantis Valley GWP\Public Outreach\Public Outreach Plan\Mantis Valley GMP Public Outreach Plan Final 5-25-11.docx
Martis Valley GMP - Draft Public Outreach Plan
2011
Outreach Activi Mar Apr May Jun Jul
Aug
Sep Ctt Nov
Dec
Jan
2012
Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
Jan Feb
Agency-
3 Public Outreach pPlan
4 Website and Monthly Updates
5 Stakeholder Working Group Meeting
6 Public Workshop
7 Stakeholder Working Group MeeJng
9 Stakeholder Working Group Meetlng
10 Stakeholder Working Group MeetIng
13 Public Workshop
14 Stakeholder Working Group Meeting
15 Hearing to Adopt GMP
KEY
Client Agencies Meeting
❑
Stakeholder Group Meeting
m
Public Meeting or Hearing
LJ
Public Outreach Plan
Website Line
Website update
Newsletter
0
Table 10utreach Schedule
P:\40000\140691- PCWA Martis Valley GWP\Public Outreach\Public Outreach Plan\Martis Valley GMP Public Outreach Plan Final 5-25-11.docx
Martis Valley Groundwater Management Plan
Appendix D: CASGEM Monitoring Plan
DRAFT for review purposes only. Use of contents on this sheet is subject to the limitations specified at the end of this document.
P:\40000\140691- PCWA Martis Valley GWP\GMP\Report\3rd Draft\Martis Valley GMP Draft 01-09-13.docx
Martis Valley Groundwater Monitoring Program
California Statewide Groundwater Elevation Monitoring (CASGEM)
7=1z", TRUCKEE DONNER
R.�. ff�Public Utility District
Placer County Truckee Donner
Water Agency Public Utilities District
Northstar Community
Services District
December 2011
Revised July 12, 2012
Table of Contents
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
Introduction
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.
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.
Introduction
I
I
I
Nevada
County
Placer
County
89
I
1
f
Truckee
a9
I
I
I
Legend
Mar1Vs Valley Ground Water S.—
TL)PVO
-ouucKe�
PC1NA Zone Marais Valley Groundwater Basin
.�' � �' .1,
10o.6ao
a
NoMslar Community se rvices ❑1stnct PCWA `�
FIGURE 1-1. MAP OF GROUNDWATER BASIN TO BE MONITORED
1-2
Introduction
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.
1-3
Background
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.
2-1
M
,.� B
_,WWI Truckee
or�nr Pass lid
1
if
1
1
-q,I
_..
r
Balance
drologics, Inc.
210142 X-seclocations.mxd
v
} SIERRA COUN Y_
do
NF
Flarision EVAD E
Carso
ACER coAgY` e
ty
��♦
BST �_ T a h o
Iwo,
Legend
Cross-section location
-r
`�� Martis Groundwater Basin
,fpk r.
t
r
C11�
Avada GO-UnlY }
7
Ir�rr I} A �
Figure 1. Geologic cross-section locations,
Martis Groundwater Management Plan,
Placer and Nevada Counties, California
Tahoe Vista
0 Speck1e8AvIt
lire Village
0
N
0 0.5 1 1.5 2
Miles
02011 Balance Hydrologics, Inc.
a)
w
0
w
w
Z
0
w
w
A
North
7500
7000
6500
O
6000
Prosser Creek Prosser Creek
Reservoir Reservoir
03
M
Qgo
ml
m
cl
of
u
NI
NI
of
Polaris Fault t) I
I
I
I
Interstate 80 Truckee River
UI
� I Nevada
Placer b
CI
CO
ul
M
rn I
<t
ul u
V I Truckee -Tahoe
California State Fault Zone
Airport
I
I
Route 267
a
I h I y N
o M DOLij
5500 Qv QPs --? —
Tt —
—� — — — — Tt
5000 -----
1
1
4500 Tv
—?— — — 1
—?— — T — — —
1
4000
0
10,000
20,000
A'
South
1 7500
QV Qv_ TV
it Q
a ? �
Qpc ® • Qv PC
�— Qv__
-? — T- _ _ — 4 - — 1
Qv
I I - Tv 1
I ----------- ,��I la.l!� ILi�L.W!I11 II I I I I I '• 1
I ---_ Tv 'Y
?— — — — — —?-1 1 1
—?— — — — — — -
J11 JI 1
_ Vertical Exaggeration -5x
DISTANCE IN FEET
NOTES:
I . Approximate vertical exaggeration = 5x. 4. Fault locations are approximate, based on 5aucedo, "Geologic Map of Lake Tahoe Ba5m,"
2. Elevation profile developed from 30-meter digital elevation model, 2005 and Hunter and others, 201 1 .
downloaded from National Elevation DataSet 5. Surficial geology inferred from 5aucedo, 2005.
(http://5eamle55.u5oj5.cjov/index.php). G. 51gnificant sand, gravel, and clay beds shown where noted in well Iog5.
3. Well log locations are approximate within GOO feet. 7. Fracture zones shown where noted in well Iog5.
\\192.168.1.152\gis\Projects\210142 Martis GMP\CrossSecfion\110925_Plafe0l—ProfileA-A—FinalDraft.ai
7000
6500
6000
5500
5000
4500
4000
References:
Birkeland, P.W., 19G3 Pleistocene History of the Truckee area, north of Lake Tahoe, California, Geological Society of America
Bulletin, v. G4, p. 1453-14G4.
Hunter, L.E., Howie, J.F., Rose, R.S., and Dawdler, G.W., 201 1 , LiDAR — a55i5ted identification of an active fault near Truckee,
California, Bulletin of the 5ei5mological Society of America, v. 10 1 , n. 3, p. I I G2-1 1 81 .
Latham, T.S., 1985, 5tratigraphy, structure, and geochemistry of Pho-Pleistocene volcanic rocks of the western Basin and Range
Province, near Truckee, California, unpubl15hed doctoral dissertation, University of California, Dav15, 341 P.
Melody, A., 2009, Active faulting and Quaternary paleohydrology of the Truckee Fault Zone north of Truckee, California, MS
The5i5, Humboldt State University, Humboldt, CA 71 p.
5aucedo, 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.
Plate 1: Cross-section A -A'
Martis Groundwater Basin,
Placer and Nevada Counties, California
Q
Glacial Till/Moraine
:Qsa�
Glacial Cutwash deposits
cp
Prosser Creek alluvium
00 QP0
(Pleistocene)
Z0 QV
Lousetown Volcanics
(Pleistocene)
wU
Lousetown Interbedded Sediments
�QPS
(Unnamed gravels, sand and alluvium)
(Pliocene and (or) Pleistocene)
Z
O
Truckee Formation
Q(Lake
and Stream Deposits)
LU -
Tertiary Volcanics
UJ
Sands and Gravels
III I�
Clay Bed
®
Tuff/Ash
Interbedded Basalt
and Andesite Basalt
Fracture Zone
Lithologic Contact
—?n—
Inferred Lithologic Contact
JII
Fault, direction of displacement
I
(dashed where inferred)
M
a
N
Well log
L
v Balance
Hy&010gics, Inc.
©2011 Balance Hydrologics, Inc.
B
West
7500
7000
00
00
6500
Q
Z
LU
LU
6000
Z
O
Q
L>LI 5500
J
W
5000
4500
4000
NOTE5: DISTANCE IN FEET
I . Approximate vertical exaggeration = 5x. 4. Fault IOcat1on5 are approximate, based on Saucedo, "Geologic Map of Lake Tahoe Ba5m,"
2. Elevation profile developed from 30-meter digital elevation model, 2005 and Hunter and others, 201 1 .
downloaded from National Elevation Data5et 5. 5urficial geology inferred from Saucedo, 2005.
(http://5Camle55.U5CJ5.gov/index.php). G. Significant sand, gravel, and clay beds shown where noted in well Iog5.
3. Well log Iocation5 are approximate within GOO feet. 7. Fracture zones shown where noted in well Iog5.
B'
East
7500
7000
6500
ME
5500
5000
Plate 2: Cross-section B-B'
Martis
Groundwater Basin,
Placer and Nevada Counties, California
Q
GGlacialTill/Moraine
OD
00
.Q9p':
Glacial Outwash deposits
0
Q
Q1S
Landslide deposits
Z
I-__
Q)f
Juniper Flat alluvium
LLB
(Pleistocene)
LU
IL
Prosser Creek alluvium
QPC
(Pleistocene)
Z
O
QV
Lousetown Volcanics
(Pleistocene)
Q
Lousetown Interbedded Sediments
w
QPS
(Unnamed gravels, sand and alluvium)
(Pliocene and (or) Pleistocene)
J
LLI
Truckee Formation
(Lake and Stream Deposits)
©
Tertiary Volcanics
1.7
Sands and Gravels
01
Clay Bed
®
Tuff/Ash
4500 -71
Interbedded Basalt
and Andesite Basalt
Fracture Zone
References:
Birkeland, P.W., 19G3 Pleistocene History of the Truckee area, north of Lake Tahoe, California, Geological Society of America
Bulletin, v. G4, p. 1453-14G4.
Hunter, L.E., HOWIe, J.F., Rose, R.S., and Bawden, G.W., 20 1 1 , LiDAR — a5515ted identification of an active fault near Truckee,
California, Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, v. 10 1 , n. 3, P. I I G2-1 18 1 .
Latham, T.S., 1985, Stratigraphy, structure, and geochemistry of Plio-Pleistocene volcanic rocks of the western 5a5m and Range
Province, near Truckee, California, unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of California, Davis, 34 1 p.
Melody, A., 2009, Active faulting and Quaternary paleohydrology of the Truckee Fault Zone north of Truckee, California, M5
Thesis, Humboldt State University, Humboldt, CA 7 1 p.
Saucedo, G.J., 2005, Geologic Map of Lake Tahoe Basin, California and Nevada, California
Geological Survey Regional Geologic Map 5erie5, Map No. 4, 1 : 1 00,000 scale.
Lithologic Contact
— %
Inferred Lithologic Contact
JI
I
Fault, direction of displacement
(dashed where inferred)
v
a
N
v
Well log
Balance
Hydrologics, Inc.
\\192.168.1.152\gis\Projects\210142 Martis GMP\CrossSection\110925ProfileB_BFinalDraft.ai
©2011 Balance Hydrologics, Inc.
C
West
7500
7000
6500
00
00
0
>
Q
w 6000
w
Z
O
R
> 5500
w
J
w
5000
4500
4000
V I V,VVV LV,VVV
DISTANCE IN FEET
NOTE5:
I . Approximate vertical exaggeration = 5x. 4. Fault locations are approximate, based on 5aucedo, "Geologic Map of Lake Tahoe Basin,"
2. Elevation profile developed from 30-meter digital elevation model, 2005 and Hunter and others, 201 1 .
downloaded from National Elevation Dataset 5. 5urficial geology contacts Inferred from 5aucedo, 2005.
(http://5eamle55.u5g5.,3ov/inclex.php). G. Significant sand, gravel, and clay beds shown where noted in well logs.
3. Well log locations are approximate within GOO feet. 7. Fracture zones shown where noted in well logs.
C'
East
7500
Plate 3: Cross-section C-C'
Martis Groundwater Basin,
Placer and Nevada Counties, California
7000 FQ7g
Glacial Till/Moraine
:Qgd�
Glacial Outwash deposits
Prosser Creek alluvium
QPC
6500
(Pleistocene)
5500
5000
4500
4000
00 QVLousetown
Volcanics
p
(Pleistocene)
>
Q
Lousetown Interbedded Sediments
Z QPS
(Unnamed gravels, sand and alluvium)
W
(Pliocene and (or) Pleistocene)
w
Truckee Formation
Z
(Lake and Stream Deposits)
O
R
Q
Tertiary Volcanics
>
w
J
LU a
Sands and Gravels
Clay Bed
®
Tuff/Ash
Interbedded Basalt
and Andesite Basalt
Fracture Zone
References:
Birkeland, P.W., 19G3 Pleistocene History of the Truckee area, north of Lake Tahoe, California, Geological Society of America
Bulletin, v. G4, p. 1453-14G4.
Hunter, L.E., Howie, J.F., Rose, R.S., and Bawden, G.W., 201 1, UDAR— assisted Identification of an active fault near Truckee,
California, Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, v. 1 01 , n. 3, P. I I G2-1 1 81 .
Latham, T.5., 1985, 5tratigraphy, 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, 34 1 p.
Melody, A., 2009, Active faulting and Quaternary paleohydrobL3y of the Truckee Fault Zone north of Truckee, California, M5
Thesis, Humboldt State University, Humboldt, CA 71 p.
5aucedo, G.J., 2005, Geologic Map of Lake Tahoe Basin, California and Nevada, California
Geological Survey Regional Geologic Map 5erie5, Map No. 4, 1 : 100,000 scale.
Lithologic Contact
— ?
— Inferred Lithologic Contact
I
Fault, direction of displacement
J
(dashed where inferred)
a
Q
N
v
I
Well log
Balance
Hydrologics, Inc.
\\192.168.1.152\gis\Projects\210142 Mortis GMP\CrossSection\110925_Plate03_ProfileC_C_FinalDraff.ai ©2011 Balance Hydrologics, Inc.
Monitoring Network
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.
3-1
Monitoring Network
Legend
Maros Valley Ground Waler Basin
* CASGEM Mondonng Wells (Color M9lches Owner Below]
• Nnrthslsr C.—rrry Senrioe Dist.
■ Placer Couty WaterAgency
• Truckee Donner PUD
* DWRMonA fl.g Wells * DWRCASGEMWeII
. Olher Wells
Navetla
County
Placer
Caunry
18N17E33L001M
i
17N17E19K001M
„rxi, Martis Valley Gmundwaler Basin
? 106.000
of. PCWA. T
FIGURE 3-1. EXISTING WELLS IN MARTIS VALLEY
3-2
Monitoring Network
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.
3-3
TABLE 3-1. SELECTED INFORMATION FOR CURRENT MONITORING WELLS IN MARTIS VALLEY
GROUNDWATER BASIN
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
Top of Casing (All Three)
Ground Surface Elevation (ft -
NAVD88)
5,839
5,900
5,792
Method of Determining Elevation
Digital Terrain Model (All Three)
Accuracy of Elevation (ft)
+/- 3 (All Three)
Well Use
Monitoring (All Three)
Well Status
Active (All Three)
Geographic Coordinates (NAD83,
CA Z2)
Latitude:
39.354541
39.344834
39.325769
Longitude:
-120.14377
-120.156033
-120.143471
Method of Determining Coordinates
GPS (All Three)
Accuracy of Coordinates (ft)
+/- 3 (All Three)
Well Completion Type
Single (All Three)
Casing Diameter (in.)
8
6
8
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
TABLE 3-1 CONTINUED. SELECTED INFORMATION FOR DWR CASGEM MONITORING WELLS IN MARTIS VALLEY
GROUNDWATER BASIN
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
Surveying
Accuracy of Elevation (ft)
Within 0.1 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
Unkown
Accuracy of Elevation (ft)
Unkown
Well Completion Type
Single Well
Single Well
Casing Diameter (in.)
2
2
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
Monitoring Network
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.
3-5
Monitoring Network
Monitoring
Access Point
Photo A domestic well showing the well casing, cover, and conveyance system.
The well is located inside a shed with a concrete floor.
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.
RE
Monitoring Equipment and Preparation
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. S(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.
4-1
Monitoring Equipment and Preparation
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
4-2
Monitoring Equipment and Preparation
Stale of California DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES California Natural Resources Agency
WELL DATA State No.
Dsstrid
OWNER
STATE NO.
ADDRESS
OTHER NO.
TENANT
ADDRESS
TYPE OF WELL
❑ SPECIAL STUDIES
❑ MONTHLY ❑ SEMI ANNUAL ❑ WATER QUALITY
LOCATION: COUNTY
BASIN NO.
U.S.G.S. QUAD.
QUAD NO.
1/4
1I4 SECTION
MO E]
TWP. RGE. H L3 SE & MERIOlAN
COORDINATES X:
Y:
SOURCE:
DESCRIPTION
REFERENCE POINT DESCRIPTION
WHICH IS
FT. ABOVE Cl
BELOW ❑
LAND SURFACE. GROUND ELEVATION FT.
REFERENCE POINT ELEVATION
FT_ DETERMINED FROM
WELL: USE
CONDITION DEPTH FT.
CASING, SIZE
IN..
PERFORATIONS
MEASUREMENTS BY'
❑ DWR ❑ USGS
❑USER ❑COUNTY [] IRR. DIST. EDWATER DiST. [ICONS. DIST
CHIEF AQUIFER: NAME
DEPTH TO TOP AQ.
DEPTH TO BOT. AQ.
TYPE OF MATERIAL
PERM, RATING
THICKNESS
GRAVEL PACKED?
❑ YES ❑ NO
DEPTH TO TOP GR.
DEPTH TO BOT GR.
SUPP. AQUIFER
DEPTH TO TOP AQ.
DEPTH TO SOT. AQ.
DRILLER
DATE DRILLED:
LOG NUMBER:
EQUIPMENT: PUMP, TYPE
MAKE
SERIAL NO.
SIZE OF DISCHARGE PIPE IN
WATER ANALYSIS, MIN. (1) SAN. (2j H.M, (3)
POWER, KIND
MAKE
WATER LEVELS AVAILABLE: YES (1) NO
H.P.
MOTOR SERIAL NO
PERIOD OF RECORD: BEGIN END
ELEC. METER NO.
TRANSFORMER NO,
COLLECTING AGENCY -
YIELD
G.P.M PUMPING LEVEL FT,
PROD. REC. (1) PUMP TEST (2) YIELD (3)
SKETCH
REMARKS
RECORDED BY:
DATE:
DWR 429 (Rev. 1109)
Source: Table 3. General Well Data Form, CASGEM Guidelines, DWR, December 2010
FIGURE 4-1. GENERAL WELL DATA FORM (DWR FORM 429)
4-3
Monitoring Equipment and Preparation
FIGURE 4-2. CASGEM FIELD EQUIPMENT 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 pressuretransducer.
(a) All measurements
GP5 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
(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 'f the weight becomes lodged in the well the tape can still be pulled free.
Carpenters' chalk (blue) or sidewalk chalk
Disinfectant Wpes, and deionized or tap water for cleaning tape.
(d) Electnc 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 maintenanoe log book, manufacturers 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.govtofl2005111261pdf1ofr2005l126.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.
Tools, including high -impedance (digital) multimeter, connectors, crimping tool, and contact -burnishing tool or artist's
eraser.
Source: Table 4- Equipment and Supply List, CASGEM Guidelines, DWR, December 2010
4-4
Monitoring Equipment and Preparation
• 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
4-5
Monitoring Equipment and Preparation
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.
4-6
Monitoring Equipment and Preparation
• 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.
4-7
Depth -to -groundwater Procedures and Frequency of Monitoring and Reporting
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.
5-1
Depth -to -groundwater Procedures and Frequency of monitoring and Reporting
\/
ii
�
LU >
\�-
0
LL
z
i CL
,
7
\
m
zLU
§
c
m
/
§ 7}
LL
/,x«c
$6-f
CLU)
2$EB
o�&
LU
O/f
±
z=Pem
w
/ Z)
. \
§
4
| f
§
0
LO
&
�| !
§/
/
}
w
k �
/2 k0
0
_
�
zz
\2f8 _7
_j
W
a$
i
d
%E
LUko0�&
00
wm
$
W
§
� W
�
0
W2
m
w 5
o
--
—
<
\ƒ#
t
k
\I
21
/ z
)>¢
/ 3
2
§
�E (
LL
p
�[
§CL=00.
q
6¥wa4
2 2
df
u
/
o
LU
}
7\
z
°°
-
---
--
Z d,
i
§t�\�(
wsamoe
LU
■
�Ln0� �
®
\
§\
2
^
2f
§
§ § {
z 2±d
u
tj
/i
iFZ
�/
«EE-
f0,CL3]
FIGURE5-1. GROUNDWATER -LEVEL DATA FORM FOR MANUAL
MEASUREMENTS
m
>1
0
15
Depth -to -groundwater Procedures and Frequency of Monitoring and Reporting
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).
5-3
Recording of Monitoring Data, Data Management and the CASGEM Requirements
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 shapeftles 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
CASGEMProgram Phase 3 of the CASGEM
System, scheduled for release in late fall,
2011, will allow designated Monitoring
Entities to do the following:
6-1
Recording of Monitoring Data, Data Management and the CASGEM Requirements
• 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: hllp://www.water.ca.,gov/groundwater/casizem/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.
Recording of Monitoring Data, Data Management and the CASGEM Requirements
77jw,CASGEM
Online Submittal System
- 4n4 Doi tpr Kn-i Clod waupr"� Ynm:r:rtritor
H.—
Identification
coordinates
Local WM Daslgrd fion • OSN041Y2.i00025
Lallhiaa' illir]000 NOM
Ii Local DalgnsWn tho som s 'ihb WM t9 - Yes g No
LOn iOa • Lt7SJl71]0 1Ylal
stab Wall Numow OlU>= 473's7025
see on rr®
IVlaitrr fft GOAT 341NON1172NNYM2
Data suornftM far tNn wM
Survgrtl
w WNW y Gy, SGEM - VOlunfary
Reference and Ground Surface
Well Construction
RP BrvaWn - 0t
Col-wie ton Twa' S+gk 15a1i
Tebi Depth • 1t m untnown
DKraipflon •
De yeu 1Yv0 wall wastnotbon Aala7 ' . YOc -9 No
GS E wradon • [
pegtfi of umned 1R*v1tilij
fA1tf10tl• USMquad
S1 w w S4 55 % S7 w Se S100
Amuracy 01it
HFHH !
Dktance horn RP 10
u
IIIfM oompMflon sport av�ahrr7 %� YM � Ne
Wall Comoaton Report •
Well Usage
Associated Basin & County
WMON" lJnenewn
J
WM ltsta
BaP11 wow N yt AmocR W
Ca ntt• Sill oammd-ma
Additional Information
W1Rten OKCriptlon of locaWn o1 wM Any a MMftal COQ1OW
FIGURE 6-1. CASGEM'S WELL INVENTORY INPUT FORM
6-3
Appendix A
CASGEM Guidelines
Department of Water Resources
Groundwater Elevation Monitoring
Guidelines
December 2010
DWR Groundwater Elevation Monitoring Guidelines
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Introduction to the CASGEM Program.......................................................................................................... 1
Purpose of Guidelines for DWR Monitoring................................................................................................. 1
NetworkDesign 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
Establishingthe Reference Point.............................................................................................................. 9
Guidelines for Measuring Water Levels.................................................................................................. 14
Glossaryof Terms....................................................................................................................................29
References.............................................................................................................................................. 33
DWR Groundwater Elevation Monitoring Guidelines ii
INTRODUCTION TO THE CASGEM PROGRAM
On November 4, 2009 the state legislature amended the Water Code with SIB 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
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 (mil) for a large area in which only major features are to be
mapped, to 100 wells per 1,000 mil 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
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 mil. 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
2
(wells per 100 mi )
Heath (1976)
0.2 — 10
Sophocleous (1983)
6.3
Hopkins (1994)
4.0
(a) Basins with >10,000 AF/yr groundwater pumping per 100
2
mi area
(b) Basins with 1,000-10,000 AF/yr groundwater pumping
2.0
per 100 mil area
(c) Basins with 250-1,000 AF/yr groundwater pumping per
1.0
100 miZ area
(d) Basins with 100--250 AF/yr groundwater pumping per
0.7
100 miZ area
Table 1. Recommended density of monitoring wells for groundwater -level monitoring
programs.
DWR Groundwater Elevation Monitoring Guidelines
Figure 1. Contour maps — Contours of a very high -density well network (about 20 wells
per 100 mil) compared to a low -density well network (about 2 wells per 100 mi2).
DWR Groundwater Elevation Monitoring Guidelines 4
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.
45
Daily
55
- Monthly
Quarterly
- Semi -Annual
2004 1 2005 1 2006 2007 1 2008 1 2009 1 2010
Figure 2. Groundwater Hydrographs — Groundwater elevation changes in a monitoring
well over time comparing various measurement frequencies.
DWR Groundwater Elevation Monitoring Guidelines
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.
Nearby Long
-Term Aquifer Withdrawals
Measurement
Aquifer Type
Very Few
Moderate
Many
Type
Withdrawals
Withdrawals
Withdrawals
Baseline
All aquifer types
Once per
Once per day
Once per hour
Measurements
month
All aquifer types:
"low" hydraulic
conductivity
Once per year
Once per
Once per
quarter
month
"low" recharge
Surveillance
(<5 in/yr)
Measurements
All aquifer types:
"high" hydraulic
conductivity
Once per
Once per
Once per day
(>200 ft/d),
quarter
month
"high" recharge
(>5 in/yr)
As stored in
As stored in
As stored in
Data made
All aquifer types,
local
local
local
available to
throughout range of
database, but
database, but
database, but
NGWMN
hydraulic conductivity
at least
at least
at least
annually
annually
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
rv];:•r
�Ii' lIk,'v.
Greater
Mate
11 CIU4�III
urv: 'irfiil�•d
Rapid
withdrawal
variable
F(Fgnµ114 yV++f
Aquifer
Ground-
Aquifer
Climatic
mat+n.lovol
type and
water flow
development
conditions
unsur+�ineuts
position
and
recharge
rate
Less
❑eal>,
: v:
Less
Lr 5
frequent
confined
withdrawal
v ball
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
FIELD GUIDELINES FOR CASGEM WATER -LEVEL MEASUREMENTS
INTRODUCTION
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
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
Reference Point
(RP)
Tape at
Water Surfa
Well Casing
16'
15'
0
14'
13,
a �
9' oc
� o 0
8' Ln
o - o
7' ui ri
6'
5'
4'
in
2'
au
a
1'
o�
N
Land Surface Datum (LSD
Calculation of Denth 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'
Water Surface (WS)
Figure 4. Groundwater -level measurements using a graduated steel tape (modified from U.S.
Geological Survey, 2006).
DWR Groundwater Elevation Monitoring Guidelines 10
State of Califomia DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES Caiifonnia Natural Resources Agency
WELL DATA State No.
District
OWNER
STATE NO.
ADDRESS
OTHER NO.
TENANT
ADDRESS
TYPE OF WELL
SPECIAL STUDIES
❑ MONTHLY SEMIANNUAL ❑ WATER QUALITY
LOCATION: COUNTY
BASIN
NO.
U.S.G.S, QUAD.
QUAD NO.
1/4
1/a SECTION
MDCI
TWP. RGE_ HB 9❑ASE 8 MERIDIAN
COORDINATES k
Y:
SOURCE:
DESCRIPTION
REFERENCE POINT DESCRIPTION
WHICH IS FT. ABOVE ❑
BELOW ❑
LAND SURFACE. GROUND ELEVATION FT.
REFERENCE POINT ELEVATION
FT.
DETERMINED FROM
WELL: USE
CONDITION
DEPTH FT.
CASING, SIZE
IN.,
PERFORATIONS
MEASUREMENTS BY:
❑ DWR ❑ USGS
❑USER
❑ COUNTY ❑ IRR. DIST. ❑ WATER DIST. ❑CONS- DIST_
CHIEF AQUIFER NAME
DEPTH TO TOP AQ.
DEPTH TO BOT. AQ.
TYPE OF MATERIAL
PERM. RATING
THICKNESS
GRAVEL PACKED?
❑ YES ❑ NO
DEPTH TO TOP
GR.
DEPTH TO BOT GR.
SUPP, AQUIFER
DEPTH TO TOP
AQ.
DEPTH TO BOT. AQ.
DRILLER
DATE DRILLED:
LOG NUMBER:
EQUIPMENT: PUMP, TYPE
MAKE
SERIAL NO.
SIZE OF DISCHARGE PIPE IN
WATER ANALYSIS: MIN. (1) SAN, (2) H.M. (3)
POWER, KIND
MAKE
WATER LEVELS AVAILABLE: YES (1) NO
H.P.
MOTOR SERIAL NO
PERIOD OF RECORD: BEGIN END
ELEC. METER NO.
TRANSFORMER NO,
COLLECTING AGENCY'
YIELD
G.P.M. PUMPING LEVEL FT.
PROD. REC. (1) PUMP TEST (2) YIELD (3)
SKETCH
REMARKS
RECORDED BY:
DATE:
DWR 429 (Rev. 1109)
Table 3. General well data form (DWR Form 429).
DWR Groundwater Elevation Monitoring Guidelines 11
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
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
(fl Automated measurements with pressure transducer
Transducer field form (see Figures 1 and 2 in Drost, 2005: http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2005/1126/pdf/ofr2OO5ll26.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.
Tools, including high -impedance (digital) multimeter, connectors, crimping tool, and contact -burnishing tool or artist's
eraser.
DWR Groundwater Elevation Monitoring Guidelines 13
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
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
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
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
LLJ
ƒ
j£
j_/LLI
/
-
Ld
LLI
L
/
��
.
E
§
/
>
\
C L
ME c
\
\ \ z
UE�
=a2
era
§\\n
LU
Im /
§mm0
�Zw
j>�.
§L�n2
/
\mod
© }
o
@
§ ƒ
/
\
Dz
��
< m
j\
\/ \
-
m
>
\
0
w z
§| ;0
@
§
LJJ
}
\
ƒ
z£
2@\/j
�m
LLJ
k2
\aw6 �
[
w
«
as
/
/4
-
�
®°
0
©
{
w
6
\� f
o
�)
< <
� �
�! *
\ [-
®
ƒƒ
{
p 2
x
r
=,¥
«
b
<
z
bm�e
e
0
\
7\}\\
§azo0
>
>
g
6z6wi
j«
2 /
>
m
j2
\{ 7§
/z
m
E
m
2
z�•�;p
�67�oe
j$a6w,0o
r
\
\\ P
k
$\ 7
o 0.0
/
\\{p)/
/
&z
raEE
§�z/G
a«N6+
Table \ Groundwater level data form for manual measurements (DWR Form 12]3{
(
\
E
\
\
DWRGroundwater Elevation Monitoring Guidelines 18
(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
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
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
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
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
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
Figure 5. Groundwater -level measurements using a pressure transducer (vented or non -vented)
(modified from Drost, 2005).
DWR Groundwater Elevation Monitoring Guidelines 25
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
S
H
`m
m
E
E
x
�
7
c
~
c
�m
a
O
V
aS
a
a 8
�rc
p
p
u.i
�
� •g
2
C
C
� �
Q
N
m
=
o
Y
o
=
a�
W
N
0)
y
�
LL
m rn
Q d
m
m
a
m
E
N
u T m
Z
m4� m
R
F
v7
aV
N
c
W
a` I m;m—
e
W~
~ c
w a
r
"16
LIU
F
cv
o
a
m
m
24
£
QLU
T
d
`m] m
V
fV m
O y
n a
w
h N
N
�a
� ar
cmi
n �
sum
❑ r
�
C
06
9
Z
N
C R
db
�j
O]
m
o n
C n
0
C
c r
t
Z
vm y
N
A
4
W
G
4
m
E
e'n J
g
E+'
7
m
A Ti
C
r
•
a
w
h
g
a
,° �
A
T
L
d
v
14O
_
W
-
❑ n
.o
E
r
L
~
W
? ffi
EEC
u
5
�mw
2
O
4 C
Y
Table 6. Groundwater level data form for vented or non -vented pressure transducer with data
logger.
DWR Groundwater Elevation Monitoring Guidelines 27
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
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
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
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
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/soqw/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
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/ofr2OO5ll26.pd
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. Al, 23 p., available online at: http://pubs.usgs.gov/twri/twri8al/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.i)df
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
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/circl2l7/pdf/circl2l7 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/
DWR Groundwater Elevation Monitoring Guidelines 34
Appendix 6
CASGEM Monitoring Plan Summary
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),
• 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
2
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.
3
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
4
Martis Valley Groundwater Management Plan
Appendix E: Groundwater Quality Reports
DRAFT for review purposes only. Use of contents on this sheet is subject to the limitations specified at the end of this document.
P:\40000\140691- PCWA Martis Valley GWP\GMP\Report\3rd Draft\Martis Valley GMP Draft 01-09-13.docx
P WA
-ergy • stewardship
PCWA Water is Safe and Healthy
lacer County Water Agency is
proud to supply safe and
healthy water. We are pleased
to report that the drinking water sup-
plied to you meets or exceeds state
and federal public health standards
for drinking water quality and safety.
California water retailers, includ-
ing PCWA, are required by law to
inform customers about the quality
of their drinking water. The results
of PCWXs testing and monitoring
programs of 2011 are reported in
this newsletter.
If you have any questions about
this report, please contact the PCWA
Customer Services Center at (530)
823-4850 or (800) 464-0030.
About Your
Drinking Water
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
U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency's Safe Drinking Water
Hotline:
1-800-426-4791
Truckee
Nevada County
lea 1 ; Placer County
� 1
Q� 1
1 � ,
1 Lahonton Dr.l
1 1
PLACER COUNTY
BORDER
t- _ J
LJ SERVICE AREA
_
O 5
Martis Valley Service Area
Groundwater Suaalx
The Source of Your Water Supply
ater for the PCWA Mattis Valley service area in eastern Placer County is
pumped from the Mattis Valley aquifer. Groundwater is drawn from two
wells, approximately 900 feet in depth, located adjacent to Lahontan Drive
and Schaffer Mill Road. Water is distributed to customers via pipeline.
Ensuring The Safety of
Your Drinking Water Supply
n order to ensure that tap water is safe to drink, the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (USEPA) and the state Department of Public Health pre-
scribe regulations which limit the amount of certain contaminants in water
provided by public water systems. State regulations also establish limits for
contaminants in bottled water that must provide the same protection for pub-
lic health.
Placer County Water Agency
le r-3CWA Consumer Confidence Report for 2011 (Reported in 2012)
MARTIS VALLEY Water System
Primary Drinking Water Standards
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
Constituent Units State MCL
PHG (MCLG)
Range and
Typical Source
or {MRDL}
or {MRDLG}
Average
of Contaminant
or (HRAA)
Chlorine mg/L {4}
141
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
Specific Conductance US/Cm 1600 None
Chloride mg/L 500 None
Sulfate
mg/L 500 None
120-130
Runoff, leaching
125
from natural deposits
180-190
Substances that form
185
Ions when in water
1 .3-1 .8
Runoff, leaching
1.55
from natural deposits
0.93-1.3
Runoff, leaching
1.12
from natural deposits
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.ciov/safewater/lead.
DEFINITIONS: Understanding Your Water Quality Report
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
PAGE 2 • PCWA UPDATE
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.
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.
Environmental Influences on Drinking Water
he sources of drinking water (both tap and bottled
water) include rivers, lakes, streams, ponds, reser-
voirs, springs and wells. As water travels over the
surface of the land or through the ground, it dis-
solves 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, which
may come from sewage treatment plants, septic systems, agricul-
tural livestock operations, and wildlife.
Inorganic contaminants, such as salt and metals, which can
Note to At -Risk Water Users
ome people may be more vulnerable to contaminants in
drinking 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 from
infections. 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 (800)
426-4791.
2011 Testing Results
Measurements reported here were collected in 2011 (unless
otherwise noted). In accordance with federal regulations, data is
from the most recent tests. We are allowed to monitor for some
contaminants less than once per year because concentrations of
these contaminants do not change frequently.
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 of
sources such as agriculture, urban storm water runoff and resi-
dential uses.
• Organic chemical contaminants, including synthetic and
volatile organic chemicals, which 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 mining activities.
Martis Valley System
About Your Water Supply
Note on Radon
Radon is a radioactive gas that you can't see, smell, or
taste. 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. Radon can also get into
indoor air when released from tap water from showering,
washing dishes, and other household activites. Compared
to radon entering a home through soil, radon entering
through tap water will in most cases be a small source of
radon 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 cause
increased risk of stomach cancer. If you are concerned
about radon in your home, test the air. Testing is inex-
pensive and easy. Fix your home if the level of radon is
4 pCi/L or higher. There are simple ways to fix a radon
problem that aren't too costly.
For additional information, call your State radon pro-
gram (800-745-7236), the EPA Safe Drinking Water Act
Hotline (800-426-4791) or the National Safe Council
Radon Hotline (1-800-SOS-RADON).
PAGE 3 • PCWA UPDATE
1= I 11111111111ilA1ATFA
Public Meetings
The Placer County Water Agency Board of Directors meets
regularly the first and third Thursdays of each month at 2 p.m.
at the Placer County Water Agency Business Center, 144
Ferguson Road, in Auburn.
The public is welcome.
Contacting Your Elected Directors
DISTRICT I: Gray Allen
DISTRICT 2: Alex Ferreira
DISTRICT 3: Lowell Jarvis
DISTRICT 4 & 2012 Board Chair: Mike Lee
DISTRICT 5 & 2012 Vice Chair: Ben Mavy
If you would like to contact a member of the board, please call the PCWA
Customer Service Center at (530) 823-4850 or (800) 464-0030. We will be
pleased 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 AGENCY
144 Ferguson Road (P.O. Box 6570)
Auburn, California 95604
(530) 823-4850 • (800) 464-0030
General Manager: David A. Breninger
Newsletter Editor: Dave Carter
www.pcwa.net
q aun ssaappyanoA
£ aun ssaappyanoA
Z alin ssaippyanoA
ssaappy ssauisng tiewpd
69696 Vo `aa�onal
peon ssed aauuod OL9I,1
foiafsia Atlim oiignd aauuod aa�onal
#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.
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
at1-800-426-4791.
11
TRUCKEE MAIN WATER SYSTEM
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.
DETECTED
evCOMPOUNDS
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.
Airport Northside Mantis Southside "A" Glenshire Sanders Prosser Prosser Well Prosser Old Violation Major Origins in
Primary
MCL
PHG
Contaminants
(MCLG)
Well Well Valley Well # 2 Well Dr Well Well Annex Heights 20 Village Greenwood Drinking Water
(PDWS)
Well Well Well Well Well
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
Fluoride (ppm)
2
1
N/D
0.011
N/D
N/D
N/D
N/D
N/D
1 0.05
N/D
N/D
0.11
N/D
NO
natural deposits
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,
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
runoff from fertilizer
use.
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
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
Leaching from
natural
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
deposits
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
1600
1600
187
241
160
160
107
200
360
166
166
166
180
160
NO
Substances that form
(PS/Cm)
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
MCL
TDPUD System Highest Month
Contaminants
Total Coliform Bacteria
> Than 2 positive samples or more than
Naturally present in
5% positive samples per month
0.0 %
NO
the
environment
Copper/Lead
AL
MCLG
TDPUD Water System 90th Percentile Value
# of Sites
# of Sites that Exceeded Action Level
Sampled
Corrosion of
Copper (ppm)
1.3
0.3
0.074
30
0
NO
household
plumbing systems.
Flushing prior to use
Lead (ppb)
15
2
2
30
0
NO
recommended
Disinfection
MRDL
MRDLG
Average
Range for TDPUD Water System
Residual
Drinking Water
Chlorine (ppm)
4
4
0.35
0.32 - 0.47
NO
Disinfectant added for
treatment
Disinfection
MCL
PHG
Average
Range for TDPUD Water System
Sample Date
Byproducts
(MCLG)
By-product of
Total Trihalomethanes (ppb)
80
N/A
3.8
N/D - 6.2
08/04/2011
NO
drinking water
disinfection
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 pCi/L (Picocuries per Liter) - A measure of radioactivity.
ppm-Parts per million, or milligrams per liter (mg/L) NIT- not tested
ppb-Parts per billion, or micrograms per liter (ug/L) N/A -Not Applicable
pS/cm-Micro Siemens per centimeter ACU (Apparent Color Unit) - A measure of color in
> - Greater than drinking water.
TABLE 8-SAMPLING RESULTS SHOWING TRENTMENT OF SURFACE WATER SOURCES
TreatmentTeehnique (a)
Pall membrane microfiltration with chlorination.
(T yp e of approved filtration technology used)
Turbidity of the filtered water must:
Turbidity Performance Standards (e)
1 — Be less than or equal to 0.1 NTU in 95% of measurements in a month.
(that must be met through the water treatment process)
2 — Not exceed 1.0 NTU for more than eight consecutive hours.
3 — Not exceed 1 NTU at any time.
Lowest monthly percentage of samples that met Turbidity
100%
Performance Standard No. 1.
Highest single turbidity measurement during they car
0.018
Number of violations of any surface water treatment
0
requirements
(a) A required process intended to reduce the level of a contaminant in drinking water.
(b) Turbidity (measured in NTU) is a measurement of the cloudiness of water and is a good indicator of water quality
and filtration performance. Turbidity results which meet performance standards are considered to be in
compliance with filtration requirements.
* Any violation of a TT is marked with an asterisk. Additional information regarding the violation is provided earlier
in this report.
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 and 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 other
immune system disorders, some elderly, and infants can be particularly at risk from infections. 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 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, and 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 systems.
• 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 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 Hot-
line or at http://www.epa.gov/safewater/lead.
89NNVW Sf1031Hnoo ONV ` VN01SS3d0ad `1N9101dd3 `3ddS `Airiv 1O H91H V NI
A11Nf1WW0:) L]ViSH1NON ]Hi Ol S3OIAa3S dno 301AONd Ol :1N3W31d1S NOISSIW dno
Northstar Community Services District
Annual Water Quality Report
cq 2011 v.)
This state -mandated annual report contains important
information about the quality of your drinking water.
T9T96 'MeD 'aeTsLlTaoN
@Ala(] aeTsuTaoN 806
4DIJ4Sia saaiAaaS /\4iunwwoD aelsulaoN
uearCustvmen
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
In case of a water or sewer emergency, please call
530-562-0747
KEY WA TER 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 (qg/L)
TT —Treatment Technique: A required
process intended to reduce the level of
a contaminant in drinking water.
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.northstaresd.org.
Este informe contiene informaci6n muy
importante sobre su agua pota-
ble. Traduzcalo 6 hablcon alguien que to
entienda bien.
NSCD WATER QUALITY TEST RESULTS THROUGH DECEMBER 31, 2011
TABLE 1 - SAMPLING RESULTS FOR COLIFORM BACTERIA
Microbiological
Highest No. of
No. of
MCL
MCLG
Typical Source of
Contaminant
detections
months in
Bacteria
violation
Total Coliform
(In a mo.)
0
More than 1 sample in a month with a
0
Naturally present in the
Bacteria
0
detection
environment
Fecal Coliform
(In the year)
A routine sample and a repeat sample
Human and animal fecal
or E. coli
0
0
detect total coliform and either sample
0
waste
also detects fecal coliform or E. coli
TABLE
2 - SAMPLING RESULTS FOR LEAD AND COPPER
Lead & Copper
No. of
90 %tile
No. sites
AL
PHG
Typical Source of Contaminant
(units)
samples
level
exceeding
Sample Dates
collected
detected
AL
Lead (ppb)
20
4.0
0
15
2
Erosion of natural deposits; internal corrosion
2009
of household water plumbing, discharges from
industrial manufacturers
Copper (ppb)
20
202
0
1300
170
Erosion of natural deposits; internal corrosion
2009
of household plumbing; leaching from wood
preservatives
TABLE 3 - SAMPLE RESULTS
FOR
SODIUM AND HARDNESS
Chemical or Constituent
Source
Sample
Level
MCL
PHG
Typical Source of Contaminant
(units)
Date
Detected
(MCLG)
Sodium
Big Springs
2005
5.2
none
none
Generally found in ground & surface
(ppm)Well
TH2
2007
25.3
water
Hardness
Big Springs
2005
51
none
none
Generally found in ground & surface
(ppm)Well
TH2
2007
90
water
TABLE 4 - DETECTION OF CONTAMINANTS WITH A PRIMARY DRINKING WATER STANDARD
Chemical or Constituent
Source
Sample
Level
MCL
PHG
Typical Source of Contaminant
(units)
I Date
Detected
(MCLG)
Nickel
Big Springs
2005
11
100
12
Erosion of natural deposits; discharge
(ppb)Well
TH2
1 2007
ND
from metal factories
TABLE 6 - DETECTION OF CONTAMINANTS WITH A SECONDARY DRINKING WATER STANDARD
Chemical or Constituent
Source
Sample
Level
MCL
PHG
Typical Source of Contaminant
(units)
Date
Detected
(MCLG)
Chloride
Big Springs
2005
0.3
500
none
Substances that form ions when in
(ppm)
Well TH2
2007
4.5
water; seawater influence
Specific Conductance
Big Springs
2005
130
1600
none
Substances that form ions when in
(PS/cm)
Well TH2
2007
262
water; seawater influence
Sulfate
Big Springs
2005
ND
50
none
Runoff/leaching from natural deposits;
(ppm)
Well TH2
2007
12.9
industrial wastes
Total Dissolved Solids
Big Springs
2005
101
1000
none
Runoff/leaching from natural deposits
(ppm)
Well TH2
2007
192
TABLE 6 - DETECTION OF UNREGULATED CONTAMINANTS
Chemical or Constituent
Sample
Level
Notification
Source
Typical Source of Contaminant
(units)
Date
Detected
Level
Vanadium (ppb)
Well TH2
2007
8.0
50
Runofflleaching from natural deposits
TABLE 7 - DISINFECTANTS
& DISINFECTION BYPRODUCTS IN THE DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM
Chemical or Constituent
(units)
Sample
Date
Level Detected
MCL
MRDL
Typical Source of Contaminant
Chlorine Residual (ppm)
2011
0.81
4.0
4
Water additive used to control microbes
Total Trihalomethanes (ppb)
2011
1.2
80
N/A
By-product of drinking water chlorination
Halocetic Acids (ppb)
2011
ND
60
N/A
By-product of drinking water chlorination
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.
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 (Frain 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 Nevada Marlis study area
defined as those parts of the aquifers correspond- county n z
Truckee �, <
ing to the screened or open intervals of wells — — — —�
zn
listed in the California Department of Public
Tahoe study area
Health database. In the Tahoe study area, these
wells typically are drilled to depths between 175 ptaCeC
Count
and 375 feet, consist of solid casing from land
Hard Rock
surface to a depth of about 75 to 125 feet, and are study area
screened or open below the solid casing. In the LAKE
Martis study area, these wells typically are 200 TAHOE
to 900 feet deep, and are screened or open below 1
75 to 300 feet. Water quality in the shallower and —
deeper parts of the aquifer system may differ from ' t
that in the primarya uifers.The Hard Rock stud South Lake
q y Ctyo []Tahoe
Coon
area includes wells and developed springs. c
The Tahoe-Martis study unit has warm, dry
summers and cold, wet winters. Average annual
precipitation ranges from 30 inches at Lake Tahoe a Alp1ne o s Miles
80 inches in the surrounding mountains, and �J A County
the majority of precipitation falls as snow. Land o a 6 Kilometers
use in the study unit is approximately 88 percent — watershed boundary
(%) 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
Inorganic Organic
constituents constituents
1 1
L67' 98
CONSTITUENT CONCENTRATIONS
O High Q Moderate O Low or not detected
Values area 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.
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%.
U.S. Department of the Interior ® printed on recycled paper Fact Sheet2011-3143
U.S. Geological Survey April 2012
RESULTS: Groundwater Quality in the Tahoe-Martis Study Unit
INORGANIC, 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-
19 Martis study unit, trace elements were present at high concentrations in about 19%
Trace of the primary aquifers, and in moderate concentrations in about 4%. Arsenic was
77 4 elements 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
3 12 every day. Most of the radioactivity in groundwater comes from decay of naturally
Radioactive occurring uranium and thorium in minerals in the rocks or sediments of the aqui-
constituents fers. Radioactive constituents occurred at high levels in about 3% of the primary
85 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
100 Nutrients 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.
8 Inorganic Constituents with Non -Health Benchmarks
Total (Not included in water -quality overview charts shown on the front page)
92 dissolved Some constituents affect the aesthetic properties of water, such as taste, color,
solids 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
14 constituents that commonly occur together in groundwater. Anoxic conditions in
groundwater (low amounts of dissolved oxygen) may result in release of manganese
Manganese and iron from minerals into groundwater.
86 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
100 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.
RESULTS: Groundwater Quality in the Tahoe-Martis Study Unit
[,RGANIC CONSTITUENTS
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
1 <1
can be used to help trace water from the landscape into the aquifer system.
Solvents
Volatile Organic Compounds with Human -Health Benchmarks
98
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
Othervolatile
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
organic 100
present at moderate concentrations in about 1% of the primary aquifers, and at low
compounds
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
Pesticides 100 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
CONSTITUENT CONCENTRATIONS
High concentrations
W
J
a
Moderate concentrations
yj
—Low concentrations
Values are a percentage of the area of the primary aquifers
with concentrations in the three specified categories. Values
on pie chartmay not equal 100 due to rounding of percentages.
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).
Factors that Affect Groundwater Quality
Priority Basin Assessments
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).
100
J
UaJ 10
Cn
Q
LD
0
U
U
z
u,
cc
a
0.1
El
0
❑ 0
( 0 QZ�L0
0
�� 0 C� 00 0
A A0 0 0
O
�AO
�0z�00
pH, IN STANDARD UNITS
EXPLANATION
Aquifer rock type
granitic rock
❑❑
sedimentary
anoxic AA oxic
volcanic rock
00/
Relative -
Concentration
High
Moderate
Low
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.
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. hyp://www water ca. qov/groundwater/bulletin 1181update2003.
c m.
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 hqp://pubs.usgs.gov/sir/2011/5216.)
Smedley, P.L., and Mnniburgh, 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.
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/ ama
Martis Valley Groundwater Management Plan
Appendix F: DRI Technical Note
DRAFT for review purposes only. Use of contents on this sheet is subject to the limitations specified at the end of this document.
P:\40000\140691- PCWA Martis Valley GWP\GMP\Report\3rd Draft\Martis Valley GMP Draft 01-09-13.docx
-CDRI
Desert Research Institute
Technical Note
SCIENCE • ENVIRONMENT • SOLUTIONS
Division of Hydrologic Sciences
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)
2215 Raggio Parkway, Reno, Nevada 89512-1095 755 E. Flamingo Road, Las Vegas, Nevada 89119-7363
Phone (775) 673-730o Fax (775) 673-7363 Phone (702) 862-540o Fax (702) 862-5427
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 in 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 (LULL) 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
Page 2 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
Page 3 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.
Evapotranspiration I Air Precipitation
1 Temperature
evaporation
Sublimation
Sublimation
Evaporation
-ranspiration
ranspiration
Interception
Through fall
nowpack
Snowmelt
Rain /
Solar PRECIPITATION -
Radiation RUNOFF
MODELING SYSTEM
Rain
Evaporation
Impervious -zone
reservoir
Recharge zone I Soil -zone
Lower zone reservoir
Soil -zone
Subsurface
recharge
Ground -water
recharge Subsurface
reservoir
Ground -water
recharge
Ground -water
reservoir
Groundlwater sink
Surface runoff
Surface runoff
Subsurface flow
Ground -water flow I Streamflow
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).
Page 4 of 11
1 i
eN�
�:. Donner Lake
FF
G
o`
pp
Legend 1
Streamgage
Streams
Figure 2. PRMS model domain with 14 sub -watersheds denoted by color. Stream gauges used in the
PRMS calibration are denoted by triangles.
Page 5 of 11
Lek ro r r r
F Donner Lak
e
Ma fis es�
.I•
Y
Legend
Streams x
HSI Ground Water Basin
w�a
S
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).
Page 6 of 11
Y9UUU:
LL
v 40000
a
bo
30000
b
20000
a
Martis Valley GWB Recharge in Ac-Ft I
PRMS Variable Recharge
Estimate
PRMS Mean Recharge
Estimate
Maxey Eakin Recharge
Estimate
— Nimbus Engg Estimate
(2001)
10000
Interflow Hydrology &
0 Cordilleran Hydrology Inc
Estimate (2003)
1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015
Figure 4. Annual recharge volumes computed by PRMS with comparison to recharge estimates from
other methods and past studies.
Martis Valley GWB Precipitation in Ac-Ft
250000
200000
LL
Q4 150000
CI.
.75 100000
a
L
CL
5DDDD
0
1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015
Figure 5. Annual precipitation volume over the Martis Valley Ground Water Basin
Page 7 of 11
Percent Recharge (Recharge/Precipitation)
30.00
25.00
0
C
41
u
L
Q 20.00
15.00
1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015
Figure 6. Value of recharge efficiency computed as the ratio of annual recharge to annual precipitation.
The mean recharge efficiency value is 23%.
Page 8 of 11
ro s e r
Donner Lake \l�
CO
���L
Legend
Streams
Mean annual precip, inches
High : 70.0
Low: 22.9
s hese
�b+
t
SS
Figure 7. Mean annual precipitation (inches) in the Martis Valley PRMS model domain from PRISM
(Daly et al., 1994).
Page 9 of 11
a
'u
c>
ros er
.9
I to
Legend
Streams
Mean annual recharge, inches.
High : 27.8
Low: 0.8 ��77
s
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).
Page 10 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, WOOF06, 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.
Page 11 of 11