ITEM: |
INFORMATIONAL
ITEMS/STAFF REPORTS |
|||||
|
||||||
26. |
SEMI-ANNUAL GROUNDWATER-QUALITY
MONITORING REPORT |
|||||
|
||||||
Meeting
Date: |
May 21, 2009 |
Budgeted: |
Yes |
|||
|
||||||
From: |
|
Program/ |
Hydrologic Monitoring 2.6 |
|||
|
General
Manager |
Line Item No.: |
2-6-1 G, and 2-6-2 D |
|||
|
||||||
Prepared
By: |
Joe Oliver/ |
Cost Estimate: |
N/A |
|||
|
Tom Lindberg |
|||||
|
||||||
General Counsel Approval: N/A |
||||||
Committee Recommendation: N/A |
||||||
CEQA Compliance: N/A |
||||||
SUMMARY: Water-quality results from the Fall 2008
sampling of the Monterey Peninsula Water Management District’s (District’s)
monitor well networks in the
BACKGROUND: The District has maintained a groundwater-quality
monitoring program in the Carmel Valley Aquifer since 1981, and in the
DISCUSSION/ANALYSIS:
Carmel
Valley Aquifer Monitor Wells - Results from the Fall 2008 sampling are
provided in Exhibit 26-A. Eight monitor wells in the lower
Graphs showing historical specific electrical conductance (SEC) and chloride concentration in the deepest wells at each of the three coastal well sites are shown in Exhibits 26-E, 26-F, and 26-G. Note that the scales on the vertical axes of these graphs are different to help discern trends in the data. Well 16S/1W-14Jg is the deepest in the array of three wells located at the Carmel River State Beach parking lot at River Mile (RM) 0.07 (approximately 375 feet from the shoreline). Exhibit 26-E shows that SEC and chloride concentration increased slightly in this well in 2008, continuing a trend since 2005. Staff will continue to monitor this, however, it should be noted that these levels have not approached the levels observed at this location in the early 1990’s. These higher values observed early in the period of record at this site are at least partially attributable to the fact that there was no freshwater surface inflow to the lagoon for approximately four years (April 1987 until March 1991). This lack of freshwater inflow for local ground water recharge, combined with the proximity to the ocean and the permeability of the alluvial sediments, allowed for inland movement of the freshwater / seawater interface past this site near the end of the 1987 – 1991 drought period.
SEC
and chloride levels did not appreciably change
from 2007 to 2008 at the next coastal well, 16S/1W-13Md, located about one
third of a mile from the shore (Exhibit
26-F).
A graph of water-quality data at the next coastal site located about two
thirds of a mile from the shoreline shows that SEC and chloride concentration have
dropped at well 16S/1W-13Lc between 2007 and 2008 (Exhibit 26-G). As noted in prior reports, the anomalously
high SEC and chloride concentration in well 16S/1W-13Lc in 2000 are suspicious
and may be attributable to sampling or analysis error. At both sites, there appears to be a slight
trend toward increased levels over the period of record. Additional background
on historical water-quality at the coastal monitor well sites can be found in
District Technical Memorandum 90-04,
Summary of
For the five wells located farther inland, changes in SEC and chloride concentration did not vary significantly from the previous year’s sample results. The graph in Exhibit 26-H shows SEC and chloride concentration in well 16S/1E-23La, located at river mile (RM) 6.72. The increased levels of SEC and chloride concentration that were observed in this well in 2005 returned to below 2004 levels by 2007 and remained lower in 2008. The high chloride concentration in well number 16S/1E-23La in Spring 1993 is anomalous. Staff will continue to track future results for trends.
It was noted that one other well, 16S/1E-23E4, located at RM 6.53, yielded anomalous results for a number of constituents in 2006, most notably the concentration of iron. While the concentration of iron was still high in 2007 and 2008, it should be pointed out that those concentrations are nearly 75 percent lower than measured in 2006. As noted when results from 2006 were reported, due to the proximity of the wellhead at this site to the county road, it has been subject to periodic covering and flooding from urban runoff. It is believed that the well was contaminated by surface runoff prior to the Fall 2006 sampling, and that the well was not fully evacuated of the standard three casing volumes prior to sampling that year. Extra effort will continue to be employed at this site in the future to ensure the restoration of this well and the reliability of data acquired. In the summer of 2008 modifications to the site were made, effectively raising the elevation of the well head to reduce the potential for flooding. In winter of 2008, an attempt to re-develop the well by rapidly air-lifting water using a compressor was not successful due to the small amount of standing water in the casing relative to the total depth of the well.
EXHIBITS
26-A Groundwater-quality Monitoring Results - Fall 2007
26-B Groundwater-quality Monitoring Results - Fall 2006
26-C Location of
26-D Location of
26-E Water-quality Results in Well 16S/1W-14Jg in
26-F Water-quality Results in Well 16S/1W-13Md
in
26-G Water-quality Results in Well 16S/1W-13Lc in
26-H Water-quality Results in Well 16S/1E-23La in
26-I Water-quality Results in Wells 15S/1E-15N2 and -15N3 in Seaside Coastal Subareas
U:\staff\word\boardpacket\2009\20090521\InfoItems\26\item26.doc