SLIDE 1
OUT L INE
- 1. Data Gaps Assessment
- 2. Data Gathering Efforts
- 3. Groundwater Sustainability Plan (GSP) Development Update
- 4. Next Steps
2
E KI T E CHNICAL PRE SE NT AT ION #3 CASTAC BASIN GSA BOARD - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
E KI T E CHNICAL PRE SE NT AT ION #3 CASTAC BASIN GSA BOARD - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
E KI T E CHNICAL PRE SE NT AT ION #3 CASTAC BASIN GSA BOARD OF DIRECTORS 4 JUNE 2019 OUT L INE 1. Data Gaps Assessment 2. Data Gathering Efforts 3. Groundwater Sustainability Plan (GSP) Development Update 4. Next Steps 2 1. DAT A
SLIDE 2
SLIDE 3
- 1. DAT
A GAPS ASSE SSME NT :
Data Manage me nt Syste m (DMS) De ve lopme nt
Microsoft Access Database linked with a GIS geodatabase Data used to initially populate:
Historical well location, construction, use, water level data and water quality from 2006-2008
analysis
Water level data from TRC wells through May 2018 Well location, construction, water level data and water quality data from SWRCB GeoTracker
database
Well construction, water quality data, and Cuddy Creek peak streamflow from USGS Pumping data (as counter units) from TRC wells through May 2018 Pumping data from public water systems for 2013 to 2015, as reported to Drinking Water
Information Clearinghouse portal
3
SLIDE 4
- 1. DAT
A GAPS ASSE SSME NT :
DMS Status (as of 5/ 28/ 19) – Castac L ake Valle y Basin
113 Locations with Data
89 wells 1 surface water locations 21 others (soil borehole, piezometer, etc.)
Water levels (77 wells/sites) Water quality (60 wells/sites) Pumping data (10 wells)
4
SLIDE 5
- 1. DAT
A GAPS ASSE SSME NT :
DMS Status (as of 5/ 28/ 19) – Supple me ntal Data
Data from other Basins will be used for water budget calculations and as supplemental information
128 Locations with Data
108 wells 9 surface water locations 11 others (borehole, piezometer, etc.)
Water levels (40 wells/sites) Water quality (71 wells/sites) Pumping data (4 wells)
5
SLIDE 6
Well construction, elevation, and type (needed for ~30 wells in Basin) Water-level data (public water systems wells, upgradient-basin wells) Water-quality data (TRC monitoring and irrigation wells, post-2008) Pumping rates (public water systems wells, monthly pre-2013, units for
pumping data from TRC pumping wells)
Castac Lake filling volumes, post-2007 (TRC) Streamflow data (Cuddy Creek & Grapevine Creek, post-2007)
- 1. DAT
A GAPS ASSE SSME NT :
Pr e liminar y Data Gaps (E ffor ts ar e ongoing)
6
SLIDE 7
- 1. DAT
A GAPS ASSE SSME NT : Plan for F illing Data Gaps
Plan for Filling Data Gap Status Coordinate with GSA members to obtain pumping data and units Pumping data received from LCWD Flowmeter units & other data from TCWD/TRC pending Outreach to public water systems Krista Mutual transmitted data Additional outreach to school representatives needed Stakeholder survey and landowner data request form distribution Complete Coordinate with TCWD to collect additional water quality samples, as needed Post-2008 water chemistry data from TCWD/TRC pending Review options to collect additional streamflow and lake data Obtained and compiled additional historical streamflow data Examine water level differences in wells located on either side of the Basin boundary & potentially collect additional water level measurements, if needed Water level measurements received from LCWD Analysis currently underway
7
SLIDE 8
- 2. DAT
A GAT HE RING E F F ORT S:
Public Wate r Syste ms Data Re c e ive d
LCWD:
Pumping data for Jan 2013 – Dec 2018 Water level data for Sep 2012 – Sep 2018
Krista Mutual:
Pumping data for Sep 2010 – Feb 2018 Water level data for Jan 2010 – Dec 2019
Lake of the Woods MWC:
Well locations and logs
8
SLIDE 9
- 2. DAT
A GAT HE RING E F F ORT S:
L andowne r Data Re que sts
Castac Basin GSA sent out over 200
Landowner Data Request Forms in January 2019
We have received five responses to date
(as of 5/28/2019)
9
SLIDE 10
Only one of the five stakeholders has a well Two out of the five responding stakeholders
have never heard of SGMA (one city resident, and one owner of undeveloped land)
Concerns expressed about groundwater
management:
“My only concern would be that those corporations,
- rganizations, water purveyors, water customers, and
- wner within the district be treated equitably with favor
shown to no one particular interest over another.”
“Over development in the mountain communities, with such a limited water resource”
“Conservation/sustainability”
10
- 2. DAT
A GAT HE RING E F F ORT S:
Sur ve y Re sponse s
Approximate locations
- f responding stakeholders
10
SLIDE 11
- 2. DAT
A GAT HE RING E F F ORT S:
Additional Str e amflow Data Re c e ive d and Compile d
Cuddy Creek:
1980-2017 winter and summer peak
flows from Kern County Floodplain Management
Stations at Lebec, Frazier Park, and Lake
- f the Woods
Grapevine Creek:
2000-2007 monthly streamflows Various stations along Creek
11
Cuddy Creek Grapevine Creek
SLIDE 12
12
- 3. GSP DE
VE L OPME NT UPDAT E :
Ke y SGMA r e quir e me nts
Notice and Communication (SCEP) Data Management System (DMS) Description of Plan Area Hydrogeological Conceptual Model (HCM) Groundwater Conditions Assessment Water Budget Sustainable Management Criteria (SMCs) Monitoring Network Projects & Management Actions (P&MAs)
* 23-CCR Sections 352.6 , 354.8-20;
www.water.ca.gov/groundwater/sgm/gsp.cfm
SLIDE 13
- 3. GSP DE
VE L OPME NT UPDAT E :
Plan Ar e a Ke y F indings
Basin encompasses 3,463
acres within the Tehachapi and San Emigdio Mountains at the southern end of Kern County
Potable consumption of
groundwater in the Basin includes personal domestic well owners and public water systems
13
SLIDE 14
Current Land Use:
Primarily grazing land Some irrigated farmland acreage Some open spaces, mostly around
the lake
Very little urban, rural residential,
and open ground
14
- 3. GSP DE
VE L OPME NT UPDAT E :
Plan Ar e a Ke y F indings
Urban Grazing Farmland Open Space Rural Residential Open Ground Lake
SLIDE 15
Tejon Mountain Village
development will entail a major shift in land use
Future Land Use Zoning:
Increase in residential areas Decrease in open area and
farmland
Added resort lands Groundwater use not planned
15
- 3. GSP DE
VE L OPME NT UPDAT E :
Plan Ar e a Ke y F indings
Open Area Village Mixed Use Resort Proposed Farmland Future Dedicated Conservation Easement Mountain Residential
SLIDE 16
Density of wells per square mile
based on DWR Well Completion Report records is very low
DWR data clearly are incomplete
- r miss-classified (this is
common)
No public supply wells are identified
within the Basin
16
- 3. GSP DE
VE L OPME NT UPDAT E :
Plan Ar e a Ke y F indings
Well in the DMS
SLIDE 17
- 3. GSP DE
VE L OPME NT UPDAT E :
Basin Se tting Ke y F indings
Basin is in a region of faulted,
deformed, and uplifted igneous and metamorphic rocks.
The Basin can be divided into
three areas:
Castac Lake portion Dryfield Canyon portion Grapevine Canyon
Castac Lake
17
Hydrogeological Conceptual Model
Dryfield Canyon Grapevine Canyon
SLIDE 18
One Principal Aquifer with two “zones” 1.
Shallow (approx. 0 - 100 ft bgs)
2.
Deep (approx. 100 - 350 ft bgs)
Zones appear to be at least partially
hydraulically connected
Water level data, aquifer pumping test
results (2007), and water quality data indicate exchange of groundwater between zones
18 18
- 3. GSP DE
VE L OPME NT UPDAT E :
Basin Se tting Ke y F indings
Hydrogeological Conceptual Model
SLIDE 19
A series of upgradient groundwater basins and associated watersheds
are sources of water inflows to the Castac Basin
19
- 3. GSP DE
VE L OPME NT UPDAT E :
Basin Se tting Ke y F indings
Hydrogeological Conceptual Model
Figure is conceptual in nature. Relative fluxes or volumes are not implied.
Grapevine Canyon
Cuddy Creek
Possible Groundwater Flow Restriction Between Basins
Grapevine Creek
White Wolf and Kern County Subbasins
Cuddy Valley Basin Cuddy Ranch Basin Castac Lake Basin Cuddy Canyon Basin
(Like a Connected Series of Gravel-Filled Tanks)
?
SLIDE 20
Recharge and Discharge
Areas of Basin
Conceptual Water Flow
Schematic
20
- 3. GSP DE
VE L OPME NT UPDAT E :
Basin Se tting Ke y F indings
Hydrogeological Conceptual Model
SLIDE 21
- 3. GSP DE
VE L OPME NT UPDAT E :
Basin Se tting Ke y F indings
Water level data within the Basin are
very sparse
Preliminary rough piezometric surface
contours (water level elevations) shown with 50-ft contour interval
Flow is generally from the Dryfield
Canyon and Castac Lake portions towards Grapevine Creek
21
2015 Spring Groundwater Elevations
SLIDE 22
Example hydrograph from two TRC
wells
Water-level declines in 1950s-1960s No data 1970s to 2000s Water-level recovery through 2002
flowing artesian wells 1999-2002
Decrease between 2000 and 2005 Recovery between 2005 and 2007
flowing artesian wells 2006-2007
Decrease 2007 onward
Shallow well is dry since 2014
Long-T erm Groundwater Trends
22
- 3. GSP DE
VE L OPME NT UPDAT E :
Basin Se tting Ke y F indings
SLIDE 23
Long-T erm Groundwater Trends, 2000 - 2018
23
- 3. GSP DE
VE L OPME NT UPDAT E :
Basin Se tting Ke y F indings
SLIDE 24
Water quality data are sparse 4 sets of analytical data available so far Results in some wells exceed primary or
secondary MCLs:
TDS
(4 samples – 100%)
Fluoride (4 samples – 67%) Iron
(1 sample – 25%)
Uranium (1 sample – 17%)
Current Groundwater Quality (2012-2018)
24
- 3. GSP DE
VE L OPME NT UPDAT E :
Basin Se tting Ke y F indings
SLIDE 25
Potential Groundwater Dependent Ecosystems
25
- 3. GSP DE
VE L OPME NT UPDAT E :
Basin Se tting Ke y F indings
The Nature Conservancy (TNC) Guidance on GDEs:
Classify GDEs on a polygon-by-polygon basis from the NCCAG dataset
Group similar GDEs into “GDE units”
Conduct ecological inventory for Species, Habitat, and Environmental Beneficial Users for each GDE Unit
Monitor long-term for changes in shallow water levels affecting GDEs
Field assessment and elimination of non-GDE polygons may reduce monitoring requirements
SLIDE 26
Water budget is an accounting
system for understanding
- bservable and non-observable
flows of groundwater in the Basin
Spreadsheet analytical water
budget model to preliminary constrain values
Splits the water budget terms
into various sub-domains
26
- 3. GSP DE
VE L OPME NT UPDAT E :
Analytic al Wate r Budge t
SLIDE 27
Primary sources of
uncertainty (data gaps):
Pumping volumes from
TRC (need units for each flowmeter)
Evapotranspiration
estimates
27
- 3. GSP DE
VE L OPME NT UPDAT E :
Analytic al Wate r Budge t
SLIDE 28
28
- 3. GSP DE
VE L OPME NT UPDAT E :
Pr e liminar y Monitor ing Ne twor k Asse ssme nt
SLIDE 29
29
- 3. GSP DE
VE L OPME NT UPDAT E :
Pr e liminar y Monitor ing Ne twor k Asse ssme nt
SLIDE 30
Continue to develop GSP elements:
Groundwater conditions assessment Analytical water budget Monitoring network assessment
Prepare for Stakeholder Workshop #1: July 16th
30
- 4. NE
XT ST E PS:
SLIDE 31
QUE ST IONS?
You can send questions or comments using the website: https://www.castacgsa.org/contact-us Or contact us directly:
31
www.ekiconsult.com Burlingame, CA | Los Angeles, CA Oakland, CA | Centennial, CO