The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About10-ATTACHMENT 3ATTACHMENT 3 Draft 2015 Urban Water Management Plan Appendices APPENDIX A UMWP Checklist UWMP Checklist This checklist is developed directly from the Urban Water Management Planning Act and SB X7-7. It is provided to support water suppliers during preparation of their UWMPs. Two versions of the UWMP Checklist are provided — the first one is organized according to the California Water Code and the second checklist according to subject matter. The two checklists contain duplicate information and the water supplier should use whichever checklist is more convenient. In the event that information or recommendations in these tables are inconsistent with, conflict with, or omit the requirements of the Act or applicable laws, the Act or other laws shall prevail. Each water supplier submitting an UWMP can also provide DWR with the UWMP location of the required element by completing the last column of eitherchecklist. This will support DWR in its review of these UWMPs. The completed form can be included with the UWMP. If an item does not pertain to a water supplier, then state the UWMP requirement and note that it does not apply to the agency. For example, if a water supplier does not use groundwater as a water supply source, then there should be a statement in the UWMP that groundwater is not a water supply source. Checklist Arranged by Subject Every person that becomes an urban water Plan Preparation Section 2.1 Section 1.1 1062 supplier shall adopt an urban water management plan within one year after it has become an urban water supplier. 10620(d)(2) Coordinate the preparation of its plan with Plan Preparation Section 2.5.2 Section 8.2 other appropriate agencies in the area, including other water suppliers that share a common source, water management agencies, and relevant public agencies, to the extent practicable. 10642 Provide supporting documentation that the Plan Preparation Section 2.5.2 Section 8.1 water supplier has encouraged active and involvement of diverse social, cultural, and Appendix E economic elements of the population within the service area prior to and during the preparation of the plan. 10631(a) Describe the water supplier service area. System Section 3.1 Section Description 1.3.1 10631(a) Describe the climate of the service area of System Section 3.3 Section the supplier. Description 2.2.1 10631(a) Provide population projections for 2020, System Section 3.4 Section 2025, 2030, and 2035. Description 2.2.2 10631(a) Describe other demographic factors affecting System Section 3.4 Section the supplier's water management planning. Description 2.3 10631(a) Indicate the current population of the service System Sections 3.4 Section area. Description and and 5.4 2.2.2 Baselines and Targets 10631(e)(1) Quantify past, current, and projected water System Water Section 4.2 Section use, identifying the uses among water use Use 2.3.1 and sectors. 2.4.3 10631(e)(3)(A) Report the distribution system water loss for System Water Section 4.3 Section the most recent 12 -month period available. Use 2.3.4 and Appendix H 10631.1(a) Include projected water use needed for lower System Water Section 4.5 Section income housing projected in the service area Use 2.4.5 of the supplier. 10608.20(b) Retail suppliers shall adopt a 2020 water use Baselines and Section 5.7 Section target using one of four methods. Targets and App E 2.5.2.1 10608.20(e) Retail suppliers shall provide baseline daily Baselines and Chapter 5 and Section per capita water use, urban water use target, Targets App E 2.5.2.2 interim urban water use target, and compliance daily per capita water use, along with the bases for determining those estimates, including references to supporting data. 10608.22 Retail suppliers' per capita daily water use Baselines and Section 5.7.2 Section reduction shall be no less than 5 percent of Targets 2.5.2.2 base daily per capita water use of the 5 year baseline. This does not apply if the suppliers base GPCD is at or below 100. 10608.24(a) Retail suppliers shall meet their interim Baselines and Section 5.8 Section target by December 31, 2015. Targets and App E 2.5.2.2 10608.24(d)(2) If the retail supplier adjusts its compliance Baselines and Section 5.8.2 Section GPCD using weather normalization, Targets 2.5.2.2 economic adjustment, or extraordinary events, it shall provide the basis for, and data supporting the adjustment. 10608.36 Wholesale suppliers shall include an Baselines and Section 5.1 N/A assessment of present and proposed future Targets measures, programs, and policies to help their retail water suppliers achieve targeted water use reductions. 10608.40 Retail suppliers shall report on their progress Baselines and Section 5.8 Section in meeting their water use targets. The data Targets and App E 2.5.2.2 shall be reported using a standardized form. 10631(b) Identify and quantify the existing and System Supplies Chapter 6 Section 3.4 planned sources of water available for 2015, 2020, 2025, 2030, and 2035. 10631(b) Indicate whether groundwater is an existing System Supplies Section 6.2 Section 3.3 or planned source of water available to the supplier. 10631(b)(1) Indicate whether a groundwater System Supplies Section 6.2.2 Section management plan has been adopted by the 3.3.2.1 water supplier or if there is any other specific authorization for groundwater management. Include a copy of the plan or authorization. 10631(b)(2) Describe the groundwater basin. System Supplies Section 6.2.1 Section 3.3.1 10631(b)(2) Indicate if the basin has been adjudicated System Supplies Section 6.2.2 Section and include a copy of the court order or 3.3.2 decree and a description of the amount of water the supplier has the legal right to pump. 10631(b)(2) For unadjudicated basins, indicate whether System Supplies Section 6.2.3 Section or not the department has identified the 3.3.7 basin as overdrafted, or projected to become overdrafted. Describe efforts by the supplier to eliminate the long-term overdraft condition. 10631(b)(3) Provide a detailed description and analysis System Supplies Section 6.2.4 Section of the location, amount, and sufficiency of 3.3.6 groundwater pumped by the urban water supplier for the past five years 10631(b)(4) Provide a detailed description and analysis System Supplies Sections 6.2 Section 3.3 of the amount and location of groundwater and 6.9 and 3.4 that is projected to be pumped. 10631(d) Describe the opportunities for exchanges or System Supplies Section 6.7 Section 7.2 transfers of water on a short-term or long- term basis. 10631(g) Describe the expected future water supply System Supplies Section 6.8 Section 7 projects and programs that may be undertaken by the water supplier to address water supply reliability in average, single -dry, and multiple -dry years. 10631(h) Describe desalinated water project System Supplies Section 6.6 Section 7.4 opportunities for long-term supply. 106310) Retail suppliers will include documentation System Supplies Section 2.5.1 Section 3.4 that they have provided their wholesale supplier(s) — if any - with water use projections from that source. 106310) Wholesale suppliers will include System Supplies Section 2.5.1 N/A documentation that they have provided their urban water suppliers with identification and quantification of the existing and planned sources of water available from the wholesale to the urban supplier during various water year types. 10633 For wastewater and recycled water, System Supplies Section 6.5.1 Section 6.1 coordinate with local water, wastewater, (Recycled groundwater, and planning agencies that Water) operate within the supplier's service area. 10633(a) Describe the wastewater collection and System Supplies Section 6.5.2 Section 6.2 treatment systems in the supplier's service (Recycled area. Include quantification of the amount of Water) wastewater collected and treated and the methods of wastewater disposal. 10633(b) Describe the quantity of treated wastewater System Supplies Section Section 6.2 that meets recycled water standards, is (Recycled 6.5.2.2 being discharged, and is otherwise available Water) for use in a recycled water project. 10633(c) Describe the recycled water currently being System Supplies Section 6.5.3 Section 6.3 used in the supplier's service area. (Recycled and 6.5.4 Water) 10633(d) Describe and quantify the potential uses of System Supplies Section 6.5.4 Section 6.4 recycled water and provide a determination (Recycled of the technical and economic feasibility of Water) those uses. 10633(e) Describe the projected use of recycled water System Supplies Section 6.5.4 Section 6.3 within the supplier's service area at the end (Recycled and 6.4 of 5, 10, 15, and 20 years, and a description Water) of the actual use of recycled water in comparison to uses previously projected. 10633(f) Describe the actions which may be taken to System Supplies Section 6.5.5 Section 6.4 encourage the use of recycled water and the (Recycled projected results of these actions in terms of Water) acre-feet of recycled water used per year. 10633(g) Provide a plan for optimizing the use of System Supplies Section 6.5.5 Section 6.5 recycled water in the supplier's service area. (Recycled Water) 10620(f) Describe water management tools and Water Supply Section 7.4 Section 3.3, options to maximize resources and minimize Reliability 4.5, 4.6, 6.4 the need to import water from other regions. Assessment 10631(c)(1) Describe the reliability of the water supply Water Supply Section 7.1 Section 3.6 and vulnerability to seasonal or climatic Reliability shortage. Assessment 10631(c)(1) Provide data for an average water year, a Water Supply Section 7.2 Section single dry water year, and multiple dry water Reliability 3.6.5 years Assessment 10631(c)(2) For any water source that may not be Water Supply Section 7.1 Section available at a consistent level of use, Reliability 3.2.3, 3.3, describe plans to supplement or replace that Assessment 3.6, 4 source. 10634 Provide information on the quality of existing Water Supply Section 7.1 Section sources of water available to the supplier Reliability 3.6.2.3 and the manner in which water quality Assessment affects water management strategies and supply reliability 10635(a) Assess the water supply reliability during Water Supply Section 7.3 Section normal, dry, and multiple dry water years by Reliability 3.7 comparing the total water supply sources Assessment available to the water supplier with the total projected water use over the next 20 years. 10632(a) and Provide an urban water shortage Water Shortage Section 8.1 Section 5.2 10632(a)(1) contingency analysis that specifies stages of Contingency action and an outline of specific water supply Planning conditions at each stage. 10632(a)(2) Provide an estimate of the minimum water Water Shortage Section 8.9 Section 5.3 supply available during each of the next Contingency three water years based on the driest three- Planning year historic sequence for the agency. 10632(a)(3) Identify actions to be undertaken by the Water Shortage Section 8.8 Section 5.4 urban water supplier in case of a Contingency catastrophic interruption of water supplies. Planning 10632(a)(4) Identify mandatory prohibitions against Water Shortage Section 8.2 Section specific water use practices during water Contingency 5.5.1 shortages. Planning 10632(a)(5) Specify consumption reduction methods in Water Shortage Section 8.4 Section the most restrictive stages. Contingency 5.5.3 Planning 10632(a)(6) Indicated penalties or charges for excessive Water Shortage Section 8.3 Section Contingency use, where applicable. Planning 5.5.2 10632(a)(7) Provide an analysis of the impacts of each of Water Shortage Section 8.6 Section 5.6 the actions and conditions in the water Contingency shortage contingency analysis on the Planning revenues and expenditures of the urban water supplier, and proposed measures to overcome those impacts. 10632(a)(8) Provide a draft water shortage contingency Water Shortage Section 8.7 Appendix D resolution or ordinance. Contingency Planning 10632(a)(9) Indicate a mechanism for determining actual Water Shortage Section 8.5 Section 5.7 reductions in water use pursuant to the water Contingency shortage contingency analysis. Planning 10631(f)(1) Retail suppliers shall provide a description of Demand Sections 9.2 Section 4 the nature and extent of each demand Management and 9.3 management measure implemented over the Measures past five years. The description will address specific measures listed in code. 10631(f)(2) Wholesale suppliers shall describe specific Demand Sections 9.1 N/A demand management measures listed in Management and 9.3 code, their distribution system asset Measures management program, and supplier assistance program. 10631(i) CUWCC members may submit their 2013- Demand Section 9.5 Section 4 2014 CUWCC BMP annual reports in lieu of, Management or in addition to, describing the DMM Measures implementation in their UWMPs. This option is only allowable if the supplier has been found to be in full compliance with the CUWCC MOU. 10608.26(a) Retail suppliers shall conduct a public Plan Adoption, Section 10.3 Section 8.1 hearing to discuss adoption, implementation, Submittal, and and economic impact of water use targets. Implementation 10621(b) Notify, at least 60 days prior to the public Plan Adoption, Section 10.2.1 Appendix E hearing, any city or county within which the Submittal, and supplier provides water that the urban water Implementation supplier will be reviewing the plan and considering amendments or changes to the plan. 10621(d) Each urban water supplier shall update and Plan Adoption, Sections Section submit its 2015 plan to the department by Submittal, and 10.3.1 and 8.3.3 July 1, 2016. Implementation 10.4 10635(b) Provide supporting documentation that Plan Adoption, Section 10.4.4 Section Water Shortage Contingency Plan has been, Submittal, and 8.3.3 or will be, provided to any city or county Implementation within which it provides water, no later than 60 days after the submission of the plan to DWR. 10642 Provide supporting documentation that the Plan Adoption, Sections Section 8.1 urban water supplier made the plan available Submittal, and 10.2.2, 10.3, for public inspection, published notice of the Implementation and 10.5 public hearing, and held a public hearing about the plan. 10642 The water supplier is to provide the time and Plan Adoption, Sections Appendix E place of the hearing to any city or county Submittal, and 10.2.1 within which the supplier provides water. Implementation 10642 Provide supporting documentation that the Plan Adoption, Section 10.3.1 Appendix F plan has been adopted as prepared or Submittal, and modified. Implementation 10644(a) Provide supporting documentation that the Plan Adoption, Section 10.4.3 Section urban water supplier has submitted this Submittal, and 8.3.3 UWMP to the California State Library. Implementation 10644(a)(1) Provide supporting documentation that the Plan Adoption, Section 10.4.4 Section 8.2 urban water supplier has submitted this Submittal, and UWMP to any city or county within which the Implementation supplier provides water no later than 30 days after adoption. 10644(a)(2) The plan, or amendments to the plan, Plan Adoption, Sections Section submitted to the department shall be Submittal, and 10.4.1 and 8.3.3 submitted electronically. Implementation 10.4.2 10645 Provide supporting documentation that, Plan Adoption, Section 10.5 Section 8 not later than 30 days after filing a copy Submittal, and of its plan with the department, the Implementation supplier has or will make the plan available for public review during normal business hours. APPENDIX B Standardized Tables Table 2-1 Retail Only: Public Water System Public Water System Number of Municipal Volume of Number Name Connections 2015 Water Supplied 2015 3010046 City of Tustin 14,178 11,113 TOTALI 14,178 i 11,113 NOTES: 7SelectnlyName of RUWMP or Regional Alliance Type of Plan if applicable drop down list 0 Individual UWMP ❑ Water Supplier is also a member of a RUWMP 0 Water Supplier is also a member of a Regional Alliance Orange County 20x2020 Regional Alliance ❑ Regional Urban Water Management Plan (RUWMP) NOTES: Table Agency Type of Agency (select one or both) ❑ Agency is a wholesaler Agency is a retailer ❑ UWMP Tables Are in Calendar Years 2 UWMP Tables Are in Fiscal Years If Using Fiscal Years Provide Month and Date that the Fiscal Year Begins (mm/dd) 7/1 I�Ii7Ti%Ti�ii1V►Si�IIT��C7Jifii1�1U1�11/IJCT�f� Unit AF NOTES: .. n.. Population 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 Served 68,088 68,238 68,388 68,538 68,689 68,840 NOTES: Center for Demographic Research, California State University, Fullerton Potable Table Use Type 2015 Actual additionai rows as needed) Use Drop down list May select each use multiple times Additional Level of Treatment These are the only Use Types that will be Description When Delivered Volume recognized by the WUEdata online (as needed) Drop down list submittal tool Single Family Drinking Water 6,112 Multi-Family Drinking Water 2,447 Institutional/Governmental Drinking Water 678 Commercial Drinking Water 668 Industrial Drinking Water 122 Landscape Large Drinking Water 357 Other Drinking Water 350 Losses Drinking Water 379 TOTAL 11,113 NOTES: Data retrieved from MWDOC Customer Class Usage Data and FY 2014-2015 Table Potable . Use Type (Add additional rows as Projected Water Use needed)Fas ional-" Records - Available Use Drop down list iptionThese May select each use multiple times are the only Use Types that will be eded) 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 recognized by the WUEdato online submittal tool Single Family 6,220 6,677 6,723 6,721 6,731 Multi-Family 2,490 2,673 2,692 2,691 2,695 Institutional/Governmental 690 741 746 746 747 Commercial 680 730 735 735 736 Industrial 124 133 134 134 134 Landscape Large 363 390 393 393 393 Other 356 382 385 385 385 Losses 386 414 417 417 417 TOTAL 11,310 1 12,141 1 12,224 1 12,221 1 12,238 NOTES: Data retrieved from MWDOC Customer Class Usage Data and Retail Water Agency Projections. Table 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 Potable and Raw Water From 11,113 11,310 12,141 12,224 12,221 12,238 Tables 4-1 and 4-2 Recycled Water Demand* From 0 0 0 0 0 0 Table 6-4 TOTAL WATER DEMAND 11,113 11,310 12,141 12,224 12,221 12,238 NOTES: Table Inclusion• • Are Future Water Savings Included in Projections? (Refer to Appendix K of UWMP Guidebook) Yes Drop down list (y/n) If "Yes" to above, state the section or page number, in the cell to the right, where citations of the codes, Section 4.1 ordinances, etc... utilized in demand projections are found. Are Lower Income Residential Demands Included In Projections? Yes Drop down list (y/n) NOTES: Average2015 Baseline Interim Confirmed Start Year End Year Baseline Period Target * 2020 Target* GPCD* 10-15 1996 2005 189 170 151 year 5 Year 2004 2008 184 *All values are in Gallons per Capita per Day (GPCD) NOTES: Table Supplies Water Supply 201� Drop down list Additional Detail on May use each category multiple times. WS Water upply Water These are the only water supply Actual Volume Quality categories that will be recognized by the Drop Down i WUEdata online submittal tool Orange County Drinking Groundwater 8,200 Groundwater Basin Water Drinking Purchased or Imported Water MWDOC 2,914 Water Total 11,113 NOTES: Table 6-9 Retail: Water Supplies Additional Detail on Drop down list 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 May use each category multiple times. The se are the only water supply Water Supply Reasonably Reasonably Reasonably Reasonably Reasonably categories that will be recognized by the wuEdatoonline submittal tool Available Available Available Available Available Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Orange County Groundwater 10,745 11,534 11,613 11,610 11,626 Groundwater Basin Purchased or Imported Water MWDOC 566 607 611 611 612 Tota 1 11,310 12,141 12,224 12,221 12,238 NOTES: Table 7-1 Retail: Basis of Water Year Data Base Year If not using a Quantification of available supplies is not calendar year, compatible with this table and is provided type in the last ❑ elsewhere in the UWMP. Year Type year of the fiscal, water year, or Location range of years, Quantification of available supplies is provided for example, water year 1999- ❑ in this table as either volume only, percent 2000, use 2000 only, or both. Volume Available % of Average Supply Average Year 2015 100% Single -Dry Year 2014 106% Multiple -Dry Years 1st Year 2012 106% Multiple -Dry Years 2nd Year 2013 106% Multiple -Dry Years 3rd Year 2014 106% NOTES: Developed by MWDOC as 2015 Bump Methodology Table ..Comparison EMwwwa AM6ww=M Supply totals (autofill from Table 6-9) 11,310 12,141 12,224 12,221 12,238 Demand totals (autofill from Table 4-3) 11,310 12,141 12,224 12,221 12,238 Difference 0 0 0 0 0 NOTES: Table ..Comparison 2025 2040 Supply totals 11,989 12,869 12,957 12,954 12,972 Demand totals 11,989 12,869 12,957 12,954 12,972 Difference 0 0 0 0 0 NOTES: Developed by MWDOC as 2015 Bump Methodology Comparison 2030 2035 2040 Table Dry Years Supplyand Demand 2025 2020 First year Supply totals 11,989 12,869 12,957 12,954 12,972 Demand totals 11,989 12,869 12,957 12,954 12,972 Difference 0 0 0 0 0 Second year Supply totals 11,989 12,869 12,957 12,954 12,972 Demand totals 11,989 12,869 12,957 12,954 12,972 Difference 0 0 0 0 0 Third year Supply totals 11,989 12,869 12,957 12,954 12,972 Demand totals 11,989 12,869 12,957 12,954 12,972 Difference 0 0 0 0 0 NOTES: Developed by MWDOC as 2015 Bump Methodology Table 8-1 Retail Stages of Water Shortage Contingency Plan Percent Supply Stage Reduction' Water Supply Condition Numerical value as a (Narrative description) percent Due to drought or other water supply conditions, a water supply shortage or threatened shortage exists and a consumer demand reduction is 1 0-10% necessary to make more efficient use of water and appropriately respond to existing water conditions. Due to drought or other water supply conditions, a water supply shortage or threatened shortage exists and a mandatory consumer demand 2 10-28 reduction is necessary to make more efficient use of water and appropriately respond to existing water conditions. A further consumer demand is necessary beyond 3 28-40% that which is likely to be achieved through Stage 2 restrictions. A further consumer demand is necessary beyond 4 50% that which is likely to be achieved through Stage 3 restrictions. 1 One stage in the Water Shortage Contingency Plan must address a water shortage of 50%. NOTES: Percent supply reduction is unavailable Table 8-2 Retail Only: Restrictions and Prohibitions on End Uses Restrictions and Prohibitions on End Users Additional Explanation or Penalty, Charge, or Stage Drop down list Reference Other These are the only categories that (optional) Enforcement? will be accepted by the WUEdoto Drop Down List online submittal tool between pri an October 31, lawn watering and landscape irrigation will be limited to two days a week, including construction meter irrigation, and is not permitted between the hours of 6:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. Any high efficiency sprinkler nozzle that qualifies for a rebate from the Metropolitan Water Landscape -Limit landscape 2 District of Southern Yes irrigation to specific days California and drip irrigation or a similar water efficient watering system shall be limited to a maximum of 15 minutes per irrigation station. All other irrigation is limited to a maximum of 5 minutes per irrigation station. A " designated irrigation day' is determined by the last digit in the street Irrigation of landscapes shall not occur during and forty eight (48) hours following measureable precipitation. " Landscape -Limit landscape 2 Measurable Yes irrigation to specific times precipitation" shall mean a one-quarter (1/4) inch or more of rainfall falling within the City of Tustin within any 24-hour period. Other- Prohibit use of potable 2 water for washing hard surfaces Yes Washing of autos, trucks, mobile homes, buses, trailers, boats, airplanes and other types of mobile equipment shall be limited to quick rinses and be done with a hand- held bucket or a hand- held hose equipped with a positive shut-off nozzle. Washing is Other - Prohibit vehicle washing permitted at any time on 2 except at facilities using recycled the immediate premises Yes or recirculating water of a commercial car wash. Further, such washing is exempted from these regulations where health, safety and welfare of the public is contingent upon frequent vehicle cleaning such as garbage trucks and vehicles used to transport food and perishables. Watering parks, school grounds, public facilities, Landscape - Limit landscape and recreational fields is 2 irrigation to specific times not permitted between Yes the hours of 6: 00 a.m. and 6: 00 p.m. 2 CII - Restaurants may only serve Yes CII - Lodging establishment must 2 offer opt out of linen service Yes The operation of any ornamental fountain or Water Features - Restrict water similar structure is 2 use for decorative water prohibited unless the Yes features, such as fountains fountain or structure internally recycles the water it uses. Other - Customers must repair 2 leaks, breaks, and malfunctions Yes Agriculture users and commercial nurseries as defined in the Metropolitan Water Landscape - Prohibit certain District Code are exempt 2 types of landscape irrigation from STAGE 2 Yes irrigation restrictions, but will be required to curtail all nonessential water use. 2 Other water feature or swimming pool restriction The " dump and fill' practice of swimming pool maintenance is prohibited. Pools may be topped off to prevent damage to pump and filter equipment. Yes Customers that utilize turf for beneficial public use may apply for an exemption from the designated irrigation day provision of Stage 2. A conservation plan shall be provided that provides specific actions that will be taken to reduce potable water Landscape- Other landscape use by the amount 2 restriction or prohibition required by the State Yes Water Resources Control Board. Designated irrigation days shall remain in effect until the City has reviewed and approved the customer conservation plan. Exemptions shall be revoked if required conservation amounts are not met. Lawn watering an landscape irrigation will be limited to one day a week, including construction meter irrigation, and is permitted only on designated irrigation days and only between the hours of 6:00 p. m. and 6:00 a. m. Any high efficiency sprinkler nozzle that qualifies for a rebate from the Landscape - Limit landscape 3 Metropolitan Water Yes irrigation to specific times District of Southern California and drip irrigation or a similar water efficient watering system shall be limited to a maximum of 15 minutes per irrigation station. All other irrigation is limited to a maximum of 5 minutes per irrigation station. A " designated irrigation day" is determined by Washing of autos, trucks, mobile homes, buses, trailers, boats, airplanes and other types of mobile equipment is prohibited. Washing is permitted at any time on the immediate premises of a commercial car wash. The use of water by all types of commercial car washes not using partially Other - Prohibit vehicle washing reclaimed or recycled 3 except at facilities using recycled Yes water shall be reduced in or recirculating water volume by 20%. Further, such washings are exempted from these regulations where the health, safety and welfare of the public is contingent upon frequent vehicle cleaning such as garbage trucks and vehicles used to transport food and perishables. Agricultural users and commercial nurseries shall use water only between the hours of 6:00 p. m. and 6: 00 a. m. and may be subject to additional restrictions if the state, regional or local agency or jurisdiction deems necessary. The City will make a good faith effort Landscape - Prohibit certain to inform agricultural 3 Yes types of landscape irrigation users and commercial nurseries of any such restrictions. Monetary penalties will be passed through to agricultural customers, if assessed by the State Water Resources Control Board, Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, or Municipal Water District of Orange County. The operation of any Water Features - Restrict water ornamental fountain or 3 use for decorative water similar structure is Yes features, such as fountains prohibited, even when recycled water is used. Construction water shall not be used for earthwork or road construction purposes unless authorized as a Other- Prohibit use of potable 3 water for construction and dust mitigation or erosion Yes control, compaction or control backfilling earthwork or as required by the Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) Control Measure F- 4. The use of water for commercial, industrial, institutional, Landscape - Prohibit all manufacturing or 3 Yes landscape irrigation processing purposes shall be essential use only. All outdoor irrigation is prohibited. 3 Pools and Spas - Require covers Yes 4 IlLandscape - Prohibit all Yes Washing of autos, trucks, mobile homes, buses, trailers, boats, airplanes and other types of mobile equipment is prohibited. Washing is permitted at any time on the immediate premises of a commercial car wash. The use of water by all types of commercial car washes Other - Prohibit vehicle washing not using partially 4 except at facilities using recycled reclaimed or recycled Yes or recirculating water water shall be reduced in volume by 50%. Further, such washings are exempted from these regulations where the health, safety and welfare of the public is contingent upon frequent vehicle cleaning such as garbage trucks and vehicles used to transport food and perishables. Filling, refilling, or adding of water to swimming Other water feature or 4 pools, spas, ponds, and Yes swimming pool restriction artificial lakes is prohibited. Watering of parks, school grounds, public facilities and recreation fields is prohibited with Landscape - Prohibit certain the exception of plant 4 types of landscape irrigation materials classified to be Yes rare, exceptionally valuable, or essential to the well-being of rare animals. The use of water from fire hydrants shall be limited to firefighting or 4 Other related activities Yes necessary to maintain the health, safety, and welfare of the public. The use of water for agricultural or Landscape - Prohibit certain commercial nursery 4 types of landscape irrigation purposes, except for Yes livestock watering, is prohibited. New construction meters or permits for unmetered service will not be issued. Construction water shall not be used for earth work or road 4 Other construction purposes, Yes except to maintain the health, safety and welfare of the public or as required by the Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) Control Measure F- 4. The use of water for commercial, industrial, institutional, manufacturing or processing purposes shall be reduced in 4 Other Yes volume by 50% or as mandated by the State Water Resources Control Board and limited to off- peak hours, whichever is greater. No water shall be used 4 Other for air conditioning Yes purposes. NOTES: Stage 1 water conservation measures are all the measures listed during a Stage 2 Water Shortage but is on a voluntary basis only. Water conservation measures are mandatory only during a Stage 2, Stage 3, or Stage 4 Water Shortage. Table 8-4 Retail: Minimum Supply Next Three Years Available Water .. • Table Notice of Public City Nam Hearing Santa Ana 0 0 County Name 60 Day Notice Notice of Public Drop Down List Hearing Orange County 0 0 NOTES: APPENDIX C Groundwater Management Plan SINCE 1933 Orange County Water District Groundwater Management Plan 2015 Update • -r-- r PRADO DAM SANTA ANA RIVER RECHARGE ------P BASINSGWR PIPELINE--,,y GWRS ADVANCED WATER p' PURIFICATION FACILITY SEAWATER\\;r- OCSD INTRUSION TREATMENT BARRIER FACILITY OCSD TREATMENT FACILITY OCEAN OUTFLOW PACIFIC OCEAN SANTIAGOrr'' iii Y r CREEK f flf �Jr� i A N Orange County Orange County Water District Groundwater Management Plan 2015 Update June 17, 2015 Greg Woodside, PG CHg, Executive Director of Planning and Natural Resources Marsha Westropp, Senior Watershed Planner The primary authors of the Groundwater Management Plan wish to acknowledge Steve Strand who prepared the majority of maps and assisted with data management. Thanks also for the significant contributions of the following District staff in preparing the Plan: Nira Yamachika, Adam Hutchinson, Roy Herndon, John Kennedy, Tim Sovich, Gary Yoshiba, David Field, Jason Dadakis, Karen Underhill, Bill Dunivin, Li Li, Linda Koki, John Bonsangue, Diane Pinnick, Dick Zembal, Darla Cirillo, Leticia Villarreal, Rae Krause, Nic Nguyen, Don Brown, Lynn McConnell, and Renee Patterson. Graphic art and design assistance provided by Scott Brown Graphics. Table of Contents Section Page EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .............................................................................. ES1 SECTION HISTORY AND GOVERNANCE ........................................................... 1-1 11 Introduction ...................................................................................................... 1-1 1.2 History ofthe Orange County Water District .................................................... 1-2 1.3 [XC\8/DGovernance ......................................................................................... 1-5 1.4 Groundwater Producers ................................................................................... 1-9 1.5 Public Education and Events ......................................................................... 1-1O SECTION PREPARATION OFGROUNDWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN ........... 2-1 21 Introduction ...................................................................................................... 2-1 2.2 Sustainable Groundwater Management Act .................................................... 2-2 2.3 Basin Management Goals and Objectives ....................................................... 2-3 2.4 Recommendations and Projects Connp|eted2OO9-2O15-----------2-7 2.5 Recommendations for 2O15-2O2O................................................................. 2-1O 2.0 Planning and Implementation Horizons ......................................................... 2-11 SECTION 3 BASIN HYDR[xGE[>L[xGY................................................................... 3-1 31 Description ofBasin Hvdrooeoogy.................................................................. 3-1 3.2 Determination ofTotal Basin Volume .............................................................. 3-0 3.3 Water Budget ................................................................................................... 3-8 3.4 Calculation ofChange inGroundwater Storage --------------'3-13 3.5 Elevation Trends ............................................................................................ 3-17 3.0 Land Subsidence ........................................................................................... 3-22 37 Basin Model ................................................................................................... 3-25 SECTION WATER SUPPLY MONITORING .......................................................... 4-1 41 Introduction ...................................................................................................... 4-1 4.2 Groundwater Monitoring .................................................................................. 4-1 4.3 RecycledWater Monitoring ............................................................................ 4-1O 4.4 Surface Water Monitoring .............................................................................. 4-11 4.5 Water Resources Management System: Database Management ................. 4-17 4.0 Water Sample Collection and Analysis .......................................................... 4-18 47 Ground and Surface Water Interactions ........................................................ 4-21 SECTION MANAGEMENT AND OPERATION [}FRECHARGE FACILITIES ...... 5-1 [)CWDGroundwater Management Plan 2015Update Table of Contents 5.2 Sources of Recharge Water Supplies..............................................................5-3 5.3 Surface Water Recharge Facilities................................................................5-12 5.4 Maintenance of Recharge Facilities...............................................................5-17 5.5 Recharge Studies and Evaluations................................................................5-18 5.6 Improvements to Recharge Facilities 2009-2014 ..........................................5-25 SECTION 6 GROUNDWATER REPLENISHMENT SYSTEM..................................6-1 6.1 Overview..........................................................................................................6-1 6.2 Advanced Water Treatment Process...............................................................6-5 6.3 Energy Efficient Operations...........................................................................6-76 6.4 Plant Optimization and Expansion...................................................................6-7 6.5 Water Quality Monitoring and Reporting..........................................................6-9 6.6 Public Outreach.............................................................................................6-10 SECTION 7 SEAWATER INTRUSION AND BARRIER MANAGEMENT.................7-1 7.1 Background......................................................................................................7-1 7.2 Talbert Seawater Intrusion Barrier...................................................................7-2 7.3 Alamitos Seawater Intrusion Barrier..............................................................7-66 7.4 Sunset Gap Investigation...............................................................................7-88 7.5 Evaluation of Potential Impacts Due to Climate Change...............................7-99 SECTION 8 WATER QUALITY PROTECTION AND MANAGEMENT .....................8-1 8.1 OCWD Groundwater Quality Protection Policy................................................8-1 8.2 Well Development, Management and Closure................................................8-2 8.3 Managing Salinity in Water Supplies...............................................................8-3 8.4 Management of Nitrates in Groundwater.......................................................8-10 8.5 OCWD Prado Wetlands.................................................................................8-12 8.6 Amber -Colored Groundwater Management...................................................8-15 8.7 Regulation and Management of Contaminants.............................................8-16 8.8 Constituents of Emerging Concern................................................................8-20 8.9 Groundwater Quality Improvement Projects..................................................8-22 8.10 BEA Exemption for Improvement Projects....................................................8-26 SECTION 9 NATURAL RESOURCE AND COLLABORATIVE WATERSHED PROGRAMS..............................................................................................................9-1 9.1 OCWD Natural Resource Programs — Overview............................................9-1 9.2 Natural Resource Programs in the Watershed................................................9-2 OCWD Groundwater Management Plan 2015 Update Table of Contents 9.3 Collaborative Watershed Programs...............................................................9-10 9.4 Management of Areas Within Basin 8-1 Outside OCWD Boundaries ..........9-15 9.5 Orange County Water Resources -Related Plans..........................................9-16 9.6 Collaboration with Federal and State Agencies.............................................9-18 9.7 Land Use, Development and Environmental Reviews...................................9-21 SECTION 10 SUSTAINABLE BASIN MANAGEMENT.............................................10-1 10.1 Background...................................................................................................10-1 10.2 Basin Operating Range................................................................................10-2 10.3 Balancing Production and Recharge............................................................10-5 10.4 Managing Basin Pumping.............................................................................10-6 10.5 Supply Management Strategies...................................................................10-10 10.6 Removing Impediments to Conjunctive Use................................................10-11 10.7 Water Demands...........................................................................................10-12 10.8 Drought Management..................................................................................10-15 10.9 Record Keeping...........................................................................................10-16 SECTION 11 FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT...............................................................11-1 11.1 Background Financial Information.................................................................11-1 11.2 Operating Expenses......................................................................................11-1 11.3 Operating Revenues......................................................................................11-2 11.4 Reserves........................................................................................................11-3 SECTION 12 REFERENCES AND ACRONYMS.....................................................12-1 OCWD Groundwater Management Plan 2015 Update iv Table of Contents Table Page Table 1-1: Major Groundwater Producers within OCWD Boundaries ........................1-9 Table 2-1: Basin Management Objective: Groundwater Quality..............................2-3 Table 2-2: Basin Management Objective: Basin Sustainable Yield ..........................2-5 Table 2-3: Basin Management Objective: Operational Efficiency ............................2-6 Table 2-4: 2009 Recommendations: Completed............................................................2-7 Table 2-5: 2009 Recommendations: On-going..............................................................2-8 Table 2-6: Completed Projects/Accomplishments 2009-2015 .......................................2-9 Table 2-7: Recommendations for 2015-2020...............................................................2-10 Table 3-1: Estimated Basin Groundwater Storage by Hydrogeologic Unit ....................3-8 Table 3-2: Example Annual Basin Water Budget...........................................................3-9 Table 4-1: Monitoring of Regulated and Unregulated Chemicals..................................4-6 Table 4-2: Groundwater Replenishment System Product Water Quality Monitoring ...4-10 Table 4-3: Surface Water Quality Sampling Frequency within Orange County ...........4-14 Table 4-4: OCWD Publications....................................................................................4-21 Table 5-1: Sources of Recharge Water Supplies...........................................................5-3 Table 5-2: Annual Recharge by Source.........................................................................5-4 Table 5-3: Area and Storage Capacities of Surface Water Recharge Facilities ..........5-12 Table 5-4: Estimated Future Santa Ana River Storm Flow Arriving at Prado Dam ...... 5-23 Table 5-5: Santa Ana River Flow Conditions and Estimated Average Inflow to Prado Dam............................................................................................................ 5-23 Table 5-6: Annual Yield of Potential Surface Water Recharge System Projects .........5-24 Table 8-1: Secondary Drinking Water Standards for Selected Constituents .................8-4 Table 8-2: TDS Water Quality Objectives for Lower Santa Ana River Basin Management Zones...........................................................................................................8-5 Table 8-3: Salt Inflows for Orange County and Irvine Management Zones ...................8-7 Table 8-4: Nitrate -nitrogen Water Quality Objective for Lower Santa Ana River Basin Management Zones.............................................................8-11 Table 8-5: Summary of BEA Exemption Projects........................................................8-26 Table 10-1: Benefits and Constraints of Changing Storage Levels.............................10-3 Table 10-2: Groundwater Production and Recharge Sources....................................10-5 Table 10-3: Management Actions based on Change in Groundwater Storage ............ 10-9 Table 10-4: Conjunctive Use Impediments and Opportunities...................................10-11 Table 10-5: Estimated Future Water Demands in OCWD Service Area....................10-13 Table 10-6: Projected Total Water Demands.............................................................10-13 Table 10-7: Projected Population within OCWD Boundaries.....................................10-14 Table 10-8: Approaches to Refilling the Basin...........................................................10-16 Table 11-1: FY 2014-15 Budget Operating Expenses.................................................11-1 Table 11-2: FY 2014-15 Operating Revenues.............................................................11-2 OCWD Groundwater Management Plan 2015 Update Table of Contents Figure Page Figure ES -1: Burris Basin........................................................................................... ES1 Figure ES -2: DWR Basin 8-1 and OCWD Boundary ................................................. ES2 Figure ES -3: OCWD Wells and Title 22 Drinking Water Wells .................................. ES3 Figure ES -4: Sources of Groundwater Recharge...................................................... ES4 Figure ES -5: GWRS Facilities.................................................................................... ES5 Figure ES -6: Mesas and Gaps Along the Orange County Coast ............................... ES6 Figure ES -7: OCWD Prado Wetlands........................................................................ ES7 Figure ES -8: Least Bell's Vireo.................................................................................. ES8 Figure ES -9: Groundwater Production....................................................................... ES9 Figure ES -10: Groundwater Storage.......................................................................... ES10 Figure ES -11: Impacts of Change in Groundwater Storage Levels ........................... ES11 Figure 1-1: OCWD Board of Directors, circa 1935.........................................................1-1 Figure 1-2: District Boundary, 1933...............................................................................1-2 Figure 1-3: Anaheim Lake, circa 1961..........................................................................1-3 Figure 1-4: Water Factory 21, circa 1975.......................................................................1-4 Figure 1-5: GWRS Reverse Osmosis Building.............................................................1-5 Figure 1-6: Board of Directors Service Area..................................................................1-6 Figure 1-7: OCWD Board of Directors Meeting in Fountain Valley................................1-7 Figure 1-8: Retail Water Agencies within OCWD.........................................................1-10 Figure 1-9: Group Attending the 2015 Children's Water Education Festival................1-11 Figure 1-10: 2014 Orange County Water Summit........................................................1-12 Figure 1-11: 2014 Groundwater Adventure Tour.........................................................1-13 Figure 1-12: OCWD Public Tour..................................................................................1-14 Figure 2-1: Meeting of OCWD Staff with Groundwater Producers.................................2-1 Figure 3-1: Coastal Plain of Orange County Groundwater Basin, Basin 8-1 .................3-1 Figure 3-2: Geologic Cross -Section, Orange County Groundwater Basin.....................3-3 Figure 3-3: Orange County Groundwater Basin.............................................................3-4 Figure 3-4: Basin 8-1 and OCWD Boundaries...............................................................3-7 Figure 3-5: Estimated Subsurface Recharge...............................................................3-10 Figure 3-6: Distribution of Groundwater Production, Water Year 2013-14 ..................3-11 Figure 3-7: Relationship between OCWD Basin Storage and.....................................3-12 Figure 3-8: Schematic Cross -Section of the Basin Showing Three Aquifer Layers ....3-14 Figure 3-9: Groundwater Level Contour Map, June 2014 ............................................3-15 Figure 3-10: Groundwater Level Changes, June 2013-14 ...........................................3-16 Figure 3-11: Change in Groundwater Storage, WY 1974-75 to 2013-14 .....................3-17 Figure 3-12: Principal Aquifer Groundwater Elevation Profiles, 1969 and 2013 .......... 3-18 Figure 3-13: Location of Long -Term Groundwater Elevation Hydrograph ...................3-18 Figure 3-14: Water Level Hydrographs of Wells SA -21 and GG -16 in Pressure Area. 3-19 Figure 3-15: Water Level Hydrographs of Well A-27 in Forebay.................................3-20 Figure 3-16: Water Level Hydrographs of Wells SAR-1 and OCWD-CTG1 ................3-21 Figure 3-17: Orange County Public Works GPS Real Time Network ..........................3-23 Figure 3-18: Available Storage Space and Ground Surface Elevation Change .......... 3-24 Figure 3-19: Basin Model Extent..................................................................................3-25 Figure 3-20: Model Development Flowchart................................................................3-28 OCWD Groundwater Management Plan 2015 Update Table of Contents Figure 3-21: Basin Model Calibration Wells.................................................................3-30 Figure 3-22: Calibration Hydrograph of Monitoring Well AM -5A ..................................3-31 Figure 3-23: Calibration Hydrograph for Monitoring Well SC -2 ....................................3-32 Figure 3-24: Calibration Hydrograph for Monitoring Well GGM-1................................3-32 Figure 3-25: Talbert Gap Model and Basin Model Boundaries....................................3-35 Figure 3-26: Talbert Model Calibration Wells and Boundary Wells..............................3-36 Figure 3-27: Talbert Gap Model Aquifer Layering Schematic......................................3-36 Figure 4-1: OCWD-Owned Monitoring Wells.................................................................4-2 Figure 4-2: Large and Small System Drinking Water Wells...........................................4-2 Figure 4-3: Private Domestic, Irrigation, and Industrial Wells in....................................4-4 Figure 4-4: Wells in CASGEM Program.........................................................................4-5 Figure 4-5: OCWD Staff Collecting Water Sample at Production Well ..........................4-7 Figure 4-6: North Basin Groundwater Protection Program Monitoring Wells................4-8 Figure 4-7: South Basin Groundwater Protection Program Monitoring Wells...............4-8 Figure 4-8: Seawater Intrusion Monitoring Wells..........................................................4-9 Figure 4-9: GWRS Monitoring Wells...........................................................................4-11 Figure 4-10: Surface Water Monitoring Locations.......................................................4-13 Figure 4-11: Basin Monitoring Program Task Force Monitoring Locations ..................4-15 Figure 4-12: OCWD Advanced Water Quality Assurance Laboratory .........................4-19 Figure 4-13: Monitoring Well Designs..........................................................................4-20 Figure 4-14: Westbay Well Schematic.........................................................................4-20 Figure 4-15: Santa Ana River in Orange County, 1938 ................................................4-22 Figure 5-1: Santa Ana River, view upstream.................................................................5-1 Figure 5-2: Anaheim Lake and Mini Anaheim Lake.......................................................5-2 Figure 5-3: Five Year Average Recharge by Source.....................................................5-4 Figure 5-4: Santa Ana River Watershed........................................................................5-5 Figure 5-5: Area of Inundation and Storage Volume for Water Conservation Pools ...... 5-6 Figure 5-6: Annual Base and Storm Flow in the Santa Ana River at Prado Dam ..........5-7 Figure 5-7: Precipitation at San Bernardino, Water Year (Oct. -Sept.) ..........................5-8 Figure 5-8: Historical Recharge in Surface Water Recharge System ............................5-8 Figure 5-9: Santiago Basins and Santiago Creek..........................................................5-9 Figure 5-10: Net Incidental Recharge and Precipitation, WY 2000-01 to 2013-14 .....5-10 Figure 5-11: OCWD Surface Water Recharge Facilities.............................................5-13 Figure 5-12: Recharge Basin showing Accumulated Clogging Layer .........................5-17 Figure 5-13: Bulldozer in Off -River Channel Removing Clogging Layer......................5-18 Figure 5-14: Recharge Facilities Model System Overview...........................................5-20 Figure 5-15: Miraloma Basin........................................................................................5-26 Figure 5-16: Santiago Basins Pump Station................................................................5-27 Figure 5-17: Sand and Cobble Sediments in Santa Ana River Channel ......................5-28 Figure 6-1: Aerial View of the Groundwater Replenishment System.............................6-2 Figure 6-2: Groundwater Replenishment System Facilities...........................................6-3 Figure 6-3: Water Factory 21, circa 1975.......................................................................6-4 Figure 6-4: AWPF Process Flow Diagram.....................................................................6-5 Figure 6-5: Flow Equalization Tanks..............................................................................6-8 Figure 6-6: Group Touring the Groundwater Replenishment System ..........................6-10 Figure 7-1: Coastal Gaps in Orange County..................................................................7-1 OCWD Groundwater Management Plan 2015 Update Table of Contents Figure 7-2: Talbert Barrier Injection Wells......................................................................7-3 Figure 7-3: Talbert Gap 250 mg/L Chloride Concentration Contours ............................7-4 Figure 7-4: Groundwater Elevations and Chloride Concentrations at OCWD-M27 .......7-5 Figure 7-5: Groundwater Elevations and Chloride Concentrations at HBM-2/MP1 .......7-5 Figure 7-6: Alamitos Gap Injection and Monitoring Wells..............................................7-7 Figure 7-7: Sunset Gap Monitoring and Production Wells.............................................7-9 Figure 8-1: Groundwater Management Zones in Orange County..................................8-4 Figure 8-2: TDS in Groundwater Production Wells........................................................8-6 Figure 8-3: Total Flow Weighted Average TDS of All Source Waters ............................8-8 Figure 8-4: Tons of Salt in GWRS vs. Imported Water..................................................8-9 Figure 8-5: Areas with Elevated Nitrate Levels............................................................8-11 Figure 8-6: Location of Prado Wetlands.......................................................................8-12 Figure 8-7: Aerial View of Prado Wetlands..................................................................8-13 Figure 8-8: Wetlands Pond Schematic.........................................................................8-14 Figure 8-9: Extent of Amber -Colored Water.................................................................8-15 Figure 8-10: Groundwater Cleanup Projects................................................................8-17 Figure 8-11: Sample Analysis at OCWD Laboratory ....................................................8-18 Figure 8-12: Water Quality Improvement Projects.......................................................8-22 Figure 8-13: North Basin Groundwater Contamination Plume.....................................8-23 Figure 8-14: South Basin Groundwater Contamination Plume....................................8-24 Figure 9-1: View of Prado Basin Looking East with Prado Dam in Foreground.............9-2 Figure 9-2: Prado Mitigation Areas................................................................................9-3 Figure 9-3: Least Bell's Vireo.........................................................................................9-4 Figure 9-4: Least Bell's Vireo Survey Data 1983...........................................................9-5 Figure 9-5: Least Bell's Vireo Survey Data 2014...........................................................9-5 Figure9-6: Arundo........................................................................................................9-6 Figure 9-7: Santa Ana Sucker........................................................................................9-7 Figure 9-8: Gabion in Santa Ana River..........................................................................9-8 Figure 9-9: Bird Habitat Island Constructed in Burris Basin...........................................9-9 Figure 9-10: Tree Swallows Nesting, Lower Santa Ana River, 2014 ...........................9-10 Figure 9-11: Tree Swallow Nest Box............................................................................9-10 Figure 9-12: WACO Meeting in Fountain Valley..........................................................9-14 Figure 9-13: Areas Outside OCWD Boundaries..........................................................9-15 Figure 9-14: OCWD Recharge Operations Staff..........................................................9-18 Figure 9-15: Aerial View of Orange County.................................................................9-21 Figure 10-1: Schematic Illustration of Impacts of Changing the Amount of Groundwater inStorage..................................................................................................10-4 Figure 10-2: Basin Production and Recharge Sources, WY 1999-00 to 2013-14 ........ 10-5 Figure 10-3: Assigned and Actual Basin Production Percentage................................10-7 Figure 10-4: BPP Calculation.......................................................................................10-8 Figure 10-5: Areas Supplied by GAP Water..............................................................10-11 Figure 10-6: Historic Total District Water Demands...................................................10-12 OCWD Groundwater Management Plan 2015 Update Table of Contents APPENDICES Appendix A Public Notices Appendix B Groundwater Management Plan Mandatory and Recommended Components and Sustainable Groundwater Management Act Required and Additional Plan Elements Appendix C Basin Management Objectives: Achievement of Sustainability for Long - Term Beneficial Uses of Groundwater Appendix D Report on Evaluation of Orange County Groundwater Basin Storage and Operational Strategy Appendix E List of Wells in OCWD Monitoring Programs Appendix F Monthly Water Resources Report OCWD Groundwater Management Plan 2015 Update ix Executive Summary EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Orange County Water District (OCWD; the District) is a special district formed to manage the Orange County Groundwater Basin. Water from the basin provides approximately 70 percent of the water supply for residents in north and central Orange County. INTRODUCTION OCWD was created in 1933 by the California legislature to manage the Orange County Groundwater Basin. The District operates the basin in order to protect and increase the basin's sustainable yield in a cost-effective manner. Water produced from the basin is the primary water supply for approximately 2.4 million residents living within the District boundaries. OCWD manages the groundwater basin and seeks to expand the basin's annual yield by maximizing the amount of water recharged into the basin, developing new sources of water to recharge the basin, and increasing the effectiveness of the District's facilities. OCWD is governed by a 10 -member Board of Directors. Cities, water agencies and other groundwater producers meet on a monthly basis with District staff to provide input and advice on basin management issues. Water demands have grown substantially since the District's founding. This has challenged OCWD to increase groundwater recharge, establish methods to effectively manage demands on the basin, and balance the amount of total recharge and total pumping to maintain water levels and storage within the established safe operating range. OCWD Groundwater Management Plan 2015 Update ES1 Executive Summary The District's first Groundwater Management Plan was published in 1989; the Groundwater Management Plan 2015 Update is the fifth update. In 2014, the California Sustainable Groundwater Management Act was passed. The new law provides authority for agencies to develop and implement Groundwater Sustainability Plans or alternative plans that demonstrate the basin has operated within its sustainable yield over a period of at least 10 years. Elements to be included in sustainability plans as described in the California Water Code (§10727.2, 10727.4, and 10727.6) have been incorporated into this plan. Groundwater basin management goals are (1) to protect and enhance groundwater quality, (2) to protect and increase the sustainable yield of the basin in a cost-effective manner, and (3) to increase the efficiency of District operations. BASIN HYDROGEOLOGY The Orange County Groundwater Basin is located within an area designated by the California Department of Water Resources as Basin 8-1. The boundaries of the "Coastal Plain of Orange County Groundwater Basin" and OCWD boundaries are shown in Figure ES -2. The basin stores an estimated 66 million acre-feet of water, although only a fraction of this can be sustainably pumped without causing physical damage such as seawater intrusion or potential land subsidence. Annual changes in the amount of groundwater stored in the basin are estimated using groundwater elevation measurements and aquifer storage coefficients for the �• SAN LOS ANGELES• +'-S y---, 6ERNARDEE COUNTY �•'••'� t.�..IRS�.r„�'� t,` COUNTY 7 � L'• •L ORANGE •-"•y'•�,i COUNTY �y S1 C� l r' O r H �p W,w -FE \• S•/ ' Q DAR Grounds trti Basins (E3uueUn 1181 - ii`•r,, � jj i.__gocwvflmur�ary arcs r V — courts 8a ndm, Figure ES -2: DWR Basin 8-1 and OCWD Boundary three primary aquifer systems in the basin. These estimated storage changes are backed up with comprehensive measurements of groundwater production and managed recharge so that a fairly precise estimate of groundwater storage is known on a monthly basis. OCWD's groundwater basin model was developed to evaluate basin production capacity and recharge requirements and has improved the district's overall understanding of groundwater flow dynamics. Typical applications of the basin model include estimating annual change in groundwater storage and the effects of potential future pumping and recharge projects on groundwater levels, storage, and the water budget. OCWD Groundwater Management Plan 2015 Update Executive Summary WATER SUPPLY MONITORING OCWD collects water elevation and water quality data from nearly 700 wells, including over 400 District -owned monitoring wells, shown in Figure ES -3. Comprehensive water quality monitoring programs are conducted to comply with permits and drinking water regulations, to conduct research programs, and to manage the groundwater basin. The District operates its own laboratory that is state -certified to perform bacteriological, inorganic, and organic analyses. All entities that operate large -capacity wells must equip their wells with meters and report their production totals every six months. Approximately 200 large -capacity municipal and privately - owned supply wells account for 97 percent of production. At the District's request, for the purposes of more precise and current knowledge of basin conditions and model calibration, owners of large -capacity wells have reported monthly production for each of their wells since 1988. All production and monitoring wells are measured for groundwater elevation at least every six months. Water quality sampling programs vary year-to-year based on regulatory requirements and basin conditions. In 2014, OCWD water quality staff collected 17,046 samples, 4,142 of which were collected from drinking water wells. OCWD conducts Title 22 drinking water quality monitoring on behalf of the Groundwater Producers. Additional groundwater programs include monitoring of groundwater contamination plumes, recycled recharge water quality and extent of seawater intrusion. Figure ES -3: OCWD-Owned Wells and Wells in Title 22 Drinking Water Monitoring Program OCWD monitors surface water used for groundwater recharge including Santa Ana River water and imported water as well as recycled water produced by the District's Groundwater Replenishment System. Flows in and out of the District's Prado Wetlands are monitored to evaluate changes in water quality and to evaluate the effectiveness of the treatment wetlands. Data collected by OCWD are stored in the District's electronic database and geographic information system, known as the Water Resources Management System. The database OCWD Groundwater Management Plan 2015 Update Executive Summary contains comprehensive well information, current and historical data, and information on sub- surface geology and groundwater modeling. MANAGEMENT AND OPERATION OF RECHARGE FACILITIES Replenishing the groundwater basin is essential to support pumping from the basin. Although the amount of recharge and basin pumping may not be the same each year, over the long- term recharge needs to approximately equal total pumping, as it has for decades. Recharge water supplies and their respective proportion of total recharge supplies are shown in Figure ES -4. The District's surface water recharge system is comprised of 23 recharge facilities with a combined maximum storage capacity of approximately 26,000 acre-feet. Recharge basins are located adjacent to the Santa Ana River in the City of Anaheim and Santiago Creek in the City of Orange. LJ Santa Ana River Base Flow U Storm Flow i Imported Water LJ Recycled Water _1 In -Lieu Program , Incidental Recharge In -Lieu Progra Figure ES -4 Sources of Groundwater Recharge Average for Water Years 2009-10 to 2013-14 OCWD Groundwater Management Plan 2015 Update Executive Summary GROUNDWATER REPLENISHMENT SYSTEM The Groundwater Replenishment System (GWRS) is OCWD's recycled water purification system in operation since 2008 (Figure ES -5). The plant was jointly constructed by OCWD and the Orange County ❑AREA Sanitation District. Wastewater MANAGED that would otherwise be BY OCWD SANTA ANA discharged to the Pacific Ocean RIVER / w � •` ��-� � is purified using athree-step RECHARGE r process (microfiltration, reverse BASINS osmosis, and advanced x- oxidation/disinfection) to GWRS J produce high-quality water used PIPELINE to recharge the groundwater SANTIAGO CREEK basin and for injection into the GWRS ADVANCED WATER Talbert Seawater Intrusion PURIFICATION FACILITY Barrier. When first completed, the plant produced up to 70 oCSD SEAWATER- yM�/ TREATMENT INTRUSION million gallons per da or y FACILITY BARRIER approximately 72,000 acre-feet per year (afy) of product water. OCSD TREATMENT FACILITY O r a n g e Initial expansion of the plant OCEAN C o u n t y was completed in 2015 OUTFLOW increasing production up to PACIFIC OCEAN '� 100,000 afy of recycled water. Figure ES -5: GWRS Facilities SEAWATER INTRUSION MONITORING AND BARRIER MANAGEMENT Monitoring and preventing the encroachment of seawater into fresh groundwater zones along the coast is a major component of OCWD's sustainable basin management. Seawater intrusion became a critical problem in the 1950s. Overdraft of the basin caused water levels to drop as much as 40 feet below sea level; seawater intruded three miles inland. Risk of seawater intrusion is greatest in coastal lowland areas, or gaps, between relatively flat elevated areas referred to as mesas as shown in Figure ES -6. The Alamitos Seawater Intrusion Barrier was constructed in 1965 to protect the Central Basin of Los Angeles County and the Orange County Groundwater Basin from seawater intrusion through the Alamitos Gap. The barrier facilities are jointly owned by the Los Angeles County Flood Control District and OCWD and include 43 injection wells and 177 active monitoring well sites. OCWD constructed the Talbert Seawater Barrier in 1975 with 23 injection well sites to halt seawater intrusion through the Talbert Gap, a 2.5 mile geological feature between the OCWD Groundwater Management Plan 2015 Update Executive Summary Newport and Huntington Mesas. Today, the Talbert Barrier is composed of a series of 36 well sites that are used to inject an average of 36,000 afy of water into four aquifer zones. This forms a hydraulic barrier to seawater that would otherwise migrate inland toward areas of groundwater production. Gap kLAMITOS BARRIER Q + Q 41 ;+ a o a� ro Gap $ nl a d • BGap Huntington Beach $ esa * TALBERT BARRIER qi + 4� + �z +� Newport $> AMesa 4 P Talbert O0Gap , Active Large -System Production Well Injection Well Monitoring Well ♦ Multiport Monitoring Well Pathway Of Seawater Intrusion r N WE s 0 5,000 W,900 Feet ES -6: Mesas and Gaps Along the Orange County Coast WATER QUALITY PROTECTION Basin monitoring for potential seawater intrusion in the vicinity of the Sunset Gap began in the 1950s. In 2007, a well in the City of Huntington Beach was permanently removed from service due to high salinity levels. Studies commenced and monitoring wells were constructed. Strategies to control intrusion being considered include design of a potential future southerly extension of the Alamitos Barrier. Additional remedial measures beyond source control may be considered, such as brackish groundwater extraction and desalination. OCWD adopted the first Groundwater Quality Protection Policy in 1987; the latest revision was adopted by the Board of Directors in 2014. The policy guides the actions of OCWD to prevent groundwater quality degradation, undertake investigation and clean up as necessary to protect the basin from contamination, and encourage appropriate treatment of poor -quality groundwater. OCWD Groundwater Management Plan 2015 Update Executive Summary Salinity Management Since Santa Ana River water is a major source of recharge for the basin, salt management programs in the upper watershed are vital to protect the water quality in Orange County. A watershed -wide salinity management program is implemented by watershed stakeholders under the direction of the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board. In addition, recharging the Orange County Groundwater Basin with recycled water produced by the GWRS is expected to reduce salinity levels over the long-term. To reduce the level of nitrate in Santa Ana River water, OCWD operates an extensive system of wetlands in the Prado Basin, shown in Figure ES -7. OCWD diverts approximately half of the non -storm flows of the Santa Ana River through the wetland ponds that remove approximately 15 to 40 tons of nitrates a month, depending on the season. Groundwater Contamination Figure ES -7: OCWD Prado Wetlands OCWD efforts to protect the groundwater basin and to assess the potential threat to public health and the environment from contamination in the Santa Ana River watershed and within Orange County include: • Reviewing on-going groundwater cleanup site investigations and commenting on the findings, conclusions, and technical merits of progress reports; • Providing knowledge and expertise to assess contaminated sites and evaluating the merits of proposed remedial activities; and • Conducting third -party groundwater split samples at contaminated sites to assist regulatory agencies in evaluating progress of groundwater cleanup. OCWD lacks the regulatory authority to require responsible parties or potentially responsible parties to clean up pollutants that have contaminated groundwater. In some cases, the District has pursued legal action against entities that have contaminated the groundwater basin to recover the District's remediation costs. In other cases, the District coordinates and cooperates with regulatory oversight agencies that investigate sources of contamination. The District also uses financial incentives to encourage pumping and treatment of groundwater that does not meet drinking water standards in order to protect water quality by reducing the spread of poor -quality groundwater. OCWD Groundwater Management Plan 2015 Update ES7 Executive Summary NATURAL RESOURCES AND COLLABORATIVE PROGRAMS OCWD's collaborative efforts in the Santa Ana River Watershed include natural resource programs to replace invasive plants with native plants and manage habitat for endangered and threatened species. These programs protect the water quality in the Santa Ana River and ES -8 Least Bell's Vireo fulfill mitigation requirements for impacts to natural resources from District operations in the Prado Basin. During the 1960s, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers began working with OCWD to conserve water behind Prado Dam in order to support OCWD's groundwater recharge operations. OCWD's natural resource programs began in response to concerns that increased water storage behind the dam could negatively impact the Prado Basin ecosystem. The Prado Basin contains the single largest stand of forested riparian habitat remaining in coastal southern California, which supports an abundance and diversity of wildlife including many listed and sensitive species. Habitat management programs in the Prado Basin are responsible for the recovery of a federally endangered species, the least Bell's vireo, shown in Figure ES -8. In addition to programs in the Prado Basin, the District is a partner in watershed -wide efforts to eradicate the invasive plant Arundo donax, to manage habitat for rare and endangered birds, and to protect the Santa Ana Sucker, an endangered fish. Wildlife protection programs within Orange County include the construction of a bird island on Burris Basin and on-going participation in programs to manage water resources in the watershed. SUSTAINABLE BASIN MANAGEMENT In the early 1950s, increased pumping from the basin outpaced the rate of recharge. Water levels dropped and seawater intruded into coastal areas threatening the basin's water quality. The District began purchasing imported water to recharge the basin. Groundwater producers supported legislative changes to the OCWD Act that provided for management of the basin as a common pool of water rather than allocating individual basin water rights. The adopted legislation allowed all producers to pump as much as they wanted provided that they pay for the costs of replenishing the basin. Sustainable management has allowed for basin production to grow from less than 200,000 afy in the mid-1960s to over 300,000 acre-feet in the 2000s as shown in Figure ES -9. The basin must be maintained in an approximate balance to ensure the long-term viability of basin water supplies. In any given year, groundwater withdrawals may exceed water OCWD Groundwater Management Plan 2015 Update Executive Summary recharged as long as over the course of a number of years this is balanced by years when water recharged exceeds withdrawals. OCWD calculates the basin storage level annually and sets the target amount of production to manage pumping to either increase or decrease groundwater storage levels in response to hydrological conditions. The primary mechanism used by OCWD to manage pumping is the Basin Production Percentage (BPP). The BPP is a percentage of each Producer's water supply that comes from groundwater pumped from the basin. The BPP is set on an annual basis and is uniform for all Producers. Groundwater pumping above the BPP is assessed an additional charge that creates a disincentive for over -producing. The basin is managed to maintain water storage levels of not more than 500,000 acre-feet below full condition to avoid permanent and significant negative or adverse impacts. The basin is operated within a safe operating range as shown in Figure ES -10. Operating the basin in this manner enables the District to encourage reduced pumping during wet years when surface water supplies are plentiful and increased pumping during dry years to provide additional local water supplies during droughts. Groundwater Production Acre-feet (x 1,000) 450 400 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 1963-64 1973-74 1983-84 1993-94 2003-04 2013-14 Water Year Figure ES -9: Groundwater Production, Water Year 1963-64 to 2013-14 OCWD Groundwater Management Plan 2015 Update Available Storage (amount below full condition) Acre-feet (x1000) 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 1974-75 Executive Summary Amount of groundwater in 1978-79 1982-83 1986-87 1990-91 1994-95 1998-99 2002-03 2006-07 2010-11 2014-15 Water Year Figure ES -10: Groundwater Storage for Water Years 1974-75 to 2013-14 Each year, the District determines the optimum level of storage for the following year when it sets the BPP. This determination is affected by several factors, including the current storage level, regional water availability, and hydrologic conditions. The District manages the basin within an established operating storage range. When the basin storage approaches the lower end of the operating range, issues that become more of a concern include seawater intrusion, upwelling of amber -colored water into the Principal Aquifer from underlying aquifers, downward migration of poor -quality groundwater from the Shallow Aquifer, increased risk of land subsidence, and potential for shallow wells to become inoperable due to lower water levels (see Figure ES -11). When operating the basin at a higher storage level, the amount of energy required to pump groundwater is less but groundwater outflow to Los Angeles County may be greater. One of OCWD's basin management objectives is to maximize groundwater recharge. This is achieved through increasing the efficiency of and expanding the District's recharge facilities and the supply of recharge water. Operation of the GWRS provides a substantial increase in supply of water available to recharge the basin. Additional District supply management programs include encouraging and using recycled water for irrigation and other non -potable uses, participating in water conservation efforts, and working with the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California and the Municipal Water District of Orange County in developing and conducting other supply augmentation projects and strategies. OCWD Groundwater Management Plan 2015 Update ES10 HIGHER GROUNDWATER LEVELS Water available for pumping during droughts. Well pumps 1Nat F IeJB LOWER GROUNDWATER LEVELS Lower cost to pump groundwater. Higher cost to pump groundwater. Less water available forwell pumping during droughts PUMPS Itor Executive Summary Storage space available when recharge supplies are plentiful. Reduced yields in shallow wells. Figure ES -11: Impacts of Change in Groundwater Storage Levels Financial Management The District's fiscal year begins on July 1 and ends on June 30. The annual operating budget and expected revenues for FY 2014-15 were approximately $134.4 million. This includes a budget of $26 million to purchase imported water for recharge. Revenue sources include assessments to groundwater producers, property taxes, grants, and low-interest loans. HISTORY AND GOVERNANCE Recharge Facilities, downstream view of Santa Ana River with T & L Levees, 1971 The Orange County Water District, since its founding in 1933, has managed the Orange County Groundwater Basin. This section includes: History of the Oranae Countv Water District 1933: OCWD created by California legislature 1949: First purchase of imported water for groundwater recharge 1957: First off -river recharge basin purchased 1975: Talbert Seawater Barrier begins operation 2008: Groundwater Replenishment System beings operation District Governance • Board of Directors comprised of 10 members, each representing one division • Groundwater Producers meet monthly with District staff Public Events • Groundwater Adventure Tours and GWRS Tours • Children's Water Festival • OC Water Summit Section 1 History and Governance SECTION 1 HISTORYAND GOVERNANCE 1.1 INTRODUCTION The Orange County Water District (OCWD, the District) is a special district formed in 1933 by an act of the California Legislature. The District manages the groundwater basin that underlies north and central Orange County. Water produced from the basin is the primary water supply for approximately 2.4 million residents living within the District's boundaries. AH.FAMA oR° ti p CMR._ .}y,.,. �L f Figure 1-1: OCWD Board of Directors, circa 1935 Nineteen major groundwater producers, including cities, water districts, and private water companies, pump water from about 200 large -capacity wells for retail water use. There are also approximately 200 small -capacity wells that pump water from the basin. OCWD protects and manages the groundwater resource for long-term sustainability, while meeting approximately 60 to 70 percent of the water supply demand within its service area. Since its founding, the District has grown in area from 162,676 to 243,968 acres and has experienced an increase in population from approximately 120,000 to 2.4 million people. The District has employed groundwater management techniques to increase the annual yield from the basin including operating over 1,500 acres of infiltration basins in the cities of Anaheim, Orange, and unincorporated areas of Orange County. Annual water production increased from approximately 150,000 acre-feet per year (afy) in the mid-1950s to a high of over 360,000 afy in water year 2007-08. OCWD has managed the basin to provide a reliable supply of relatively low-cost water, accommodating rapid population growth while at the same time avoiding the costly and time- OCWD Groundwater Management Plan 2015 Update Section 1 History and Governance consuming adjudication of water rights experienced in many other major groundwater basins in Southern California. Facing the challenge of increasing demand for water has fostered a history of innovation and creativity that has enabled OCWD to increase available groundwater supply while protecting the long-term sustainability of the basin. HISTORY OF THE OKANGE UUUNTY WATER DIS i'RICT 1800S: Population in the Santa Ana River Watershed increases rapidly as immigrants move into the region that for centuries was populated by Native Americans. 1900S: Growth of Orange County's agricultural economy creates demand for water, straining available surface and groundwater supplies. Increased water use upstream in San Bernardino and Riverside Counties results in declining flows in the Santa Ana River. oY me �L}p ORANGE COUNTY r.�l .l r•c � n � L� CALiroRIAA ---- — "" " SENATE BILL NQ1201 1932: The Irvine Company, the county's largest landowner, files suit against upper basin users to protect its rights to river flows. The Orange County Farm Bureau forms the Santa Ana Basin Water Rights Protective Association to consider options to secure adequate supplies. June 14, 1933: California Legislature creates the Orange County Water District by special act to protect surface water rights and manage the groundwater basin. The new district joins the Irvine Company's lawsuit. 1930S' Groundwater pumping inOrange County exceeds the J, E M Figure 1-2: District'B ndary, 1933 rate of recharge resulting in -- groundwater levels dropping. OCWD begins actively recharging the groundwater basin and looking for additional water supplies. 1936: OCWD begins purchasing portions of the Santa Ana River channel with the first purchase of 26 acres. OCWD Groundwater Management Plan 2015 Update Section 1 History and Governance 1942: The Irvine Company lawsuit is settled by setting limits on the amount of Santa Ana River water to be used for recharge in the upper basins as a means to provide Orange County with a share of this water supply. 1949: OCWD begins purchasing imported water from the Colorado River Aqueduct for groundwater recharge. 1951: OCWD initiates legal action against cities upstream of Orange County to protect rights to Santa Ana River flow. Settlement of the suit in 1957 limits use of river water to the amount used in 1946. 1954: The District Act is amended giving OCWD authority to collect a Replenishment Assessment (RA) from groundwater pumpers to purchase imported water for groundwater recharge. The amendments also enlarged the District boundaries, and required the publication of an annual engineer's report on groundwater production and basin conditions. 1956: Groundwater levels drop as much as 40 feet below sea level and seawater intrudes 3%2 miles inland. Plans begin to construct seawater intrusion barriers in two areas — Alamitos Gap at the mouth of the San Gabriel River at the Orange County/Los Angeles County border and the Talbert Gap at the mouth of the Santa Ana River in Fountain Valley. 1957: OCWD purchases land and constructs Anaheim Lake, the District's first off -river recharge basin. 1963: OCWD files a lawsuit against all upper watershed entities above Prado Dam to ensure a minimum amount of Santa Ana River water for Orange County. 1965: OCWD partners with the Los Angeles County Flood Control District to begin injecting fresh water into the Alamitos Gap to prevent saltwater intrusion. vimr ?6- rL 1968: OCWD purchases land and water rights owned by Anaheim Union Water Company and the Santa Ana Valley Irrigation Company, which includes land upstream of Prado Dam that was acquired to protect Orange County's interest in Santa Ana River water. OCWD Groundwater Management Plan 2015 Update Section 1 History and Governance 1969: The lawsuit against upper watershed entities is settled. (Orange County Water District v. City of Chino, et al., Case no. 117628 — County of Orange). Large water districts agree to deliver at least 42,000 acre-feet of Santa Ana River baseflow to Orange County and OCWD gains the rights to all stormflows reaching Prado Dam. Parties to the judgment include Western Municipal Water District, San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District and the Inland Empire Utilities Agency. 1969: The Basin Production Percentage and the Basin Equity Assessment are established. 1973: First water quality laboratory is constructed to analyze samples from the Santa Ana River and to begin analysis of demonstration injection wells for the planned construction of Water Factory 21. 1975: Talbert Seawater Intrusion Barrier begins operation. Control of seawater intrusion in the Talbert Gap requires six times the amount of water needed for the Alamitos Gap. Water Factory 21 is built to supply water to the Talbert Seawater Intrusion Barrier. Secondary -treated wastewater from the Orange County Sanitation District receives advanced treatment and is blended with potable water to produce a safe, reliable supply for barrier operations. Figure 1-4: Water Factory 21, circa 1975 1991: Santiago Creek recharge project is completed, including purchase and development of Santiago Basins along Santiago Creek, a pump station at Burris Basin, and a pipeline to convey water back and forth from recharge basins along the Santa Ana River and Santiago Basins. Two rubber dams are installed on the Santa Ana River, allowing for more efficient diversion of river water to the downstream recharge facilities. The increased capture of water from the dams paid for the cost of the dams within the first year of operation. OCWD Groundwater Management Plan 2015 Update Section 1 History and Governance 2008: The Groundwater Replenishment System (GWRS) begins operation, replacing Water Factory 21. The GWRS is capable of producing up to 72 mgd of water for use in Talbert Barrier operations and for groundwater recharge 2009: New Advanced Water Quality Assurance Laboratory opens to handle over 400,000 analyses of nearly 20,000 water samples each year. 2015: GWRS Initial Expansion is completed, expanding plant capacity from 72 mgd to 100 mgd of product water. Figure 1-5: GWRS Reverse Osmosis Building OCWD GOVERNANCE The Orange County Water District was created by a special act of the California legislature in 1933 for the purpose of: "providing for the importation of water into said district and preventing waste of water in or exportation of water from said district and providing for reclamation of drainage, storm, flood and other water for beneficial use in said district and for the conservation and control of storm and flood water flowing into said district; providing for the organization and management of said district and establishing the boundaries and divisions thereof and defining the powers of the district, including the right of the district to sue and be sued, and the powers and duties of the officers thereof; providing for the construction of works and acquisition of property by the district to carry out the purposes of this act; authorizing the incurring of indebtedness and the voting, issuing and selling of bonds and the levying and collecting of assessments by said district; and providing for the OCWD Groundwater Management Plan 2015 Update Section 1 History and Governance inclusion of additional lands therein and exclusion of lands therefrom." (Stats.1933, c. 924, p. 2400) The District is divided into 10 divisions as specified in the District Act. One director is elected or appointed from each division. The cities of Anaheim, Fullerton, and Santa Ana appoint one member each to serve on the Board. The other seven Board members are elected by voters in the respective divisions. Boundaries of the 10 divisions are shown in Figure 1-6. Appointed members of the Board serve a four-year term and may be removed at any time by a majority vote of the appointing governing body. Elected members of the board serve four-year terms and may be re-elected without limits. M W1. E T S o 10,000 20.000 -1, �� •� P. SAN BERNARQINO COUNTY r -- 'ti. 10 �. 9 7k C 1 0 2 DIVISION 1 O DIVISION 6 \ O DIVISION 2 Q DIVISION 7 DIVISION 3 DIVISION 6 - DIVISION 4 O DIVISION 9 O DIVISION 5 Q DIVISION 10 j OCWD Boundary Figure 1-6: Board of Directors Service Area OCWD Groundwater Management Plan 2015 Update 1-6 The ten divisions are comprised of the following areas: Division One: Division Two: Division Three Division Four: Division Five: Division Six: Division Seven Division Eight: Division Nine: Division Ten: Section 1 History and Governance Garden Grove, Stanton, Westminster Orange, Villa Park, and parts of Tustin Buena Park, La Palma, Placentia, Yorba Linda, and parts of Cypress Los Alamitos, Seal Beach, and parts of Buena Park, Cypress, Garden Grove, Huntington Beach, Stanton, and Westminster Parts of Irvine and Newport Beach Parts of Fountain Valley and Huntington Beach Costa Mesa and parts of Fountain Valley, Irvine, Newport Beach and Tustin Santa Ana Anaheim Fullerton The full Board of Directors, shown in Figure 1-7, meets twice a month, normally on the first and third Wednesdays of the month. Board committees also meet on a monthly basis. These committees include the Water Issues, Communication/Legislation, Administration/Finance, Property/Management and Retirement. Figure 1-7: OCWD Board of Directors Meeting in Fountain Valley OCWD Groundwater Management Plan 2015 Update Section 1 History and Governance The Groundwater Replenishment System Steering Committee, a joint committee of OCWD and Orange County Sanitation District (OCSD) meets on a quarterly basis to manage and plan operation of and expansion of the Groundwater Replenishment System. As operation of the plant is a joint venture of the two agencies, the Steering Committee discusses issues such as flow availability from the OCSD plant, operational challenges, plant expansion, source control, water quality, and others. Section 2 of the District Act grants powers to the District as summarized below: • To construct, purchase, lease, or otherwise acquire, and to operate and maintain necessary waterworks, water rights, spreading grounds, lands, and rights necessary to replenish the groundwater basin and augment and protect the water quality of the common water supplies of the District; • Provide for the conjunctive use of groundwater and surface water resources within the district area; • Store water in underground basins or reservoirs within or outside the District; • Regulate and control the storage of water and the use of groundwater basin storage space in the basin; • Purchase and import water into the District; • Transport, reclaim, purify, treat, inject, extract, or otherwise manage and control water for the beneficial use of persons or property within the District and to improve and protect the quality of the groundwater supplies; • Determine the amount and percentage of water produced from the groundwater basin within the district to the total amount of water produced within the District by all persons and operators; • Require that persons and operators produce more or less of their total water needs from the groundwater within the District than the basin production percentage determined by the District, levy a basin equity assessment on each person and operator who produces more water from the basin, compensate persons and operators who are directed by the District to produce less than the basin production percentage; • Provide for the protection and enhancement of the environment within and outside the District in connection with the water activities of the district; and • To commence, maintain, intervene in, defend, and compromise, and assume the costs and expenses of all actions to prevent interference with water or water rights used within the District or diminution of the quality or pollution or contamination of the water supply of the District. A copy of the District Act can be found at: http://www.ocwd.com/Portals/0/Pdf/ocwd district act.pdf. OCWD Groundwater Management Plan 2015 Update Section 1 History and Governance 1.4 GROUNDWATER PRODUCERS The local agencies that produce the majority of the groundwater from the basin are listed in Table 1-1 with geographic boundaries shown in Figure 1-8. District staff members meet monthly with 19 local, major water producers, referred to as the Producers, to discuss and evaluate important basin management issues in order to involve other affected agencies and work cooperatively where service areas or boundaries overlie the basin. Table 1-1 Major Groundwater Producers within OCWD Boundaries CITIES Anaheim Huntington Beach Santa Ana Buena Park La Palma Seal Beach Fountain Valley Newport Beach Tustin Fullerton Orange Westminster Garden Grove WATER DISTRICTS AND WATER COMPANIES East Orange County Water District Mesa Water District Golden State Water Company Serrano Water District Irvine Ranch Water District Yorba Linda Water District Generally, each year a chairman is elected to manage the Producers' meetings and represent the Producers. This monthly meeting provides a forum for the Producers to provide their input to the District on important issues such as: • Setting the Basin Production Percentage (BPP) each year; • Reviewing the merits of proposed capital improvement projects; • Purchasing imported water to recharge the groundwater basin; • Reviewing water quality data and regulations; • Maintaining and monitoring basin water quality; and • Budgeting and considering other important policy decisions. OCWD Groundwater Management Plan 2015 Update 1-9 Section 1 History and Governance W E 0 10,000 20,000 - Water Producers Boundary Feet - .'� �._ I OCWD Boundary Figure 1-8: Retail Water Agencies within OCWD PUBLIC EDUCATION AND EVENTS Proactive community outreach and public education are central to the operation of OCWD. The District is dedicated to the creation, promotion and management of water education and conservation programs throughout Orange County. Each year, staff members give more than 70 offsite presentations to community leaders and citizens, conduct nearly 200 onsite presentations and tours of District facilities, and take an active part in community events (see Figure 1-9). The goal of OCWD's water -use efficiency and education programs, local water briefings, and outreach to organizations is to draw attention to state and local water needs and crises, teach useful and simple ways to reduce water consumption and respect this natural resource, and encourage local citizens to make life-long commitments to conserving water. The components that comprise OCWD's water -use efficiency, outreach and public education events and programs are described in this section. OCWD Groundwater Management Plan 2015 Update I 'fit' w LOS ANGELES I SANBERNARDINO —_ m UNTY — ��.._..r�• ..�.. / �••� COUNTY !p►.` �, `w`••�•�. '...d Golden State i4a = Fullerton Yorba Linda• Wate CompanyWater District a Park Palma Anaheim ` Anaheim I 4j Serrano Vt ' j• ' Golden State Water District ! Water Company ' l Garden Orange East �{ Grove Orange County ,�`;•\ j,,J � ter• i, Westminster L'd Water Seal Dist. 9 Beach _ SantaAna Tustin ••••` . : Fountain t �. e Valley ,� ♦ ,�• .� i C \ 5 •� •�• Irvine Ranch M Huntington Mesa Water,I District i Beach Water ,c0 ` Dist. Newport ,Mi• ` --Eeach �• f W E 0 10,000 20,000 - Water Producers Boundary Feet - .'� �._ I OCWD Boundary Figure 1-8: Retail Water Agencies within OCWD PUBLIC EDUCATION AND EVENTS Proactive community outreach and public education are central to the operation of OCWD. The District is dedicated to the creation, promotion and management of water education and conservation programs throughout Orange County. Each year, staff members give more than 70 offsite presentations to community leaders and citizens, conduct nearly 200 onsite presentations and tours of District facilities, and take an active part in community events (see Figure 1-9). The goal of OCWD's water -use efficiency and education programs, local water briefings, and outreach to organizations is to draw attention to state and local water needs and crises, teach useful and simple ways to reduce water consumption and respect this natural resource, and encourage local citizens to make life-long commitments to conserving water. The components that comprise OCWD's water -use efficiency, outreach and public education events and programs are described in this section. OCWD Groundwater Management Plan 2015 Update Section 1 History and Governance Children's Water Education Festival The Children's Water Education Festival, shown in Figure 1-9, is the largest event of its kind in the nation, serving approximately 7,000 elementary school students annually. Thanks to more than 400 volunteers and the support of the Disneyland Resort, the National Water Research Institute and OCWD's Groundwater Guardian Team, the Festival celebrated its 19th anniversary in March 2015. The two-day Festival teaches children about water and the environment through hands-on educational activities. Topics include water resources, watersheds, wildlife and natural habitats, biology, chemistry and recycling at this unique event. The Festival has a legacy of hosting educational presenters who are experts from organizations such as National Geographic, NASA/JPL, Columbia Memorial Space Center, Wyland Foundation, California Department of Water Resources, United States Environmental Protection Agency, United States Army Corps of Engineers, UCLA, and UCI. Since inception, more than 110,000 students have attended. Figure 1-9: Group Attending the 2015 Children's Water Education Festival O.C. Water Hero Program The O.C. Water Hero Program was designed to make water conservation fun while helping children and parents develop effective water -use efficiency habits that will last a lifetime. When children sign up to commit to saving 20 gallons of water per day, they will enjoy videos, games, trivia, and other incentives they can access via the website and smartphone applications. The OCWD Groundwater Management Plan 2015 Update Section 1 History and Governance purpose of the O.C. Water Hero Program is to raise awareness of the need to conserve water and motivate county residents to reduce their water consumption by 20 gallons per day, per person. Since its inception in 2007, nearly 20,000 Water Heroes and Superheroes have enrolled in the program. In 2015, OCWD revamped the program to upgrade the technology platform in order to increase participation. Groundwater Guardian The District was recognized as a Groundwater Guardian member in 1996, thereafter forming the OCWD Groundwater Guardian Team. This program is designed to empower local citizens and communities to take voluntary steps toward protecting groundwater resources. The OCWD Groundwater Guardian Team primarily supports the Children's Water Education Festival. Social Media Social media is a unique opportunity to provide information directly to people interested in OCWD and the topics associated with the organization. Through vehicles such as Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, Instagram and others, the District posts information of immediate importance, as well as joins the conversation on trending topics. OCWD engages in social media practice several times during a given week, primarily to followers of its Facebook and Twitter accounts. OC Water Summit The annual OC Water Summit, shown in Figure 1-10, teaches individuals, business, and community and civic leaders where our water comes from, and provides information about the water supply crisis and water quality challenges we face. The event, held annually since 2008, educates the public on what temporary measures are in place to address these issues as well as possible solutions to water reliability and preserving the Bay -Delta River, California's main source of water. A collaborative effort between businesses, water agencies and local governments, the OC Water Summit provides a platform for individuals in the community to work with water utilities and legislators on creating and implementing solutions that will see Orange County through future water challenges. Topics for each Summit are determined according to the water climate each year. This event is hosted in conjunction with the Municipal Water District of Orange County and the Disneyland Resort. Figure 1-10: 2014 Orange County Water Summit OCWD Groundwater Management Plan 2015 Update Section 1 History and Governance The Groundwater Adventure Tour Nearly 150 guests attend the Groundwater Adventure Tour (see Figure 1-11) that takes place each fall. The annual event highlights Orange County Water District operations that include the Groundwater Replenishment System, the Advanced Water Quality Assurance Laboratory, Recharge Operations, and Prado Wetlands. The day's activities are designed to provide an inside look at Orange County's water supply, as well as provide a better understanding of the District's groundwater recharge operations. Tour attendees include staff from cities, offices of elected officials, water districts, universities, state and county agencies, students, chambers of commerce members, service club members, and other stakeholders. Information is presented to attendees in a variety of formats including speeches, tours, video and question and answer sessions. OCWD executive management and supporting staff share their knowledge and facilitate activities throughout the day. Figure 1-11: 2014 Groundwater Adventure Tour Website The Public Affairs Department hosts the District's website, www.ocwd.com, to provide information on an array of subjects about OCWD, its board, facilities, and its programs. It includes access to important documents and forms providing transparency and public access. In 2015, the District merged the OCWD website with a separate site that was dedicated to information about the Groundwater Replenishment System, www.gwrsystem.com . The website helps to engage the citizens of north and central Orange County and water -related agencies to learn more about OCWD's operations. Hydrospectives Newsletter The Hydrospectives newsletter is a monthly publication with a circulation of approximately 5,700 subscribers from the water industry, government officials and agencies, OCWD staff, and the general public. It reflects the progress and decisions of the District, its achievements and influences and information pertinent to the groundwater industry in north and central Orange OCWD Groundwater Management Plan 2015 Update Section 1 History and Governance County. Each month, it offers a variety of subjects that include a message from the board president, important contributions from departments and staff, global and regional news, and celebrations and accomplishments of which OCWD is a part. Media Coverage/Exposure OCWD, its facilities and programs have been featured in thousands of print and broadcast stories, both mainstream and trade press, locally, nationally and internationally. The District and its Groundwater Replenishment System have been featured in National Geographic magazine, Wall Street Journal and on the 60 Minutes television program. They have also been featured in several documentaries including "Tapped — The Movie;" "Ecopolis" and "How Stuff Works" for Discovery TV, "Urban Evolution: The Story of Pure Water" for London's Institution of Engineering & Technology; "America's Infrastructure Report Card- Water" (ASCE 2009); in an episode of "Off Limits" for the Travel Channel; and referenced in the documentary titled "Last Call at the Oasis." Facility Tours and Speakers Bureau OCWD receives hundreds of requests each year to provide tours and briefings for visitors from local colleges, water agencies, the surrounding community, and international organizations. Through its active speakers bureau program, OCWD also receives requests for representatives to go out to the community and speak to numerous organizations and schools, as well as at local, national and international conferences. Since the GWRS came online in January 2008, more than 24,000 visitors have toured the facility. During FY 2013-14, OCWD conducted 198 public tours of the GWRS plant and the Advanced Water Quality Laboratory with a total of 3,432 participants. OCWD is committed to proactive public outreach and education and makes every effort to accommodate requests for speakers and tours. Educating the public about advanced wastewater purification is important to garnering support for future GWRS-like projects that are being planned around the world. Knowledge about Orange County's water supply encourages water -use efficiency efforts and educates stakeholders about the importance of protecting groundwater supplies. .1 Figure 1-12: OCWD Public Tour OCWD Groundwater Management Plan 2015 Update PREPARATION OF GROUNDWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN The Groundwater Management Plan is a comprehensive description of and plan for District operations. This section includes: History of the District's Groundwater Management Plan • First plan adopted in 1989 under authority granted by OCWD District Act • 2015 Update will be sixth updated plan • CA Sustainable Groundwater Management Act elements incorporated into 2015 Update Goals established for Basin Management Objectives • Protect and enhance groundwater quality • Protect and increase basin sustainable yield in cost-effective manner • Increase operational efficiency Accomplishments 2009 to 2014 • Status of 2009 recommendations • 19 completed projects Recommendations for 2015 to 2020 Section 2 Preparation of Groundwater Management Plan SECTION 2 PREPARATION OF GROUNDWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN INTRODUCTION OCWD adopted its first Groundwater Management Plan (GWMP) in 1989 under authority granted by the District Act. Updates to the plan were prepared and adopted by the Board of Directors in 1990, 1994, 2004, and 2009. The 2015 update sets forth basin management goals and objectives, describes accomplishments, explains changes in basin management, and provides information about projects completed by the District since publication of the latest update in 2009. OCWD's goals and basin management objectives were reviewed and revised as necessary reflecting the need to protect and manage the Orange County Groundwater Basin for long-term sustainability. The District, as the groundwater basin manager, and the Producers, as the local retailers, cooperate to serve the 2.4 million residents within OCWD's boundaries. The OCWD's Board of Directors and the Producers served as the Advisory Committee for the preparation of this Groundwater Management Plan. The OCWD Board of Directors has the sole authority to adopt the GWMP. Figure 2-1: Meeting of OCWD Staff with Groundwater Producers Specific projects developed as a result of recommendations in the GWMP are separately reviewed and approved by the District's Board of Directors and processed for environmental review prior to project implementation. The GWMP describes the factors and key issues that are considered as the Board makes basin management decisions on a regular basis each year but does not commit the District to a particular program or level of groundwater production. To encourage public participation in the development of and adoption of the GWMP update, OCWD published a notice pursuant to Section 6066 of the Government Code of the District's intention to prepare this document and invited interested individuals to participate in the preparation process. A notice was placed on OCWD's website on the main page inviting public participation. In addition to the publicly -noticed public participation opportunities and postings on the website, the District held workshops with the Producers, shown in Figure 2-1. The Producers include OCWD Groundwater Management Plan 2015 Section 2 Preparation of Groundwater Management Plan cities, special districts and investor-owned utilities that produce more than 90 percent of the water pumped from the basin. The content of the GWMP was developed with input and review from the Producers by conducting workshops and seeking comments on drafts of the plan. The California Water Code (section 10750 et seq.) describes the process for development and adoption of a groundwater management plan that includes a public participation component. As explained above, the process of adopting this plan included publicly -noticed meetings held as part of the District's regularly -scheduled board meetings and information posted on the OCWD website and the Hydrospectives newsletter. Appendix A contains copies of the public notices. Water Code Section 10753.7 and 10753.8 lists the mandatory and recommended components of a Groundwater Management Plan. A complete list of these components and their location in the OCWD's GWMP can be found in Appendix B. This plan is developed to meet the requirements of the California Water Code. SUSTAINABLE GROUNDWATER MANAGEMENT ACT The California Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (S131 168, A131739, and S131319) became law on September 16, 2014. This new law provides specific authority to establish groundwater sustainability agencies and sets forth procedures and requirements to prepare and adopt Groundwater Sustainability Plans. The new law establishes OCWD as the exclusive local agency to manage groundwater within the District's statutory boundaries with powers to comply with the provisions of the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (California Water Code Section 10723 (c) (1)). California Water Code Sections 10727 (a) and 10733.6 require groundwater sustainability agencies to develop and implement groundwater sustainability plans and submit the plans to DWR for review upon adoption. Section 10733.6 also provides for the preparation of an alternative plan that includes an analysis of basin conditions demonstrating that the basin has operated within its sustainable yield over a period of at least 10 years. An alternative plan must be submitted no later than January 1, 2017. DWR is required to adopt regulations by June 1, 2016 for evaluating groundwater sustainability plans and the implementation of plans. Regulations shall identify necessary plan components (California Water Code Sections 10727.2, 10727.4 and 10727.6). Required elements include a description of the physical setting and characteristics of the aquifer system, measurable objectives, a planning and implementation horizon, components related to management of the basin, summary of monitoring programs, monitoring protocols, and a description of how the plan may affect other plans related to water resources. Required elements for Groundwater Sustainability Plans and additional plan elements have been incorporated into OCWD's Groundwater Management Plan. These elements are listed in Appendix B along with references to where the elements are contained in in the plan. A description of how each of the basin management objectives contributes to sustainable management of the basin can be found in Appendix C. OCWD Groundwater Management Plan 2015 Section 2 Preparation of Groundwater Management Plan BASIN MANGEMENT GOALS AND OBJECTIVES OCWD basin management goals are: 1. To protect and enhance the groundwater quality of the Orange County Groundwater Basin 2. To protect and increase the sustainable yield of the basin in a cost-effective manner 3. To increase the efficiency of OCWD operations More specific basin management objectives set to accomplish the above mentioned goals are summarized below in Table 2-1, 2-2, and 2-3. A section reference is provided for each of the objectives with detailed explanations of how the groundwater basin is managed to achieve the objective. Table 2-1: Basin Management Objective: Protect and Enhance Groundwater Quality Section Reference Groundwater Quality Collect & analyze water quality samples from 400 District monitoring wells as 4.2 determined by program protocols (at least annually) Collect & analyze water quality samples from 200 drinking water wells as determined 4.2 by Title 22 protocols (at least annually) Recharge Water Supplies Collect & analyze water quality samples of recharge supplies (surface, recycled, 4.2.5 imported, & ground water) according to program protocols (at least quarterly) 4.3 Surface Water Supplies Sample & analyze 2 sites on Santa Ana River in Orange County as directed by 4.3 NWRI Santa Ana River Monitoring Program Expert Panel (quarterly) Sample & analyze 12 sites in upper watershed for constituents as directed by NWRI Santa Ana River Monitoring Program Expert Panel (annually) 4.3 Contamination Prevention and Remediation Implement the District's Groundwater Quality Protection Policy 8.1 Evaluate & implement projects to address groundwater contamination in North Basin 8.9 OCWD Groundwater Management Plan 2015 Update 2-3 Section 2 Preparation of Groundwater Management Plan Table 2-1: Basin Management Objective: Protect and Enhance Groundwater Quality Section Reference & South Basin areas Seawater Intrusion Collect samples & analyze water quality from 86 wells to assess control of seawater 4.2, 7 intrusion at Talbert, Bolsa, Sunset, and Alamitos Gaps (annually) Prepare Talbert Gap area chloride concentration contour maps (every two years) 7 Operate Talbert Seawater Intrusion Barrier to (1) maintain protective groundwater elevation at well OCWD-M26 and (2) prevent landward seawater migration into the 7.2 groundwater basin based on 250 mg/L chloride concentration contour Participate in Alamitos Barrier Operations Committee to review barrier performance 7.3 (at least annually) Operate Alamitos Seawater Intrusion Barrier with Los Angeles County agencies to prevent landward seawater migration into the groundwater basin based on 250 mg/L 7.3 chloride concentration contour Increase injection or implement other measures to prevent basin degradation if 7 significant seawater intrusion occurs Wetlands & Natural Resources Support natural resource programs in watershed to improve water quality 9 Participate in cooperative efforts with regulators and stakeholders within watershed 4.3.3, 9 Divert 50% of Santa Ana River flow through Prado Wetlands to improve river water 8.5 quality; measure flow & nitrogen removal loads (monthly) OCWD Groundwater Management Plan 2015 Update 2-4 Section 2 Preparation of Groundwater Management Plan Table 2-2: Basin Management Objective Protect and Increase Basin Sustainable Yield in Cost -Effective Section Manner Reference Collect & analyze at least 1,000 measurements of groundwater levels (at least 6 4.2.2 times/year) Calculate change in basin storage (annually) 4.2.2 Collect production rate data from 19 large producers (monthly) & small producers 4.2.1 (every six months) Participate in state CASGEM program by reporting groundwater elevation 4.2.4 measurements from 38 wells (annually) Maintain groundwater storage within safe operating range (less than 500,000 acre- 10 feet below full condition) Set target level for total production, estimate total water demands & establish Basin Production Percentage (annually) 3.4, 10.2 Calculate total volume of water recharged (annually) 5 Report & publish, on website, total water recharged in Water Resources Summary (monthly) 5 Convene OCWD Recharge Enhancement Working Group (annually) 5.5.1 Evaluate potential new recharge projects using District's Recharge Facilities Model 5.5.2 Promote local infiltration of stormwater 3.3.2 Participate in cooperative efforts with regulators & stakeholders in watershed 9.2, 9.3 Collect & review ground surface elevation measurement data from Orange 3.6 County Surveyor (annually) If significant levels of subsidence occur, conduct characterization & mitigation study 3.6 Produce 90,000 afy of GWRS recycled water 6 Publish the Engineer's Report that includes total pumping, groundwater elevations, change in storage, & related water data (annually) 10.2 OCWD Groundwater Management Plan 2015 Update 2-5 The District publishes the following reports to support achievement of the above listed management goals: • Update the Groundwater Management Plan every five years • Update the Long -Term Facilities Plan periodically approximately every five years • Publication of: o Santa Ana River Water Quality Monitoring Report (biannually) o Engineer's Report on the Groundwater Conditions, Water Supply and Basin Utilization (annually) o Santa Ana River Watermaster Report (annually) o Groundwater Replenishment System Annual Report • Preparation of the Water Resources Summary (monthly) • Periodic publication of Report on Groundwater Recharge in the Orange County Groundwater Basin OCWD Groundwater Management Plan 2015 Update Section 2 Preparation of Groundwater Management Plan Table 2-3: Basin Management Objective: Increase Operational Efficiency Section Reference Maintain Water Resources Management System database as central repository for 4.4 water quality, pumping, recharge, & related water management information Manage District's finances for long-term fiscal stability 11 Operate District programs in cost-effective & efficient manner 11 Manage natural resource programs in Santa Ana River Watershed in efficient 9.2 manner Implement efficient environmental management programs to reduce greenhouse 6.3 gas emissions & use alternative energy where feasible Use Recharge Facilities Model to evaluate cost-effectiveness of potential new 5.5 recharge basins & improvements to existing facilities Make improvements to recharge facilities to increase efficiency 5.6 The District publishes the following reports to support achievement of the above listed management goals: • Update the Groundwater Management Plan every five years • Update the Long -Term Facilities Plan periodically approximately every five years • Publication of: o Santa Ana River Water Quality Monitoring Report (biannually) o Engineer's Report on the Groundwater Conditions, Water Supply and Basin Utilization (annually) o Santa Ana River Watermaster Report (annually) o Groundwater Replenishment System Annual Report • Preparation of the Water Resources Summary (monthly) • Periodic publication of Report on Groundwater Recharge in the Orange County Groundwater Basin OCWD Groundwater Management Plan 2015 Update Section 2 Preparation of Groundwater Management Plan RECOMMENDATIONS AND PROJECTS COMPI FTED 2009-2015 In the 2009 GWMP Update, the District adopted recommendations to continue sustainable management of the basin. Those recommendations that have been achieved are listed in Table 2-4. Recommendations yet to be completed are listed in Table 2-5. The tables indicate which of the three basin management objectives (1) protecting and enhancing water quality, (2) protecting and increasing the basin's sustainable yield, and (3) increasing the efficiency of OCWD's operations apply to each of the recommendations. Table 2-6 lists the projects completed by OCWD between 2009 and 2015. Table 2-4: 2009 Recommendations: Completed Sustain - Water able Effic- Quality Yield iency Monitor groundwater elevations & water storage levels ✓ ✓ Monitor quality of groundwater & recharge water sources ✓ Update the Groundwater Management Plan ✓ ✓ ✓ Update the Long -Term Facilities Plan ✓ ✓ ✓ Publish annually: Santa Ana River Water Quality; Engineer's Report; Santa Ana River Watermaster Report; GWRS Operations Annual Report ✓ ✓ ✓ Publish Report on Managed Aquifer Recharge ✓ Monitor water management & recycling plans in watershed ✓ ✓ Complete study on reducing sediment loads in recharge water ✓ ✓ Complete GWRS Initial Expansion ✓ ✓ Increase drought preparedness by utilizing full capacity of GWRS ✓ Develop improved tools and approaches to evaluate potential new recharge basins & proposed changes to existing operations ✓ ✓ Expand removal of non-native vegetation & plant native vegetation ✓ ✓ Promote incidental recharge ✓ Manage recharge supplies to meet/exceed MCLs & Notification Levels ✓ Operate Prado Wetlands to reduce nitrogen loads in Santa Ana River ✓ Publish research study on emerging constituents with MWD and NWRI ✓ OCWD Groundwater Management Plan 2015 Update 2-7 Section 2 Preparation of Groundwater Management Plan Table 2-4: 2009 Recommendations: Completed Sustain - Water able Effic- Quality Yield iency Participate in cooperative efforts with watershed stakeholders ✓ ✓ Maintain control of seawater intrusion in the Talbert Gap ✓ ✓ Open new water quality laboratory in Fountain Valley ✓ Operate basin within safe & sustainable operating range ✓ Set Basin Production Percentage to optimize sustainable use of groundwater ✓ Manage finances to maintain high credit ratings ✓ Maintain reserves for purchase of supplemental water supplies Table 2-5: 2009 Recommendations: On-going ✓ Sustain - Water able Effic- Quality Yield ency Complete North Basin Groundwater Protection Program ✓ Complete South Basin Groundwater Protection Program ✓ Address MTBE contamination ✓ Increase allowable storage of stormwater behind Prado Dam ✓ ✓ Improve performance of Alamitos Seawater Barrier; evaluate need for more injection wells; construct necessary facilities ✓ ✓ OCWD Groundwater Management Plan 2015 Update 2-8 Section 2 Preparation of Groundwater Management Plan Table 2-6. Completed Projects/Accomplishments section 2009-2015 Completed Reference GWRS Initial Expansion: expand capacity from 70-100 mgd 2015 8 Miraloma Basin: new basin increased recharge by approx. 30,000 afy 2012 5.6 Construction of new water quality laboratory 2009 4.5 Olive Basin Pump Station: increase infiltration by 1,600-4,800 afy 2010 5.6 Burris & Lincoln Basins Reconfiguration: remove impermeable material to increase infiltration rates 2010 5.6 Santiago Basin Pump Station: remove water stored below outlet structure; increase of recharge capacity by 5,000 afy 2012 5.6 Alamitos Barrier Flow and Transport Models to improve evaluation of seawater intrusion 2014 3.7.5, 7.3 Recharge Facilities Model: evaluate existing & proposed operations to increase operational efficiency 2009 5.2.2 Santa Ana River Armoring Study of river sediments to evaluate alternatives for improved infiltration 2010 5.5 Recharge Water Sediment Removal Feasibility Study: pilot -study of filter systems to improve percolation rates 2010 5.6 Arundo Removal and Native Plantings: remove 5,000 acres of invasive plants; increase annual water yield of 3.75 cfs/acre removed 2014 9.2.2 Least Bell's Vireo Habitat Management: increase populations in watershed 2014 9.2.1 Nesting Box Installation: 500 boxes in Prado Basin & Forebay to attract birds that eat insect pests to reduce pesticide use 2014 9.2 Regulatory approval to inject 100% recycled water at Talbert Barrier 2009 7.2 Adoption of a BPP Policy to assure long-term basin sustainability 2013 10.4.2 GWRS Plant Operational Optimization 2013 6.3 NWRI/MET/OCWD Study of constituents of emerging concern 2010 8.8 Completed testing for unregulated chemicals under the EPA UCMRI-List 1 program 2010 4.2.3 OCWD Groundwater Management Plan 2015 Update 2-9 Section 2 Preparation of Groundwater Management Plan RECOMMENDATIONS FOR 2015-2020 OCWD plans for the next five years include accomplishment of the recommendations listed in Table 2-7. Table 2-7: Recommendations for 2015-2020 PROJECT BENEFIT TO BASIN GWRS Final Expansion to 130 MGD Increase recharge water supply from 100,000 to134,000 afy Mid -Basin Injection Increase basin recharge in area of concentrated groundwater pumping Subsurface Recharge & Collection System Increase recharge Prado Basin Sediment Management Remove sediment behind dam to increase Demonstration Project storage capacity North Basin Groundwater Protection Remediate VOC contamination Program South Basin Groundwater Protection Remediate VOC contamination Program MTBE Investigation and Remediation Remediate MTBE contamination Fletcher Basin New recharge basin West Orange County Enhanced Pumping Reduce groundwater flow from Orange County into Los Angeles County La Palma Basin New recharge basin Prado Basin Enhanced Water Increase allowable storage of stormwater Conservation behind Prado Dam Increase recharge in Santiago Creek Increase recharge capacity below Hart Park Alamitos Barrier Improvements Protect water quality by increasing seawater intrusion facilities Alamitos Barrier Expansion (Landing Hill) Expand seawater intrusion facilities Sunset Gap Barrier/Desalter Improve water quality by capturing and treating brackish groundwater OCWD Groundwater Management Plan 2015 Update 2-10 Section 2 Preparation of Groundwater Management Plan Table 2-7: Recommendations for 2015-2020 PROJECT BENEFIT TO BASIN Huntington Beach Ocean Desalination Increase water supply by up to 56,000 afy Plant Enhanced Recharge in SAR Below Ball Increase capacity to capture and infiltrate Road stormwater PLANNING AND IMPLEMENTATION HORIZONS District management and operations incorporate a variety of planning and implementation horizons as explained below. The Long -Term Facilities Plan is updated approximately every five years to evaluate a large number of potential future projects. The planning horizon for consideration of new facilities is five years. The implementation horizon for projects varies from two to 10 years, depending on size and complexity of the individual project. The 2014 plan, for example, evaluated 64 potential projects ranging from those to increase water supply, institute changes in basin management, modify recharge facilities, and increase operational efficiency. Each proposed project is considered for future study based on cost-effectiveness, amount of new water supply provided, regulatory and institutional feasibility, and other factors. The cost-effectiveness of each project that provides additional groundwater recharge is evaluated in relationship to the current and projected cost of imported water. In this sense, the cost of imported water provides a benchmark for determination of project cost effectiveness. The District's Groundwater Management Plan is updated approximately every five years. This plan provides an overview of all district operations, documents accomplishments and projects built since the last updated plan was published, and establishes basin management objectives. OCWD uses a variety of models and studies to assist in long-term planning. The Recharge Facilities Model, described in Section 5.5, provides the ability to simulate different water inflow scenarios, different Prado Dam conservation pool elevations and release rates, changes in basin recharge capacities, and amount of imported water recharged to evaluate the effectiveness of proposed recharge projects. In 2014, the District completed a study projecting future Santa Ana River flows. The planning horizon for this study is approximately 50 years. This work, explained in section 5.5.3, was done primarily to support work with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in studying the feasibility of increasing the volume of water that can be temporarily impounded behind Prado Dam. The planning and implementation horizon for water demand projections is dependent upon the publication of Urban Water Management Plans for cities within the boundaries of OCWD, which currently have projected demands to 2035. OCWD Groundwater Management Plan 2015 Update BASIN HYDROGEOLOGY n Seawater Santa Ana River Groundwater level intrusion Mbar Colored nater Natural discohrat�on from andent bwWplant and woody mateM1al. Newport - Inglewood Fault Zane EConsolidated, Aquitards non -water -bearing Low-permeagift clay formations and silt deposks BASIN I Permits II Hills Fault Aquifers Water -gearing sand and gravel CROSS SECTION LOCATOR MA? j r This section describes the hydrogeology of the Orange County Groundwater Basin, also refered to as Basin 8-1. Hydrogeology • Basin covers approximately 350 square miles in north and central Orange County • Basin divided into Forebay and Pressure Areas • OCWD determined total basin volume • Water budget incorporates basin inflows and outflows Groundwater in Storage • Estimated annually, based on 2007 comprehensive study • Land subsidence potential monitored Groundwater Basin Model • Model encompasses entire basin; updated every 3-5 years • Talbert Gap model used to assess seawater intrusion • Alamitos Barrier model constructed in 1965; latest update in 2010 Section 3 Basin Hydrogeology SECTION 3 BASIN HYDROGEOLOGY ".1 DESCRIPTION OF BASIN HYDROGEOLOGY The Orange County Groundwater Basin is located in the area designated by the California Department of Water Resources (DWR) as Basin 8-1, the "Coastal Plain of Orange County Groundwater Basin" in Bulletin 118 (DWR, 2003). Figure 3-1 displays the OCWD boundary in relation to the boundary of Basin 8-1. LOS ANGELES COUNTY ••�•� A`"" ORANGE COUNTY ;. o ' W-� E s � �r Miles ell - SAN BERNARDINO� ,COUNTY i O DWR Groundwater Basins (Bulletin 118) �._ OCWD Boundary County Boundaries Figure 3-1: Coastal Plain of Orange County Groundwater Basin, Basin 8-1 OCWD Groundwater Management Plan 2015 Update Section 3 Basin Hydrogeology The basin underlies north and central Orange County beneath broad lowlands known as the Tustin and Downey plains. The basin covers an area of approximately 350 square miles, bordered by the Coyote and Chino Hills to the north, the Santa Ana Mountains to the northeast, and the Pacific Ocean to the southwest. The basin boundary extends to the Orange County -Los Angeles line to the northwest, where groundwater flow is unrestricted across the county line into the Central Basin of Los Angeles County. The Newport -Inglewood fault zone forms the southwestern boundary of all but the Shallow Aquifer in the basin. The groundwater basin formed in a synclinal, northwest -trending trough that deepens as it continues beyond the Orange -Los Angeles county line. The Newport -Inglewood fault zone, San Joaquin Hills, Coyote Hills, and Santa Ana Mountains form the uplifted margins of the syncline. The total thickness of sedimentary rocks in the basin surpasses 20,000 feet, of which only the upper 2,000 to 4,000 feet contain fresh water. In the southeastern area underlying the city of Irvine and along the basin margins, the thickness of fresh water -bearing sediments is less than 1,000 feet (Herndon and Bonsangue, 2006). Structural folding and faulting along the basin margins, together with down warping and deposition within the basin, have occurred since Oligocene time. The Newport -Inglewood fault zone, comprising the most significant structural feature in the basin from a hydrogeologic standpoint, consists of a series of faulted blocks which are generally up thrown on the southwest side. Folding and faulting along the Newport -Inglewood fault zone have created a natural restriction to seawater intrusion into the groundwater basin (Herndon and Bonsangue, 2006). Pleistocene or younger aquifers within the basin form a complex series of interconnected sand and gravel deposits. In coastal and central portions of the basin, these deposits are extensively separated by lower -permeability clay and silt deposits or aquitards. In the inland areas, the clay and silt deposits become thinner and more discontinuous, allowing larger quantities of groundwater to flow more easily between shallow and deeper aquifers (California Department of Water Resources, 1967). Figure 3-2 presents a geologic cross section through the basin along the Santa Ana River. OCWD subdivided the groundwater basin into three major aquifer systems, based on geological data and vertical potentiometric head differences measured regionally at over 50 multi -depth monitoring wells, shown in Figure 3-8. The three aquifer systems, known as the Shallow, Principal, and Deep, are hydraulically connected, as groundwater is able to flow between them via leakage through the intervening aquitards or discontinuities in the aquitards. The Shallow Aquifer system overlies the entire basin and includes the prolific Talbert Aquifer. It generally occurs from the surface to approximately 250 feet below ground surface. The majority of groundwater from the shallow aquifer is pumped by small water systems for industrial and agricultural use, although the cities of Garden Grove and Newport Beach, and the Yorba Linda Water District, operate wells that pump from the shallow aquifer for municipal use. OCWD Groundwater Management Plan 2015 Update Section 3 Basin Hydrogeology Over 90 percent of groundwater production occurs from wells that are screened within the Principal Aquifer system at depths between 200 and 1,300 feet. A minor amount of groundwater is pumped from the Deep Aquifer, which underlies the Principal Aquifer system and is up to 2,000 feet deep in the center of the basin. Hindering production from the Deep Aquifer system is the depth and the presence of amber colored groundwater in some areas. The treatment and use of amber colored groundwater is discussed in Section 8.6. HUNTJNGTON FOUNTAIN VALLEY SANTA ANA BEACH Pacific Ocean Seawater Santa Ana River Groundwater level i intrusion Oj ,INJECTION WELLS GROUNDWATER RECHARGE AREA ANAHEIM BURRIS WARNER BR$IN BASIN E 5NOBOt Amber Colored Water Nalural discoloration CROSS SECTION LOCATOR MAP 7,000 — Nom ancient buried plant feet and woody rnalrial. 1 1 A RECHARGE BASINS feet Newport - Inglewood 1 B Fault Zone Peralta 1 2,000— Hills SANTA tees - Fault ANA RIVER 'feel— ❑ Consolidated, Aquitards ❑ Low-pefineabilily Aquifers El Water C + non -water -bearing clay -bearing r formations and silt deposits sand and gravel AREA MANAGED BY OCWD Figure 3-2: Geologic Cross -Section, Orange County Groundwater Basin 3.1.1 Forebay and Pressure Areas The Department of Water Resources (DWR, 1934) divided the basin into two primary hydrologic divisions, the Forebay and Pressure areas, as shown in Figure 3-3. The Forebay/Pressure area boundary generally delineates the areas where surface water or shallow groundwater can or cannot move downward to the first producible aquifer in quantities significant from a water supply perspective. From a water quality perspective, the amount of vertical flow to deeper aquifers from surface water or shallow groundwater may be significant in terms of impacts of past agricultural or industrial land uses (e.g., fertilizer application and leaky underground storage tanks). The Forebay refers to the area of intake or recharge where most of the groundwater recharge occurs. Highly -permeable sands and gravels with few and discontinuous clay and silt deposits allow direct percolation of Santa Ana River and other surface water. The Forebay area OCWD Groundwater Management Plan 2015 Update Section 3 Basin Hydrogeology encompasses most of the cities of Anaheim, Fullerton, and Villa Park and portions of the cities of Orange and Yorba Linda. The Pressure Area is generally defined as the area of the basin where large quantities of surface water and near -surface groundwater is impeded from percolating into the major producible aquifers by clay and silt layers at shallow depths (upper 50 feet). The Principal and Deep Aquifers in this area are under "confined" conditions (under hydrostatic pressure); the water levels of wells penetrating these aquifers exhibit large seasonal variations. Most of the central and coastal portions of the basin fall within the Pressure Area. La HWr Sub—Bas a `Coyote ]Yrb, Linda `° Hllls Sub -Basin c � Main i , Main Basin Basin •J�srP$ � W-1 lQC San Joaquin 'N e[' Hills 0. W E 0 10,000 20,000 %'e:/ Feet Irvine Sub -Basin t a ' / Chin Hills[/ Sannta,,nai, - v �can on,, r �w 'Sa nta A nam: .fi= nil s Sub -Basin Boundary Forebay/Pressure Line OWR Groundwater Basins (Bulletin 118} OCWD Boundary Aquifer Condition Unconfined 0 Confined Figure 3-3: Orange County Groundwater Basin OCWD Groundwater Management Plan 2015 Update 4 Section 3 Basin Hydrogeology 3.1.2 Groundwater Subbasins, Mesas, and Gaps The Orange County Groundwater Basin, as defined by DWR Bulletin 118 Basin 8-1, can be subdivided into subbasins and the coastal region can be distinguished by higher and lower elevation areas, as described in this section and shown in Figure 3-3. Main Basin The Main Basin is the largest sub -basin where the majority of groundwater production occurs. Mesas and Gaps Four relatively flat elevated areas, known as mesas, occur along the coastal boundary of the basin. The mesas were formed by ground surface uplift along the Newport Inglewood Fault Zone. Ancient meandering of the Santa Ana River carved notches through the uplifted area and left behind sand- and gravel -filled deposits beneath the lowland areas between the mesas, known as gaps (Poland et al., 1956). Groundwater in the shallow aquifers within the gaps is susceptible to seawater intrusion. The Talbert and Alamitos seawater intrusion barriers were constructed to address this problem. Locations of mesas and details of seawater barrier operations are shown in Figure 7-1. Irvine Subbasin The Irvine subbasin, bounded by the Santa Ana Mountains and the San Joaquin Hills, forms the southern -most portion of the basin. The Costa Mesa Freeway (State Route 55) and Newport Boulevard form the subbasin's approximate western boundary with the Main Basin. Here, the aquifers are thinner and contain more clay and silt deposits than aquifers in the main portion of the basin. The aquifer base in the Irvine sub -basin ranges from approximately 1,000 feet deep beneath the former Marine Corps Air Station (MCAS) Tustin to less than 200 feet deep at the eastern boundary of the former MCAS EI Toro. East of former MCAS EI Toro, the aquifer further thins and transitions into lower -permeability sandstones and other semi -consolidated sediments, which have minor water storage and transmission capacity. Groundwater historically flowed out of the Irvine subbasin westerly into the Main Basin since the amount of natural recharge in the area, predominantly from the Santa Ana Mountains, was typically greater than the amount of pumping (Singer, 1973; Banks, 1984). With the operation of the Irvine Desalter Project commencing in 2007, it is possible that groundwater production in the Irvine subbasin may exceed the natural replenishment from the adjacent hills and mountains, in which case groundwater would be drawn into the Irvine subbasin from the Main Basin. Yorba Linda Subbasin The Yorba Linda subbasin is located north of the Forebay recharge area in Anaheim, within the cities of Yorba Linda and Placentia. Due to low transmissivity and high total dissolved solids (TDS) concentrations (Mills, 1987) there is little groundwater pumped from this subbasin. Groundwater from the Yorba Linda subbasin flows southward into the Main Basin since the limited groundwater production is less than the natural replenishment from the adjacent Chino Hills. OCWD Groundwater Management Plan 2015 Update Section 3 Basin Hydrogeology La Habra Subbasin The La Habra subbasin is located north of the Main Basin within the cities of La Habra and Brea. It comprises a shallow alluvial depression between the Coyote Hills and the Puente Hills. Prior to the 1950s, hundreds of wells produced water for domestic use and irrigation. The majority of these wells were abandoned due to high concentrations of nitrate, total dissolved solids, and metals and taste and odor problems. However, in recent years, the City of La Habra has explored options to increase groundwater production from this subbasin. Hydrogeologic studies have indicated that 2,200 to 5,500 afy of groundwater flows out of the La Habra Basin in two areas: (1) southerly into the Main Basin along the Brea Creek drainage between the East and West Coyote Hills and (2) westerly into the Central Basin in Los Angeles County (James M. Montgomery, 1977; Ramsey, 1980; OCWD, 1994). The areas that lie outside the District boundaries in the northern portion of Basin 8-1, as defined in DWR Bulletin 118, are located in the La Habra subbasin. 3.1.3 Coastal Plain of Orange County: Areas out-qide OCWD BOUnrinriP The District boundaries do not encompass the entire area of Basin 8-1 as defined by DWR as shown in Figure 3-4. Areas that are outside of OCWD's boundary are shown in red highlight. These areas include (1) a northern portion of DWR Basin 8-1 located in the La Habra subbasin, a portion of which is in Los Angeles County, (2) areas along the mountain fronts at the eastern side of the basin and in the southern portion of Basin 8-1 within the Irvine subbasin, and (3) a portion of Basin 8-1 immediately downstream of Prado Dam located in Riverside and San Bernardino counties. None of the areas that are included in Basin 8-1 outside of OCWD boundaries are within the boundaries of other sustainability agencies and have not as yet been incorporated into a groundwater management plan or a groundwater sustainability plan. OCWD is coordinating with the City of La Habra, the County of Orange, Irvine Ranch Water District, and other stakeholders regarding management of these areas outside the OCWD boundary. DETERMINATION OF TOTAL BASIN VOLUME A vast amount of fresh water is stored within the basin, although only a fraction of this water can be removed practically using pumping wells and without causing physical damage such as seawater intrusion or the potential for land subsidence (Alley, 2006). Nonetheless, it is important to note the total volume of groundwater that is within the active flow system, i.e., within the influence of pumping and recharge operations. OCWD used its geographic information system and the aquifer system boundaries described in Section 3.8 to calculate the total volume of each of the three major aquifer systems as well as the intervening aquitards. The total volume was calculated by multiplying the area and thickness of each hydrogeologic unit. Because groundwater fills the pore spaces that represent typically between 20 and 30 percent of the total volume, the total volume was multiplied by this porosity percentage to arrive at a total groundwater volume. Assuming the basin is completely full, based on District estimates, the total amount of fresh groundwater stored in the basin is approximately 66 million acre-feet, as shown in Table 3-1. OCWD Groundwater Management Plan 2015 Update Section 3 Basin Hydrogeology For comparison, DWR (1967) estimated that about 38 million acre-feet of fresh water is stored in the groundwater basin when full. DWR used a factor known as the specific yield to calculate this volume. The specific yield (typically between 10 and 20 percent) is the amount of water that can be drained by gravity from a certain volume of aquifer and reflects the soil's ability to retain and hold a significant volume of water due to capillary effects. Thus, DWR's drainable groundwater volume can be considered consistent with OCWD's estimate of total groundwater volume in the basin. N W \ E 0 2 4 s Miles Figure 3-4: Basin 8-1 and OCWD Boundaries OCWD Groundwater Management Plan 2015 Update 3-7 Section 3 Basin Hydrogeology Table 3-1: Estimated Basin Groundwater Storage by Hydrogeologic Unit (Volumes in Acre-feet) HYDROGEOLOGIC UNIT PRESSURE AREA FOREBAY TOTAL Shallow Aquifer Systen ,800,000 1,200,000 5,000,000 Aquitard 900,000 200,000 1,100,000 Principal Aquifer System 24,300,000 8,600,000 32,900,000 Aquitard 1,600,000 300,000 1,900,000 Deep Aquifer System 18,800,000 6,300,000 25,100,000 TOTAL 49,400,000 16,600,000 66,000,000 Notes: (1) Volumes calculated using the 3 -layer basin model surfaces with Arclnfo Workstation GRID. (2) A porosity of 0.25 was assumed for aquifer systems. (3) A porosity of 0.30 was assumed for aquitards. 1.3 WATER BUDGE -i OCWD developed a hydrologic budget (inflows and outflows) for the purpose of constructing the basin -wide groundwater flow model, ("Basin Model") and for evaluating basin production capacity and recharge requirements. The key components of the budget include measured and unmeasured (estimated) recharge, groundwater production, and subsurface flows along the coast and across the Orange County/Los Angeles County line. Because the basin is not operated on an annual safe -yield basis, the net change in storage in any given year may be positive or negative; however, over a period of several years, the basin must be maintained in an approximate balance as explained in Section 10. Table 3-2 presents the components of an example balanced basin water budget (no annual change in storage). Note that it does not represent data for any particular year. The annual budget presented is based on the following assumptions: (1) average precipitation, (2) basin storage at 400,000 acre-feet below full, (3) recharge of 274,500 acre-feet in District facilities including surface spreading basins and seawater intrusion barrier wells, and (4) adjusted groundwater production so that total basin inflows and outflows are equal. The sources of recharge water used by the District include Santa Ana River base flow and storm flow, imported water, and GWRS recycled water. The major components of the water budget are described in the following sections. Measurea Kecharge Measured recharge consists of all water artificially recharged at OCWD's surface water recharge facilities and water injected in the Talbert and Alamitos Barriers. The majority of measured recharge occurs in the District's surface water system, which receives Santa Ana River base flow and storm flow, imported water and GWRS recycled water. The importance of OCWD Groundwater Management Plan 2015 Update Section 3 Basin Hydrogeology these sources has changed over time, as shown in Figure 5-8. In recent years, GWRS and imported water have become more important as the volume of Santa Ana River base flow declines. OCWD's Talbert Barrier is a series of injection wells that span the 2.5 -mile wide Talbert Gap, between the Newport and Huntington Beach mesas. Purified water produced by the GWRS is injected into multiple aquifers; over 95 percent of the injected water flows inland and becomes part of the basin's groundwater supply. The Alamitos Barrier is a series of wells injecting a blend of imported and recycled water into multiple aquifer zones that span the Alamitos Gap at the Los Angeles/Orange County line. Essentially all of the injected water flows inland, replenishing groundwater basins in the two counties. Inspection of groundwater contour maps indicates that roughly one-third of the Alamitos Barrier injection water remains within or flows into Orange County. Table 3-2: Example Annual Basin Water Budget FLOW COMPONENT Acre-feet per Year INFLOW Measured Recharge 1. Surface recharge facilities' 243,000 2. Talbert Barrier injection 30,000 3. Alamitos Barrier injection, Orange County portion only 2,000 Subtotal: 275,000 Estimated Unmeasured or Incidental Recharge 1. Subsurface Inflow 47,000 2. Areal recharge from rainfall/irrigation 19,000 Subtotal: 66,000 TOTAL INFLOW: 341,000 OUTFLOW 1. Groundwater Production 335,000 2. Subsurface Outflow 6,000 TOTAL OUTFLOW: 341,000 CHANGE IN STORAGE: 0 ' Evaporation from surface recharge facilities is estimated to be 2,000 afy 2 Assuming average precipitation (14 inches/year) OCWD Groundwater Management Plan 2015 Update Section 3 Basin Hydrogeology 5.3.2 Unmeasured Recharge Unmeasured recharge also referred to as "incidental recharge" accounts for a significant amount of the basin's sustainable yield. This includes recharge from precipitation, irrigation return flows, urban runoff, seawater inflow through the gaps as well as subsurface inflow at the basin margins along the Chino, Coyote, and San Joaquin Hills and the Santa Ana Mountains and beneath the Santa Ana River and Santiago Creek. Subsurface inflow in the Santa Ana River and Santiago Creek refers to groundwater that enters the basin at the mouth of Santa Ana Canyon and in the Santiago Creek drainage below Villa Park Dam. Estimated average subsurface inflow to the basin is shown in Figure 3-5. Figure 3-5: Estimated Subsurface Recharge Total unmeasured recharge ranges between 20,000 to 160,000 afy. This number is the volume left over after all the basin inputs and outputs are accounted for. Net unmeasured or incidental recharge is the amount of incidental recharge remaining in the basin after accounting for losses to Los Angeles County. Under average hydrologic conditions, net incidental recharge averages 66,000 acre-feet per year. This average was substantiated during calibration of the Basin OCWD Groundwater Management Plan 2015 Update 3-10 Section 3 Basin Hydrogeology Model and is also consistent with the estimate of 58,000 afy reported by Hardt and Cordes (1971) as part of a U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) modeling study of the basin. Because unmeasured recharge is one of the least understood components of the basin's water budget, the error margin for any given year is probably in the range of 10,000 to 20,000 acre-feet. Since unmeasured recharge is well distributed throughout the basin, the physical significance (e.g., water level drawdown or mounding in any given area) of over- or underestimating the total recharge volume within this error margin is considered to be minor. 3.3.3 Vroundwater Production Active wells pumping water from the basin are shown in Figure 3-6. The approximately 200 large - system wells account for an estimated 97 percent of the total basin production; 200 small Figure 3-6: Distribution of Groundwater Production, Water Year 2013-14 production wells produce less than 25 afy. Large - capacity wells are all metered, as required by the District Act. Production data was recorded on a semi-annual basin until 1988 when the District began obtaining monthly individual well production measurements. OCWD Groundwater Management Plan 2015 Update 3-11 Section 3 Basin Hydrogeology 3.3.4 Subsurface Outflow Groundwater outflow from the basin across the Los Angeles/Orange County line has been estimated to range from approximately 1,000 to 14,000 afy based on groundwater elevation gradients and aquifer transmissivity (DWR, 1967; McGillicuddy, 1989). The Water Replenishment District of Southern California also has estimated underflow from Orange County to Los Angeles County within the aforementioned range. Modeling by OCWD indicates that assuming that groundwater elevations in Los Angeles County remain constant underflow to Los Angeles County increases by approximately 7,500 afy for every 100,000 acre-feet of increased groundwater in storage in Orange County (see Figure 3- 7). With the exception of unknown amounts of semi -perched (near -surface) groundwater being intercepted and drained by submerged sewer trunk lines and unlined flood control channels along coastal portions of the basin, no other significant basin outflows are known to occur. Simulated outflow to LA County, acre-feet/year 40,000 30,000 20,000 10,000 0 -10,000 0 100,000 200,000 300,000 400,000 500,000 Available Storage Space (amount below full condition), acre-feet Figure 3-7: Relationship between OCWD Basin Storage and Estimated Outflow to Los Angeles County 3.3.5 Evaporation The total wetted area of the District's recharge system is over 1,000 acres. OCWD estimates the evaporation from this system on a monthly basis. Generally, total evaporation is on the OCWD Groundwater Management Plan 2015 Update 3-12 June 2014 342,000 acre- feet below full condition Outflow to LA i -N --' Inflow from LA 100,000 200,000 300,000 400,000 500,000 Available Storage Space (amount below full condition), acre-feet Figure 3-7: Relationship between OCWD Basin Storage and Estimated Outflow to Los Angeles County 3.3.5 Evaporation The total wetted area of the District's recharge system is over 1,000 acres. OCWD estimates the evaporation from this system on a monthly basis. Generally, total evaporation is on the OCWD Groundwater Management Plan 2015 Update 3-12 Section 3 Basin Hydrogeology order of 2,000 acre-feet per year which is approximately one percent of the total volume recharged annually. The relatively minor impact of evaporation reflects high percolation rates (1 to 10 feet per day). CALCULATION OF CHANGE IN GROUNDWATER STORAGE Even though the groundwater basin contains an estimated 66 million acre-feet when full, OCWD operates the basin from a full condition to approximately 500,000 acre-feet below full to protect against irreversible seawater intrusion and land subsidence. On a short-term basis, the basin can be operated at an even lower storage level in an emergency. The District manages storage and water levels in the groundwater basin within a safe operating range as described in Section 10. The safe operating range is defined as the upper and lower levels of groundwater storage in the basin that can be reached without causing negative or adverse impacts. In order to manage the basin within this safe operating range, OCWD calculates the amount of groundwater in storage on an annual basis. The estimated historical minimum storage level of 500,000 to 700,000 acre-feet below full condition occurred in 1956-57 (DWR, 1967; OCWD, 2003). Since this time, the basin storage fluctuated within the safe operating range reaching a full condition in 1969, and 1983. Even though the District calculates and reports accumulated overdraft in its annual Engineers Report, "overdraft" in the traditional sense does not exist in the Orange County Groundwater Basin because the basin is operated to continuously fluctuate within the safe operating range. The District uses two methods to calculate the storage condition of the basin: (1) water budget method and (2) three -layer storage change method. The water budget method is simply an accounting of the inflows to the basin and outflows. This data is collected and compiled on a monthly basis. Estimates of unmeasured or incidental recharge are used until trued up at the end of the year with the final reports of inflows and outflows. This method produces a monthly estimate of the change in groundwater storage and allows for virtually real-time decision making with respect to managing the basin. In 2007, OCWD instituted a new three -layer change in storage method for calculating the amount of groundwater in storage. The three -layer method involves creating groundwater elevation contour maps for each of the three aquifer layers (Shallow, Principal, and Deep Aquifers) in the basin, schematically represented in Figure 3-8, for conditions at the end of June of each year. The need for this method was driven by the record-setting wet year of 2004-05, in which water levels throughout the basin approached a near -full condition. An analysis of the amount of groundwater in storage compared to the estimate using a one -layer change in storage method showed a discrepancy of 150,000 acre-feet. The discrepancy of 150,000 acre-feet in two different calculations indicated that the current condition could not be properly rectified back to the prior 1969 benchmark. This brought to light three important discoveries: OCWD Groundwater Management Plan 2015 Update 3-13 Section 3 Basin Hydrogeology • The one -layer storage change calculation contained considerable uncertainty that when cumulatively added over tens of years led to a large discrepancy in the level of water in storage relative to 1969. • Water level conditions in 1969 no longer represented a full basin, particularly because of change in pumping and recharge conditions. • A more accurate storage change calculation should be based on water level changes and storage coefficients for each of the three major aquifer systems. In February 2007, the District adopted an updated approach to defining the full basin condition and calculating storage changes. This updated approach includes: • A new full -basin groundwater level based on the following prescribed conditions: o Observed historical high water levels o Present-day pumping and recharge conditions o Protection from seawater intrusion o Minimal potential for mounding at or near recharge basins • Calculation of the amount of groundwater in storage in each of the three major aquifer systems. A more detailed description of the three -layer methodology is presented in OCWD's Report on Evaluation of Orange County Groundwater Basin Storage and Operational Strategy (February 2007) and can be found in Appendix D. OCWD Groundwater Management Plan 2015 Update 3-14 HUNTINGTON SANTA ANA ANAHEIM Pacific BEACH A ocean IR7F-C71Qry riELLS . a - Shallow Aquifier feet Amber 1'�l7 �s nel _ Colored Water •roe Natural discoloration CROSS SECTION LOCATOR MAP 1,000— from ancient buried plant feet and woody material. - A - RECHARGE BASINS 'e Newport- Dewi ? B Inglewood Fault Zone Aqulsfie Peralta Hills SANTA /I''P• --:- Fault ANA RIVER j A sR1 fir.... �.•�'. consolidated, Aquitards Aquifers non -water -bearing Law -permeability clay Water -bearing C at formations and silt deposits sand and gravel AREA MANAGE BY OCWD Figure 3-8: Schematic Cross -Section of the Basin Showing Three Aquifer Layers OCWD Groundwater Management Plan 2015 Update 3-14 Section 3 Basin Hydrogeology Figure 3-9 shows the contoured water levels for the Principal Aquifer in June 2014. The maps are prepared annually and scanned and digitized into the District's GIS database. The previous year's water levels are subtracted from the current water levels to calculate change in water levels. Water level change contour maps are prepared for each of the three aquifer layers. Figure 3-10 shows the water level change for the Principal Aquifer from June 2013 to June 2014. For each of the three aquifers, the GIS is used to multiply the water level changes by a grid of aquifer storage coefficients from OCWD's calibrated groundwater flow model. This results in a storage change volume for each of the three aquifers which are totaled to provide a net annual storage change for the basin, shown in Figure 3-11. In cases where there is a calculation discrepancy between the storage changes estimated by the two methods, the unmeasured recharge value is adjusted to eliminate the difference. Estimated Groundwater Elevations Within The Principal Aquifer Feet ahove Mean Sea Leel' (ff MSL) 0 10.000 20.000 Fee? 20 to 300 'NOTE: MSL elevatiuns are referenced w Verllcal Oatuin NOVO 29 Figure 3-9: Groundwater Level Contour Map, June 2014 OCWD Groundwater Management Plan 2015 Update 3-15 Section 3 Basin Hydrogeology 0 10.000 20,000 Feet Figure 3-10: Groundwater Level Changes, June 2013-14 OCWD Groundwater Management Plan 2015 Update 3-16 0 Available 50 Storage Space (amount below 100 full condition) Acre-feet (x1000) 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 Section 3 Basin Hydrogeology 500 1974-75 1978-79 1982-83 1986-87 1990-91 1994-95 1998-99 2002-03 2006-07 2010-11 2014-15 Water Year Figure 3-11: Change in Groundwater Storage, WY 1974-75 to 2013-14 ELEVATION TRENDS The groundwater elevation profile for the Principal Aquifer following the Santa Ana River from the ocean to the Forebay in Anaheim, for 1969, 2013, and the theoretical full condition are shown in Figure 3-12. A comparison of these profiles shows that groundwater elevations in the Forebay recharge area for all three conditions are similar while in the central and coastal areas of the basin elevations in 2013 are significantly lower. The lowering of coastal area groundwater levels relative to groundwater levels further inland in the Forebay translates into a steeper hydraulic gradient, which drives greater flow from the Forebay to the coastal areas. However, the lowering of coastal water levels also increases the risk of seawater intrusion. Groundwater elevation trends can be examined using five wells with long-term groundwater level data, the locations of which are shown in Figure 3-13. Figures 3-14 and 3-15 show water level hydrographs for wells SA -21 and GG -16, representing historical conditions in the Pressure area and well A-27, representing historical conditions in the Forebay. Water level data for well A-27 near Anaheim Lake dates back to 1932 and indicate that the historic low water level in this area occurred in 1951-52. The subsequent replenishment of Colorado River water essentially refilled the basin by 1965. Water levels in this well reached an historic high in 1994 and have generally remained high as recharge has been nearly continuous at Anaheim Lake since the late 1950s. OCWD Groundwater Management Plan 2015 Update 3-17 Section 3 Basin Hydrogeology Elevation (feet MSL) 300 i COSTA MESA ANAHEIM 250 GROUND SURFACE "o .� 200 ------- FULL BASIN (THEORETICAL) — — — 1969 (NEAR FULL BASIN) 150 2013 (242,000 AF BELOW FULL) 100 1 50 vF � 0 ,_�_-- MEAN SEA LEVEL -50 -100 PRESSURE AREA FOREBAY -15a 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 MILES FROM COAST ALONG SANTA ANA RIVER Figure 3-12: Principal Aquifer Groundwater Elevation Profiles, 1969 and 2013 • A-27 >i•. SAR-1 GG -16 r SA --21 f r OC W D -CTG 1 k• 9 r y Q S y. ! , f1ii Active Large -System Production Well J° ® Destroyed and Sealed Well t ` ! + Monitoring Well 0 10,000 20.000 `� Multiport Monitoring Well QCWD Boundary Figure 3-13: Location of Long -Term Groundwater Elevation Hydrograph OCWD Groundwater Management Plan 2015 Update 3-18 20 0 7 -60 -SO Section 3 Basin Hydrogeology SA -21 WATER LEVELS 2c ; •I fk in C ♦ N A O y -20 ♦ � •♦ t • � • lu t w • ♦ ♦ ♦ • LLI JWit♦ • �• ♦ ♦ ♦� ♦♦ � • Y♦♦ -40 -- - t ♦ ♦ ii s♦ -60 ----:..-- - --- - • •� -so O N N N N N N N N GG -16 WATER LEVELS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ---; -,------- +4 - - .' o N f0 0 O N �t m m O N -e ID M O N a 0 CO O N h f� ti ti r m m m m m M 0 M 0 W O O O O O W m m O 61 41 Q) N N CO N N N N N Figure 3-14: Water Level Hydrographs of Wells SA -21 and GG -16 in Pressure Area OCWD Groundwater Management Plan 2015 Update 3-19 200 180 i[PI1\ 140 E 120 0 M, 100 w 80 m 60 40 VIII Section 3 Basin Hydrogeology o' p M M O M O O a Q Q mQ O N N N M �O _L.....V. W Om Nm Obi O N QI-L O� I -LO H Q O. � r � � � � � � •' � � � � � N N N N N N N Figure 3-15: Water Level Hydrographs of Well A-27 in Forebay The hydrograph for well SA -21 indicates that water levels in this area have decreased since 1970. Also noteworthy is the large range of water level fluctuations from the early 1990s to early 2000s. The increased water level fluctuations during this period were due to a combination seasonal water demand -driven pumping and participation in the MWD Short -Term Seasonal Storage Program by local Producers (Boyle Engineering and OCWD, 1997), which encouraged increased pumping from the groundwater basin during summer months when MWD was experiencing high demand for imported water. Although this program did not increase the amount of pumping from the basin on an annual basis, it did result in greater water level declines during the summer during the period of 1989 to 2002 when the program was active. Figure 3-16 presents water level hydrographs of two OCWD multi -depth monitoring wells, SAR- 1 and OCWD-CTG1, showing the relationship between water level elevations in aquifer zones at different depths. The hydrograph of well SAR-1 in the Forebay exhibits a similarity in water levels between shallow and deep aquifers, which indicates the high degree of hydraulic interconnection between aquifers characteristic of much of the Forebay. The hydrograph of well OCWD-CTG1 is typical of the Pressure Area in that there are large differences in water levels in different aquifers, indicating a reduced level of hydraulic interconnectivity between shallow and deep aquifers caused by fine-grained layers that restrict vertical groundwater flow. Water levels in the deepest aquifer zone at well OCWD-CTG1 are higher than overlying aquifers, in part, because few wells directly produce water from these zones. The lack of production from the deepest aquifers is due to the presences of amber - colored water and the depth required to produce water from these zones. OCWD Groundwater Management Plan 2015 Update 3-20 Section 3 Basin Hydrogeology SAR-1 WATER LEVELS 120 .... ................ R.P. Elevation: 210.09 feet m 100 ............. :........-.i..-...-...; ...........:..........:..........: .. .. --------- w E --------- ------ - -- sa w 0 60 LU C a) J : 40--------------------------- 20 MP41367 ft. bp) MP12 (1284 ft. 6gs) a 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2072 2014 40 OCWD-CTG1 Water Levels za=------------- -------------; ; --- --- - OCW LTG t M RP Elev - 32 80 k msl; Pert lnt 180-2 80 N bgs �� AWG-[iG712 RP Elev-32-7yN msl; Per11nt 420-72Pk bgs a ---------- -}___________________________;----------- = OCW�-CTG713RPElev-32.82it msl: Per[Int: 800-1025ft bgs----- ---- - - ■ 0CWDLTG114RPElev-32.82Nmsl: Pert Ink 1060-1220 ftbgs N E-20 ............................................................ ................... ........... ......... - --- --- v C v LU a a v J m 100 120 -- --- --- ----------------- -------------------- ---- --- --- --- --- ---- --- --- --- --- ---- NOTE: Ve�lml scale grater than scalae used for other Multi-depthjwell graphs. .140 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Figure 3-16: Water Level Hydrographs of Wells SAR-1 and OCWD-CTG1 OCWD Groundwater Management Plan 2015 Update 3-21 Section 3 Basin Hydrogeology LAND SUBSIDENCE Land subsidence can be caused by a number of factors, including collapse of underground cavities, tectonic activity, natural consolidation of sediment, oxidation of organic deposits, hydrocompaction of moisture -deficient soil and sediments, development of geothermal energy, extraction of hydrocarbons from the subsurface, and extraction of groundwater. In California, a common cause of subsidence is associated with excessive groundwater withdrawals. In the case of thick sedimentary groundwater basins comprised of alternating "confined" or "pressure" aquifers (permeable sands and gravels) and aquitards (less permeable silts and clays), the extraction of groundwater reduces the fluid pressure of the saturated pore spaces within the buried sediments. The pressure reduction in the deeper sediments allows the weight of the overlying sediments to compact the deeper sediments, particularly the clays and silts. If groundwater withdrawals cause water levels to be sustained beyond historical lows, several years or more, the incremental amount of sediment compaction can eventually manifest itself in an irreversible permanent lowering of the land surface (USGS, 1999). In Orange County, subsidence in swampy low-lying coastal areas underlain by shallow organic peat deposits started as early as 1898 when development of these areas for agriculture resulted in excavation of unlined drainage ditches. The drainage ditches drained the swamps and intercepted the shallow water table which was lowered sufficiently to allow the land to drain adequately for irrigated agriculture. When the shallow water table was lowered, it exposed the formerly -saturated peat deposits to oxygen that caused depletion and shrinkage of the peat due to oxidation (Fairchild and Wiebe, 1976). Subsidence of shallow peat deposits was associated with land development practices that occurred in Orange County in the late 1800s and early 1900s and, as such, is not something associated with or controlled by groundwater withdrawals in the basin. Another documented cause of subsidence in Orange County unrelated to groundwater basin utilization is oil extraction along the coast, particularly in Huntington Beach (Morton et. al, 1978). Subsidence due to changes in groundwater conditions in the Orange County groundwater basin is variable and does not show a pattern of widespread irreversible permanent lowering of the ground surface. Storage conditions in the groundwater basin were at historical lows in the late 1950s, but since this time OCWD has operated the groundwater basin within a storage range above the historical low. There are reports that some subsidence may have occurred before OCWD began refilling the groundwater basin in the late 1950s (Morton, et al., 1976); however, the magnitude and scope of this subsidence is uncertain and it is not clear if this subsidence was permanent. More recent data show a consistent pattern of the ground surface rising and falling in tandem with groundwater levels and overall changes in basin groundwater storage. This is referred to as elastic subsidence. Interferometric Synthetic Aperture Radar (InSAR) data collected from satellites and data collected by the Orange County Surveyor (Surveyor) show that ground surface elevations in Orange County both rise and fall in response to groundwater recharge and withdrawals. InSAR data during the period 1993-1999 shows temporary seasonal land surface OCWD Groundwater Management Plan 2015 Update 3-22 Section 3 Basin Hydrogeology changes of up to 4.3 inches (total seasonal amplitude from high to low) in the Los Angeles - Orange County area and a net decline of approximately 0.5 inch/year near Santa Ana over the period 1993 to 1999, which happened to coincide with a period of net withdrawal of groundwater from the basin (Bawden, 2001; 2003). The Surveyor's office maintains more than 1,500 elevation benchmarks throughout Orange County. Periodically, the Surveyor resurveys the benchmarks to detect changes in elevation. The Surveyor maintains the survey records and makes them available to the public (http://ocpublicworks.com/survey/services/ocrtn) and provides the data to OCWD upon request. The Surveyor also maintains an Orange County Real Time Network (OCRTN) that consists of continuously operating GPS reference stations that monitor horizontal and vertical movement throughout Orange County. Figure 3-17 shows the locations of the GPS stations in Orange County. Based on real time GPS data, the BLSA and SACY sites show the greatest range of elevation change of any of the sites in Orange County. Ground surface elevation changes at these sites from 2002 to 2014 correlate well with changes in groundwater storage, as shown on Figure 3- 18. Note that this period of time includes a very wet - period (2004-05) when basin ° ][ ANSakiLASoum3e SAN r groundwater storage increased significantly and a dry period (2010-2014) when 51� basin groundwater storage CCCS decreased significantly. In reviewing the available sources of data, it is clear that depending on the time period selected, the ground surface is rising, falling, or remaining stable. GPS data collected by the Surveyor over the past 12 years (2002-14) show that the ground surface fluctuations appear to be completely elastic, reversible, and well correlated with fluctuations in groundwater levels. These data indicate that there has not been any permanent, irreversible subsidence of the ground surface over the past 12 years. CAT RIVERSIDE GEO h` ACY t INhIYT � TRAK PART? ORANGE COVNTY - OC f'LIDUC WOUK5 GILTS Oe -KIN - Gr5 I AL TIME NETWORK r - REAL TIME C�F5 STATION Figure 3-17. Orange County Public Works GPS Real Time Network OCWD Groundwater Management Plan 2015 Update 3-23 Section 3 Basin Hydrogeology Finally, there is little potential for future widespread permanent, irreversible subsidence given OCWD's statutory commitment to sustainable groundwater management and policy of maintaining groundwater storage levels within a specified operating range. Nevertheless, the District annually reviews Surveyor data to evaluate ground surface fluctuations within the District's service area. If irreversible subsidence was found to occur in a localized area in relation to groundwater pumping patterns or groundwater storage conditions, OCWD would coordinate with local officials to investigate and develop an approach to address the subsidence. ry on - La rn 00 rn o -4 ry rn �T 0 0 : a o o C C C C C C C C C Available Storage Space Full Basin u 2.0 =.0 0 Ground Surface Elevation Change r ❑ ❑ v -1.0 -2.0 f BLSA Change in EIevatian (i n) ❑ SACY Change in Elezvation (in) OF -Groundwater Storage 100, ()Cc Kgccc Figure 3-18: Available Storage Space in the Orange County Groundwater Basin and Ground Surface Elevation Change, 2002-2014 OCWD Groundwater Management Plan 2015 Update 3-24 Section 3 Basin Hydrogeology 3.7 BASIN MODEL OCWD's basin model encompasses the entire basin and extends approximately three miles into the Central Basin in Los Angeles County to provide for more accurate model results than if the model boundary stopped at the county line (see Figure 3-19). As noted previously in this chapter, the county line is not a hydrogeologic boundary, i.e., groundwater freely flows through aquifers that have been correlated across the county line. Coverage of the modeled area is accomplished with grid cells having horizontal dimensions of 500 feet by 500 feet (approximately 5.7 acres) and vertical �m..-...P•j• tires' l j/�v'` CentraE _ �, �1 dimensions ranging Basin from approximately 50 to 1,800 feet, depending on the thickness of each Figure 3-19: Basin Model Extent model layer at that grid cell location. Basin aquifers and aquitards are grouped into three composite model layers thought sufficient to describe the three distinguishable flow systems corresponding to the Shallow, Principal, and Deep Aquifers. The three model layers comprise a network of over 90,000 grid cells. The widely -accepted computer program, "MODFLOW," developed by the USGS, was used as the base modeling code for the mathematical model (McDonald and Harbaugh, 1988). Analogous to an off-the-shelf spreadsheet program needing data to be functional, MODFLOW requires vast amounts of input data to define the hydrogeologic conditions in the conceptual model. The types of information that must be input in digital format (data files) for each grid cell in each model layer include the following: • Aquifer top and bottom elevations OCWD Groundwater Management Plan 2015 Update 3-25 Section 3 Basin Hydrogeology • Aquifer lateral boundary conditions (ocean, faults, mountains) • Aquifer hydraulic conductivity and storage coefficient/specific yield • Initial groundwater surface elevation • Natural and artificial recharge rates (runoff, precipitation, percolation, injection) • Groundwater production rates for approximately 200 large system and 200 small system wells These data originate from hand -drawn contour maps, spreadsheets, and the Water Resources Management System (WRMS) historical database. Because MODFLOW requires the input data files in a specific format, staff developed a customized database and GIS program to automate data compilation and formatting functions. These data pre-processing tasks form one of the key activities in the model development process. Before a groundwater model can be reliably used as a predictive tool for simulating future conditions, the model must be calibrated to reach an acceptable match between simulated and actual observed conditions. The basin model was first calibrated to steady-state conditions to numerically stabilize the simulations, to make rough adjustments to the water budget terms, and to generally match regional groundwater flow patterns. Also, the steady-state calibration helped to determine the sensitivity of simulated groundwater levels to changes in incidental recharge and aquifer parameters such as hydraulic conductivity. Steady-state calibration of the basin model is documented in more detail in the OCWD Master Plan Report (OCWD, 1999). Typical transient model output consists of water level elevations at each grid cell that can be plotted as a contour map for one point in time or as a time -series graph at a single location. Post -processing of model results into usable graphics is performed using a combination of semi - automated GIS and database program applications. Figure 3-20 presents a simplified schematic of the modeling process. Model construction, calibration, and operation were built upon 12 years of effort by OCWD staff to collect, compile, digitize, and interpret hundreds of borehole geologic and geophysical logs, water level hydrographs, and water quality analyses. The process was composed of 10 main tasks comprising over 120 subtasks. The major tasks are summarized as follows: • Finalize conceptual hydrogeologic model layers and program GIS/database applications to create properly formatted MODFLOW input data files. Over 40 geologic cross sections were used to form the basis of the vertical and lateral aquifer boundaries. Define model layer boundaries. The top and bottom elevations of the three aquifer system layers and intervening aquitards were hand -contoured, digitized, and overlain on the model grid to populate the model input arrays with a top and bottom elevation for each layer at every grid cell location. Model layer thickness values were then calculated using GIS. • Develop model layer hydraulic conductivity (K) grids. Estimates of K for each layer were based on (in order of importance): available aquifer test data, well -specific capacity data, and lithologic data. In the absence of reliable aquifer test or specific capacity data for areas in Layers 1 and 3, Iithology-based K estimates were calculated by assigning literature values of K OCWD Groundwater Management Plan 2015 Update 3-26 Section 3 Basin Hydrogeology to each lithology type (e.g., sand, gravel, clay) within a model layer and then calculating an effective K value for the entire layer at that well location. Layer 2 had the most available aquifer test and specific capacity data. Therefore, a Layer 2 transmissivity contour map was prepared and digitized, and GIS was used to calculate a K surface by dividing the transmissivity grid by the aquifer thickness grid. Initial values of K were adjusted during model calibration to achieve a better match of model results with known groundwater elevations. Develop layer production factors for active production wells simulated in the model. Many production wells had long screened intervals that spanned at least two of the three model layers. Therefore, groundwater production for each of these wells had to be divided among each layer screened by use of layer production factors. These factors were calculated using both the relative length of screen within each model layer and the hydraulic conductivity of each layer. Well production was then multiplied by the layer factors for each individual well. For example, if a well had a screened interval equally divided across Layers 1 and 2, but the hydraulic conductivity of Layer 1 was twice that of Layer 2, then the calculated Layer 1 and 2 production factors for that well would have been one-third and two-thirds, respectively, such that when multiplied by the total production for this well, the production assigned to Layer 1 would have been twice that of Layer 2. For the current three -layer model, approximately 25 percent of the production wells in the model were screened across more than one model layer. In this context, further vertical refinement of the model (more model layers) may better represent the aquifer architecture in certain areas but may also increase the uncertainty and potential error involved in the amount of production assigned to each model layer. Develop basin model water budget input parameters, including groundwater production, artificial recharge, and unmeasured recharge. Groundwater production and artificial recharge volumes were applied to grid cells in which production wells or recharge facilities were located. The most uncertain component of the water budget — unmeasured or incidental recharge — was applied to the model as an average monthly volume based on estimates calculated annually for the OCWD Engineer's Report. Unmeasured recharge was distributed to cells throughout the model, but was mostly applied to cells along margins of the basin at the base of the hills and mountains. The underflow component of the incidental recharge represents the amount of groundwater flowing into and out of the model along open boundaries. Prescribed groundwater elevations were assigned to open boundaries along the northwest model boundary in Los Angeles County; the ocean at the Alamitos, Bolsa, and Talbert Gaps; the mouth of the Santa Ana Canyon; and the mouth of Santiago Creek Canyon. Groundwater elevations for the boundaries other than the ocean boundaries were based on historical groundwater elevation data from nearby wells. The model automatically calculated the dynamic flow across these open boundaries as part of the overall water budget. Develop model layer storage coefficients. Storage coefficient values for portions of model layers representing confined aquifer conditions were prepared based on available aquifer test data and were adjusted within reasonable limits based on calibration results. • Develop vertical leakage parameters between model layers. Vertical groundwater flow between aquifer systems in the basin is generally not directly measured, yet it is one of the critically -important factors in the model's ability to represent actual basin hydraulic processes. Using geologic cross-sections and depth -specific water level and water quality data from the OCWD multi -depth monitoring well network, staff identified areas where vertical groundwater OCWD Groundwater Management Plan 2015 Update 3-27 Section 3 Basin Hydrogeology flow between the modeled aquifer systems is either likely to occur or be significantly impeded, depending on the relative abundance and continuity of lower -permeability aquitards between model layers. During model calibration, the initial parameter estimates for vertical leakage were adjusted to achieve closer matches to known vertical groundwater gradients. Develop groundwater contour maps for each model layer to be used for starting conditions and for visual comparison of water level patterns during calibration. Staff used observed water level data from multi -depth and other wells to prepare contour maps of each layer for November 1990 as a starting point for the calibration period. Care was taken to use wells screened within the appropriate vertical interval representing each model layer. The hand -drawn contour maps were then digitized and used as model input to represent starting conditions. • Perform transient calibration runs. The nine-year period of November 1990 to November 1999 was selected for transient calibration, as it represented the period corresponding to the most detailed set of groundwater elevation, production, and recharge data. The transient calibration process and results are described in the next section. • Perform various basin production and recharge scenarios using the calibrated model. Criteria for pumping and recharge, including facility locations and quantities, were developed for each scenario and input for each model run. Define objectives Compile data =cross ta 7!basin rogeologic Model ctions boundaries phs smissivity ps e coefficient data ater balance Build Computer Model create grid Revise Hydrogeologic Model digitize layers revise geologic cross sections, create data input files inferred faults define model conditions refine conceptual model Calibrate Model match historical water levels adjust until results acceptable 4 FRun Model Scenarios develop production/recharge alternatives et up data for each alternative ults as contour maps and hydrographs Figure 3-20: Model Development Flowchart OCWD Groundwater Management Plan 2015 Update 3-28 Section 3 Basin Hydrogeology 3.7.1 Model Calibration Calibration of the transient basin model involved a series of simulations of the period 1990 to 1999, using monthly flow and water level data. The time period selected for calibration represents a period during which basic data required for monthly transient calibration were essentially complete (compared to pre -1990 historical records). The calibration period spans at least one "wet/dry" rainfall cycle. Monthly water level data from almost 250 target locations were used to determine if the simulated water levels adequately matched observed water levels. As shown in Figure 3-21, the calibration target points were densely distributed throughout the basin and also covered all three model layers. After each model run, a hydrograph of observed versus simulated water levels was created and reviewed for each calibration target point. In addition, a groundwater elevation contour map for each layer was also generated from the simulated data. The simulated groundwater contours for all three layers were compared to interpreted contours of observed data (November 1997) to assess closeness of fit and to qualitatively evaluate whether the simulated gradients and overall flow patterns were consistent with the conceptual hydrogeologic model. November 1997 was chosen for the observed versus simulated contour map comparison since these hand -drawn contour maps had already been created for the prior steady state calibration step. Although November 1997 observed data were contoured for all three layers, the contour maps for Layers 1 and 3 were somewhat more generalized than for Layer 2 due to a lower density of data points (wells) in these two layers. Depending on the results of each calibration run, model input parameters were adjusted, including hydraulic conductivity, storage coefficient, boundary conditions, and recharge distribution. Time -varying head boundaries along the Orange/Los Angeles County line were found to be extremely useful in obtaining a close fit with observed historical water levels in the northwestern portion of the model. Fifty calibration runs were required to reach an acceptable level of calibration in which model - generated water levels were within reasonable limits of observed water level elevations during the calibration period. Figures 3-22 through 3-24 show examples of hydrographs of observed versus simulated water levels for three wells used as calibration targets. OCWD Groundwater Management Plan 2015 Update 3-29 Section 3 Basin Hydrogeology •WRPWFRFIER.IA 'W.— � � � A`f e SF6•2 hlk VIOL �` SCWC ARR2 J, ,• • • AM -6 • • a' • WRO CFRR110S.1 B Wld]-LAKElY00EF1a ��• • e"Yi ,' © • • w.co0:c.0 �.~q • • i S • • • ,' LBOEVS • • • ...r � Ls..�el � •• GGM-3 • • � , la -cm �� o • un,l � • • • • � Y.i • • + Y^ `• •• ••iii ��•�• • �•••• `�'' :+ ac��• + �: •• • • • • • ID 7 fV •`., Calibration Well VWth Example Hydrograph VV � E • Boundary Well • Additional Cahbra0on Well I S •r„ j • Original Calibration Well 0 10,000 20.000 w'�• Basin Model Boundary Fee! OCVVD Boundary Figure 3-21: Basin Model Calibration Wells Noteworthy findings of the model calibration process are summarized below: • The model was most sensitive to adjustments to hydraulic conductivity and recharge distribution. In other words, minor variations in these input parameters caused significant changes in the model water level output. • The model was less sensitive to changes in storage coefficient, requiring order -of -magnitude changes in this parameter to cause significant changes in simulated water levels, primarily affecting the amplitude of seasonal water level variations. • The vast amount of observed historical water level data made it readily evident when the model was closely matching observed conditions. • Incidental (unmeasured) recharge averaging approximately 70,000 afy during the 1990-1999 period appeared to be reasonable, as the model was fairly sensitive to variations in this recharge amount. • Groundwater outflow to Los Angeles County was estimated to range between 5,000 and 12,000 afy between 1990 and 1999, most of this occurring in Layers 1 and 3. • Groundwater flow at the Talbert Gap was inland during the entire model calibration period, indicating moderate seawater intrusion conditions. Model -derived seawater inflow ranged from 500 to 2,700 afy in the Talbert Gap and is consistent with chloride concentration trends during the OCWD Groundwater Management Plan 2015 Update 3-30 Section 3 Basin Hydrogeology calibration period that indicated inland movement of saline groundwater in these areas. • Model -derived groundwater inflow from the ocean at Bolsa Gap was only 100-200 afy due to the Newport -Inglewood Fault zone, which offsets the Bolsa aquifer and significantly restricts the inland migration of saline water across the fault. • Model adjustments (mainly hydraulic conductivity and recharge) in the Santiago Basins area in Orange significantly affected simulated water levels in the coastal areas. • Model reductions to the hydraulic conductivity of Layer 2 (Principal Aquifer) along the Peralta Hills Fault in Anaheim/Orange had the desired effect of steepening the gradient and restricting groundwater flow across the fault into the Orange area. These simulation results were consistent with observed hydrogeologic data indicating that the Peralta Hills Fault acts as a partial groundwater barrier. • Potential unmapped faults immediately downgradient from the Santiago Basins appear to restrict groundwater flow in the Principal Aquifer, as evidenced by observed steep gradients in that area, which were reproduced by the model. As with the Peralta Hills Fault, an approximate order -of - magnitude reduction in hydraulic conductivity along these suspected faults achieved the desired effect of reproducing observed water levels with the model. 200 180 160 140 120 100 (Model Layer 1 -- Anaheim Forebay) Screened Interval: 168-175 ft bgs. 80 11/11/90 Observed --�- Run 10 ---�-- Run 50 11/1/92 11/1/94 11/11/96 11/11/98 Figure 3-22: Calibration Hydrograph of Monitoring Well AM -5A OCWD Groundwater Management Plan 2015 Update 3-31 Section 3 Basin Hydrogeology (Model Layer 2 -- Santiago Pit Area) 200 c 180 N E 160 0 W 140 W N 120 9 100 0 nAFIlInk, ink 0 Port Depths: 150 ft bgs ILE 1,074 ft bgs ma' m 2,011 ft bgs � Eb T 1 r 1 / I 1t 1 'V 'LAI, \ I 1 I 1 1 \ I % \ � ml� ! 1110�IMEEI 1 1 x --x— L1 Observed .--�� E� - 1"J. I L20bserved e--�� L30bserved e --a ---o L1 Simulated tr---�---o 10 Run 10 L3 Simulated Run 50 101�90r p 11/1V2 11/1/94 11/1%96 11/1/98 Figure 3-23: Calibration Hydrograph for Monitoring Well SC -2 60 40 20 0 -20 -40 -60 11/1/90 (All Three Model Layers -- Garden Grove) 11/1/92 11/1/94 11/1/96 11/1/98 Figure 3-24: Calibration Hydrograph for Monitoring Well GGM-1 OCWD Groundwater Management Plan 2015 Update 3-32 Port Depths: 150 ft bgs 1,074 ft bgs ma' m 2,011 ft bgs � Eb T 1 r 1 / I 1t 1 'V 'LAI, \ I 1 I 1 1 \ I % \ � \l 1 1 x --x— L1 Observed .--�� I L20bserved e--�� L30bserved e --a ---o L1 Simulated tr---�---o L2 Simulated L3 Simulated 11/1/92 11/1/94 11/1/96 11/1/98 Figure 3-24: Calibration Hydrograph for Monitoring Well GGM-1 OCWD Groundwater Management Plan 2015 Update 3-32 Section 3 Basin Hydrogeology 3.7.2 Model Advisory Panel The model development and calibration process was regularly presented to and reviewed by a Model Advisory Panel. This technical panel consisted of four groundwater modeling experts who were familiar with the basin and highly qualified to provide insight and guidance during the model construction and calibration process. Twelve panel meetings were held between 1999 and 2002. The panel was tasked with providing written independent assessments of the strengths, weaknesses and overall validity and usefulness of the model in evaluating various basin management alternatives. Two memoranda were prepared: one at the completion of the steady-state model calibration and steady-state scenarios (Harley et al., 1999) and one at the completion of the transient model calibration and initial transient basin operational scenarios (Harley et al., 2001). Key conclusions and findings of the panel regarding the transient model are summarized below. • Transient modeling has substantially improved the overall understanding of processes and conditions that determine how and why the basin reacts to pumping and recharge. This improved understanding, coupled with the model's ability to simulate existing and possible future facilities and alternative operations, significantly improves the District's potential ability to enhance and actively manage basin water resources. • Modeling has helped verify major elements of the basin conceptual model and has been instrumental in clarifying: o Variations in the annual water balance o Hydrostratigraphy of the basin o Horizontal flow between basin subareas o The potential degree of interconnection and magnitude of vertical flow between major aquifers o The potential hydraulic significance of the Peralta Hills Fault in the Anaheim Forebay o Variations in aquifer hydraulic properties o The relative significance of engineered versus natural recharge and groundwater outflow within the basin o Numerous other issues and conditions • The ability of the model to simulate known and projected future conditions will evolve and improve as new data become available and updated calibration runs are completed. • Parameters used to set up the model appear to be within limits justified by known, estimated, and assumed subsurface conditions based upon available historic data. • Initial transient calibration completed using a nine-year calibration period (1990-1999) is considered adequate to confirm the initial validity of the model for use in evaluating a variety of potential future projects and conditions. • Areas of the basin that could benefit from future exploration, testing, monitoring, analysis and/or additional model calibration were identified. • The model is not considered appropriate for assessing detailed local impacts related to new recharge facilities or well fields. These impacts should be assessed using more detailed local sub -models and by conducting detailed field studies. OCWD Groundwater Management Plan 2015 Update 3-33 Section 3 Basin Hydrogeology The model does not, nor is it intended to, address water supply availability, cost, water quality, or land subsidence. Recommendations of the panel included suggestions that thorough documentation be prepared on model configuration and calibration and that the model calibration period be extended as new data become available. .7.3 Groundwater Model Update and Applications OCWD staff update the basin groundwater model approximately every three to five years, guided by new information warranting the effort (new wells in critical areas) or by needed model evaluations using the most recent years, e.g., estimating the groundwater outflow to Los Angeles County. Major changes and improvements over the past five years include: 1. Model conversion from UNIX to PC using the Groundwater Vistas as the Graphical User I nterface. 2. Extension of the model transient calibration through WY 2010-11. The new calibration period is November 1990 to June 2011 which includes a wide range of basin storage conditions as well as a wide range of hydrologic conditions. 3. Addition of several new Talbert Barrier injection wells and the addition of two new recharge basins, La Jolla and Miraloma Basins. Typical applications of the Basin Model include estimating the effects of potential future pumping and recharge projects on groundwater levels, storage, and the water budget. The storage coefficients determined during the original Basin Model calibration are also used to estimate annual change in groundwater storage. The Basin Model was also used in 2011 to estimate the effects of additional recharge from new Miraloma Basin on the GWRS subsurface retention time buffer area located in the Anaheim Forebay. In accordance with the CDPH Draft Groundwater Replenishment Regulations at the time of the permit's adoption, OCWD developed a six-month buffer area downgradient of Kraemer and Miller Basins using a sulfur hexafluoride (SF -6) artificial tracer test, inside which drinking water wells could not be constructed or operated (Clark, 2009). OCWD subsequently acquired the Miraloma property and developed it into a recharge basin intended primarily for GWRS water recharge. The three -layer Basin Model and the existing tracer test -determined buffer area were used to determine the necessary modifications to the Anaheim Forebay GWRS buffer area. Two other applications of the Basin Model were related to operation of the Talbert Seawater Barrier. The first was to guide the planning, location and hydraulic effectiveness of supplemental injection wells for the Talbert Barrier during pre-GWRS planning activities. The second was to estimate the general flow paths and subsurface residence time of barrier OCWD Groundwater Management Plan 2015 Update 3-34 Section 3 Basin Hydrogeology injection water to delineate the Talbert Barrier's recycled water retention buffer area. Inside of this area new drinking water wells are not allowed, as required by the California Department of Public Health requirements contained within the original permit to operate the GWRS (RWQCB, 2004, OCWD, 2005). 3.7.4 Talbert Gap Model Between 1999 and 2000, OCWD contracted with Camp Dresser & McKee Inc. to develop a detailed groundwater flow model of the Talbert Gap and surrounding area for the purpose of evaluating and estimating the amount and location of fresh water injection wells needed to control seawater intrusion under current and projected future basin conditions. The Talbert Gap modeling effort was undertaken as part of the design scope of work for Phase 1 of the GWRS, which included expansion of the existing Talbert Barrier. The configuration and initial calibration of the Talbert Gap Model and further model refinement and calibration were documented by Camp Dresser & McKee Inc. (2000, 2003). Consistent with the Basin Model Advisory Panel's findings, OCWD determined that a more detailed model of the Talbert Gap was necessary to evaluate the local water level changes associated with various potential injection barrier alignments and flow rates. The Talbert model comprises an area of 85 square miles, 13 Layers (seven aquifers and six aquitards), and 509,000 grid cells (250 feet x 250 feet horizontal dimensions). Figures 2-25, 2-26 and 2-27 show the model area, Talbert Model Calibration Wells and boundary wells and layering schematic, respectively. ... -&1fflr1„ffl. -,J. i '- -••.., F .. Talbert Gap Mnoel Boundary 1 A` Q B.— Model Boundary r� D --VU 8ourdary L.�.J Figure 3-25: Talbert Gap Model and Basin Model Boundaries OCWD Groundwater Management Plan 2015 Update 3-35 Section 3 Basin Hydrogeology J J s M - •a �s,o ue � i-�OL,VaLTGf ■ HBM.6 • �.. • .. ■ 11 • a • . • eounae� �.Wn w • nae��M1.icd�creuw wNi =Tamen ow Model Bw .rq I e S,AW 10,00 .f �Fee1 J I.. _..i ()f:NR]Rni�Mary Figure 3-26: Talbert Model Calibration Wells and Boundary Wells SW NE Pacific Ocean Talbert Barrier ft msl 0 ................-„--r,-,7-rr-n1T I 1, 1: fl I iTrf-rrrli � 111 [ I I 11, ilTiT�TT AQUIFER NAME 1,000 Talbert/Bolsa Alpha Beta Lambda Omicron/Upper Rho 2,000 Main Lower Main Aquitard Figure 3-27: Talbert Gap Model Aquifer Layering Schematic OCWD Groundwater Management Plan 2015 Update 3-36 Section 3 Basin Hydrogeology Key findings of the Talbert Gap groundwater model are summarized below. • Depending on the amount of basin production, particularly near the Talbert Barrier, 30 mgd (approximately 34,000 afy) of injection will substantially raise water levels, yet may not be sufficient to fully prevent seawater intrusion in the Talbert Gap. Additional injection wells beyond those planned for Phase 1 of the GWRS might be required. Under projected 2020 conditions, the future Talbert Barrier may require an annual average injection rate of up to 45 mgd based on the results of existing analyses. This estimated future injection requirement will be further evaluated as additional data are collected. • The Talbert model inland boundaries do not coincide with hydrologic or geologic features, e.g., recharge area, faults. Therefore, simulated water levels are highly influenced by the time -varying water levels specified along the boundaries. For future Talbert model predictive runs, the basin model should be used to generate water levels that can then be specified along the inland Talbert model boundaries. • The Talbert model was less sensitive to adjustment hydraulic conductivity and storage coefficient than the basin model, primarily because of the stronger influence of the specified -head boundaries in the Talbert model. 3.7.5 Alamitos Barrier Model The Alamitos Seawater Intrusion Barrier was constructed by OCWD and the Los Angeles County Department of Public Works (LACDPW) in 1965 to protect the Central Basin of Los Angeles County and the Orange County Groundwater Basin from seawater intrusion through the Alamitos Gap. The OCWD and the Water Replenishment District of Southern California (WRD) purchase and provide the injection supply, which is primarily recycled water augmented with imported water. Barrier operations are described in Section 7. Elevated chloride concentrations were observed inland of the barrier, especially near the southeast portion of the barrier within Orange County, which suggested that seawater intrusion was occurring through and around the barrier into the Orange County Groundwater Basin. In 2008 and 2009, OCWD identified critical data gaps and installed new monitoring wells at three sites near the Orange County portion of the barrier in order to collect data to evaluate the extent and location of possible seawater intrusion in the area. In 2010 OCWD, WRD and LACDPW contracted with INTERA, Inc. to develop the Alamitos Barrier Flow Model (ABFM) and the Alamitos Barrier Transport Model (ABTM). These models were developed to simulate the relative differences in chloride transport, barrier performance for the existing barrier, and three selected barrier expansion configurations. The objectives of the models were to: (1) determine the existing and future potential for seawater intrusion in the Alamitos Gap and subsequent barrier expansion requirements, (2) optimize month-to-month operations of the existing barrier injection wells and (3) determine the travel time and OCWD Groundwater Management Plan 2015 Update 3-37 Section 3 Basin Hydrogeology percentage of recycled injection water reaching nearby drinking water wells to fulfill regulatory permit requirements. The groundwater flow and solute transport models used the industry -standard computer codes MODFLOW (groundwater flow) and MT3D (solute transport). The model was constructed so that it can be operated by staff from any of the three agencies (OCWD, WRD and LACDPW) from a desktop personal computer using off-the-shelf industry -standard software and independently -run new simulations. Key findings of the models: 1. The dominant flow direction across and around the barrier into Orange County was found to be primarily west to east, rather than wrapping around the ends of the barrier in a south to north direction, as was previously thought. 2. Per -well injection capacity is limited due to relatively low aquifer hydraulic conductivities throughout most of the Orange County portion of the barrier. 3. Additional barrier injection is required to prevent further intrusion through or around the barrier. 4. Increasing injection, along with a westerly extension of the barrier in Long Beach to the Seal Beach Fault, would likely halt further seawater intrusion into Orange County, however, cut-off plumes of elevated salinity would likely continue to migrate easterly into Orange County landward of the barrier. A well calibrated groundwater model along with data from existing wells allowed the three agencies (OCWD, WRD, and LACDPW) to better assess and plan for necessary expansion of barrier facilities, as well as prioritize and optimize operation of the existing facilities. The models provided important new insight into the behavior of the hydrogeologic system in the vicinity of Alamitos Gap and the behavior and operation of the barrier. One application of the model was to help evaluate the Alamitos Barrier Improvement Project, which proposed to increase the injection capacity of the Orange County portion of the Alamitos Barrier. A total of eight new injection well locations were proposed along the east portion of the barrier. At each well locations, 2 to 4 depth -specific wells were assumed to inject into a specific aquifer unit (C, B, A, or I zones). OCWD Groundwater Management Plan 2015 Update 3-38 WATER SUPPLY MONITORING 11 OCWD staff collecting sample in Santa Ana River OCWD's comprehensive monitoring programs are conducted to safeguard the basin's water quality and to operate the basin for long-term sustainability. Monitoring programs include water quality data from over 2,000 wells • Groundwater elevations collected annually at OCWD monitoring wells • All groundwater producers report production totals every six months • OCWD conducts Title 22 water quality monitoring for Producers • Additional monitoring for contamination sites and for seawater intrusion • Recycled water monitored daily, monthly, or quarterly for general minerals, metals, organics, and microbial constituents • Surface water monitoring includes Santa Ana River throughout the watershed Water Resources Management System • Database stores well information, historical and current data, sub -surface geology, water levels, and water quality • Reports generated for a variety of purposes and for several agencies Water Sample Collection and Analysis • In 2014, OCWD water quality staff collected over 17,000 samples for analysis • Most water quality samples analyzed at OCWD's Advanced Water Quality Assurance Laboratory Section 4 Water Supply Monitoring SECTION 4 WATER SUPPLY MONITORING '.1 INTRODUCTION OCWD's monitoring programs are a vital component of improving groundwater management and assuring sustainable basin management by: • Establishing a safe and sustainable level of groundwater production; • Monitoring coastal water quality and seawater intrusion; • Monitoring for potential groundwater contaminants; • Protecting the quality of surface water and recycled water used for groundwater recharge and assuring that such recharge is protective of groundwater quality; and • Assuring that the groundwater basin is managed in full compliance with all relevant laws and regulations. 4.2 GROUNDWATER MONITORING OCWD collects samples and analyzes water elevation and water quality data from approximately 400 District -owned monitoring wells (shown in Figure 4-1) as well as between 200 and 220 privately -owned and publically-owned large and small system drinking water wells that are part of OCWD's Title 22 program, shown in Figure 4-2. OCWD also has access agreements to sample a number of non -District -owned monitoring wells and privately -owned irrigation, domestic and industrial wells, shown in Figure 4-3. Inactive wells are included in District monitoring programs when feasible. An inactive well is defined as a well that is not currently being routinely operated but is capable of being made an operating well with a minimum of effort. The number and location of wells that are sampled change regularly as new wells come online and old ones are abandoned and destroyed. The District collects, stores, and uses data from wells owned and sampled by other agencies. For example, data collected by the Water Replenishment District of Southern California from wells in Los Angeles County along the Orange County boundary are part of the network of wells evaluated to determine annual groundwater elevations and are used for basin modeling. Another example is a network of wells that are owned and operated by the U.S. Navy for remediation of contamination plumes in the cities of Irvine, Seal Beach and Tustin. Wells sampled under various monitoring programs change in response to fluctuations in the number of available wells, basin conditions, observed water quality, and regulatory and non - regulatory requirements. A comprehensive list of all wells in OCWD's database can be found in Appendix E. This list includes well name, owner, type of well, casing sequence number, depth, screened interval, and aquifer zone monitored, when known. In some cases well depth and screened intervals are listed on the data base as unknown but these wells are included because water quality or elevation data continues to be collected by the owner or operator and this data and used in a OCWD monitoring program, in groundwater OCWD Groundwater Management Plan 2015 Update Section 4 Water Supply Monitoring modeling, or other basin program. Wells on the list also include inactive wells when water quality or water elevation data continues to be collected or the data is utilized in one or more current basin program. The list includes wells located outside of District boundaries. These are included for a number of reasons. For example, all wells that are related to operation of the Alamitos Barrier that are located in Los Angeles County are monitored by OCWD in managing seawater intrusion along the Orange County -Los Angeles County border. Los Angeles County wells are also used to model the Orange County Groundwater Basin as groundwater flow is unrestricted across the __ county line. In other cases, �\ �X'��o"��'i a new well that is under N W+�E S 0 10,000 20.000 Feel Figure 4-1: OCWD-Owned Monitoring Wells Comprehensive water quality monitoring programs fall roughly into three categories: (1) compliance with permits and drinking water regulations, (2) basin management, and (3) projects for research and other purposes. Water quality samples and water level data are collected at frequencies necessary for short- and long-term trend analyses, for analysis of the basin as a whole and to focus on local or sub -regional investigations. Thresholds that trigger a change in a monitoring program include (1) a recommendation by the GWRS Independent Advisory Panel (see explanation in Section 6) for resampling or increased OCWD Groundwater Management Plan 2015 Update construction appears on 7.7 the list but the well depth N and screened intervals ' • ` + `"%�' have yet to be incorporated into the •• r~ T WRMS database. �' • Groundwater sampling is • • i ® conducted in accordance • with ASTM protocols or • • ' their functional equivalent • �`"�. (ASTM D4448 - 01(2013), • '` " ~;+� Standard Guide for ® * Sampling Ground -Water •moo ° 41 Monitoring Wells). r.•. { ;' l;f�li ; Groundwater elevation and monthly production F •,' `. ` ` data are used to quantify ; total basin pumping, evaluate seasonal �, •` .` OCWD Monitoring Well • V • groundwater level • OCWD Muhiport Monitoring Well OCWD Boundary fluctuations and assess basin storage conditions. Figure 4-1: OCWD-Owned Monitoring Wells Comprehensive water quality monitoring programs fall roughly into three categories: (1) compliance with permits and drinking water regulations, (2) basin management, and (3) projects for research and other purposes. Water quality samples and water level data are collected at frequencies necessary for short- and long-term trend analyses, for analysis of the basin as a whole and to focus on local or sub -regional investigations. Thresholds that trigger a change in a monitoring program include (1) a recommendation by the GWRS Independent Advisory Panel (see explanation in Section 6) for resampling or increased OCWD Groundwater Management Plan 2015 Update Section 4 Water Supply Monitoring monitoring of a particular constituent of concern; (2) a recommendation by the Independent Advisory Panel that reviews OCWD use of Santa Ana River water for groundwater recharge and related water quality; (3) a change in regulation or anticipation of a change in regulation; (4) a constituent in a sample approaches or exceeds a regulatory water quality limit or Maximum Contaminant Level, notification level, or first time detection of a constituent; (5) the computer program built by OCWD to validate water quality data prior to transfer to ;ea the WRMS data base flags a variation in historical data that may indicate a statistically significant change in f S!e fI r• ' � � ,, ;�-6� � ��.�--- water quality; (6) analysis analysis of water quality Q � 01% 8 Q trends conducted b y e water quality, e0 hydrogeology, or < recycled water ,• �; d 0��ees production staff indicate ;' a need to change monitoring; and (7) e OCWD initiates a special study, such as quantifying the removal of contaminants using N �'�•., ,.',. '`: ¢ "+gip, treatment wetlands or W E testing the infiltration rate ACtivO Drinking of a proposed new qt D`oo • �� Large -System Water Well q Active Small -System Drinking Water Well recharge basin. J20.000 � Feei —_ .� OCWD Boundary Figure 4-2: Large and Small System Drinking Water Wells in Title 22 Monitoring Program 4.2.1 Groundwater Production Monitoring All entities that pump groundwater from the basin are required by the District Act to report production every six months and pay a Replenishment Assessment. Private individual well owners pumping less than one acre-foot a year pay an annual flat fee instead of the Replenishment Assessment and do not have to report their production. Approximately 200 large -capacity municipal and privately -owned supply wells account for ninety-seven percent of production. Large -capacity well owners report monthly groundwater production for each of their wells. The production volumes are verified by OCWD field staff. Production data are used to manage basin storage and collect revenues. OCWD Groundwater Management Plan 2015 Update Section 4 Water Supply Monitoring N Inactwe Production Well 0 10 000 20.000qOther Active Production Well Feet iC*D Boundary Figure 4-3: Private Domestic, Irrigation, and Industrial Wells in OCWD Monitoring Programs 4.2.2 Groundwater Elevation Monitoring Production and monitoring wells in the basin are measured for groundwater elevation at varying intervals, as explained below: • Water elevation measurements are collected for every OCWD monitoring well at least once a year with some wells measured bi-weekly; • Monitoring of municipal wells may be conducted more frequently depending on well maintenance, abandonment, new well construction, and related factors; • Over 1,000 individual measuring points are monitored for water levels on a monthly or bi-monthly basis to evaluate short-term effects of pumping, recharge or injection operations; and • Additional monitoring is done as needed in the vicinity of OCWD's recharge facilities, seawater barriers, and areas of special investigation where drawdown, water quality impacts or contamination are of concern. Beginning in 2011, OCWD began reporting seasonal groundwater elevation measurements to the Department of Water Resources (DWR) as part of the California Statewide Groundwater OCWD Groundwater Management Plan 2015 Update L® ® � s fi'• ti o s � S y� s� ti i m A G B N Inactwe Production Well 0 10 000 20.000qOther Active Production Well Feet iC*D Boundary Figure 4-3: Private Domestic, Irrigation, and Industrial Wells in OCWD Monitoring Programs 4.2.2 Groundwater Elevation Monitoring Production and monitoring wells in the basin are measured for groundwater elevation at varying intervals, as explained below: • Water elevation measurements are collected for every OCWD monitoring well at least once a year with some wells measured bi-weekly; • Monitoring of municipal wells may be conducted more frequently depending on well maintenance, abandonment, new well construction, and related factors; • Over 1,000 individual measuring points are monitored for water levels on a monthly or bi-monthly basis to evaluate short-term effects of pumping, recharge or injection operations; and • Additional monitoring is done as needed in the vicinity of OCWD's recharge facilities, seawater barriers, and areas of special investigation where drawdown, water quality impacts or contamination are of concern. Beginning in 2011, OCWD began reporting seasonal groundwater elevation measurements to the Department of Water Resources (DWR) as part of the California Statewide Groundwater OCWD Groundwater Management Plan 2015 Update Section 4 Water Supply Monitoring Elevation Monitoring (CASGEM) program. The CASGEM program was created by DWR in response to legislation passed in 2009 (SBx7-6). This amendment to the California Water Code required DWR to develop a statewide groundwater elevation monitoring program to track seasonal and long-term trends in groundwater elevations in California's groundwater basins. The CASGEM program aims to improve management of groundwater resources by establishing a permanent, locally- managed program of regular and ® systematic monitoring in all of California's • ,=` alluvial groundwater basins M-1 j ell gel �`�• �' Manilo[ing Well 8 �,•� i • Multiport Manitonng Well 0 10.000 20.000 V Other Active P.&dion Well ' OCVVD Boundary Figure 4-4: Wells in CASGEM Program 4.2.3 Water Quality Moniton, y OCWD monitors water quality in production wells on behalf of the Groundwater Producers for compliance with state and federal drinking water regulations (Figure 4-5). Samples are analyzed for more than 100 regulated and unregulated chemicals at frequencies established by regulation as shown in Table 4-1. The total number of water samples analyzed per year varies year-to-year due to regulatory requirements, conditions in the basin and applied research and/or special study demands. In 2014, over 17,000 samples were collected by the Water Quality Department and analyzed at OCWD's state - certified Water Quality Assurance Laboratory, of which 24% were for drinking water. OCWD has been designated as the Monitoring Entity for the Orange County Groundwater Basin. A Monitoring Entity is a local agency that voluntarily takes responsibility for coordinating groundwater level monitoring and reporting for all or part of a groundwater basin. Wells monitored under the CASGEM program are listed in Appendix E. The monitoring network consists of monitoring stations distributed laterally and vertically throughout the Orange County Groundwater Basin as well as the La Habra Subbasin as shown in Figure 4-4. Federal and State Drinking Water Standards The Federal Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) directs the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to set health - based standards (Maximum Contaminant Levels or MCLs) for drinking water to protect public health against both naturally - occurring and man-made contaminants. EPA establishes MCLs for bacteriological, inorganic, organic, and radiological constituents. California administers and enforces the federal program and has adopted its own SDWA, which may contain more stringent state requirements. The regulations implementing the California SDWA are referred to as the Title 22 Drinking Water Standards. OCWD Groundwater Management Plan 2015 Update 4-5 Section 4 Water Supply Monitoring Table 4-1: Monitoring of Regulated and Unregulated Chemicals CA SWRCB Division of Drinking Water Title 22 Drinking Water: Groundwater Source Monitoring Frequency - Regulated Chemicals Chemical Class Frequency Monitoring Notes Inorganic - General Minerals Once every 3 years Inorganic - Trace Metals Once every 3 years Nitrate and nitrite Annually New wells sampled quarterly for 1st year Detected > 50% MCL Quarter) Perchlorate New wells sampled quarterly for 1 st year State Detection limit = 4 ppb; OCWD RDL Detected > DLR Quarterly = 2.5 ppb Non -detect at < DLR Once every 3 years Volatile organic chemicals VOC Annually New wells sampled quarterly for 1st year Detected VOC Quarter) New wells sampled quarterly for 1 st year; if Synthetic organic chemicals SOC non -detect, susceptibility waiver for 3 years Must sample 2 consecutive quarters once Simazine Once every 3 years every 3 years New wells sampled quarterly for 1 st year (initial screening) to determine reduced Radiological monitoring frequency for each radionuclide Detected at > 1/2 MCL to MCL Once every 3 years Per radionuclide Detected at > DLR < 1/2 MCL Once every 6 years Per radionuclide Non -detect at < DLR Once every 9 years Per radionuclide EPA and DPH Unregulated Chemicals Monitoring completed for existing wells in CDPH : 4 -Inorganic and 5 -Organic 2001- 2003; new wells tested during 1st chemicals year of operation EPA UCMR1 - List 1: 1 -Inorganic and 10 -Organic chemicals Two required GW UCMR1 program completed Jan 2001 - Dec 2003 EPA UCMR1 - List 2: 13 -Organic samples: chemicals (1) Vulnerable period: May -Jun -Jul -Aug -Sep EPA UCMR2 - List 1: 10 Organic (2) 5 to 7 months before chemicals or after the sample collected in the vulnerable UCMR2 program completed Jan 2008 - Dec 2010 EPA UCMR2 - List 2: 15 Organic period. No further testing chemicals after completing the two required sampling events EPA UCMR3 List 1: 7 -Inorganic and All water utilities serving >10,000 people. 14 -Organic chemicals Monitoring period: Jan 2013 - Dec 2015 All water utilities serving population >100,000 and EPA selected systems EPA UCMR3 List 2: 7 -Organic serving <100,000 population. chemicals Hormones Monitoring period: Jan 2013 - Dec 2015 OCWD Groundwater Management Plan 2015 Update 4-6 Figure 4-5: OCWD Staff Collecting Water Sample at Production Well Section 4 Water Supply Monitoring OCWD's water quality monitoring program for drinking water wells includes: • Sampling of each production well (Figure 4-5) every three years (annual sampling of approximately one-third of production wells on a rotating basis) for general minerals, metals and secondary Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) constituents; • Sampling of every production well for volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and nitrates; • Monitoring of production wells when (1) VOCs or perchlorate are detected (2) when nitrate concentrations exceed 50 percent of the primary MCL or (3) constituents exceed the secondary MCL; • Testing for selected chemicals on the unregulated lists, chemicals with Notification Levels or new chemicals of concern at varying frequencies; • Monitoring of newly -constructed wells for synthetic organic chemicals (SOCs) for four consecutive quarters to provide seasonal data for the California Division of Drinking Water and determining long- term monitoring frequencies; and • Collecting and analyzing 1,161 samples in 2013 and 2014 to comply with the Federal Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Rule Phase 3. Monitoring for Unregulated Chemicals EPA and the California Division of Drinking Water require monitoring for specified, unregulated chemicals. These are chemicals that do not have an established drinking water standard, but are new priority chemicals of concern. Monitoring provides information regarding their occurrence and levels detected in drinking water supply wells as the first assessment step to determine if the establishment of a standard (MCL) is necessary. Wells must be sampled twice within 12 months to comply with the unregulated chemical monitoring rules. Monitoring under the Federal Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Rule Phase 1 and Phase 2 was completed in 2003 and 2010, respectively. Monitoring for the Federal Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Rule Phase 3 began in January 2013 to be completed by December 2015. OCWD Groundwater Management Plan 2015 Update Section 4 Water Supply Monitoring 4.2.4 Monitoring of Groundwater Contamination Plumes v' WMALVERN AVE < w - - CNAPMANAVE � COMMONW FA LT VALENCIA DR '✓VALES a • A+ m n — ®+ R0� R + m SOI Nq�e S Active Large -System Production VAll ORANGEAVE µS0U,H5t 9 Active Small -System PrOdWt Well ® Inactive Produc ion Well Monnaring Mll ANLL RC S Other Active P,WdU I- Well J w r a z� sem �FM Figure 4-6: North Basin Groundwater Protection Program Monitoring Wells • M4M 5T Nsrw �4P F<�� N �w w �e P Or / • � qS�o 3 a ° OYf R Rn 9 Active Large -System Production Well M1 Cathodic Protection Well -. m® Inactive Production Well*/ Monitoring Well • Multiport Monitoring Well 0 ,.500 3.000 M1 Other Active Production Well �reo Figure 4-7: South Basin Groundwater Protection Program Monitoring Wells In response to the discovery of VOCs in the mid-1980s, OCWD developed a comprehensive program to monitor contaminated groundwater in the basin. This extensive monitoring program led to the discovery of the former EI Toro Marine Corps Air Station solvent plumes located in the City of Irvine. Continued monitoring and installation of additional monitoring wells also resulted in the discovery of two large plumes of contaminated groundwater, one located in the north part of the basin in the Anaheim/ Fullerton area and the other located in the south part of the basin in the City of Santa Ana. Groundwater contamination in these areas is the result of industrial activities, some dating back to the 1950s and 1960s. OCWD has and continues to work with the appropriate regulatory agencies overseeing identified sites that have contributed to groundwater contamination. OCWD has also embarked on developing projects to hydraulically contain and eventually clean up the contaminated groundwater. The northern and southern regions of contaminated groundwater are being addressed by the District's North and South Basin Groundwater Protection Programs, respectively. These projects are described in Section 8. The current groundwater monitoring networks developed for these projects are shown in Figures 4-6 and 4-7. OCWD Groundwater Management Plan 2015 Update Section 4 Water Supply Monitoring 4.2.5 Monitoring for Seawater Intrusion Continual monitoring of groundwater near the coast is done to assess the effectiveness of the Alamitos and Talbert Barriers and track salinity levels in the Bolsa and Sunset Gaps. Over 425 monitoring and production wells are sampled semi-annually to assess water quality conditions during periods of lowest (winter) and peak production (summer). As explained in Section 7, the Alamitos Seawater Intrusion Barrier, located along the border of Los Angeles and Orange Counties, is jointly operated by OCWD and the Los Angeles County Department of Public Works (LACDPW). LACDPW maintains and samples all barrier monitoring and injection wells including those owned by OCWD. Data is shared between the two agencies with a joint report on the status of barrier operations prepared on an annual basis. Water levels are measured monthly in many of the coastal wells to evaluate seasonal effects of pumping and the operation of the injection barrier, as shown in Figure 4-8. A small subset of coastal wells is equipped with pressure transducers and data loggers for twice daily measurement and recording of water levels. Figure 4-8: Seawater Intrusion Monitoring Wells OCWD Groundwater Management Plan 2015 Update Key groundwater monitoring parameters used to determine the effectiveness of the barriers include water level elevations, chloride, TDS, electrical conductivity, and bromide. Groundwater elevation contour maps for the aquifers most susceptible to seawater intrusion are prepared to evaluate whether or not the freshwater mound developed by the barrier injection wells is sufficient to prevent the inland movement of saline water. Section 4 Water Supply Monitoring RECYCLED WATER MONITORING Recycled water produced by the GWRS is used for injection into the Talbert Seawater Intrusion Barrier and for groundwater recharge, as described in Section 6. Use of GWRS water is regulated by the State Water Resources Control Board — Santa Ana Region and the Division of Drinking Water. Similar monitoring is performed at the WRD-owned Leo J. Vander Lans Advanced Water Treatment Facility that supplies recycled water to the Alamitos Seawater Barrier for injection. GWRS product water is monitored daily, weekly, and quarterly for general minerals, metals, organics, and microbiological constituents as summarized in Table 4-2. Focused research -type testing has been conducted on organic contaminants and selected microbial species. Table 4-2: Groundwater Replenishment System Product Water Quality Monitoring CATEGORY TESTING FREQUENCY General Minerals mommy Nitrogen Species (NO3, NO2, NH3, Org-N) twice weekly TDS weekly Metals quarterly Inorganic Chemicals quarterly Microbial daily Total Organic Carbon (TOC) daily Non-volatile Synthetic Organic Compounds (SOCs) quarterly Disinfection Byproducts quarterly Radioactivity quarterly Emerging Constituents quarterly To comply with the permit to operate the GWRS, groundwater samples are taken from 35 monitoring wells at nine sites to monitor GWRS water after percolation or injection. Samples are also taken from additional wells downgradient and along the groundwater flow path to collect data for long-term analysis of the effect of using GWRS supply for groundwater recharge. The location of these wells is shown in Figure 4-9. Because of the low concentration of salts in GWRS water, OCWD initiated a Metals Mobilization Study to analyze for trace metals in selected wells near and downgradient of basins used for recharge of GWRS water. The GWRS Independent Advisory Panel recommended this study to evaluate the potential of GWRS water to alter existing groundwater geochemical equilibria, such as causing metals currently bound to aquifer sediments to be released when GWRS water mixes with an aquifer matrix that is in equilibrium with the ambient groundwater. OCWD Groundwater Management Plan 2015 Update Section 4 Water Supply Monitoring OCWD is investigating the feasibility of injecting 100 percent GWRS water directly into the Principal Aquifer in the central part of the basin. The Mid -Basin Injection Demonstration Project consists of a test injection well (MBI -1) along with seven nearby monitoring wells (SAR-10/1-4 and SAR-11/1-3) located approximately three miles north of the Talbert Barrier, along the GWRS pipeline at the Santa Ana River and Edinger Avenue in Santa Ana. Figure 4-9: GWRS Monitoring Wells SURFACE WATER MONITORING Ambient water quality conditions are monitored in the vicinity of the demonstration project to establish a water quality baseline to evaluate the potential of metals mobilization upon injection of GWRS water and to access any other water quality changes should they occur once injection of GWRS water at the site commences. Quarterly samples are taken and analyzed for microbial, general minerals, trace metals, semi -volatile organic compounds, and radiological constituents. Data from this Mid -Basin Injection Demonstration Project will support the design and permitting of a future, full-scale project. Surface water from the Santa Ana River is the predominate source of recharge supply for the groundwater basin. As a result, the quality of the surface water has a significant impact on groundwater quality. Several on-going programs monitor the condition of Santa Ana River water. Characterizing the quality of the river and its impact on the basin is necessary to verify the sustainability of continued use of river water for recharge and to safeguard a high-quality drinking water supply for Orange County. OCWD monitoring sites along the river and its tributaries are shown in Figure 4-10. OCWD Groundwater Management Plan 2015 Update 4-11 Section 4 Water Supply Monitoring 4.4.1 Santa Ana River Monitoring OCWD captures and recharges nearly all of the non -storm flow (base flow) in the Santa Ana River that is released through the Prado Dam, which consists predominately of tertiary -treated and disinfected wastewater discharged upstream of Prado Dam. The District assesses the long- term impacts on groundwater quality from use of this water for groundwater recharge. Santa Ana River Water Quality and Health Study The Santa Ana River Water Quality and Health (SARWQH) Study (OCWD, 2004) was a voluntary $10 million eight-year study that applied advanced water quality characterization methods to assess both surface water and related post -recharge groundwater quality. The multi -disciplinary study design included an examination of hydrogeology, microbiology, inorganic and organic water chemistry, toxicology and public health. The organic water chemistry component included an analysis of trace (low concentration) constituents and dissolved organic compound characterization. Research for the SARWQH Study was conducted by scientists, researchers and water quality experts from numerous organizations, including Stanford University, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, USGS, Oregon State University, and Metropolitan Water District of Southern California. National Water Research Institute The NWRI Panel concluded: "Based on the scientific data collected during the SARWQH Study, the Panel found that: "The SAR met all water -quality standards and guidelines that have been published for inorganic and organic contaminants in drinking water. No chemicals of wastewater origin were identified at concentrations that are of public health concern in the SAR, in water in the infiltration basins, or in nearby groundwaters." The constituents that were considered included non- regulated chemicals (e.g., pharmaceutically active chemicals) and contaminants of concern that arose during the course of the SARWQH study (e.g., n-Nitrosodimethylamine [NDMA]). The unprecedented classification of the major components of DOC and the transformations that occur within these chemical classes as water moves downstream and into the aquifer provided significant new evidence to support the conclusion that the product water is suitable for potable consumption and is also becoming comparable to other sources of drinking water, such as the Colorado River, in its organic profile." (NWR1,2004) OCWD Groundwater Management Plan 2015 Update At the request of OCWD, the National Water Research Institute (NWRI) conducted an independent review of the results from the SARWQH Study. NWRI assembled a group of experts in the fields of hydrogeology, water chemistry, microbiology, and the other requisite fields to form the Scientific Advisory Panel. This Panel met annually during the study to review the results and provide recommendations on future work. The results affirmed that OCWD recharge practices using Santa Ana River water are protective of public health, but that continued adaptive monitoring would be necessary. Findings from the SARWQH Study provided information necessary for the planning and permitting of other OCWD projects, such as the GWRS. I� z o e � \ O i 7 S Section 4 Water Supply Monitoring w SAR-WATERMAN-011 ♦ r '� t,� SAR-RI I BAR -LA CADENA-01 WR -RIX I. ' EEAVE-_ SA4 RNARCIN(Y, �i RIVERS"' tUo SCK-CUCAMONGA-02 T Aj" f SAR ETIWSAR.MISSION ANOA SAR-MWOXING { _ 71066460 T ^ r CK -MILL Q1 MR-HAMNE-RI01 RN¢1 SAR.VANBUREN-01 CN CHINO -03 •8P CIII IIU / HIII+ OIV.PRADOW TLNDS-Ot SAR-RIVERRO-Q1 PRAoo i SAR-RELOWPRADODAM 11074000 'CK -TEME5CAL-02 RB-ANAHEIMLAKE-01 _ R-MIRALOMA-01 II R B -MILLER -01 - RS -K RA E M E R -01 .SAR -IMPERIAL- 01 LAKE �r..a h1ATHEW 5 m RS-SANTfAGO_-01 -ti 'i • 1 = r y IRVINE"' { T J LAKE r - N - _ _ I � 0 11],000 20.000 Feet • OCWD Surface Water Monitoring Location Stream Gage Location �-� Rep,Md d.0 perm O. grained by THOMAS BROS MAPS ID V- Thoma=Rms 1."ps Allr hh,ese d Figure 4-10: Surface Water Monitoring Locations Santa Ana River Monitoring Program OCWD continues to implement a comprehensive surface and groundwater monitoring program, referred to as the Santa Ana River Monitoring (SARMON) Program that includes an annual review and recommendations by the NWRI SARMON Independent Advisory Panel (IAP). Monitoring activities include sites on the Santa Ana River, Anaheim Lake, Santiago Basin and selected downgradient monitoring wells from the recharge basins to provide data on travel time and to assess water quality changes. On-going monthly surface water monitoring of the Santa Ana River is conducted at Imperial Highway near the diversion of the river to the off -river recharge basins and at a site below Prado Dam. Sampling frequencies for selected river sites and recharge basins are shown in Table 4-3. Several points on the river and key tributaries to the river above Prado Dam, as shown in Figure 4-10 are also monitored annually for general minerals and nutrients. OCWD Groundwater Management Plan 2015 Update Section 4 Water Supply Monitoring Beginning 2015, the monitoring program was revised to shift monthly monitoring from Anaheim Lake to Imperial Highway. As a result of declining base flows in the Santa Ana River, more water is recharged in the riverbed and less is diverted to Anaheim Lake for percolation. Although a site on Temescal Creek is in the sampling program, it was last sampled in 2008 because the site has been dry since 2009. Table 4-3: Surface Water Quality Sampling Frequency within Orange County (A= annual, S= semi-annual, M = monthly, Q = quarterly) 4.4.2 Basin Monitoring Program Annual Report of Santa Ana Water Quality The Basin Monitoring Program Task Force (Task Force) was formed in 1995 to determine and monitor the extent of and to evaluate the impact of increasing concentrations of Total Inorganic Nitrogen (TIN) and Total Dissolved Solids (TDS) in groundwater basins in the Santa Ana River Watershed (see section 9.3 for more details). As a result of this work, the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board requires that the Task Force prepare an annual report of the Santa Ana River water quality. Monitoring locations are shown in Figure 4-11. OCWD Groundwater Management Plan 2015 Update SAR SAR Anaheim Miraloma/ Santiago CATEGORY Below Imperial Lake Kraemer/ Basins Dam Hwy Miller Basin General Minerals M M Q Q M Nutrients M M Q Q M Metals Q Q Q Q Q Microbial M M Q M M Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC) Q M Q Q M Semi -Volatile Organic Compounds Q Q Q Q Q (SOC) Total Organic Halides (TOX) M M Q M Radioactivity Q Q Q Q Q Perchlorate M M Q Q M Chlorate Q M Q Q M NDMA Formation Potential (NDMA-FP)l S Chemicals of Emerging Concern (CEC)2 Q Q Q Q Q Notes' Monitoring for NDMA-FP was conducted monthly at Imperial Highway during 2008 and quarterly between 2009-2012 at Imperial Highway and Anaheim Lake, as well as at two sites at Prado Wetlands (upstream and downstream of the wetland ponds). Since 2015, monitoring occurs at the reduced frequency indicated in the table. 2 Samples from Imperial Highway are tested for a full suite of CECs. The other sites are tested for a reduced list of analytes. 4.4.2 Basin Monitoring Program Annual Report of Santa Ana Water Quality The Basin Monitoring Program Task Force (Task Force) was formed in 1995 to determine and monitor the extent of and to evaluate the impact of increasing concentrations of Total Inorganic Nitrogen (TIN) and Total Dissolved Solids (TDS) in groundwater basins in the Santa Ana River Watershed (see section 9.3 for more details). As a result of this work, the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board requires that the Task Force prepare an annual report of the Santa Ana River water quality. Monitoring locations are shown in Figure 4-11. OCWD Groundwater Management Plan 2015 Update Section 4 Water Supply Monitoring Xi --n �Cn r nw ' �-� ntoreno vauy - y4 c,: -7—r tr Legend . HCMP SAee C OCWO SHes 2VL e � uSGS SIIes 5a ita nna River r .� J.� Figure 4-11: Basin Monitoring Program Task Force Monitoring Locations $.4.3 Santa Ana River Watermaster Monitoring The Santa Ana River Watermaster produces an annual report in fulfillment of requirements of the Stipulated Judgment in the case of Orange County Water District v. City of Chino, et.al., Case No. 117628 -County of Orange, entered by the court on April 17, 1969. The Judgment settled water rights between entities in the Lower Area of the Santa Ana River Basin downstream of Prado Dam against those in the Upper Area tributary to Prado Dam. The court- appointed Watermaster Committee consists of representatives of four public entities who are responsible for fulfilling the obligations in the Judgment. These four are the Orange County Water District representing the Lower Area and San Bernardino Municipal Water District, Western Municipal Water District, and the Inland Empire Utilities Agency, representing the Upper Area. The Watermaster annually compiles the basin hydrologic and water quality data necessary to determine compliance with the provisions of the Judgment. The data include records of stream discharge (flow) and quality for the Santa Ana River at Prado Dam and at Riverside Narrows as well as discharges for most tributaries; flow and quality of non -tributary water entering the river; rainfall records at locations in or adjacent to the watershed; and other data that may be used to support the determinations of the Watermaster. Data collected by the USGS at two gaging stations, "Santa Ana River Below Prado" and "Santa Ana River at Metropolitan Water District Crossing" are used. Discharge data at both stations consists of computed daily mean discharges based on continuous recordings and daily OCWD Groundwater Management Plan 2015 Update Section 4 Water Supply Monitoring maximum and minimum and mean values for electrical conductivity (EC) measured as specific conductance and twice monthly measured values for total dissolved solids. Stream gage data collected by the USGS at the following gaging stations are also used: Santa Ana River at E Street in San Bernardino, Chino Creek at Schaefer Avenue, Cucamonga Creek near Mira Loma, and Temescal Creek in the City of Corona. Precipitation data is collected at the USGS Gilbert Street Gage in San Bernardino and by OCWD in Orange County. .1t.1t Metropoinan vvater uistnci imporzeu vvaier Imported water purchased by the District from the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (MWD) is monitored for general minerals, nutrients and other selected constituents. The District may also monitor metals, volatile organics and semi -volatile organics (e.g., pesticides and herbicides). MWD performs its own comprehensive monitoring and provides data to the District upon request. 4.4.5 Prado Wetlands Flow into and out of the District's Prado Basin wetlands are monitored to evaluate changes in water quality and to evaluate the effectiveness of the wetlands treatment. More details concerning the operation of the Prado Wetlands can be found in Section 8.5. OCWD has been monitoring the Prado Wetlands since 1998. Water samples are analyzed for field parameters, biological, inorganic, and organic constituents. Research is currently being conducted at the Prado site to evaluate alternative methods of wetlands treatment. A.6 Emerging Constituents OCWD participates in a watershed -wide Emerging Constituents Monitoring Program administered by SAWPA. This group was formed in 2010 to characterize emerging constituents in 1) municipal wastewater effluents, 2) the Santa Ana River at various locations, and 3) imported water. Three years of testing (2011-2013) were completed as directed by the Regional Water Board (R8-2009-0071). OCWD monitored two sites twice a year on the Santa Ana River for this program. Future testing may be conducted after completion of a statewide program currently being developed by the SWRCB. OCWD monitors two surface water sites quarterly on the Santa Ana River and at various locations within District recharge facilities below Prado Dam. Samples are analyzed for pharmaceuticals, endocrine disruptors and other emerging constituents such as personal care products, food additives, and pesticides. In addition, OCWD samples for CECs at the diversion into the Prado Wetlands once during the winter and fall and monthly from spring through summer as part of a focused study with ReNUWit (see Prado POWUP Project described in Section 4.4.7). The District also conducts a groundwater monitoring program testing for representative constituents as described in Section 8.8. OCWD Groundwater Management Plan 2015 Update Section 4 Water Supply Monitoring 4.4.7 Special Surface Water Studies OCWD conducts additional water quality studies as needed. Current studies are described below. ,ediment Removal Studies One of the key impediments to maximizing the recharge capacity of the surface water system is clogging, which is primarily caused by the deposition of silts and clays in the recharge basins. An extensive research project was conducted to evaluate various methods that could be used to reduce or remove the suspended sediments from surface water prior to recharge. The two methods that were identified for additional demonstration -scale testing were Riverbed and Cloth Filtration, which are discussed in Section 5.6. GWRS Focused Studies and Membrane Testin These studies evaluate treatment removal efficiencies and membrane integrity assessment (new and old membranes), focusing on specific water quality assessments and may include use of external contract lab support for specific process points to aid in possibly obtaining greater removal credit for the GWRS treatment system. Prado POWUP Project Prado Open Water Unit Process Wetlands (POWUP) Research Project is funded by the National Science Foundation. OCWD is conducting this project with ReNUWIt (Re -inventing the Nation's Urban Water Infrastructure) and four primary member institutions (Stanford University, UC -Berkeley, Colorado School of Mines, and New Mexico State University). OCWD's Prado Wetlands are being used to test how wetlands treatment can be optimized with unit processes in series. The project will test the removal of pharmaceuticals and nitrates from wastewater effluent and effluent -dominated surface waters and assess the overall costs and benefits of alternative constructed wetland treatment systems. WATER RESOURCES MANAGEMENT SYSTEM: DATABASE MANAGEMENT Data collected by OCWD are stored in the District's custom electronic database called the Water Resources Management System (WRMS). WRMS provides a central point of access and storage of hydrologic and hydrogeologic information. The database contains comprehensive well information, current and historical data, as well as information on sub -surface geology, water level and water quality. This database provides for subsequent retrieval and analysis of data or preparation of data reports and data submittals to other agencies. OCWD analyzes and reports data in a number of regular publications as shown in Table 4-4. WRMS is an integrated system that is comprised of four primary components: (1) a relational database management system (RDBMS) using Oracle, (2) a geographic information system OCWD Groundwater Management Plan 2015 Update Section 4 Water Supply Monitoring (GIS) using ArcGIS, (3) a computer-aided drafting system (CAD) using AutoCAD, and (4) a web portal with custom applications to facilitate sharing of data between the systems and to provide an interface for users to enter, report, evaluate and analyze data. WRMS was designed to assist Orange County Water District's engineers and scientists with the management of the groundwater basin. The foundation data set is the location and attributes of wells throughout the basin. Details about existing and historical wells, such as construction information and lithology logs, are stored in the RDBMS. Also stored in WRMS are all the historical and current time -series data, including water levels, water quality, production, and injection data associated with the wells. Additionally, the RDBMS stores information about recharge stations and percolation volumes. Typical applications include: Aerial maps Water elevation contours Maps of basin change in storage Pumping volume Basin volume calculation Seawater intrusion Maps of well location Location of proposed new wells Contamination plume maps Well logs Cross sections Well diagrams and casing details Time series data water level graphs Atlases and reports WRMS provides information in the form of reports and data extraction to agencies on a regular basis, such as: • Orange County Public Health Department • California Department of Water Resources • California Division of Drinking Water • California Regional Water Quality Control Board • California Department of Toxic Substances Control • U.S. Environmental Protection Agency • OCWD Groundwater Producers The CAD applications query data stored in the WRMS assist the end-user in preparation of hydrogeologic graphics. Examples of the types of graphics include geologic cross-sections and stiff diagrams. The GIS component of WRMS provides two primary functions: production of maps and spatial analyses for planning -level studies, and as a pre- and post -processing tool for the numerical groundwater computer model of the groundwater basin. Spatial data used by the GIS includes well locations, recharge basins, water level contours, street networks, as well as additional layers, such as political boundaries. Digital aerial photography is also used for map production work. +.6 WATER SAMPLE COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS OCWD's laboratory, shown in Figure 4-12, is state -certified to perform bacteriological, inorganic, and organic analyses. The District utilizes state -certified contractor laboratories to analyze asbestos, dioxin and radiological samples. Analytical methods approved by the Division of OCWD Groundwater Management Plan 2015 Update Section 4 Water Supply Monitoring Drinking Water and the EPA are used for analyzing water quality samples for the drinking water compliance program. As new chemicals are regulated, the OCWD laboratory develops the analytical capability and becomes certified in the approved method to process compliance samples. The amount of samples analyzed is dynamic, ranging from 600 to 1,700 samples in any given month. In 2014, the lab handled nearly 20,000 samples for a total of 427,000 analytes. Figure 4-12: OCWD Advanced Water Quality Assurance Laboratory Water quality samples are collected in the field in accordance with approved federal and state procedures and industry -recognized quality assurance and control protocols to ensure that sampled water is representative of ambient groundwater or surface water conditions. Analyses for synthetic organic chemicals (SOCs) including tests for herbicides, pesticides, plasticizers, and other semi -volatile organics require use of 12 or more analytical methods. Production wells that provide water for drinking water, irrigation/agriculture and industrial uses generally have well screens located in the permeable, water -bearing zones that may tap multiple aquifers. Therefore, water quality samples collected from these wells may represent water from one or more aquifers with some permeable zones providing a greater contribution than others to the overall water sample. In contrast, monitoring wells are designed and constructed with well screens placed at a specific depth and length to provide water quality at desired zones within an aquifer. Figure 4-13 illustrates the three monitoring well designs used for basin -wide water quality monitoring activities: multi -point, nested and cluster. OCWD Groundwater Management Plan 2015 Update Section 4 Water Supply Monitoring The multi -point well is a Westbay well design that contains a single casing with sampling ports located at specific depths in the underlying aquifers (Figure 4-14). Individual sampling points are hydraulically separated by packers. A computer-assisted sampling probe is used to collect a water sample at the desired depth. The sampling port has direct hydraulic connection between the port and the aquifer, allowing groundwater to flow into a detachable stainless steel sample container. OCWD has more than 50 multi -point wells ranging from a few hundred feet to over 2,000 feet in depth. Sampling the nested and cluster monitoring wells may require purging of 40 to nearly 2,000 gallons of groundwater prior to sample collection. Generally, a truck equipped with one or more Westbay Multipoint submersible pumps and a Well Nested Well Well Cluster portable generator is used to purge and sample groundwater from these wells. Portable submersible pump and reel •L •5 r1 r systems provide additional flexibility to increase the efficiency of sampling monitoring wells without dedicated pumps. ti. One truck is outfitted with a dual y; system of submersible pumps and environmental hoses installed separately on hydraulic booms to sample two wells a simultaneously. Figure 4-13: Monitoring Well Designs Figure 4-14: Westbay Well Schematic OCWD Groundwater Management Plan 2015 Update 4-20 Section 4 Water Supply Monitoring 1,,1 Publication of Data OCWD presents collected data in a number of regular publications listed in Table 4-4. Table 4-4: OCWD Publications Report Publication Frequency Contents Engineer's Report on the Annual Basin hydrology, groundwater conditions, total Groundwater Conditions, Water groundwater production, groundwater levels, Supply and Basin Utilization in coastal groundwater conditions, calculation water in the Orange County Water storage, imported water purchases; required by District District Act Santa Ana River Water Quality Annual Surface water quality data for Santa Ana River Monitoring Report Groundwater Replenishment Annual Data related to the operation of the GWRS and System Annual Report Talbert Seawater Intrusion Barrier; required by RWQCB permit Santa Ana River Watermaster Annual Amounts of Santa Ana River flows at Prado Dam Report and Riverside Narrows; required by 1969 stipulated judgment Report on Groundwater Periodically Total amount of recharge to basin, including natural Recharge recharge, managed aquifer recharge, source of recharge water, & recharge facility performance GROUNDWATER AND SURFACE WATER INTERACTIONS Frequent and destructive flooding of the Santa Ana River in Orange County was the impetus for construction of the Prado Dam in 1941. Prior to the construction of flood control facilities, the banks of the Santa Ana River naturally overflowed periodically and flooded broad areas of Orange County as seen in Figure 4-15. Coastal marshes were inundated during winter storms and the mouth of the river moved both northward and southward of its present location. In the days before flood control, surface water naturally percolated into the groundwater basin, replenishing groundwater supplies. Subsequent flood protection efforts included construction of levees along the river with concrete -lined bottoms along portions of the river. Flood risk was reduced, increased pumping of groundwater lowered water levels and low-lying areas were filled in for development. Today, groundwater levels throughout Orange County are low enough that the rising and lowering of groundwater levels do not impact surface water flows or ecosystems. From Prado Dam to Imperial Highway, the wide soft -bottomed channel supports riparian habitats. Riparian habitat is dependent on river water released through Prado Dam, which is predominantly treated wastewater discharged in the upper watershed when storm flow is not OCWD Groundwater Management Plan 2015 Update Section 4 Water Supply Monitoring present. In aggregate, this stretch is generally considered to be in equilibrium between surface water and groundwater based on available stream gage data, although some infiltration may occur due to groundwater pumping in the vicinity of Green River Golf Course. From Imperial Highway to 17th Street in Santa Ana, the river is a losing reach with surface water percolating into groundwater. OCWD conducts recharge operations within the soft -bottomed river channel except for a portion of the river where the Riverview Golf Course occupies the river channel. The river levees are constructed of either rip -rap or concrete. Figure 4-15: Santa Ana River in Orange County, 1938 Courtesy of the Anaheim Public Library From 17th Street to near Adams Avenue in Costa Mesa, the river channel is concrete -lined for flood control with sloping concrete side levees and a concrete bottom. From Adams Avenue to the coast, the channel has concrete side walls or rip -rap for flood control and a soft bottom. Estuary conditions within the concrete channel exist at the mouth of the river where the ocean encroaches at high tide. The tidal prism extends approximately from the ocean to the Adams Avenue Bridge. There are no surface water bodies within the boundaries of OCWD that are dependent on groundwater. Therefore, there are no groundwater dependent ecosystems issues in the Orange County Groundwater Basin. Some areas in the basin experience relatively high groundwater levels due to perched groundwater where shallow groundwater is impeded from flowing into deeper groundwater by a layer of low -permeable clay known as an aquitard. Except in very low-lying areas near sea level, the high groundwater is not close enough to the surface to support hydrophilic vegetation. OCWD carefully monitors water levels in the vicinity of the Talbert Seawater Barrier in order to maintain injection well rates to assure that groundwater levels do not rise to levels that will threaten urban infrastructure. OCWD Groundwater Management Plan 2015 Update MANAGEMENT AND OPERATION OF RECHARGE FACILITIES Routine basin maintenance at Anaheim Lake Management of recharge facilities to maximize groundwater recharge includes the following: Sources of Recharge Water Supplies • Santa Ana River • Recycled water • Imported water • Precipitation Facilities Operations • 23 recharge facilities with storage capacity of approximately 26,000 acre-feet • Volume of recharge estimated monthly Recharge Studies and Evaluations • Recharge Enhancement Working Group evaluates plans to maximize efficiency of system and develop concepts for increasing recharge capacity • Recharge Facilities Model developed to project additional recharge for potential new projects • Several studies evaluate future Santa Ana River flows Section 5 Management and Operation of Recharge Facilities SECTION 5 MANAGEMENTAND OPERATION OF RECHARGE FACILITIES ti 1 HISTORY OF RECHARGE OPERATIONS Replenishing the groundwater basin, through natural and artificial means, is essential to support pumping from the basin. Although the amount of recharge and basin pumping may not be the same each year, over the long-term recharge needs to approximately equal total pumping. Recharge water sources include water from the Santa Ana River and tributaries, imported water, and recycled water supplied by the Groundwater Replenishment System as well as incidental recharge from precipitation and subsurface inflow. OCWD owns over 1,500 acres of land on which there are 1,067 wetted acres of recharge facilities. These facilities are located in the Forebay of the groundwater basin adjacent to the Santa Ana River (Figure 5-1) and Santiago Creek. Managed aquifer recharge began in the 1930s, in response to declining water levels in the basin. Shortly after its formation in 1933, OCWD, in cooperation with the Orange County Flood OCWD Groundwater Management Plan 2015 Update 5-1 Section 5 Management and Operation of Recharge Facilities Control District (OCFCD) began experimenting with methods to increase the percolation capacity of the Santa Ana River Channel. Successful experiments included removing vegetation and re -sculpting the river bank and river bottom. The District began purchasing portions of the river channel, eventually acquiring six miles of the channel in Orange County, in order to maximize the recharge of Santa Ana River water to the basin. Recharge of imported water began in 1949 when OCWD began purchasing Colorado River water from the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (MWD). In 1958, OCWD purchased and excavated a 64 -acre site one mile from the Santa Ana River to create Anaheim Lake, OCWD's first recharge basin (Figure 5-2). Expansion of the surface water recharge system has continued to the present time; today OCWD operates a network of 25 facilities that recharge an average of over 230,000 afy. Although the surface water system provides the largest source of recharge to the basin, recharge from the seawater barriers is also an important source of recharge. Figure 5-2: Anaheim Lake and Mini Anaheim Lake, in foreground with Miller and Kraemer Basins in background OCWD Groundwater Management Plan 2015 Update Section 5 Management and Operation of Recharge Facilities 5.2 SOURCES OF RECHARGE WATER SUPPLIES Water supplies used to recharge the groundwater basin are listed in Table 5-1. Figure 5-3 and Table 5-2 show the average annual recharge by source between Water Years 2009-10 and 2013-14. Table 5-1: Sources of Recharge Water Supplies Supply Sources and Description Recharge Location Base Flow Perennial flows from the upper Santa Ana River, watershed in Santa Ana River; recharge basins, and predominately treated wastewater Santiago Creek Santa Ana discharges River Storm Flow Precipitation from upper Santa Ana River, watershed flowing in Santa Ana recharge basins, and River through Prado Dam Santiago Creek Storm Flow/ Storm flows in Santiago Creek Santiago Creek, Santiago Santa Ana River and Santa Ana River water Santa Ana River, Creek pumped from Burris Basin via recharge basins Santiago Pipeline Precipitation and Precipitation and runoff from Basin -wide Natural subsurface inflow Orange County foothills, Recharge subsurface inflow from basin boundaries Groundwater Advanced treated wastewater Injected into Talbert Replenishment produced at GWRS plant in Barrier; recharged in System Fountain Valley Kraemer, Miller, and Miraloma basins Recycled Water Water Water purified at the Leo J. Injected into Alamitos Replenishment Vander Lans Treatment Facility in Barrier District of Long Beach Southern CA Untreated State Water Project and Colorado Various recharge River Aqueduct basins Imported Water Treated State Water Project and Colorado Injected into Talbert River Aqueduct treated at Diemer and Alamitos Barriers Water Treatment Plant OCWD Groundwater Management Plan 2015 Update 5-3 Section 5 Management and Operation of Recharge Facilities J Santa Ana River Base Flow J Storm Flow __j Imported Water iJ Recycled Water .J In -Lieu Program 1 Incidental Recharge In -Lieu Progra Figure 5-3: Five Year Average Recharge by Source Water Year 2009-10 to 2013-14 Table 5-2: Annual Recharge by Source, Water Year 2009-10 to 2013-14 (acre-feet per year) Water Year Santa Ana River Imported Water Recycled Water In lieu Recharge Incidental Recharge Total Base Storm Flow Flow 2009-10 103,000 59,000 22,000 67,000 0 83,000 334,000 2010-11 104,000 78,000 29,000 67,000 10,000 94,000 382,000 2011-12 95,000 32,000 42,000 72,000 31,000 27,000 299,000 2012-13 85,000 18,000 41,000 73,000 0 20,000 237,000 2013-14 65,000 25,000 53,000 66,000 0 32,000 241,000 Average 90,000 42,000 37,000 69,000 8,000 51,000 298,000 Average % 30% 14% 13% 23% 3% 17% 100% Notes: (1) "Storm Water" includes total storm flow recharged in both the Santa Ana River and Santiago Creek, a tributary of the Santa Ana River (2) "Imported water" includes water used for Alamitos and Talbert Barriers, water purchased by and recharged by OCWD, MET CUP supply and MET CUP in lieu supply recharged in the Forebay. OCWD Groundwater Management Plan 2015 Update Section 5 Management and Operation of Recharge Facilities 5.2.1 Santa 4.na River The Santa Ana River begins in the San Bernardino Mountains and flows through the Prado Dam to Orange County, as shown in Figure 5-4. The dam was built by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (the Corps) in 1941 "for flood control and other purposes." Water from the Santa Ana River is the primary source of water used to recharge the groundwater basin. Downstream of the dam, OCWD diverts river water into recharge facilities where the water percolates into the groundwater basin. A 1969 legal settlement between OCWD and all upper watershed parties requires that a minimum of 42,000 afy of Santa Ana River base flows reach the Prado Dam. Since the 1973, base flow has exceeded the legal minimum, reaching a maximum of over 158,000 acre-feet in 1999. In July 2009, the State Water Resources Control Board approved Water Rights Permit No. 21243, which provides OCWD the right to divert and recharge up to 362,000 afy of Santa Ana River flows. District recharge facilities are capable of recharging nearly all of the base flow. OCWD also has rights to all storm flows that reach Prado Dam. When storm flows exceed the capacity of the diversion facilities, river water reaches the ocean and this portion is lost as a water supply. Storing water behind Prado Dam significantly increases the amount of stormwater that OCWD is able to recharge into the groundwater basin. A d �o N -11) 1 /` W t6 }E T 5 0 5 10 kq'i" = Santa Ana Rrver Watershed Boundary 4^� OCWD Boundary Santa Ana R, Figure 5-4: Santa Ana River Watershed OCWD Groundwater Management Plan 2015 Update 5-5 Section 5 Management and Operation of Recharge Facilities In the 1960s, the Corps began working with OCWD to temporarily store storm water behind the dam. When rates of release through the dam are closely matched to the downstream diversion capacity, OCWD is able to maximize capture of this water supply and minimize the flow of water to the ocean. However, storing water behind the dam must be managed so as not to jeopardize the primary purpose of the dam for flood control. This is accomplished by limiting the volume of water stored behind the dam to a lower level during the storm season to maintain storage for future storm events. Outside of the storm season, the Corps allows a larger storage volume to be held behind the dam. Agreements between OCWD and the Corps signed in 1994 and 2006 set dam operating procedures to allow temporary storage behind Prado Dam up to an elevation of 498 feet mean sea level (msl) during the flood season (October 1 — February 28), which equates to just under 10,000 acre-feet of storage. During the non -storm season, which extends from March 1 to September 30, the allowable elevation increases to an elevation of 505 feet msl, which equates to just less than 20,000 acre-feet of storage. The areas inundated behind Prado Dam and the storage for the non -storm season and storm season pools are depicted in Figure 5-5. a 7t. Diversion dam �_ Prado Dam water conservation ❑Total flood control capacity Elevation: 566 feet Storage volume: 174,000 acre-feet Temporary storage ®Non -storm season Elevation: 505 feet Storage volume: 20,000 acre-feet — Storm season Elevation: 498 feet Storage volume: 10,000 acre-feet — CORONA Figure 5-5: Area of Inundation and Storage Volume for Water Conservation Pools OCWD Groundwater Management Plan 2015 Update Section 5 Management and Operation of Recharge Facilities Both the base flow and the storm flow in the Santa Ana River vary from year to year as shown in Figure 5-6. Recent trends show a decline in base flow, which may be a result of increased recycling, drought conditions, declining per capita water use, and changing economic conditions in the upper watershed. The volume of storm water that can be recharged into the basin is highly dependent on amount and timing of precipitation in the upper watershed, which is highly variable, as shown in Figure 5-7. Figure 5-8 shows the amount of stormwater captured since 1936. Although storm flow averages approximately 33 percent of the total Santa Ana River flows, only approximately half of that amount is recharged by OCWD. This is primarily because most of the flows that are lost to the ocean occur during relatively brief periods of high releases from Prado Dam that exceed the District's diversion capacity. During dry years, very little water is lost to the ocean; however, in wet years, losses can be great. In water year 1997-98, for example, the District was able to capture and recharge over 74,000 acre-feet of storm flow, but was unable to capture approximately 270,000 acre-feet of storm flow. Acre-feet (x1000) MN 500 400 300 200 100 M 1965-66 1971-72 1977-78 1983-84 1989-90 1995-96 2001-02 2007-08 2013-14 Water Year 1965-66 to 2013-14 (Oct. -Sept.) Figure 5-6: Annual Base and Storm Flow in the Santa Ana River at Prado Dam Source: Santa Ana River Watermaster, 2014 OCWD Groundwater Management Plan 2015 Update Section 5 Management and Operation of Recharge Facilities Precipitation (inches) Accumulative Departure from Average (inches) 50 80 • IIIIIIIIIIIII� Annual Precipitation Average Precipitation 40 ----- --- •---------------------------- 60 • 0 Accumulated Departure From Average 30 -1-- --------- ---------1--------ii c------ ------r------- 40 20 A -E -1111111-11V ------- E ----- ■---- 4--■-1E-1------NA--IF------1---R-0--IF-----\-*f ----0----1 20 10 0 0 -20 194644 19,53-54 1963-64 3973-74 1983-84 19,:%'14 2713-f14 201314 Water Year (Oct -Sep) Figure 5-7: Precipitation at San Bernardino, Water Year (Oct. -Sept.) 1934-35 to 2013-14 Annual Recharge Acre-feet (x1000) 300 250 200 150 100 50 Z Recharged Base Flow Recharged Storm Flow Imported Water GWRS Recycled Water 1936 1943 1950 1957 1964 1971 1978 1985 1992 1999 2006 2013 Year (1936-1990 is Oct -Sept water year, 1991-2014 is July -June Fiscal Year) Figure 5-8: Historical Recharge in Surface Water Recharge System OCWD Groundwater Management Plan 2015 Update Section 5 Management and Operation of Recharge Facilities 5.2.2 Santiago Creek Santiago Creek is the primary drainage for the northwest portion of the Santa Ana Mountains and ultimately drains into the Santa Ana River as shown on Figure 5-9. Water from Santiago Creek and imported water is impounded by Santiago Dam, creating Irvine Lake, which is owned by the Irvine Ranch Water District and Serrano Water District. Downstream of Santiago Dam is Villa Park Dam, which is a flood -control facility owned and operated by the Orange County Flood Control District. OCWD's Santiago Basins are located downstream of Villa Park Dam. These former gravel pits contain a large percentage of the storage capacity within the District's recharge system and can recharge up to approximately 125 cfs. Prior to the early 1990s, the only source of water to Santiago Basins was runoff from Santiago Creek. In the early 1990s, the Burris Basin Pump Station and Santiago Pipeline were constructed, allowing Santa Ana River water to be pumped to Santiago Basins for recharge. Pumped water can also be diverted to the creek downstream of the basins for recharge. With completion of the Santiago Basin Pump Station in 2003, OCWD has the capacity to move water both directions in the Santiago Pipeline. This has allowed for faster draining of Santiago Basins, freeing up storage for stormwater capture and increasing the District's recharge . _ -+ ' capacity. _. pR�vFSz . 01 W e o s.wo B4O00 Fee rs1- 4 by yP 'IA 00 NS d?&k � nNwiftN AV I •` iFS Santiago Pipeline �TMr Villa Park nam Figure 5-9: Santiago Basins and Santiago Creek OCWD Groundwater Management Plan 2015 Update During average rainfall conditions, the District captures and recharges an estimated 50,000 to 70,000 afy of storm flow, with much of this recharge taking place in the Santiago Basins. Some groundwater producers in the general vicinity of the Santiago Basins have low groundwater levels at their production wells when the amount of groundwater in storage declines. This occurs to some extent because the aquifer is relatively thin in the east Orange area compared to the aquifer • SAH1 HART PARK W e o s.wo B4O00 Fee rs1- 4 by yP 'IA 00 NS d?&k � nNwiftN AV I •` iFS Santiago Pipeline �TMr Villa Park nam Figure 5-9: Santiago Basins and Santiago Creek OCWD Groundwater Management Plan 2015 Update During average rainfall conditions, the District captures and recharges an estimated 50,000 to 70,000 afy of storm flow, with much of this recharge taking place in the Santiago Basins. Some groundwater producers in the general vicinity of the Santiago Basins have low groundwater levels at their production wells when the amount of groundwater in storage declines. This occurs to some extent because the aquifer is relatively thin in the east Orange area compared to the aquifer Section 5 Management and Operation of Recharge Facilities thickness in the middle portion of the groundwater basin. OCWD seeks to recharge as much water possible in the Santiago Basins subject to various operational constraints and limitations on the amount of available recharge water. Currently recharge in Santiago Creek is limited to the reach between Santiago Basins and Hart Park in the city of Orange. The parking lot of Hart Park occupies the creek channel, making it difficult to convey water safely through the park. The District is currently evaluating projects that will allow for the lower reach of the creek downstream of Hart Park to be used for recharge of Santa Ana River water. 5.2.3 Natural Recharge Natural recharge, referred to in Section 3 as unmeasured or incidental recharge, is comprised of subsurface inflow from the local hills and mountains, (see Figure 3-5), infiltration of precipitation and irrigation water, recharge in small flood control channels, and groundwater underflow to and from Los Angeles County and the ocean. Since the amount of natural recharge cannot be directly measured, it is commonly referred to as incidental or unmeasured recharge. Each year, an estimate is made of the amount of subsurface flow that flowed across the Los Angeles - Orange County line. In general, since the Central Basin in Los Angeles County is operated at a lower level than the Orange County basin, there is usually a net flow of water out of the Orange County basin to the Central Basin. This outflow is subtracted from the total incidental recharge to get the net incidental recharge to the basin, which is the value reported in this document. Figure 5-10 shows the amount of net incidental recharge from WY 2000-01 to 2013-14. Note the correlation between amount of precipitation and net incidental recharge. Incidental Recharge acre-feet (x1000) 180 160 140 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 Incidental Recharge Precipitation in Anaheim Precipitation Inches 2000-01 2003-04 2006-07 2009-10 2012-13 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 Figure 5-10: Net Incidental Recharge and Precipitation, WY 2000-01 to 2013-14 OCWD Groundwater Management Plan 2015 Update Section 5 Management and Operation of Recharge Facilities 5.2.4 Recycled Water The basin receives two sources of recycled water for recharge. The main source is the GWRS, which has capacity to produce 102,000 afy of recycled water. This water is recharged in the surface water system and the Talbert Seawater Barrier. Operation of GWRS is explained in detail in Section 6. The second source of recycled water is the Leo J. Vander Lans Treatment Facility which supplies water to the Alamitos Seawater Barrier. The capacity of the Vander Lans Treatment Facility was expanded from 3,300 afy to approximately 9,000 afy. Only a portion of the water recharged in the Alamitos Barrier recharges the Orange County Groundwater Basin with the remainder recharging the Central Basin in Los Angeles County. a.z.a imporiea vvaier OCWD purchases imported water for recharge from the Municipal Water District of Orange County (MWDOC), which is a member agency of MWD. Untreated imported water can be delivered to the surface water recharge system in multiple locations, including Anaheim Lake (OC -28/28A), Santa Ana River (OC -11), Irvine Lake (OC -13A), and San Antonio Creek near the City of Upland (OC -59). Connections OC -28, OC -11 and OC -13 supply OCWD with Colorado River Aqueduct water. Connection OC -59 supplies OCWD with State Water Project water and OC -28A supplies OCWD with a variable blend of water from these two sources. Treated imported water was used extensively for in -lieu recharge from 1977 to 2007. During this time frame, OCWD recharged over 900,000 acre-feet of water using in -lieu recharge purchased from MWD. The MWD discontinued the in -lieu program in 2012. When the program was operational, OCWD would ask groundwater pumpers to participate by turning off their wells and take imported treated water in -lieu of pumping groundwater. OCWD would pay the pumpers the incremental additional cost of taking imported water versus groundwater to make the cost of this water equivalent to groundwater. Control of Quagga Mussels Quagga mussels are an invasive species that were found in 2007 in Lake Mead, a reservoir on the Colorado River. These mussels grow quickly to form massive colonies. Not only are natural ecosystems disrupted, but spread of these invasives can block water intakes causing significant disruption and damage to water distribution systems. MWD has a Raw Water Discharge Plan to manage the spread of quagga mussels within the imported water system. Within Orange County, the mussels were found in Irvine Lake, Rattlesnake Reservoir, and Walnut Canyon Reservoir. Methods to control the quagga include desiccation and chlorination. OCWD recharges Colorado River water in Anaheim Lake, Mini -Anaheim Lake, Kraemer Basin, La Jolla Basin, and Raymond Basin. To control the spread of quaggas, OCWD only uses Colorado River Water in basins that can be completely drained and desiccated. As a result of OCWD Groundwater Management Plan 2015 Update Section 5 Management and Operation of Recharge Facilities the quagga mussels, OCWD can no longer recharge Colorado River water in the Santa Ana River or any other facility that cannot be fully desiccated. SURFACE WATER RECHARGE FACILITIES The District's surface water recharge system is comprised of 23 facilities covering over 1,000 wetted acres and a total storage capacity of approximately 26,000 acre-feet, as listed in Table 5-3. The locations of these facilities are shown in Figure 5-11. Section 5.3.1 illustrates the operation of the recharge system. OCWD carefully tracks the amount of water being recharged in each facility on a daily basis. Table 5-3: Area and Storage Capacities of Surface Water Recharge Facilities FACILITY Wetted Area (acre-feet) Maximum Storage Capacity (acre-feet)' Anaheim Lake 72 2,260 Burris Basin 120 2,670 Conrock Basin 25 1,070 Five Coves Basin: Lower 16 182 Five Coves Basin: Upper 15 164 Foster -Huckleberry Basin 21 630 Kraemer Basin 31 1,170 La Jolla Basin 6.5 26 Lincoln Basin 10 60 Little Warner Basin 11 225 Miller Basin 2 25 300 Mini -Anaheim Lake 5 13 Miraloma Basin 9.8 63 Off -River Channel 89 N/A Olive Basin 5.8 122 Placentia Basin 2 9 350 Raymond Basin 2 19 370 River View Basin 3.6 11 Santa Ana River: Imperial to Orangewood Ave. 291 N/A Santiago Basins 187 13,720 Santiago Creek to Hart Park 3 10 N/A Warner Basin 70 2,620 Weir Ponds 1-4 33 252 TOTAL 1,085 26,278 Notes: (1) Maximum storage capacity is typically not achieved for most facilities due to need to reserve buffer space for system flow and level fluctuations. (2) Owned by Orange County Flood Control District. Maximum storage capacity shown is the maximum flood control storage. (3) Basin is not owned by OCWD. Owners include OCFCD, City of Orange, and MWD. OCWD Groundwater Management Plan 2015 Update Section 5 Management and Operation of Recharge Facilities Three full-time hydrographers control and monitor the recharge system. These hydrographers and other OCWD staff prepare a monthly Water Resources Summary Report, which lists the source and volume for each recharge water supply, provides an estimate of the amount of water percolated in each recharge basin, documents total groundwater production from the basin, and estimates the change in groundwater storage. The report also estimates the amount of incidental recharge, evaporation and losses to the ocean. The monthly figures are compiled to determine yearly recharge and production totals. A monthly report from 2014 is presented in Appendix F. PLACENTIA I- Wiler An.aneim Maireirr Basin Lake f nRANCFTHoRr+F Ay_ k Jolla Y"smer j — - _ argon Cree `f usin Basin d . Aliraloma Basin i RlaeeRti Foster- OOnr° Huckleberry. Weir - . Basrr�. - — - - Warner -_may �1 La Palms Sarin ANAHEIM $(Planned) ` i Raymond �'§pr: Olive P3sin 8as:n _ LA I'Al MA AV _ ,gym _ ® I+N Upper Fivq.' ,-- - Coves Basin IfNUC, N 46, Lower Fiv f �` !�' GwssBa�n � I! - i LincaVi I ..--- -- - Q OCWD Field Headquarters — Inflatable Rubber Dam Transfer Tube Recharge Water Pipeline GWRS Pipeline OCWD Recharge Basin City Boundary N -..0. 2.000 4,000 W Z Feet S �>3iver 0, Basin GLACE T1A + — = �R ~1 `` f 9%th A Foster- OOnr° Huckleberry. Weir - - - - - — - - Warner -_may y Basin C Y� fi4 Li Warnmer -1-40#900r � Basin QAl y - 2 Fletcher �� •�_ � , Ba I -q rp N v. 7 Af -AF i AV WLLA PARK smws ?, rN TC L1JI AV Santiago Basln- Basins - —Blue f ORANGF Diamond Basin _ Figure 5-11: OCWD Surface Water Recharge Facilities OCWD Groundwater Management Plan 2015 Update 5-13 Section 5 Management and Operation of Recharge Facilities 5.3.1 Surface Water Recharge System Santa Ana River in Anaheim Water released at Prado Dam naturally flows downstream and percolates through the river's 300-400 foot wide unlined channel bottom that consists of sandy, permeable sediment. OCWD actively manages recharge in an approximate 6 mile stretch of the river channel from Imperial Highway to Orangewood Avenue. This reach covers an area of over 290 acres OCWD Groundwater Management Plan 2015 Update The Imperial Inflatable Dam diverts up to 500 cfs of Santa Ana River water into the recharge system. Flows are also bypassed around the dam to downstream facilities. Imperial Rubber Dam Section 5 Management and Operation of Recharge Facilities From Warner Basin, water is conveyed by pipeline to Anaheim Lake and then to Miller and Kraemer Basins. Water can then be conveyed in Carbon Creek to La Jolla, Placentia and Raymond Basins. Kraemer Basin Weir Ponds 1, 2, 3, and 4, also referred to as the Desilting System, are used to remove sediment from Santa Ana River water. Flows are split at Weir Pond 4 to flow either to the Warner Basin Subsystem (Foster -Huckleberry, Conrock, Warner, and Little Warner Basins) or to the Off -River Channel Warner Basin Off -River Channel Water conveyed into the Off -River Channel, which parallels the main river channel, percolates into the sandy channel bottom. This 200 -foot wide channel is separated from the Santa Ana River by a 2.3 -mile -long levee. Remaining flows can be recharged in Olive Basin or conveyed to Five Coves Basins. The Five Coves Basins can also receive water directly from the Santa Ana River diverted at the Five Coves Inflatable Dam. From Five Coves, water flows into Lincoln and Burris Basins. OCWD Groundwater Management Plan 2015 Update Section 5 Management and Operation of Recharge Facilities From Burris Basin, water is pumped to Santiago Basins by the Burris Basin Pump Station through the 60 -inch diameter, five -mile long Santiago Pipeline. Pumped water is percolated in the Santiago Basins, (Blue Diamond Basin, Bond Basin, and Smith Basin), River View Basin and Santiago Creek. The Santiago Basins are used to recharge and store stormwater to be conveyed back to recharge basins when capacity is available. Santiago Basin Pumps in Burris and Santiago Basins allow for release of water into Santiago Creek for percolation. Santiago Creek Lower Santa Ana River Water that remains in the Santa Ana River is managed to maximize infiltration; levees constructed in the river bed spread water across the width of the river channel. River water reaches the Pacific Ocean in Huntington Beach only when flow exceeds recharge capacity, which typically occurs only during large storm events. Recycled water produced at the GWRS in Fountain Valley is conveyed through a 13 -mile pipeline located in the west levee of the Santa Ana River to OCWD recharge basins. GWRS recycled water is primarily percolated in Kraemer, Miller and Miraloma Basins. OCWD Groundwater Management Plan 2015 Update Section 5 Management and Operation of Recharge Facilities 5.4 MAINTENANCE OF RECHARGE FACILITIES OCWD recharge basins range in depth from 10 to 60 feet. Portions of their side-walls and bottoms are composed of natural, sandy, permeable materials that allow water to percolate into the aquifer. Percolation rates vary depending on the size and depths of the basins; rates slow significantly as fine-grained sediment particles accumulate on the basin bottoms. Most of the basins can be drained and cleaned to remove this clogging layer, thereby restoring percolation rates and increasing recharge efficiency. Percolation rates tend to decrease with time as basins develop a thin clogging layer along the bottom. The clogging layer develops from fine grain sediment deposition and from biological growth, shown in Figure 5-12. Percolation rates are restored by mechanical removal of the clogging layer utilizing heavy equipment such as bulldozers and scrapers Figure 5-12: Recharge Basin showing Accumulated Clogging Layer OCWD maximizes recharge in the Main River System by removing the clogging layer (Figure 5- 13) and bulldozing a series of sand levees in the river. These levees maximize recharge by spreading the water across the width of the river to maximize the wetted surface area. Typically, water flows at a velocity sufficient to prevent the accumulation of fine sediment and biological growth. The riverbed is also cleaned naturally, when winter and spring stormflows wash out the levees and scour the bottom. When necessary, heavy equipment is used to move sediments in order to restore the high percolation rate. Sand levees remain intact until flows exceed approximately 350 cfs, at which time they erode and water flows from bank to bank in the riverbed. Although percolation is believed to remain high during these high flow conditions, rates are difficult to measure. OCWD Groundwater Management Plan 2015 Update Section 5 Management and Operation of Recharge Facilities Figure 5-13: Bulldozer in Off -River Channel Removing Clogging Layer RECHARGE STUDIES AND EVALUATIONS The District has an ongoing program to continually assess potential enhancements to existing recharge facilities, evaluate new recharge methods and analyze potential new recharge facilities. The planning and implementation horizon for recharge facilities varies from a near term horizon of five to 10 years for development of specific projects to 50 -year projections of the future availability of recharge water supplies, as described below. 5.5.1 Recharge Enhancement Working Group The Recharge Enhancement Working Group is comprised of staff from multiple departments that works to maximize the efficiency of existing recharge facilities and evaluate new concepts to increase recharge capacity. Staff from recharge operations, hydrogeology, engineering, research and development, regulatory affairs, and planning departments meets on a regular basis to review new data and evaluate potential new projects. Proposed projects under investigation are continually changing as needs and conditions change. Potential projects/concepts considered include reconfiguration of existing basins, operational improvements to increase flexibility in the management of the basins, alternative basin cleaning methods, potential sites for new basins, and control of sediment concentrations, are discussed and prioritized. OCWD Groundwater Management Plan 2015 Update Section 5 Management and Operation of Recharge Facilities 5.5.2 Computer Model of Recharge Facilities One of the challenges the District faces in determining the value of improving existing recharge facilities, storing more water at Prado Dam and purchasing new recharge facilities is estimating the amount of additional water that could be recharged due to a potential project. Given the complexity and interconnectivity of the recharge system, a model was needed to isolate the impacts of various proposed projects in order to determine the increased recharge potential due to a specific project. OCWD developed the Recharge Facilities Model, which is a computer model of the District's recharge system that simulates Prado Dam operations, Santa Ana River flow and each recharge facility. This model is primarily a planning tool that is used to evaluate various conditions including estimating recharge benefits if new recharge facilities are constructed, existing facilities are improved, increased storage is achieved at Prado Dam, or baseflow changes occur in the Santa Ana River. The model can be operated by District staff from a desktop computer using a graphical user interface. The Recharge Facilities Model was completed in 2009 with the assistance of CH2M HILL and is based on GoldSim software, which is a general simulation software solution for dynamically modeling complex systems in business, engineering and science http://www.goldsim.com/ Home/) (CH2M HILL, 2009). Key features of the Recharge Facilities Model include • Ability to simulate different surface water inflow scenarios (e.g., high base flow, low base flow, etc.) • Inflatable rubber dam operations (e.g., diversion rates, deflation/inflation) • Conveyance capacity of system (e.g., pipeline and pumping capacities) • Basin recharge capacities • Reductions in basin capacities caused by clogging • Maintenance thresholds that cause basins to be taken out of service and cleaned • Different Prado Dam conservation pool elevations and release rates • Different sedimentation levels behind Prado Dam • Ability to add imported water to system when excess capacity is available Output from the model includes: • Amount of water recharged in each facility, storage at Prado Dam, release rates from Prado Dam, storage in each facility, etc.; • Amount of water that could not be recharged and water losses to the ocean; • Optimal amount of cleaning operations; OCWD Groundwater Management Plan 2015 Update Section 5 Management and Operation of Recharge Facilities Available (unused) recharge capacity; and Amount of imported water that can be recharged using unused capacity. The RFM is flexible and allows for the development and simulation of a wide array of different scenarios. Figure 5-14 presents an overview of the system as it appears in GoldSim. Examples of how the model has been used to evaluate potential recharge projects include: • Estimate of the additional amount of water available for recharge if the water conservation pool behind Prado Dam is raised to 505 msl year round (see Section 5.2.1). Estimate of the impact of the recent trend toward decreasing base flows in the Santa Ana River. Estimate of how much imported water could be purchased using unused system capacity. Figure 5-14: Recharge Facilities Model System Overview 5.5.3 Future Santa Hna Klver Flow Projections OCWD prepares projections or works with other agencies to prepare projections of Santa Ana River flows. The results of the projections are highly variable, as explained below. OCWD Assessment of Future Santa Ana River Flows Below Prado Dam, 2006 OCWD applied to the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) for a permit to divert a wet -year maximum of 505,000 afy of water from the Santa Ana River at the District's diversion facilities below Prado Dam. As part of the 2006 application, the SWRCB requested that OCWD OCWD Groundwater Management Plan 2015 Update 114 vd• s ow nrm od. uw ■ e.a. LJ fi 9:9d. t �...... ■ L F -01-0I-0- � �J e e { or ■ w" ■ u,n, w ,hm ,m ,e. oen ,s.�. . _new —,9:ea _zvoea _mee _vww 396MY ••w• .-.• � �•N. xre. rrrr, �� nrd, mod. �-"iii. �,�... .- „.. ... xs9m« sm � � . ^• ars,. �mr.scmn9�wen — o ®c_:. oma,. Figure 5-14: Recharge Facilities Model System Overview 5.5.3 Future Santa Hna Klver Flow Projections OCWD prepares projections or works with other agencies to prepare projections of Santa Ana River flows. The results of the projections are highly variable, as explained below. OCWD Assessment of Future Santa Ana River Flows Below Prado Dam, 2006 OCWD applied to the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) for a permit to divert a wet -year maximum of 505,000 afy of water from the Santa Ana River at the District's diversion facilities below Prado Dam. As part of the 2006 application, the SWRCB requested that OCWD OCWD Groundwater Management Plan 2015 Update Section 5 Management and Operation of Recharge Facilities prepare a water availability assessment to confirm that the volume of water would be available in the future. To prepare the assessment, the District used flow data collected by the Santa Ana River Watermaster which showed that more than 505,000 afy of water was recorded in the lower Santa Ana River in recent years preceding the study. Future wet -year flow estimates were developed taking into account planned upstream diversions to calculate conservative future wet - year Santa Ana River flow below Prado Dam. This assessment concluded that the requested diversion of 505,000 afy is reasonably foreseeable in future wet years downstream of Prado Dam. The Corps Prado Basin Water Supply Feasibility Study, 2004 The Corps' report Prado Basin Water Supply Feasibility Study Main Report and Draft Environmental Impact Statement, 2004 estimated future Santa Ana River flows to assist in evaluating the flood control and water conservation capabilities of the dam. Between 1990 and 2003 the maximum flow occurred in 1993 when the USGS gage below Prado Dam recorded a total of 571,138 acre-feet. The Corps used a 39 -year hydrologic base period (federal water year 1950-1988) and Corps projected watershed conditions through 2052. These projections factored in changes in stormwater runoff due to increased urbanization in Riverside and San Bernardino counties and population projections as well as estimates of wastewater effluent discharges to the river upstream of the dam. The Corps projected that future annual flow in the Santa Ana River at Imperial Highway will fluctuate between approximately 300,000 and 868,000 afy. These projections include a net contribution of 21,000 afy from the nine miles of the river between Prado Dam and Imperial Highway. SAWPA Santa Ana River Flow Estimates, 2004 SAWPA produced an independent estimate of future SAR flows at Prado Dam for the period 2010 and 2025. The estimates included baseflow and stormflow for dry, average, and wet years. Stormflow estimates were based on the average historical peaks ranging from 18,300 to 340,300 afy. Estimates of wastewater discharges included reductions in discharge due to increased recycling of wastewater. Base flow projections for 2025 ranged from 197,000 afy to 222,000 afy. OCWD/Corps Study, 2014 Projections of future Santa Ana River flows were developed for OCWD and the Corps to evaluate the feasibility of increasing the volume of water that can be stored behind Prado Dam. (WEI, 2014) An existing model developed by Wildermuth Environmental, Inc. (WEI) called the Waste Load Allocation Model (WLAM), was used to estimate non -discharge inputs contributing OCWD Groundwater Management Plan 2015 Update Section 5 Management and Operation of Recharge Facilities to river flows. The WLAM is a hydrologic simulation tool of the Santa Ana River watershed tributary to Prado Dam and was developed for the Santa Ana Watershed Project Authority (SAWPA) by WEI (WEI, 2009). WEI began development of the WLAM for SAWPA in 1994 and has improved it over time to support numerous water resources investigations. The WLAM uses historic rainfall and stream flow along the model boundaries for the 50 -year period from 1950 to 1999. The model also accounts for the contribution of rising groundwater to Santa Ana River flows. The volume of rising groundwater has decreased in recent years due to lower groundwater levels in the southern portion of the Chino Groundwater Basin. Groundwater levels in this area are expected to remain low as this is part of the basin management strategy to reduce the migration of poor quality groundwater into the Santa Ana River. Estimated future discharges of water from wastewater treatment plants to the Santa Ana River are expected to decline due to conservation and increased recycling. This, along with reductions in rising groundwater, means that projected Santa Ana River base flows reaching Prado Dam are significantly lower than what occurred from the early 1990s to 2005. As a result of this work, OCWD developed three Santa Ana River base flow projections: 1. High Base Flow Condition: 101,700 afy 2. Medium Base Flow Condition: 52,400 afy 3. Low Base Flow Condition: 36,000 afy Per the 1969 Stipulated Judgment in the case of Orange County Water District v. City of Chino, et al., Case No. 117628 -County of Orange, a minimum annual Santa Ana River base flow of 42,000 afy is required to reach Prado Dam. However, a system of credits in the judgment allows the Santa Ana River base flow to be as low as 34,000 afy until the credits are exhausted. Given the large credit that exists due to many years of base flow exceeding 42,000 afy, the minimum flow of 34,000 afy could be in place for many decades. Even though the minimum allowable base flow is 34,000 afy, the annual base flow simulated was 36,000 afy due to minor variations in rising groundwater produced by the WLAM. In developing estimates of future Santa Ana River storm flows arriving at Prado Dam, land use conditions in the WLAM were reviewed. For future conditions, SCAG 2005 land use data was modified to represent future (2071) land uses. The assumptions made in modifying the 2005 land use data were: (1) already developed urban areas and surrounding mountain areas were assumed not to change; (2) dairy, poultry, intensive livestock, as well as land use classified as "other agriculture" were assumed to be developed; and, (3) vacant and undeveloped areas were also assumed to be developed by 2071. In addition, all new developed land use in 2071 was assumed to be high density residential. This analysis resulted in an increase in high density residential area of approximately 71 square miles, a decrease dairy, poultry, horse ranch, etc. areas by approximately 11 square miles, and a decrease in undeveloped areas by approximately 59 square miles. OCWD Groundwater Management Plan 2015 Update Section 5 Management and Operation of Recharge Facilities The increased runoff generated by future land uses is offset by plans for storm water harvesting by upstream agencies. Plans were identified for future storm water harvesting from Seven Oaks Dam, diversions from the Santa Ana River and its tributaries, and on-site infiltration that would be required by the Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) permit. To develop the lowest flow condition possible, it was assumed that projects that have reached the environmental review stage would be constructed. As a result, the average annual storm flow arriving at Prado Dam is reduced by 27,360 afy (WEI, 2014b). Future estimates of Santa Ana River storm flow arriving at Prado Dam are presented in Table 5- 4. The three Santa Ana River base flow conditions were combined with the estimated storm flow arriving at Prado Dam to develop three inflow conditions as summarized in Table 5-5. Table 5-4: Estimated Future Santa Ana River Storm Flow Arriving at Prado Dam STORM FLOW RUNOFF CONDITION Average Storm Flow to Prado Basin (afy) Current Land Uses 118,000 Future (2071) Land Uses 125,970 Future (2071) Land Uses, Maximum Storm Water 98,610 Harvesting Table 5-5: Santa Ana River Flow Conditions and Estimated Average Inflow to Prado Dam Santa Ana River Flow to Prado (afy) Total Average CONDITION DESCRIPTION Average Base Flow Average Storm Flow Flow (afy) High High Base Flow, Current 101,700 118,000 219,700 Land Uses Medium Medium Base Flow, Future 52,400 125,970 178,370 (2071) Land Uses Low Base Flow, Future Low (2071) Land Uses, Maximum Storm Water Harvesting 36,000 98,610 134,610 5.5.4 Evaluation of Potential Projects to Increase Basin Recharge Sixteen potential recharge projects were evaluated using the Recharge Facilities Model (RFM) as part of the preparation of the District's Long -Term Facilities Plan 2014 Update. Key assumptions used in the RFM are as follows: OCWD Groundwater Management Plan 2015 Update Section 5 Management and Operation of Recharge Facilities 1. The Prado Dam conservation pool is operating at 505 feet year round. Work to raise the flood season pool from 498 to 505 feet is ongoing and is expected to be completed and implemented in the next few years. 2. All GWRS water conveyed to Anaheim, including flows from the final expansion of GWRS, will be recharged in Miraloma Basin and planned La Palma Basin. This assumption frees up the capacity of the remainder of the recharge system for Santa Ana River flows and imported water. The approach to modeling each project was to compare the total system recharge with and without the project for each flow condition. For example, total system recharge was modeled for the high flow condition with and without a project. The difference in the recharge obtained for the entire system comparing the two runs defined the benefit of the project being modeled. This was then repeated for the medium and low flow conditions. Table 5-6 shows the additional yield produced by each potential project for the high, medium, and low flow conditions. The RFM was also used to evaluate the loss of storm flow capture that will result as sediment continues to accumulate in the Prado Basin. Based on the historical rate of sediment accumulation of approximately 350 acre-feet per year, the storage within the conservation pool is projected to fill up within the next 50 years. When the conservation pool becomes filled with sediment, the eventual loss of storm water available for recharge will range from 30,000 to 38,000 acre-feet per year. Table 5-6: Annual Yield of Potential Surface Water Recharge System Projects based on Recharge Facilities Model PROJECT NAME Santa Ana River Flow Condition (afy) High Medium Low Desilting Santa Ana River Flows 10 390 10 Enhanced Recharge in Santiago Creek at Grijalva Park 10 10 85 Subsurface Collection and Recharge System in Off -River and Five Coves 610 730 150 Enhanced Recharge in Santa Ana River Between Five Coves/Lincoln Ave. 10 220 20 Enhanced Recharge in Santa Ana River Below Ball Road 730 600 230 Recharge in Lower Santiago Creek 270 150 90 Five Coves Bypass Pipeline 130 10 10 Five Coves Bypass Pipeline with Lincoln Basin Rehabilitation 710 490 100 Placentia Basin Improvements 75 170 260 Raymond Basin Improvements 40 230 350 River View Basin Expansion 10 100 10 OCWD Groundwater Management Plan 2015 Update 5-24 Section 5 Management and Operation of Recharge Facilities PROJECT NAME Santa Ana River Flow Condition (afy) High Medium Low Additional Warner to Anaheim Lake Pipeline 10 10 30 Lakeview Pipeline 10 10 10 Warner System Modifications 210 250 10 Anaheim Lake Re -contouring 10 125 10 RECHARGE FACILITIES IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS AND STUDIES 2009-2014 The District regularly evaluates potential projects and conducts studies to improve the existing recharge facilities and build new facilities. This may include: • Increasing the capacity to transfer water from one basin to another; • Improving the removal of the clogging layer that forms on the bottom of basins; • Removing shallow low -permeability silt or clay layers beneath recharge basins; • Reconfiguring a basin to improve infiltration rates; • Converting an underperforming basin to a new type of recharge facility; and • Evaluating potential sites for new recharge facilities such as existing flood control facilities and sites for construction of new basins. Recharge improvement projects and studies completed since publication of the Groundwater Management Plan 2009 Update include the following: Sediment Removal Demonstration Projects Clogging of the District's recharge facilities is caused primarily by suspended sediments in Santa Ana River water. To a limited extent, clogging is also caused by biological growth supplied by the organic carbon and nutrients in the recharge water. Recharge rates achieved when using water with little to no suspended sediment, such as imported water from the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (MWD) and highly treated recycled water from GWRS, are two to three times greater than what is achieved with Santa Ana River water. In an effort to maximize the recharge of storm water, the District embarked on a multi -phased Sediment Removal Study. Phase I of the study identified a number of sediment removal technologies for testing. Phase II of the study included bench -scale testing of five different treatment technologies, including: • Flocculation -Sedimentation • Dissolved Air Floatation (DAF) • Ballasted Sedimentation OCWD Groundwater Management Plan 2015 Update Section 5 Management and Operation of Recharge Facilities • Cloth Filtration (with and without chemical pre-treatment) • Riverbed Filtration In Phase III, research continued on two of the removal technologies: Cloth Filtration without chemical pretreatment in 2013 and Riverbed Filtration in 2014. The Riverbed Filtration Project is located in the Off -River Channel adjacent to the main Santa Ana River Channel. This project uses the natural treatment obtained by infiltration in native sediments to remove suspended sediments. For this system, a large underground network of collection pipes were installed three -to -five feet below the surface of the Off -River channel. Water flows by gravity into these pipes and then to Olive Basin, which has been plumbed to only receive this filtered water. Initial results indicate that this method removes virtually all of the suspended sediment in the water and improves water quality in ways similar to that seen in recharge basins. The Cloth Filter Demonstration Project is located at River View Basin. Extensive water quality testing showed that this technology was marginally effective in reducing suspended solids concentrations; however, it did not, as expected, affect other water quality parameters. Testing of the cloth filter system will continue, but the scope of water quality testing has been reduced to monitoring for turbidity and total suspended solids. Miraloma Basin Miraloma Basin is a new recharge basin that was placed online in 2012. OCWD acquired the former 13 -acre industrial site adjacent to existing recharge basins in Anaheim as shown in Figure 5-15. Construction included excavation, demolition and hauling, construction of water Figure 5-15: Miraloma Basin Mid -Basin Infection Demonstration Project supply pipelines with appurtenances for flow control and metering, a pump station, integration with OCWD supervisory control and data acquisition (SCADA) system, site improvements to facilitate operations and maintenance, as well as landscape improvements. The new 10 -acre recharge basin is dedicated to recharge GWRS product water and has capacity to recharge approximately 20,000 to 30,000 afy. As the GWRS is expanded, an increased supply of recharge water will be available. In order to recharge this supply of water, the Mid -Basin Injection Project is being considered. This would OCWD Groundwater Management Plan 2015 Update Section 5 Management and Operation of Recharge Facilities involve using high-quality GWRS water for direct injection into the Principal Aquifer in the central portions of the groundwater basin. By directly injecting water into the Principal Aquifer where most of the pumping occurs, low groundwater levels due to pumping can be reduced. Also, mid -basin injection would reduce the recharge requirement in Anaheim and Orange area recharge basins, thus providing more capacity to recharge Santa Ana River and imported water. A demonstration well and two monitoring wells were constructed to evaluate the feasibility of a full-scale injection project. Burris and Lincoln Basins Reconfiguration Modifications to Burris and Lincoln basins were completed to improve recharge capability. Low - permeability sediments were excavated from Lincoln Basin and the northern end of Burris Basin and the conveyance channel between the two basins was reconfigured. Santiago Basins Pump Station A floating pump station, shown in Figure 5-16, was constructed to dewater the Santiago Basins to increase storm flow capture and percolation, to make storage available for winter season use, to provide water to the Santiago Creek for percolation, and to increase operational flexibility by pumping water back to Burris Basin when necessary. Operation of the pump station for the basins increased recharge capacity and allowed for more flexible and efficient operations. Olive Basin Pump Station Figure 5-16: Santiago Basins Pump Station A dewatering pump station was constructed to allow for more frequent basin cleanings and to maintain infiltration rates. The increase in average annual recharge capacity is estimated to be 1,600 afy with maximum increase of 4,800 afy. Improvements to Olive Basin will allow the basin to be drained more rapidly for cleaning. An intake structure with a 36 -inch diameter fill pipe was constructed to allow water to flow from the Off -River System into the deepest part of the basin. This decreased the amount of sediment stirred up in the basin, thereby increasing the recharge performance. Santa Ana River Sediment Characterization Study The Santa Ana River channel is one of the District's most productive recharge facilities, recharging approximately 100 cubic feet per second (cfs), similar to the performance of Anaheim Lake when freshly cleaned. The transport and deposition of sediment, primarily sand, is important to maintaining recharge in the river bottom. However, Prado Dam traps the majority OCWD Groundwater Management Plan 2015 Update Section 5 Management and Operation of Recharge Facilities of sand flowing down the river just upstream of Orange County causing changes in bed material composition in the river downstream. Downstream loss of sand results in coarsening of sediment and armoring. Coarsening refers to the increase in sediment grain size, as seen in Figure 5-17, and armoring is a condition where coarser sediments eventually interlock or harden with fine sediments and form an armored layer. Both conditions cause a reduction in infiltration rates. An OCWD investigation studied trends in the sediment characteristics in the river (Golder Associates, 2009). The results highlight the importance of addressing long-term sediment transport in the Santa Ana River. The study reached the following conclusions: • Areas of armoring were observed in the river bed between Prado Dam and Imperial Highway, particularly in the floodplain portion of the river outside the natural low -flow channel. • Below Imperial Highway, coarsening of sediment was observed but armoring was not observed due to OCWD maintenance activities reworking sediment with earth moving equipment. • Continued coarsening of riverbed material and scour are expected in the river recharge reach below Imperial Highway. Coarsening may result from: 1) entrapment of sand at Prado Dam, 2) removal of fine material caused by moderate flows, and 2) deposition of coarse bed material originating from the reach between Imperial Highway and Prado Dam during high flows. • The erosion that is expected to occur downstream of grade control and drop structures awk.0 %V�. I during moderate to high flows could result in additional deposited coarse material concentrating in those sections. • The riverbed particle packing density is expected to increase as the riverbed material coarsens resulting in decreased permeability. Additionally, there is greater potential for fine-grained sediments transported by river flows to migrate to greater depth, such that they are more difficult to remove, causing a reduction in the permeability of the riverbed sediments. Figure 5-17: Sand and Cobble Sediments in Santa Ana River Channel OCWD Groundwater Management Plan 2015 Update GROUNDWATER REPLENISHMENT SYSTEM GWRS Water Pump Station and RO Electrical Building The Groundwater Replenishment System began operation in 2008. Overview • Produces up to 100 million gallons per day • Recycled water used for groundwater recharge and seawater barrier operations Treatment Process • Microfiltration • Reverse osmosis • Ultraviolet light with hydrogen peroxide Water Quality Monitoring • Independent Advisory Panel evaluates monitoring programs • Network of monitoring wells used to track travel times from recharge sites to production wells Section 6 Groundwater Replenishment System SECTION 6 GROUNDWATER REPLENISHMENT SYSTEM 6.1 OVERVIEW The Groundwater Replenishment System (GWRS) is a joint project built by OCWD and the Orange County Sanitation District (OCSD) that began operating in 2008 (see Figure 6-1). Wastewater that otherwise would be discharged to the Pacific Ocean is purified using a three- step advanced process to produce high-quality water used to control seawater intrusion and recharge the Orange County Groundwater Basin. The GWRS produces up to 100 million gallons per day (mgd) of highly -treated recycled water. The system includes three major components (1) the Advanced Water Purification Facility (AWPF), (2) the Talbert Seawater Intrusion Barrier and (3) recharge basins where GWRS water is percolated into the groundwater basin, schematically illustrated in Figure 6-2. Secondary -treated wastewater is conveyed to OCWD from OCSD Plant No. 1, located adjacent to the District's facilities in Fountain Valley. The water undergoes an advanced treatment process that includes microfiltration, reverse osmosis and advanced oxidation/disinfection with hydrogen peroxide and ultraviolet light exposure followed by de -carbonation and lime stabilization. The Full Advanced Treated (FAT) water is used for groundwater recharge, to supply the Talbert Seawater Barrier and provide recycled water for three industrial/commercial users. The AWPF produces up to 100 mgd or approximately 112,000 afy. Approximately 34% of the water is injected in the Talbert Barrier and 66% is percolated in the recharge basins. Industrial and commercial uses include cooling water for the City of Anaheim's Canyon Power Plant, recycled water for the Anaheim Regional Transportation Intermodal Center, and hydrostatic testing of new secondary treatment basins at OCSD Plant No. 1. The Talbert Seawater Intrusion Barrier consists of a series of 36 injection well sites that are supplied by pipelines from AWPF. OCWD constructed the injection barrier to form an underground hydraulic mound, or pressure ridge, to manage seawater intrusion near the coast in the Talbert Gap area. The Talbert Barrier wells also serve to replenish the groundwater basin with injection of purified, recycled water into the Main Aquifer. In addition to supplying the Talbert Barrier, GWRS water is recharged in Kraemer, Miller and Miraloma basins, located in the city of Anaheim. Water is conveyed to these basins through a 13 -mile pipeline in the west levee of the Santa Ana River through the cities of Fountain Valley, Santa Ana, Orange, and Anaheim and along the Carbon Canyon Diversion Channel. Five feet in diameter at its end point, this pipeline is capable of delivering over 80 million gallons of highly - treated recycled water to the basins each day. OCWD Groundwater Management Plan 2015 Update Section 6 Groundwater Replenishment System Figure 6-1: Aerial View of the Groundwater Replenishment System OCWD Groundwater Management Plan 2015 Update AREA MANAGED BY OCWD Section 6 Groundwater Replenishment System RECHARI GEIS❑ BASINS OCSD TREATMENT FACILITY 6.1.1 History OCEAN i OUTFLOW PACIFIC OCEAN ........... ............. SANTA ANA RIVER I SANTIAGO CREEK PRADO DAM O Inge ;.,r{ r Co my 1 if '�dr:. .•'e �, . f F1 Figure 6-2: Groundwater Replenishment System Facilities The need for a reliable water supply for the Talbert Barrier led to the construction of Water Factory 21 (WF 21) in 1975. This 15-mgd advanced water purification plant treated secondary treated wastewater from OCSD with lime clarification, ammonia stripping, re -carbonation, multimedia filtration, granular activated carbon (GAC) adsorption, and chlorination. A 5-mgd reverse osmosis (RO) demineralization plant was added to the process in 1977 to reduce total dissolved solids in the product water. OCWD Groundwater Management Plan 2015 Update GtNE PIPEL GWRS ADVANCED WAT PURIFICATION FACILI SEAWATER 0000 o INTRUSION TREATMENT BARRIER FACILITY OCSD TREATMENT FACILITY 6.1.1 History OCEAN i OUTFLOW PACIFIC OCEAN ........... ............. SANTA ANA RIVER I SANTIAGO CREEK PRADO DAM O Inge ;.,r{ r Co my 1 if '�dr:. .•'e �, . f F1 Figure 6-2: Groundwater Replenishment System Facilities The need for a reliable water supply for the Talbert Barrier led to the construction of Water Factory 21 (WF 21) in 1975. This 15-mgd advanced water purification plant treated secondary treated wastewater from OCSD with lime clarification, ammonia stripping, re -carbonation, multimedia filtration, granular activated carbon (GAC) adsorption, and chlorination. A 5-mgd reverse osmosis (RO) demineralization plant was added to the process in 1977 to reduce total dissolved solids in the product water. OCWD Groundwater Management Plan 2015 Update Section 6 Groundwater Replenishment System WF 21 was the first plant in the world to use RO to purify wastewater to drinking water standards. The GAC -treated water and RO-treated water were blended with groundwater and imported water to supply the injection wells and recharge the groundwater basin. Due to new water quality issues in 2000, WF -21 subsequently used only RO-treated water. Figure 6-3: Water Factory 21, circa 1975 By the mid-1990s, OCWD needed a larger supply of water to manage seawater intrusion. Plans to build the GWRS plant coincided with OCSD's need to build a second ocean outfall to dispose of increased wastewater flows. Expanding the advanced water treatment plant, therefore, would not only increase water supplies for OCWD but would also reduce the volume of secondary -treated wastewater and provide an alternative to a second ocean outfall. The original WF 21 ceased operations in 2004. At that time Interim Water Factory 21 (IWF 21) operated for two years while the GWRS was being built. In addition to continuing the seawater intrusion prevention effort, IWF 21 served as a training facility, enabling staff to become familiar with the treatment processes being developed for the GWRS facility. Plant modifications included the addition of microfiltration and low-pressure high-intensity ultraviolet light with hydrogen peroxide to create an advanced oxidation process. The new processes, together with the existing RO system retrofitted with thin film composite polyamide membranes, resulted in increased energy efficiency and more effective removal of contaminants. The addition of hydrogen peroxide upstream of the UV light enhanced the oxidation process and enabled the destruction of UV -resistant contaminants. In the interim between IWF 21 taken off-line until completion of GWRS in 2008, OCWD used potable water from imported sources and the City of Fountain Valley for barrier operations. OCWD Groundwater Management Plan 2015 Update Section 6 Groundwater Replenishment System 6.2 ADVANCED WATER TREATMENT PROCESS The advanced water treatment process consists of microfiltration, reverse osmosis and ultraviolet light with hydrogen peroxide and lime treatment. This process is illustrated in Figure 6-4 and explained in more detail below. MF Clewing Comgress.d system Air OCSD Plant No. f �� _ �[` �`�, Secondary 'rc[�! Effluent MOM Filter Screens OCSD Plant No. i Microfiltration Sodium 6isuifte sodium Nypoohlodle ._y RO Break Transfer Tank Pump Sulfuric Threshold Station Acid Ingmltor RO Bypass To Decarbonator Reverse Osmosis zo Y temh Barrier F^ Injection Wells it 1 IIE To ultraviolet �� -�----W Kraemer/Miller Irradiation System RO � — Feed Cartridge Spreading „ I Air ROGi—ing Basins ►Ji .I System Pump Filters Barrier/Product J Water Sodium Pump RO Flush Tank Hydroxide Station To OCSD Ocean Outfall sodium Llme aisulfile TO Santa Ana Peak Flow and Emergency Bypass River Figure 6-4: AWPF Process Flow Diagram i.2.1 Microfiltration Secondary -treated wastewater from the OCSD wastewater treatment plant is gravity -fed to OCWD. The effluent is fine -screened at the AWPF influent screening facility and then passes through the microfiltration (MF) process. Bundles of hollow polypropylene fibers in submerged racks remove particulate contaminants from water. Under a vacuum, water is drawn through the fibers' minute pores, each approximately 0.2 microns in diameter; suspended solids, protozoa, bacteria, and some viruses are strained out. The MF cells are regularly backwashed to clean the membranes. The MF membranes are periodically cleaned -in-place using citric acid and sodium hydroxide with a proprietary chemical to remove foulants and restore membrane performance. Waste backwash and cleaning solutions are returned to OCSD for treatment. 6.2.2 Reverse Osmosis The MF product water advances to the next step in the process, reverse osmosis (RO). This system uses envelopes of semi -permeable polyamide membranes rolled into bundles and OCWD Groundwater Management Plan 2015 Update Section 6 Groundwater Replenishment System encased in long pressure vessels. Pressurized micro -filtered water enters at one end of each vessel and passes through the membrane to the inside of the envelope where purified product water is collected, exiting through the product water pipes. The RO process demineralizes water and removes inorganics, organics, viruses and other contaminants. The RO process features pretreatment chemical addition using sulfuric acid and anti-scalant, cartridge filtration and high pressure feed pumps that supply the pressure vessels containing the RO membranes. Concentrate from the RO process is discharged to OCSD for disposal. 6.2.:5 Ultraviolet Light with Hydrogen Peroxide and Lime Treatment After purification with MF/RO, water is exposed to high intensity ultraviolet light (UV) and treated with hydrogen peroxide (H2O2) to disinfect the water and destroy remaining low molecular weight organic compounds including those that must be removed to parts per trillion levels. This process ensures that unwanted biological materials and organic chemical compounds are effectively destroyed or removed. Post-treatment consists of de -carbonation and lime stabilization to raise the pH and add hardness and alkalinity to make the recycled water less corrosive and more stable. Excess residual carbon dioxide is removed from the RO permeate by five forced -draft decarbonators in order to stabilize the finished product water. The de -carbonation system treats about 80% of the UV disinfected recycled water while the remaining flow bypasses the decarbonators. Hydrated lime (calcium hydroxide) is added to neutralize the remaining carbon dioxide and stabilize the finished product water. 6.3 ENERGY EFFICIENT OPERATIONS When designing and building the District's GWRS, the conservation of energy was established as a priority. Energy efficiency was built into the original GWRS plant design. The District participated in Southern California Edison's "Efficiency by Design" grant funding program. Selection of energy efficient elements enabled OCWD to take advantage of grant funds to purchase capital equipment and realize the long-term benefits of reducing the energy load for day-to-day plant operations. The reverse osmosis facility was designed and built with energy recovery devices that capture energy normally lost when water is released through a throttling valve from a high pressure system. It is expected that the high-tech energy recovery system will save 14 million kW hours and $ 1.3 million dollars every year for the life of the system. Another benefit of this device is its corresponding reduction in greenhouse gas emissions of 14 million pounds per year. The use of new technology energy recovery units (ERDs) in the expanded reverse osmosis system was designed to produce a significant and long-term savings in pumping costs. The ultraviolet (UV) OCWD Groundwater Management Plan 2015 Update Section 6 Groundwater Replenishment System advanced oxidation system was also selected, in part, because of its optimal energy performance characteristics. In addition to these devices, the GWRS uses variable frequency drives on virtually all of its pumps and other rotating equipment. These computer controlled devices vary the rotational speed of the motors allowing for flow control and improved energy efficiency. Reduction in energy use for lighting is achieved by the widespread uses of skylights and open-air designs as well as new low-power designs. The District participates in the demand response program. OCWD agrees to curtain plant operations during times of grid emergency or insufficient generation, which provides the equivalent of 11 megawatts of increased peak generation for the regional electrical system. In addition, pumping operations are shifted, when possible, to off-peak times (usually at night) to relax demand on the system during peak loads. 6.4 PLANT OPTIMIZATION AND EXPANSION During FY 2012-2013, GWRS achieved the highest production since start-up in January 2008 with 72,691 acre-feet of FAT water produced. In contrast, during the first year of operation, the plant produced 43,500 acre-feet of recycled water. Increased production was made possible by a number of operational improvements and construction of additional facilities, as described below. Steve Anderson Lift Station OCSD constructed Steve Anderson Lift Station in 2009 to provide additional flow to the GWRS. The lift station diverts up to 50 mgd of raw wastewater from OCSD Plant 2 to OCSD Plant 1, boosting the amount of secondary effluent that could be conveyed to the GWRS for treatment. Microfiltration Backwash Storage The AWPF was designed to treat a relatively constant flow rate, but flows to the wastewater treatment plant experience low nighttime flows. To help with the diurnal flow deficit, OCWD and OCSD completed a project in 2012 to store MF backwash waste generated by the GWRS in existing OCSD's primary clarifies that are otherwise unused. MF backwash waste is stored during the day in the primary basins and pumped back into the secondary process during the low diurnal flow period at night using 10 sump pumps. These pumps are scheduled to come on at various intervals at the start of the flow deficit and are secured when OCSD's flows begin to recover in the morning. The project has helped make up about 2.4 mgd during the diurnal feed water flow deficit and has enabled the AWPF to produce closer to the design capacity. Addition of Microfiltration Cells The capacity of the MF process was increased in 2011 with the buildout of the existing 26 MF cells that contained 608 MF membranes with an additional 76 membranes for a total of 684 MF membranes per MF cell. This provides additional flexibility and capacity to maintain production OCWD Groundwater Management Plan 2015 Update Section 6 Groundwater Replenishment System when MF cells are down for cleaning or repairs, increasing available MF production capacity from 86 to 102.4 mgd at 89% recovery. Optimization of the RO Process Throughout 2012, research was conducted to optimize operations of the RO process through management of both biological and mineral membrane fouling. A variety of experimental laboratory cleanings were conducted to assess the effectiveness of removing mineral foulant from membranes. Experimental cleaning was performed on membrane samples and the effectiveness of cleaners in removing foulant from the membrane surface and restoring permeability was evaluated. Plant Expansion Construction of the initial expansion of GWRS was completed in 2015. This provides an additional 30 mgd of capacity and includes construction of flow equalization facilities to compensate for diurnal fluctuation in secondary treated source water from Plant No. 1. The initial expansion increases total plant capacity to 100 mgd. Plans are being drawn up to construct the final expansion of GWRS, which would increase total capacity to 130 mgd. GWRS Flow Eaualization Tanks Two 7.5 million gallon storage tanks (Figure 6-5) were constructed by OCWD on land owned by OCSD in Fountain Valley to provide storage of secondary -treated wastewater on a temporary basis during daily peak flow periods prior to conveyance to OCWD for advanced treatment at GWRS. Due to diurnal flow patterns of wastewater at the OCSD plant, daytime flow to the GWRS plant exceeds plant capacity while nighttime low flows result in the plant operating at below capacity. Excess flows bypass the GWRS and are discharged to the Pacific Ocean via the OCSD ocean outfall pipeline. The Flow Equalization Tanks will store wastewater when flows exceed the GWRS plant capacity and will be conveyed to the plant at night when flows drop to levels below plant capacity. Figure 6-5: Flow Equalization Tanks OCWD Groundwater Management Plan 2015 Update 6-8 Section 6 Groundwater Replenishment System 6.5 WATER QUALITY MONITORING AND REPORTING OCWD's extensive network of monitoring wells within the groundwater basin includes concentrated monitoring along the seawater barrier and near the recharge basins. GWRS- related monitoring wells in the vicinity of Kraemer, Miller, and Miraloma basins are used to measure water levels and to collect water quality samples. In addition to ensuring the protection of water quality, these wells are used to determine travel times from recharge basins to production wells. Monitoring programs related to operation of GWRS are described in detail in Section 4. Because of the long history of using advanced purified water at the Talbert Barrier, OCWD is permitted to use 100% GWRS water for injection into the barrier without blending with imported water or other sources as required for other seawater barrier projects in Southern California. However, blending is still required at the recharge basins with GWRS water making up no more than 75% of the blend with the balance coming from Santa Ana River storm flows and imported water. Permits regulating operation of GWRS require adherence to rigorous product water quality specifications, extensive groundwater monitoring, buffer zones near recharge operations, reporting requirements, and a detailed treatment plant operation, maintenance and monitoring program. 6.5.1 The Independent Advisory Panel Performance of the GWRS plant is monitored by OCWD's research department and the Advanced Water Quality Laboratory. Annual GWRS reports are prepared by a diplomate of the American Academy of Environmental Engineering and an Independent Advisory Panel (IAP) to document ongoing scientific peer review. The IAP analyzes data in OCWD's Annual GWRS Report of plant operations as well as water quality data collected throughout the groundwater basin. The IAP is appointed and administered by the National Water Research Institute to provide credible, objective review of all aspects of GWRS by scientific and engineering experts. In addition to formal written reports, the IAP also offers suggestions for enhancing monitoring of water quality, improving the efficiency of current GWRS technologies and evaluating future projects associated with the GWRS. 6.5.2 GWRS Annual Report A GWRS Annual Report is prepared in fulfillment of the requirements specified in the permit issued by the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board in 2008.' The order specifies Producer/User Water Recycling Requirements and Monitoring and Reporting program for the Orange County Water District Interim Water Factory 21 and Groundwater Replenishment System Groundwater Recharge and Reuse at Talbert Gap Seawater Intrusion Barrier and Kraemer/Miller Basins adopted as Order No. R8-2004-0002, Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board on March 12, 2004 and the subsequent amendment Order No. R8-2008-0058 adopted on July 18, 2008. OCWD Groundwater Management Plan 2015 Update Section 6 Groundwater Replenishment System permit requirements for the GWRS for purified recycled water for industrial uses and at the Talbert Barrier and recharge basins. The annual report contains a detailed evaluation of the operation of the entire GWRS and creates a historical record of operations of the water reclamation as well as groundwater recharge and reuse facilities. PUBLIC OUTREACH Since the GWRS came on-line in January 2008, more than 24,000 visitors have toured the facility. During FY 2013-14, OCWD conducted 198 public tours of the GWRS plant and the Advanced Water Quality Laboratory with a total of 3,432 participants. Tour groups included 10 local high schools and 20 colleges and universities. In addition to many groups from throughout the United States, OCWD hosted tours from China, Korea, Japan, Saudi Arabia, Thailand, Australia, Switzerland, and Russia. { rr- s Figure 6-6: Group Touring the Groundwater Replenishment System OCWD Groundwater Management Plan 2015 Update 6-10 SEAWATER INTRUSION AND BARRIER MANAGEMENT �f Routine Maintenance of Talbert Injection Wells Monitoring and preventing the encroachment of seawater into fresh groundwater zones is a major component of sustainable basin management. Background • Coastal gaps most susceptible to seawater intrusion • Construction of barriers began in 1960s Talbert Seawater Intrusion Barrier • 36 well sites used to inject fresh water into 4 aquifer zones • GWRS recycled water used for barrier operation Alamitos Seawater Intrusion Barrier • Joint operation since 1964 with Los Angeles County Flood Control District • 43 injection well and 177 active monitoring sites • Expansion of barrier under investigation Sunset Gap Investigation • Elevated chloride levels indicate seawater intruding through gap • Investigation underway to evaluate alternative remedies Section 7 Seawater Intrusion and Barrier Management SECTION 7 SEAWATER INTRUSION AND BARRIER MANAGEMENT BACKGROUND In the coastal area of Orange County, the primary source of saline groundwater is seawater intrusion into the groundwater basin through permeable sediments underlying topographic lowlands or gaps between the erosional remnants or mesas of the Newport -Inglewood Uplift. The susceptible locations are the Talbert, Bolsa, Sunset, and Alamitos Gaps as shown in Figure 7-1. Seawater intrusion became a critical problem in the 1950s. Overdraft of the basin caused water levels to drop as much as 40 feet below sea level; seawater intruded over three miles inland. Prior to the construction of the seawater intrusion barriers, OCWD slowed seawater intrusion by filling the basin with imported Colorado 6 aV River water. Gap .:,ALAMITOS BARRIER B �.. + Sunset m Gap olsa Cha Mefe - /q) Boys; /JI G\ A d ec O� Pd h N WE S 0 $ 000 10.000 Feet 9 m ♦ rill I 'P* �®Nilla B ♦ + m d B 9 S • Q y A ♦ ♦ • ♦ 9 �p 6 • r. +0 A Huntington \-Beach sa ♦ • TALBERT $ARRIER e i + m }• Newport Mesa Talbert Gap` S Active Large -System Production Nku ■ Injection Well Monitoring Well • Multipart Monitoring Well Pathway Of Seawater Intrusion Figure 7-1: Coastal Gaps in Orange County In the 1960s and 1970s, a series of injection wells at two key geologic gaps were constructed to form subsurface freshwater hydraulic barriers. These barriers have been expanded and improved periodically and have allowed the basin to be operated more flexibly as a storage reservoir with an operating range of 500,000 acre-feet with a sustainable yield of over 300,000 afy. OCWD Groundwater Management Plan 2015 Update 7-1 Section 7 Seawater Intrusion and Barrier Management In July 2014, the District's Board of Directors adopted a policy regarding control of seawater intrusion that contained the following principles: • Prevent degradation of the quality of the groundwater basin from seawater intrusion. • Effectively operate and evaluate the performance of the District's seawater barrier facilities. • Adequately identify and track trends in seawater intrusion in susceptible coastal areas and evaluate and act upon this information, as needed, to protect the groundwater basin. In addition to the seawater barrier injection facilities, the District operates and maintains a network of coastal area monitoring wells that provide water level and water quality data that allow staff to evaluate the performance of the barriers and to identify potential areas of intrusion. OCWD measures chloride concentrations in groundwater to monitor seawater intrusion. Chloride concentrations are monitored twice a year at the coastal area monitoring wells and chloride contour maps are prepared at least every two years to delineate the extent of seawater intrusion and determine areas where it is migrating inland or being pushed seaward. The monitoring well network has been expanded and improved over time leading to new information and a greater understanding of the coastal hydrogeology and intrusion pathways. A more detailed discussion of the coastal water quality monitoring program can be found in Section 4. The Alamitos and Talbert Seawater Intrusion Barriers control seawater intrusion through the Alamitos and Talbert Gaps by injecting fresh water into susceptible aquifers through a series of wells. The pressure mound resulting from this injection minimizes seawater intrusion through these gaps into the basin. The District plans to expand the Alamitos Barrier with additional monitoring and injection wells and is currently expanding the monitoring well network in Sunset Gap to better delineate the nature and extent of seawater intrusion in that area as the first step towards investigating feasible remedies for Sunset Gap. In Bolsa Gap, chloride concentration trends suggest that the Newport -Inglewood Fault System sufficiently restricts inland migration of seawater intrusion into the potable aquifers. TALBERT SEAWATr-R INTRUSION BARRIER Seawater intrusion through the Talbert Gap, a 2.5 -mile -wide geological feature between the Newport and Huntington Beach mesas, was documented as far back as 1925. A more detailed study of the gap was conducted by the Department of Water Resources in 1966 (DWR, 1966). Largely based on this study, OCWD constructed the initial Talbert Seawater Intrusion Barrier in 1975 with 23 injection well sites. Over time the barrier was expanded to keep pace with increasing groundwater production in the coastal area. Chloride concentrations at OCWD monitoring wells in the 1990s showed advancing seawater intrusion in the Talbert Gap and beneath the adjacent mesas despite barrier injection operations. Today, the Talbert Barrier is composed of a series of 36 well sites that are used to inject water into multiple aquifer zones for seawater intrusion control as well as basin replenishment. The injection raises groundwater levels along the barrier alignment and OCWD Groundwater Management Plan 2015 Update Section 7 Seawater Intrusion and Barrier Management thus forms a hydraulic barrier to seawater that would otherwise migrate inland toward areas of groundwater production. A list of the injection wells, injection depths, and associated aquifers can be found in Appendix E. Injection well sites are shown in Figure 7-2. From 1975 until 2008, a blend of deep well water, imported water and recycled water from the former Water Factory 21 was injected into the barrier. In 2008, GWRS recycled water became the primary supply used for the injection wells, with a small and intermittent portion of the supply from potable imported water delivered via the City of Huntington Beach at the OC -44 turnout and potable water delivered by the City of Fountain Valley (a blend of groundwater and imported water). A permit issued by the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board in 2004 limited the percentage of recycled water at the Talbert Barrier to 75% with a minimum travel time of six months to the nearest production wells. The permitted maximum allowable recycled water contribution at the Talbert Barrier was subsequently increased to 100% in December 2009. (CA RWQCB, 2004, 2008) 1. AClN¢ LdCg G -Sy SSPm Prpd YCtiOn W¢9 +� Taih¢�,nl¢CNM 5Ypply Pip¢m¢ M ■ ocwoinl.d„nwai �aalc�,,,. GWR SYSTEM AWPF Y OCwE Ma l� uweii Ppk W- -F AND TALBERT BARRIER P'N—Dem•.urw.n LOCATION MAP rrore i�Ywe no.. �.�. erc,��*meaoAa,roa7.ar. �nv..r nc�o Figure 7-2: Talbert Barrier Injection Wells The chloride concentration contours for the Talbert Gap and surrounding area shown in Figure 7-3 illustrate historical inland progression and seaward reversals of groundwater salinity due to injection operations and basin management practices. In addition to contour maps, OCWD staff prepares and reviews chloride concentration trend graphs at individual wells to identify and evaluate intrusion in specific aquifer zones over time. In general terms, chloride concentrations are inversely related to groundwater elevations. When groundwater elevations decline below mean sea level in the area of the intrusion front, chloride concentrations generally increase and seawater intrusion worsens (see Figure 7-4). OCWD Groundwater Management Plan 2015 Update Mab iaLa � ucwue MCwaa94 nsT 9 Mio Mll GIUW 2 J1 ■ r9 7tl' 1 ■gyp MGwp.'! t+ ti rAWPf',... r 0� GAAFIELO AV Huntingt n yI ce Beach a Mesa �J c o 5° Newport m Mesa A.—SAV 1. AClN¢ LdCg G -Sy SSPm Prpd YCtiOn W¢9 +� Taih¢�,nl¢CNM 5Ypply Pip¢m¢ M ■ ocwoinl.d„nwai �aalc�,,,. GWR SYSTEM AWPF Y OCwE Ma l� uweii Ppk W- -F AND TALBERT BARRIER P'N—Dem•.urw.n LOCATION MAP rrore i�Ywe no.. �.�. erc,��*meaoAa,roa7.ar. �nv..r nc�o Figure 7-2: Talbert Barrier Injection Wells The chloride concentration contours for the Talbert Gap and surrounding area shown in Figure 7-3 illustrate historical inland progression and seaward reversals of groundwater salinity due to injection operations and basin management practices. In addition to contour maps, OCWD staff prepares and reviews chloride concentration trend graphs at individual wells to identify and evaluate intrusion in specific aquifer zones over time. In general terms, chloride concentrations are inversely related to groundwater elevations. When groundwater elevations decline below mean sea level in the area of the intrusion front, chloride concentrations generally increase and seawater intrusion worsens (see Figure 7-4). OCWD Groundwater Management Plan 2015 Update Section 7 Seawater Intrusion and Barrier Management . a a ♦ y =9 S a � s . Bolsa Chico A , 9 9♦ 9 Mesa ~ g e, y 4 ♦6 B , 6 4. 9 + 9 9 Bolsa TA :BEST BARRIER s 9 Gap ;. . ®w.� �..� ♦ti e � 2 Huntington H13M- Beach Mesa OCWD-M26 2004 k 20 8 ® _ 1996 2014 Talbert .x '0 Gap ® OCWD-M27 ,'1993 A a� Newport c� Mesa ca a� N 6 Aairy Large -System FYoduction Well Injection Well W- E ® Monitoring Well S ♦ Multiport Monitoring Well 0 5,000 10.000 250 mg/L Chloride Comeentratlon Countours Index Feet Questionable Index Figure 7-3: Talbert Gap 250 mg/L Chloride Concentration Contours for Selected Years Conversely, when groundwater elevations rise and are sustained above mean sea level, chloride concentrations decrease and intrusion is pushed back seaward. This is especially evident in Figure 7-5 which shows how chloride concentrations were significantly reduced when new injection wells were turned on to raise groundwater levels. Monitoring well OCWD-M26 is strategically located seaward of the barrier in the Talbert -Lambda mergence zone in the middle of the Talbert Gap and is screened in both the Talbert and Lambda aquifers. Therefore, OCWD-M26 is a key monitoring well for evaluating barrier injection requirements versus seawater intrusion potential. OCWD-M26 is located approximately 1,000 feet north of Adams Avenue, which approximately represents the farthest seaward line at which the goal is to achieve protective groundwater elevations of approximately 3 feet above mean sea level (ft msl). This protective elevation is based on the Ghyben-Herzberg relation (Ghyben, 1888; Herzberg, 1901; Freeze and Cherry, 1979), which takes into account the depth of the Talbert aquifer at that location along with the density difference between saline and fresh groundwater. If this protective elevation is achieved along Adams Avenue for at least the majority of each year, then brackish water in the Talbert aquifer would be maintained slightly seaward of the mergence zone and thus prevented from migrating down into the Lambda aquifer that is tapped by inland production wells. OCWD Groundwater Management Plan 2015 Update Section 7 Seawater Intrusion and Barrier Management OCWD operates the Talbert Seawater Intrusion Barrier to (1) maintain protective groundwater elevation at well OCWD-M26 and (2) prevent landward seawater migration into the groundwater basin based on the 250 mg/L chloride concentration contour. For more detailed information on the operation of the Talbert Seawater Barrier see G WRS 2013 Annual Report prepared for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Santa Ana Region, June 16, 2014. 4,000 20 3,500 3,000 E 0 2,500 2,000 0 U 1,500 0 0 U 1,000 500 0 Chloride Concentrations _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Groundwater Elevations------------- ------------------- a - Screen Depth: 60-110 ft bgs (TalbertAquifer ------------ ---- ------- 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 10 c 0 o °' w -10 0 0 —� -20 2015 Figure 7-4: Groundwater Elevations and Chloride Concentrations at OCWD-M27 4,000 20 3,500 3,000 E 0 2,500 a 2,000 0 v 1,500 a� v 1,000 •11 0 Port Depth: 112 ft bgs (Talbert Aquifer) �o Chloride Concentrations Groundwater Elevations - - - - - - = --------------- 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 10 c 0 CO 0 W a) CO c -10 0 0 — -20 2015 Figure 7-5: Groundwater Elevations and Chloride Concentrations at HBM-2/MP1 OCWD Groundwater Management Plan 2015 Update Section 7 Seawater Intrusion and Barrier Management 7.3 ALAMITOS SEAWATER INTRUSION BARRIER The Alamitos Seawater Intrusion Barrier was constructed in 1965 to protect the Central Basin of Los Angeles County and the Orange County Groundwater Basin from seawater intrusion through the Alamitos Gap. Since the barrier alignment lies in both Los Angeles and Orange Counties, the barrier facilities are jointly owned by the Los Angeles County Flood Control District (LACFCD) and OCWD and include 43 injection wells and 177 active monitoring well sites. Under the terms of a 1964 joint agreement, LACFCD operates and maintains the barrier, while the Water Replenishment District of Southern California (WRD) and OCWD purchase and provide the injection water supply, which currently consists of nearly 100% recycled water. WRD is under permit with the Regional Water Quality Control Board — Los Angeles Region (LARWQCB) for injection of recycled water at the Alamitos Barrier. LARWQCB permit requirements include groundwater monitoring and numerical modeling to track the recycled injection water migrating towards nearby municipal production wells in Orange County. A list of the injection wells, injection depths and associated aquifers for wells on the Orange County side of the barrier can be found in Appendix E. All injection well sites are shown in Figure 7-6. Although OCWD owns many of the Alamitos Barrier monitoring and injection wells, all of the wells are operated, maintained and sampled by LACFCD as part of the Alamitos Barrier joint agreement described above. OCWD funds operation of the Alamitos Seawater Intrusion Barrier with the Los Angeles County agencies to prevent landward seawater migration into the groundwater basin based on the 250 mg/L chloride concentration contour. Over the last several years, pockets of elevated chloride concentrations have been observed inland of the barrier, especially near the southeast portion of the barrier within Orange County. Elevated chloride concentration is the parameter that the District uses to determine if the barrier is sufficiently protecting seawater intrusion from occurring. In this case, OCWD began a study to delineate the extent of seawater intrusion both through and around the Alamitos Barrier as summarized below. • In 2008, OCWD identified critical data gaps where seawater intrusion was suspected but unconfirmed. Four monitoring wells were installed in 2009 at three sites near the Orange County portion of the barrier. As shown in Figure 7-6, salinity data from existing and the newly - installed wells were used to delineate the extent of seawater intrusion in this area, especially pertaining to potential migration towards nearby production wells owned and operated by the City of Seal Beach and Golden State Water Company. • A pipeline hydraulic model of the Alamitos Barrier injection system was completed in 2009 to determine injection supply pipeline capacities under existing conditions and for potential barrier expansion alternatives. OCWD Groundwater Management Plan 2015 Update Section 7 Seawater Intrusion and Barrier Management • Groundwater level and salinity data from the new and existing monitoring wells were evaluated, in conjunction with the development and calibration of a detailed numerical groundwater flow and transport model of the Alamitos Gap area (Inters, 2010). The three agencies (OCWD, LACFCD and WRD) collaborated to develop the Alamitos Barrier Flow Model (ABFM) and Alamitos Barrier Transport Model (ABTM). The models, completed in 2013, simulate the fate and residence time of recycled water used for injection and the relative differences in chloride transport and barrier performance for the existing Alamitos Barrier and three selected barrier expansion configurations. As explained earlier, the models were used to assess and plan for necessary expansion of barrier facilities, as well as prioritize and optimize operation of the existing facilities to combat against seawater intrusion. A future southern extension of the barrier is being investigated to halt the eastern migration of saline water into the Sunset Gap. ATHERTON ST 1 m A1AMITQ.S LONME cn Q m .. W N � yQt � ren m 0 5'� W ESTHA NSTER BLVD A BC*16 0c L1104 SEAL 6EACh N w. :•E 0 1.500 3,000 y Fee' 2011 I -Zone Chloride Concentration Contours —250 —1000 —5000 -10000 ■ Injection Well ({ Monitoring Well Figure 7-6: Alamitos Gap Injection and Monitoring Wells with Chloride Concentration Contours OCWD Groundwater Management Plan 2015 Update Section 7 Seawater Intrusion and Barrier Management SUNSET GAP INVESTIGATION Basin monitoring for potential seawater intrusion in the vicinity of the Sunset Gap began in the 1950s. While the Newport -Inglewood Fault acts as the primary coastal barrier to seawater intrusion into the groundwater basin, investigations between 1959 and 1983 indicated the potential for saline water leakage across the fault, particularly in shallow aquifers and when inland groundwater levels are significantly below sea level due to pumping and decreases in groundwater storage. The dredging of Huntington Harbor in the early 1960s was the subject of several studies regarding the potential for worsening saline intrusion in this area and the influence of tides on seawater intrusion. Conclusions of the studies as to Huntington Harbor's effect on saline intrusion were inconsistent. Studies done by DWR (1968) and USGS (1966) found that seawater intrusion into the semi -perched aquifer (generally the uppermost 50 feet) associated with the harbor development was occurring, but this was considered to be of little to no significance due to the lack of beneficial use of this near -surface water bearing zone. In 2007, the City of Huntington Beach Well No. 12 was permanently removed from service due to high salinity levels. In response, the District commissioned an electric geophysical survey in 2010 to delineate the extent and magnitude of seawater intrusion in the Sunset Gap. In 2012, two multi -depth monitoring wells, OCWD-BS10 (BS10) and OCWD-BS11 (BS11) were installed as shown in Figure 7-7 to better delineate the extent and source of the seawater intrusion. Elevated chloride concentrations were found at both wells at a depth of approximately 230 feet, confirming seawater intrusion. Suspected pathways are from the Alamitos Gap to the west, Huntington Harbor to the south and possible leakage across the Newport -Inglewood Fault to the southwest. Construction of six multi -depth nested monitoring well sites (a total of 29 individual well casings to depths up to 1,000 feet) is underway to further delineate the extent and sources of the seawater intrusion in Sunset Gap, and to support a future feasibility study of alternatives to control the seawater intrusion. By early 2015, four of the six new monitoring well sites were constructed on the Naval Weapons Station Seal Beach as shown in Figure 7-7 (BS14, BS17, BS21, and BS22). Strategies to control intrusion under consideration include a potential southerly extension of the Alamitos Seawater Barrier along Seal Beach Boulevard and a brackish groundwater extraction and desalination system. Such a system may be necessary and appropriate to prevent a large "plume" of elevated salinity to continue to migrate toward production wells and impact larger portions of the groundwater basin. OCWD Groundwater Management Plan 2015 Update Section 7 Seawater Intrusion and Barrier Management �a OCW-B321 m m rf. OCWrI•t3S22 OCWO-8316 ocwlill AVE OC W�t33 FO BDLSA AVE Sunset MC FADDENAVE Gap .0CWD-B813 oc Wo -B 892. N Q T — Ef]INCiEf2 AVE IWR NERAVE PACIFIC OCEAN SEGERSTROMAVE q Coastal Area Chloride Concentrations (Fall 2012) (� Monitoring Vdelt 6 P nno d, !9 Active Large -System Production Weil Multiport Mon itvring Wall g. In Produclton Wel Planned M onitonng Wall Figure 7-7: Sunset Gap Monitoring and Production Wells with Chloride Concentration Contour 5 EVALUATION OF POTENTIgL IMPACTS DUE TO CLIMATE CHANGE The U.S. Bureau of Reclamation conducted a study in collaboration with SAWPA of the potential impacts to water resources due to climate change in the Santa Ana River Watershed. (USBR, 2013) The purpose of the study was to refine the watershed's water projections and identify potential adaptation strategies in light of projected effects of climate change. The study included the development of hydrology models and analysis of impacts focused on key areas. Likely impacts of changing climatic conditions in the Santa Ana River Watershed include a decrease of surface water supplies, increase in temperatures, more severe flood events, and increase dependency on groundwater supplies. OCWD Groundwater Management Plan 2015 Update Section 7 Seawater Intrusion and Barrier Management Results of the study indicate that increasing temperatures will melt ice sheets and glaciers and cause thermal expansion of ocean water, increasing the volume of water in the oceans and raising sea levels. Regional mean sea level along the Southern California coast is projected to rise by 1.5 to 12 inches by 2030, 5 to 24 inches by 2050, and 16 to 66 inches by 2100. Regional sea level rise may be higher or lower than global mean sea level rise due to regional changes in atmospheric and ocean circulation patterns. Sea level rise is likely to increase the coastal area vulnerable to flooding during storm events. OCWD conducted a study to evaluate the potential effects of projected sea level rise on coastal Orange County groundwater conditions. Two locations were selected for analysis near the Talbert and Alamitos seawater intrusion injection barriers. The study model used data from well logs, aquifer pump tests, groundwater elevation measurements, hand -drawn contour maps, geologic cross sections, water budget spreadsheets and other data stored in OCWD's Water Resources Management System database. The Talbert Barrier would be effective at preventing seawater intrusion though the Talbert Gap under the condition of a 3 -foot rise in sea level. In the case of the Alamitos Barrier, seawater intrusion throughout the gap would likely be prevented once current plans to construct additional injection wells are implemented. At both barriers, however, shallow groundwater concerns could limit injection rates and thus reduce the effectiveness of the barriers in preventing seawater intrusion under rising sea levels. The groundwater screening tool was used to estimate changes in basin -average groundwater levels over time as a function of seven natural and anthropogenic factors that govern groundwater recharge and discharge: precipitation, local stream flow, trans -basin water imports, municipal and industrial water demands, agricultural water demand, evaporative demand from native and landscaped vegetation, and an optional exogenous input that represents groundwater management objectives that affect basin -scale groundwater levels. OCWD Groundwater Management Plan 2015 Update 7-10 WATER QUALITY PROTECTION AND MANAGEMENT MIMI OCWD's Fountain Valley Laboratory O OCWD conducts a wide range of water quality programs in Orange County and throughout the watershed. Groundwater Quality Protection • Board -adopted policy in 1987; updated in 2014 • Well development, management and closure policies Programs • Salinity- measurements in groundwater, watershed -wide programs to manage salinity in surface waters • Nitrates- measurements in groundwater; operation of Prado Wetlands to remove nitrates in Santa Ana River water • Amber -colored groundwater- 3 facilities treat water for potable use • Contaminants- programs to monitor MTBE, VOCs, NDMA, 1,4 Dioxane, and Perchlorate Water Quality Improvement Projects • North Basin Groundwater Protection Program • South Basin Groundwater Protection Program • Irvine and Tustin Desalters Section 8 Water Quality Protection and Management SECTION 8 WATER QUALITY PROTECTION AND MANAGEMENT R 1 OCWD GROUNDWATER QUALITY PROTECTION POLICY OCWD adopted the first Groundwater Quality Protection Policy in 1987 under statutory authority granted under Section 2 of the District Act. A revised policy was adopted by the Board of Directors in 2014. The policy guides the actions of OCWD to: • Maintain groundwater quality suitable for all existing and potential beneficial uses; • Prevent degradation of groundwater quality and protect groundwater from contamination; • Assist regulatory agencies in identifying sources of contamination to assure cleanup by the responsible parties; • Support regulatory enforcement of investigation and cleanup requirements on responsible parties in accordance with law; • Undertake investigation and cleanup projects as necessary to protect groundwater from contamination; • Maintain consistency with the National Contingency Plan when seeking recovery of investigation and response costs; • Negotiate with and engage in mediation with parties responsible for contamination when possible to resolve issues related to cleanup and abatement of contamination; • Establish a Groundwater Contamination Cleanup Fund to hold proceeds received from settlement of lawsuits for each groundwater contamination case for which the District received moneys; • Maintain surface water and groundwater quality monitoring programs and monitoring well network; • Maintain the database system, geographic information system, and computer models to support water quality programs; • Maintain an Emergency Response Fund to ensure adequate funds are available to contain and clean up catastrophic releases of chemicals or other substances that may contaminate surface or groundwater water; • Coordinate with groundwater producer(s) impacted or threatened by any groundwater contamination and work to develop appropriate monitoring and remediation if necessary; and • Encourage the beneficial use and appropriate treatment of poor -quality groundwater where the use of such groundwater will reduce the risk of impact to additional production wells, increase the operational yield of the basin and/or provide additional water quality improvements to the basin. OCWD Groundwater Management Plan 2015 Update Section 8 Water Quality Protection and Management WELL DEVELOPMENT, MANAGEMENT, AND CLOSURE To comply with federal Safe Drinking Water Act requirements regarding the protection of drinking water sources, the California Department of Public Health (now the Division of Drinking Water) created the Drinking Water Source Assessment and Protection (DWSAP) program. Water suppliers must submit a DWSAP report as part of the drinking water well permitting process and have it approved before providing a new source of water from a new well. OCWD provides technical support to Producers in the preparation of these reports. This program requires all well owners to prepare a drinking water source assessment and establish a source water protection program for all new wells. The source water program must include: (1) a delineation of the land area to be protected, (2) the identification of all potential sources of contamination to the well, and (3) a description of management strategies aimed at preventing groundwater contamination. Developing management strategies to prevent, reduce, or eliminate risks of groundwater contamination is one component of the multiple barrier protection of source water. Contingency planning is an essential component of a complete DWSAP and includes developing alternate water supplies for unexpected loss of each drinking water source, by man-made or catastrophic events. Wells constructed by the District are built to prevent the migration of surface contamination into the subsurface. This is achieved through the placement of annular well seals and surface seals during construction. Also, seals are placed within the borehole annulus between aquifers to minimize the potential for flow between aquifers. Well construction ordinances adopted and implemented by the Orange County Health Care Agency (OCHCA) and municipalities follow state well construction standards established to protect water quality under California Water Code Section 231. Cities within OCWD district boundaries that have local well construction ordinances and manage well construction within their local jurisdictions include the cities of Anaheim, Fountain Valley, Buena Park, and Orange. To provide guidance and policy recommendations on these ordinances, the County of Orange established the Well Standards Advisory Board in the early 1970s. The five -member appointed Board includes the District's Chief Hydrogeologist. Recommendations of the Board are used by the OCHCA and municipalities to enforce well construction ordinances within their jurisdictions. A well is considered abandoned when the owner has permanently discontinued its use or it is in such a condition that it can no longer be used for its intended purpose. This often occurs when wells have been forgotten by the owner, were not disclosed to a new property owner, or when the owner is unknown. A properly destroyed and sealed well has been filled so that it cannot produce water or act as a vertical conduit for the movement of groundwater. In cases where a well is paved over or under a structure and can no longer be accessed it is considered destroyed but not properly sealed. Many of these wells may not be able to be properly closed due to overlying structures, landscaping or pavement. Some of them may pose a threat to water quality because they can be conduits for contaminant movement as well as physical hazards to humans and/or animals. OCWD Groundwater Management Plan 2015 Update Section 8 Water Quality Protection and Management Information on the status of wells is kept within the District's WRMS data base. Records in this data base show 606 wells that have been destroyed and properly sealed, 217 destroyed wells with inadequate information to determine if properly sealed and 948 abandoned wells. OCWD supports and encourages efforts to properly destroy abandoned wells. As part of routine monitoring of the groundwater basin, OCWD will investigate on a case-by-case basis any location where data suggests that an abandoned well may be present and may be threatening water quality. When an abandoned well is found to be a significant threat to the quality of groundwater, OCWD will work with OCHCA and the well owner, when appropriate, to properly destroy the well. The City of Anaheim has a well destruction policy and has an annual budget to destroy one or two wells per year. The funds are used when an abandoned well is determined to be a public nuisance or needs to be destroyed to allow development of the site. The city's well permit program requires all well owners to destroy their wells when they are no longer needed. When grant funding becomes available, the city uses the funds to destroy wells where a responsible party has not been determined and where the well was previously owned by a defunct water consortium. MANAGING SALINITY IN WATER SUPPLIES Increasing salinity is a significant water quality problem in many parts of the southwestern United States and Southern California, including Orange County. Elevated salinity levels can contaminate groundwater supplies, constrain implementation of water recycling projects and cause other negative economic impacts such as the need for increased water treatment by residential, industrial, commercial users, and water utilities. Salinity is a measure of the dissolved minerals in water that includes both Total Dissolved Solids (TDS) and nitrates. Due to differences in sources of contamination, control methods and human health effects, nitrate management will be discussed separately in Section 8.4. High salinity and hardness limit the beneficial uses of water for domestic, industrial and agricultural applications. Hard water causes scale formation in boilers, pipes and heat - exchange equipment as well as soap scum and an increase in detergent use. This can result in the need to replace plumbing and appliances and require increased water treatment. Some industrial processes, such as computer microchip manufacturers, must have low TDS in the process water and often must treat the municipal supply prior to use. High salinity water may reduce plant growth and crop yield, and clog drip irrigation lines. ti.:j:i Keguiation OT 5aunity in the watershea The U.S. EPA and the California Division of Drinking Water regulate TDS as a constituent that affects the aesthetic quality of water — notably, taste. The recommended secondary MCLs for key constituents comprising TDS are listed in Table 8-1. OCWD Groundwater Management Plan 2015 Update Section 8 Water Quality Protection and Management Table 8-1: Secondary Drinking Water Standards for Selected Constituents Constituent Recommended Secondary MCL Total Dissolved Solids (salts) 500 mg/L Chloride 250 mg/L Sulfate 250 mg/L At the state level, the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) and Regional Water Quality Control Boards have authority to manage TDS in water supplies. The salinity management program for the Santa Ana River Watershed was adopted by the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board (Regional Water Board) in 2004. The salinity program is implemented by the Basin Monitoring Program Task Force, a group comprised of water districts, wastewater treatment agencies and the Regional Water Board. The task force delineated boundaries for 39 groundwater management zones in the watershed including two in Orange County as shown in Figure 8-1. do r.- Historical ambient or , Plrad2jDarri baseline conditions were calculated for levels of TDS and nitrates in each management zone. These levels were adopted as water Orange County quality objectives and incorporated into the Water Quality Control Irvine Plan for the Santa Ana River Basin (Basin A I Plan). The Basin Plan �o specifies that current ambient concentrations of TDS and nitrate N must be recalculated a _.. W e _ j„_„�OCWD Boundary every three years for '•'w.� �� QSanta Ana River Watershed Boundary each of the S ~�Groundwater Management Zone U Z 4 - Irvine management zones. We, Orange County Figure 8-1: Groundwater Management Zones in Orange County OCWD Groundwater Management Plan 2015 Update Section 8 Water Quality Protection and Management When a newly determined ambient level is equal to or greater than the established objective, that management zone does not have an "assimilative capacity." This means that the quality of the groundwater in that zone is determined to be incapable of successfully assimilating increased loads of TDS or nitrates without degrading the water quality. Conversely, when an ambient level is lower than the established objective, that management zone has an assimilative capacity and is determined to be capable of receiving modest inputs of TDS without exceeding the water quality objective. The water quality objectives and ambient quality levels for the two Orange County management zones are shown in Table 8-2. Comparing the ambient water quality to the TDS objectives indicates that these zones have no available assimilative capacity for TDS. Table 8-2: TDS Water Quality Objectives for Lower Santa Ana River Basin Management Zones Management Zone Water Quality Objective 2012 Ambient Quality Orange County 580 mg/L 610 mg/L Irvine 910 mg/L 940 mg/L (Wildermuth, 2014) 8.3.2 Managing Salinity in the Orange County Groundwater Basin As explained in Section 4, OCWD monitors the levels of TDS in wells throughout the groundwater basin. Figure 8-2 shows the average TDS at production wells in the basin for the period of 2010 to 2014. In general, the portions of the basin with the highest TDS levels are located in Irvine, Tustin, Yorba Linda, Anaheim, and Fullerton. In addition, there is a broad area in the middle portion of the basin where the TDS generally ranges from 500 to 700 mg/L. Localized areas near the coast, where water production does not occur, contain relatively higher TDS concentrations. OCWD also monitors salinity levels in water supplies used to recharge the groundwater basin, which include Santa Ana River baseflow and stormflow, GWRS water, and imported water. Table 8-3 presents the estimated salt inflows for the basin using average recharge volumes. TDS concentrations for the inflows were based on flow and water quality data collected by the District and the USGS. The calculation of TDS in the Talbert Barrier supply was based on TDS concentration in GWRS water while the calculation for the Alamitos Barrier assumed that injection water was a 50:50 blend of recycled water and imported water. The flow -weighted TDS of local incidental recharge of 1,100 mg/L was calculated using estimates of the TDS concentration of each component listed in Section 3, Table 3-2. For subsurface inflow and recharge from the foothills, the TDS concentration was estimated using data from the closest nearby wells. OCWD Groundwater Management Plan 2015 Update Section 8 Water Quality Protection and Management A i Q m SN %a •,Jsa W �� E 0 10,000 20,000 Feet Total Dissolved Solids (mg/L) 2010-2014 5 -Year Average < 300 C 700 - 900 C 300 - 500 • > 900 • 500-700 OCWD Boundary Figure 8-2: TDS in Groundwater Production Wells As shown in Table 8-3, the District estimates that the flow -weighted average inflow TDS concentration for all water recharging the basin is 501 mg/L. It is important to note that the TDS concentration of GWRS water is approximately 50 mg/L, which is expected to decrease the overall TDS concentration in the basin over time. OCWD Groundwater Management Plan 2015 Update Section 8 Water Quality Protection and Management Table 8-3: Salt Inflows for Orange County and Irvine Management Zones WATER SOURCE Inflow (afy) TDS (mg/L) Salt (tons/yr) Recharged SAR Base Flow 65,000 700 62,000 Recharged SAR Storm Flow 40,000 200 11,000 GWRS Water Recharge in Anaheim 73,000 50 5,000 Unmeasured Recharge (Incidental) 66,000 1,100 99,000 Injection Barriers Talbert 30,000 50 2,000 Alamitos 2,000 350 1,000 Imported Water Recharged 65,000 600 53,000 TOTAL * Flow -weighted average 341,000 501* 233,000 Figure 8-3 shows the total flow -weighted average of TDS levels of the water supply used for the Talbert Barrier. Prior to 2004, injection water was a blend of imported water, WF 21 purified water and Deep Aquifer water. Between 2004 and 2007 when WF 21 was decommissioned and the GWRS was in construction, a blend of imported water, potable water, and Deep Aquifer water was injected into the barrier. In 2007 the barrier was supplied entirely with imported water. Beginning in 2008, GWRS recycled water was used as a barrier water supply resulting in TDS concentrations in injection water quality of below 50 mg/L. 8.3.3 Septic Systems in Orange County Another source of salinity in the basin originates from onsite wastewater treatment systems, commonly known as septic systems. There are an estimated 2,500 septic systems in operation within the boundary of OCWD. Septic systems operate by collecting wastewater in a holding tank and then allowing the liquid fraction to leach out into the underlying sediments where it becomes filtered and eventually becomes part of the groundwater supply. A properly maintained system can be effective at removing many contaminants from the wastewater but salts remain in the leachate. Septic systems are typically in older communities that were developed prior to the construction of sewer systems or located in an area some distance from existing sewers. The State and Regional Water Boards regulate the siting of new septic systems to reduce the possibility of groundwater contamination. Within Orange County, water districts and local officials work to expand sewer systems to neighborhoods without access to them in order to reduce the use of septic systems to the extent feasible and economical. OCWD Groundwater Management Plan 2015 Update Section 8 Water Quality Protection and Management 600 500 400 Flow Weighted Average TDS 300 (mg/L) 200 100 t~; Recommended Secondary Drinking Water Standard for TDS = 500 mg/L 2007 = Treated, imported low water used for injection; no recycled water. — — — — — — — 2008 = Blend of GWRS product water (84%) and imported water (16%) 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 Figure 8-3: Total Flow Weighted Average TDS of All Source Waters Used for Injection at the Talbert Barrier 8.3.4. Salinity Management Projects This section describes salinity management projects operating in the Santa Ana River Watershed. Inland Emaire Brineline and Non -Reclaimable Waste Line Several water treatment plants that are designed to remove salts from groundwater, commonly referred to as desalters, have been built in Orange, Riverside, and San Bernardino Counties. These plants are effectively reducing the amount of salt buildup in the watershed. The Inland Empire Brine Line (IEBL), formerly called the Santa Ana Regional Interceptor (SARI), built by the Santa Ana Watershed Project Authority (SAWPA), has operated since 1975 to remove salt OCWD Groundwater Management Plan 2015 Update Section 8 Water Quality Protection and Management from the watershed by transporting industrial wastewater and brine produced by desalter operations directly to OCSD for treatment. The other brine line in the upper watershed, the Non -Reclaimable Waste Line in the Chino Basin operated by the Inland Empire Utilities Agency (IEUA), segregates high TDS industrial wastewater and conveys this flow to Los Angeles County for treatment and disposal. Groundwater Replenishment System Within Orange County, the GWRS, several local and regional groundwater desalters, and seawater intrusion barriers are operating to reduce salt levels. The GWRS, described in Section 6, purifies wastewater that is used for groundwater recharge and for injection into the Talbert Barrier to prevent seawater intrusion. To illustrate the benefits of replacing imported water with GWRS water for groundwater recharge, assume an equal volume of 100,000 afy of these two supplies is used for recharge. Figure 8-4 shows the tons of salt in GWRS water as compared to an equal amount of imported water using a TDS of 50 mg/L for GWRS water and TDS of 600 mg/L for imported water. Tons of Salt (x1000) 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 GWRS Imported Water Figure 8-4: Tons of Salt in GWRS vs. Imported Water Coastal Pumaina Transfer Proaram Another management tool available to OCWD to manage salinity levels in the groundwater basin is the Coastal Pumping Transfer Program (CPTP). The purpose of the CPTP is to encourage inland producers to pump more groundwater and coastal producers to pump less to raise coastal groundwater levels, which lessens the potential for seawater intrusion. Inland pumpers are encouraged to pump above the BPP without having to pay the BEA for the amount pumped above the BPP. The funds collected from the increased inland pumping are used to OCWD Groundwater Management Plan 2015 Update Section 8 Water Quality Protection and Management offset the increased cost of water paid by coastal producers who must purchase imported water This program is cost -neutral to the producers. 3roundwater Desalters Other salinity management projects include groundwater desalters, located in the cities of Tustin and Irvine that are pumping and treating high salinity groundwater (see Section 8.9). Seawater Intrusion Barriers The two seawater intrusion barriers operating within Orange County manage salinity along the coast. The Alamitos seawater intrusion barrier spans the Los Angeles/Orange County line in the Seal Beach -Long Beach area. Injection wells are supplied from a blend of recycled water from Water Replenishment District and potable supplies from MWD. OCWD's Talbert Seawater Intrusion Barrier spans the 2.5 -mile -wide Talbert Gap. From 1975 until 2004, a blend of purified water from OCWD's WF 21, Deep Aquifer water, and imported potable water was injected into the barrier. Beginning in 2008, the GWRS began providing recycled water for the barrier. MANAGEMENT OF NITRATES IN GROUNDWATER Nitrate is one of the most common and widespread contaminants in groundwater supplies. Elevated levels of nitrate in soil and water supplies originate from fertilizer use, animal feedlots, wastewater disposal systems, and other sources. Plants and bacteria break down nitrate but excess amounts can leach into groundwater; once in the groundwater, nitrate can remain relatively stable for years. Nitrogen is an element essential for plant growth. In the environment, it naturally converts to nitrate, a nitrogen -oxygen ion (NO3) that is very soluble and mobile in water. The primary concern for human health is its conversion to nitrite (NO2) in the body. Nitrite oxidizes iron in the hemoglobin of red blood cells to form methemoglobin, depriving the blood of oxygen. This is hazardous to infants as they do not yet have enzymes in their blood to counteract this process. They can suffer oxygen deficiency called methemoglobinemia, commonly known as "blue baby syndrome" named for its most noticeable symptom of bluish skin coloring. Both federal and state agencies regulate nitrate levels in water. The EPA and CDPH set the Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) for nitrate (as nitrogen) in drinking water at 10 mg/L. Management of nitrates is a component of the salinity management program in the Santa Ana River Watershed. Along with TDS objectives, water quality objectives for nitrates are established for each of the 39 groundwater management zones in the watershed. Water quality objectives and ambient quality levels for Orange County's management zones are shown in Table 8-4. As indicated, the main Orange County basin has a minor amount of assimilative capacity for nitrate but the Irvine Subbasin has no assimilative capacity. OCWD Groundwater Management Plan 2015 Update 8-10 Section 8 Water Quality Protection and Management Table 8-4: Nitrate -nitrogen Water Quality Objective for Lower Santa Ana River Basin Management Zones Management Zone Water Quality Objective Ambient Quality Orange County 3.4 mg/L 2.9 mg/L Irvine 5.9 mg/L 6.7 mg/L Source: Wildermuth Environmental (2014) OCWD conducts an extensive program to protect the groundwater basin from nitrate contamination. The District regularly monitors nitrate levels in groundwater and works with Producers to treat individual wells when nitrate concentrations exceed safe levels. One of the District's programs to reduce nitrate concentrations in groundwater is managing the nitrate concentration of water recharged by the District's facilities. This includes managing the quality of surface water flowing to Orange County through Prado Dam. To reduce nitrate concentrations in Santa Ana River water, OCWD operates an extensive system of wetlands in the Prado Basin as explained in Section 8.5. The District tests all production wells annually for nitrate; wells with concentrations equal to or greater than 50 percent of the MCL are monitored on a quarterly basis. Areas where nitrate concentrations exceed the MCL are shown in Figure 8-5. OCWD works with the Producers to address areas of high nitrate levels. The Tustin Main Street Treatment Plant is an example of such an effort. Feet •� OCVVp Boundary Figure 8-5: Areas with Elevated Nitrate Levels OCWD Groundwater Management Plan 2015 Update Within Orange County, nitrate levels in groundwater generally range from 4 to 7 mg/L in the Forebay area and from 1 to 4 mg/L in the Pressure area. Ninety-eight percent of the drinking water wells meet drinking water standards for nitrate. The two percent above MCL are treated to reduce nitrate levels prior to being served to customers. Section 8 Water Quality Protection and Management OCWD PRADO WETLANDS OCWD owns approximately 2,400 acres of land in the Prado Basin. As shown in Figures 8-6 and 8-7, this acreage includes the approximate 465 -acre constructed Prado Wetlands, a system comprised of 50 shallow ponds. Originally, the site was used for farming barley. In the mid- 1970s the fields were turned into ponds to be used for duck hunting. In 1996, OCWD modified the duck ponds and converted them to a natural water treatment system. The Prado Wetlands are designed to remove nitrogen and other pollutants from the Santa Ana River before the water is diverted from the river in Orange County to be percolated into OCWD's surface water recharge system. OCWD diverts approximately half of the base flow of the Santa Ana River through the wetland ponds, which remove an estimated 15 to 40 tons of nitrates a month depending on the time of year. The wetlands are more effective from May through October when the water temperatures are warmer and daylight hours are longer. During summer months the wetlands reduce nitrate from nearly 10 mg/L to 1 to 2 mg/L. Figure 8-6: Location of Prado Wetlands OCWD Groundwater Management Plan 2015 Update Section 8 Water Quality Protection and Management Figure 8-7: Aerial View of Prado Wetlands Treating the water in the Prado Wetlands is an important first step in protecting the basin's groundwater quality before it reaches downstream recharge facilities in Anaheim. The majority of the baseflow (non-stormwater flow) in the Santa Ana River is comprised of treated wastewater. On an annual basis, about 50% of the SAR flow entering the Prado Basin is treated wastewater, but during summer months, treated wastewater can comprise more than 90% of the baseflow. Wastewater contains nitrogenous compounds, other nutrients such as phosphate and complex organic compounds. In the 1990s, research demonstrated a significant change in the organic composition of water after flowing through wetland ponds. These studies suggest that wetlands play an important role in not only removing nitrate but also changing the overall organic signature of the wastewater. The diverse array of wetland processes appears to modify organic compounds from anthropogenic sources producing a matrix dominated by characteristics of natural organic material. As a result, the wetlands were found to consistently improve the quality of the river water. Aquatic plants play a significant role in the transformation and transport of nitrogen in a wetlands system. Two important plants for nitrate removal in the Prado Wetlands are bulrush OCWD Groundwater Management Plan 2015 Update Section 8 Water Quality Protection and Management (Schoenoplectus californicus) and cattail (Typha latifolia). These two plants take up nitrate as an essential nutrient while also providing an environment for bacterial growth. Most of the nitrate is removed at the soil/root interface through an anaerobic bacterial process called denitrification. This process transforms nitrate to nitrogen gas with no solid residue which must be disposed as is the case with treatment plant nitrate removal. Surface water flows from the Santa Ana River are conveyed through a series of wetland ponds, shown in Figure 8-8, where the water is naturally treated by micro-organisms and wetland plants to remove nitrates and other pollutants. Once the water is treated, it is conveyed back to the Santa Ana River where it is blended with other sources of surface water in the Prado Basin, including Chino Creek, Mill Creek and Temescal Wash. The blended flows pass through Prado Dam where they are captured by OCWD facilities and recharged into the groundwater basin. Treatment ponds are dominated by zones of emergent and submerged aquatic plants and open water of varying depth. A network of levees, concrete weirs and conveyance piping control water flow through the ponds where it undergoes sedimentation, assimilation, adsorption, and denitrification treatment processes, all of which are specifically designed to remove nitrogen and other pollutants from river water. Mitigation requirements for potential environmental impacts due to temporary storage of water behind Prado Dam include planting 10,000 mule fat plants per year, restoring riparian habitat, controlling non-native plants, managing vireo and surveying nesting sites, conducting cowbird trapping programs, and creating habitat for the Santa Ana Sucker fish, as discussed in more detail in Section 9. OCWD Groundwater Management Plan 2015 Update A-1 A Et E3 �E4 f�ornem Conveyance Channel te* �Ofi 9,n � �H`� � a0ff ,act Htl NB 11 13r E5 f it TE C . SAWA ANA RIYHi DIVERSfPH FA CwwN� earl N9 N7 45 N3 I MT 1yl }}ll B9 81%=� Cattell Charnel NA4 YV10 VAN va l s,o o. V05 �' S8 S«iNrem Cmrcrance U" t W11 YH s.s s� LEGEND 17 a W,9 cnemel ■ 5 FT VIM BM stt ■ TFf_WFJRB w,a PIPE Ma — 8d' ftM1. PPF SROW CONTROL VA W EMF'ONDNUMBER GREEK 4c PERCENT OF 10— 110W 40,%CHINO — PLOY! DP� PRADO WETLANDS POND SCHEMATIC Q S PUN SITE Figure 8-8: Wetlands Pond Schematic Mitigation requirements for potential environmental impacts due to temporary storage of water behind Prado Dam include planting 10,000 mule fat plants per year, restoring riparian habitat, controlling non-native plants, managing vireo and surveying nesting sites, conducting cowbird trapping programs, and creating habitat for the Santa Ana Sucker fish, as discussed in more detail in Section 9. OCWD Groundwater Management Plan 2015 Update A-1 A Section 8 Water Quality Protection and Management AMBER -COLORED GROUNDWATER MANAGEMENT Amber -colored water is found in the Deep Aquifer (600-2,000 feet below ground surface), as shown in Section 3, Figure 3-2 and Figure 8-9. Buried natural organic material from ancient buried plant and woody material gives the water an amber tint and a sulfur odor. Although this water is of very high quality, its color and odor produce negative aesthetic qualities that require treatment before use as drinking water. The total volume of amber -colored groundwater is conservatively estimated to be over one million acre feet. Economic constraints pose challenges to developing this source of water due to cost of treatment to remove the color and odor. Treatment costs depend on the water quality (color and other parameters) and the type and extent of required treatment. Another limitation to development of amber colored groundwater is the potential negative impact in other aquifer zones. Monitoring wells reveal a correlation of clear/colored zone water level fluctuations, indicating a fairly strong hydrologic connection between the two zones in some areas of the basin. Pumping amber colored water has the potential to mobilize movement of the colored water into the Principal Aquifer. rte - W E yti� B Active Large -System Production Well $�"% Area of Suspected Colored Water 0 10.000 20,000 _ Area of Ohserved Colored Water Poet L.—.J 0CWD Boundary Figure 8-9: Extent of Amber -Colored Water OCWD Groundwater Management Plan 2015 Update Two facilities currently treat colored groundwater in Orange County. In 2001, Mesa Water District opened its Colored Water Treatment Facility (CWTF) capable of treating 5.8 mgd. This facility was replaced in 2012 by the 8.6-mgd Mesa Water Reliability Facility that uses nano -filtration membranes to remove color. The second facility is the Deep Aquifer Treatment System (DATS), a treatment facility operated by the Irvine Ranch Water District since 2002 that uses nano -filtration membranes. This facility purifies 7.4 mgd of amber - colored water. Section 8 Water Quality Protection and Management 8.7 REGULATION AND MANAGEMENT OF CONTAMINANTS A variety of federal, state, county and local agencies have jurisdiction over the regulation and management of hazardous substances and the remediation of contaminated groundwater supplies. For example, the County of Orange Health Care Agency (OCHCA) regulates leaking underground fuel tanks except in cases where an individual city or the Regional Water Board is the lead agency. OCWD does not have regulatory authority to require responsible parties to clean up pollutants that have contaminated groundwater. In some cases, the District has pursued legal action against entities that have contaminated the groundwater basin to recover the District's remediation costs. The District also coordinates and cooperates with regulatory oversight agencies that investigate sources of contamination. OCWD efforts to assess the potential threat to public health and the environment from contamination in the Santa Ana River Watershed and within the County of Orange include: • Reviewing ongoing groundwater cleanup site investigations and commenting on the findings, conclusions, and technical merits of progress reports; • Providing knowledge and expertise to assess contaminated sites and evaluating the merits of proposed remedial activities; and • Conducting third -party groundwater split samples at contaminated sites to assist regulatory agencies in evaluating progress of groundwater cleanup and/or providing confirmation data of the areal extent of contamination. Ninety-five percent of groundwater used for drinking water supplies is pumped from the Principal Aquifer. Water from this aquifer continues to be of high quality. This section describes areas of the basin that are experiencing contamination threats, most of which occur in the Shallow Aquifer. 1 Methyl Tertiary Butyl Ether (MTBE) During the 1980s, gasoline hydrocarbons of greatest risk to drinking water were benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylenes, collectively known as BTEX chemicals. Although leaking underground fuel tanks were identified throughout the basin, these chemicals typically were degraded by naturally -occurring aquifer microbes that allowed clean up by natural attenuation or passive bioremediation. Unfortunately, an additive to gasoline aimed at reducing air pollution became a widespread contaminant in groundwater supplies. Methyl tertiary butyl ether (MTBE) is a synthetic, organic chemical that was added to gasoline to increase octane ratings during the phase-out of leaded gasoline. In the mid-1990s, the percentage of MTBE added to gasoline increased significantly to reduce air emissions. MTBE is a serious threat to groundwater quality as it sorbs weakly to soil and does not readily biodegrade. The greatest source of MTBE contamination comes from underground fuel tank releases. OCWD Groundwater Management Plan 2015 Update Section 8 Water Quality Protection and Management The State of California banned the use of the additive in 2004 in response to its widespread detection in groundwater throughout the state. The Division of Drinking Water set the primary MCL for MTBE in drinking water at 13 pg/L. The secondary MCL for MTBE is 5 pg/L. Drinking water wells in the basin are tested annually for VOC analytes including MTBE. The District continues to work with local water agencies to monitor for MTBE and other fuel -related contaminants to identify areas that may have potential underground storage tank problems and releases resulting in groundwater contamination 8.7.2 Volatile Organic Compounds Volatile organic compounds (VOCs) in groundwater come from a number of sources. From the late 1950s through early 1980s, VOCs were used for industrial degreasing in metals and electronics manufacturing. Other common sources include paint thinners and dry cleaning solvents. VOC contamination is found in several locations in the basin. In 1985, contamination was discovered beneath the former EI Toro Marine Corps Air Station. Monitoring wells at the site installed by the U.S. Navy and OCWD delineated a one -mile wide by three-mile long plume, comprised primarily of trichloroethylene (TCE). Beneath the site, VOC contamination was primarily found in the shallow groundwater up to 150 feet below the ground surface. Off -base, to the west, the VOC plume migrated to deeper aquifers from 200 to 600 feet deep. 1 Tustin Another area of VOC contamination was found in the Shallow Aquifer and portions of the Principal r.: `4 Aquifer in the northern portion of Orange County `` t in the cities of Fullerton and Anaheim. The Tustin MCAS Z. District's groundwater monitoring data indicate that the VOCs are migrating into the Principal Aquifer, which is used for drinking water El Toro MCAS supplies. Two of Fullerton's and one of Irene Anaheim's production wells were removed from service and destroyed due to VOC contamination in the area. The North Basin Groundwater Protection Program, described in Section 8.9, ` was initiated in 2005 to minimize the spread of 'r w os the contamination and clean up the groundwater in this portion of the basin. Figure 8-10: Groundwater Cleanup Projects Elevated concentrations of perch loroethylene (PCE), TCE, and perchlorate were detected in Irvine Ranch Water District's Well No. 3, located in Santa Ana. OCWD is currently working with the Regional Water Quality Control Board and the California Department of Toxic Substances Control to require aggressive cleanup actions at nearby sites that are potential sources of the OCWD Groundwater Management Plan 2015 Update Section 8 Water Quality Protection and Management contamination. OCWD has initiated the South Basin Groundwater Protection Program described in Section 8.9 to address this area of contamination. 8.7.3 N-Nitrosodimethylamine (NDMA) N-Nitrosodimethylamine (NDMA) is a low molecular weight compound that can occur in wastewater after disinfection of water or wastewater via chlorination and/or chloramination. It is also found in food products such as cured meat, fish, beer, milk, and tobacco smoke. The California Notification Level for NDMA is 10 nanograms per liter (ng/L) and the Response Level is 300 ng/L. OCWD routinely monitors for NDMA in the groundwater and in water supplies used for recharge. In 2000, OCWD discovered NDMA in groundwater near the Talbert Barrier. One production well was found to have concentrations in excess of the Notification Level. OCWD installed and operated an ultraviolet light treatment system on this well to remove the NDMA beginning in 2001 until the NDMA levels at the well were consistently below the 2 ng/L analytical detection limit in 2010. An OCSD investigation traced the contaminant to industrial wastewater dischargers that affected the water produced by WF 21 injected into the Talbert Barrier. NDMA concentrations are maintained below the Notification Level at the GWRS plant through a combination of source control measures and photolysis using ultraviolet light. As of 2012, NDMA was no longer detectable in any of the GWRS compliance monitoring wells near the Talbert Seawater Barrier. Santa Ana River water, tested at Imperial Highway, consistency has NDMA concentrations less than 2 ng/L. o. i.-+ ,4 -Dioxane J Figure 8-11: Sample Analysis at OCWD Laboratory A suspected human carcinogen, 1,4 -dioxane, is used as a solvent in various industrial processes such as the manufacture of adhesive products and membranes and may be present in consumer products such as detergents, cosmetics, pharmaceuticals, and food products. In 2002, OCWD detected 1,4 -dioxane in groundwater near the Talbert Barrier. A total of nine production wells were found to exceed the then California Notification Level of 3 micrograms per OCWD Groundwater Management Plan 2015 Update 8-18 Section 8 Water Quality Protection and Management liter (pg/L). These wells were temporarily shut down with a loss of 34 mgd of water supply. Further investigation traced the contaminant to one industrial discharger that was discharging 1,4 -dioxane into the OCSD sewer system and subsequently treated by WF 21. The discharger voluntarily ceased discharging 1,4 -dioxane to the sewer, which resulted in a decline in 1,4- dioxance concentrations. Later monitoring data showed reduced 1,4 -dioxane concentrations. The CDPH determined that the water was not a significant risk to health, and the wells were returned to service under the Notification Level requirements. 1,4 -dioxane concentrations are maintained at the GWRS plant below the updated Notification Level of 1 pg/L through a combination of source control measures, improved reverse osmosis, and advanced oxidation using ultraviolet light and hydrogen peroxide addition. 0./.,.i Perchlorate Sources of perchlorate in groundwater include: • Application of fertilizer containing perchlorate; • Water imported from the Colorado River and used for recharge or irrigation; • Industrial or military sites that used, disposed of, or stored perchlorate that was used as an ingredient in rocket propellant, explosives, fireworks, and road flares; and • Naturally occurring perchlorate. The occurrence of perchlorate in Chilean fertilizer applied for agricultural purposes has been documented in various studies, for example, the discussion in the December 1, 2006 publication of the journal Analytical Chemistry (Foubister, 2006) and Urbansky et al (2001). The occurrence of perchlorate in historic supplies of Colorado River water has been documented in published studies, including a 2005 National Research Council report titled "Health Implications of Perchlorate Ingestion" (National Research Council, 2006), and Urbansky et al (2001). Due to remediation efforts near Henderson, Nevada, a key source of perchlorate in Lake Mead, the concentration of perchlorate in Colorado River water has decreased in recent years (Nevada Division of Environmental Protection, 2009). Perchlorate has been detected in groundwater at various sites in California in association with industrial or military sites (Interstate Technology & Regulatory Council, 2005). Perchlorate also has been detected in rainfall (see for example, the report published by the Interstate Technology & Regulatory Council, 2005 and Dasgupta et al (2005)). Perchlorate has been detected at wells distributed over a large area of the groundwater basin. Based on data from 219 active production wells between 2010 and 2014 and a detection limit of 2.5 micrograms per liter, perchlorate was not detected in 84 percent of the wells. Sixteen percent of the wells had detectable concentrations of perchlorate. For those wells with detectable amounts of perchlorate, 89 percent of the wells have detected perchlorate concentrations at or below the California primary drinking water standard of 6 micrograms per liter. Four of the 219 active production wells had perchlorate concentrations greater than 6 micrograms per liter. It is important to note that water delivered for municipal purposes meets the primary drinking water standard. Groundwater from production wells that have perchlorate OCWD Groundwater Management Plan 2015 Update Section 8 Water Quality Protection and Management concentrations over the primary drinking water standard is treated to reduce the concentration below the primary drinking water standard prior to delivery for municipal usage. The District's ongoing monitoring program is continuing to assess the distribution of perchlorate in the groundwater basin and how concentrations change through time. The District regularly reviews this information and will continue to work with the stakeholders to address this issue. R 7.6 Selenium Selenium is a naturally -occurring micronutrient found in soils and groundwater in the Newport Bay watershed. Selenium is essential for reproductive health and immune system function in humans, fish and wildlife. However, selenium bio -accumulates in the food chain and can result in deformities, stunted growth, reduced hatching success, and suppression of immune systems in fish and wildlife. Prior to urban development, the Irvine Subbasin was an area of shallow groundwater that contained an area known as the Swamp of the Frogs (Cienega de Las Ranas). Runoff from local foothills over several thousands of years accumulated selenium -rich deposits in the swamp. To make this region suitable for farming, drains and channels were constructed. This mobilized selenium from sediments into the shallow groundwater drained by the channels that eventually discharge to Newport Bay. The Nitrogen and Selenium Management Program was formed to develop and implement a work plan to address selenium and nitrate in the watershed. This stakeholder working group that includes the County of Orange, affected cities, environmental organizations, Irvine Ranch Water District, the Irvine Company and the Santa Ana Regional Water Board developed a long- term work plan to identify comprehensive point and non -point source management plans for selenium and nitrogen, identify and pilot test potential treatment technologies, and recommend an implementation plan. Management of selenium is difficult as there is no off-the-shelf treatment technology available. CONSTITUENTS OF EMERGING CONCERN Constituents of emerging concern (CECs) are synthetic or naturally occurring substances that are not formally regulated in water supplies or wastewater discharges but can now be detected using very sensitive analytical techniques. The newest group of constituents of emerging concern includes pharmaceuticals, personal care products and endocrine disruptors. Pharmaceuticals and personal care products (PPCPs) include thousands of chemicals contained in consumer and health-related products such as toothpaste, drugs (prescription and over-the-counter), food supplements, fragrances, sun -screen agents, deodorants, flavoring agents, insect repellants, and inert ingredients. Important classes of high -use prescription drugs include antibiotics, hormones, beta-blockers (blood pressure medicine), analgesics (pain- killers), steroids, antiepileptic, sedatives, and lipid regulators. Endocrine Disrupting Compounds (EDCs) are compounds that can disrupt the endocrine system. They can occur in a wide variety of products such as pesticides and pharmaceuticals. OCWD Groundwater Management Plan 2015 Update 8-20 Section 8 Water Quality Protection and Management Research investigations have documented that EDCs can interfere with the normal function of hormones that affect growth and reproduction in animals and humans. Findings of secondary sex changes, poor hatching, decreased fertility, and altered behavior have been observed in fish following exposure to EDCs. In general, these substances have been identified as potential contaminants or were previously detected in the environment. As new laboratory methods are developed, substances can be detected at much lower concentrations. When such detection occurs before regulatory limits are established and potential environmental/aquatic and human health effects are still unknown, water suppliers and health officials face new challenges. In some cases, public awareness and concern is high because the compounds are detected but scientific -based information on potential health impacts of such low concentrations is not available. Water quality concerns arise from the widespread use of PPCPs and EDCs. In the case of pharmaceuticals, the impacts on human health from exposure to low concentrations of these substances are well known due to studies completed during their development and regulatory approval. The effects of personal care products, EDCs, and mixtures of CEC's are less well understood. European studies in the 1990s confirmed the presence of some of these chemicals in the less than one microgram per liter range (ppb) in surface waters and groundwater and at low concentrations in wastewater treatment plant effluents. A USGS report found detectable concentrations of hormones and PPCPs in many vulnerable waterways throughout the United States (Kolpin 2002). Due to the potential impact of EDCs on water reclamation projects, the District prioritizes monitoring of these chemicals. OCWD's state -certified laboratory is one of a few in the state that has a program to continuously develop capabilities to analyze for new compounds. Recognizing that the state Division of Drinking Water has limited resources to focus on methods development, OCWD works on developing low detection levels for chemicals likely to be targeted for future regulation or monitoring. OCWD advocates the following general principles as water suppliers and regulators develop programs to protect public health and the environmental from adverse effects of CECs: • Monitoring should focus on constituents that pose the greatest risk. • Constituents that are prevalent, persistent in the environment, and may occur in unsafe concentrations should be prioritized. • Analytical methods to detect these constituents should be approved by the state or federal government. • Studies to evaluate the potential risk to human health and the environment should be funded by the state or federal government. • The state and federal government should encourage programs to educate the public on waste minimization and proper disposal of unused pharmaceuticals. OCWD is committed to (1) track new compounds of concern; (2) research chemical occurrence and treatment; (3) communicate closely with the Division of Drinking Water on prioritizing OCWD Groundwater Management Plan 2015 Update Section 8 Water Quality Protection and Management investigation and guidance; (4) coordinate with OCSD, upper watershed wastewater dischargers and regulatory agencies to identify sources and reduce contaminant releases; and (5) inform the Producers on emerging issues. The District's program for monitoring CECs is explained in Section 4. GROUNDWATER QUALITY IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS This section describes specific projects that improve groundwater quality by removing TDS, nitrate, VOCs and other constituents. The location of these projects is shown in Figure 8-12. S 0 10,000 20,000 Feet Figure 8-12: Water Quality Improvement Projects OCWD Groundwater Management Plan 2015 Update 8-22 Section 8 Water Quality Protection and Management 8.9.1 North Basin Groundwater Protection Program (NBGPP) The purpose of the North Basin Groundwater Protection Program (NBGPP) is to develop a remedial strategy to prevent VOC-contaminated groundwater in the cities of Fullerton and Anaheim from further spreading in the Shallow Aquifer and migrating vertically into the Principal Aquifer. Groundwater contamination, shown in Figure 8-13, is primarily found in the shallow -most aquifer, which is generally less than 200 feet deep; however, VOC-impacted groundwater has migrated downward into the Principal Aquifer tapped by production wells. The contamination continues to migrate both laterally and vertically threatening downgradient production wells operated by the cities of Fullerton and Anaheim and other agencies. The District is working with regulatory agencies and stakeholders to evaluate and develop effective remedies to address the contamination under the National Contingency Plan (NCP) process. Figure 8-13: North Basin Groundwater Contamination Plume 8.9.2 South Basin Groundwater Protection Program (SBGPP) The purpose of the South Basin Groundwater Protection Program (SBGPP) is to remediate contaminated groundwater in the southern part of the Orange County groundwater basin, shown in Figure 8-14, before it impacts additional drinking water wells and groundwater supplies. The extent of groundwater contamination from volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and perchlorate has been investigated, contamination plumes have been delineated, and the remedial program OCWD Groundwater Management Plan 2015 Update Pk - _w N wn�nfp. -- M,EMN ;QR..NG&TPRVE.w 1 W � .•. .. u y VM6� FS &i � H0- DR - RLE Y wE r y .n.. e<www•w.. CanpGrae VOC Plume-Shaavvr AQulFer M Composite VOC Plume-Priniepal AquiterO�IMUIL"° Rc+•r_ ZZ --1. s, Mci w y+f -C.f�y. e'o �:"; OLas '�" 01ugµ "` October 2013 Composite VOC Plume Map North Basin Grounawater Protection Program 0 0.5 1 -vot..t,°. Ntun F.1, ac Figure 8-13: North Basin Groundwater Contamination Plume 8.9.2 South Basin Groundwater Protection Program (SBGPP) The purpose of the South Basin Groundwater Protection Program (SBGPP) is to remediate contaminated groundwater in the southern part of the Orange County groundwater basin, shown in Figure 8-14, before it impacts additional drinking water wells and groundwater supplies. The extent of groundwater contamination from volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and perchlorate has been investigated, contamination plumes have been delineated, and the remedial program OCWD Groundwater Management Plan 2015 Update Section 8 Water Quality Protection and Management is being developed in cooperation with regulatory agencies and stakeholders following the NCP process. I Santa Ana 4 - SAM�R � •� 1vE SAM3 SAMA t .. iRwo-s lWG6 6AM-3 b Ret AO I IRYA-1 ^ r 6 Eumxe�s df Irvine Figure 8-14: South Basin Groundwater Contamination Plume 8.9.'� MTBE Remediation In 2003, OCWD filed suit against numerous oil and petroleum -related companies that produce, refine, distribute, market, and sell MTBE and other oxygenates. The suit seeks funding from these responsible parties to pay for the investigation, monitoring and removal of oxygenates from the basin. Treatment technologies used to remove MTBE from groundwater include granular activated carbon or advanced oxidation. Depending upon site-specific requirements, a treatment train of two or more technologies in series may be appropriate (i.e., use one technology to remove the bulk of MTBE and a follow-up technology to polish the effluent water stream). If other OCWD Groundwater Management Plan 2015 Update Section 8 Water Quality Protection and Management contaminants (e.g., excessive nitrates or TDS) are also found in groundwater with MTBE, additional treatment processes (ion exchange membranes) would also need to be included in the process train. 8.9.4 Irvine Desalter The Irvine Desalter was built in response to the discovery in 1985 of VOCs beneath the former EI Toro Marine Air Corps Station and the central area of Irvine. The plume of improperly disposed cleaning solvents migrated off base and threatened the groundwater basin. Irvine Ranch Water District and OCWD cooperated in building production wells, pipelines and two treatment plants, both of which are now owned and managed by Irvine Ranch Water District. One plant removes VOCs by air -stripping and vapor -phase carbon adsorption with the treated water used for irrigation and recycled water purposes. A second plant treats groundwater outside the plume to remove excess nitrate and TDS concentrations using RO membranes for drinking water purposes. Combined production of the Irvine Desalter wells is approximately 8,000 afy. 8.9.5 Tustin Desalters Tustin's Main Street Treatment Plant has operated since 1989 to reduce nitrate levels from the groundwater produced by Tustin's Main Street Wells Nos. 3 and 4. The groundwater undergoes either reverse osmosis or ion exchange treatment. The reverse osmosis membranes and ion exchange units operate in a parallel treatment train. Approximately 1 mgd is bypassed and blended with the treatment plant product water to produce up to 2 mgd or 2,000 afy. The Tustin Seventeenth Street Desalter began operation in 1996 to reduce high nitrate and TDS concentrations from the groundwater pumped by Tustin's Seventeenth Street Wells Nos. 2 and 4 and Tustin's Newport Well. The desalter utilizes two RO membrane trains to treat the groundwater. The treatment capacity of each RO train is 1 mgd. Approximately 1 mgd is bypassed and blended with the RO product water to produce up to 3 mgd or 3,000 afy. 8.9.6 River View Golf Course VOC contamination, originating from an up -gradient source, was discovered in a well owned by River View Golf Course, located in the City of Santa Ana. The well was used for drinking water but was converted to supply irrigation for the golf course due to the contamination. Continued operation of the well helps to remove VOC contamination from the basin. ti.y.7 it VII IC McIl Ila I WaRV uisu wt Wells 21 ai id 22 Water produced by Irvine Ranch Water District Wells 21 and 22 contain nitrate (measured as Nitrogen) at levels exceeding the primary MCL of 10 mg/L. TDS concentrations range from 650-740 mg/L, which is above the secondary MCL of 500 mg/L. Because of the elevated nitrate, TDS, and hardness concentrations, IRWD constructed a reverse osmosis treatment facility to reduce concentrations in the water before conveying to the potable supply distribution system. OCWD Groundwater Management Plan 2015 Update Section 8 Water Quality Protection and Management Operation of the treatment facility provides 6,300 afy of drinking water and will benefit the groundwater basin by reducing the spread of impaired groundwater to other portions of the basin. 8.10 BEA EXEMPTION FOR IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS In some cases, the District encourages the pumping of groundwater that does not meet drinking water standards in order to protect water quality. This is achieved by using a financial incentive called the Basin Equity Assessment (BEA) Exemption. The benefits to the basin include promoting beneficial uses of poor -quality groundwater and reducing or preventing the spread of poor -quality groundwater into non -degraded aquifer zones. As explained in detail in Section 11, OCWD uses financial incentives to manage the level of pumping from the groundwater basin. Producers pay a Replenishment Assessment (RA) for water pumped from the basin. Each year the District sets an allowable amount of pumping and assesses an additional charge, called the BEA, on all water pumped above that limit. OCWD uses a partial or total exemption of the BEA to compensate a qualified participating agency or Producer for the costs of treating poor -quality groundwater. These costs typically include capital, interest and operations and maintenance (O&M) costs for the treatment facilities. Using this approach, the District has exempted all or a portion of the BEA for pumping and treating groundwater for removal of nitrates, TDS, VOCs, and other contaminants. Water quality improvement projects that currently are receiving BEA exemptions are listed in Table 8-5. Table 8-5: Summary of BEA Exemption Projects BEA Production OCWD BEA Project Name Project Description Exemption above BPP Subsidy Approved (afy) Remove nitrates, Irvine Desalter 2001 10,000 Exemption TDS, and VOCs Remove nitrates Tustin Desalter 1998 3,500 Exemption and TDS Tustin Nitrate Removal Remove nitrates 1998 1,000 Exemption $50/af BEA River View Golf Course Remove VOCs 1998 350 reduction Mesa WD Colored Remove Color 2000 8,700 Exemption Water Removal IRWD Wells 21 and 22 Remove nitrates 2012 7,000 Exemption OCWD Groundwater Management Plan 2015 Update 8-26 NATURAL RESOURCE AND 0 COLLABORATIVE WATERSHED PROGRAMS j Natural Resources and Collaborative Programs are conducted in Orange County, Prado Basin and in the watershed upstream of Prado Dam. Watershed Programs • Mitigation for OCWD's water management in Prado Basin: invasive plant removal, planting of native vegetation, managing habitat for threatened and endangered birds and creating habitat for the Santa Ana Sucker Orange County Programs • Burris Basin Habitat Management Plan • Nest Boxes Collaborative Watershed Program • Partnering with Santa Ana Watershed Association • Participating in task forces with the Santa Ana Watershed Project Authority • Working with Municipal Water District of Orange County • Partnering with OC Flood Control District and OC Sanitation District Section 9 Natural Resource and Collaborative Watershed Programs SECTION 9 NATURAL RESOURCE AND COLLABORATIVE WATERSHED PROGRAMS 9.1 OCWD NATURAL RESOURCE PROGRAMS — OVERVIEW OCWD participates in cooperative efforts within the Santa Ana River Watershed. OCWD's natural resource programs remove invasive plants, plant native species, and manage habitat and wildlife including endangered and threatened species. These programs protect the water quality in the Santa Ana River and fulfill mitigation requirements for impacts to natural resources from District operations in the Prado Basin. OCWD's natural resource programs exceed that which is required by regulations with the belief that excellence in water management and stewardship of natural resources go hand in hand. The Prado Dam was built by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (the Corps) in 1941. In the 1960s the Corps began working with OCWD to conserve water behind the dam in order to support OCWD's recharge operations as described in Section 5. OCWD's natural resource programs began in response to concerns that increased water storage behind the dam could negatively impact the Prado Basin ecosystem. The Prado Basin, shown in Figure 9-1, contains the single largest stand of forested riparian habitat remaining in coastal Southern California, which supports an abundance and diversity of wildlife including many federal and state listed and sensitive species. OCWD owns approximately 2,150 acres of land in the Prado Basin, which includes approximately 465 -acres of managed wetlands. The wetlands are operated to improve the quality of Santa Ana River water that is used downstream to recharge the Orange County PRADO BASIN NATURAL RESOURCES Groundwater Basin. The riparian woodland provides habitat for a wide variety of wildlife species, particularly birds. The avifauna is a diverse assemblage of resident and migratory species. The raptor concentration in the Prado Basin is among the largest in Southern California. The Prado Basin also provides habitat for the federally and state listed endangered southwestern willow flycatcher (Empidonax traillii extimus), least Bell's vireo (Vireo belli pusillas) and the state listed endangered yellow -billed cuckoo (Coccyzus americanus occidentalis). However, the cuckoo has not been reported in several years. Additionally, several species designated by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife as "Birds of Special Concern" occupy habitat in the basin. These include the Cooper's hawk (Accipiter cooperi), yellow warbler (Dendroica petechia) and yellow -breasted chat (Icteria virens). OCWD Groundwater Management Plan 2015 Update In addition to programs in the Prado Basin, the District is a partner in watershed -wide efforts to eradicate the invasive plant Arundo donax, manages habitat for rare and endangered birds and conducts programs to protect the Santa Ana Sucker, an endangered fish. Wildlife protection programs within Orange County include the construction of a bird island on Burris Basin. Section 9 Natural Resource and Collaborative Watershed Programs Figure 9-1: View of Prado Basin Looking East with Prado Dam in Foreground ^ 0 NATURAL RESOURCE PROGRAMS IN THF WATERSHED OCWD began actively managing habitat and natural resources in the Prado Basin in the 1980s when the District began working with the Corps to increase storage of storm water behind Prado Dam. Enhanced water conservation required planning to avoid, minimize and offset potential environmental damage. The availability of water in the Prado Basin supported wetland habitat but inundation for long periods could negatively impact habitat value. Mitigation requirements for environmental impacts due to OCWD's ongoing operation of the Prado Wetlands and temporary storage behind Prado Dam for water conservation include planting 10,000 native plants per year, restoring riparian habitat, controlling non-native plants, managing least Bell's vireo and survey nesting sites, conducting cowbird trapping programs, and creating habitat for the Santa Ana Sucker. A total of 19 mitigation sites are included in the Prado Mitigation Monitoring Program (Figure 9- 2). To comply with mitigation requirements, OCWD prepares annual monitoring reports to document the progress of habitat restoration activities and management efforts. OCWD Groundwater Management Plan 2015 Update Section 9 Natural Resource and Collaborative Watershed Programs Figure 9-2: Prado Mitigation Areas OCWD Groundwater Management Plan 2015 Update 9-3 Section 9 Natural Resource and Collaborative Watershed Programs 9.2.1 Least Bell's Vireo OCWD is committed to manage habitat and monitor the populations of an endangered bird, the least Bell's vireo, shown in Figure 9-3. In 1983, there were 12 vireo territories in the Prado Basin and extirpation was imminent. OCWD signed agreements with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and the Nature Conservancy in 1989 and 1990 to initiate and fund a vireo management program. This program was expanded with additional agreements with the Corps in 1991, 1992, 1995, 2000, and 2004. In exchange for expansion of water storage behind the dam, OCWD contributed $1.07 million to the Nature Conservancy and $1 million to the Santa Ana Watershed Association (SAWA) and made commitments to restore wildlife habitat, remove invasive plants and participate in other natural resource protection programs in the watershed. Agreements expanded to include establishing a trust fund to remove Arundo and increasing vireo monitoring and habitat protection outside of Prado Basin throughout the watershed. OCWD has created more than 800 acres of habitat for the federally and state listed endangered least Bells' vireo, the Southwestern Willow Flycatcher and many other species in the Prado Basin. In the watershed outside of the basin, OCWD has partnered in the removal of over 5,000 acres of Arundo resulting in thousands of acres of restored habitat for many wildlife species. During the last few years, vireo populations have increased to over 400 breeding pairs out of a total of up to 600 male territories in the Prado Basin (Pike, et al. 2010). A comparison between 1983 vireo territories and 2012 territories can be seen in Figures 9-4 and 9-5. OCWD continues to plant 10,000 native riparian plants in the ground annually. Placing the plantings above potential future water conservation elevations and adjacent to occupied vireo habitat is expected to result in expansion of populations and pave the way for additional water conservation. LEAST BELL'S VIREO Since the initiation of efforts by OCWD in 1983, populations of the least Bell's vireo (Vireo pusillus bellii) has grown from 12 territories in the Prado Basin to 1,432 in the Santa Ana Watershed including 569 in Prado Basin. The vireo population in the watershed is the single largest in existence. The success of vireo recovery in the Santa Ana River Watershed and range -wide in Southern California prompted the Fish and Wildlife Service to recommend that the vireo be down -listed to threatened status. Without OCWD's success with Arundo control and vireo management, increased water conservation and reduced outflows from Prado Dam would not have been allowed. OCWD Groundwater Management Plan 2015 Update least Bell's Vireo Survey Data Far 1983 M..a.aetre —me. o a.00a loan g��y& Section 9 Natural Resource and Collaborative Watershed Programs 9.2.2 Arundo Removal Arundo donax, shown in Figure 9-6, is a grass species native to Europe that was purposely introduced to California in the 1820s for planting along ditches and channels to control erosion. This invasive plant spreads quickly, crowds out native vegetation and has become the dominant species along the Santa Ana River. The plant obstructs flood flows, causes expensive beach cleanups, degrades native habitat, impacts water quality, and consumes at least three times more water than native plants. OCWD began involvement in watershed -wide Arundo control with the signing of a landmark agreement in 1995 between the Corps and U.S. Department of Interior, which allows OCWD to engage in mitigation actions in the upper watershed miles from OCWD property and the site of impact. These mitigation activities are accomplished in i partnership with SAWA, a non- profit corporation run by a five member board with one representative each from the OCWD and four Resource Conservation Districts. Other partners involved in these efforts include the U.S. Fish _ S. and Wildlife Service, California ¢... . Department of Fish and _ �'� Wildlife, the Corps, the Regional Water Quality Control Board, the counties, several cities, and many other, individuals and organizations. Figure 9-6: Arundo Over 5,000 acres of Arundo have been cleared in the upper watershed and additional acres are planned to be cleared within the next five to 10 years. Removing Arundo and keeping it out has yielded a minimum of 15,000 acre-feet of water each year. The 5,000 acres of river bottom lands formerly infested by Arundo and other weeds are now under management. The entire upper watershed of the Santa Ana River and all of the major tributaries have been cleared and are under a regime of re -treatment as needed down to the vicinity of Prado Basin. The goal of control effort is to eventually eradicate Arundo and other pernicious weeds from the watershed. OCWD Groundwater Management Plan 2015 Update Section 9 Natural Resource and Collaborative Watershed Programs Invasive Plants in the Watershed A significant amount of the Santa Ana River Watershed, including the Prado Basin is infested with exotic vegetation. The exotic vegetation includes Giant Reed (Arundo donax), Tree -of - heaven (Ailanthus altissima), White Bladder Flower (Araujia sericifera), Pepperweed (Lepidium latifolium), Castor Bean (Ricinus communis), and Tamarisk (Tamarix ramosissima). The most prolific and abundant exotic species within the Prado Basin is Arundo. The Arundo grows rapidly and unless it is regularly treated it will grow back very quickly. Large strands of Arundo can wash downstream and re -sprout in areas where it has been removed. Until the time the Arundo is removed and managed within the upper watershed down to the Prado Basin, the basin will continue to be infested by Arundo. Arundo has caused major damage to bridges during floods, it renders water ways impenetrable, carries fire storms, destroys wildlife habitat, reduces water quality, interferes with flood control and endangered species recovery, and litters the beaches. 9.2.3 Santa Ana Sucker The Santa Ana Sucker, shown in Figure 9-7, was common in streams of the Santa Ana Watershed and other rivers of Southern California, but has all but disappeared from areas where it was once common. Because of the marked decline in the numbers of these fish, the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service listed the Santa Ana Sucker as threatened under the Endangered Species Act in 2004. OCWD agreed to provide leadership in conservation efforts for the threatened Santa Ana Sucker as part of an agreement in 2006 with the California Department of Fish and Wildlife for dismissal of their protest for OCWD's petition for water rights before the State Water Resources Control Board. Figure 9-7: Santa Ana Sucker Suckers require cool, clear streams with rocky substrate, riffles and pools. The riffles and pools provide refuge from high velocity flows, sites for spawning fish and habitat for benthic invertebrates and plants. Presently, the majority of the Santa Ana River immediately upstream of the Prado Dam is composed of sandy substrate. The sand bottom provides minimal food resources, poor refuge from exotic predators, and no spawning opportunity. OCWD Groundwater Management Plan 2015 Update Section 9 Natural Resource and Collaborative Watershed Programs In 2010, OCWD installed seven rock -filled gabions in the Santa Ana River above Prado Dam in Riverside County between River Road and Hamner Avenue, as shown in Figure 9-8. The gabions are designed to deflect the current, creating localized scour that expose gravel, cobbles and rocks that were buried by sand. This pilot project demonstrated the potential to create habitat for the sucker and showed that design of future, long-term habitat will require rock replenishment or anchoring to be ultimately successful. Partnering with SAWA and other agencies, OCWD designed and implemented the only currently successful sucker habitat restoration project in the watershed. Sunnyslope Creek, a small tributary to the Santa Ana River located near Mt. Rubidoux in Riverside, was one of few known spawning sites for the threatened sucker. High flows caused a blockage in 2005 that cut off flows to the river and threatening the suckers. OCWD biologists conducted studies and began managing the creek in 2010 to restore the hydrologic connection to the river and reduce the threat from non-native predatory aquatic species. This on-going project was deemed a success beginning in 2011 when suckers in spawning condition were again detected in the creek. The Santa Ana Sucker Conservation Team, comprised of staff from concerned public agencies from throughout the Santa Ana River Watershed have been meeting since 1998 to assess the reasons for the decline of the Santa Ana Sucker and to devise strategies for recovering the species. Scientific studies and other cooperative efforts for Sucker conservation are being conducted by the Sucker Conservation Program. The funding partners include OCWD, Orange County Sanitation District, the County of Orange, Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District, Riverside County Transportation Department, City of Riverside, Santa Ana Watershed Project Authority, and San Bernardino Flood Control District. Other active participants include the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, California Department of Fish & Wildlife, the Corps, and Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board. Reports and other information are available online at www.sawpa.org. Figure 9-8: Gabion in Santa Ana River Installed to Create Habitat for Santa Ana Sucker OCWD Groundwater Management Plan 2015 Update Section 9 Natural Resource and Collaborative Watershed Programs 9.2.4 Natural Resource Programs in Orange County Burris Basin Habitat Management Plan Reconstruction of one of the District's recharge basins, Burris Basin, necessitated the removal of existing vegetation and a small island. A comprehensive habitat management plan was developed to mitigate for habitat impacts which included construction of a floating island to provide bird habitat as shown in Figure 9-9. Non-native trees and vegetation were removed and replaced with 650 native trees, 2,900 shrubs and 1,000 mulefat plants. A small freshwater marsh habitat was created on the basin's edge with plantings of cattails, bulrush, primrose, and salt grass. A sandbar island was constructed to create habitat for the California Least Tern, a state and federal endangered species, as well as other native birds. As a result of implementation of the Burris Basin Habitat Management Plan there is a productive 1.5 mile long riparian strip along the entire edge of the basin that in 2014 supported over 150 breeding bird territories in 2014 of 51 different species including Song Sparrows, hummingbirds, swallows, California Towhees, House Finches, Lesser Goldfinches, Mourning Doves, Northern Mockingbirds, Bushtits, Scrub Jay, Yellow Warbler, Common Yellowthroat, Ash -throated Flycatcher, and Black Phoebe. On the nesting bird island there were 18 nesting attempts by California Least Terns, most of Figure 9-9: Bird Habitat Island Constructed in Burris Basin OCWD Groundwater Management Plan 2015 Update them successful along with Forester's Terns (210 nests, 457 eggs laid), Black Skimmers (91 nests, 228 eggs), American Avocets (58 nests, 184 eggs), Black -necked Stilt (28 nests), Killdeer (22 nests), Spotted Sandpiper (3 nests), Mallard and Gadwall (17 nests, 179 eggs), and Canada Goose (5 nests, 24 eggs), among others. Section 9 Natural Resource and Collaborative Watershed Programs Nest Boxes In the 2000s, OCWD began a program to reduce use of chemical pesticides in the vicinity of the Prado Wetlands. Nest boxes were installed for birds, particularly Tree Swallows (Figure 9-10), whose food supply includes flying insect pests. Birds occupied 100% of the nest boxes resulting in nearly 5,000 Tree Swallow fledglings produced, consuming millions of midges and mosquitoes each year. This successful program was expanded to sites along the Santa Ana River in Orange County for the same purpose of reducing the use of chemical pesticides in the river. Bird nest boxes were mounted atop fences, in trees, and on metal poles. Figure 9-10: Tree Swallows Nesting, Lower Santa Ana River, 2014 Figure 9-11: Tree Swallow Nest Box In 2014, 437 boxes were available at 14 distinct locations ranging from water storage basins, the Santa Ana River and the Orange County public bike trail adjacent to the river, one of which is shown in Figure 9-11. Of these, 215 boxes (49%) were occupied by either Tree Swallow (Tachycineta bicolor) or Western Bluebird (Sialic mexicana). There were 182 successful Tree Swallow broods and a total of 648 fledglings produced. Bluebirds occupied 38 boxes and produced 24 successful broods and 90 confirmed fledglings. COLLABORATIVE WATERSHED PROGRAMS OCWD participates in several collaborative programs with stakeholders and agencies within Orange County and the Santa Ana River Watershed. These efforts are described below. Santa Ana Watershed Association The Santa Ana Watershed Association (SAWA) was formed in 1997 to develop, coordinate and implement natural resource programs that support sustainable ecosystems in the upper Santa Ana River Watershed. Major areas of SAWA's focus are removal of invasive species, native habitat enhancement and the protection of endangered and threatened species. The Board of Directors of SAWA includes: OCWD Groundwater Management Plan 2015 Update 9-10 Section 9 Natural Resource and Collaborative Watershed Programs • Orange County Water District • Inland Empire Resource Conservation District • Riverside Corona Resource Conservation District • San Jacinto Basin Resource Conservation District • Elsinore-Murrieta-Anza Resource Conservation District To conserve water behind Prado Dam, the District needs to address potential environmental impacts to habitat for endangered species. The District implements a portion of its environmental mitigation for Prado water conservation through SAWA. Conserving stormwater behind Prado Dam is very important to the District and has increased the sustainable yield of the groundwater basin. Since 1997, SAWA has removed more than 5,000 acres of Arundo from the Santa Ana River Watershed. Past studies have indicated that this provides a net savings in water consumption by these plants of 3.75 acre-feet/year or 18,750 acre-feet of additional water in the river annually. More recent studies estimate the water savings to be much higher at 20 acre- feet/acre of Arundo removed. Santa Ana Watershed Proiect Authority The Santa Ana Watershed Project Authority (SAWPA) was first formed in 1968 as a planning agency and reformed in 1972 with a mission is to develop and maintain regional plans, programs, and projects that will protect the Santa Ana River Basin water resources. The current configuration as a joint powers authority went into effect in 1975. SAWPA's member agencies include San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District, Inland Empire Utilities Agency, Western Municipal Water District, Eastern Municipal Water District, and OCWD. The District participates on a number of work groups that meet on a regular basis to discuss, plan, and make joint decisions on management of water resources in the Santa Ana Watershed. OCWD actively participates in the following SAWPA task forces and work groups: SAWPA Commission The commission, composed of Board members from SAWPA's five member agencies including OCWD, meets on a monthly basis to set policy and oversee the management of SAWPA. Storm Water Quality Standards Task Force The Storm Water Quality Standards Task Force was formed in 2002 to evaluate water quality standards for body contact recreation related to urban runoff and stormwater. Water and wastewater agencies, stormwater management agencies, environmental groups, and the Regional Water Board joined together to develop recommendations for updating recreational water quality standards for freshwater bodies in the watershed. This effort was initiated by the counties and cities concerned about the future cost of compliance with stormwater discharge permits. One major challenge in the region is that beneficial uses for water in flood -control channels include direct body contact recreation. Stringent bacterial standards to protect OCWD Groundwater Management Plan 2015 Update 9-11 Section 9 Natural Resource and Collaborative Watershed Programs recreational use of these waters must be met even though many of the channels are concrete - lined, are fenced off, and would be unsafe for swimming during storms. This task force collected data, evaluated water bodies for their actual and potential recreational value and prepared reports that were used to identify and document where body -contact recreation was occurring and could potentially occur. Regulatory changes were drafted and adopted that will focus water quality improvement efforts in areas of greatest recreational value. Basin Monitoring Program I ask Force In 1995, a task force of over 20 water and wastewater resource agencies and local governments, including OCWD, initiated a study to evaluate the impacts to groundwater quality of elevated levels of Total Inorganic Nitrogen (TIN) and Total Dissolved Solids (TDS) in the watershed. Formation of the Task Force was in response to concerns by the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board (Regional Water Board) that water quality objectives for nitrogen and TDS were being exceeded in some groundwater basins in the watershed. The Task Force completed the study and developed amendments to the Water Quality Control Plan for the Santa Ana River Basin (Basin Plan) that were adopted in 2004. This nearly 10 -year effort involved collecting and analyzing data in 25 newly defined groundwater management zones in the watershed to recalculate nitrogen and TDS levels and to establish new water quality objectives. One major challenge of this effort was developing the tools and collecting data to assess and monitor surface water and groundwater interactions. Although typically regulated and managed separately, stakeholders recognized that surface water and groundwater in the watershed are interconnected and as such protection of these resources would require a comprehensive program. Models were developed and data collected to enable an evaluation of the potential short-term and long-term impacts on water resources due to changes in land use, the quantity and quality of runoff, and point source discharges. The Basin Plan charges the Task Force with implementing a watershed -wide TDS/Nitrogen management program. Task Force members agreed to fund and participate in a process to recalculate ambient water quality every three years in each of the 25 groundwater management zones and to compare water quality to the water quality objectives in order to measure compliance with the Basin Plan. The latest recalculation, the third since adoption of the amendment, was completed in 2014 (Wildermuth, 2014). Salinity Management and Imported Water Recharge Workgroup The Salinity Management and Imported Water Recharge Workgroup, in cooperation with the Regional Water Board, implements a Cooperative Agreement signed in 2008 by water agencies that use imported water for groundwater recharge. The objective of this effort was to evaluate and monitor the long-term impacts of recharging groundwater basins with imported water. The concern was using imported water supplies with relatively high salt concentrations for groundwater recharge in basins with lower salinity. In these cases, using imported water as a source to recharge had the potential to degrade groundwater quality in those basins. OCWD Groundwater Management Plan 2015 Update 9-12 Section 9 Natural Resource and Collaborative Watershed Programs The workgroup analyzes water quality data and estimates future conditions to evaluate the potential impact of recharging imported water. TDS and nitrate data are collected and analyzed to determine whether the intentional recharge of imported water may have adverse impacts on compliance with salinity objectives in the region. .zmerging Constituents Workgroup "Emerging Constituents" (ECs) refers to a group of chemicals that are ingredients in consumer and industrial products (pharmaceuticals, personal care products, food additives, pesticides, and other common household products) that may occur at trace levels in wastewater discharges, agricultural runoff and various surface water bodies and are currently unregulated. In 2008, a workgroup was formed with stakeholders in the watershed to develop a monitoring program to evaluate the potential impacts of emerging constituents on surface and groundwater quality from the recharge of imported water and the discharge of treated wastewater in the Santa Ana River. The group began collecting and analyzing water samples in 2010 and continued for the next three years. Future monitoring will continue when the State Water Resources Control Board finalizes plans for a state-wide EC monitoring program. Santa Ana Sucker Conservation Tearri Meeting monthly since 1998, a group of concerned public agencies from throughout the Santa Ana River Watershed has been working to determine the reasons for the decline of the Santa Ana Sucker (Catostomus santaanae) and to devise strategies for recovering the species. The U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service and the California Department of Fish & Wildlife are part of this effort. One Water One Watershed Initiative A large and diverse group of interested citizens and organizations participated in the development of an Integrated Regional Water Management Plan for the Santa Ana River Watershed. The title of the plan "One Water One Watershed" reflects the objective to engage in watershed -wide planning that recognizes the need for and importance of water as a shared resource for a diverse group of stakeholders and that protecting and managing this resource on the scale of the watershed is of value to all. IVIUI nUudl Wal -_l uisu IUL Ulu, ai iuC uyunty The Municipal Water District of Orange County (MWDOC) is a member agency of the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (MWD) and provides imported water to 28 retail water agencies and cities in Orange County. MWDOC also supplies untreated imported water to OCWD for use as a supplemental source of water to recharge the groundwater basin. OCWD and MWDOC meet on a monthly basis to discuss various topics, including: • Coordinating mutual water resources planning, supply availability, and water -use efficiency (conservation) programs. • Conducting and developing an Orange County Water Reliability Program to improve the overall water and emergency supply to Orange County. OCWD Groundwater Management Plan 2015 Update Section 9 Natural Resource and Collaborative Watershed Programs • Evaluating ocean water desalination, water recycling and other means to increase the supply and system reliability. • Evaluating water transfers and exchanges that would make surplus supplies from other areas available to the District. Water Advisory Committee of Orange County The Water Advisory Committee of Orange County (WACO) is a group of elected officials and water managers who meet on a monthly basis to provide advice to OCWD and MWDOC on water supply issues (Figure 9-12). fIN r— Figure 9-12: WACO Meeting in Fountain Valley Groundwater Replenishment System Steering Committee The Groundwater Replenishment System Steering Committee is a joint committee of the OCWD and the Orange County Sanitation District. Directors of the two districts meet on a monthly basis to coordinate joint operations. Orange County Flood Control District Three of the recharge basins used by OCWD for groundwater recharge are owned by the Orange County Flood Control District. OCWD also owns a six -mile section of the Santa Ana River that is used for conveyance of floodwater. Quarterly meetings are held to discuss joint operations and planning. OCWD Groundwater Management Plan 2015 Update 9-14 Section 9 Natural Resource and Collaborative Watershed Programs 4 MANAGEMENT OF AREAS WITHIN BASIN 8-1 OUTSIDE OCWD BOUNDARIES As explained in Section 3.1.3, the OCWD Groundwater Basin boundary does not encompass the entire area of Basin 8-1, as defined by DWR. The areas outside OCWD can generally be categorized as the La Habra Subbasin, the Santa Ana Canyon area, and the area within the Irvine Subbasin. In addition to considering possible DWR boundary modifications, OCWD is currently collaborating with other agencies regarding the management of these three areas are described below. -a Habra SubBasin Groundwater in this subbasin flows in a westerly direction into Los Angeles County and in a southerly direction into the Orange County Groundwater Basin. This portion of the groundwater basin is relatively shallow and production is limited due to water quality issues. The cities of La Habra and Brea are discussing the option of preparing a +anCounty ino - i'_ Groundwater Sustainability Plan for the La Habra SubBasin and Los Angeles �•.� -�� County are collaborating with OCWD as appropriate. Santa Ana Canyon The areas in the Santa Ana Canyon outside of OCWD are located in Orange, Riverside and San Bernardino Counties. Oran L �,�x, Groundwater in this area of the basin is shallow. Active • production wells as shown in Figure 9-13 are owned by the County of Orange and used to o' Pacific Ocee an 1 irrigate the Green River Golf h ��• '� � - - .1 Course. Discussions between the three counties and OCWD w W,regarding management of this ' area are ongoing. Figure 9-13: Areas Outside OCWD Boundaries Irvine SubBasin Groundwater resources in the Irvine Subbasin outside District boundaries are generally of poor quality and limited in supply. There are no active production wells in this portion of the basin. Irvine Ranch Water District has some inactive wells located in the City of Lake Forest that produce poor quality water in limited quantities. OCWD Groundwater Management Plan 2015 Update 9-15 Section 9 Natural Resource and Collaborative Watershed Programs 9.5 ORANGE COUNTY WATER RESOURCES -RELATED PLANS North Orange County Integrated Regional Water Management Plan This plan was prepared by the County of Orange with the participants of a diverse group of stakeholders. The North Orange County planning area encompasses the Santa Ana River Watershed, the Lower San Gabriel River, Coyote Creek Watershed, and the Anaheim Bay - Huntington Harbour Watershed. The North Orange County Integrated Regional Watershed Management Plan was prepared in 2011 to maximize use of local water resources, to increase collaboration and to apply multiple water management strategies by implementing multi-purpose projects in the region. The plan was designed to help agencies, governments and community groups manage their water, wastewater and ecological resources and to identify potential projects to improve water quality, engage in long range water planning and obtain funding. OCWD participated in the preparation of this plan and submitted proposed projects to be considered as regional projects to augment local water supplies, protect groundwater quality and increase water supply reliability. Central Oranae Countv Intearated Reaional and Coastal Watershed Manaaement Plan The Central Orange County plan was prepared in 2011 by the County of Orange and local stakeholders, including OCWD, to serve as a planning tool to effectively manage the region's water resources. The central area encompasses the entire Newport Bay Watershed and the northern portion of the adjacent Newport Coast Watershed that lies within the jurisdiction of the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board. The plan sets goals and objectives, identifies water resource projects, and discusses ways to integrate a proposed project with other projects One Water One Watershed (OWOW) 2.0 The Integrated Regional Watershed Management Plan for the Santa Ana Watershed is referred to as the OWOW 2.0 plan. Drafted by watershed stakeholders, including OCWD, under the direction of the Santa Ana Watershed Project Authority (SAWPA), this updated plan was adopted by the SAWPA Commission in 2014. The plan details the water resource related opportunities and constraints with the aim of developing proposed projects that provide a regional benefit, are integrated, and are proposed by more than one agency. Municipal Water District of Orange Count Urban Water Management Plan The Municipal Water District of Orange County (MWDOC) is a water wholesaler and regional planning agency serving 26 cities and water districts throughout Orange County, which includes OCWD's service area. MWDOC prepared its 2010 Regional Urban Water Management Plan to provide a comprehensive assessment of the region's water services, sources and supplies, including imported water, groundwater, surface water, recycled water, and wastewater. Findings and projections in the plan are used by OCWD and water retailers. OCWD Groundwater Management Plan 2015 Update 9-16 Section 9 Natural Resource and Collaborative Watershed Programs Water Reliability Report Completed in 2015, this report assesses future demands, the reliability of the import system and need for future projects. Orange County Municipal Stormwater Program Municipal stormwater discharges are regulated under the federal Clean Water Act National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit and in California by the State Water Resources Control Board under the California Water Code. In Orange County, this permit is issued by the Regional Water Quality Control Board to the County of Orange, as the principal permittee, and the Orange County Flood Control District and municipalities as the co - permittees. As the principal permittee, the county guides development and implements the stormwater program to ensure compliance and prevent ocean pollution. To assist municipalities in reviewing and approving stormwater discharge permits, the county prepared a Model Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP). The document contains guidance for the preparation of individual project WQMP needed for the approval of development projects. The permit requires that new development and significant development projects manage stormwater on-site to the extent feasible using low -impact development (LID) best management practices (BMPs) with a requirement for maximizing infiltration of stormwater on the project site. To assist municipalities in implementing the stormwater program, the county prepared detailed maps showing areas where infiltration potentially is feasible and areas where infiltration is likely to be infeasible due to soil conditions, high groundwater, potential landslide areas, and areas with groundwater contamination. These maps are included as Figure XVI.2 in Appendix XVI of the Technical Guidance Document that can be found at the following link: http://cm s. ocgov. com/gov/pw/watersheds/documents/wgm P/defau It. asp A permit condition requires that municipalities consult with the applicable groundwater management agency in reviewing on-site project plans that propose the utilization of infiltration LID BMPs. As such, OCWD reviews these plans within District boundaries to evaluate any potential impacts to groundwater quality due to infiltration of stormwater on particular sites. Urban Water Management Plans California's Urban Water Management Planning Act requires that urban water suppliers providing water for municipal purposes to more than 3,000 customers, or supplying more than 3,000 acre-feet of water annually, prepare and adopt an Urban Water Management Plan. UWMPs describe current and future water supplies and demands and must be updated every five years. OCWD utilizes the water demand forecasts from the UWMPs within District boundaries for long-range planning purposes. OCWD Groundwater Management Plan 2015 Update 9-17 Section 9 Natural Resource and Collaborative Watershed Programs Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board, Santa Ana River Basin Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) The Basin Plan establishes surface and groundwater quality objectives for the Santa Ana River Basin. The water quality objectives are established to protect and enhance beneficial uses of water in the region. The basin plan identifies beneficial uses of ocean waters, bays, estuaries, tidal prisms, inland surface streams, lakes and reservoirs, wetlands, and groundwater basins, including water bodies within District boundaries. 9.6 COLLABORATION WITH FEDERAL AND STATE AGENCIES This section summarizes the federal and state agencies that have regulatory authority over District operations and collaborate with OCWD. 9.6.1 Federal Agencies The United States Army Corps of Engineers (the Corps) is responsible for providing flood control on the Santa Ana River and tributaries and owns and operates the Prado Dam. The Corps and OCWD have been working together for many years on water conservation programs to temporarily impound water behind Prado Dam. Based on a Memorandum of Understanding the Corps agrees to temporarily store water behind the dam and release the water at rates that allow OCWD to divert the supply into recharge facilities downstream of the dam as long as consistent with the primary purpose of the dam for flood risk management. The Corps also administers permits pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act for activities conducted within "waters of the United States." OCWD obtains 404 permits from the Corps when District activities and project construction will impact waters of the United States. s Figure 9-14: OCWD Recharge Operations Staff During the flood season, OCWD and staff in the Corps Reservoir Regulation section, collaborate, sometimes on a daily basis, to coordinate releases from the dam to the District's downstream facilities. The United States Geological Survey (USGS) operates stream gage stations in the watershed. All of these stations measure flows but some also measure water quality, such as TDS. OCWD meets annually with USGS staff to discuss the scope of the monitoring program and provides funds to maintain several of the stream gage stations on the Santa Ana River. OCWD Groundwater Management Plan 2015 Update 9-18 Section 9 Natural Resource and Collaborative Watershed Programs The United State Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) issues permits for OCWD projects that impact aquatic habitat and provides assistance with District programs to manage habitat for Santa Ana Suckers, least Bell's vireo, and other species. The USFWS also issues Biological Opinions that are incorporated into the MOU with the Corps on water conservation activities at Prado Dam. If any deviations from the approved plans are made, OCWD and the Corps first consults with the USFWS before any actions are taken. The United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) implements and enforces Clean Water Act and Safe Drinking Water Act programs and provides support for cleanup of contaminated groundwater. The United States Department of Defense (DOD) is taking the lead to clean up groundwater contamination at EI Toro and Tustin Marine Corps Air Stations and Seal Beach Naval Weapons Station. OCWD was heavily involved in all phases of these projects, including investigations, remedial design, alternative analysis, and monitoring. 9.6.2 State Agencies The California Department of Fish and Wildlife manages programs to protect fish in surface waters and issues permits for OCWD projects that impact waters of the state and wetlands of the state. The California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) oversees cleanup of contaminated groundwater sites in Orange County including remediation of the Stringfellow Acid Pits Superfund site clean-up in Riverside County that has potential to impact the Santa Ana River. OCWD regularly corresponds and collaborates with DTSC staff regarding sites that have or have the potential to impact groundwater quality. The California Department of Water Resources (DWR) operates the State Water Project and develops the California Water Plan that serves as a guide to development and management of the State's water resources. DWR manages Integrated Regional Water Management grants and other grant programs from which OCWD has received grants for some projects. The California Statewide Groundwater Elevation Monitoring (CASGEM) program created by the California Legislature in 2009 requires the monitoring and reporting of groundwater elevation data. OCWD is the CASGEM monitoring agency for the Orange County Groundwater Basin. The California State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) was established through the California Porter -Cologne Water Quality Act of 1969 and is the primary state agency responsible for water quality management in the state and as such sets statewide policy regarding water quality including regulation of recycled water projects. The SWRCB's policies are implemented by nine Regional Water Quality Control Boards. The Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board regulates and manages water quality programs that include northern and central Orange County. As with DTSC, OCWD regularly engages RWQCB staff regarding sites under investigation or in remediation, the GWRS permit and other permits issued to OCWD as well as permits issued to other agencies that may impact the groundwater basin. OCWD Groundwater Management Plan 2015 Update 9-19 Section 9 Natural Resource and Collaborative Watershed Programs 9.6.3 County Agencies The Orange County Flood Control District (OCFCD) is a division of Orange County Public Works Department with responsibility to maintain the Santa Ana River levees and concrete channels in Orange County. OCFCD has agreements with OCWD to use basins owned by OCFCD for groundwater recharge and is a partner with the District in re -developing Fletcher Basin, owned by OCFCD, for use as groundwater recharge basin. OC Environmental Services is a division of the Orange County Public Works Department responsible for coordination of watershed plans for the North, Central, and South Orange County Integrated Regional Watershed Management Plans as well as compliance with the Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) permit for the county. Orange County Local Area Formation Commission (OC LAFCO) is responsible for coordinating changes in local government boundaries including annexations, conducting special studies and updating sphere of influences for each city and special district within the County. LAFCO conducts municipal service reviews for all cities and special districts to look at future growth and how local agencies are planning for that growth within the municipal services and infrastructure systems. 9.b.4 Kegional The Santa Ana River Watermaster is a five -member committee appointed by the court to administer the provisions of the 1969 judgment (see Section 1.2). The SAR Watermaster is comprised of representatives from each of the parties to the judgment. The SAR Watermaster maintains a continuous accounting of stormflows and baseflows, entitlement credits and debits, and water quality data. This information is reported to the court annually for each water year. River flows recorded in the annual Watermaster Report are determined from river gages managed by the USGS. The Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (MWD) is a consortium of 26 cities and water districts that provides drinking water to nearly 19 million people in Southern California. OCWD purchases imported water from MWD through the Municipal Water District of Orange County for recharge. OCWD and MWD have a storage agreement that allows MWD to store up to 66,000 acre-feet of water in the basin. OCWD also engages MWD regarding policies related to groundwater replenishment, local resource programs and basin storage agreements. The Municipal Water District of Orange County (MWDOC) purchases imported water from MWD on behalf of OCWD and groundwater producers, and conducts water -use efficiency programs and provides other services to member agencies. The Los Angeles Department of Public Works (LADPW) operates the Alamitos Seawater Intrusion Barrier under a joint agreement with OCWD. OCWD, along with LADPW, jointly manage the Alamitos Barrier and have regularly scheduled meetings to review operations and establish budget and cost-sharing. OCWD Groundwater Management Plan 2015 Update 9-20 Section 9 Natural Resource and Collaborative Watershed Programs The Water Replenishment District of Southern California (WRD) provides water to supply the Alamitos Seawater Intrusion Barrier. The WRD, along with OCWD and LADPW, participates in meetings on the operation and management of the Alamitos Barrier. The Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board (Regional Water Board) manages and enforces water quality control programs in the Santa Ana River Watershed. OCWD works closely with the Regional Water Board on a wide variety of issues. The Orange County Sanitation District (OCSD) and OCWD jointly operate the Groundwater Replenishment System. Monthly GWRS steering committee meetings are held with OCSD. J.7 LAND USE, DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ,REVIEWS Protecting groundwater from contamination protects public health and prevents loss of valuable groundwater resources. Monitoring potential impacts from proposed new land uses and planning for future development are key management activities essential for protecting, preventing and reducing contaminant risks to drinking water supplies. OCWD monitors, reviews and comments on local land use plans and environmental documents such as Environmental Impact Reports, Notices of Preparation, amendments to local General Plans and Specific Plans, proposed zoning changes, draft Water Quality Management Plans, and other land development plans. District staff also review draft National Pollution Discharge Elimination System and waste discharge permits issued by the Regional Water Board. The proposed projects and programs may have elements that could cause short- or long-term water quality impacts to source water used for groundwater replenishment or have the potential to degrade groundwater resources. Monitoring and reviewing waste discharge permits provides the District with insight on activities in the watershed that could affect water quality. Figure 9-15: Aerial View of Orange County The majority of the basin's land area is located in a highly urbanized setting and requires tailored water supply protection strategies. Reviewing and commenting on stormwater permits and waste discharge permits adopted by the Regional Water Board for the portions of Orange, Riverside and San Bernardino Counties that are within the Santa Ana River watershed are conducted by OCWD on a routine basis. These permits can affect the quality of water in the Santa Ana River and other water bodies, thereby impacting groundwater quality in the basin. OCWD works with local agencies having oversight responsibilities on the handling, use and storage of hazardous materials; underground tank permitting; well abandonment programs; septic tank upgrades; and drainage issues. Participating in basin planning activities of the OCWD Groundwater Management Plan 2015 Update 9-21 Section 9 Natural Resource and Collaborative Watershed Programs Regional Water Board and serving on technical advisory committees and task forces related to water quality are also valuable activities to protect water quality. The Regional Board Fourth Term municipal separate storm sewer systems (MS4) permit (Order R-8-2009-0030) was adopted with specific requirements for new development and significant redevelopment to manage stormwater on-site. Low impact development (LID) is a stormwater management strategy that emphasizes conservation and use of existing site features integrated with distributed stormwater controls. The strategy is designed to mimic natural hydrologic patterns of undeveloped sites as opposed to traditional stormwater management controls. LID includes both site design and structural measures used to manage stormwater on a particular development site. The MS4 permit requires that any new development or significant re -development project consider groundwater conditions as part of the preparation of a Project Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP). The County of Orange prepared a Model WQMP to explain the requirements and types of analyses that are required in preparing a Conceptual/Preliminary or Project WQMP in compliance with the permit. A Technical Guidance Document (TGD) was prepared as a technical resource companion to the Model WQMP. Permit conditions require that any proposed infiltration activities be coordinated with the applicable groundwater management agency, such as the OCWD, to ensure groundwater quality is protected. Consequently, OCWD regularly reviews local development projects to evaluate any potential impacts to groundwater quality due to infiltration of stormwater on development sites within Orange County. The TGD contains specific criteria to protect groundwater quality as part of local efforts to manage stormwater infiltration. The depth to seasonal high groundwater table beneath the project may preclude on-site infiltration of stormwater. In areas with known groundwater and soil pollution, infiltration may need to be avoided if it could contribute to the movement or dispersion of soil or groundwater contamination or adversely affect ongoing cleanup efforts. Potential for contamination due to infiltration is dependent on a number of factors including local hydrogeology and the chemical characteristics of the pollutants of concern. If infiltration is under consideration in areas where soil or groundwater pollutant mobilization is a concern, a site-specific analysis must be conducted to determine where infiltration -based BMPs can be used without adverse impacts. Criteria for infiltration related to protection of groundwater quality include: • Minimum separation between the ground surface and groundwater including guidance for calculating mounding potential • Categorization of infiltration BMPs by relative risk of groundwater contamination • Pollutant sources in the tributary watershed and pretreatment requirements • Setbacks from known plumes and contaminated sites • Guidelines for review by applicable groundwater management agencies OCWD Groundwater Management Plan 2015 Update 9-22 SUSTAINABLE BASIN MANAGEMENT Acre-feet (x1000) 550 500 450 400 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 1999-00 2002-03 2005-06 2008-09 2011-12 DOI-111I:I:a1X_1:4 Maintaining balance between recharge and production over the long-term assures sustainable basin management Sustainable Basin Management involves: !r Production • Maintaining groundwater levels within the set basin operating range • Balancing production and recharge • Managing basin pumping by annually setting the Basin Production Percentage • Maximizing recharge by increasing the efficiency of and expanding recharge facilities and the supply of recharge water (MO • Managing water demands in cooperation with Groundwater Producers and through programs conducted by the Municipal Water District of Orange County and the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California Section 10 Sustainable Basin Management SECTION 10 SUSTAINABLE BASIN MANAGEMENT 10.1 BACKGROUND The Orange County Water District was created in 1933 in order to protect the water supplies vital for recharging the Orange County Groundwater Basis over the long-term. Water demands were growing, not only in Orange County, but also in the rest of the watershed. Groundwater production was increasing at the same time as flows in the Santa Ana River were declining. Between the District's creation in 1933 and the 1950s, increased pumping from the basin outpaced the rate of recharge. Groundwater levels dropped and seawater intrusion into coastal areas threatened the basin's water quality. It became apparent that natural recharge and increased capture of storm flows were insufficient. Purchasing imported water for groundwater recharge was deemed necessary. However, the District's reliance on ad valorem taxes would not provide the resources needed to purchase of the large quantities of imported water needed to replenish the basin. Groundwater producers agreed to a strategy of managing the basin as a common pool of water rather than allocating individual basin water rights. OCWD adopted a management plan allowing all producers to pump as much as they wanted provided they pay for the costs of replenishing the basin with imported water. In 1954, the District Act was amended to establish a charge to pump groundwater. Each producer was required to register wells with OCWD, maintain records of amount withdrawn during the year and pay a Replenishment Assessment in proportion to the amount of extracted groundwater. The Act now included a requirement that OCWD prepare an annual Engineer's Report documenting the amount of production and replenishment achieved in the prior year, a determination of how much water could be safely pumped from the basin in the coming year and an estimate of the amount of imported water needed to maintain groundwater supplies and refill the basin. Shortly after the Replenishment Assessment was instituted, OCWD embarked on an aggressive effort to refill the basin. From 1954 to 1964, OCWD imported and recharged a total of 1.3 million acre-feet of water. Over time, OCWD's knowledge of the hydrogeology of the basin improved with data collected from the ever-growing number of production and monitoring wells as well as experience with operating recharge facilities and seawater intrusion barriers. One of the primary objectives continued to be managing the basin within a safe operating range. The current policy of maintaining a groundwater storage level of between 100,000 to 500,000 acre-feet below full was established based on completion of a comprehensive hydrogeological study of the basin in 2007 (OCWD, 2007). Today, OCWD is able to support increased demands OCWD Groundwater Management Plan 2015 Update 10-1 Section 10 Sustainable Basin Management from the basin by maximizing the amount of water recharged, developing new sources of recharge water, and increasing the effectiveness of the District's recharge facilities. 10.2 BASIN OPERATING RANGE Within the Orange County Groundwater Basin, there is an estimated 66 million acre-feet of water in storage (OCWD, 2007). In spite of the large amount of stored water, there is a narrow operating range within which the Basin can safely operate. The safe operating range is largely dictated by water quality issues, particularly seawater intrusion and the need to prevent land subsidence. The factors that are considered in determining the optimum level of basin storage are shown in Table 10-1. Each year the District determines the optimum level of storage for the following year. Issues that are evaluated when considering the management of the basin at the lower end of the safe operating range are the risk of land subsidence, inflow of amber -colored water or poor quality groundwater into the Principal Aquifer from underlying or overlying aquifers, and the number of shallow production wells that would become inoperable due to lower groundwater levels. When operating the basin at a high storage level, the amount of energy required to pump groundwater is less but groundwater outflow to Los Angeles County is greater. As explained above, OCWD does not limit pumping from the groundwater basin. Instead, basin storage and total pumping is managed using financial incentives to encourage Producers to pump an aggregate amount of water that is sustainable over the long-term. The process that determines a sustainable level of pumping considers the basin's safe operating range, basin storage conditions, water demands, and the amount of recharge water available to the District. The basin is managed to avoid groundwater elevations dropping to levels that result in negative or adverse impacts. Negative or adverse impacts that are considered when establishing the safe operating range include chronic groundwater levels indicating a significant and unreasonable depletion of supply if continued over the long-term, increased seawater intrusion, significant and unreasonable land subsidence that substantially interferes with surface land uses, and increased pumping costs, as illustrated in Figure 10-1. The basin's storage level is quantified based on a benchmark defined as the full basin condition. Although the groundwater basin rarely reaches the full basin condition, basin storage has fluctuated within the safe operating range for many decades. The degree to which the storage is below the full basin condition is defined in the District Act as the "accumulated overdraft." The District's annual Engineer's Report includes a determination of the "annual overdraft" and the "accumulated overdraft as of the last day of the preceding water year," the total groundwater production, and a recommendation of the quantity of water to be purchased for replenishment. The accumulated overdraft is a calculation of the difference between groundwater production and recharge over the long-term. OCWD Groundwater Management Plan 2015 Update 10-2 Section 10 Sustainable Basin Management Table 10-1: Benefits and Constraints of Changing Storage Levels Available Storage Space (amount below full basin condition in acre-feet) Benefits Less than Improve control of seawater 200,000 intrusion • Lower cost to pump groundwater • Maintain stable BPP; potential to increase BPP • Increase supply of water for pumping in dry years • Decrease potential for vertical migration of poor quality water 200,000- • Minimal to no impacts from high 350,000 groundwater levels • Increase available storage capacity when recharge water available • Decrease groundwater outflow to Los Angeles County 350,000 to • Minimal to no problems with high 500,000 groundwater levels • Increased available storage capacity if large amount of recharge water becomes available • Further decrease in groundwater outflow to Los Angeles County Constraints • Increase groundwater flow to Los Angeles County • Possible impacts of high groundwater levels in local areas • Decrease opportunity to recharge basin when low-cost recharge water available • Reduced amount of water in storage for pumping during drought • Increase risk of seawater intrusion • Reduce supply of water in storage available for dry years • Increase pumping costs • Increase risk of seawater intrusion • Some production wells inoperable when groundwater levels below 400,000 acre-feet • Potential risk of increased land subsidence • Potential increased risk of vertical migration of poor quality water • Need to increase purchase of imported water Difficult to maintain stable BPP The available storage space is the amount of available storage space below the full basin condition. The operating range of the basin is from zero to 500,000 acre-feet below the full basin condition. Maintaining the basin storage condition on a long-term basis within this operating range prevents the basin from becoming adversely over -drafted. Short-term excursions from the operating range due to extreme drought or other factors are not expected to cause adverse impacts but would need to be monitoring closely and be of limited duration. In the California Water Plan Update 2013 this manner of groundwater basin management is described as follows: "Change in groundwater storage is the difference in stored groundwater volume between two time periods... However, declining storage over a period characterized by average hydrologic conditions does not necessarily mean OCWD Groundwater Management Plan 2015 Update 10-3 Section 10 Sustainable Basin Management that the basin is being managed unsustainably or is subject to conditions of overdraft. Utilization of groundwater in storage during years of diminishing surface water supply, followed by active recharge of the aquifer when surface water or other alternative supplies become available, is a recognized and acceptable approach to conjunctive water management." (CWP, p. SC -77)2 Because OCWD has the means to manage basin storage within a safe operating range, and has operated the basin within this range for decades, overdraft in the traditional sense does not exist in the Orange County Groundwater Basin. For this reason, it makes more sense to refer to the storage condition of the basin, similar to the manner of describing storage in a surface water reservoir. With approximately 66,000,000 acre-feet of water in storage at the full condition, when storage levels are decreased by 200,000 acre-feet, the basin is approximately 99.7 percent full. When storage levels decrease from 200,000 to 400,000 acre-feet, the basin is 99.4 percent full. From a classical surface water reservoir perspective, the basin is almost always nearly "full." HIGHER GROUNDWATER LEVELS Water available for pumping during droughts. wen pumps Y ,ter leve LOWER GROUNDWATER LEVELS Higher cost to pump groundwater. Less water ` pumping d IF I Lower cast to pump 49 groundwater. OL Storage space available when recharge supplies are plentiful. Reduced yields it shallow wells. i Figure 10-1: Schematic Illustration of Impacts of Changing the Amount of Groundwater in Storage 2 This is in contrast to the traditional condition of "overdraft" as defined by the California Department of Water Resources (DWR): ".. the condition of a groundwater basin in which the amount of water withdrawn by pumping over the long term exceeds the amount of water that recharges the basin. Overdraft is characterized by groundwater levels that decline over a period of years and never fully recover, even in wet years. Overdraft can lead to increased extraction costs, land subsidence, water quality degradation, and environmental impacts." (DWR, 2003) DWR Bulletin 118, Chapter 1 —California's Hidden Resource, p.29 OCWD Groundwater Management Plan 2015 Update 10-4 Section 10 Sustainable Basin Management 10.3 BALANCING PRODUCTION AND RECHARGE Over the long-term, the basin must be maintained in an approximate balance to ensure the long-term viability of basin water supplies. In one particular year, water withdrawals may exceed water recharged as long as over the course of a number of years this is balanced by years since production and water recharged exceeds withdrawals. Levels of total basin production and total water recharged since water year 1999-00 are shown in Figure 10-2 and Table 10-2. Acre-feet (x1000) 550 500 450 400 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 mIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII Santa Ana River Base Flow Recycled Water Incidental Recharge Santa Ana River Storm Flow Imported Water Groundwater Production 1999-00 2002-03 2005-06 2008-09 2011-12 Notes: (1) "Imported Water" includes water purchased by OCWD for recharge and water recharged under both the MWD Conjunctive Use Program (CUP) and the in -lieu program. (2) "Production" includes water produced from the basin by groundwater producers and under the MWD CUP program. Figure 10-2: Basin Production and Recharge Sources, WY 1999-00 to 2013-14 Table 10-2: Groundwater Production and Recharge Sources (afy) Water Year Santa Ana River Base Flow Santa Ana River Storm Flow Recycled Water Imported Water Incidental Recharge Groundwater Production 1999-00 150,000 39,000 6,000 78,000 82,000 341,000 2000-01 153,000 29,000 2,000 961000 50,000 334,000 2001-02 150,000 12,000 4,000 671000 38,000 337,000 2002-03 154,000 64,000 4,000 1091000 58,000 291,000 2003-04 146,000 37,000 2,000 88,000 59,000 285,000 2004-05 149,000 96,000 4,000 95,000 159,000 244,000 2005-06 153,000 821000 4,000 109,000 39,000 228,000 OCWD Groundwater Management Plan 2015 Update 10-5 Section 10 Sustainable Basin Management Water Year Santa Ana River Base Flow Santa Ana River Storm Flow Recycled Water Imported Water Incidental Recharge Groundwater Production 2006-07 133,000 39,000 400 111,000 14,000 299,000 2007-08 122,000 61,000 18,000 15,000 46,000 366,000 2008-09 106,000 52,000 55,000 33,000 68,000 346,000 2009-10 103,000 59,000 67,000 22,000 83,000 309,000 2010-11 104,000 78,000 67,000 36,000 95,000 260,000 2011-12 95,000 32,000 72,000 90,000 27,000 241,000 2012-13 85,000 18,000 73,000 41,000 20,000 309,000 2013-14 65,000 25,000 66,000 53,000 31,000 339,000 Approximately 200 large -capacity municipal supply wells account for 97 percent of basin production. Agricultural production accounts for a small amount of basin pumping. In 2014, privately owned irrigation wells produced a total of 1,298 acre-feet of water from the basin. The primary mechanism used by OCWD to manage pumping is the Basin Production Percentage (BPP). The ability to assess the BPP and the BEA were provided to the District through an amendment to the District Act in 1969. Section 31.5 of the District Act empowers the Board to annually establish the BPP, defined as: "the ratio that all water to be produced from groundwater supplies with the district bears to all water to be produced by persons and operators within the District from supplemental sources as well as from groundwater within the District. " In other words, the BPP is a percentage of each Producer's water supply that comes from groundwater pumped from the basin. The BPP is set uniformly for all Producers. Groundwater production at or below the BPP is assessed the Replenishment Assessment (RA). Any production above the BPP is charged the RA plus the Basin Equity Assessment (BEA). The BEA is calculated so that the cost of groundwater production above the BPP is equivalent to the cost of purchasing imported potable supplies. This approach serves to discourage, but not eliminate, production above the BPP. The BEA can be increased as needed to discourage production above the BPP. In simplified terms, the BPP is calculated by dividing groundwater production by total water demands. The BPP is set after evaluating groundwater storage conditions, availability of recharge water supplies and basin management objectives. OCWD's goal is to set the BPP as high as possible to allow Producers to maximize pumping and reduce their overall water supply cost. Figure 10-3 shows the history of the assigned BPP along with the actual BPP that was achieved by the Producers. OCWD Groundwater Management Plan 2015 Update 10-6 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% Section 10 Sustainable Basin Management I OCWD Assigned Basin Production Percentage I 0% P 11 1992-93 1997-98 2002-03 2007-08 2012-13 Water Year Figure 10-3: Assigned and Actual Basin Production Percentage To change the BPP, the Board of Directors must hold a public hearing. Raising or lowering the BPP allows the District to manage the amount of pumping from the basin. The BPP is lowered when basin conditions necessitate a decrease in pumping. A lower BPP results in the need for Producers to purchase additional, more expensive imported water. One example of a condition that could require a lowering of the BPP is to protect the basin from seawater intrusion. In this case, reduced pumping would allow groundwater levels to recover and seawater intrusion to be reduced. 10.4.1 iviethodology for Setting the Basin Production Percentage The formula used to estimate the BPP is shown in Figure 10-4. The formula is used as a guideline and the District's Board of Directors sets the BPP after considering the relevant information and input from the Producers and the public. To determine the BPP for a given year, the amount of water available for basin recharge must be estimated. The supplies of recharge water that are estimated are: • Santa Ana River stormflow • Natural incidental recharge • Santa Ana River baseflow • GWRS supplies • Other supplies such as imported water and recycled water purchased for the Alamitos Barrier. OCWD Groundwater Management Plan 2015 Update 10-7 Section 10 Sustainable Basin Management Santa Ana Natural Santa Ana Expected River + Incidental + River + GWR System + Stormflows Recharge Baseflows Supplies Other expected Expected Expected WQ Planned supplies such + MWD _ pumping above _ Basin Refill as Alamitos Imported BPP Barrier Water Total Water Demands _ Expected Reclaimed & Local Supplies Figure 10-4: BPP Calculation 0.4.2 13PP Policy The Board of Directors has several policy considerations that may be considered as the BPP is determined annually. For example, the Groundwater Producers generally prefer that the BPP be changed gradually, rather than abruptly changing the BPP from year-to-year. In some situations however, the Board may need to consider lowering the BPP such as in response to relatively low groundwater storage levels. In 2013, the Board of Directors adopted a policy to establish a stable Basin Production Percentage (BPP) with the intention to work toward achieving and maintaining a 75% BPP by fiscal year 2015-16. Principles of this policy include: • The District sets a goal for achieving a stable 75% BPP, while maintaining the same process of setting the BPP on an annual basin, with the BPP set in April of each year after holding a public hearing and based upon the public hearing testimony, presented data and reports provided at that time. • The District would endeavor to transition to the 75% BPP between 2013 and 2015 as construction of the GWRS Initial Expansion project is completed. This project will provide an additional 31,000 acre-feet per year of water to recharge the groundwater basin. • The District must sustainably manage the groundwater basin for future generations. If future conditions warrant, the BPP will be reduced. • Projects and programs to achieve the 75% BPP goal will be individually reviewed and assessed for their economic viability. Economical projects and programs that could support a BPP above 75% also would be considered. OCWD Groundwater Management Plan 2015 Update 10-8 Section 10 Sustainable Basin Management The groundwater basin's storage levels would be managed to support the 75% BPP policy. As long as the storage levels remained between 100,000 and 300,000 acre-feet from full, there would be a presumption that the BPP would not be decreased. Table 10-3 shows the management actions to be used to guide the District in setting the BPP. As the BPP is annually set in April for the following fiscal year, the change in basin storage would be estimated for the end of that current fiscal year (as of June 30th) Table 10-3: Management Actions based on Change in Groundwater Storage Available Storage Space (amount below full basin condition) Basin Management Actions to Consider Less than 100,000 acre-feet Raise BPP 100,000 to 300,000 acre-feet Maintain and/or raise BPP towards 75% Goal 300,000 to 350,000 acre-feet Seek additional supplies to refill basin and/or lower the -10 Greater than 350,000 acre-feet Seek additional supplies to refill basin & lower the BPP An alternative approach to managing the BPP would be to keep the groundwater basin relatively full and allow the BPP to vary more significantly, with the goal of baseloading off the MWD system during wet and near-normal years. This approach would maximize purchases of treated MWD water in wet and near-normal years and maintain groundwater in storage for future drought periods. By keeping the basin relatively full during wet years and for as long as possible in years with near-normal recharge, the maximum amount of groundwater could be maintained in storage for future drought conditions. This approach would be most successful if MWD had a program to provide recharge water at a discounted rate in wet periods, such that the basin could be operated conjunctively with supplies from MWD. Availability of discounted recharge water from MWD would incentivize projects to maximize recharge capacity during wet years. If MWD does not develop a program to offer discounted recharge water, this alternative would need to be restructured. Another approach to managing the BPP would be to keep the groundwater basin relatively full and allow the BPP to vary more significantly depending upon local hydrologic conditions, in the absence of discounted recharge water from MWD. During dry hydrologic years, less water would be recharged into the groundwater basin. The BPP would need to be lowered to maintain groundwater storage levels. Thus, the Groundwater Producers would need to purchase increased amounts of full service, treated MWD water. During locally wet hydrologic years, more local water supply water would be recharged into the groundwater basin, the BPP could be increased and the Groundwater Producers would purchase less MWD water. The BPP could annually change by over 10% under this type of operation. However the District could always ensure that the groundwater basin remained relatively full for emergency events and/or those years when imported water was being allocated. OCWD Groundwater Management Plan 2015 Update 10-9 Section 10 Sustainable Basin Management At the beginning of 2015, the District committed to MWDOC to purchase 650,000 acre-feet of imported water to recharge the basin over a ten-year time period. This amount of imported water for recharge into the basin will help maintain the BPP and assist the District with managing the basin storage level within the safe operating range. The District works to maintain a Water Reserve Fund to purchase imported water from MWD. Each year, a specific amount of money is budgeted to purchase imported water and, if water is not available from MWD, the funds are carried over to the next year in the Water Reserve Fund. i u.4.3 Basin r-roauciion 1_11-niiaiion Another management tool that enables OCWD to sustainably manage the basin is the Basin Production Limitation. Section 31.5(g) (7) of the District Act authorizes limitations on production and the setting of surcharges when those limits are exceeded. This provision can be used when it is necessary to shift pumping from one area of the basin to another. An example of this is the Coastal Pumping Transfer Program, which shifts pumping from the coastal area to inland to minimize seawater intrusion, when necessary. 10.5 SUPPLY MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES One of OCWD's basin management objectives is to maximize groundwater recharge. This is achieved through increasing the efficiency of and expanding the District's recharge facilities and the supply of recharge water, as described in detail in Section 5. Construction and operation of the GWRS provides a substantial increase in supply of water available to recharge the basin. Additional District supply management programs include encouraging and using recycled water for irrigation and other non -potable uses, participating in water conservation efforts, and working with MWD and the Municipal Water District of Orange County (MWDOC) in developing and conducting other supply augmentation projects and strategies. Use of Recycled Water for Landscape Irrigation OCWD's Green Acres Project is a non -potable recycled water supply project that utilizes a dedicated set of pipelines to deliver irrigation and industrial water to users. Most of the recycled water is used on golf courses, greenbelts, cemeteries, and nurseries. The Green Acres Project, in operation since 1991, reduces demands on the basin by providing non -potable water for non - potable uses. Secondary wastewater effluent from the OCSD is filtered and disinfected with chlorine to produce approximately seven mgd of irrigation and industrial water. A portion of Green Acres Project water is also supplied by Irvine Ranch Water District. The average amount of water supplied through the Green Acres Project system is 7,300 afy. Areas supplied by the recycled water are shown in Figure 10-5. OCWD Groundwater Management Plan 2015 Update 10-10 Section 10 Sustainable Basin Management Conjunctive Use and Water Transfers MWD purchased the right to use up to 66,000 acre-feet of storage space in the groundwater basin. The money provided by MWD was used to improve basin management facilities. The improvements contributed by MWD included the construction of eight new extraction wells and new injection wells for the Talbert Barrier. Any stored water can be extracted at a minimum of 22,000 afy. The District reviews opportunities for additional conjunctive use projects that would store water in the basin and could potentially store water in other groundwater basins. Additionally, the District reviews opportunities for water transfers that could provide additional sources of recharge water. Such projects are evaluated carefully with respect to their impact on available storage and their reliability and cost effectiveness. Figure 10-5: Areas Supplied by GAP Water 10.6 REMOVING IMPEDIMENTS TO CONJUNCTIVE USE Conjunctive use is the coordinated management of surface and groundwater supplies to increase the yield of both supplies and enhance water reliability in an economic and environmentally responsible manner. Impediments to conjunctive use of surface and groundwater supplies in Orange County are outlined in Table 10-4. Table 10-4: Conjunctive Use Impediments and Opportunities IMPEDIMENT I OPPORTUNITIES TO REMOVE IMPEDIMENT Declining Santa Ana River base flow Operation of GWRS provides new source of recharge to reduces supply of water available to replace decline in river flows. recharge groundwater basin. (flows declined from WY 1998-99 high of OCWD maintains water purchase reserve account for flexibility 158,600 acre-feet to WY 2013-14 low of to purchase imported water in large quantities when available 64,900 acre-feet Presence of Quagga Mussels in Colorado River water limits ability to recharge only in basins that can be desiccated on a regular basis to control their spread and to protect water supply infrastructure. Recharge operations planned to use Colorado River water in basins that can readily be dewatered to control the spread of Quagga Mussels Investigate potential to treat Colorado River water for Quagga, thereby increasing locations where this water can be recharged OCWD Groundwater Management Plan 2015 Update 10-11 Section 10 Sustainable Basin Management IMPEDIMENT OPPORTUNITIES TO REMOVE IMPEDIMENT Limited imported water supply increases Operation of GWRS provides new source of water to replace demands on groundwater supplies & imported water when imported supplies are unavailable supply to recharge groundwater basin Managing the groundwater basin within operating safe yield allows for water storage in basin in wet years for use during dry years when imported water deliveries are reduced Fine-grained sediment in Santa Ana Cleanings scheduled to minimize chance of losing stormflows River water causes clogging of recharge to the ocean basins requiring frequent basin cleanings; basins are unavailable for OCWD research programs are testing methods to reduce the infiltration when being cleaned amount of sediment that accumulates in recharge basins, thereby increasing system recharge capacity Flashy storms produce river flows that OCWD is working with the Corps to change operation of Prado overwhelm recharge system; OCWD is Dam to allow increased temporary storage of stormflows unable to capture all stormflows, behind dam to allow for greater capture in recharge basins and resulting in loss of potential water supply. minimize losses to the ocean. The MWD does not allow local Work with MWD to determine its requirements to pump groundwater to be pumped into its groundwater into its system. system. 10.7 WATER DEMANDS Water demands within the District's boundaries for water year (WY) 2013-14 totaled approximately 449,000 acre-feet. Total demand includes the use of groundwater, surface water from Santiago Creek and Irvine Lake, recycled water, and imported water. As shown in Figure 10-7, water demands between WY1989-90 to WY2013-14 have fluctuated between approximately 413,000 afy to 515,000 afy. Water Demand (in 1,000 acre-feet) 600 - 500 400 300 200 100 0 1993-94 1997-98 2001-02 2005-06 2009-10 2013-14 Water Year Figure 10-6: Historic Total District Water Demands OCWD Groundwater Management Plan 2015 Update 10-12 Section 10 Sustainable Basin Management 10.7.1 projected Water Demands Numerous factors impact water demands, such as population growth, economic conditions, conservation programs, and hydrologic conditions. Estimates of future demands are, therefore, subject to some uncertainty and need updating on a periodic basis. Demand projections within the District's service area are based on Urban Water Management Plans (UWMP), which each Producer prepares to support their long-term resources planning to ensure that adequate supplies are available to meet existing and future water demands. Estimated future water demands within OCWD boundaries are shown in Table 10-5 with a breakdown by individual Producer's shown in Table 10-6.The California Department of Water Resources requires that the UWMP's be updated every five years. One of the key factors influencing water demand is population growth. Population within OCWD's service area is expected to increase from approximately the current 2.38 million to 2.54 million by 2035 as shown in Table 10-7. Table 10-5: Estimated Future Water Demands in OCWD Service Area (afy)* 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 442,048 4132,bUO 483,563 504,32-1 525,079 *Projections based on annual MWDOC survey completed by each Producer Table 10-6: Projected Total Water Demands (afy) Fiscal Year Ending 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 Anaheim 67,795 70,271 72,747 75,224 77,700 Buena Park 15,633 16,700 17,766 18,833 19,900 East Orange County Water District 1,045 1,059 1,073 1,086 1,100 Fountain Valley 11,438 11,120 10,801 10,483 10,165 Fullerton 29,093 30,018 30,942 31,867 32,792 Garden Grove 26,316 27,463 28,611 29,759 30,907 Golden State Water Company 28,003 29,196 30,389 31,581 32,774 Huntington Beach 30,394 31,460 32,526 33,591 34,657 Irvine Ranch Water District 63,447 69,587 75,728 81,868 88,008 OCWD Groundwater Management Plan 2015 Update 10-13 Section 10 Sustainable Basin Management Fiscal Year Ending 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 La Palma 2,246 2,370 2,494 2,618 2,742 Mesa Water District 20,848 20,561 20,274 19,987 19,700 Newport Beach 16,509 17,001 17,492 17,983 18,474 Orange 31,723 32,471 33,218 33,966 34,713 Santa Ana 40,480 42,960 45,440 47,920 50,400 Seal Beach 3,807 4,075 4,344 4,612 4,880 Serrano Water District 3,165 3,087 3,008 2,930 2,852 Tustin 12,561 13,219 13,878 14,536 15,194 Westminster 12,477 12,442 12,407 12,372 12,337 Yorba Linda Water District 17,193 19,841 22,489 25,136 27,784 Non -Producers* 7,875 7,906 7,937 7,969 8,000 TOTAL WATER DEMAND 1 442,048 462,805 1 483,563 504,321 525,079 *Includes pumping by small system, private, domestic, irrigation, mutual water companies, and groundwater remediation systems. Table 10-7: Projected Population within OCWD Boundaries 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2,376,929 2,442,790 2,487,780 2,535,627 2,539,154 Source: MWDOC and Center for Demographics Research (2014) 10.7.2 Water -Use Efficiency and Conservation Programs Water conservation plays an important role in meeting future water demands. By implementing conservation programs, future water demand can be reduced, and less imported water will be necessary to meet the area's water requirements. The District cooperated with MWDOC, OCSD, and other agencies in a Low -Flush Toilet Program that subsidized the replacement of old high-volume toilets with modern low -flow toilets. The District also supported MWDOC and MWD in a Hotel/Motel Water Conservation Program to save water through minimizing water use at hotels. This program offered free laminated towel OCWD Groundwater Management Plan 2015 Update 10-14 Section 10 Sustainable Basin Management rack hangers or bed cards that encourage guests to consider using their towels and bed linens more than once during their stay. OCWD supported MWDOC and other local agencies in a similar program aimed at restaurant water conservation. Free laminated cards were provided for restaurants to place on their tables. The cards inform patrons that water will be served only upon request. This encourages environmental awareness and water and energy conservation. OCWD is a signatory to a Memorandum of Understanding with the California Urban Water Conservation Council (CUWCC) and prepares an annual report of the District's Best Management Practices related to water conservation and water -use efficiency. OCWD's Green Acres Project (GAP) provides recycled water for landscape irrigation for customers in the vicinity of the District administrative offices in Fountain Valley. The Arundo removal program is a unique water conservation program, as described in Section 9.2. Arundo is an invasive plant that spreads quickly and crowds out native vegetation. Because this plant uses significantly more water than native species, its removal along the Santa Ana River in the watershed has resulted in an additional yield of supply available for groundwater recharge. The over 4,500 acres of Arundo that have been cleared is estimated to increase yield in the river of a minimum of 15,000 acre-feet of water each year. i u.ts uKOUGNT MANAGLIVILN i Drought is an extended period of below-average precipitation. There is no single, official definition of the time period associated with a drought. The magnitude of a drought depends on the extent of the deviation from average precipitation, the areal extent of the below-average precipitation and other factors. During a drought, flexibility to manage pumping from the basin becomes increasingly important. The District typically experiences a decline in the supply of recharge water (local supply of Santa Ana River water and net incidental recharge) of up to 55,000 afy or more during drought. To the extent that the basin has water in storage that can be pumped out, the basin provides a valuable water supply asset during drought conditions. Ensuring that the basin can provide a buffer against drought conditions requires: • Maintaining sufficient water in storage that can be pumped out in time of need; • Having a reserve account with sufficient funds to purchase imported water to recharge the basin when needed; • Operating the basin at the lower storage levels in a safe manner; and • Possessing a plan to refill the basin. A sufficient supply of stored groundwater provides a safe and reliable buffer to manage for drought periods. If the basin, for example, has an available storage level of 150,000 acre-feet and can be drawn down to 500,000 acre-feet without irreparable seawater intrusion, a supply of 350,000 acre-feet is available for increased production. In a hypothetical five-year drought, an OCWD Groundwater Management Plan 2015 Update 10-15 Section 10 Sustainable Basin Management additional 70,000 acre-feet may be produced from the basin for five years without jeopardizing the long-term health of the basin. In addition to reducing pumping when the basin is at lower storage levels, planning for refilling the basin is important. Approaches for refilling the Basin are described in Table 10-8. APPROACH Table 10-8: Approaches to Refilling the Basin DISCUSSION Decrease Total • Increase water conservation and water -use efficiency measures Water Demands Decrease BPP • Allows groundwater levels to recover rapidly • Decreases revenue to the District • Increases water cost for producers • Does not require additional recharge facilities • Dependent upon other sources of water (e.g., imported water) being available to substitute for reduced groundwater pumping Increase Recharge • Dependent on increased supply of recharge water • Water transfers and exchanges could be utilized to provide the increased supply of recharge water • Dependent on building and maintaining excess recharge capacity (which may be under-utilized in non -drought years) Combination of the • A combination of the approaches provides flexibility and a range of Above options for refilling the basin 10.9 RECORD KEEPING District staff prepare detailed reports on a monthly basis that account for basin inflows (imported water recharged, infiltration in recharge basins, estimates of incidental recharge and evaporation, and river flow loss to the ocean) and outflows (groundwater production and storage program withdrawals); change in groundwater storage; total water demands; precipitation; GWRS production; and water levels in the area of the Talbert Seawater Intrusion Barrier. An example of a monthly report can be found in Appendix F. OCWD Groundwater Management Plan 2015 Update 10-16 FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT 11� District Headquarters in Fountain Valley • District managed to maintain high credit ratings • Reserves maintained to purchase imported water • Revenues from Replenishment Assessments, Basin Equity Assessments, Property Taxes and Grants Section 11 Financial Management SECTION 11 FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT 11.1 BACKGROUND The District manages its finances to provide long-term fiscal stability. To achieve this objective OCWD: • Manages finances to maintain high credit ratings; • Manages District operations efficiently and effectively; • Maintains reserves for purchase of imported water supplies when available. • Recovers contamination cleanup costs from responsible parties when possible; • Sets the Basin Production Percentage; and • Sets the RA and BEA at levels that fund District activities and encourage adherence to the BPP. The District's fiscal year (FY) begins on July 1 and ends on June 30. The annual operating budget and expected revenues for 2013-14 were approximately $134.4 million. 1.2 OPERATING EXPENSES The District's budgeted operating expenses for FY 2014-15 are summarized in Table 11.1 and described below. Table 11-1: FY 2014-15 Budget Operating Expenses Expenses Amount (in millions) General Fund $55.5 Total Debt Service 32.8 Water Purchases 26.3 New Equipment/ Small Projects 0.7 Retiree Health Trust 1.3 Refurbishment and Replacement Transfer 12.8 Total $134.4 11.2.1 Gei ural Fund The District's general fund account primarily allows the District to operate the recharge facilities in the cities of Anaheim and Orange, GWRS, the Talbert and Alamitos Seawater Intrusion Barriers, the Green Acres Project, and the Prado Wetlands. In addition, the District's Advanced Water Quality Assurance Laboratory, groundwater monitoring programs, watershed management, planning, and other miscellaneous activities are funded by this account. OCWD Groundwater Management Plan 2015 Update 11-1 Section 11 Financial Management ').bt Servic- The debt service budget provides for repayment of the District's debt from issues of previous bonds. OCWD has a comprehensive long-range debt program, which provides for the funding of projects necessary to increase basin production and protect water quality, while providing predictable impacts to the RA. The District holds very high credit ratings of AAA from Standard & Poor's, AAA from Fitch, along with an Aa1 rating from Moody's. Because of these excellent credit ratings, OCWD is able to borrow money at a substantially reduced cost. 11.2.3 Water Purchases The District Act authorizes OCWD to purchase imported water for groundwater recharge to sustain groundwater pumping levels and refill the basin. As described in Section 5, imported water is purchased from MWD for recharge in the surface water recharge system. This fund provides the flexibility to purchase water when such supplies are available. The Board of Directors can allocate funds to the Water Reserve Fund so that funds may accumulate in reserve in preparation for water purchases in future years. 11.2.4 New uapnai tquipmem This category includes equipment items such as laboratory equipment, vehicles, fax machines, tools, computers, and software. These items are expensed and funded using current revenues. Refurbishment and Replacement Funr1 OCWD has over $908 million in existing plant and fixed assets. These facilities were constructed to provide a safe and reliable water supply. The Replacement and Refurbishment Fund was established to ensure that sufficient funds are available to repair and replace existing District infrastructure, such as pumps, heavy equipment wells and water recycling facilities. 11.3 OPERATING REVENUES Expected operating revenues for FY 2014-15 are shown in Table 12-2 and described below. Table 11-2: FY 2014-15 Operating Revenues Revenues Amount (in millions) Replenishment Assessments $95.7 Basin Equity Assessment 1.8 Property Taxes 21.5 LRP for GAP & GWRS 8.8 Other Miscellaneous Revenue 6.6 Total $134.4 OCWD Groundwater Management Plan 2015 Update 11-2 Section 11 Financial Management 11.3.1 Replenishment 4.ssessments The RA is paid for all water pumped out of the basin. The District invoices Producers for their production in July and January. The amount of revenue generated by the RA is directly related to the amount of groundwater production. The BEA is assessed annually for all groundwater production above the BPP. r1 upUl Ly i aAeS The District receives a small percentage of property taxes, also referred to as ad valorem taxes, collected in the service area. The County of Orange assesses and collects these taxes and transmits them to the District at various times during the year. This revenue source has been dedicated to the District's annual debt service expense. 11.3.3 Other Miscellaneous Revenue Cash reserves generate interest revenues. The majority of cash reserves are invested in short- term securities. Miscellaneous revenues are primarily comprised of water sales from the Green Acres Project and loan repayments. The loan repayments originate from the Conjunctive Use Well Program in which the District loaned Producers money at low interest rates for construction of new production wells and related facilities. In addition, numerous small items such as rents, subsidies and minor fees are grouped in this account. 1A RESERVES The District maintains cash reserves to ensure its financial integrity so that the basin can be successfully managed and protected. Cash reserves ensure that: • OCWD has sufficient funds for cash flow purposes; • Funds are available for unexpected events such as contamination issues; • Funds are available to make necessary replacements and repairs to infrastructure; • OCWD has access to debt programs with low interest cost; • A financial hedge is available to manage variable rate debt; and • Funds are available to purchase MWD water when available. 11.4.1 Reserve Policies The District has reserve policies, which establish reserves in the following categories: • Operating reserves • The Replacement and Refurbishment Program • The Toxic Cleanup Reserve • Contingencies required by the District Act • Bond reserve covenants OCWD Groundwater Management Plan 2015 Update Section 11 Financial Management Operating Reserves This reserve category helps the District maintain sufficient funds for cash flow purposes and helps sustain the District's excellent credit rating. Maintaining this reserve, which is set at 15 percent of the operating budget, is particularly important because the principal source of revenue, the RA, is only collected twice a year. Payments for significant activities, such as replenishment water purchases, are typically required on a monthly basis. The reserve provides the financial "bridge" to meet the District's financial obligations on a monthly basis. 1.4.3 Replacement and Refurbishment Program The District maintains a Replacement and Refurbishment Fund to provide the financial resources for replacement and/or repair of the District capital assets. These assets include treatment facilities, monitoring and injection wells, and treatment facilities. The fund balance at the end of FY 2014 was approximately $ 73 million. 11.4.4 Toxic Cleanup Reserve Funds are reserved in this account to be used in the event that a portion of the basin becomes threatened by contamination. Over two million residents in the District rely on the basin as their primary source of water. Approximately $4 million was available in this reserve fund at the end of FY 2013-14 to allow the District to respond, immediately, to contamination threats in the basin. 11.4.5 General Contingencies Section 17.1 of the District Act requires the allocation of funds to cover annual expenditures that have not been provided for or that have been insufficiently provided for and for unappropriated requirements. 11.4.6 Debt Service Account Restricted funds in this account have been set aside by the bonding institutions as a requirement to ensure financial solvency and to help guarantee repayment of any debt issuances. These funds cannot be used for any other purpose. The requirement varies from year to year depending on the District's debt issuance and outstanding state loans. 11.4.7 Capital Improvement Projects Capital Improvement Projects The District prepares a Capital Improvements Project budget to support basin production by increasing recharge capacity and operational flexibility, protecting the coastal portion of the basin, and providing water quality improvement. OCWD Groundwater Management Plan 2015 Update 11-4 REFERENCES ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS Section 12 References SECTION V REFERENCES Alley, William M., 1984, Another Water Budget Myth: The Significance of Recoverable Ground Water in Storage, Ground Water, National Ground Water Association, 2006. Banks, Harvey O., Consulting Engineer, Groundwater Management, Irvine Area, Orange County, California, prepared for the Orange County Water District. Bawden, Gerald W., Wayne Thatcher, Ross S. Stein, Ken W. Hudnut, and Gilles Peltzer Tectonic Contraction Across Los Angeles After Removal of Groundwater Pumping Effects, Nature, Vol. 412, pp. 812-815, 2001. Bawden, G.W. 2003. Separating ground -water and hydrocarbon -induced surface deformation from geodetic tectonic contraction measurements across metropolitan Los Angeles, California. In K.R. Prince and Galloway, D.L., eds., U.S. Geological Survey subsidence interest group conference, proceedings of the technical meeting, Galveston, Texas, November 27-29, 2001. U.S. Geological Survey Open -File Report 03-308. http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2003/ofrO3-308/. Blomquist, William, 1992, Dividing the Waters: Governing Groundwater in Southern California, Center for Self -Governance, San Francisco. Boyle Engineering Corporation and Orange County Water District, 1997, Coastal Groundwater Management Investigation. California Department of Public Health (CDPH), 2013. Groundwater Replenishment Reuse Draft Regulation, March 28, 2013. California Department of Public Works, Division of Water Resources, 1934, South Coastal Basin Investigation, Geology and Ground Water Storage Capacity of Valley Fill, Bulletin No. 45. California Department of Water Resources, 1961, Ground Water Basin Protection Project: Santa Ana Gap Salinity Barrier, Orange County, Bulletin No. 147-1. ***** 1966. Bulletin No. 147-1, Ground Water Basin Protection Projects, Santa Ana Gap Salinity Barrier, Orange County, 178 p. ***** 1967, Progress Report on the Ground Water Geology of the Coastal Plain of Orange County. ***** 1968, Sea -Water Intrusion: Bolsa -Sunset Area, Orange County, Bulletin No. 63-2, pp. 186. ***** 1989, Southern District, Analysis of Aquifer -System Compaction in the Orange County Ground Water Basin, prepared for Orange County Water District. California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Santa Ana Region (RWQCB). 2004. Order No.R8-2004-0002 , Producer/User Water Recycling Requirements and Monitoring and Reporting Program for the Orange County Water District Interim Water Factory 21 and OCWD Groundwater Management Plan 2015 Update 12-1 Section 12 References Groundwater Replenishment System Groundwater Recharge and Reuse at Talbert Gap Seawater Intrusion Barrier and Kraemer/Miller Basins. March 12, 2004. 2008, Order No. R8-2008-0058 Camp Dresser & McKee Inc., 2000, Groundwater Replenishment System, Project Development Phase — Development Information Memorandum No. 9A, Barrier System Modeling/Design Criteria, 100% Submittal, prepared for Orange County Water District and Orange County Sanitation District. ***** 2003, Talbert Gap Model Refinement Report, prepared for Orange County Water District. CH2MHill, 2006, Chino Creek Integrated Plan: Guidance for Working Together to Protect, Improve, and Enhance the Lower Chino Creek Watershed, prepared for Inland Empire Utilities Agency. Clark, J. F., Hudson G.B, Davisson, M.L., Woodside, G., and Roy Herndon, 2004, Geochemical Imaging of Flow Near an Artificial Recharge Facility, Orange County, California. Ground Water. Vol 42, 2, 167-174. Clark, Jordan F. 2009. The 2008 Kraemer Basin Tracer Experiment Final Report, Jordan F.Clark, Department of Earth Sciences, University of California, Santa Barbara. August 7, 2009. Dasgupta. P.K., et al. 2005. The origin of naturally occurring perchlorate: The role of atmospheric processes. Environmental Science and Technology, 39, 1569-1575. DDBE, Inc. 2009. Demonstration Mid -Basin Injection Project Plan, December, 2009. Fairchild, F.B. and Wiebe, K.H. 1976. Subsidence of organic soils and salinity barrier design in coastal Orange County, California. In A.I. Johnson, ed., Proceedings of the Second International Symposium on Land Subsidence, Anaheim, California, December 13- 17,1976, International Association of Hydrological Sciences Publication 121, 334-346. Foubister, Vida. 2006. Analytical Chemistry, December 1, 2006, pages 7914-7915. Golder Associates Inc., 2009, Santa Ana River Bed Sediment Gradation Characterization Study: Phase III, prepared for the Orange County Water District. Happel, A. M., Beckenback, E. H., and Halden, R. U., 1998, An evaluation of MTBE impacts to California groundwater resources (UCRL-AR-130897), Livermore, CA, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. Harbaugh, A.W., and McDonald, M.G., 1996. User's documentation for MODFLOW-96, an update to the U.S. Geological Survey modular finite -difference ground -water flow model: U.S. Geological Survey Open -File Report 96-485, 56 p. Hardt, William F. and E. H. Cordes, 1971, Analysis of Ground -Water System in Orange County, California by Use of an Electrical Analog Model, USGS Open -File Report. OCWD Groundwater Management Plan 2015 Update 12-2 Section 12 References Harley, et al, 1999, Model Advisory Panel Report. Prepared for OCWD. ***** 2001, Model Advisory Panel Report. Prepared for OCWD. Interstate Technology & Regulatory Council. 2005. Perchlorate: Overview of Issues, Status, and Remedial Options. Perchlorate -1. Washington D.C.: Interstate Technology & Regulatory Council Perchlorate Team. Available on the internet at hftp://www.itrcweb.org Irvine Ranch Water District, May 1994, Organic Removal Testing Pilot Program. Kolpin, et al, 2002, Pharmaceuticals, Hormones, and Other Organic Wastewater Contaminants in U.S. Streams, 1999-2000: A National Reconnaissance, Environmental Science and Technology, 36, 1202-1211. Leake, S.A. and Prudic, D.E., 1991. Documentation of a computer program to simulate aquifer - system compaction using the modular finite -difference ground -water flow model, U.S. Geological Survey, Techniques of Water -Resources Investigations, Book 6, Chapter A2 Appendix C: Time -Variant Specified -Head Package. McDonald and Harbaugh, 1988, Techniques of Water -Resources Investigations of the United States Geological Survey, Book 6, A Modular Three -Dimensional Finite -Difference Ground -Water Flow Model. McGillicuddy, Kevin B., 1989, Ground Water Underflow Beneath Los Angeles -Orange County Line, unpubl. M.S. thesis, Univ. of Southern California Dept. of Geological Sciences. Metropolitan Water District of Southern California and U.S. Department of Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Salinity Management Study, 1999. ***** Raw Water Discharge Plan Mills, William R. and Associates, Hydrogeology of the Yorba Linda Subarea and Impacts from Proposed Class III Landfills, prepared for the Orange County Water District, 1987. Montgomery, James M., Consulting Engineers, Inc., 1974, Bolsa Chica Mesa Water Quality Study, prepared for Orange County Water District. ***** 1977, La Habra Basin Ground Water Study, prepared for City of La Habra, California. National Research Council. Health Implications of Perchlorate Ingestion. 2005. National Water Research Institute, 2000, Treatment Technologies for Removal of MTBE from Drinking Water: Air Stripping, Advanced Oxidation Processes, Granular Activated Carbon, Synthetic Resin Sorbents, Second Edition. ***** 2013, Report of the Scientific Advisory Panel, OCWD's Santa Ana River Water Quality and Health Study. ***** 2014, Final Report of the November 12, 2013 Meeting of the Independent Advisory Panel on Reviewing the Orange County Water District's Santa Ana River Monitoring Program, prepared for the Orange County Water District, April 10, 2014. OCWD Groundwater Management Plan 2015 Update 12-3 Section 12 References Nevada Division of Environmental Protection. 2009. http://ndep.nv.gov/BCA/perchlorate05.htm. Accessed on July 7, 2009. Orange County Water District, 1994, Hydrogeology and Groundwater Production Potential in the Vicinity of Brea Creek at Bastanchury Road, Fullerton, California. ***** September 1996, Evaluation of the Orange County Colored Water Groundwater Resource: Hydrology, Water Quality and Treatment. ***** June 1997, Issues Paper— Development of the Colored Water Zone. **** 1999, 2020 Master Plan Report for the Orange County Water District. ***** 1970 to 2015, Engineer's Report on Groundwater Conditions, Water Supply and Basin Utilization. ***** 2003, Orange County Water District Recharge Study. December 2003. ***** 2005. Board of Directors Resolution No. 05-4-40: Establishing a GWR System Buffer Area around the GWR System injection operation at the Talbert Gap Seawater Intrusion Barrier, April 20, 2005, Fountain Valley, California ***** 2006, OCWD Application to Appropriate Santa Ana River Water. March 2006 ***** 2007, Report on Evaluation of Orange County Groundwater Basin Storage and Operational Strategy. February 2007 ***** 2014, Orange County Water District Long -Term Facilities Plan. ---------, 2014, Groundwater Replenishment System 2013 Annual Report, prepared for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Santa Ana Region Order No. R8-2004-0002, as amended by Order No. R8-2008-0058, June 16, 2014. Freeze, R. Allan and John A. Cherry. 1979. "Groundwater". Prentice -Hall, Inc., 604 pp. Ghyben, W.B. 1888. Nota in verband met de voorgenomen putboring nabij Amsterdam. Tijdschrift van Let Koninklijk Inst. Van Ing. Herzberg, A. 1901. Die Wasserversorgung einiger Nordseebader. J. Gasbeleucht. Wasserversorg., 44, pp. 815-819. Pollack, D.W., 1994. User's Guide for MODPATH/MODPATH-PLOT, Version 3: A particle tracking post -processing package for MODFLOW, the U. S. Geological Survey finite - difference ground -water flow model, USGS Open File Report 94-464. Poland, J. F. et al., 1956, Ground Water Geology of the Coastal Zone Long Beach -Santa Ana Area, California, USGS Water Supply Paper 1109. Ramsey, Robert H., 1980, Hydrogeology of La Habra Ground Water Basin, California, unpubl. M.S. thesis, Univ. of Southern California Dept. of Geological Sciences. OCWD Groundwater Management Plan 2015 Update 12-4 Section 12 References Santa Ana River Watermaster, 2014, Forty -Third Annual Report, Orange County Water District vs. City of Chino et al, Case No. 117628 — County of Orange. Santa Ana Watershed Project Authority, 2002, Integrated Watershed Plan. ***** 2004, Santa Ana River Projected Flow Impacts Report, March 2004. Singer, John A., 1973, Geohydrology and Artificial -Recharge Potential of the Irvine Area, Orange County, California, USGS Open -File Report 73-264. Tan, Lo and R. G. Sudak, January 1992, Removing Color From a Groundwater Source, AWWA Journal. Urbansky, E.T., et al. 2001. Environmental Pollution: 112, pages 299-302. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, September 1994, Water Control Manual for the Prado Dam and Reservoir, Santa Ana River. ***** 2004, Prado Basin Water Conservation Feasibility Study, Main Report and Draft Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report, Draft F5 Document, July 2004. U.S Bureau of Reclamation, 2013, Climate Change Analysis for the Santa Ana River Watershed, Santa Ana Watershed Basin Study, California Lower Colorado Region, U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, Water and Environmental Resources Division (86-68200) Water Resources Planning and Operations Support Group (86-68210) Technical Services Center, Denver Colorado Technical Memorandum No. 86-68210-2013-02 U.S. Geological Survey, 1999, Land Subsidence in the United States, Circular 1182. Wildermuth Environmental, August 2008, Recomputation of Ambient Water Quality in the Santa Ana Watershed for the Period 1987-2006, Final Technical Memorandum. Prepared for the Basin Monitoring Task Force. **** Recent Changes in Santa Ana River Discharge, White Paper, February 16, 2010 OCWD Groundwater Management Plan 2015 Update 12-5 ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS ABFM Alamitos Barrier Flow Model ABTM Alamitos Barrier Transport Model of acre-feet afy acre-feet per year AOP advanced oxidation processes AWT advanced water treatment basin Orange County groundwater basin Basin Model OCWD groundwater model BEA Basin Equity Assessment BPP Basin Production Percentage CDFW California Department of Fish & Wildlife CDPH California Department of Public Health cfs cubic feet per second DATS Deep Aquifer Treatment System District Orange County Water District DOC dissolved organic compound DWR Department of Water Resources DWSAP Drinking Water Source Assessment and Protection EDCs Endocrine Disrupting Compounds EIR Environmental Impact Report EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency FY fiscal year GAC granular activated carbon GIS geographic information system GWRS Groundwater Replenishment System IAP IEUA Independent Advisory Panel Inland Empire Utilities Agency IRWD Irvine Ranch Water District LACDWP Los Angeles County Department of Power & Water maf million acre feet MCAS Marine Corps Air Station MCL maximum contaminant level MWDOC Municipal Water District of Orange County MF microfiltration MODFLOW Computer program developed by USGS mgd million gallons per day mg/L milligrams per liter MTBE methyl tertiary-butylether MWD Metropolitan Water District of Southern California MWDOC Municipal Water District of Orange County NDMA n-Nitrosodimethylamine NF nanofiltration na/L nanoarams oer liter ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS NBGPP North Basin Groundwater Protection Program NO2 nitrite NO3- N itrate NPDES National Pollution Discharge Elimination System NWRI National Water Research Institute O&M operations and maintenance OCHCA Orange County Health Care Agency OCSD Orange County Sanitation District OC Survey Orange County Survey OCWD Orange County Water District PCE perchloroethylene ppb less than one microgram per liter PPCPs pharmaceuticals and personal care products Producers Orange County groundwater producers RA replenishment assessment RO reverse osmosis Regional Water Board Regional Water Quality Control Board SARI Santa Ana River Interceptor SARMON SARWQH Santa Ana River Monitoring Program Santa Ana Regional Water Quality and Health SAWA Santa Ana Watershed Association SAWPA Santa Ana Watershed Project Authority SBGPP South Basin Groundwater Protection Project SDWA Safe Drinking Water Act SOCs synthetic organic chemicals SWP State Water Project SWRCB State Water Resource Control Board TCE trichloroethylene TDS total dissolved solids TIN total inorganic nitrogen pg/L micrograms per liter USFWS U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service USGS U.S. Geological Survey UV ultraviolet light VOCs volatile organic compounds WACO Water Advisory Committee of Orange County WEI Wildermuth Environmental Inc. WF -21 Water Factory 21 WLAM Waste Load Allocation Model WRD Water Replenishment District of Southern California WRMS Water Resources Management System APPENDICES Appendix A Public Notices Appendix B Groundwater Management Act Mandatory and Recommended Components Sustainable Groundwater Management Act Required and Additional Plan Elements Appendix C Basin Management Objectives: Achievement of Sustainability for Long -Term Beneficial Uses of Groundwater Appendix D Report on Evaluation of Orange County Groundwater Basin Storage and Operational Strategy Appendix E List of Wells in OCWD Monitoring Programs Appendix F Monthly Water Resources Report APPENDIX A Public Notices Board of Directors/Water Issues Committee Agenda, February 11, 2015 Board of Directors Meeting Minutes, February 11, 2015 Hydrospectives Newsletter, February 2015 Notice of Public Hearing and Availability of Draft Plan, Affidavit of Publication OCWD Website screen shots of Notice of Public Hearing and Availability of Draft Plan, April 13, 2015 Board of Director's Water Issues Committee Agenda, April 15, 2015 Board of Director's Minutes, April 15, 2015 Hydrospectives Newsletter, April 2015 Producers Meeting, May, 13, 2015 Board of Director's Meeting Minutes, May 20, 2015 Comment Letter from East Orange County Water District Comment from Irvine Ranch Water District at May 20 Public Hearing OCWD Response to Comments Notice of Exemption Certification of Board Action Approving Groundwater Management Act 2015 Update AGENDA ITEM SUBMITTAL Meeting Date: February 11, 2015 To: Water Issues Committee Board of Directors From: Mike Markus Staff Contact: G. Woodside/M. Westropp Budgeted: N/A Budgeted Amount: N/A Cost Estimate: N/A Funding Source: N/A Program/Line Item No.: N/A General Counsel Approval: N/A Engineers/Feasibility Report: N/A CEQA Compliance: Exemption to be filed upon Board receipt of final plan Subiect: OCWD GROUNDWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN UPDATE SUMMARY The District's Groundwater Management Plan (GWMP) was last updated in 2009. Staff proposes to prepare and adopt an update to the GWMP in 2015. Updated information concerning how the District sustainably manages the groundwater basin will be incorporated into the GWMP. Attachment(s): Presentation RECOMMENDATION Informational BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS The District adopted its first GWMP in 1989 pursuant to authority under the District Act to manage the Orange County Groundwater Basin. Plan updates were prepared approximately every five years with the latest update adopted in 2009. Passage of Assembly Bill 3030 in 1992 (codified in the CA Water Code Section 10750 et. seq.) directed the California Department of Water Resources (DWR) to oversee the preparation and adoption of groundwater management plans, listed components that must be included in those plans, and required the completion of plans for agencies to be eligible to receive grants for construction of certain groundwater projects. Although the District is not regulated by Section 10750 requirements, the OCWD Groundwater Management Plan generally includes the listed elements and maintaining this consistency has allowed the District to compete for and obtain state grants. District staff initially planned to prepare an updated plan in 2014. This schedule was delayed in anticipation of passage of new state legislation regulating groundwater basins and the uncertainty of how this may affect required plan elements and adoption procedures. On September 16, 2014, the Governor signed into law the California Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA).' This new law provides specific authority for the establishment of groundwater sustainability agencies (GSAs). Included in the law is a provision designating OCWD as the exclusive local agency to manage groundwater within the District's statutory boundaries (CA Water Code Section 10723 (c) (1)). The District, therefore, does not need to become a GSA under this new authority. The SGMA also sets forth procedures and requirements to prepare and adopt Groundwater Sustainability Plans (GSPs). Many of the required elements specified in the SGMA are the same as or are similar to those required for Groundwater Management Plans prepared pursuant to AB3030 such as a description of the physical setting and characteristics of the aquifer system, measurable objectives, components related to management of the basin, summary of monitoring programs, and monitoring protocols. The new law specifies additional elements such as demonstration of the achievement of sustainable groundwater management and a description of how other water resource -related plans within the basin affect basin management. The Department of Water Resources is directed to adopt emergency regulations for evaluating and implementing GSPs as well as criteria for approving alternative plans by June 2016 (CA Water Code Section 10733.2). Another provision in the newly -passed SGMA provides that instead of a GSP, an alternative plan' may be prepared and submitted.2 CA Water Code Section 10733.6 provides for approval of alternative plans where there is a demonstration that such a plan meets the requirements of "sustainable groundwater management." District staff recommends preparing the OCWD's GWMP including new substantive elements required for GSPs highlighting how the District sustainably manages the groundwater basin. Proceeding in this manner will enable OCWD to update the GWMP in a timely manner, documenting the sustainable management of the basin, and laying the foundation for submittal of this plan as an "alternative plan." It is hoped that preparation of OCWD's plan at this time will inform the process of developing GSPs in other regions of the state and may assist DWR in developing regulations specifying elements required to be included in GSPs in order to achieve sustainable groundwater management. The proposed schedule for preparing and adopting the 2015 Update is shown on the following page. 1 The state legislature passed three bills S131168, AB1739, and SB1319 that combined are commonly referred to as the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act. 2 The statutory deadline for submittal of alternative plans is January 1, 2017. Alternative plans must be updated every five years. Task Schedule Staff provides public notice of the intention to February 2015 prepare an update to the District's GWMP Draft plan available for review by Board, Producers, March 2015 and the public Deadline for receiving comments on draft plan April 2015 Final draft plan released May 2015 Board adopts final plan June 2015 PRIOR RELEVANT BOARD ACTION(S) 7/15/09 M9-80: Adoption of Groundwater Management Plan 2009 Update. MINUTES OF BOARD OF DIRECTORS MEETING WITH WATER ISSUES COMMITTEE ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT February 11, 2015 @ 8 a.m. Water Issues Committee Chair Director Sarmiento called the meeting to order in the Boardroom of the District office located in Fountain Valley, CA. The Assistant District Secretary reported quorum of the Committee. Committee Vincent Sarmiento Denis Bilodeau (not present) Dina Nguyen (arrived 8:14 a.m.) Shawn Dewane Philip Anthony Alternates Steve Sheldon (not present) Jan Flory Harry Sidhu (not present) Roger Yoh (not present) Cathy Green CONSENT CALENDAR OCWD Staff Mike Markus - General Manager Joel Kuperberg - General Counsel Judy -Rae Karlsen - Assistant District Secretary Darla Cirillo, Jason Dadakis, Alicia Dunkin, Randy Fick, Roy Herndon, Adam Hutchinson, John Kennedy, Anny Lau, Lily Sanchez, Ben Smith, Dave Mark, Chris Olsen, Alex Vue, Marsha Westropp, Greg Woodside, Lee Yoo Others Marc Marcantonio, Steve Conklin — Yorba Linda WD Phil Lauri, Paul Shoenberger— Mesa Water District Betsy Eglash, Howard Johnson — Brady Associates David Holland, Jim Mott — Agilent Technologies Don Calkins — City of Anaheim Peer Swan — Irvine Ranch Water District Scott Maloni — Poseidon Resources Brian Ragland — City of Huntington Beach Keith Lyon — Municipal Water District of Orange County Ken Vecchiarelli - Golden State Water District John Earl — Surf City Voice The Consent Calendar was approved upon motion by Director Anthony, seconded by Director Flory and carried [5-0] as follows. [Yes -Sarmiento, Dewane, Anthony, Flory, Green/No — 0] Minutes of Previous Meeting The Minutes of the Water Issues Committee meeting held January 14, 2015 are approved as presented. 2. Amendment to Agreement 538 with CH2M Hill to Update Computer Model of Recharge System and Contract Extension Recommended for approval at February 18 Board meeting: Authorize issuance of Amendment No. 3 to Agreement No. 538 with CH2M HILL, for an amount not to exceed $24,472 for updates to the recharge facilities computer model and extending the contract to December 31, 2015. 2/11/15 3. Contract No. TAL-2014-1: Talbert Barrier West End Pipeline Cathodic Protection System - Publish Notice Inviting Bids Recommended for approval at February 18 Board meeting: Authorize publication of Notice Inviting Bids for Contract No. TAL-2014-1: Talbert Barrier West End Pipeline Cathodic Protection System project. 4. Contract No. SC -2014-1, Santiago Pipeline Access Project: Ratify Change Orders and File Notice of Completion (GCI Construction, Inc.) Recommended for approval at February 18 Board meeting: 1) Ratify issuance of Change Order No. 1 ($637) and Change Order No. 2 ($18,656) to GCI Construction, Inc.; and 2) Accept completion of work and authorize filing a Notice of Completion for Contract SC -2014-1, Santiago Pipeline Access Project. 5. Laboratory Renewal of Service Support Agreement to Cover Gas Chromatographs (GC) and Gas Chromatographs/ Mass Spectrometers (GC/MS) Recommended for approval at February 18 Board meeting: Authorize issuance of Purchase Order to Agilent Technologies in the amount of $100,483 for a full Support Service Agreement, with prepayment option commencing March 21, 2015; to cover specified analytical systems used within the laboratory. 6. Agreements to Habitat West and Tropical Plaza Nursery for Maintenance Services on OCWD Restoration Sites in Orange County Recommended for approval at February 18 Board meeting: Authorize issuance of Agreements to Habitat West, Inc. and Tropical Plaza Nursery Inc. for a total amount not to exceed $75,000 per year, for a three year period to provide maintenance services on habitat restoration sites in Orange County. INFORMATIONAL ITEMS 7. OCWD Groundwater Manaaement Plan Update Senior Watershed Planner Marsha Westropp reported the OCWD Groundwater Management Plan (GWMP) was last updated in 2009 and staff was beginning the 2014 update, however the update was delayed in anticipation of the passage of the California Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA). She advised that as a result of that legislation passing the OCWD GWMP will include elements that are also required for Groundwater Sustainability Plans and will highlight how the District sustainably manages the groundwater basin. Director Nguyen arrived at 8:14 a.m. during the following discussion. 8. Prado Basin Sediment Manaaement Demonstration Proiect Executive Director Greg Woodside reviewed the approach that staff has developed to bring additional information to the Board regarding the Prado Basin Sediment Management Demonstration Project and the strategy employed to reduce the project budget and secure additional grant funding and outside funding. He noted that staff will be presenting information on alternate cost saving methods for excavation/hauling, sand mining and the re -entrainment of sediment activities. Mr. Woodside advised that the project will be competitive in future rounds of grant funding decisions (Proposition 84 Round 3 and Proposition 1), therefore it would be advantageous to complete the permitting process, that 2 Orange County Water District Newsletter OCWD Board of Directors President Cathy Green First Vice President Denis R. Bilodeau, P.E. Second Vice President Philip L. Anthony Shawn Dewane Jan M. Flory, ESQ. Dina L. Nguyen, ESQ. Roman Reyna Stephen R. Sheldon Harry S. Sidhu, P.E. Roger C. Yoh, P.E. General Manager Michael R. Markus P.E., D.WRE. Page 1 of 6 Ln v r4 L M L M T In This Issue: President's Message - Let's Clean if Up! Welcome New Board Member Roman Reyna OC Water Summit Registraf!on is Open Bill Dunivin... In His Own Words Water Treatment Using Engineered Wetlands Public Participation Sought for Groundwater Management Plan 2014 Tree Swallow Nesting Successful OCWD Environmental Restoration Projects 1 Million Hits on YouTube Singapore International Water Week 2014 Blue Paper Last Call for CWEF Sponsors, Presenters and Volunteers Out in the Cornrn !L v OCWD in the News January 2015 OCWD Employees January Tours President's Message - Let's Clean it Up! Orange County's economy thrives, in part, because of a reliable source of local wafer. The Orange County Wafer District (OCW D) is charged with managing and protecting the county's groundwater basin to ensure long-term production of clean wafer from our local sources at the lowest possible costs. The groundwater basin is being threatened. In the North Basin, near the cities of Fullerton, Anaheim and Placentia, industrial contamination has seeped info the groundwater basin and has necessitated shutting down four wells. The contamination is from improper disposal of chemical solvents and other compounds from as far back as the 1950s and 1960s. The dumping has stopped but once the pollution is in the ground, if can and usually does spread. Read More... Welcome New Board Member Roman Reyna Santa Ana City Councilman Roman Reyna has been appointed to the Orange County Wafer District Board of Directors to represent Division 8—Santa Ana, effective Feb. 18, 2015. He replaces Santa Ana Mayor Pro Tem Vincent Sarmiento, Esq., who recently served a two-year term on OCW D's Board. Read More... OC Water Summit Registration is Open Registration is now open for the 8th annual OC Wafer Summit, which will fake place on Friday, May 15, 2015 at the Grand Californian Hotel at the Disneyland Resort. The event draws more than 400 prominent national and state policy makers, elected officials, scientists, financial experts 46e�W,.ATE andbusiness leaders. The OC Wafer Summit is hosted by R SUMMIT the Orange County Wafer District, Disneyland Resort and http://newsletter.ocwd.com/2015/Newsletter_2015-02.aspx 6/2/2015 Orange County Water District Newsletter Page 2 of 6 the Municipal Wafer District of Orange County. To register as a participant or sponsor, visit the Oranae Counter Wafer Summit. Bill Dunivin... In His Own Words William (Bill) R. Dunivin is a pioneer in the field of wafer reclamation and has dedicated his professional career, spanning 40 years, to advancing the field of wafer reuse and serving the public as an employee of the Orange County Wafer District. During his four decades of service—the longest of any OCWD employee, Bill has had direct involvement and oversight in the planning, operation and maintenance of the District's world-renowned recycling facilities. We were curious about Bill, the changes that have taken place at OCW D over the years and Bill's observations. Read More... Water Treatment Using Engineered Wetlands In partnership with academic researchers from multiple university institutions, the District began a field -scale study of alternative methods for wafer treatment using engineered wetlands in 2013 to reduce the levels of nitrate in the Santa Ana River. At the time, nitrate from a variety of sources, including agricultural and dairy runoff as well as treated effluent from upstream wafer treatment plants, contributed to high levels. Working together as the Engineering Research Center (ERC) for Re -Inventing the Nation's Urban Wafer Infrastructure (ReNUWlf), the National Science Foundation -supported group represents Stanford University, UC -Berkeley, Colorado School of Mines, and New Mexico State University. OCWD is a member of ReNUW It's Industrial/Practitioner Advisory Board. The project is in its second of a three-year study. Read More... Public Participation Sought for Groundwater Management Plan OCW D plans to update the District's Groundwater Management Plan in 2015. This document sets forth a framework for managing the Orange County Groundwater Basin for long-term sustainability. If also allows the District to compete for and obtain state grants. This effort will update the existing plan that was adopted by the OCW D Board of Directors in 2009. The Groundwater Management Plan sets goals and basin management objectives and describes basin hydrology, groundwater and surface wafer monitoring programs, operation of seawater intrusion barriers, natural resource protection programs, the Groundwater Replenishment System, and recharge operations and provides an analysis of basin conditions that demonstrates that the basin is operating within its sustainable yield. Public participation in the development of the plan is welcomed and encouraged. For more information, contact Marsha Wesfropp at mwesfropp@ocwd.com or 714-378-8248. 2014 Tree Swallow Nesting Tree Swallows (Tachycineta bicolor) are voracious consumers of flying insects within wetland and riverine systems. They typically produce large clutch sizes ranging from five to seven eggs which cause a high demand for food. Together, the adults and chicks can consume hundreds of thousands of insects during a single breeding season. This creates the potential for Tree Swallows to make a significant dent in the insect pest population. Read More... Successful OCWD Environmental Restoration Projects OCW D is a leader in wafer and natural resource management, carrying out award-winning environmental programs that also provide wafer supply benefits. OCW D has a reputation of providing clean, fresh wafer to more than 2.4 million ratepayers in north and central Orange County. The story of its responsible environmental stewardship is only beginning to be fold. Read More... 1 Million Hits on YouTube http://newsletter.ocwd.com/2015/Newsletter_2015-02.aspx 6/2/2015 AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ) ) ss. County of Orange ) I am a citizen of the United States and a resident of the County aforesaid; I am over the age of eighteen years, and not a party to or interested in the above entitled matter. I am the principal clerk of The Orange County Register, a newspaper of general circulation, published in the city of Santa Ana, County of Orange, and which newspaper has been adjudged to be a newspaper of general circulation by the Superior Court of the County of Orange, State of California, under the date of November 19, 1905, Case No. A- 21046, that the notice, of which the annexed is a true printed copy, has been published in each regular and entire issue of said newspaper and not in any supplement thereof on the following dates, to wit: April 13, 21, 2015 I certify (or declare) under the penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct': Executed at Santa Ana, Orange County, California, on Date April 21, 2015. / �;, � /6:: �2�- � Signature The Orange County Register 625 N. Grand Ave. Santa Ana, CA 92701 (714)796-2209 PROOF OF PUBLICATION Notice of Public Hearing For the Purposes of Updatingg the Orange County Water District Groundwater Yanagesment Plan 2615 Notice as herebyy given tho the Orange County Water Disuse! f'Drstnct'1 will hold a public hearing on Wednesday May 20. 2015 at 5,30 p.m., or as soon thereafter as the matter me he hoard in the Boardroom at the office of said District, 18700 Ward Street, Fountain VV ley. Caldomia 82708. The nearing is for the purpose of notifying the public of the intention of the District to up- date the Distrkfs Groundwater Management Plan and for saluting public comments on the draft Groundwater Management Plan 2015 Update pnor to adoption of the plan. The draft plan may be viewed on the Distnel's website, www.ocwd com. Copies mayy be obtained b submitting a wniien request to Orange County Water District, P.O. Box &300 Fountain Valley CA 92728$300 Alin, Marsha Weetropp. Copies will be available a1 the public hewing The public ns invited to attend the public hearm end comment cn the draft plat. Written comments must be submitted by May 22, 20&5. cortvrtenta may be submitted to the above post of loa box address. Attn: Marsha West=opp or vs email a( mwestroppgiocwd.com . For additional inforrnabon cast 714-378-8248. The Groundwaler Management Plan 2015 Updates scheduled to be cambered for adop- tion by the Distnct's Board of Directors at the regufedy scheduled meeting of the Board of Directors to be held on June 17, 2015 at 5 30 pm. Any change to fire schedule for &tie Board of Directors to adopt the Groundwater Management Plan 2015 Update will be pool- ed on the District's wabstto, www. ocwd.com. Published; Orange County Register April 13. 21. 2015 R -M -10038126 Notice of Public Hearing For the Purpose of Updating the Orange County Water District Groundwater Management Plan 2015 Notice is hereby given that the Orange County Water District ("District") will hold a public hearing on Wednesday, May 20 at 5:30 p.m., or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard, in the Boardroom at the office of said District, 18700 Ward Street, Fountain Valley, California 92708. The hearing is for the purpose of notifying the public of the intention of the District to update the District's Groundwater Management Plan and for soliciting public comments on the draft Groundwater Management Plan 2015 Update prior to adoption of the plan. The draft plan may be viewed on the District's website, www.ocwd.com. Copies may be obtained by submitting a written request to Orange County Water District, P.O. Box 8300, Fountain Valley, CA 92728-8300 Attn: Marsha Westropp. Copies will be available at the public hearing. The public is invited to attend the public hearing and comment on the draft plan. Written comments must be submitted by May 22, 2015. Comments can be submitted to the above post office box address, Attn: Marsha Westropp or via email at mwestropp(a)ocwd.com . For additional information call 714-378-8248. The Groundwater Management Plan 2015 Update is scheduled to be considered for adoption by the District's Board of Directors at the regularly scheduled meeting of the Board of Directors to be held on June 17, 2015 at 5:30 pm. Any change to the schedule for the Board of Directors to adopt the Groundwater Management Plan 2015 Update will be posted on the District's website, www.ocwd.com. Posting of Notice on OCWD Website (April 13, 2015 to June 17, 2015) Availability of Draft Groundwater Management Plan 2015 Update ; Wt nv.ocvrd.mmr P - d C" Orange county Water Dist- X Is • Fie Ectt View Favorites Tools Help - _orange{Query Water aslw jµ GoogEe Nn'aps � GaogEe ExvLQYMErr s"E r 13-1-T EEAIr�x n„oaIAI ^ Orange County Water District Rpliable. Low Cost Himh OlInlity Water. We are committed to: �. WATER SUPPLY&REWBILITY •. ENVIRONMENTAL STEWARDSHIP - IN—TRY LEADERSHIPS INNOVATION WAtLk UUALrtY �: $OVNR FINANCIAL NPINAVLM[Hr zz R, Groundwater Management W FaUeW e Plan Update . G W S R Tweets asouMDwuo etruaNwretu snEUA Orange County59m top,- Water "o — g @C)CWDWaterNews Hera NBC is here filming an - - -- '.: U ICOming story on how - L �•;� the NGWRS ,�ngh=�Y.lY�uaE apraJllike batting the ,. Za5 Ocean Desal Exploration 4" click Here `". I.,. ., v Posting of Notice on OCWD Website (April 13, 2015 to June 17, 2015) Availability of Draft Groundwater Management Plan 2015 Update pill �J hnn�/.nvww wd.mmjNew4'Repcl�.: ... necasrirv'tl(1fW�GrnuedwarerMasysgr•rnenia!�nI IPA ' L L1ral1� .. .. 1. IXunge County Water I)MriCt K .... — .......... ... __ File Edit View Fa.,O,i s 7.015 Help .; �flrange (only Waw❑iii_ :: F Goag[n Maps 0cuwj9le OCVW 200820M C.gl.ewe Nlpo OC19➢ 20007005 Cnoiereers immrl wouaewam nnerr �rMl�r M— OCW)2007,W0SEnglneefa(hPo OC'r1R 70072pga En9lneerF.(le�yn OCIM11020002p07 C.gi..e. Haporc OCWf120W 2007 C1nilners Ramrt water You Can Courxl pn oc� tori laoy emnl a IeP— rx "U zWS appy tnglnee Hepon Be an OCWD Recharge Reports G.C. WaterHero!rY F]-12 Annual Rechn*ge Repos FY1ll71 A*�eunOldreru• Reuur[ rraataalnlydlr�lalm arnorl FYOIL04 n..nrer W Rlww Ruuni r rrv+.ae A.nnr�1lh„-1„pri wrl>Irn FYOy 07 hanuel ftecharoo Report OCWD Groundwater Management Plan Update 41111- C—dwmer Mnwoemem I'I.n MlSUP”. D NP.V'e o1111pIIC NOdl4s9 rl v1p[1e11nq ine 71!'nYl ltwm�nreler ayngyv.rem I'Ipn ]p1 j fx¢11rMxalx hlmmemead PVdn Ju1r 200? Undaw Final The O -W Comay Wamr oielda wl.l ka rlwnd®all W peen mos Updme rwa ndvpled by U. OCM Mord W 1%rr ra o. July 1' 7.2809. OCWD Long -Fenn Facilities Plan ni -Icon Frn.ifith, VW -7.144 lje ne OCWD Budget 6iMoe! @eoort FY X174 7S ILnX�n Rnpni! FY 1013-1d p� Ryrnrll FY XJ77 73 19uY!{ H •pi ii I FY 1011 :% V Posting of Notice on OCWD Website (April 13, 2015 to June 17, 2015) Availability of Draft Groundwater Management Plan 2015 Update Dlun9e C—ty Wxter District x d File Edit View Favorites 7.015 Belo Orange Copnly Wale+ ❑iii_ :: F ("gle Maps ®tirwgle �;.. Er�[uxM[er ar[rAnv �pnrncr s[nnp .rcerAvrINe! .p (. W � Orange County Water District ~ory,gp Emrnry s crnundwarar adl�rrry Appal IMl1SMra T uvAAb a.x:amNa—LAVn,prner:rluc K Lxnitv.[r 1 vup[,unMs•PpW — ulna Press Releases Fa eery& MwrpMcaYwnm Te here rnnwprJ vA Fu Mk al. eds4.2 Mrs k PDF dmamni. lryvudan "' naw�me FPF.F Mneepwln. pean dei'Ar rpeawq•,erenbpl melwai v'�wn or Aeerw9 anedcr nern xAne[a' "--yiw •arn�meeesAeFe ne uv�edeo Press Releases 2015 M 13 l NLgi,—,1 V'.ndi,. 1M:arirm In llod»lnxr IIeI fx.TMliirrpuulwx[,a Mwpwruee Pen MIS v5.0515 e7RAi1 i'av+=,L- r -- -- Helnv SFpe— rf2.23 15 Same Ane onnD!1 Fkenker eeynpu Ci"Yv0 gverd �.da fa ElC.1rR1 perin➢ 01.2015 OLH517rlueems Crl.rmr ClPdwscr end Lora4 Wemr Re"Ailib 01.09.75 OCINQ1 H.u'd A80ms Comdmncirt Te Weer RelkhWn 2014 12231M1 txvmwerx. x1d u.sa nw c.lp.m Hezpnlle I'll,axi a c. Abel or.Dphr 12.150 ra�xo.�.orFea.wrmac, omrer,t.rM5 12 "1 l4 C -M yA,k,arsr.lYrW� Ffmdxd M.ILI. fine N,,u :r, 12.1.1-0 (%lA'LI IIireUpr 6vr fterlres 10 71.1 0CM FL—Ines CALArCO Axard U.5.14 V.L'. yytrr yt,yyr:tr kraP+a!d+y Gsend Jury Figy :l VC'A�[tr.rirmy Jl.�r fhnyuax b is 14 Gwrshi Pr..l Wetpr SupPFr Pr.IrS1 Goers up ro Prpdp[e 1 W pICA 4.3.1M1 OLWOl bnored sl ppernetioiul Gnnreser¢e Focused art 0roupl,r end Sersmvuhle Soludpns ' {,r{1{ LW EF l01e Y�sr Arnwwav�r,um 4%14 ILS. Wep,r Yrira 51. Video V Posting of Notice on OCWD Website (April 13, 2015 to June 17, 2015) Availability of Draft Groundwater Management Plan 2015 Update Oj Orxtge County WMter DISI ries EEPkdRWPE : M� OGrY W M..rFY 06 awn ■aa�yati d�a�a ��a�� o^ .�.�y �+�+ � COVED Pull IC, Nin l res U�f32ulbrl iq� H�re� l �VQC igdAR{Rs%3019 01.27WS FWM W -7p1:5 iCOA11FW MFp� ILIU" ilrn� � b104l� F�ypit:44 L 1 _ r�{r air Hv�a�!Al=ASAEh+nrr r. 9- ,7 O Rvi ar Qrww Cixm.waW Dmu Pbw Bm Prow i7 JUT EJ13 .ter A-2 4;�J.R" MINUTES OF MEETING BOARD OF DIRECTORS, ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT April 15, 2015, 5:30 p.m. President Green called to order the April 15, 2015 regular meeting of the Orange County Water District Board of Directors at 5:30 p.m. in the Boardroom at the District office. Following the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag, the Secretary called the roll and reported a quorum as follows. Directors Philip Anthony Denis Bilodeau Shawn Dewane Jan Flory Cathy Green Dina Nguyen Roman Reyna Stephen Sheldon Harry Sidhu Roger Yoh (arrived 5:50 p.m.) Others: Staff Michael Markus, General Manager Joel Kuperberg, General Counsel Janice Durant, District Secretary Gina Ayala, Pedro Barrera, Adrienne Campbell, Stephanie Dosier, Randy Fick, Roy Herndon, Bill Hunt, Judy -Rae Karlsen, John Kennedy, Diane Pinnick, Eleanor Torres, Michael Wehner, Greg Woodside, Nira Yamachika Nabil Sabu — City of Santa Ana Melody McDonald — San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District/ACWA/JPIA Andy Sells — Association of California Water Agencies Joint Powers Insurance Authority Richard and Linda Armendariz — Huntington Beach residents Jim Atkinson, Paul Shoenberger, Ethan Temianka — Mesa Water District Steve Conklin, Bob Kiley — Yorba Linda Water District Jose Diaz — City of Orange Tom and Joyce Post Ken Vecchiarelli — Golden State Water Company Jim Dellalonga — City of Garden Grove Brian Ragalnd — City of Huntington Beach Bobbi Ashurst - Ratepayer Keith Lyon — Municipal Water District of Orange County Betsy Eglash - Brady Peer Swan, Paul Weghorst — Irvine Ranch Water District Vern Nelson — OJ Blog Nick Dibs — OC Science and Engineering Fair ASSOCIATION OF CALIFORNIA WATER AGENCIES/JOINT POWERS INSURANCE AUTHORITY (ACWA/JPIA) PRESENTATION: RETROSPECTIVE PREMIUM ADJUSTMENT STABILIZATION REFUND ACWA/JPIA Chief Executive Officer Andy Sells and ACWA/JPIA Executive Committee member Melanie McDonald presented the District with a check in the amount of $62,638 representing a retrospective premium adjustment stabilization refund. EMPLOYEE OF THE QUARTER AWARD The Board presented Maintenance Technician I Pedro Barrera with the Employee of the Quarter award. 4/15/15 Director Sidhu returned to the meeting during discussion of the following items. 24. INFORMATIONAL ITEMS A. Water Resources Report There was no discussion of this item. B. Santa Ana Watershed Project Authority Activities Director Anthony gave a brief update on SAWPA activates. C. OCWD Groundwater Management Plan Update Executive Director Greg Woodside advised that the draft Groundwater Management Plan would be available for public comment until May 22, and that a public hearing has been scheduled for May 20. D. Groundwater Producer Meeting Minutes — April 8, 2015 It was noted the minutes of this meeting were contained in tonight's packet. E. COMMITTEE/CONFERENCE/MEETING REPORTS ► Reports on Conferences/Meetings Attended at District Expense (at which a quorum of the Board was present) The Board reported on attendance at the following Committee meetings and noted the Minutes/Action Agendas were included in tonight's Board packet. April 02 - Communication/Legislative Liaison Committee April 08 - Water Issues Committee April 09 - Administration/Finance Issues Committee April 13 - GWRS Steering Committee VERBAL REPORTS Directors Bilodeau and Reyna reported on a press conference they attended today at the Hotel Fullerton where it was unveiled that they replaced 80,000 sq. ft. of grass with artificial grass for which the City of Fullerton rebated the hotel approximately $41,000. Director Green stated the Citizens' Advisory Committee has requested the addition of another meeting. She recommended the Board extend its decision to the end of May to allow the Committee to have another meeting and submit its recommendation. Staff was directed to cancel the previously scheduled April 30 special Board meeting and reschedule it for May 14, 2014 at 5:30 p.m. to review the Poseidon Term Sheet. Director Green also advised that Public Affairs employee Becky Mudd was raising money for pediatric cancer by running a 268 mile run from Huntington Beach to the California/Arizona border. She urged the Board to contribute to her charity. Finally, Director Green stated she has a meeting with staff tomorrow with the City of Fullerton and Assemblymember Wagner. 20 Orange County Water District Newsletter OCWD Board of Directors President Cathy Green First Vice President Denis R. Bilodeau, P.E. Second Vice President Philip L. Anthony Shawn Dewane Jan M. Flory, ESQ. Dina L. Nguyen, ESQ. Roman Reyna Stephen R. Sheldon Harry S. Sidhu, P.E. Roger C. Yoh, P.E. General Manager Michael R. Markus P.E., D.WRE. Page 1 of 4 u7 0 N Q. ►4 In This Issue: President's Message - State Water Bond Can Help O.C. Drought Crisis Register for the 2015 OC Water Summit OCWD Receives ASCE OC Flood Management Project of the Year Award 19th Annual Children's Water Education Festival a Great Success! Groundwater Management Act 2015 Draft Ready for Public Review Celebrate 45th Annual Earth Day on April 22 OCWD Desal Citizens Advisory Committee Meetings Underway DesalTech Program and Registration Now Available Out in the Community OCWD Employees March Tours President's Message - State Water Bond Can Help O.C. Drought Crisis We are currently experiencing the worst California drought ever recorded in 165 years, with no end in sight. According to one NASA scientist, if we don't fake measures to conserve wafer now, if may run out for the 38 million people, businesses and agriculture in this state. Recently, the Governor has called for mandatory—no longer voluntary—water-use efficiency. We need to save 25 percent. What else can be done? Luckily, the good people of the state approved the Wafer Qualify, Supply and Infrastructure Act of 2014 (Wafer Bond; Proposition 1) in last year's election. Read More... Register for the 2015 OC Water Summit r � WATER SUMMIT 00, keep wafer flowing. Rain today, gone tomorrow? Droughts in California are expected to occur three out of every 10 years. Without proper planning and investment in wafer infrastructure and policy, California's $1.9 trillion economy can come to a standstill, having devastating ripple effects on U.S. and global markets. Join us for the 8th Annual Orange County Wafer Sum mif on May 15 from 7:30 a.m. to 1:30 p.m. to set imagination, innovation and investment info motion to The annual OC Wafer Summit will fake place at the Grand Californian Hotel at the Disneyland Resort. To register as a participant or sponsor, visit the Orange County Wafer Summit website. Read More... OCWD Receives ASCE OC Flood Management Project of the Year Award The American Society of Civil Engineers Orange County, California Branch (ASCE OC) honored the Orange County Wafer District's (OCWD; the District) Burris Pump Station Project, Phase 1 with the Flood Management Project of the Year award. More than 200 people were in attendance at its annual http://newsletter.ocwd.com/2015/Newsletter_2015-04.aspx 6/2/2015 Orange County Water District Newsletter awards banquet as ASCE OC honored outstanding individuals and projects for 2014. A total of 35 awards were given out, including 21 project awards and 14 individual awards. Read More... Page 2 of 4 (left to right) Penny Lew, PE, OCPW and past president ASCE OC; OCWD Assistant Director of Engineering Chris Olsen, PE; and Tapas Dutta, PE, ENV SP, QSD, Harris & Associates and past president ASCE OC. 19th Annual Children's Water Education Festival a Great Success! The 19th annual Children's Wafer Education Festival was a success! More than 7,000 third, fourth and fifth grade Orange County students attended the free field trip to learn about wafer and the environment; curriculum corresponded to California Science Standards. The Orange County Wafer District's Groundwater Guardian Team, which includes OCWD, Disneyland Resort and the National Wafer Research Institute (NW RI), hosted the event on March 25 and 26, 2015 at the University of California, Irvine (UCI). Read More... Groundwater Management Act 2015 Draft Ready for Public Review The OCW D Draft Groundwater Management Act 2015 Update is available for public review and comment. The draft plan may be viewed on the Dist(ct's websife, www.ocwd.com. Copies may be obtained by submitting a written request to Orange County Wafer District, P.O. Box 8300, Fountain Valley, CA 92728-8300, Attn: Marsha Wesfropp. Written comments submitted to either the District's post office box or via email at mwesfror)p@ocwd.com will be accepted until May 22, 2015. Read More... Celebrate 45th Annual Earth Day on April 22 Bringing the poverty, development, climate and sustainability communities together to build a broader and more inclusive global movement is the theme of this year's Earth Day on Wednesday, April 22. Earth Day has grown from a single -day event to a year-round movement to promote sustainability. If is celebrating its 45th year in 2015. Read More... OCWD Desal Citizens Advisory Committee Meetings Underway The OCWD Ocean Desalination Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC), which was recently appointed by the Orange County Wafer District Board, gathered for two meetings and is expected to meet again on April 23 and 30. Members were shown presentations about http://newsletter.ocwd.com/2015/Newsletter_2015-04.aspx 6/2/2015 Agenda GROUNDWATER PRODUCERS MEETING Sponsored by the ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT (714) 378-3200 Wednesday, May 13, 2015, 9:30 a.m. Meeting to be held at the 18700 Ward Street Fountain Valley CA 1. Mila Kleinbergs Head of Special Purpose Discharge Permit program for OCSD Discuss concept of putting Producer distribution system flushing water into OCSD Sewer System — Ken Vecchiarelli of GSWC to discuss water system operational issues. 2. Poseidon Update a. Term Sheet b. Citizens Advisory Committee c. May 14, 2015 OCWD Board meeting 3. Review of Draft OCWD Groundwater Management Plan 4. Annual Santa Ana River Watermaster Report 5. Groundwater Remediation Projects Update a. North Basin — Discuss alternatives b. South Basin 6. Other The Producers' meetings are scheduled the second Wednesday of each month. The next regular monthly meeting is Wednesday, June 10, 2015 at 9:30 a.m. MINUTES OF MEETING BOARD OF DIRECTORS, ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT May 20, 2015, 5:30 p.m. President Green called to order the May 20, 2015 regular meeting of the Orange County Water District Board of Directors at 5:30 p.m. in the Boardroom at the District office. Following the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag, the Secretary called the roll and reported a quorum as follows. Directors Staff Philip Anthony Michael Markus, General Manager Denis Bilodeau Jeremy Jungreis, Assistant General Counsel Shawn Dewane Janice Durant, District Secretary Jan Flory Gina Ayala, Bruce Dosier, Stephanie Dosier, Cathy Green Alicia Dunkin, Randy Fick, Roy Herndon, Dina Nguyen (not present) Bill Hunt, Judy -Rae Karlsen, John Kennedy, Roman Reyna Pat Lewis, Becky Mudd, Chris Olsen, Stephen Sheldon (not present) Eleanor Torres, Karen Warren, Rose Wilke, Harry Sidhu Greg Woodside, Nira Yamachika Roger Yoh Others: Jason and Karen Ayres — Dan Copp Crushing Dan Copp — Dan Copp Crushing Bob Kiley, Marc Marcantonio — Yorba Linda Water District Ed Connor — Connor Fletcher Dan Chase Paul Schoenberger — Mesa Water District Keith Lyon — Municipal Water District of Orange County Betsy Eglash - Brady Recognition of Service for Director Stephen Sheldon This item was deferred to a later date. 2. Commemorating Becky Mudd's Run for Children's Cancer Awareness The Board took the following action commending Public Affairs staff member Beck Mudd for her run across California to raise money for children's cancer. President Green also commended Executive Assistant Karen Warren's son, Fire Captain Mike Warren, for his recent earthquake rescue mission in Nepal. Upon motion by Director Anthony, seconded by Director Dewane, the following resolution was unanimously carried [8-0]. Ayes: Anthony, Bilodeau, Dewane, Green, Flory, Reyna, Sidhu, Yoh Absent: Nguyen, Sheldon 5/20/15 2. Public Hearing to Consider Groundwater Management Plan 2015 Update President Green opened the Public Hearing to update the District's Groundwater Management Plan (Plan) and solicit public comments on the Plan prior to its adoption on June 17, 2015. Executive Director Greg Woodside recalled that the draft updated Plan was made available for public review on April 13, noting that the Plan has been updated periodically with the latest update adopted in 2009. He advised that the 2015 update sets forth basin management goals and objectives, describes accomplishments, presents basin management strategies, and provides information about projects completed since publication of the last update. Further, he stated the Plan also incorporates additional Plan elements required by the California Sustainable Groundwater Management Act that became law in 2014. Mr. Woodside advised that the 2015 Plan discusses the District's overall goals of managing the basin as: to protect and enhance groundwater quality, to protect and increase the sustainable yield of the basin in a cost-effective manner, and to increase the efficiency of OCWD operations. He stated the comment period for the draft plan is open until May 22, 2015 and, after the public comment period is closed, staff will respond to comments and will prepare a revised version that addresses comments received to present to the Board for approval at its June 17 Board meeting. President Green then opened the hearing for public comment. Irvine Ranch Water District Director Peer Swan stated that he saw no chronology in the Plan where OCWD purchased the SAVI Ranch land along the Santa Ana River which he believes to be a milestone. Secondly, he stated the basin is currently down between 300,000 — 400,000 acre-feet and he does not see where in the conjunctive use plan OCWD has been collecting the money to buy imported water when it becomes available again in order to refill the basin. He stated that the under the conjunctive use management plan, either OCWD has water in the ground or the money to buy water to fill the basin so the basin is not so overdrafted. Mr. Swan stressed that up until this year, MWD water was freely available in quantities that OCWD could have purchased enough to have a full basin at the beginning of this year. There being no other persons wishing to present testimony, President Green declared the hearing closed. CONSENT CALENDAR Director Flory requested the removal of Item No. 19, Amendment to Agreement with Parsons, from the Consent Calendar. The balance of the Consent Calendar was then approved by Director Anthony, seconded by Director Flory and carried [8-0] as follows. Ayes: Anthony, Bilodeau, Dewane, Green, Flory, Reyna, Sidhu, Yoh Absent: Nguyen, Sheldon ac D E�4ST ORAMME COUNTY O15TRICT DIRECTORS Riebard B. Bell Douglass S. Davert John Dulebohn Seymour B. Everett III William VanderWerff Lisa Ohlund General Manager 185 N Mc Pherson Road Orange, CA 92869-3720 www,eocwd.com Ph: (714) 538-5815 Fax: (714) 538-0334 May 20, 2015 Greg Woodside, PG CHg Director of Planning and Natural Resources Orange County Water District 18700 Ward Street Fountain Valley, CA 92708 RE: Ground Water Management Program - 2015 Update East Orange County Water District Comments Dear Greg, East Orange County Water District commends the Orange County Water District on the development of a thorough document and continued efforts to effectively manage the groundwater basin as the primary source of water for north Orange County. Our comments are presented below. The Santiago Basins, which contain half of the total storage in the OCWD recharge system, have historically provided recharge to wells in our Retail Zone, and other pumpers in the area. EOCWD requests that the GWMP more strongly emphasize this condition. We also request that the Groundwater Level Changes exhibit (Fig. 3-10) be revised to reflect the reduction in water levels in our East well. During 2014, the levels dropped 20 feet and were within 25 feet of the upper perforations of the well, before Santiago basin levels and the well levels increased. EOCWD requests that OCWD's recharge operations result in maximizing water levels in the Santiago basins, to maintain water levels in the EOCWD wells and those of other pumpers in the area. EOCWD supports the goal of a long term 75% BPP as stated in the GWMP. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the GWMP 2015 Update. Respectfully AQ sub itt , a Lisa Hund eral Manager East Orange County Water District Cc: Art Valenzuela, City of Tustin Ken Vecchiarelli, Golden State Water Company Jose Diaz, City of Orange Paul Cook, Irvine Ranch Water District Jerry Vilander, Serrano Water District Public Hearing held at Meeting of OCWD Board of Directors May 20, 2015 Oral Comments of Peer Swan, Director, Irvine Ranch Water District Irvine Ranch Water District Director Peer Swan stated that he saw no chronology in the Plan where OCWD purchased the SAVI Ranch, land along the Santa Ana River, which he believes to be a milestone. Secondly, he stated the basin is currently down between 300,000 — 400,000 acre-feet and he does not see where in the conjunctive use plan OCWD has been collecting the money to buy imported water when it becomes available again in order to refill the basin. He stated that part of the conjunctive use management plan is that either you have the water in the ground or the money to buy water to fill the basin so the basin is not so overdrafted. Mr. Swan stressed that up until this year MWD water was freely available in quantities that OCWD could have purchased in order to have a full basin at the beginning of this year. Response to Comments East Orange County Water District, Lisa Ohlund (May 20, 2015 letter) No. Comment Response to Comment 1 Add text to emphasize the condition Section 5.2.2 beginning on page 5-9 that Santiago Basins, which contain has been updated to incorporate half of the total storage in the OCWD requested changes. 1 recharge system, have historically (page 11-2). provided recharge to wells in 2 EOCWD's Retail Zone and other The land purchase has been added to pumpers in the area. the history section (Section 1.2). Revise the Groundwater Level Figure 3-10 has been revised to 2 Changes figure (Fig. 3-10) to reflect the provide greater detail of water level reduction in water levels in the area of changes in the groundwater basin. EOCWD East well. EOCWD requests that OCWD's Section 5.2.2 beginning on page 5-9 3 recharge operations result in has been updated to discuss maximizing water levels in the maximizing recharge in the vicinity of Santiago Basins. Santiago Basins. Irvine Ranch Water District, Peer Swan (comments at May 20, 2015 board meeting) No. Comment Response to Comment 1 Provide additional discussion Additional language has been added concerning conjunctive use of the to Section 10.4.2 (page 10-8), Section groundwater basin related to use of 10.8 (page 10-15), and Section 11.2.3 imported water to maintain (page 11-2). groundwater elevations. 2 Add to history section the OCWD The land purchase has been added to purchase of land behind Prado Dam in the history section (Section 1.2). the 1960s. tiOrange County Water District 18700 Ward Street Fountain Valley, CA 92708 (714) 378-3200 NOTICE OF EXEMPTION From the Requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) TO: COUNTY CLERKICounty of Orange P.O_ Box 238 Santa Ana, CA 92702 FROM: Orange County Water District Planning & Watershed Management 18700 Ward Street Fountain Valley, CA 92708 PROJECT TITLE: Orange County Water District Groundwater Management Plan 2015 Update APPROVAL DATE: June 17, 2015 PROJECT LOCATION: Orange County Groundwater Basin CITY: Various COUNTY: Orange DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT: The OCWD Groundwater Management Plan discusses the groundwater basin's physical features, OCWD facilities and monitoring and operating programs. NAME & ADDRESS OF APPLICANT: Orange County Water District, 18700 Ward Street, Fountain Valley CA 92708 NAME OF PUBLIC AGENCY APPROVING PROJECT: Orange County Water District EXEMPT STATUS: ❑ Ministerial (Sec. 15268) ❑ Declared Emergency (Sec. 15269 (a) ) ❑ Emergency Project (Sec. 15269(x)&(b) ) ❑ General Rule (Sec. 15061(b)(3) ) X Statutory Exemption: Section 15262 X Categorical Exemption: Class 6 Section 15306, Class 7 Section 15307 Class 8 Section 15308 REASON(S) WHY PROJECT IS EXEMPT FROM CEQA: The Groundwater Management Plan is an information document that discusses the Orange County Groundwater Basin and OCWD facilities and programs. The Groundwater Management Plan does not bind, commit or predispose OCWD to further consideration, approval or implementation of any potential project. Approval of the Groundwater Management Plan would not cause either a direct physical change to the environment or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change to the environment. CONTACT PES Marsha Westropp, TELEPHONE No: 714 378-8248 SIGNATURE: �%dV(;'�1 DATE; June 18, 2015 TITLE: Senior Planner CERTIFICATION OF SECRETARY I do hereby certify that at its meeting held June 17, 2015, the Orange County Water District Board of Directors approved the following item: FINAL DRAFT GROUNDWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN 2015 UPDATE Adopt the Groundwater Management Plan 2015 Update; and authorize the filing of a Notice of Exemption. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, 1 have executed this Certificate on June 98, 2095 Judy -Rae Karlsen, Assistant District Secretary APPENDIX B Groundwater Management Act Mandatory and Recommended Components Sustainable Groundwater Management Act Required and Additional Plan Elements Appendix B Sustainable Groundwater Management Act Required and Additional Plan Elements Water Code OCWD Section Required Plan Elements Plan Section 10727.2(a) Description of physical setting and characteristics of the aquifer system underlying the basin that includes the following: 10727.2(a)(1) Historical data 3.1; 3.4-3.7; 5.1- 5.3; 7.1-7.3; 10.1- 10.3 10727.2(a)(2) Groundwater levels .............................................. 3.4-3.5 Groundwater quality ............................................. 8.1-8.8 Subsidence........................................................ 3.6 Groundwater -surface water interaction ..................... 4.7 10727.2(a)(3) General discussion of historical and projected water 10.1-10.7 demands and supplies 10727.2(a)(4) A map that details the area of the basin and the Figure 3-4; 9.4; boundaries of the groundwater sustainability agencies Figure 9-13 that overlie the basin that have or are developing groundwater sustainability plans 10727.2(a)(5) A map identifying existing and potential recharge areas 3.1; 9.5; Figure 3 - for the basin including identification of existing recharge 3; Figure 5-9; areas that substantially contribute to the replenishment Figure 5-11 of the basin 10727.2(b)(1) Measurable objectives to achieve the sustainability goal in 2.3; Tables 2 -1 -2 - the basin with 20 years of implementation of the plan 3; Table 2-7 10727.2(b)(2) Description of how the plan helps meet each objective and Tables 2-1, 2-2, 2 - how each objective is intended to achieve sustainability for 3 long-term beneficial uses of groundwater. 10727.2(c) A planning and implementation horizon 2.6; 5.5 10727.2(d) Components related to: 10727.2(d)(1) Monitoring and management of groundwater levels 3.4-3.7; 4.2.2; 10.2 10727.2(d)(2) Monitoring and management of groundwater quality..... 4.2.3-4.2.5; Table 4-1; 6.4; 7.1-7.4; 8-1; 8.3-8.6; Groundwater quality degradation ........................... 4.2.4; 8.3-8.10 Inelastic land surface subsidence ............................ 3.6 Changes in surface flow and surface water quality that directly affect groundwater levels or quality or are caused by groundwater extraction ........................... 4.4; 5.2 Appendix B Sustainable Groundwater Management Act Required and Additional Plan Elements Water Code OCWD Section Required Plan Elements Plan Section 10727.2(d)(3) Mitigation of overdraft 10.1-10.8 10727.2(d)(4) How recharge areas contribute to replenishment of the 5.3 basin 10727.2(d)(5) Description of surface water supply used for available for 5.1-5.6 use for groundwater recharge or in -lieu use 10727.2(e) Summary of type of monitoring sites, type of measurements, frequency of monitoring for each location including well depth, screened intervals, aquifer zones monitored, summary of type of well including public, irrigation, domestic, industrial, monitoring for: Groundwater levels .............................................. 4.2.2 Groundwater quality ............................................. 4.2.3; 4.2.4 Subsidence........................................................ 3.6 Streamflow ........................................................ 4.3; 5.2.1; 5.2.2 Precipitation....................................................... 5.2; 5-10, Fig. 5-7 Evaporation........................................................ 3.3 Tidal influence..................................................... 4.2.5; 7.1-7.4 10727.2(f) Monitoring protocols designed to detect changes in: Groundwater levels .............................................. 3.4-3.7; 4.2.2; 10.2 4.2.4; 4.2.6; 4.3.7; Groundwater quality .............................................. 6.4; 7.1-7.4; 8.1; 8.3-8.6 Inelastic surface subsidence (when applicable)........... 3-7 Flow and quality of surface water that directly affect groundwater levels or quality or caused by groundwater 4.4; 4.7; 8.5 extraction .......................................... 10727.2(g) Description of the consideration given to the applicable 9.3; 9.5; 9.7 county and city general plans and a description of the various adopted water resources -related plans and programs within the basin and an assessment of how the plan may affect those plans Appendix B Sustainable Groundwater Management Act Required and Additional Plan Elements Water Code Additional Plan Elements OCWD Plan Section Section 10272.4(a) The control of saline water intrusion 4.2.6; 7.1- 7.4 10272.4(b) Wellhead protection areas and recharge areas 8.2 10272.4(c) Migration of contaminated groundwater 4.2.4; 8.7; 8.9 10272.4(d) A well abandonment and well destruction program 8.2 10272.4(e) Replenishment of groundwater extractions 5.2-5.6; 6.1-6.3; 10.1 10272.4(f) Activities implementing, opportunities for, and removing 10.6-10.8 impediments to conjunctive use or underground storage 10272.4(g) Well construction policies 8.2 10272.4(h) Measures addressing: Groundwater contamination clean-up ....................... 8.7-8.10 Recharge............................................................ 5.1-5.5; 6.1; 10.3 Diversions to storage ............................................. 5.1-5.3 Conservation........................................................ 10.7.2 Water recycling..................................................... 5.2.4; 6.1-6.6 Conveyance......................................................... 5.1-5.3; 6.1 Extraction projects (note: except for contamination clean up OCWD does not have extraction projects) ............... 8.9 10272.4(1) Efficient water management practices for the delivery of NA- section applies water and water conservation methods to improve the to agricultural water efficiency of water use use 10272.40) Efforts to develop relationships with state and federal 9.6 regulatory agencies 10272.4(k) Processes to review land use plans and efforts to 9.5; 9.7 coordinate with land use planning agencies to assess activities that potentially create risks to groundwater quality or quantity 10272.4(1) Impacts on groundwater dependent ecosystems 4.7 Appendix B Mandatory and Recommended Components of a Groundwater Manaqement Plan Water Code Section Mandatory Components of a GWMP OCWD Plan Section 10753.7(a)(1) Basin management objectives for the 2.3 groundwater basin that is subject to the plan 10753.7(a)(1) Monitoring and management of groundwater 3.4, 3.5, 4.2, 5.2, 5.3, levels within the groundwater basin 10.2-10.4 10753.7(a)(4) Monitoring protocols that are designed to 3.4, 3.5 detect changes in groundwater levels 10753.7(a)(1) Groundwater quality degradation 8.3, 8.4, 8.7-8.9 10753.7(a)(4) Monitoring protocols that are designed to 4.2, 4.6 detect groundwater quality 10753.7(a)(1) Inelastic land surface subsidence 3.6 10753.7(a)(4) Monitoring protocols that are designed to 3.6 detect inelastic land surface subsidence for basins for which subsidence has been identified as a potential problem 10753.7(a)(1) Changes in surface flow and surface water 4.4, 4.7, 5.2, 5.3.3 quality that directly affect groundwater levels or quality or are caused by groundwater pumping in the basin 10753.7(a)(4) Monitoring protocols that are designed to 4.4, 4.6 detect flow and quality of surface water that directly affect groundwater levels or quality or are caused by groundwater pumping at the basin 10753.7(a)(2) A plan to involve other agencies that enables 1.4, 1.5, 6.1, 7.3, 8.2, the local agency to work cooperatively with 8.3, 8.7, 8.9, 9.1-9.4, other public entities whose service area or g 6 g 7 boundary overlies the groundwater basin 10753.7(a)(3) A map that details the area of the groundwater Figures 3-1, 3-4, 3.1, basin, as defined in the department's Bulletin 3.2 No. 118, and the area of the local agency, that will be subject to the plan, as well as the boundaries of other local agencies that overlie the basin in which the agency is developing a groundwater management plan Appendix B Mandatory and Recommended Components of a Groundwater Manaqement Plan Water Optional Components of a GWMP OCWD Plan Code Section Section 10753.8(a) The control of saline water intrusion 3.7.4, 3.7.5, 7.1-7.4 3.1.1, Figure 10753.8(b) Identification and management of wellhead 3-3, 8.2, 9.5, protection areas and recharge areas 9.7 10753.8(c) Regulation of the migration of contaminated 8 7 8 9 8.10 groundwater 10753.8(d) The administration of a well abandonment and 8.2 well destruction program 10753.8(e) Mitigation of conditions of overdraft 10.1-10.4 10753.8(f) Replenishment of groundwater extracted by 5.1-5.6 water producers 10753.8(g) Monitoring of groundwater levels and storage 3.4, 3.5 10753.8(h) Facilitating conjunctive use operations 5.1-5.6, 10.1- 10.6 10753.8(1) Identification of well construction policies 4.6, 8.2 The construction and operation by the local 10753.8(j) agency of groundwater contamination cleanup, 5.1-5.6, 6.1, recharge, storage, conservation, water 6.2, 8.7-8.9 recycling and extraction projects 10753.8(k) The development of relationships with state 4.4.2. 4.2.3, and federal regulatory agencies 5.2.1, 9.1-9.3 The review of land use plans and coordination 10753.8(1) with land use planning agencies to assess 9.7 activities which create a reasonable risk of groundwater contamination APPENDIX C Basin Management Objectives: Achievement of Sustainability for Long -Term Beneficial Uses of Groundwater L C/) 70 O o a) r^ N O a) cn L a) U D Q / \�^` W U� ^) /a)�/'� H W OE- a� a) E6) O) J 5� G cn m m 0N O U N U 4- N LO N C7 C7 N U) L L N O U Q cu c >N o •U 0) 3: a) c U Q L 4--N N E L N 1 �� O M N > cB cm N C:L �• ,N y O (� L 6) N1 U N 3: C E OL >, N CU N ZO � L •"= O�� yJ Z) L � L _0L 6)L 4- O 0- O �_ (U a) C-0 O cu > � >, L wU+ U N Z) U) cB J L N A O L a) N "_ � L O �. O cu L U) N p cu Q cu � `� Q E cu cu ?� m _ m 0 N L a) -0 U 0) N N m m> 5 i 6) L � O E N c > N — Q �! L N O O ?� L L Q cu O Q Q O U U O O ca a Q CU o o a) c m cu a)Z) E c U Q O ON(n Z) cBN " 3: O N O O cu (B 4-- (-0� > > cu OU UO O L O U OU O z 0 O U O C cn cB cB N Q (B -0 > C:N) 0 N � U Z)L O ca C o mL Q o U( O N O CU a ca W o v) L cu >— 6)a cn 3: ca in CU �o-0 - CU aHO O LN O OU �a ONO — U N m N � Q C:O "" cu cu = U) O OO O N cu c U O N cB O Q Q U U Q O U) O a o O Qcn ca L CU E E >/� O O CU FD y U O VJ C cu cu E `/ cu E cu E>1 E N L � Q N U) n O U) N cu U) >, O >, LU � C U �. N U N U U cB U) E Z) 0_ O +� O +� (� (� Q 0 cnU L M 2 U N O 5 �(�♦� a)nL` �n (n�` nL` CU a" CU N N L L •�14 cti L O L cu CO 0cn CU C: U N Q N U N O a)L N � m)Cl) .O C c O Fu O B O O cp (B L -0 _0 cB O � 0 cu Q U O U N> a °� O E a) .. >, - Q G) a) Drs a) � Q 06 L O U U .S 04 E cu N O aL) N ami ca o Q E cu CU -0 O O 0 0 C)�� O Q O U Q O U) 0 ca _Oa c� C) RT cu U �'. Q Cn < C6 Q O c O U i O cu Q 0) Q O L Q � cn O a) L O O cu cu cn E cu CU L cu C> O 0% o 0 a) 0 U O 0) c .s O L c 0 cu L a) Q ca aQ/ �LL cu cu > Q N U A) C: O O Q "U a) E E ca cn Q) C:ca Q O N CU _x L w Fn Q > cu m LU o) cn rl- N 0C O U a) (1) � ,- c7 � N a) U O4 L 0 a] U O L L L 6 L a) Q W m CU > cu c U 0 cu O L) O% L CU 0) L 0 cB L a] L y 0 L ,C 0 L : U O C ca (� 0 N 4--C C to U � cn 'IR L — cu > O cu L co 2:s VJc6 C a) 0 L L c- Q Q 4— 70 O E -R c6 /O `! Q cu L //U)/ O Q 4- CU 70 a) W C/) Z) C> U) � U E O E 0O Q a) � 0 0) U U) Q Z ca Q WL_ 0 N cn O O O N L Q cu 4- .L CU ! a) Q � a) Z) O j O 0- W m 0) a — O Q O Lcu cB 3:=CU E O1 cn N C: (B a ca CcB +-� E6) C:•O1 a) C c cn a) C:O E 0) O O D�, cu J cn O N 01 (� /�) -0 U 0 �' E `V L N 0 a) �C: O L ,^ C: '� C 0 m O L U U O G C: W Q L O OLcB 04 r J5 c6 Q O w >Ocu , Fu Q cu N -0 C o CU N a) c6 06 ca 0 a)�� cu -r-cn C: CU �a)� O a) cu H0^ cu cu (A 3:z C6 Q O c O U i O cu Q 0) Q O L Q � cn O a) L O O cu cu cn E cu CU L cu C> O 0% o 0 a) 0 U O 0) c .s O L c 0 cu L a) Q ca aQ/ �LL cu cu > Q N U A) C: O O Q "U a) E E ca cn Q) C:ca Q O N CU _x L w Fn Q > cu m LU o) cn N rl- N N a) O4 L cu a] O L a) Q CU > O L) O% L CU cB U CU 70 L U C -0 c 4--C C to U O O a) E cu L cn cn q N C a) L C: Q a] E E Q cu > Q > U E O E 0O Q cu N cn O O ca L Q .L Q � > � O Ecu O1 � N C: (B — c CcB +-� 3:5 C:•O1 L c cn a) C:O L O ca cn O N 01 70o �' �C: O `� N a) a) CU C: a) > O OLcB J5 O Q Z a) cu a) > a) C 0 O cu C: CU 3 Q cu -0 0 a) N -o 0cn c c .1 U o) a) LO Q O C: 4--Z) O 0 O) L � 4--U C:0% L 0) O Q U cB cB CU (B L L O Q O -0 N Q L Q .� (B Q �+ O Q /•) a Q -0 O .s O L 70 �+ O O "U cu ?� L Q C: � �• CU cB+� O a) ca L cu -0 Q N L > Q L a] Q a� //C: V J E m Q O U Q Q Z) c O coE W Z) Z) CU 0 0 CU 0 Q (B Q O N ca C,5 cn cn a) (� OU (A > to a) U N CU u�cu 1 cu O cu ��1 V ca cu cn to o o L C:.� O i CUNc a) O '� E C)o s a d° C N L C/) 70 4_ 0 a ^O` ,vO W J L a) Ucn Q D a) U� a) a) H CO OE- i--� a) a E6) a) C= O) J 5� G cn /m W S.. no (6 O W E a) _0 0 O � O U W U W � ; O N }, o �0o co co C C'7 a) 0 0) a a O O N CU N CU a) L a) a) ) U) �. +� H 4— O a) 4 O a) cn C: 0) L `�(� ai E cu � " O � c - U C:" a) .L '� a) CU '� c m U ca LCis N L cn +- a) E a) E Q CB N a) O a) O . O cu E O E O E .LDL (� L CU Q cn cu cn C L a) y� CB > L a) �+ CB > L a �+ CB 0- L cu a) L Qcu E > � �`! CB O% �`! CB O% /V//� m o Cis -0 O Cis -0 O cn 0) Q a) a) a) L 70 70 L CB C � E �cu a) O a) 0% a) 0% " 1 CU L L // �u O O N �� CB L a) a] Cn� VJ L " Q c L Q. c -=� O> L ,� O O L () L �• O CU Z) O L a) U L a) U Q 0) O •- CB cn L > i a 0> i a 0> O O V- a) O L Q O > CB CU > 0) - > 0) - > � a o� — Q cu_r Z) zs cn O 1 cn 1 cn 1 Q O N L E L' Q cn -r- CB CU -0L C 3: CB -0L C:p) � L o L 5 a) 0) E C- O p •a) L CU L 70 CU L 70 4-- CU L cu U Q O a� O cn CB O cn CB O (� a CB cn O L U L cn p -C: zocn a va) O 0-0 O O � O cu Q L (a a) p cn CUi O O O ��— >, CB 7 cu 0) � O Q CU � O � O ncn O Q U L O a) "- Q (B a) O U cu a) a) Q O a) cn Q O a) cn a) a) cn cu CU O cn O> Z) O .S O .S � a E E Q o Q � a) L cn O a) N cn Ocu `� Z- cn N L y --CB c-0 L" L O �cn_ CU U C2 0 O U O CB U U) E cu cu cn L -0 O cn a) J O C:a) O U 0) 0 O O O L O O E N O �>> > O L O E O '� O 0- a) 0o� c m� .L a>�o Q�L CD �� ; L 70 O ^r 0 W /^ N O a) cn L a) Ucn Q D > N U� a) a) H CO OE-a N E6) O) J (C� G v/ ;^ /m W LCU O c c cu i O cn c O 0) 1>� L C: L) O L- L U cu U O �O �1 O Z) C/) LO C:j -q- a) cu U L U � O O ca .s > O Q .E 0) Q a) > U () O cu N� N LCU O c c cu i O cn c O 0) 1>� L V N O a) m L () i 0 L O L- L U cu 0) CUL L L a) cu O cu Z L - �O �1 O Z) C/) a) -q- O cu OO 0 (B d 4 O C: O O O ca .s > O Q .E 0) Q a) > U () O cu E s cu (B U O a)O O 0 a _ a] O /0 V O U a) (n D N N N N N 14; N � c O O L CU 0) C: 0 O Z) O O :-f E -o CU O 0 U Ocu U � L L O cu O U E U �O cu O) U C 'E U C 0 cB � E � O cB (B 0) � a) U U a) Z) 0 0 U 0- 2) L L U r � E O O L L cu cu cu E W cu - O U O o " L L Q 0 U U a) O O U 0- 0 O L ca U U U a) a) O cu a) cn a) cu cu U a) E 0) ca ca cu ca • CL O cu O a) cu -0U "cu' U O 76- L O U 70 Q 0 E a) 0) O 0 O cn O u) -0 a) cu— CU -O 4-- cu cu L C/)O O 0L O ca Eo) a) ,> LE i L ' C: cu cB Q cB 0) U c6 >, � CU U O O a) L to M a) •- ca � •- E a) a) O WW C: > Q L A > cu :3 o cu : cu O _ c j O " In (B CU C: O E0 O cu -0 o cu cu 0) cB U cu a) 0 a) a) 0 -C-a) 0 m C 70 a) C .�_ cn 0 C o N N_ o N C a) cu +� ocucu a) N +� S Q cn Q C Z) � >, L L CU C L > > Z) � �! _to "' � a) a) � � U a) E U O >� O E >U -0 O 0 0->- +-' L > > ca •E D d o > (� U 0 D 0 D 0 0 > a) •� to � E a) O) O) a) cu a) O) O _ cu '. O) cu - U _ L >,� a) o o C: CU CU Z)3: C: cn Z) m E N " a) � Z) 'L E ' U O c aa) o 0) o cu O) "J CU �O) U C U cu U U Z)(B 0 5 Q a) O U L L 0 0) -00 O C N 14; N � c O O L CU 0) C: 0 O Z) O O :-f E -o CU O 0 U Ocu U � L L O cu O U E U �O cu O) U C 'E U C 0 cB � E � O cB (B 0) � a) U U a) Z) 0 0 U 0- 2) L L U r � E O O L L cu cu cu E W cu - O U O o " L L Q 0 U U a) O O U 0- 0 O L ca U U U a) a) O cu a) cn a) cu cu U a) E 0) ca ca cu ca • Z) Z E a��i 76- W 70 W (6 O c O cu U > > `. 70 cu L C/)O O 0L O cu a) ,> LE O a a) 2 CU cu WW A > cu :3 o cu : cu O O _ c j O a) � L11 >, o cu a) W C/)70 m C U a) C N_0 0 C o N N_ o M C a) cu +� ocucu a) N +� ca a) cn � >, _to "' � a) a) � � U a) E U O >� O E O -0 O 0 0->- O a) E X .0 ca D d U U N 14; N � c O O L CU 0) C: 0 O Z) O O :-f E -o CU O 0 U Ocu U � L L O cu O U E U �O cu O) U C 'E U C 0 cB � E � O cB (B 0) � a) U U a) Z) 0 0 U 0- 2) L L U r � E O O L L cu cu cu E W cu - O U O o " L L Q 0 U U a) O O U 0- 0 O L ca U U U a) a) O cu a) cn a) cu cu U a) E 0) ca ca cu ca • C/) VJ 70 4_ O a L E_� O O N N a) U D Q > 4— W U� a) a) H CO OE-a N E 6) O) J 5� G cn /m W (1) C: U O U (1) 4— C/) N (If a) W O O W > U W O U 0 W c LO N O N C'i O LO L L6 L6 O L U N O p O 70 O cu L�! U 70 (1) U U) L O cu -0 L C: p CU L (j)(1)cu a) C U c Z) O 42 0) (1)0 L) a) cu a) a) O N _a cn cu cn U (B E � O >, -Fucn cB cu L E L >0 a) O c Q a) U a) O a) Q cB Q cu _0, cu c cu O cn a) CU O c //•�� LL O � ._ a) L m .0 c cu c a) •U) ccu C: cu o 0) a) m cB cu Z) a) c a� fn a) � '� cn ca cn cu a) O � a) a) +- > -0 a) � O cB `� Ocu cn O � O cB "-_� c Q .� a) a) cn p 0 OU CU O cn Q a) a) CU � cOn a) E ca � .- ca L CU N L a) cB a) > T n 7o a) a) O C ca >' U a) U a) n >, a) O � � O E � ca _ O L -0 (B •� cB - � O Q � O � L CU 0 � (U E -0 O - O U O >, �: O cu � Z) � a) > � p cB E a) �, a) �. a) cu cn � L � a) -0 O O a) a) a) i Q a) N E -0 a) � cu L L 0) 0) m L +-' a) (u cB N p cu O O a) L _ N CU � - L � O O� cB a) cB O "� .� cu Q to a) d C m 0 cn a) M a) a) LU C: U) ca � U) U) U d CU � ca u) >, Z)� o o f > cn c� m 0) � c. c� .cn a� o o �, _ cu Q U C Z) >N 0 a) L a) CU, cB U) � C: p � p) O 0) Z) O a) O OLcn 0 L) C: C: C C: M B c c cu O O � i cu *1 O Q_ •0 CiL� C: a) .� _0 C: c L a) Ba) 1 a) cn > i c OOcu ocn cu �O C: O C: cuE a)O O cB cn C O O O a) O O O p O L)� O� D ca C: cu p2 C:a) ( c CU 70,U O a a)O Q c) a m L O O cu U C:O cu U =cu C: a) E — a) a) cn2:N L cn = >N C7) L a) co E in cB a) cn cB cu E cu m Z)cu 0 C:O O cu cu Q 0O cu O U L O �• ) O O Lo � cB d cB a) �. U W LU > a) cu L 0 Q V (n (1) > 0 cn CU i _x O cn cB L c L 5 W C3% > �! Q] U CU U Ei ucu .. o US ca E a) � a) +� � 0 cB a) `. � O L p � C O Q) +� � cu cu a) (� N U > L RS 0 cn cn C: O � a) E L a) Q .. D O 0 cB O a) � a CU p U to ) 0) E O L U �, L �10 cu 0) a) � a� o >, C,6 a) �, 0) O L0) cu " CU4 � 0 cu cu � O +� a) UQ � O u) cu cu p y _0 U c -C C: � L X cB N Q a] a) 0 E O to d E O n cn O d U cB N �Q/ a) L U LO C/) V ) 0 0 0 a) L E_� ^N` ,0^ a) L a) U D Q > `— a) U� a) a) H CO OE-a E6) a) C: O)J (C� G cn m m ^a) W 0) 5� G cn m m N N a) H a) a) /0 V O U a) U D UE N Ln Ln N C7 C7 N C7 0 C7 0 C7 0 U L OU � L) cu �_ p +- L U '� � cu a) � .t- U U a) U � (B •� L cB (n a) Z) O N L � cu cB O U a) � a) a) 0j L cB U a)a) O — ca N N O0 ca ca ca U U LO L C: O "� C CU C: p cu C O a) O� U U) a) N� Z) cu � C U o O CL cB U O U a) N � -0 U cu Z) T cu L a) ) O O C: ?� O cu a) O U (B Q L O U � cu = �. � O a) C: p N D 0 � ca ca cu � CZ OZ) cu N a) cB U a) a) U a) N u U a) > O a) > U a) ca (B E C:> a) a) L a) cB a) p cu D a) N L p Q a) M 0) 0 O 0)Q a) a) O cu E cu cn � U p E "- a) cU � CU a) o a) cB o o �• o cB •� > '� U U p U �. ( E a) -6a) U U O Q z � ca J5 �' 0 a) Ucu U O O a) E ca c O a) Z) 0) � Z ._ Q Q L o a)cn E z) c- U cB U a) a) a) a) N Q O O O O E E cu cB U C a) •� � cu O � a) cn ca (� � o U ca ca E O . X �+ cn L) a) O cn cn , U (n >, c � U L a) U a) L � "- U >� a) a) E Q c O a) O U a) a) O N U O U> Z) U cn a) �. O O a) a) -0 � U ca Q(U cn cu cu a) cn O '— Q 0 �. O N a) U Q a) O �. % L Q 0) � cu a) cB � 0) cn o cn 4 U a) > O � L (a Q > 0) U O •V O cn U U L E p o)� >> N _ (U U L O_ E N U a) a) •� L O C3% � � � (� a) (U U U U Q Q O cB �CU C U cu � U cB o a) 0 - cn 7a) N0 0 U cn 0 E cn cu O) — Lcu O 3U L C: ZZ E L cu cn `� C CU C 0 N N O a) cn U A L Q cu cu a) a) O -cu N 0 U L cu C:O 0 � ?� 73) O U _ cu U �, U O U a) T > > a) U " 0 0 i O U U 06"' > E � ca rn ca cu L 06 U 0 Q 4--U U a) N CU 0 -0 - O a) � U U W cn d d °� C) a) 0 O U a UE L V J O-0 0 N U, O O a) cn ♦^ U D Q � N U� N N H CO O E— a) � N E 6) O O � J (5� G cn m m N C: U O U N 4- C/) N (If Sl: no N � O N E r ^ L v J m � m� ca N > � U) U m LU W � W N > U N N U v (1) a) -O O N HOa} N O r (D O) O J L O 0 O rr0 V U 4-- Z3 O C/) N U U N � N � � •U U a 4— > > m U N O O no U a) H O N a) 0) ca ca m co N a) ti � N >,O — ?� >, Ncu 0 Na) cu Q� N L S m CU CU L cu cu CUcn to c _ N N N E cu C O O O E cu a) cB U cu p) N U Qcu cu � E O O0 Ecu cn U cu N cu Z) U C CZ CU L L C:CU cu O CU U CU a) cn 0).� cu cu c O �+ 0 c �! E to O > >c D E z) O "- N O O CU O U O "J L 4--0 C M cu to L Q U OU T U to ?� .� cu cn U O O -�e O ._ ca cu '� ca CU ca cn Z C N U '� cu Z) � N � =_ cB L (B > �. N ;� N U (U 0 L V L cu � N cu O c Q OL N cn cuU cu aCU ) N C L O N cB c cu U cu 0 E- cu O� W e v) � a) Of cu a) c j, _a cB N U 06 cu U) Z) O N 0- ca � > ca N a) CU E L Ec>a E a N 0) > L L a) 6) O T to C:O 0 Q �+ L Ua) O o 0 cn CU Q U Q7a)- L) E U L °6 c cu L c O O (B � O cn O L NCUU L U L N _ cu N cn U N cu L O _ D _ D cu U) 0) a) a) �- a) � � � ca >. �. � Q E CU c� m Ecu N U -0 Q S n 0 a) � ti C/) C/) R O 70 � O $ E $ Q % 0m U D Q � cn 4-- $ . � $ a) H CO O E- a) @ $ E6) O)o @ E @ � E .cn @ co 0 § § U) f ± . � > U $ H O � $ E 0 E @ LU � a E 0 � � ¢ � C? O N % a n @ M g Ti p / 2 o @ 0 m 2 m � / �� p%_ c�� / E k - c > E % » c E 0§ E '/ k ? [ / f .@ / 0 § R 3 $ k_ ) 0 0- / j k _r � ° � / 2 2 g / § •s m : J ) f k § cu CU E o § v E o® » 0/ E k E § §» £ G E f 0U)0 ° 7a -)U » 3 y£ O U f%£» § @ u E f 0) 2 f \ cu � E 2 § f 3§$ § 0 E 0 3 °§ 0 E y » § % . / $ $ 7 b E ® u% o E 3 E 2§ E@[ k E f e.g O E 2/ E» J b � 7 c � cuCZ k § 7FD° ° 0 / / \ E � R E 'e £ 70 o k » 3£ .k o@ § / � § b 2 / / § § U / 0 0 » _ Z) q ® d @ C:/ , C § E 2 O . 2 R m [ @ 2 Z) » ® cu E m> E k £ 3 0 m C: % Z) d � p E E 2 2 f o E £ § @ E § f G /» m @ .q E 0 C: =G£ =f.� t » » 'e ) m > o t . 70 ± wcu o § » o n C:> 0 » % E § ƒ : m I £ $ E E °% I ° 2 / : ± t 0 J G E of m E E 3:/ 0- » 7 D % .[ » M APPENDIX D Report on Evaluation of Orange County Groundwater Basin Storage and Operational Strategy SINCE 13 ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT r Z P ' ° REPORT ON O,TCN of 10 C, EVALUATION OF ORANGE COUNTY GROUNDWATER BASIN STORAGE AND OPERATIONAL STRATEGY 11ViB;(_' Coastal Area Pressure Area Forebay Anaheim SHALLOW AQUIFER ., - - I Shallow Aquifer (Foal Above Mean Sea Level !.. _25-5 Unconfined 0 sh'llow Confinetf . S- 0.004 1 Aquifer Infection Well Mondodnp Wcll Mullport MonloMp Wool s Serroi-Ctxnfirred S-0.01 Principal:..Confrneci . S--0.002 Agyff Conflne(V S-0,001:: Deep Confncrtl 5-0.001 11ViB;(_' IR J` JSO��y Prepared By: 05 Timothy J. Sovich, PE — Principal Engineer n Roy L. Herndon, PG, CHg — Chief Hydrogeologist `\ CN1►- �� FEBRUARY, 2007 FULLBASIN - SHALLOW AQUIFER ., - - Estimated Groundwater Elevations VMthin The Shallow Aquifer (Foal Above Mean Sea Level _25-5 0 T ACMe PmdcwOn Nh1 1 IMe a Produclan Nhll Infection Well Mondodnp Wcll Mullport MonloMp Wool s O Bea n Model Boundary �nvcrl IR J` JSO��y Prepared By: 05 Timothy J. Sovich, PE — Principal Engineer n Roy L. Herndon, PG, CHg — Chief Hydrogeologist `\ CN1►- �� FEBRUARY, 2007 TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY............................................................................................................ 1 1. INTRODUCTION.................................................................................................................. 4 2. STUDY OBJECTIVES AND WORK PLAN..................................................................... 8 3. STORAGE CHANGE CALCULATION METHODOLOGY...........................................8 3.1 Aquifer Storage Concept......................................................................................... 8 3.2 Confined and Unconfined Aquifers....................................................................... 9 3.3 Traditional Storage Change Calculation Method ............................................ 10 Water Level Change Method................................................................................... 10 WaterBudget Method............................................................................................... 11 Limitations of the Traditional Storage Change Method ....................................... 11 3.4 New Three -Layer Storage Change Approach ................................................... 13 Methodology............................................................................................................... 13 GIS Application for Three -Layer Storage Change Calculation .......................... 17 Testing the Three -Layer Method vs. the Traditional Method ............................. 18 4. NEW FULL BASIN BENCHMARK................................................................................... 21 4.1 Assumptions and Methodology............................................................................... 22 4.2 Shallow Aquifer Full Basin Water Level Map ........................................................ 23 4.3 Principal Aquifer Full Basin Water Level Map......................................................29 4.4 Deep Aquifer Full Basin Water Level Map............................................................. 32 5. ACCUMULATED OVERDRAFT FROM NEW FULL CONDITION .............................. 34 5.1 Accumulated Overdraft as of June 30, 2006 ......................................................... 34 5.2 Accumulated Overdraft as of June 30, 2005 ......................................................... 35 5.3 Historical vs. New Overdraft Estimates................................................................. 36 5.4 Implementation of New Three -Layer Storage Change Method ........................ 37 6. BASIN OPERATING RANGE AND STRATEGY........................................................... 38 6.1 Basin Operating Range and Optimal Target......................................................... 39 6.2 Basin Management Operational Strategy.............................................................. 41 7. FINDINGS..............................................................................................................................43 8. RECOMMENDATIONS....................................................................................................... 45 9. BIBLIOGRAPHY.................................................................................................................. 45 LIST OF TABLES Table 1-1. Pumping and Recharge Conditions: WY 1968-69 vs. WY 2004-05 Table 6-1. Anticipated Supply Increases for a Typical Wet Year Table 6-2. Anticipated Supply Reductions for Typical Dry Years LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1-1. Groundwater Pumping Distribution: WY 1968-69 and WY 2004-05 Figure 1-2. Schematic of Groundwater Level Profiles Across the Basin Figure 1-3. Water Level Hydrograph for City of Anaheim Well 27 Figure 3-1. Forebay and Pressure Area Schematic Profile Figure 3-2. Water Level Hydrograph for OCWD Monitoring Well SAR-2 Figure 3-3. Schematic Cross -Section of the Basin Showing Three Aquifer Layers Figure 3-4. Schematic cross-section showing storage coefficients (S) values Figure 3-5. June 2006 Shallow Aquifer Groundwater Elevations and Proposed Wells Figure 3-6. November 2004-05 Water Level Change at Monitoring Well SAR-2 Figure 3-7. Summary of Traditional vs. Three -Layer Storage Change Results Figure 4-1. Principal Aquifer Water Level Change: November 1969 to June 2006 Figure 4-2. Full Basin Water Level at Anaheim Well 27 Figure 4-3. Shallow Aquifer Groundwater Contours: Full Basin and June 2006 Figure 4-4. Shallow Aquifer Depth to Water: Full Basin and June 2006 Figure 4-5. Full Basin Water Level at Santa Ana Well 21 Figure 4-6. Full Basin Water Level at Mesa Consolidated Water District Well 2 Figure 4-7. Principal Aquifer Groundwater Contours: Full Basin and June 2006 Figure 4-8. Deep Aquifer Groundwater Contours: Full Basin and June 2006 Figure 5-1. Three -Layer Accumulated Overdraft for June 2006 Figure 5-2. Average Shallow Aquifer Water Level Difference from June 2006 to Full Figure 5-3. Accumulated Overdraft Schematic for June 2005 and June 2006 Figure 5-4. Historical and New Accumulated Overdraft Figure 6-1. Strategic Basin Operating Levels and Optimal Target Figure 6-2. BPP Formula Figure 6-3. Basin Management Operational Strategy APPENDICES APPENDIX 1: "Randall" Specific Yield Values from Traditional Storage Change Method APPENDIX 2: Basin Model Storage Coefficient Values for Three -Layer Storage Change Method APPENDIX 3: Water Level Change Maps for June 2006 to the New Full Condition APPENDIX 4: GIS Application for Three -Layer Storage Change Calculation Acknowledgment Much assistance was provided by District GIS staff Dan Lee and Linda Koki, specifically with implementation and automation of the new three -layer storage change algorithm, GIS programming, mapping, and graphical support. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The need for this study was largely driven by the record-setting wet year of 2004-05, in which an unprecedented storage increase of 170,000 of was estimated by OCWD staff. This led to a preliminary reassessment of the traditional storage calculation which, due to cumulative uncertainty over tens of years, could not be sufficiently rectified back to the traditional full -basin benchmark of 1969. A new methodology has been developed, tested, and documented herein for calculating accumulated overdraft and storage change based on a three aquifer layer approach, as opposed to the previous single -layer method. Also, for calculating accumulated overdraft, a new full -basin benchmark was developed for each of the three aquifer layers, thereby replacing the traditional single -layer full benchmark of 1969. Also in this report, a basin management operational strategy is proposed that sets guidelines for planned refill or storage decrease amounts based on the level of accumulated overdraft. The new three -layer storage change approach utilizes aquifer storage parameters supported by calibration of the District's basin -wide groundwater model ("basin model") along with actual measured water level data for each of the three aquifer systems that correspond to the three aquifer layers in the basin model: the Shallow, Principal, and Deep (colored water) aquifer systems. Traditionally, the storage change calculation was based solely on groundwater levels for the Principal aquifer, from which approximately 90 percent of basin pumping occurs. The findings of this study are enumerated below. 1. The new three -layer storage change approach is technically feasible and provides a more accurate assessment than the traditional single -layer storage change method. 2. Using the new three -layer method, the majority of the storage change occurs in the Forebay area of the basin within the unconfined Shallow aquifer where rising or falling of the water table fills or drains empty pore space. 3. Accuracy of the storage change and accumulated overdraft estimates is dependent upon good spatial distribution of water level measurements as well as the storage coefficient values used in the calculations. Water level data for the Shallow aquifer were relatively sparse in outlying Forebay areas of the basin, leading to some uncertainty in preparing groundwater elevation contours in those areas. 4. 1969 no longer represents a truly full -basin benchmark. A new full -basin water level condition was developed based on the following prescribed conditions: • Observed historical high water levels • Present-day pumping and recharge conditions • Protective of seawater intrusion • Minimal potential for mounding at or near recharge basins 1 The new full -basin water levels in the Forebay area are essentially at or very near the bottom of the District's deep percolation basins (e.g., Anaheim Lake). Historical water level data from 1994 have shown that this condition is achievable without detrimental effects. Water levels slightly higher than this new full condition may be physically achievable in the Forebay area but not recommended due to the likelihood of groundwater mounding and reduced percolation in recharge basins. 5. Using the new three -layer storage change calculation in conjunction with the new full benchmark and June 2006 water levels, an accumulated overdraft of 135,000 of was calculated representing June 30, 2006. Similarly, using the new three -layer method to compare the new full water levels to those of June 2005, an accumulated overdraft of 201,000 of was calculated representing June 30, 2005. Subtracting the June 2006 accumulated overdraft from that of June 2005 yielded an annual storage increase of 66,000 of for WY 2005-06. 6. Comparing the current year's water level conditions to the full basin benchmark each successive year for calculating the basin storage will eliminate the potential for cumulative discrepancies over several years. 7. An accumulated overdraft of 500,000 of represents the lowest acceptable limit of the basin's operating range. This lower limit of 500,000 of assumes that stored MWD water (CUP and Super In -Lieu) has already been removed and is only acceptable for short durations due to drought conditions. It is not recommended to manage the basin for sustained periods at this lower limit for the following reasons: • Seawater intrusion likely • Drought supply depleted • Pumping levels detrimental to a handful of wells • Increased pumping lifts and electrical costs • Increased potential for color upwelling from the Deep aquifer 8. An optimal basin management target of 100,000 of of accumulated overdraft provides sufficient storage space to accommodate increased supplies from one wet year while also providing enough water in storage to offset decreased supplies during a two- to three-year drought. 9. The proposed operational strategy provides a flexible guideline to assist in determining the amount of basin refill or storage decrease for the coming water year based on using the BPP formula and considering storage goals based on current basin conditions and other factors such as water availability. This strategy is not intended to dictate a specific basin refill or storage decrease amount for a given storage condition but to provide a general guideline for the District's Board of Directors. 2 Based on the above findings, recommendations stemming from this study are as follows.. Adopt the new three -layer storage change methodology along with the associated new full -basin condition that will serve as a benchmark for calculating the basin accumulated overdraft. 2. Adopt the proposed basin operating strategy including a basin operating range spanning the new full condition to an accumulated overdraft of 500,000 af, and an optimal overdraft target of 100,000 af. 3. Include in the 2007-08 CIP budget the installation of six Shallow aquifer monitoring wells to increase accuracy of the three -layer storage change calculation. 3 1. INTRODUCTION This report documents the methodology, findings, and recommendations of the basin storage and overdraft evaluation completed by District staff between May 2006 and January 2007. Prior to this study, an unusually large annual increase in basin storage of 170,000 of was estimated for WY 2004-05, which was a record-setting wet year. During that year, water levels throughout the basin rose approximately 30 feet overall, and as much as 60 feet in the Santiago recharge area which receives significant storm runoff from Villa Park Dam releases during extremely wet years. The estimated storage increase for WY 2004-05 was so large that it caused staff to re- examine the storage calculation. Also, the large water level rise during that year raised concern that the basin could be approaching a near -full condition, leading staff to compare 2005 water levels throughout the basin to 1969 in which the basin was historically considered full. This analysis showed that the basin may have had only 40,000 of less groundwater in storage in November 2005 as compared to the 1969 benchmark. However, the traditional method of cumulatively adding the annual storage change each year to the previous year's accumulated overdraft led to an accumulated overdraft of approximately 190,000 of for November 2005. The discrepancy of 150,000 of in the two different 2005 overdraft calculations indicated that the current condition could not be properly rectified back to the 1969 benchmark. This dilemma provided the main impetus for the study documented herein and brought to light two important discoveries: • The traditional storage change calculation contains considerable uncertainty that, when cumulatively added over tens of years, led to a large discrepancy in the accumulated overdraft relative to 1969. • 1969 water level conditions no longer represent a full basin, primarily because of the different pumping and recharge conditions that exist today. Figure 1-1 shows the distribution of groundwater production for WY 1968-69 (upper map) and WY 2004-05 (lower map). Each circle or "dot" represents an active production well for that year, with the size of each dot being proportional to each well's annual production. Total basin production for WY 2004-05 was only 179,000 af, whereas by WY 2004-05 it had increased to 244,000 of and would have been 70,000 of greater if not for supplemental imported water taken in -lieu of groundwater. By comparing the two production dot maps, heavy increases in pumping are evident in the coastal area since 1969, primarily due to MCWD and IRWD's Dyer Road Well Field (DRWF). 4 Figure 1-1. Groundwater Pumping Distribution: WY 1968-69 and WY 2004-05 WY 1968-69 e GW Production: 179,000 of 00 p 0 G ❑ . hfl CMoo A p 0e ❑ _"" Annual Groundwater °�� p �A Production (af) ❑ , n° Q i oo 100 os ❑ Size of circle ❑ 500 is proportional e c CQ Q to Volume ❑ ❑gam � °°8 ° ,� � ❑a 1,000 o� V av ® ► 0° � i oe�Lcs va I Q� ° n o flo °° a f O a v o Q ❑ O o a° a ° ❑ ® 0380 Ova O 0 '7 WY 2004-05 GW Production: 244,000 of O Gbill (9) ❑ Cie 9o(D-� C� o a a d lT'- Annual Groundwater ° ❑ ��t, Production (af) ,O o (� ❑ 1aQ Q ° o o c �" C) C C) Size of circle O 500 is proportional e O Qto Vaiume ( [ o o a ° CC) 0 1.000 C� o '� `�► p ®° 5 In addition to changes in the amount and distribution of pumping since 1969, OCWD managed recharge operations have increased substantially such that much more water is recharged today as compared to 1969. In addition to increased Santa Ana River flows and new recharge basins being put into service in the Anaheim and Orange Forebay areas, new and improved cleaning methods have been implemented to enhance percolation rates, thus increasing the annual volume of water that is recharged annually. Table 1-1 below summarizes the major pumping and recharge differences between WY 1968-69 and WY 2004-05. Table 1-1. Pumping and Recharge Conditions: WY 1968-69 vs. WY 2004-05 Since 1969, the largest pumping increases have been in the coastal area while the largest recharge increases have been in the inland Forebay area. Therefore, this redistribution along with increased utilization of the groundwater basin has led to a steeper groundwater gradient or "tilt" from the inland Forebay down to the coast. Because of this increased basin tilt under present conditions, water levels higher than 1969 can be maintained in the Forebay area without exceeding 1969 water levels in the coastal area. Because higher Forebay water levels translate into more basin storage, 1969 no longer represents a full basin condition by today's standards. In other words, a modern-day full condition could likely accommodate higher water levels than 1969 in the Forebay area, as schematically illustrated in Figure 1-2. A review of historical water level data indicates that many wells in the Anaheim area experienced higher water levels in 1994 than in 1969. Figure 1-3 shows historical water levels for City of Anaheim Well A-27, indicating that in 1994 water levels at that location (adjacent to the south side of Anaheim Lake) were 5-10 feet higher than in 1969. WY 1968-69 WY 2004-05 Pumping Total Pumping: 179,000 of Total Pumping: 244,000 of Agricultural Pumping: 34,000 of Agricultural Pumping: 3,400 of No DRWF In -Lieu. 70,000 of No MCWD municipal wells Increased coastal pumping No Newport Beach wells Less Irvine pumping Recharge No Talbert Barrier Enhanced Talbert Barrier No Santiago Pits or Creek Enhanced percolation rates No Kraemer or Miller Basins Basin Cleaning Vehicle No Burris Pit or Five Coves Riverview Basin Since 1969, the largest pumping increases have been in the coastal area while the largest recharge increases have been in the inland Forebay area. Therefore, this redistribution along with increased utilization of the groundwater basin has led to a steeper groundwater gradient or "tilt" from the inland Forebay down to the coast. Because of this increased basin tilt under present conditions, water levels higher than 1969 can be maintained in the Forebay area without exceeding 1969 water levels in the coastal area. Because higher Forebay water levels translate into more basin storage, 1969 no longer represents a full basin condition by today's standards. In other words, a modern-day full condition could likely accommodate higher water levels than 1969 in the Forebay area, as schematically illustrated in Figure 1-2. A review of historical water level data indicates that many wells in the Anaheim area experienced higher water levels in 1994 than in 1969. Figure 1-3 shows historical water levels for City of Anaheim Well A-27, indicating that in 1994 water levels at that location (adjacent to the south side of Anaheim Lake) were 5-10 feet higher than in 1969. ELEV (Feet) 250- 200 50- 200 150 100 50 0 -50 -100 Figure 1-2. Schematic of Groundwater Level Profiles Across the Basin SW NE I Coastal Area Anaheim Forebay 200 E 150 c 0 a� 100 w 2005 Figure 1-3. Water Level Hydrograph for City of Anaheim Well 27 0 L.. 1930 Well A-27 .............,............ ...........,........... 5 ft �� ..... 5i,....... ..... I i _ Ground Surface Elev: 231 ft msl Screened Interval: 212 — 287 ft bgs 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 7 2. STUDY OBJECTIVES AND WORK PLAN Objectives of this study were three -fold: 1. Reassess and recommend modifications as necessary to staff's traditional method for calculating the annual storage change and the accumulated overdraft. 2. Develop a technically -sound full basin water level condition that takes into account current basin management practices. This new full condition would replace 1969 and become the new full benchmark used to calculate the accumulated overdraft or available storage in current and upcoming years. 3. Determine an appropriate basin storage operating range and management goal for long-term basin management purposes. The District Board of Directors approved staff's work plan in April 2006, and work commenced shortly thereafter. All work was completed by the District's Hydrogeology Department, with oversight, direction, and review provided by District management. At the request of the Board, monthly project updates were given at the Water Issues Committee meetings as well as the monthly groundwater producers meetings to facilitate the producers' involvement in the process. The scope of work laid out in the work plan was generally followed. Initially, it was considered that conducting basin model simulations may be beneficial in validating project results. However, after making significant progress in developing a new storage change methodology and new full basin benchmark, it became evident that it was more appropriate to use aquifer parameters and specific knowledge gained from development of the basin model rather than running new model simulations per se. As such, findings enumerated in this report were based on actual water levels observed in the field coupled with a methodology based on aquifer structure and hydraulic parameters defined during development of the basin model. 3. STORAGE CHANGE CALCULATION METHODOLOGY In this section, the District's traditional storage change calculation is described along with its inherent limitations, followed by a discussion of the development of a new storage change calculation approach and comparison with the traditional method. But first, a conceptual explanation of aquifer storage is explained below. 3.1 Aquifer Storage Concept Aquifers not only transmit groundwater but also provide storage volume, sometimes being referred to as "underground reservoirs." However, unlike surface water reservoirs, approximately 70 to 80 percent of the aquifer's volume is occupied by the porous medium, typically consisting of various gradations of sand and gravel as well as silts and clays. This leaves only 20 to 30 percent of the aquifer's total volume remaining as void space that groundwater can occupy. This percentage of void or pore space is referred to as porosity. Over large areas and depths, the void space within aquifers can occupy huge amounts of water. Within the Orange County groundwater basin, which spans over 300 square miles and is over 2,000 feet deep in some areas, District staff have estimated that approximately 66 million acre-feet of water lies in storage. Unfortunately, the vast majority of this water cannot be feasibly drained from the basin without incurring detrimental impacts. Excessive long-term pumping of basin aquifers without continual replenishment would lead to a lowering of water levels and a reduction in pore pressure, which would lead to seawater intrusion and irreversible compaction of the aquifer, resulting in subsidence of the land surface. The recommended "drainable" storage volume of the basin (without requiring concurrent replenishment) is 500,000 of acre-feet as discussed in Section 6. The parameter used to define the storage capacity of an aquifer is known as the storage coefficient (S). Unlike the porosity which is a measure of the entire void space regardless of whether or not it contains water, the storage coefficient is a measure of how much water can effectively be drained or squeezed out of the saturated pore space. The storage coefficient is defined as the volume of water yielded per unit horizontal area and per unit drop of water table (unconfined aquifers) or piezometric surface (confined aquifers). 3.2 Confined and Unconfined Aquifers A confined aquifer is an aquifer that is confined between two aquitards, which are typically clay or silt layers with low permeability. The water in a confined aquifer cannot freely rise above the overlying clay layer and is under confining pressure. When a well is drilled through the overlying clay layer down into the aquifer, the pressure in the confined aquifer causes the water to rise inside the well (see Figure 3-1) to a level higher than the overlying aquitard. Therefore, water levels measured in wells within confined aquifers — referred to as piezometric levels — may rise and fall but the confined aquifer remains saturated. In a confined aquifer, water is added to or removed from storage primarily through the rearrangement of the unconsolidated sediments via compression or decompression; the compressibility of water contributes significantly less to the storage process. A relatively large piezometric level change in a confined aquifer represents very little change in storage within that aquifer. Storage coefficients for a confined aquifer typically range from 0.01 to as low as 0.00005. An unconfined aquifer is an aquifer in which the water table forms the upper boundary and there is no confining layer above it (see Figure 3-1). That is, the water table can freely rise or fall. Pore space is either filled or drained when the water table rises or falls. Therefore, a unit rise or decline in the water table in an unconfined aquifer represents a relatively large storage volume. For an equivalent water level rise, an E unconfined aquifer would exhibit at least 100 times greater storage increase than a confined aquifer. Storage coefficients for unconfined aquifers typically range from 0.01 to 0.3, also referred to as specific yield. In the Orange County groundwater basin, the Shallow aquifer is confined in the coastal and mid -basin areas, commonly referred to as the Pressure Area. The overlying aquitard in the Pressure area thins further inland until it is generally gone. This inland area is referred to as the Forebay area. Since few continuous aquitards exist between the water table and ground surface, it is the "intake" area of the basin where surface water can percolate down to the water table and recharge the aquifers (see Figure 3-1). ELE\ (Feel 250 200 150 100 50 0 -50 -100 Figure 3-1. Forebay and Pressure Area Schematic Profile SW NE 3.3 Traditional Storage Change Calculation Method Water Level Change Method Traditionally, the storage change calculation was based solely on the water level changes occurring in the Principal aquifer, which is the main production zone in the basin from which approximately 90 percent of basin pumping occurs. Dating back to the 1940s, District staff have prepared a November groundwater contour map of Principal aquifer water levels. By comparing the November contour map to that of the previous year, the annual water level change was then determined. The water level change was then multiplied by a set of storage coefficient values and by the area of the basin to obtain the resulting groundwater storage change for that year. Then, the annual storage change was added to the accumulated overdraft from the previous year to obtain the current accumulated overdraft. 10 Over the years, the overall approach has remained relatively the same, but several refinements were made along the way. In the 1970s, a FORTRAN computer program was developed, referred to as the "Randall Model," which partially automated the storage change calculation by subdividing the basin into quarter -mile grid cells. The Randall Model computed the storage change calculation grid cell by grid cell. Although this process was somewhat automated, the water level maps had to be manually interpolated to obtain the average water level change for each quarter -mile grid cell. The storage coefficient values for each quarter -mile grid cell were referred to as "Randall" coefficients and are shown in Appendix 1. No documentation exists as to how these storage coefficient values were developed, but they were likely based on review of old well logs throughout the basin. In the early 1990s, with improvements in computer hardware and software, District staff were able to further automate the traditional storage change calculation by using geographical information system (GIS) software to subdivide the basin into smaller, more refined grid cells. By digitizing the hand -drawn water level contour maps into the computer, the water level change at each refined grid cell could be computed without any manual interpolation. However, the overall approach remained the same and still used the same Randall storage coefficient values. Over the last two years, an additional refinement included preparing an end -of -June water level contour map in addition to the annual November contour map. Although the November maps provide a good midpoint between the summer -high and winter -low water level conditions, the June maps coincided better with the District's water year and fiscal year (July 1 through June 30) for the annual storage change calculation. Water Budget Method For the past 10 to 15 years, the annual storage change calculated using the traditional water level method has been checked using a water budget method (inflows minus outflows equal the change in storage). Therefore, the water budget method uses measured groundwater production and recharge data along with a rainfall -based estimate of incidental recharge (unmeasured recharge less underflow to LA County). The water budget method provides a good check of the storage change estimate from the water level method but is based on an assumed (unmeasured) amount of incidental recharge. In most years, the two methods agree rather closely, and the storage change value from the water level method is generally used. The incidental recharge is then adjusted in the water budget method to exactly match the chosen storage change. Limitations of the Traditional Storage Change Method Although the traditional water level and water budget methods yield similar storage change results in most years, there are some anomalous years in which the two estimates are significantly different. In such years, typically very wet or very dry years, 11 professional judgment must be exercised in determining the official change in storage. This can introduce significant uncertainty into the annual storage change estimate for those years, causing a cumulative effect after several years, which is why the current accumulated overdraft cannot be rectified back to 1969 as discussed in Section 1. The biggest limitation of the traditional method is that it only uses the water level change in the Principal aquifer. Although most groundwater production is from the Principal aquifer, most of the storage change occurs in the Shallow aquifer where it is unconfined in the Forebay area of the basin. Where the Shallow aquifer is unconfined, large storage changes can occur due to the rising or falling of the water table which respectively fills or drains empty pore space, as was discussed in Section 3.2. The Randall storage coefficients used in the traditional method are consistent with those of an unconfined aquifer in the Forebay area and thus are considered as being representative of the Shallow aquifer. Therefore, the traditional method uses Principal aquifer water levels as a surrogate for the Shallow aquifer, assuming that these two aquifers behave identically in the Forebay area. This is largely true in the Anaheim Lake area near the District's facilities, but in other portions of the Forebay, the Shallow and Principal aquifers often behave differently from one another, as shown in Figure 3- 2. This indicates that these two aquifers are partially hydraulically separated by aquitards in portions of the Forebay and behave differently rather than as a single unconfined aquifer as the traditional method had assumed. It should be pointed out that in earlier years, depth -specific water level data such as that presented in Figure 3-2 was simply not available to discern hydraulic differences between various aquifer zones, and in some areas of the Forebay, there are no noticeable vertical hydraulic differences. It has only been in the last few years through the use of the District's monitoring well network and development of the basin model that a better understanding of the basin has been gained. Figure 3-2. Water Level Hydrograph for OCWD Monitoring Well SAR-2 Lu m 50 d J L d M 2004 Well SAR-2 (near Burris Pit) 2005 �O MP1: 141 feet bgs (Shallow Aquifer) +-6 MP6: 741 feet bgs (Principal Aquifer) 2006 2007 12 3.4 New Three -Layer Storage Change Approach The new three -layer storage change approach uses all three aquifer systems of the basin: the Shallow, Principal, and Deep aquifer systems (see Figure 3-3). The Shallow aquifer generally ranges no deeper than approximately 250 feet below ground surface and overlies the Principal aquifer, which is generally over 1,000 feet thick throughout much of the basin and supports over 90 percent of basin pumping. The Deep aquifer contains colored water in the coastal area and is more than 2,000 feet deep throughout much of the basin. These three aquifer systems, from shallow to deep, are also referred to as aquifer layers 1, 2, and 3. Figure 3-3. Schematic Cross -Section of the Basin Showing Three Aquifer Layers Seal Depth Beach (feet) 0 1,000 2,000- 3,000- 0 ,0003,0000 miles Methodology Ground Surface Pressure Area Forebay 19 PRINCIPAL AQUIFER (Layer 2) DEEP AQUIFER (Layer 3) 10 Yorba Linda NON-WATERBEARING FORMATION 15 20 The new three -layer storage change approach is based largely on the aquifer configuration, structure, and storage coefficient parameter values defined during development of the basin model. Unlike the traditional method, all three of the basin's aquifer systems are included in this new methodology. Furthermore, the storage coefficient values used in this new method are specific to each aquifer layer and were refined during dynamic or transient calibration of the basin model until the resulting model -generated water levels achieved a close match with observed water level data throughout the basin. The basic formula used to calculate the change in storage is very similar to the traditional method, but now must be carried out for each of the three aquifer layers. The storage change equation is defined as Storage Change = (Water Level Change) x (storage coefficient) x (horizontal area) 13 The storage change for each of the three aquifer layers is thereby calculated and the results of all three summed to get the total storage change in the basin. Figure 3-4 shows a schematic cross-section illustrating the three aquifer layers of the basin and how they differ in terms of their respective storage coefficient (S) values. Whereas the traditional method had presumed that the Forebay area behaved entirely as one large unconfined aquifer without any intervening clay layers, our current understanding of the basin is that only the Shallow aquifer in the Forebay area is truly unconfined. As was discussed in Sections 3.1 and 3.2, the majority of the storage change in the basin occurs specifically in the Shallow aquifer within the Forebay area where the rising or falling unconfined water table respectively fills or drains empty pore space. Shallow aquifer storage coefficient values in the Forebay area are approximately 0.1, but in some specific Forebay locations can be as high as 0.25, which is approximately equivalent to the porosity of the sediments at the water table/vadose zone interface. Figure 3-4 illustrates how the Shallow aquifer is confined in the Pressure area of the basin. By definition, the Pressure area ends where the water level drops below the elevation of the overlying aquitard and/or where the aquitard no longer exists. In the Pressure area, the Shallow aquifer storage coefficient values are approximately 0.004, or approximately 25 times smaller than in the unconfined Forebay area. This means that for a given water level change in the Pressure area, the resulting change in storage would be 25 times less than for that same water level change observed in the unconfined Forebay area. As shown in Figure 3-4, the Principal aquifer is largely separated from the overlying Shallow aquifer by an extensive aquitard in the coastal and mid -basin areas. In the inland Forebay area, this intervening aquitard becomes intermittent but does not vanish completely, causing some hydraulic separation from the Shallow aquifer while still allowing large amounts of water to migrate downward into the Principal aquifer. As schematically shown in Figure 3-4, Principal aquifer water levels frequently differ from those in the Shallow aquifer due to the hydraulic separation, as was also shown in Figure 3-2 for multi -depth monitoring well SAR-2 near Burris Basin, where observed water levels in the Principal aquifer are noticeably lower than in the Shallow aquifer. The Principal aquifer is thus considered to be semi -confined in the Forebay area, with storage coefficient values of approximately 0.01, which is at least 10 times less than in the unconfined Shallow aquifer. The Deep aquifer is generally confined throughout the entire basin and is separated from the overlying Principal aquifer by an extensive aquitard that thins somewhat in the Forebay area but remains laterally extensive. Therefore, since water level changes in the Deep aquifer represent pressure responses and thus do not involve filling or draining of pore space, storage coefficient values are typically small at approximately 0.001 throughout the entire basin. 14 The storage coefficient values shown in Figure 3-4 and discussed above are typical values for each of the three aquifer layers. The actual storage coefficients used in the storage change calculation not only vary for each aquifer layer but also vary spatially across the basin in both the Pressure and Forebay areas. From the basin model calibration, the different storage coefficient values within each aquifer layer are subdivided into detailed zones. For reference, these zonal storage coefficient maps are included in Appendix 2. These storage coefficient values in the Forebay area of the Shallow aquifer are generally consistent with the Randall coefficients traditionally used. Figure 3-4. Schematic cross-section showing storage coefficients (S) values Coastal Area Pressure Area • • f,. ...........} .................... ,, }t ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,......... Depth (Feet) 0 200 1,000 1,500 The other component of the storage change formula not yet discussed is the water level change. To obtain the water level change involves constructing water level contour maps for each of the three aquifer layers, both for the previous and current year. Preparation of the water level contour maps for each aquifer layer requires a considerable level of interpretation of the actual data points as well as interpolation between data points. The reported water level data is not always 100 percent accurate and must be reviewed on a well -by -well basis as the contour map is being constructed. Reasons for disqualifying or adjusting observed water level data during the contouring process may include: • A static water level from a production well may have been measured only minutes after shutting off the well pump; • Erroneous water level field measurement (e.g., bad equipment); 15 • Water level measurement taken too early or too late (for the June and November contour maps, attempt to measure all water levels within a two-week window); • Wells are screened at different depths and some wells are screened across multiple aquifers such that water level data not entirely representative of any one aquifer layer being contoured. In addition to the above reasons for screening the observed water level data points, extreme care and consistency must be exercised from one year to the next when contouring and interpolating between data points, especially in sparse areas lacking sufficient data to definitively define the shape of the contours. Barring any new wells or data, water levels should be similarly interpreted in these areas from year to year so that false storage changes are not artificially created. Knowledge of the aquifer's characteristics, presence of geologic faults, regional flow regime, and vertical relationship with the other aquifers have proven useful in determining the contour patterns in a given area. Of the three aquifer layers, the Principal aquifer has the best water level data coverage thanks to more than 200 large system production wells monitored by each respective groundwater producer, as well as District monitoring wells throughout the basin. Historically, this predominance of available water level data for the Principal aquifer and lack thereof for the Shallow and Deep aquifers is a likely reason that the traditional storage change method only considered the water level change in the Principal aquifer. Much more water level data exists today for the Shallow aquifer than in the past, primarily due to the District's network of monitoring wells, many of which monitor multiple aquifer zones at one well site, helping to decipher the vertical relationship between the Shallow and deeper aquifers and their degree of hydraulic connection. Since the majority of the storage change in the basin occurs in the unconfined portion of the Shallow aquifer within the Forebay area, the constructed water level contours are of utmost importance in those inland areas. Unfortunately, data is sparse in a few of these outlying areas of the basin. Therefore, to increase the accuracy of the Shallow aquifer contour maps and thus the accuracy of the storage calculation, approximately six new shallow monitoring wells are recommended to fill data gaps in the areas of Buena Park, Costa Mesa, Fullerton, Orange, Irvine, and Yorba Linda. Figure 3-5 shows the approximate desired locations for these six proposed wells. Figure 3-5 also shows the water level contours for the Shallow aquifer for June 2006. Just as for the other two aquifer layers, these contours where hand drawn based on observed water level data from wells screened in the Shallow aquifer (shown in light gray in Figure 3-5). The hand -drawn contours were then digitized into the computer for calculation purposes. Note that the contours were drawn out to the boundary of the basin model layer 1 which extends into LA County, but during the storage calculation process the LA County portion is excluded. 16 Figure 3-5. June 2006 Shallow Aquifer Groundwater Elevations and Proposed Wells � _ ve o•.�a � lj. Y _ — zao- �° °^azo ;i ,•: JUNE 2006 SHALLOW AQUIFER Jr.. Estimated Groundwater r• ,+ �': .' s � �� Eleva#ions Within The �^ =►.: + f ��}� r �� Shallow Aquifer (Feet Ahove Mean Sea Level) -25--2 r .xya r lie) _ rv5 `�Wl p r 1-360 \ •r t:.. a l t 240 iii, Active Production Well 160f,,,_ Inactive Production Well y Injection Well i �t yyo Mon@oring Well Muttiport Monitoring Well Basin Model Boundary Layer 1 20 'ti ro z�s� '4k). .` =J .. ; OProposed Shallow Aquifer Monitoring Well F � GIS Application for Three -Laver Storage Change Calculation A new GIS application was developed and programmed to automate the new three - layer storage change calculation utilizing the digitized water level contour maps for each aquifer layer as well as the storage coefficient values from the basin model. The new GIS application consists of a series of steps governed by programs written in the AML scripting language within the Arc/Info environment. A detailed description of these steps, along with all the AML codes written for this application, is included in Appendix 4. The digitized water level contours are converted into GIS compatible files (grids) at the same refined resolution as the basin model input parameters, essentially subdividing the entire basin into 500 -foot square grid cells. The GIS application then carries out the storage change formula one grid cell at a time for each aquifer layer, calculating the water level change between the two years in question and multiplying by the storage 17 coefficient and horizontal area of the grid cell. Then, the storage change of all grid cells is summed for each layer. The total change in storage is then the corresponding sum of all three aquifer layers. When calculating the storage change at each grid cell, the GIS application must check to determine if the conditions are confined or unconfined. Generally, the Principal and Deep aquifers are typically confined, but the Shallow aquifer is confined in the Pressure area and unconfined in the Forebay area, with the dividing line between these two areas being dependent upon the actual water level elevations at that time. If the water level is above the top of the aquifer layer (per the basin model layer elevations), then a confined storage coefficient is used for that grid cell; otherwise, if the water level is below the top of that aquifer layer, then a larger unconfined storage coefficient is used. To further complicate matters, the water level change in question from Year 1 to Year 2 may cause a given grid cell in the Shallow aquifer to switch from confined under Year 1 conditions to unconfined under the Year 2 conditions, or vice versa. The GIS application handles this type of condition by subdividing the water level change into two components: a confined portion and an unconfined portion. This is illustrated in the sketch and "pseudo -code" algorithm that was written for this application prior to formal programming of the GIS application (Appendix 4). The new GIS application for the three -layer storage change calculation was thoroughly tested and necessary refinements were made to the AML codes. Water level change and storage change calculations were hand checked and verified at individual grid cells having both confined and unconfined conditions. Also, the storage change results for each aquifer layer were verified to be identical in magnitude but opposite in sign if switching the order of what is predefined as Year 1 or Year 2. For example, if the storage change from Year 1 to Year 2 was calculated to be 10,000 af, then the storage change from Year 2 to Year 1 calculates to be exactly -10,000 af. Testing the Three -Layer Method vs. the Traditional Method Test Case 1 compared the new three -layer storage change calculation to the traditional method using the annual period November 2004 to November 2005. This first test case represented an extremely wet year with record-setting rainfall and a huge storage change of +187,000 of using the traditional method with the existing November contour maps of the Principal aquifer. Using the new three -layer approach led to a storage change of +147,000 of for the same period. The rather large discrepancy of 40,000 of in Test Case 1 is primarily due to the inaccuracy of the traditional method presumption that Principal aquifer water levels behave identically to Shallow aquifer water levels in the Forebay area. As was shown in previous sections, this is not always the case and was especially not the case during 2004-05 when the Principal aquifer rose much more than the Shallow aquifer in most Forebay locations. 18 Figure 3-6 shows water levels for multi -depth monitoring well SAR-2 near Burris Basin in the Anaheim Forebay area. Notice that the water level change from November 2004 to November 2005 in the Principal aquifer zone was more than double that for the Shallow aquifer zone at that location. Since this was the case throughout much of the Forebay area, the traditional method overestimated the storage change by using Principal aquifer water levels as a surrogate for the Shallow aquifer. Figure 3-6. November 2004-05 Water Level Change at Monitoring Well SAR-2 120 100 a� a� c 80 0 60 LU 20 01 2004 OCWD Monitoring Well SAR-2 (near Burris Basin) 2005 44 ft (�� MPI: 141 feet bgs (Shallow Aquifer) +--9 MPG: 741 feet bgs (Principal Aquifer) 2006 2007 Test Case 2 compared the new three -layer method to the traditional method for the most recent water year, June 2005 through June 2006. This water year was chosen because it not only represented the most recent conditions but it was also an approximately average rainfall year in contrast to the extremely wet year in Test Case 1. As was mentioned in previous sections, care was exercised to maintain consistency of how the water level data was interpreted and hand contoured for both of these years to prevent any false or "manufactured" water level changes between the two conditions. For Test Case 2, the traditional method yielded a storage change of +52,000 af, whereas the new three -layer method yielded a slightly higher storage change of +66,000 af. The two methods yielded much closer results for this average hydrology year, indicating that the traditional method is at least "in the ballpark" during more typical years when water levels are not as drastically rising or falling. In these closer -to - average years, the traditional method presumption that Principal aquifer water levels behave similarly to the Shallow aquifer is not grossly inaccurate. However, since the new three -layer approach is more comprehensive and utilizes all three aquifer layers, it 19 represents a technical improvement upon the traditional method and is the preferred approach. Figure 3-7 summarizes the results from both test cases 1 and 2 and schematically shows the storage change per aquifer layer for the three -layer method. As expected and as was discussed in earlier sections, the majority of the storage change occurred in the Shallow aquifer. The majority of basin pumping (over 200,000 afy) occurs from the Principal aquifer, which is continuously being fed by the Shallow aquifer, which in turn is being fed by the District's recharge activities (typically over 200,000 afy). If basin pumping exceeds total recharge over a given year, then the Principal aquifer draws more water out of the Shallow aquifer than what is coming in from recharge, resulting in an annual storage decrease in the Shallow aquifer. Conversely, if recharge exceeds basin pumping over the course of a year (especially in a wet year), then more recharge is entering the Shallow aquifer than what is flowing down into the Principal aquifer, causing Shallow aquifer water levels to rise and a resulting storage increase. Figure 3-7. Summary of Traditional vs. Three -Layer Storage Change Results +187.000 of +147.000 of 115,000 21,000 11,000 Test Case 1 (Nov -04 to Nov -05) Traditional Method Shallow Aquifer Principal Aquifer Three -Layer Method Deep Aquifer +52,000 of +66,000 of 57,000 Test Case 2 (Jun -05 to Jun -06) 20 4. NEW FULL BASIN BENCHMARK Since a new three -layer method was developed and tested for calculating the change in storage, a new full basin benchmark must be defined for all three aquifer layers so that the accumulated overdraft can ultimately be calculated. In Section 1, it was shown that 1969 water levels no longer represented a full basin given the significantly different pumping and recharge conditions that exist today. In fact comparing the November 1969 water level contour map to the recent June 2006 Principal aquifer contour map shows that in much of the Forebay area, Principal aquifer water levels are already higher in June 2006 than they were in November 1969 when the basin had historically been considered full (see Figure 4-1). The Irvine Forebay area was over 80 feet higher in June 2006 than 1969 due to reduced agricultural pumping over the years. As was discussed in Section 1, because of increased utilization of the groundwater basin, i.e., increased pumping and recharge, higher Forebay water levels can be achieved while coastal water levels remain lower, resulting in a steeper basin gradient. Figure 4-1. Principal Aquifer Water Level Change: November 1969 to June 2006 7 , y/f� ® - u J .......... 1969 data not available in this area.; + tQ i Li Groundwater Leel Change (feet) a' -too - -40 �� •u.ti''b� - -40 to -20 -20 to -10 a to 10 10 to 20 20 to 40 s 40 to 80 `a 80 to 160 1 /%,/ Nov 69 to Jun 06 ,` f p; 21 4.1 Assumptions and Methodology A water level contour map representing a reasonable full condition was developed for the Shallow, Principal, and Deep aquifers. The resulting full water levels represent a "snapshot" of a peak high water level condition throughout the basin that could possibly be exceeded but with potentially detrimental impacts. Defining how high basin water levels can rise before being considered full was largely based on a comprehensive review of relatively recent historical high basin conditions that occurred approximately in 1994 and 2006. The high basin conditions that occurred in 1969 and 1983 were briefly reviewed but were deemed of less direct value since basin pumping and recharge patterns were significantly different then. Much of the groundwater basin achieved historical highs during 1994, with the coastal area peaking in the winter and the Forebay area in late spring or early summer. A similar lag in the seasonal timing of the coastal and Forebay area water level peak was observed during the recent high condition of 2006. Typically after a very wet winter, surplus storm runoff impounded behind Prado Dam is still being released for OCWD recharge operations well into the summer months, thus increasing Forebay recharge amounts, which in turn raise Forebay water levels at a time when coastal water levels are already beginning to decline in response to summer pumping. However, also during wet years, MWD has surplus water; thus, taking additional imported water in -lieu of groundwater pumping can extend into the summer months, which would prevent or delay coastal water levels from declining. Therefore, for the purposes here of defining a basin -wide full condition, it is assumed that water levels can concurrently peak to a full condition throughout the basin. The full condition that was developed for all three aquifer layers represents the highest achievable water levels throughout the basin under realistic present-day operating conditions without incurring any regional -scale detrimental impacts. In general, coastal water levels were assumed to be at or very near the 1994 and 2006 winter highs, whereas the Forebay area was assumed to be at or slightly above the 1994 and June 2006 highs. In so doing, the full basin coastal water levels were high enough to be protective against seawater intrusion but not unnecessarily high to where shallow groundwater seepage could become an issue. In the Forebay area, full basin water levels were generally well below ground surface and at or near the bottom of deep recharge basins (as occurred in June 1994). Therefore, in the Forebay area, water levels any higher than this full condition may be physically possible but would likely impact recharge operations and lead to considerable mounding problems. Other assumptions that define the new full basin condition are enumerated below. 1. Full basin flow patterns (shape of the water level contours) are representative of present-day pumping and recharge conditions (except where specifically noted) and thus are largely based on and consistent with actual water level contour maps constructed for the recent high conditions of January 2006 and June 2006. 22 2. Water levels in the Irvine Sub -basin were at historical highs during 2006 because of the extremely wet year 2004-05 and reduced Irvine Company agricultural pumping. The new full condition in the Irvine Sub -basin is thus based on this recent high condition, which inherently then excludes the Irvine Desalter Project (IDP). The IDP will significantly lower Irvine area water levels for many years to come, but the regional drawdown and resulting water levels in that area are uncertain and may take several years to stabilize. Previous basin model scenarios including IDP pumping estimated that approximately 50,000 of of storage decline in the Irvine Sub - basin could occur after 20 years of full-scale IDP pumping. With this in mind, the new full condition will not likely be achievable in the Irvine Sub -basin after the IDP goes on-line. 3. Based on the earlier assumption that this new full condition is protective against seawater intrusion, full basin water levels in the MCWD area were based on the historical high of 1994 rather than the somewhat lower water levels during the 2006 high condition. The 1994 water levels in the MCWD area were higher than in 2006 because the MCWD colored water project was not yet active in 1994. Therefore, the new full basin water levels in that immediate area inherently assume no MCWD colored water project (i.e., no pumping from Well MCWD-6) in order to define a condition sufficiently protective against seawater intrusion. 4. Full basin water levels in the immediate area of the Talbert Barrier were adjusted slightly higher than recent high conditions to account for the GWR Phase 1 barrier expansion soon to be on-line. Some of these new injection wells, including the four wells along the Santa Ana River just north of Adams Avenue, are already on-line and thus the observed water level rise due to these wells was used in the full basin condition. 5. Full basin water levels were raised slightly higher than either of the historical highs of 1994 or 2006 in areas where other near-term recharge projects are already planned, including La Jolla Basin and Santiago Creek recharge enhancements. However, especially in the case of Santiago Creek, full basin water levels were kept sufficiently below ground surface and known landfill elevations. 4.2 Shallow Aquifer Full Basin Water Level Map Full basin water levels for the Shallow aquifer were based largely on the historical high water levels observed in 1994 and 2006. Only wells with a screened interval generally in the range from 100 to 250 feet below ground surface (depending on the specific area) were used to ensure that these wells were representative of the Shallow aquifer. This depth restriction excludes most large system production wells. Therefore, the majority of wells used to construct the Shallow aquifer full basin water level map were District monitoring wells, along with some small system and domestic wells having sufficient water level histories. Fortunately, the majority of the District's monitoring wells were constructed early enough so as to catch the 1994 high -basin condition. 23 Prior to this study, Shallow aquifer water levels were not regularly contoured, but Shallow aquifer contour maps (basin model layer 1) had been constructed during basin model development and much was learned about the hydraulic characteristics and flow patterns of the Shallow aquifer. Subsequently for testing the new three -layer storage change method described in Section 3, water level contour maps were constructed for all three aquifer layers using observed data for both June 2005 and June 2006. Fortunately, June 2006 also represented a high -basin condition from which to use as a base for making adjustments up to the new full condition. In the coastal and mid -basin areas, high water levels that peaked in January 2006 were generally adhered to and used for the full condition in those areas. This represented a condition high enough to be protective of seawater intrusion, but anything appreciably higher could potentially result in shallow groundwater seepage problems in low-lying areas. In the immediate area surrounding portions of the Talbert Barrier, the observed January 2006 water levels were adjusted upward approximately 5 feet to account for increased injection from new GWRS Phase 1 injection wells. In the area surrounding the GWRS treatment plant site where considerable construction dewatering was occurring during January 2006, full water levels were based on earlier historical highs that were nearly 15 feet higher than January 2006 in this immediate area. In the Forebay area, full basin water levels were generally set from 0 to 15 feet above the higher of the two historical peaks that occurred in June 1994 and June 2006. The magnitude of the upward adjustment between 0 and 15 feet depended on conditions at each well location and was most significantly influenced by the relative depth of the water table from ground surface. Since relatively little pumping occurs from the Shallow aquifer, the unconfined water table in the Forebay area is largely considered to be a subdued reflection of topography, with the exception of directly beneath recharge basins where the Shallow aquifer water table tends to rise in response to percolation. From analysis of the Forebay historical highs (June 1994 and/or June 2006), Shallow aquifer water levels generally peak at an elevation that corresponds to a depth of approximately 50 to 60 feet below ground surface. Therefore, when setting the full basin water level elevations at various well points and especially in areas where little or no data existed, the 50- to 60 -foot depth to water rule of thumb was generally maintained. Since the majority of the storage change in the basin occurs in the Shallow aquifer within the Forebay area, the full basin water level condition in this area is crucial. A discussion of the full basin Shallow aquifer water level adjustments for specific regions of the Forebay is described below. At Anaheim Lake and Kraemer Basin, full basin water levels were set at June 1994 observed levels with no upward adjustment since these levels were essentially at or even a couple feet above the deepest portion of Anaheim Lake, which is approximately 50 to 60 feet deep (see Figure 4-2), which is consistent with the depth to water rule of thumb mentioned above. Water levels any higher at this location, if even achievable, would likely impede percolation from these basins and thus would not be desirable. 24 250 200 150 100 50 re's Figure 4-2. Full Basin Water Level at Anaheim Well 27 50-0 ft Anaheim 7 Lake Tull;; Watr,Levelun;94, Well A-27 (adjacent to Anaheim Lake) Screened Interval: 212-287 ft bgs 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 At Santiago Pits, full basin water levels were set at the historical high of March 1993 (just slightly higher than June 1994) with no upward adjustment. This same identical high was reached but not exceeded more recently in June 2005 after the extremely wet winter of 2004-05. Having the observed water levels peak at the same exact same level in 1993 and 2005 may likely indicate that this repeatable historical high may represent the highest physically achievable water level for this area. In the Anaheim/Fullerton area west of the District's spreading grounds, full basin water levels were set 10 to 15 feet higher than the new historical high of June 2006. Water levels in June 2006 exceeded the previous historical high of June 1994 and appear to still be on an upward trend. The upward adjustment of 10 to 15 feet from the June 2006 observed condition once again brought the water table up to approximately 50-60 feet from ground surface. Along the Santa Ana River downstream of Lincoln Avenue, full basin water levels were set 5 to 10 feet higher than the new historical high of June 2006, which exceeded the previous high of June 1994 in this area as well. The upward adjustment of 5 to 10 feet above the historical high once again brought the full condition up as shallow as 40-50 feet from ground surface, likely being influenced by the recharge from the Santa Ana River and Burris Basin. This full level also corresponds approximately to the bottom elevation of Burris Basin, analogous to the full level adjacent to Anaheim Lake. 25 In the Irvine Forebay area, full basin water levels were set within 5 feet of the historical high, which either occurred in 1994, 1999, or 2006 depending on the exact location within this general area. Recall from the previous section that this new full condition is prior to full-scale IDP pumping. Although the majority of IDP pumping will be from the Principal aquifer, Shallow aquifer water levels will likely also decline. Finally, in the mid -basin Pressure area, full condition water levels were modestly adjusted upward 5 to 10 feet from the new historical high of June 2006, which again significantly exceeded the previous high of June 1994. This slight upward adjustment maintains a reasonable gradient from the coast to the upwardly adjusted full water levels in the Anaheim Forebay area. After making all the full condition water level adjustments at monitoring well points in the various areas described, the resulting full water levels were plotted on a map and hand contoured similarly to the observed water levels of June 2006. In fact, the June 2006 contour map was used as a guide or backdrop on the light table while contouring the full condition to ensure consistency, especially in outlying areas lacking data. Figure 4-3 shows the resulting full water level contour map constructed for the Shallow aquifer. Also shown for reference is the June 2006 Shallow aquifer contour map directly below it. Note the similarity in the shape of the contours between the two maps. The various well points screened in the Shallow aquifer that were used for constructing these contour maps are shown in light gray. The red boundary represents the basin model layer 1 boundary which represents the extent of the Shallow aquifer along the mountain fronts where the aquifer terminates and on the western boundary represents an arbitrary cutoff 5 miles into LA County. Contouring the water levels slightly into LA County adds confidence to the shape of the contours in west Orange County and at least qualitatively indicates the direction of flow across the county line. Figure 4-4 shows the same two Shallow aquifer water level conditions (Full and June 2006), but in units of depth to water below ground surface rather than elevation. As was discussed above, notice that much of the Forebay area is within the 40 feet below ground surface or greater range since the Shallow aquifer water levels generally follow ground surface topography where the aquifer is unconfined (Forebay), except near recharge facilities where the depth to water is more shallow due to percolation raising the water table. The depth to water also becomes shallower in the Pressure area of the basin where the Shallow aquifer is confined. However, these "water levels" are actually pressure or piezometric levels since the water is confined or trapped below the overlying aquitard. Water can only rise to this elevation if a well is drilled through the aquitard down into this aquifer or if the aquitard is thin or discontinuous. Notice that there is a large area in Irvine where the piezometric level is actually above ground surface in both the observed June 2006 and Full condition. This area has historically experienced artesian conditions when basin levels are relatively high. 26 Fiaure 4-3. Shallow Aauifer Groundwater Contours: Full Basin and June 2006 i r _ �.....,,.."-��?°•--� –zrtn� X80 ' y. �� ' _ _ �:. FULL. BASIN +ou� • � � - SHALL0IN AQUIFER Estimated Groundwater •_ r � .•'l" } r,. zYP` `� Elevations Within The !- Shallow Aquifer [Feel Above Mean Sea Lee[:• yam. r! o e, • ? - i -25 -5 i e � 1 36a rRsj , •• . j l Active Proclud ion Well -•`rBv �,. I—t—Production Well ® _ `. - - r4..a•�,, �,, 8 Injection Weil ti Mon@oMng Well Mu itiport Monitoring Weil '1� • Basin Model smndary ^y Layer 1 jp s o i 27 Figure 4-4. Shallow Aquifer Depth to Water: Full Basin and June 2001 n %. S..[ flea[h Hunllny[on Z -h Depth To Water (ft bgs) T a -30 GarCvn .` .20-.10 Gra ua ♦g -10-0 0-10 e 110.20 salla .nn jay 20 - 40 nna ti 46 - 60 50 F—main Val Icy Mese Ftan[rvh Nla[crNstrid Full Basin ' Shallow Aquifer fid.. �e a„ Go[den i• s Depth To Water cP i {ft pg5} -30 s -30 - -20 -20 - -10 C -10-a Bwclh if i 0 10. 2D 0 20 - 40 ane - 40 - 60 - Hunnnomn ->60 60ech f ' F%nlieyWin f' O'ti Wa1vr Di51ei[i F June 2006allow Aquifer "♦."� 28 4.3 Principal Aquifer Full Basin Water Level Map As with the Shallow aquifer, full basin water levels for the Principal aquifer were also based on the historical high water levels observed in 1994 and 2006. Wells with a screened interval generally within a range between 300 to 1,000 feet below ground surface (depending on the specific area) were used to represent the Principal aquifer. This depth interval includes most large system production wells, which along with District monitoring wells, were used to construct the Principal aquifer full basin water level map. Prior to developing the full basin condition for the Principal aquifer, the high -basin water level condition of January 2006 was analyzed and contoured to determine the flow patterns and contour shapes for a most recent, near -full, actual condition. In subsequent months, observed water levels in the Forebay area increased further to a new historical high in June 2006, whereas in the coastal area January 2006 remained a historical high. In the coastal area, full basin water levels were generally set at or within 5 feet of the observed peak January 2006 water levels, as was also done for the Shallow aquifer. In fact, this was the case for the majority of the Pressure area, where January 2006 water levels were noticeably higher than the previous high of 1994 (see Figure 4-5). M 60 N E 40 V C 20 ca w 0 L -20 o -40 L 0 -60 -80 " 1965 Figure 4-5. Full Basin Water Level at Santa Ana Well 21 Ground "Full" Basin Water Level = Jan 06 Production Well SA -21 Screened Interval: 400-960 ft bgs (Principal Aquifer) 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 29 The exception to using January 2006 water levels for the full condition in the Pressure area was in the MCWD area where the high condition of April 1994 was used. At this location, January 2006 water levels were 15 to 20 feet lower than April 1994 because of current pumping from the MCWD colored water project that did not exist in 1994. As was mentioned in the Section 4.1 assumptions, since the full condition must be sufficiently high in the coastal area to be protective of seawater intrusion, the older but higher April 1994 water levels were used in this area for the full condition even though it is not representative of present-day pumping in this immediate area (see Figure 4-6). Figure 4-6. Full Basin Water Level at Mesa Consolidated Water District Well 2 40 20 N E 0 o -20 W -40 L 3 -60 c C -80 L 1�1 u Ground Surface "Full" Basin Water Level = April 94 .......................... ... ......................... JL Production Well MCWD-2 Screened Interval: 300-650 ft bgs (Principal Aquifer) 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 Throughout most of the Irvine Sub -basin, January 2006 represented a historical high similar to the rest of the Pressure area. Thus, full basin water levels in Irvine were also set within 5 feet of observed January 2006 levels. However, in north Irvine near the Santa Ana mountain front, 1999 water levels were used since they were nearly 15 feet higher than January 2006 in that immediate area. In the Anaheim and Orange Forebay areas, full basin water levels were generally set at or within 5 feet of the historical high that occurred during March through June of 1994 depending on the exact location. For the majority of the Forebay area, 1994 still represented a historical high for the Principal aquifer, higher than January or June 2006. Although the full water levels were based on different historical highs in different areas of the basin (coastal vs. inland), resulting gradients and flow patterns were reasonable and similar to those contoured for the observed data of June 2006 (see Figure 4.7). 30 Figure 4-7. Principal Aquifer Groundwater Contours: Full Basin and June 2006 1 31 _ " JUNE 2006 PRINCIPAL AQUIFER Estimated Groundwater Elevations Within The Principal Aquifer (Feet Above Mean Sea Level) --to —0 to-soo Active Production Well tmcUve Production Well Injection Well Monitoring Well Mu I[iporl Mo nitering Well Basin Model Boundary { `•� Layer2 r. 31 4.4 Deep Aquifer Full Basin Water Level Map For the Deep aquifer, the main data source for developing the full basin condition was water level data from the District's deep multi -port monitoring (Westbay) well network. Approximately two-thirds of these 56 wells were sufficiently deep and in appropriate locations overlying the Deep aquifer. Depending on the specific location, the monitoring ports of these wells that tap the Deep aquifer generally range from approximately 1,500 to 2,000 feet below ground surface. In addition to the District's deep monitoring wells, a few other scattered well points that tap the Deep aquifer were used, such as two deep monitoring wells owned by the Water Replenishment District in LA County (very close to the county line). The new full condition for the Deep aquifer was predominantly based on the historical high that occurred in 1994. Throughout the basin, the recent June 2006 Deep aquifer water levels were still well below the historical high of 1994, likely due to the IRWD Deep Aquifer Treatment System (DATS) Project which began pumping approximately 8,000 afy of colored water in December 2001 from this otherwise little -used zone. Also, there was no MCWD colored water project yet in 1994. Fortunately, most of the District's deep monitoring wells are old enough to have captured the historical high condition of 1994. It is somewhat speculative as to how high the piezometric level of the Deep aquifer can rise. Therefore, full water levels were conservatively adjusted only 0 to 5 feet higher than the observed historical peak that occurred April to June of 1994. In so doing, the observed vertical piezometric head difference between the overlying Principal aquifer and the Deep aquifer was maintained. Throughout most of the basin, Deep aquifer piezometric levels typically ranged from 10 to 30 feet higher than the more heavily pumped Principal aquifer, except in the furthest inland locations near the mountain front and near recharge facilities where the Deep aquifer levels are actually lower than the Principal aquifer due to being more vertically removed from surficial recharge. While contouring the resulting Deep aquifer full basin piezometric levels (also referred to as water levels for simplicity), the Principal aquifer full condition contour map was used as a backdrop on the light table to ensure that the Deep aquifer full contours maintained the vertical head difference discussed above. Also, in areas lacking data, the contours were drawn with similar patterns as those predicted during basin model calibration. Figure 4-8 shows the resulting contour maps for both the new full condition and also June 2006 for comparison. The contour shapes are quite similar for both maps except in the area near the aforementioned DATS wells. The Full map assumes no DATS pumping since it was based on the historical high water levels of 1994, whereas the June 2006 map shows a relatively deep pumping depression in that immediate area. However, due to the confined nature of the Deep aquifer, the storage coefficients of this zone are very small (see Appendix 2) and thus even a relatively large water level difference leads to a small storage change. 32 Figure 4-8. Deep Aquifer Groundwater Contours: Full Basin and June 2006 FULL BASIN DEEPAQUIPIEEIR Estimated Groundwater Elevations Within The Deep Aquifer (Feet Above Mean Sea Level) 0 4i 5-200 40 Active Production Well Inactive Production VMI Imm Injection Well • Monitoring Well 9 0 Mu Nport Manitonn 9 Well Ba sIn Model Boundary Layer 3 JUNE 2006 DEEPAQUIFER Estimated Groundwater r Elevations Within The Deep Aquifer (Feet Above Mean Sea Level) -0 30 AcWe Production Well Inactive Production Well Injection Well Monitoring Well mall Part Monitoring Well Basin Model Boundary Layer 3 OA A 0 33 5. ACCUMULATED OVERDRAFT FROM NEW FULL CONDITION The accumulated overdraft is the amount of storage capacity below full, sometimes referred to as dewatered storage or available storage capacity. In various literature, overdraft often has a negative connotation implying that a basin is in a steady state of decline or has been drawn -down below some critical threshold to where negative impacts such as subsidence and seawater intrusion begin to occur. In this report, use of the term "accumulated overdraft," which is defined in the District Act, is not intended to have any negative connotation and is strictly used as a measure of available basin storage below the new full benchmark or zero -overdraft condition established in Section 4. 5.1 Accumulated Overdraft as of June 30, 2006 The new three -layer storage change methodology was used to calculate the accumulated overdraft for June 2006. Three groundwater contour maps (one for each aquifer layer) representing June 30, 2006 had already been constructed for testing the new three -layer approach described in Section 3. For the storage change calculation, Year 1 was set to the new full water level condition and Year 2 was set to the June 2006 water level condition. The resulting change in storage from the new full condition to June 2006 was -135,000 af, or in other words, the accumulated overdraft as of June 30, 2006 was 135,000 of below the new full benchmark. The breakdown per aquifer layer is schematically shown below in Figure 5-1. Figure 5-1. Three -Layer Accumulated Overdraft for June 2006 0 AF -135,000 AF Full Jun -06 34 To put the Shallow aquifer storage change from the full condition (110,000 af) into perspective, Shallow aquifer water levels in most of the Forebay area were approximately 15 feet higher in the full condition as compared to June 2006 (Figure 5- 2). In the coastal area, full water levels were only about 5 feet higher than June 2006. And since much more storage change occurs in the Forebay than the Pressure area per foot of water level change, nearly all of the Shallow aquifer storage change from full to June 2006 occurred in the Forebay area. Therefore, in general, a 15 -foot Shallow aquifer water level change throughout the Forebay caused approximately 100,000 of of storage change. Detailed water level change maps for June 2006 to the new full condition for all three aquifer layers are shown in Appendix 3. Figure 5-2. Average Shallow Aquifer Water Level Difference from June 2006 to Full CA Forebay +154V 15 1 4 ♦ f_ } .•� Pressure `• • Area �- 5o r less%''� ♦ Shallow Aquifer ,. r Water Level Increase (ft) from ' '>49 Jun 2006 to Full Condition :w:r 5.2 Accumulated Overdraft as of June 30, 2005 Using the new three -layer storage change method, the accumulated overdraft was calculated for June 2005 by directly comparing to the new full benchmark once again. In the storage change calculation, Year 1 was set to the new full water level condition and Year 2 was set to the June 2005 water level condition. The resulting total change in storage from the new full to June 2005 was -201,000 af, or in other words, the accumulated overdraft was 201,000 of below the new full benchmark. 35 The June 30, 2005 accumulated overdraft for each aquifer layer was as follows: Shallow aquifer: 166,000 of Principal aquifer: 25,000 of Deep aquifer: 10,000 of Total: 201,000 of The difference between the June 2005 and June 2006 accumulated overdraft was 66,000 af, which represents the annual increase in storage from July 1, 2005 through June 30, 2006 (see figure 5-3). As a check, this storage change of 66,000 of was exactly the same as that calculated directly using the new three -layer method with Year 1 as June 2005 and Year 2 as June 2006 (see previous Figure 3-7). Therefore, this confirmed that the new three -layer approach yields exactly the same results summing the annual storage change over multiple years or calculating the storage change using the start and end of the multiple year period. In addition, the new method has been shown to yield the same identical storage change, but opposite in sign, when reversing the order of Year 1 vs. Year 2. Figure 5-3. Accumulated Overdraft Schematic for June 2005 and June 2006 5.3 Historical vs. New Accumulated Overdraft Estimates Benchmark 2006 2005 The new accumulated overdraft estimate of 201,000 of for June 2005 is 29,000 of less than the traditional method estimate of 230,000 of published in the 2004-05 OCWD Engineer's Report. This discrepancy is relatively minor when considering the major differences between the traditional single -layer and new three -layer storage change methods and also their two corresponding different full basin benchmarks. Since the historical accumulated overdraft levels are all relative to the 1969 condition as being the 36 zero -overdraft benchmark, the two new accumulated overdraft estimates for June 2005 and June 2006 are plotted on the same familiar historical overdraft graph in Figure 5-4. However, this graph has been divided at the June 2005 line due to the two different zero -overdraft benchmarks of 1969 water levels and the new full condition. Figure 5-4. Historical and New Accumulated Overdraft Three -Layer Single -Layer Traditional Full (1969) 1 New Full 0 5.4 Implementation of New Three -Layer Storage Change Method To prevent or minimize any accumulation of potential discrepancy from year to year when implementing this new storage change method, it is important to follow the steps enumerated below. 1. Hand -contour water levels collected on or about June 30 for each of the three aquifer layers, maintaining consistency with how the water level data is interpreted from year to year, unless new well data in a specific area causes a different interpretation. 2. Use the GIS to calculate the water level change and corresponding storage change from the three -layer full benchmark to the current June condition. The resulting storage change below the full condition represents the accumulated overdraft for June of that year. 37 New Jun -06 ^ 135,000 AF Q 100,000 Old Jun -05 230,000 AF d 200,000 New Jun -05 d 201,000 AF 300,000 v Q 400,000 LO0 500,000 C? Pr "r � Pr ti C T c� T 4 4 3 7 7 7 7 7 7 3 3 5.4 Implementation of New Three -Layer Storage Change Method To prevent or minimize any accumulation of potential discrepancy from year to year when implementing this new storage change method, it is important to follow the steps enumerated below. 1. Hand -contour water levels collected on or about June 30 for each of the three aquifer layers, maintaining consistency with how the water level data is interpreted from year to year, unless new well data in a specific area causes a different interpretation. 2. Use the GIS to calculate the water level change and corresponding storage change from the three -layer full benchmark to the current June condition. The resulting storage change below the full condition represents the accumulated overdraft for June of that year. 37 3. Subtract the previous year's accumulated overdraft from the current year to obtain the annual change in storage for that water year. 4. This step is a quality control check. Use the three -layer storage change method once again to calculate the water level change and storage change from the previous June (Year 1) to the current June (Year 2). This storage change should exactly equal the storage change calculated in Step 3. 5. Calculate incidental recharge for that water year by inputting the annual storage change estimate from Step 3 or 4 (if they are the same) into the water budget method described in Section 3.3. The resulting incidental recharge should be reasonable given the annual rainfall for the year in question; otherwise, additional error checking should be done for the water budget terms as well as the input data for the storage change calculation. It should be pointed out though that incidental recharge is not solely a function of rainfall because the flow across the LA County line — along with all other unknown inflows and outflows — is lumped into the incidental recharge term. That being said, incidental recharge for a somewhat typical year with average rainfall is thought to be approximately 60,000 afy but could vary by upwards of 20,000 of based on changes in outflow to LA County, which unfortunately is difficult to quantify. 6. The water budget method should not be used to determine or adjust the official storage change estimate calculated using the new three -layer method. It can be used to calculate preliminary monthly storage change estimates (using assumed incidental recharge) prior to performing the annual three -layer storage calculation. However, the annual storage change and accumulated overdraft official record for that year should be the exact value from the three -layer storage method steps above. This will prevent an accumulation of unknown discrepancy when rectifying back to previous years. 6. BASIN OPERATING RANGE AND STRATEGY The level of accumulated overdraft in the basin, both for the current and upcoming year, affects important basin management decisions, including determining imported water needs and setting the Basin Pumping Percentage (BPP), both of which have major financial effects on the District and groundwater producers. Therefore, it is crucial to have an operational strategy to ensure that the basin is managed within acceptable overdraft limits to prevent detrimental impacts to the basin while also striving to maximize water reliability and financial efficiency. In the discussion that follows, all storage and overdraft conditions are defined for June 30 of a given year, which is the ending date of the water year (July 1 through June 30) and thus the date represented by the June annual contour maps used for the storage change calculation. Seasonal fluctuations in water levels and basin storage occur throughout the water year and are tracked monthly for reporting purposes, and are used, along with the end -of -year accumulated overdraft, in making management decisions. 6.1 Basin Operating Range and Optimal Target The operating range of the basin is considered to be the maximum allowable storage range without incurring detrimental impacts. The upper limit of the operating range is defined by the new full basin condition, which represents the zero -overdraft benchmark. Although it may be physically possible to fill the basin higher than this full condition, it could lead to detrimental impacts such as percolation reductions in recharge facilities and increased risk of shallow groundwater seepage in low-lying coastal areas. The lower limit of the operating range is considered to be 500,000 of overdraft and represents the lowest acceptable level in the basin, not the lowest achievable. This level also assumes that all MWD water stored in the basin (e.g., Conjuctive Use Storage Project and Super In -Lieu) has already been withdrawn. Although it is considered to be generally acceptable to allow the basin to decline to 500,000 of overdraft for brief periods due to severe drought conditions and lack of supplemental imported water supplies, it is not considered to be an acceptable management practice to intentionally manage the basin for sustained periods at this lower limit for the following reasons: • Seawater intrusion likely • Drought supply depleted • Pumping levels detrimental to a handful of wells • Increased pumping lifts and electrical costs • Increased potential for color upwelling from the Deep aquifer Of course, detrimental impacts like those listed above do not suddenly happen when the overdraft gets down to exactly 500,000 af; rather, they occur incrementally, or the potential for their occurrence grows as the basin declines to lower levels. However, basin model computer simulations indicate that many of these detrimental impacts become evident at an overdraft of approximately 500,000 af. For example, at 500,000 of overdraft, model -simulated water levels in the Talbert Gap area were marginally low and not protective of seawater intrusion, even with the increased injection from GWRS Phase 1. Furthermore, worst case basin model runs at 700,000 of overdraft indicated seawater intrusion becoming even worse and considerably more production wells being impacted by low pumping levels. Thus, an accumulated overdraft level of 700,000 of did not appear to be acceptable, not even for short durations. At overdraft levels significantly below 500,000 of overdraft, the potential for land subsidence could also become an issue. Based on historical hydrology and recharge water availability, an accumulated overdraft of 100,000 of best represents an optimal basin management target. This optimal target level provides sufficient storage space to accommodate anticipated recharge from a single wet year while also providing water in storage for at least 2 or 3 consecutive years of drought. 39 Table 6-1 shows that basin storage could increase by as much as 100,000 of in a somewhat typical wet year based on predicted increased supplies. The Captured Santa Ana River Flows and Natural Incidental Recharge terms were both based on an average of four historical wet years: 1992-93, 1994-95, 1997-98, and 2004-05. Based on historical rainfall records for the Orange County area, wet years typically do not occur back-to-back. Therefore, the optimal overdraft target of 100,000 of provides the storage capacity to capture the increased supplies from this one typically wet year. Table 6-1. Anticipated Supply Increases for a Typical Wet Year Increased Supplies (Above Average Annual Amounts) 1 Year (AF) Captured Santa Ana River Flows * 50,000 Natural Incidental Recharge * 30,000 Reduced Demand (Pumping) 20,000 Potential Storage Increase ** 100,000 * Average of four wet years: 92-93, 94-95, 97-98, 04-05 ** Assumes no mid -year BPP change Table 6-2 shows that basin storage could decrease by approximately 90,000 of in a dry year based on reduced supplies. However, unlike wet years, historical rainfall records for this area show that dry years often occur for 2 or 3 consecutive years. Therefore, the 90,000 of of reduced supplies in a dry year could result in a 270,000 of decrease in basin storage after 3 consecutive years of drought. Assuming the basin to be at the optimal target of 100,000 of going into a three-year drought, the accumulated overdraft at the end of the drought would be 370,000 af, which is still within the acceptable operating range. Table 6-2. Anticipated Supply Reductions for Typical Dry Years Reduced Supplies (From Average Annual Amounts) 1 Year (AF) 3 Years (AF) MWD Replenishment Water -30,000 -90,000 Santa Ana River Flows -40,000 -120,000 Natural Incidental Recharge -20,000 -60,000 Total Potential Storage Change* -90,000 -270,000 * Assumes no mid -year BPP change 40 Figure 6-1 schematically illustrates the various overdraft levels discussed above in relation to one another; namely, the new full benchmark, the optimal overdraft target of 100,000 af, and the lower limit of the operating range at 500,000 of accumulated overdraft. Figure 6-1. Strategic Basin Operating Levels and Optimal Target 0 AF New Full Condition Available storage for one wet year - 100,000 AF ,W OPTIMAL TARGET OCWD Operating Range Provides at least 3 years of drought supply above MWD storage -418,000 AF — --- — — — — — — — — — — — —- - 500,000 AF 82,000 of MWD storage x66,000 AF CUP Storage) 116,000 AF Super In -Lieu, "L— Lowest Acceptable Level * Current maximum approved volume 6.2 Basin Management Operational Strategy The primary "tool" for managing the basin is the Basin Production Percentage (BPP). Each year in April, the District's Board of Directors sets the BPP for the upcoming water year. In addition to purchasing replenishment water, adjusting the BPP allows the District to effectively increase or decrease basin storage. Figure 6-2 shows the formula used to calculate the BPP each year. Only the two terms highlighted in blue and red in the BPP formula are adjustable at the District's discretion, namely the planned amount of recharge (including replenishment water purchases) and the planned amount of basin refill or storage decrease for the coming year. The amount of recharge planned and budgeted for the coming year may be limited by factors outside the District's control, such as the availability of imported water for either direct replenishment or In -Lieu. For example, following statewide wet years, MWD may 41 offer incentives (financial or otherwise) for local water agencies to take additional amounts of surplus imported water, whereas during a long-term statewide drought the surplus imported water may simply not be available. Figure 6-2. BPP Formula Basin Water Quality Water Refill or Improvement Projects Recharged — Decrease — (Pumping Above BPP) Last Calendar Year's _ Reclaimed & Total Water Demand I Local Supplies The planned amount of basin refill or storage decrease for the coming year is within the District's control but is also considered within the context of financial impacts to both the District and the groundwater producers. Therefore, unless the basin is near the bottom of the acceptable operating range or close to being full, a moderate amount of basin refill or decrease would typically be proposed that aims to move toward the optimal overdraft target. If the basin is already at or near the 100,000 of overdraft target, then a neutral stance can be taken that attempts to balance basin production and recharge with no planned storage change. Figure 6-3 schematically illustrates the generalized basin refill or storage decrease strategy based on the accumulated overdraft. When the basin is higher than the optimal overdraft target and nearly full, the amount of planned storage decrease of up to 50,000 of for the coming year may be recommended. This may be accomplished by a combination of raising the BPP and reducing replenishment purchases. The proposed operational strategy illustrated in Figure 6-3 provides a flexible guideline to assist in determining the amount of basin refill or storage decrease for the coming water year based on using the BPP formula and considering storage goals based on current basin conditions and other factors such as water availability. This strategy is not intended to dictate a specific basin refill or storage decrease amount for a given storage condition but to provide a general guideline for the District's Board of Directors. 42 Figure 6-3. Basin Management Operational Strategy 0 AF - 100,000 AF - 150,000 AF - 418,000 AF - 500,000 AF 7. FINDINGS Reduce up to 50,000 AFY r0 - "Neutral" More active management of basin in conjunction with availability of imported water and basin condition 82,000 of MWD storage Findings of this study are enumerated below. Use BPP Formula 1. The new three -layer storage change approach is technically feasible and provides a more accurate assessment than the traditional single -layer storage change method. 2. Using the new three -layer method, the majority of the storage change occurs in the Forebay area of the basin within the unconfined Shallow aquifer where rising or falling of the water table fills or drains empty pore space. 3. Accuracy of the storage change and accumulated overdraft estimates is dependent upon good spatial distribution of water level measurements as well as the storage coefficient values used in the calculations. Water level data for the Shallow aquifer were relatively sparse in outlying Forebay areas of the basin, leading to some uncertainty in preparing groundwater elevation contours in those areas. 43 4. 1969 no longer represents a truly full -basin benchmark. A new full -basin water level condition was developed based on the following prescribed conditions: • Observed historical high water levels • Present-day pumping and recharge conditions • Protective of seawater intrusion • Minimal potential for mounding at or near recharge basins The new full -basin water levels in the Forebay area are essentially at or very near the bottom of the District's deep percolation basins (e.g., Anaheim Lake). Historical water level data from 1994 have shown that this condition is achievable without detrimental effects. Water levels slightly higher than this new full condition may be physically achievable in the Forebay area but not recommended due to the likelihood of groundwater mounding and reduced percolation in recharge basins. 5. Using the new three -layer storage change calculation in conjunction with the new full benchmark and June 2006 water levels, an accumulated overdraft of 135,000 of was calculated representing June 30, 2006. Similarly, using the new three -layer method to compare the new full water levels to those of June 2005, an accumulated overdraft of 201,000 of was calculated representing June 30, 2005. Subtracting the June 2006 accumulated overdraft from that of June 2005 yielded an annual storage increase of 66,000 of for WY 2005-06. 6. Comparing the current year's water level conditions to the full basin benchmark each successive year for calculating the basin storage will eliminate the potential for cumulative discrepancies over several years. 7. An accumulated overdraft of 500,000 of represents the lowest acceptable limit of the basin's operating range. This lower limit of 500,000 of assumes that stored MWD water (CUP and Super In -Lieu) has already been removed and is only acceptable for short durations due to drought conditions. It is not recommended to manage the basin for sustained periods at this lower limit for the following reasons: • Seawater intrusion likely • Drought supply depleted • Pumping levels detrimental to a handful of wells • Increased pumping lifts and electrical costs • Increased potential for color upwelling from the Deep aquifer 8. An optimal basin management target of 100,000 of of accumulated overdraft provides sufficient storage space to accommodate increased supplies from one wet year while also providing enough water in storage to offset decreased supplies during a two- to three-year drought. 44 9. The proposed operational strategy provides a flexible guideline to assist in determining the amount of basin refill or storage decrease for the coming water year based on using the BPP formula and considering storage goals based on current basin conditions and other factors such as water availability. This strategy is not intended to dictate a specific basin refill or storage decrease amount for a given storage condition but to provide a general guideline for the District's Board of Directors. 8. RECOMMENDATIONS Based on the findings of this study are the following recommendations: 1. Adopt the new three -layer storage change methodology along with the associated new full -basin condition that will serve as a benchmark for calculating the basin accumulated overdraft. 2. Adopt the proposed basin operating strategy including a basin operating range spanning the new full condition to an accumulated overdraft of 500,000 af, and an optimal overdraft target of 100,000 af. 3. Include in the 2007-08 CIP budget the installation of six Shallow aquifer monitoring wells to increase accuracy of the three -layer storage change calculation. 9. BIBLIOGRAPHY Bear, J. 1979. Hydraulics of Groundwater. McGraw-Hill, New York, 569 pp. Bouwer, H. 1978. Groundwater Hydrology. McGraw-Hill, New York, 480 pp. California State Department of Water Resources. 1934. "Geology and Ground Water Storage Capacity of Valley Fill." Bulletin No. 45. California State Department of Public Works, Division of Water Resources. June, 1945. "Present Overdraft on and Safe Yield from The Groundwater of the Coastal Plain of Orange County." Freeze, R. A., and J. A. Cherry. 1979. Groundwater. Prentice -Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, 604 pp. Phraner, R. W., B. Harley, E. G. Reichard, and B. Stollar. 2001. Letter from OCWD Basin Model Advisory Panel to OCWD: "Findings of Model Advisory Panel — Transient Calibration of Multi -layer Basin Flow Model," 7pp. 45 APPENDIX 1 "Randall" Specific Yield Values From Traditional Storage Change Method 0 W as c J N W n r (9 tS � N (5 4 dU LL C cn c O N � �1T s 4I" d 0 0 o d c o d O n d d a m d d od d c d m � � p r O dr r d o to w o d r d o o a r d 04 W) d d o d n m d d N r �l � d o d u, r T r d o d 11 M O d - d o d o r rd p e rco o d m d d c p d d 0 o a T d T a>17 d d o o g{ o d d CD N m C0 d d d d w d O c d T N d d O r r O d d r O N o d d as o 0 0 N d d � r p d d m d d m d d c m c o d d r r o c d o d d r r d d m o a> o0 r d o p p 1� 0 d o d -td m c d d c an d m m r es 0° o 0 o c d o o r o p d d o cod 0 o p d c m d o ¢°CD 0 8 Sg o c d 0 o d o d o o r r o d d d cr c c d T d p c c d d d d -,td d ti c r d o d m r r f c d d m o d o T d d d N d d d d o r o d d m r 8 8 d d d d d o d A Lf)ro r r S o o d W rd O W G O O d M <° G O d G d, d as o c d d o d o r w C -1 o d o d o pd n o d o m r r c d p r d m d d d d d o o d r c d d o c o �� c o d d r o m c c c d p m d In r d d d d r r o c d o Lf)d 7 p o d d o o d n r ■ o d d d d M1 n r O d d o d ti u7 N O r d d T d d o d� •ems' �, r APPENDIX 2 Basin Model Storage Coefficient Values For Three -Layer Storage Change Method L 00 cs 1..1.■ s L LAI o r ciC4 N o 0 0 J O � "*" O O O N O O T C O ' O [-1 La O N r O O r .A O Ip O G O Alf _ G C,4 N m cy La o O O N O N • O O p r O O O O O r O r NLD O O 0 o N o 0 ■ o o w k co NSR . O o o c o 0 o 0 0 co 0 �o o R o o w 0 0 c co R o r r o o r r i ao R o p o O o 0 o r o r c o •,��. o o T o o c r c 0 0 4 0 0 0 o r 0 o r ` O C R o o O t O w N O O O r ' O Q �_ O O OO O co O O O G icy -a o :6 o -- cD 0 �- o 0 � o 0 0 o X O o 0co Am 0 0 M o r • 0 cocC A, 'r C a) L C co W O �� O O 0 2, L �• N — Q co r oco • N L co N L CC r N O c LL .y J o d N = 0 i C-) " m H 0)U) .� 75 'a o oC! C3 old C3 CD CD CD O O CD C3 C4 CR C3 C4 iy CR C3 C2 q C2 40 Cl 0 Aw N6 C/) r. cf) Ct 75 'a o oC! C3 old C3 CD CD CD O O CD C3 C4 CR C3 C4 iy CR C3 C2 q C2 40 Cl 0 Aw r. � Ct Ct CD O O CD LO 0 C, CD N is EICY D O M O R M co y c2 N c2 O Cl c2 cR O %=low M o I Llllllllllll1 C, C2 m CD O w c; R%I CC3; C5 co > 0 o wr— C,--- En C; iu 2 = 0 U) 00- 4! .2 �._. j �0 44. . w 4.0 O -, o VALo' o CD fD � o p p O } .� LD r f 0 0 ,� � o r o c 1 N CDO p 0 c 0 0 0 o p 0 0 ired o 0 o p � p p i p p C 0 j R o 0 4 161 N O 0 lo�0 � 1 � o o p 1 p p o a +t K3 0 7_u o uUP 0 w O Oft,CL � N o bw fn •` O O N .L F_) w c YN to O C N O M o N 0 0 L o :3•, U N N CB m �L cu J APPENDIX 3 Water Level Change Maps For June 2006 to the New Full Condition i 0) LL f .. .—. 0 O m o iLo (� O 0 0 0 k. 7D > N � _ co ,Y LL � � 43 Owl �Ld FAA 7r 4r el .VMWTr4p- 4A 5 41- G (D N III rl- Lo 0 0 0 0 C) -4- -A- 0 C) 0 c) Lo , C-1 4 tm c 4r el .VMWTr4p- 4A 5 41- G APPENDIX E List of Wells in OCWD Monitoring Programs List of Wells in OCWD Monitoring Programs KEY Aquifer Zone: S=Shallow Aquifer, P=Principal Aquifer, D= Deep Aquifer Program: 1) monitoring well, 2) production well, 3) irrigation or industrial well, 4) injection well, 5) Mid -Basin Injection well, 6) seawater intrusion monitoring well, 7) well monitored by OCWD for Title 22 compliance, 8) North Basin Groundwater Protection Program wells, 9) South Basin Groundwater Protection Program wells, 10) wells in CASGEM monitoring program Well Name Well Owner Bore Depth Casing (ft. bgs) Sequence Screened Interval (ft.bgs) Top Bottom Type of Well Aquifer Zone Program ABC-KISCH ABC SCHOOL DIST. 0 0 0 Inactive Production 2 ABC-MESCH ABC SCHOOL DIST. 0 0 0 Other Active Production 2 ABC-TETZL ABC SCHOOL DIST. 0 0 0 Other Active Production 2 W-5470 ABC SCHOOL DIST. 282 190 240 Inactive Production 2 ACP -103 AC PRODUCTIONUCTS 460 370 450 Injection 4 ACP -P01 AC PRODUCTIONUCTS 200 90 140 Inactive Production 2,3 ACP -P02 AC PRODUCTIONUCTS 190 1 100 180 Other Active Production 2 AVCC-P ALTA VISTA COUNTRY CLUB 438 0 0 Other Active Production 2,3 AVCC-P2 ALTA VISTA COUNTRY CLUB 803 210 770 Other Active Production P 2,3 A-14 ANAHEIM 450 309 425 Inactive Production P 2,8 A-36 ANAHEIM 818 651 796 Inactive Production P 2,7 A-39 ANAHEIM 1493 540 1280 Active Large Production P 2,7 A-40 ANAHEIM 1308 505 1220 Active Large Production P 2,7 A-41 ANAHEIM 1532 437 1450 Active Large Production P 2,7 A-42 ANAHEIM 1260 1 430 1180 1 Active Large Production P 2,7 A-43 ANAHEIM 1400 530 1210 Active Large Production P 2,7 A-44 ANAHEIM 1155 450 1130 Active Large Production P 2,7 A-45 ANAHEIM 1430 455 1410 Active Large Production P 2,7 A-46 ANAHEIM 1565 599 1529 Active Large Production P 2,7 A-47 ANAHEIM 1500 482 1375 Active Large Production P 2,7,8 A-48 ANAHEIM 1450 932 1344 Active Large Production P 2,7 A-49 ANAHEIM 1498 580 1450 Active Large Production P 2,7,8 A-51 ANAHEIM 1310 525 965 Active Large Production P 2,7 A-52 ANAHEIM 1210 570 1066 Active Large Production P 2,7 A-53 ANAHEIM 1350 945 1270 Active Large Production P 2,7 A-54 ANAHEIM 0 680 1480 Active Large Production P 2,7 A-55 ANAHEIM 1340 370 1300 Active Large Production P 2,7 A-56 ANAHEIM 1600 725 1300 Active Large Production P 2,7 A-58 ANAHEIM 1218 400 930 Inactive Production 2,7 ADEV-AMl ANAHEIM 157 110 150 Monitoring 1 A-DMGC ANAHEIM 500 430 482 Other Active Production P 2,3 A-YARD-MWl ANAHEIM 112 85 109 Monitoring 1 A-YARD-MW2 ANAHEIM 111 86 110 Monitoring 1 W-15896 ANAHEIM MOTEL, LIMITED 200 0 0 Inactive Production 2,3 ANGE-O ANGELICA HEALTHCARE SERVICES 670 186 639 Other Active Production 2,3 AET-RMW10 ARCO/TOSCO/EQUIVA 129 127 128 Monitoring 1 AET-RMW14 ARCO/TOSCO/EQUIVA 197 195 196 Monitoring 1 AET-RMW15 ARCO/TOSCO/EQUIVA 142 140 141 Monitoring 1 AET-RMW16 ARCO/TOSCO/EQUIVA 200 189 190 Monitoring 1 AET-RMW17 ARCO/TOSCO/EQUIVA 218 217 218 Monitoring 1 AET-RMW2 ARCO/TOSCO/EQUIVA 199 196 197 Monitoring 1 AET-RMW20 ARCO/TOSCO/EQUIVA 100 98 99 Monitoring 1 AET-RMW23 ARCO/TOSCO/EQUIVA 124 119 120 Monitoring 1 AET-RMW3 ARCO/TOSCO/EQUIVA 200 194 195 Monitoring 1 AET-RMW5 ARCO/TOSCO/EQUIVA 200 195 196 Monitoring 1 AET-RMW6 ARCO/TOSCO/EQUIVA 184 116 117 Monitoring 1 AET-RMW7 ARCO/TOSCO/EQUIVA 113 108 109 Monitoring 1 AET-RMW8 ARCO/TOSCO/EQUIVA 98 94 95 Monitoring 1 AET-RMW9 ARCO/TOSCO/EQUIVA 112 107 108 Monitoring 1 ARMD-LA3 ARMED FORCES RESERVE CENTER 965 333 363 Inactive Production 2 ARMD-LARA ARMED FORCES RESERVE CENTER 0 0 0 Inactive Production 2 AR -PUMP ARTESIA 217 0 0 Other Active Production 2,3 W-14107 ARTESIA ICE CO. 51 0 0 Inactive Production 2,3 ARCO-FBHll ATLANTIC RICHFIELD CO. 62 50 62 Monitoring 1 ARCO-FBH12 ATLANTIC RICHFIELD CO. 75 55 75 Monitoring 1 ARCO-FBH14 ATLANTIC RICHFIELD CO. 75 0 0 Monitoring 1 ARCO-FBH17 ATLANTIC RICHFIELD CO. 140 124 139 Monitoring 1 ARCO-FBH5 ATLANTIC RICHFIELD CO. 75 0 0 1 Monitoring 1 ARCO-FBH6 ATLANTIC RICHFIELD CO. 80 48 80 Monitoring 1 ARCO -T2209 ATLANTIC RICHFIELD CO. 150 82 143 Injection 4 BF-BF1 BELLFLOWER 1200 574 1160 Active Large Production 2 PEER -17 BELLFLOWER MUNICIPAL WATER CO. 1030 610 1012 Active Small Production 2 PEER -2 BELLFLOWER MUNICIPAL WATER CO. 204 162 177 Active Large Production 2 PEER -7 BELLFLOWER MUNICIPAL WATER CO. 108 1 0 0 Active Small Production 2 PEER -8 BELLFLOWER MUNICIPAL WATER CO. 174 113 153 Other Active Production 2 FUJI -FV BERUMEN FARMS 170 0 0 Other Active Production 2,3 FUJI-WM BERUMEN FARMS 150 0 0 Inactive Production 2,3 List of Wells in OCWD Monitoring Programs KEY Aquifer Zone: S=Shallow Aquifer, P=Principal Aquifer, D= Deep Aquifer Program: 1) monitoring well, 2) production well, 3) irrigation or industrial well, 4) injection well, 5) Mid -Basin Injection well, 6) seawater intrusion monitoring well, 7) well monitored by OCWD for Title 22 compliance, 8) North Basin Groundwater Protection Program wells, 9) South Basin Groundwater Protection Program wells, 10) wells in CASGEM monitoring program Well Name Well Owner Bore Depth Casing (ft. bgs) Sequence Screened Interval (ft.bgs) Top Bottom Type of Well Aquifer Zone Program BOE-EW101 BOEING CO. 77 57 77 Other Active Production S 2 BOE-EW102 BOEING CO. 87 62 82 Other Active Production S 2 BOE-EW103 BOEING CO. 85 63 83 Other Active Production 5 2 BOE-EW104 BOEING CO. 83 57 82 Other Active Production 5 2 BOE-MW16 BOEING CO. 297 260 280 Monitoring 1,6 BOE-MW17 BOEING CO. 298 255 275 Monitoring 1,6 BOE-MW19A BOEING CO. 173 153 173 Monitoring 1,6 BOE-MW20S BOEING CO. 84 59 80 Monitoring 5 1 BOE-MW21S BOEING CO. 81 59 79 Monitoring 5 1 BOE-MW27A BOEING CO. 172 139 159 Monitoring 1,6 BOE-MW31S BOEING CO. 92 78 88 Monitoring 5 1 BOE-MW34 BOEING CO. 278 252 267 Monitoring 1,6 BOE-MW37A BOEING CO. 172 135 165 Monitoring 1,6 BOE-MW38A BOEING CO. 170 135 165 Monitoring 1,6 BOE-MW41A BOEING CO. 177 149 169 Monitoring 1,6 BOE-MW42A BOEING CO. 173 140 170 Monitoring 1,6 BOE-MW57A BOEING CO. 172 150 170 Monitoring 1,6 BOE-MW58A BOEING CO. 175 150 170 Monitoring 1,6 BOE-MW59B BOEING CO. 268 240 250 Monitoring 1,6 BOE-MW60A BOEING CO. 172 150 170 Monitoring 1,6 BOE-MW61A BOEING CO. 172 150 170 Monitoring 1,6 BOE-MW72A BOEING CO. 132 112 127 Monitoring 1,6 BOE-MW73A BOEING CO. 137 113 133 Monitoring 1,6 BOE-MW75 BOEING CO. 227 202 222 Monitoring 1,6 BOE-MW95A BOEING CO. 172 135 165 Monitoring 1,6 BOE-MW96A BOEING CO. 175 150 170 Monitoring 1,6 BOE-MW97A BOEING CO. 215 170 175 Monitoring 1,6 BOE-MW98A BOEING CO. 215 169 174 Monitoring 1,6 BOE-MW99A BOEING CO. 210 146 166 Monitoring 1,6 BOTT-C BOTT TRACT MUTUAL WATER CO. 150 0 0 Other Active Production 2,3 LB-NLB10 BOY SCOUTS OF AMERICA 378 357 374 Monitoring 1 BR -1 BREA 500 78 115 Other Active Production 2,3 BROS-WM BRORS OF ST.PATRICK 106 98 105 Other Active Production 2 BP -BALL BUENA PARK 890 260 870 Active Large Production P 2,7 BP -BOTS BUENA PARK 1505 475 1355 Active Large Production P 2,7 BP-CABA BUENA PARK 1430 250 1010 1 Active Large Production P 2,7 BP -FREE BUENA PARK 1000 260 1000 1 Active Large Production P 2,7 BP -HOLD BUENA PARK 1020 250 1000 Active Large Production P 2,7 BP -KNOT BUENA PARK 1020 260 1000 Active Large Production P 2,7 BP-LIND BUENA PARK 1410 470 1221 Active Large Production P 2,7 BP -SM BUENA PARK 1038 308 1038 Active Large Production P 2,7 OCWD-BG010 CA STATE LANDS COMMISSION 110 80 100 Monitoring 1 SLC-MW1 CA STATE LANDS COMMISSION 25 5 25 Monitoring 1 1 SLC-MW10 CA STATE LANDS COMMISSION 32 10 30 Monitoring 1 SLC-MW11 CA STATE LANDS COMMISSION 32 10 30 Monitoring 1 SLC-MW12 CA STATE LANDS COMMISSION 32 10 30 Monitoring 1 SLC-MW13 CA STATE LANDS COMMISSION 32 10 30 Monitoring 1 SLC-MW14 CA STATE LANDS COMMISSION 32 10 30 Monitoring 1 SLC-MW15 CA STATE LANDS COMMISSION 32 10 30 Monitoring 1 SLC-MW16 CA STATE LANDS COMMISSION 32 10 30 Monitoring 1 SLC-MW2 CA STATE LANDS COMMISSION 25 5 1 25 Monitoring 1 SLC-MW3 CA STATE LANDS COMMISSION 25 5 25 Monitoring 1 SLC-MW4 CA STATE LANDS COMMISSION 25 5 25 Monitoring 1 SLC-MW5 CA STATE LANDS COMMISSION 25 5 25 Monitoring 1 SLC-MW6 CA STATE LANDS COMMISSION 25 5 25 Monitoring 1 SLC-MW7 CA STATE LANDS COMMISSION 32 10 30 Monitoring 1 SLC-MW8 CA STATE LANDS COMMISSION 32 10 30 Monitoring 1 SLC-MW9 CA STATE LANDS COMMISSION 32 10 30 Monitoring 1 SLC -P10 CA STATE LANDS COMMISSION 25 5 15 Monitoring 1 SLC -P11 CA STATE LANDS COMMISSION 25 5 15 Monitoring 1 SLC -P13 CA STATE LANDS COMMISSION 25 5 15 Monitoring 1 SLC -P14 CA STATE LANDS COMMISSION 25 5 15 Monitoring 1 SLC -P15 CA STATE LANDS COMMISSION 25 5 15 Monitoring 1 SLC -P16 CA STATE LANDS COMMISSION 25 5 20 Monitoring 1 SLC -P17 CA STATE LANDS COMMISSION 25 5 20 Monitoring 1 SLC -P18 CA STATE LANDS COMMISSION 25 5 20 Monitoring 1 SLC -P19 CA STATE LANDS COMMISSION 40 5 20 Monitoring 1 2 List of Wells in OCWD Monitoring Programs KEY Aquifer Zone: S=Shallow Aquifer, P=Principal Aquifer, D= Deep Aquifer Program: 1) monitoring well, 2) production well, 3) irrigation or industrial well, 4) injection well, 5) Mid -Basin Injection well, 6) seawater intrusion monitoring well, 7) well monitored by OCWD for Title 22 compliance, 8) North Basin Groundwater Protection Program wells, 9) South Basin Groundwater Protection Program wells, 10) wells in CASGEM monitoring program Well Name Well Owner Bore Depth Casing (ft. bgs) Sequence Screened Interval (ft.bgs) Top Bottom Type of Well Aquifer Zone Program SLC -P20 CA STATE LANDS COMMISSION 25 5 10 Monitoring 1 SLC -P21 CA STATE LANDS COMMISSION 25 5 15 Monitoring 1 SLC -P22 CA STATE LANDS COMMISSION 25 5 20 Monitoring 1 SLC -P23 CA STATE LANDS COMMISSION 25 5 15 Monitoring 1 SLC -P24 CA STATE LANDS COMMISSION 25 5 15 Monitoring 1 SLC -P25 CA STATE LANDS COMMISSION 25 5 20 Monitoring 1 SLC -P26 CA STATE LANDS COMMISSION 25 5 20 Monitoring 1 SLC -P27 CA STATE LANDS COMMISSION 40 5 20 Monitoring 1 SLC -P29 CA STATE LANDS COMMISSION 25 6 21 Monitoring 1 SLC -P30 CA STATE LANDS COMMISSION 46 22 37 Monitoring 1 SLC -P31 CA STATE LANDS COMMISSION 25 5 20 Monitoring 1 SLC -P32 CA STATE LANDS COMMISSION 25 1 8 23 Monitoring 1 SLC -P33 CA STATE LANDS COMMISSION 40 6 21 Monitoring 1 SLC -P34 CA STATE LANDS COMMISSION 40 6 21 Monitoring 1 SLC -P35 CA STATE LANDS COMMISSION 40 7 22 Monitoring 1 SLC -P36 CA STATE LANDS COMMISSION 40 6 21 Monitoring 1 SLC -P4 CA STATE LANDS COMMISSION 25 5 20 Monitoring 1 SLC -P5 CA STATE LANDS COMMISSION 25 5 15 Monitoring 1 SLC -P6 CA STATE LANDS COMMISSION 25 5 15 Monitoring 1 SLC -P9 CA STATE LANDS COMMISSION 25 5 20 Monitoring 1 CIFM-CH CA. INSTITUE FOR MEN - CHINO 239 122 226 Other Active Production 2 CIFM-CH1A CA. INSTITUE FOR MEN - CHINO 529 0 0 Other Active Production 2 CSF -1 CA. STATE UNIV., FULLERTON 842 130 726 Multiport Monitoring S/P/D 1 FPRK-YLE CANYON RV PARK 98 60 84 Active Small Production S 2,7 FPRK-YLW CANYON RV PARK 98 48 80 Active Small Production S 2,7 CARD -0 CARDINAL MANAGEMENT 70 0 0 Other Active Production 2,3 MKSSN-A CCDA WATERS, LLC 800 635 755 Other Active Production 2,3 CE -Cl CERRITOS 1035 295 976 Active Large Production 2 CE -C2 CERRITOS 1050 280 980 Active Large Production 2 CE -C4 CERRITOS 1030 305 955 Active Large Production 2 CHEV-HBP4 CHEVRON U.S.A. - LA HABRA 680 490 640 Inactive Production 2,3 CHEV-NOR4 CHEVRON U.S.A. - LA HABRA 1023 990 1005 Inactive Production 2,3 W-18110 CHEVRON U.S.A.-HUNTINGTON BCH. 116 85 115 Monitoring 1 PLMP-YL CITY OIL CORP 77 0 0 Inactive Production 2,3 CCOL-C COMMUNITY COLLEGE DIST. 395 365 395 Other Active Production 2,3 COMM -LP COMMUNITY WATER ASSOC. 0 0 0 Inactive Production 2 CNXT-NBEI1 CONEXANT SYSTEMS, INC. 100 60 100 Inactive Production 2 CNXT-NBE12 CONEXANT SYSTEMS, INC. 100 1 60 100 Inactive Production 2 CNXT-NBE13 CONEXANT SYSTEMS, INC. 100 60 100 Inactive Production 2 CNXT-NBE14A CONEXANT SYSTEMS, INC. 104 65 100 Inactive Production 2 CNXT-NBES1 CONEXANT SYSTEMS, INC. 43 22 42 Inactive Production 2 CNXT-NBES2 CONEXANT SYSTEMS, INC. 45 21 41 Inactive Production 2 CNXT-NBES3A CONEXANT SYSTEMS, INC. 46 24 44 Inactive Production 2 CNXT-NBES4B CONEXANT SYSTEMS, INC. 47 23 43 Inactive Production 2 CNXT-NBES5A CONEXANT SYSTEMS, INC. 42 20 40 Inactive Production 2 CNXT-NBES6 CONEXANT SYSTEMS, INC. 45 25 40 Inactive Production 2 CNXT-NBI17 CONEXANT SYSTEMS, INC. 105 0 0 Injection 4 CNXT-NBMW27 CONEXANT SYSTEMS, INC. 40 10 40 Monitoring 1 CNXT-NBMW28 CONEXANT SYSTEMS, INC. 82 60 82 Monitoring 1 CNXT-NBMW29 CONEXANT SYSTEMS, INC. 42 21 40 Monitoring 1 CNXT-NBMW30 CONEXANT SYSTEMS, INC. 42 21 42 Monitoring 1 CNXT-NBRI1 CONEXANT SYSTEMS, INC. 105 77 102 Injection 4 CNXT-NBR12 CONEXANT SYSTEMS, INC. 115 75 110 Injection 4 CNXT-NBR13 CONEXANT SYSTEMS, INC. 122 75 115 Injection 4 CNXT-NBR14 CONEXANT SYSTEMS, INC. 97 0 0 Injection 4 CO -16 CORONA 850 415 755 Active Large Production 2 CMW-CO CORONITA MUTUAL WATER CO. 270 126 234 1 Other Active Production 2 MCWD-GC COSTA MESA 225 195 215 Monitoring 1,6 W-3799 COSTA MESA SCHOOL DIST. 297 0 0 Inactive Production 2,3 CCC-LA1 COTTONWOOD CHRISTIAN CENTER 340 140 310 Other Active Production 2 MRCF-GG CROSBY WATER SYSTEM 240 0 0 Other Active Production 2 MBF-FM2 CT STORAGE - FULLERTON, LLC 135 110 134 Monitoring 1,8 MBF-FM3 CT STORAGE - FULLERTON, LLC 135 1 110 134 Monitoring 1,8 F1C-LAK2 CYPRESS GC LLC/CYPRESS GOLF CL 620 300 570 Other Active Production P 2,3 W-18698 DEG USSA FLAVOR & FRUIT SYSTEMS 2070 90 Monitoring 1 OCWD-BS103 DEPT. OF WATER RESOURCES 484 184 205 Monitoring S 1,6 OCWD-BS105 DEPT. OF WATER RESOURCES 394 150 197 Monitoring S 1,6 3 List of Wells in OCWD Monitoring Programs KEY Aquifer Zone: S=Shallow Aquifer, P=Principal Aquifer, D= Deep Aquifer Program: 1) monitoring well, 2) production well, 3) irrigation or industrial well, 4) injection well, 5) Mid -Basin Injection well, 6) seawater intrusion monitoring well, 7) well monitored by OCWD for Title 22 compliance, 8) North Basin Groundwater Protection Program wells, 9) South Basin Groundwater Protection Program wells, 10) wells in CASGEM monitoring program Well Name Well Owner Bore Depth Casing (ft. bgs) Sequence Screened Interval (ft.bgs) Top Bottom Type of Well Aquifer Zone Program OCWD-BS106 DEPT. OF WATER RESOURCES 556 213 255 Monitoring S 1,6 OCWD-BS107 DEPT. OF WATER RESOURCES 738 398 441 Monitoring 1,6 OCWD-BS111 DEPT. OF WATER RESOURCES 483 184 205 Monitoring 1,6 OCWD-BS01A DEPT. OF WATER RESOURCES 500 245 335 Monitoring 1 OCWD-BS01B DEPT. OF WATER RESOURCES 500 80 104 Monitoring 1 OCWD-BSO4 DEPT. OF WATER RESOURCES 700 268 498 Monitoring 1 OCWD-BS06A DEPT. OF WATER RESOURCES 150 85 135 1 Monitoring 1,6 OCWD-BS06B DEPT. OF WATER RESOURCES 305 235 295 Monitoring 1,6 OCWD-BS09A DEPT. OF WATER RESOURCES 445 195 285 Monitoring S 1,6 OCWD-BS09B DEPT. OF WATER RESOURCES 624 520 615 Monitoring P 1,6 OCWD-BS09C DEPT. OF WATER RESOURCES 450 340 435 Monitoring 1,6 OCWD-SA10 DEPT. OF WATER RESOURCES 483 300 330 Monitoring S/P 1,6 OCWD-SA12 DEPT. OF WATER RESOURCES 715 305 325 Monitoring S 1 OCWD-SA3 DEPT. OF WATER RESOURCES 401 100 160 Monitoring S 1,6 OCWD-SA5 DEPT. OF WATER RESOURCES 401 273 312 Monitoring P 1,6 DICE-SA2 DIAMONITORINGD ICE CORP 1003 330 990 Inactive Production 2,3 SSPG-O DS WATERS OF AMERICA, INC. 270 250 270 Inactive Production 2 EOCW-E EAST ORANGE COUNTY WATER DIST. 504 324 450 Active Large Production P 2,7 EOCW-W EAST ORANGE COUNTY WATER DIST. 800 315 450 Active Large Production P 2,7 LKVG-YL EASTLAKE VILLAGE HOA 124 50 124 Other Active Production 2,3 ESWA-4 EASTSIDE WATER ASSOC. 560 240 520 Active Small Production 2,7 EDGW-SA EDINGER WATER ASSOC. 308 0 0 Inactive Production 2 EMA-FVRI ENVIRONMENTAL MGMT AGENCY 0 0 0 Other Active Production 2,3 ALEN-GG EUCHARISTIC MISSIONARIES 252 0 0 Other Active Production 2 SAKH-A F S NURSERY 383 0 0 Other Active Production 2,3 FAIR -SA FAIRHAVEN MEMORIAL PARK 427 0 0 Inactive Production 2,3 FAIR-SA3 FAIRHAVEN MEMORIAL PARK 520 250 500 Other Active Production 2,3 FAA-LA1 FEDERAL AVAIATION ADMIN. 0 0 0 Other Active Production 2,3 FLWN-CO,2 FOREST LAWN 590 160 560 Other Active Production 2,3 FV -10 FOUNTAIN VALLEY 1100 460 980 1 Active Large Production P 2,7 FV -11 FOUNTAIN VALLEY 1027 440 950 Active Large Production P 2,7 FV -12 FOUNTAIN VALLEY 1230 340 1070 Active Large Production P 2,7 FV -6 FOUNTAIN VALLEY 1150 370 1110 Active Large Production P 2,7 FV -8 FOUNTAIN VALLEY 920 312 844 Active Large Production P 2,7 FV -9 FOUNTAIN VALLEY 1114 415 1070 Active Large Production P 2,7 W-3791 FOUNTAIN VALLEY 0 0 0 Inactive Production 2 F-10 FULLERTON 1350 460 1290 Active Large Production P 2,7,8 F -3A FULLERTON 1295 580 1280 Active Large Production P 2,7,8 F-4 FULLERTON 415 315 405 Active Large Production P 2,7,8 F-5 FULLERTON 440 350 400 Active Large Production P 2,7,8 F-6 FULLERTON 430 340 401 Active Large Production P 2,7,8 F-7 FULLERTON 434 300 410 Active Large Production P 2,7,8 F-8 FULLERTON 458 324 402 Active Large Production P 2,7,8 F-AIRP FULLERTON 1135 435 1080 Active Large Production P 2,7 F-CHRI2 FULLERTON 1350 520 1330 Active Large Production P 2,7,8 F-COY02 FULLERTON 1517 309 919 Inactive Production P 2 F-KIM1A FULLERTON 1243 500 1225 Active Large Production P 2,7,8 F-KIM2 FULLERTON 652 320 626 Active Large Production P 2,7,8 GG -16 GARDEN GROVE 1000 304 864 Active Large Production P 2,7 GG -19 GARDEN GROVE 942 818 892 Active Large Production P 2,7 GG -20 GARDEN GROVE 960 360 912 Active Large Production P 2,7 GG -21 GARDEN GROVE 1187 428 1080 Active Large Production P 2,7 GG -22 GARDEN GROVE 1040 416 1020 Active Large Production P 2,7 GG -23 GARDEN GROVE 860 474 835 Active Large Production P 2,7 GG -25 GARDEN GROVE 987 442 850 Active Large Production P 2,7 GG -26 GARDEN GROVE 1120 470 1060 Active Large Production P 2,7 GG -27 GARDEN GROVE 1215 520 1160 Active Large Production P 2,7 GG -28 GARDEN GROVE 328 130 240 Active Large Production S 2,7 GG -29 GARDEN GROVE 1140 465 1110 Active Large Production P 2,7 GG -30 GARDEN GROVE 1205 390 1146 Active Large Production P 2,7 GG -31 GARDEN GROVE 1462 739 1373 Active Large Production P 2,7 WWGC-SAK3 GARDEN GROVE 206 149 170 Other Active Production S 2,3 WWGC-SAK4 GARDEN GROVE 272 150 249 Other Active Production 2,3 W-15829 GARDEN GROVE UNIF. SCH. DIST. 209 0 0 Inactive Production 2,3 W-4220 GENERAL SERVICE ADMIN. 900 264 887 Inactive Production 2 W-4224 GENERAL SERVICE ADMIN. 602 378 438 Inactive Production 2,3 W-4226 GENERAL SERVICE ADMIN. 586 271 372 Inactive Production 2,3 M List of Wells in OCWD Monitoring Programs KEY Aquifer Zone: S=Shallow Aquifer, P=Principal Aquifer, D= Deep Aquifer Program: 1) monitoring well, 2) production well, 3) irrigation or industrial well, 4) injection well, 5) Mid -Basin Injection well, 6) seawater intrusion monitoring well, 7) well monitored by OCWD for Title 22 compliance, 8) North Basin Groundwater Protection Program wells, 9) South Basin Groundwater Protection Program wells, 10) wells in CASGEM monitoring program Well Name Well Owner Bore Depth Casing (ft. bgs) Sequence Screened Interval (ft.bgs) Top Bottom Type of Well Aquifer Zone Program W-4856 GENERAL SERVICE ADMIN. 804 247 427 Inactive Production 2 GSWC-HGC6 GOLDEN STATE WATER CO - LA 1295 180 1170 Active Large Production 2 SCWC-ARR1 GOLDEN STATE WATER CO - LA 1026 919 965 Active Small Production 2 SCWC-HGC3 GOLDEN STATE WATER CO - LA 860 110 852 Inactive Production 2 SCWC-HGC4 GOLDEN STATE WATER CO - LA 861 110 856 Inactive Production 2 SCWC-HGCAR GOLDEN STATE WATER CO - LA 570 121 327 Inactive Production 2 SCWC-HG14 GOLDEN STATE WATER CO - LA 890 530 710 Active Large Production 2 SCWC-LKHAW GOLDEN STATE WATER CO - LA 822 200 796 Active Large Production 2 SCWC-LKMA GOLDEN STATE WATER CO - LA 885 215 830 Active Large Production 2 SCWC-NWDAC1 GOLDEN STATE WATER CO - LA 380 0 0 Other Active Production 2 SCWC-NWIMP1 GOLDEN STATE WATER CO - LA 0 0 0 Other Active Production 2 SCWC-NWIMP2 GOLDEN STATE WATER CO - LA 399 0 0 Other Active Production 2 SCWC-NWIMP3 GOLDEN STATE WATER CO - LA 890 0 890 Other Active Production 2 W-17720 GOLDEN STATE WATER CO - LA 0 0 0 Other Active Production 2 GSWC-PORI GOLDEN STATE WATER CO - OC 1129 350 895 Active Large Production P 2,7 GSWC-SCL5 GOLDEN STATE WATER CO - OC 1416 700 1000 Active Large Production P 2,7 RHWC-E GOLDEN STATE WATER CO - OC 945 410 920 Active Large Production P 2,7 RHWC-W2 GOLDEN STATE WATER CO - OC 954 474 753 Active Large Production P 2,7 SCWC-CBAL GOLDEN STATE WATER CO - OC 990 200 770 Active Large Production P 2,7 SCWC-CSC GOLDEN STATE WATER CO - OC 600 526 556 Active Large Production P 2,7 SCWC-CVV GOLDEN STATE WATER CO - OC 670 524 645 Active Large Production P 2,7 SCWC-CVV2 GOLDEN STATE WATER CO - OC 1010 480 981 Active Large Production P 2,7 SCWC-LABL2 GOLDEN STATE WATER CO - OC 708 460 690 Active Large Production P 2,7 SCWC-LAC3 GOLDEN STATE WATER CO - OC 632 346 593 Active Large Production P 2,7 SCWC-LAFL GOLDEN STATE WATER CO - OC 720 300 680 Active Large Production P 2,7 SCWC-LAHO GOLDEN STATE WATER CO - OC 520 386 486 Active Large Production P 2,7 SCWC-LAYT GOLDEN STATE WATER CO - OC 812 250 800 Active Large Production P 2,6,7 SCWC-PBF3 GOLDEN STATE WATER CO - OC 496 220 475 Active Large Production P 2,7,8 SCWC-PBF4 GOLDEN STATE WATER CO - OC 550 275 520 Active Large Production P 2,7,8 SCWC-PU2 GOLDEN STATE WATER CO - OC 505 402 492 Active Large Production P 2,7,8 SCWC-PRU GOLDEN STATE WATER CO - OC 837 430 790 Active Large Production P 2,7 SCWC-SBCH GOLDEN STATE WATER CO - OC 600 200 570 Active Large Production P 2,7 SCWC-SCL4 GOLDEN STATE WATER CO - OC 530 294 488 Active Large Production P 2,7 SCWC-SDAL GOLDEN STATE WATER CO - OC 562 500 542 Active Large Production P 2,7 SCWC-SLON GOLDEN STATE WATER CO - OC 778 0 0 Active Large Production P 2,7 SCWC-SORG GOLDEN STATE WATER CO - OC 302 242 286 Active Large Production P 2,7 SCWC-SSHR GOLDEN STATE WATER CO - OC 618 520 580 Active Large Production P 2,7 SCWC-SSYC GOLDEN STATE WATER CO - OC 568 500 546 1 Active Large Production P 2,7 SCWC-YLCO2 GOLDEN STATE WATER CO - OC 504 100 480 Inactive Production 2 GWRC-SFS8 GOLDEN WEST REFINING CO. 0 0 0 Other Active Production 2 GOOD -HB GOOD SHEPHERD CEMETERY 244 180 218 Other Active Production 2,3,6 ETCH -AL2 GOODWIN MUTUAL WATER CO. 200 85 185 Inactive Production S 2,3 GRV-RSIR GREEN RIVER VILLIAGE 85 50 82 Other Active Production 2,3 HALD-BP HALDOR PLACE MUTUAL WATER 265 0 0 Inactive Production 2 HMEM-COS HARBOR LAWN MEMORIAL PARK 280 190 200 Monitoring 1,6 HOLY -A HOLY CROSS CEMETERY 365 334 364 Other Active Production P 2,3 HOUS-F HOUSTON AVE. WATER 156 0 0 Other Active Production 2 W-14801 HUGHES AIRCRAFT CO. 155 135 155 Monitoring 1 W-14803 HUGHES AIRCRAFT CO. 165 144 164 Monitoring 1 HB -1 HUNTINGTON BEACH 306 258 297 Inactive Production 2,6 HB -10 HUNTINGTON BEACH 1000 232 942 Active Large Production P 2,7 HB -12 HUNTINGTON BEACH 807 265 740 Inactive Production 2,6 HB -13 HUNTINGTON BEACH 860 280 810 Active Large Production P 2,6,7 HB -3A HUNTINGTON BEACH 738 370 640 Active Large Production P 2,6,7 HB -4 HUNTINGTON BEACH 826 252 804 Active Large Production P 2,6,7 HB -5 HUNTINGTON BEACH 830 223 800 Active Large Production P 2,7 HB -6 HUNTINGTON BEACH 876 1 246 810 1 Active Large Production P 2,7 HB -7 HUNTINGTON BEACH 930 263 879 Active Large Production P 2,6,7 HB -8 HUNTINGTON BEACH 1172 256 704 Inactive Production P 2 HB -9 HUNTINGTON BEACH 1010 556 996 Active Large Production P 2,7 HB-MEA2 HUNTINGTON BEACH 537 480 510 Or Active Production P 2,3 W-15104 HUNTINGTON BEACH CO. 130 90 125 Inactive Production 2 W-15819 HUNTINGTON BEACH CO. 181 0 0 Inactive Production 2 W-15821 HUNTINGTON BEACH CO. 155 0 0 Inactive Production 2 W-15823 HUNTINGTON BEACH CO. 123 0 0 Inactive Production 2 HUNT -P13 HUNTINGTON CONDO ASSOC. 9 0 9 Monitoring 1 HUNT -P14 HUNTINGTON CONDO ASSOC. 10 0 10 Monitoring 1 5 List of Wells in OCWD Monitoring Programs KEY Aquifer Zone: S=Shallow Aquifer, P=Principal Aquifer, D= Deep Aquifer Program: 1) monitoring well, 2) production well, 3) irrigation or industrial well, 4) injection well, 5) Mid -Basin Injection well, 6) seawater intrusion monitoring well, 7) well monitored by OCWD for Title 22 compliance, 8) North Basin Groundwater Protection Program wells, 9) South Basin Groundwater Protection Program wells, 10) wells in CASGEM monitoring program Well Name Well Owner Bore Depth Casing (ft. bgs) Sequence Screened Interval (ft.bgs) Top Bottom Type of Well Aquifer Zone Program HUNT -P7 HUNTINGTON CONDO ASSOC. 19 4 20 Monitoring 1 OCWD-HH2 HUNTINGTON HARBOUR CORP 150 130 140 Monitoring S 1,6 OCWD-HH3 HUNTINGTON HARBOUR CORP 150 133 143 Monitoring S 1,6 OCWD-HH4 HUNTINGTON HARBOUR CORP 145 130 140 Monitoring 5 1,6 OCWD-HH5 HUNTINGTON HARBOUR CORP 138 102 112 Monitoring 5 1,6 OCWD-HH6A HUNTINGTON HARBOUR CORP 55 40 50 Monitoring 1,6 OCWD-HH6B HUNTINGTON HARBOUR CORP 110 90 100 Monitoring 5 1,6,10 OCWD-HH6C HUNTINGTON HARBOUR CORP 202 170 180 Monitoring 1,6 HYNS-Sl HYNES ESTATES, INC. 250 0 0 Active Small Production 2,7 HYNS-S2 HYNES ESTATES, INC. 182 162 182 Active Small Production 5 2,7 IWMD-LVM2 INTERGRATED WASTE MGMT. DIST. 248 223 243 Monitoring 1 IWMD-LVM3 INTERGRATED WASTE MGMT. DIST. 253 223 253 Monitoring 1 IWMD-LVM4 INTERGRATED WASTE MGMT. DIST. 247 206 246 Monitoring 1 IWMD-RPM3 INTERGRATED WASTE MGMT. DIST. 101 76 101 Monitoring 1 IWMD-RPM5 INTERGRATED WASTE MGMT. DIST. 102 70 100 Monitoring 1 TIC -108 IRVINE CO. 1045 200 960 Inactive Production P 2,3 TIC -194 IRVINE CO. 822 562 726 Monitoring P/D 1,9 TIC -25 IRVINE CO. 790 666 760 Monitoring P/D 1,10 TIC -50 IRVINE CO. 1488 475 1070 Monitoring 1 TIC -61 IRVINE CO. 762 240 695 Inactive Production P 2,3 TIC -80 IRVINE CO. 1553 415 1300 Monitoring 1 TIC -99 IRVINE CO. 692 346 650 Monitoring P 1 W-285 IRVINE CO. 93 37 84 Inactive Production 2,3 ET -1 IRVINE RANCH WATER DIST. 520 220 490 Other Active Production P 2,3 ET -2 IRVINE RANCH WATER DIST. 1120 280 1080 Other Active Production P 2,3 IRWD-1 IRVINE RANCH WATER DIST. 2020 1 410 860 Active Large Production P 2,7 IRWD-10 IRVINE RANCH WATER DIST. 1040 419 940 Active Large Production P 2,7 IRWD-107R IRVINE RANCH WATER DIST. 1060 275 1000 Active Large Production P 2,7 IRWD-11 IRVINE RANCH WATER DIST. 1300 410 870 Active Large Production P 2,7 IRWD-110 IRVINE RANCH WATER DIST. 1070 555 1015 Active Large Production P 2,7 IRWD-115R IRVINE RANCH WATER DIST. 1136 290 1080 Active Large Production 2,7 IRWD-12 IRVINE RANCH WATER DIST. 1424 580 1040 Active Large Production P 2,7 IRWD-13 IRVINE RANCH WATER DIST. 1170 410 980 Active Large Production P 2,7 IRWD-14 IRVINE RANCH WATER DIST. 1015 470 970 Active Large Production P 2,7 IRWD-15 IRVINE RANCH WATER DIST. 1085 1 470 990 1 Active Large Production P 2,7 IRWD-16 IRVINE RANCH WATER DIST. 1010 406 807 Active Large Production P 2,7 IRWD-17 IRVINE RANCH WATER DIST. 1019 504 960 Active Large Production P 2,7 IRWD-18 IRVINE RANCH WATER DIST. 1120 390 1080 Active Large Production P 2,7 IRWD-2 IRVINE RANCH WATER DIST. 1450 385 855 Active Large Production P 2,7,9 IRWD-21 IRVINE RANCH WATER DIST. 1223 290 970 Active Large Production P 2,7,9 IRWD-22 IRVINE RANCH WATER DIST. 1220 300 970 Active Large Production P 2,7,9 IRWD-3 IRVINE RANCH WATER DIST. 1309 1 484 1250 Active Large Production P 2,7,9 IRWD-4 IRVINE RANCH WATER DIST. 1146 440 910 Active Large Production P 2,7 IRWD-5 IRVINE RANCH WATER DIST. 1075 554 1028 Active Large Production P 2,7,9 IRWD-52 IRVINE RANCH WATER DIST. 1400 635 1290 Inactive Production 2,7,9 IRWD-6 IRVINE RANCH WATER DIST. 1175 499 1124 Active Large Production P 2,7,9 IRWD-7 IRVINE RANCH WATER DIST. 2731 359 660 Active Large Production P 2,7 IRWD-72 IRVINE RANCH WATER DIST. 1192 254 1151 Other Active Production P 2,3 IRWD-76 IRVINE RANCH WATER DIST. 1055 450 900 Active Large Production P 2,7 IRWD-77 IRVINE RANCH WATER DIST. 1000 330 980 Active Large Production P 2,7 IRWD-78R IRVINE RANCH WATER DIST. 1010 250 730 Other Active Production P 2,3 IRWD-98 IRVINE RANCH WATER DIST. 355 115 343 Inactive Production P 2,3 IRWD-C8 IRVINE RANCH WATER DIST. 2065 1080 1982 Active Large Production D 2,7 IRWD-C9 IRVINE RANCH WATER DIST. 2106 1055 1930 Active Large Production D 2,7 IRWD-LA1 IRVINE RANCH WATER DIST. 800 1 200 790 Inactive Production 2 IRWD-LA3 IRVINE RANCH WATER DIST. 800 0 0 Inactive Production 2 IRWD-LA4 IRVINE RANCH WATER DIST. 810 350 790 Inactive Production 2 IRWD-LA5 IRVINE RANCH WATER DIST. 820 350 780 Inactive Production 2 IRWD-LA7 IRVINE RANCH WATER DIST. 1000 430 980 Inactive Production 2 IRWD-U`2 IRVINE RANCH WATER DIST. 808 280 640 Active Large Production 2 IRWD-MICH10 IRVINE RANCH WATER DIST. 0 0 0 Other Active Production 2 IRWD-MICH2 IRVINE RANCH WATER DIST. 0 30 50 Other Active Production 2 IRWD-MICH3 IRVINE RANCH WATER DIST. 0 30 50 Other Active Production 2 IRWD-MICH4 IRVINE RANCH WATER DIST. 0 17 67 1 Other Active Production 2 IRWD-MICH5 IRVINE RANCH WATER DIST. 0 17 67 1 Other Active Production 2 IRWD-MICH6 IRVINE RANCH WATER DIST. 0 40 70 1 Other Active Production 2 IRWD-MICH7 IRVINE RANCH WATER DIST. 0 40 70 1 Other Active Production 2 I List of Wells in OCWD Monitoring Programs KEY Aquifer Zone: S=Shallow Aquifer, P=Principal Aquifer, D= Deep Aquifer Program: 1) monitoring well, 2) production well, 3) irrigation or industrial well, 4) injection well, 5) Mid -Basin Injection well, 6) seawater intrusion monitoring well, 7) well monitored by OCWD for Title 22 compliance, 8) North Basin Groundwater Protection Program wells, 9) South Basin Groundwater Protection Program wells, 10) wells in CASGEM monitoring program Well Name Well Owner Bore Depth Casing (ft. bgs) Sequence Screened Interval (ft.bgs) Top Bottom Type of Well Aquifer Zone Program IRWD-MICH8 IRVINE RANCH WATER DIST. 0 40 70 Other Active Production 2 IRWD-MICH9 IRVINE RANCH WATER DIST. 0 17 67 Other Active Production 2 IRWD-OPAL IRVINE RANCH WATER DIST. 1000 390 750 Inactive Production 2,7 TIC -106 IRVINE RANCH WATER DIST. 725 405 715 Other Active Production P 2,3 TIC -109 IRVINE RANCH WATER DIST. 1145 240 1120 Inactive Production P 2,3 TIC -112 IRVINE RANCH WATER DIST. 1141 240 1100 Inactive Production P 2,3 TIC -114 IRVINE RANCH WATER DIST. 1000 300 960 Inactive Production P 2,3 TIC -55 IRVINE RANCH WATER DIST. 746 300 497 Inactive Production 2,3 TIC -82 IRVINE RANCH WATER DIST. 1145 410 1002 Monitoring P 1 W-14556 IRVINE RANCH WATER DIST. 0 17 67 Inactive Production 2 ITO-LA ITO-OZAWA FARMS 860 70 710 Other Active Production 2,3 ITO-LAG3 ITO-OZAWA FARMS 800 170 780 Other Active Production 2,3 1LAW-HB JANUARY & ELLIS LAW 135 0 0 Inactive Production 2 SAKI -FV 1KS-SF, LLC 450 304 438 Inactive Production 2,3 SULY-OA1 1MI PROPERTIES/SANTIAGO PRTNRS 120 0 0 Other Active Production 2,3 SULY-OA4 1MI PROPERTIES/SANTIAGO PRTNRS 130 0 0 Inactive Production S 2,3 1WC-NWLEF JUNIOR WATER CO. 480 416 426 Other Active Production 2 1WC-NWTAD JUNIOR WATER CO. 614 361 587 Other Active Production 2 W-15825 KAREN STREET WATER CO. 100 0 0 Inactive Production 2 GKAW-FV2 KAWAGUCHI ENTERPRISES u LP 125 120 125 Other Active Production 2 MKAW-FV KAWAGUCHI ENTERPRISES u LP 225 185 225 Other Active Production S 2 KAYO -GG KAYANO FARMS 0 0 0 Inactive Production 2,3 GARD-A KINDRED COMMUNITY CHURCH 35 0 0 Other Active Production 2,3 KINGK-CE2 KING KELLY MARMILADE CO. INC. 0 0 0 Other Active Production 2 W-18116 KLEINFELDER & ASSOCIATES 250 238 248 Monitoring 1 W-18118 KLEINFELDER & ASSOCIATES 187 176 186 Monitoring 1 W-18120 KLEINFELDER & ASSOCIATES 255 1 243 253 Monitoring 1 KNOT -BP KNOTT'S BERRY FARM 447 0 0 Other Active Production 2,3 KNOT-BPBS KNOTT'S BERRY FARM 730 430 630 Active Small Production P 2,7 W-14871 KOLL REAL ESTATE 600 0 0 Inactive Production 2,3 LH -2A LA HABRA 1000 460 950 Active Large Production 2 LH-FS192 LA HABRA 1403 880 1210 Inactive Production 2,10 LH-LBPW LA HABRA 1000 544 870 Active Large Production 2 LH-PPW LA HABRA 1290 1 770 990 Inactive Production 2 LMP -MW LA HABRA HEIGHTS WATER CO. 593 540 560 Monitoring 1 HALL -O LA LINDA LLC 280 0 0 Inactive Production 2 LP -CITY LA PALMA 1516 290 1415 Active Large Production P 2,7 LP -WALK LA PALMA 1020 489 919 Active Large Production P 2,7 LMA -I LAKES MASTER ASSOC. 0 0 0 Other Active Production 2,3 LW -10 LAKEWOOD 1148 448 471 Active Large Production 2 LW -13A LAKEWOOD 1120 1 620 940 Active Large Production 2 LW -15A LAKEWOOD 1050 470 1030 Active Large Production 2 LW -17 LAKEWOOD 1134 1064 1121 Active Large Production 2 LW -18 LAKEWOOD 1108 1041 1069 Active Large Production 2 LW -22 LAKEWOOD 1500 440 1060 Active Large Production 2 LW -27 LAKEWOOD 990 490 950 Active Large Production 2 LW -2A LAKEWOOD 656 612 637 Active Large Production 2 LW -4 LAKEWOOD 716 1 367 388 Active Large Production 2 LW -6 LAKEWOOD 602 224 306 Other Active Production 2,3 LW -8 LAKEWOOD 405 352 380 Active Small Production 2 W-17351 LAKEWOOD 0 0 0 Inactive Production 2 LWPC-LWP1 LAKEWOOD WATER & POWER CO. 870 488 835 Other Active Production 2 UBM-HB LIBERTY PARK WATER ASSOC. 160 0 0 Active Small Production 2,6,7 LMC-EW1 LOCKHEED MARTIN CORP. 62 40 60 Other Active Production 2 LMC-EW2 LOCKHEED MARTIN CORP. 62 40 60 Other Active Production 2 LMC-EW3 LOCKHEED MARTIN CORP. 90 58 78 Other Active Production 2 LB -1017 LONG BEACH 875 140 540 Other Active Production 2,3 LB -1017B LONG BEACH 675 0 0 Monitoring 1 LB-AL13 LONG BEACH 1030 559 902 Active Large Production 2 L3-AL8 LONG BEACH 982 515 978 Active Large Production 2 L3-AL9 LONG BEACH 1152 804 1130 1 Active Large Production 2 LB-AN201 LONG BEACH 854 507 838 Active Large Production 2 LB-AN204 LONG BEACH 1186 1124 1146 Other Active Production 2,3 LB-AN206 LONG BEACH 1170 300 471 Inactive Production 2 LB-AN26 LONG BEACH 610 364 590 Inactive Production 2 LB-CIT10 LONG BEACH 1020 300 988 Active Large Production 2 LB-CIT7A LONG BEACH 950 300 898 Active Large Production 2 7 List of Wells in OCWD Monitoring Programs KEY Aquifer Zone: S=Shallow Aquifer, P=Principal Aquifer, D= Deep Aquifer Program: 1) monitoring well, 2) production well, 3) irrigation or industrial well, 4) injection well, 5) Mid -Basin Injection well, 6) seawater intrusion monitoring well, 7) well monitored by OCWD for Title 22 compliance, 8) North Basin Groundwater Protection Program wells, 9) South Basin Groundwater Protection Program wells, 10) wells in CASGEM monitoring program Well Name Well Owner Bore Depth Casing (ft. bgs) Sequence Screened Interval (ft.bgs) Top Bottom Type of Well Aquifer Zone Program LB-CIT8 LONG BEACH 1516 310 1039 Active Small Production 2 LB-CIT9 LONG BEACH 850 300 808 Active Large Production 2 LB-COM10 LONG BEACH 900 540 685 Active Large Production 2 LB-COM13 LONG BEACH 1634 310 1539 Active Large Production 2 LB-COM14 LONG BEACH 1110 302 1072 Active Large Production 2 LB-COM15 LONG BEACH 1120 303 1008 Active Large Production 2 LB-COM16 LONG BEACH 1023 300 988 Active Large Production 2 LB-COM17 LONG BEACH 1030 300 988 Active Large Production 2 LB-COM18 LONG BEACH 0 303 988 Active Large Production 2 LB-COM19 LONG BEACH 1700 605 1640 Active Large Production 2 LB-COM20 LONG BEACH 1500 602 1240 Active Large Production 2 LB-COM21 LONG BEACH 1691 640 1370 Active Large Production 2 LB-COM22 LONG BEACH 1512 490 1160 Active Large Production 2 LB-COM23 LONG BEACH 1513 480 1020 Active Large Production 2 LB-COM24 LONG BEACH 1500 540 1411 Active Large Production 2 LB-COM25 LONG BEACH 1508 540 900 Active Large Production 2 LB-COM6A LONG BEACH 1012 412 980 Monitoring 1 LB-DEV1 LONG BEACH 1017 959 1017 Active Large Production 2 LB-DEV2 LONG BEACH 684 390 684 Inactive Production 2 LB-DEV4 LONG BEACH 1004 400 972 Inactive Production 2 LB-DEV5 LONG BEACH 1016 267 990 Active Large Production 2 LB-DEV9 LONG BEACH 1030 260 1030 Active Large Production 2 LB-NLB11 LONG BEACH 2000 412 1431 Active Large Production 2 LB-NLB12 LONG BEACH 1058 300 1000 Active Large Production 2 L3-NL34 LONG BEACH 1160 972 1142 Active Large Production 2 L3-NL38 LONG BEACH 1180 1 1050 1100 Active Large Production 2 L3-NL39 LONG BEACH 800 445 720 Active Large Production 2 L3-WIL1A LONG BEACH 1370 272 1351 Active Large Production 2 L3-WS1A LONG BEACH 1100 272 1078 Active Large Production 2 W-11412 LONG BEACH 639 458 630 Inactive Production 2,3 W-11460 LONG BEACH 994 0 0 Inactive Production 2 LART-CR2 LOS ALAMITOS RACE TRACT 0 0 0 Active Small Production 2,7 LAC-32LP8X LOS ANGELES COUNTY 120 105 115 Monitoring 1 LAC-32LP8Z LOS ANGELES COUNTY 945 325 335 Monitoring 1 LAC -32S9 LOS ANGELES COUNTY 885 189 199 Monitoring 1 LAC-32TP25 LOS ANGELES COUNTY 945 252 262 Monitoring 1 LAC -32U15 LOS ANGELES COUNTY 141 117 133 Monitoring 1 LAC -32V22 LOS ANGELES COUNTY 151 120 135 Monitoring 1 LAC-32VP10 LOS ANGELES COUNTY 210 145 180 Monitoring 1 LAC -32X11 LOS ANGELES COUNTY 196 135 165 Monitoring 1 LAC-32YP43 LOS ANGELES COUNTY 55 42 52 Monitoring 1 LAC-32ZP5 LOS ANGELES COUNTY 155 93 133 Monitoring 1 LAC -33D01 LOS ANGELES COUNTY 453 215 275 Monitoring 1 LAC -33D24 LOS ANGELES COUNTY 750 315 325 Monitoring 1 LAC-33DP22 LOS ANGELES COUNTY 825 210 220 Monitoring 1 LAC -33G LOS ANGELES COUNTY 119 43 103 Injection 4 LAC -33G36 LOS ANGELES COUNTY 525 338 348 Monitoring 1 LAC -33G9 LOS ANGELES COUNTY 147 120 140 Monitoring 1 LAC -33G1 LOS ANGELES COUNTY 140 52 115 Monitoring 1 LAC-33HP13 LOS ANGELES COUNTY 123 88 103 Monitoring 1 1 LAC -331 LOS ANGELES COUNTY 134 66 126 Injection 4 LAC -331L LOS ANGELES COUNTY 147 52 137 Monitoring 1 LAC-33KP42 LOS ANGELES COUNTY 86 63 73 Monitoring 1 LAC -33L LOS ANGELES COUNTY 144 56 136 Injection 4 LAC -331_23 LOS ANGELES COUNTY 405 349 359 Monitoring 1 LAC -331_30 LOS ANGELES COUNTY 73 50 65 Monitoring 1 LAC -33N LOS ANGELES COUNTY 164 58 148 Injection 4 LAC -331\121 LOS ANGELES COUNTY 497 460 485 Monitoring 1 LAC-33NQ LOS ANGELES COUNTY 177 60 160 Monitoring 1 LAC -33Q LOS ANGELES COUNTY 174 69 164 Injection 4 LAC -33Q1 LOS ANGELES COUNTY 58 28 44 Injection 4 LAC-33Q15V LOS ANGELES COUNTY 232 210 220 Monitoring 1 LAC-33Q15W LOS ANGELES COUNTY 296 273 283 Monitoring 1 LAC-33Q15X LOS ANGELES COUNTY 390 346 356 Monitoring 1 LAC -33Q9 LOS ANGELES COUNTY 223 115 145 Monitoring 1 LAC -33S LOS ANGELES COUNTY 207 73 194 Injection 4 LAC -3351 LOS ANGELES COUNTY 63 25 45 Injection 4 M List of Wells in OCWD Monitoring Programs KEY Aquifer Zone: S=Shallow Aquifer, P=Principal Aquifer, D= Deep Aquifer Program: 1) monitoring well, 2) production well, 3) irrigation or industrial well, 4) injection well, 5) Mid -Basin Injection well, 6) seawater intrusion monitoring well, 7) well monitored by OCWD for Title 22 compliance, 8) North Basin Groundwater Protection Program wells, 9) South Basin Groundwater Protection Program wells, 10) wells in CASGEM monitoring program Well Name Well Owner Bore Depth Casing (ft. bgs) Sequence Screened Interval (ft.bgs) Top Bottom Type of Well Aquifer Zone Program LAC-33S18U LOS ANGELES COUNTY 101 73 83 Monitoring 1 LAC-33S18V LOS ANGELES COUNTY 295 231 241 Monitoring 1 LAC-33S18W LOS ANGELES COUNTY 300 273 283 Monitoring 1 LAC-33S18X LOS ANGELES COUNTY 405 357 367 Monitoring 1 LAC -33S20 LOS ANGELES COUNTY 514 476 486 Monitoring 1 LAC -33S40 LOS ANGELES COUNTY 527 477 507 Monitoring 1 LAC -33543 LOS ANGELES COUNTY 615 341 362 Monitoring 1 LAC -33S52 LOS ANGELES COUNTY 393 290 350 Monitoring 1 LAC-33ST LOS ANGELES COUNTY 195 140 185 Monitoring 1 LAC -33T LOS ANGELES COUNTY 214 89 199 Injection 4 LAC -33T125 LOS ANGELES COUNTY 487 426 466 Monitoring 1 LAC-33T13U LOS ANGELES COUNTY 87 63 73 Monitoring 1 LAC-33T13V LOS ANGELES COUNTY 237 210 220 Monitoring 1 LAC-33T13W LOS ANGELES COUNTY 294 273 283 Monitoring 1 LAC-33T13X LOS ANGELES COUNTY 405 336 346 Monitoring 1 LAC -33T15 LOS ANGELES COUNTY 420 341 351 Monitoring 1 LAC-33T29U LOS ANGELES COUNTY 83 63 73 Monitoring 1 LAC-33T29X LOS ANGELES COUNTY 405 357 367 Monitoring 1 LAC-33T29Z LOS ANGELES COUNTY 1926 664 705 Monitoring 1 LAC -33T3 LOS ANGELES COUNTY 141 45 90 Monitoring 1 LAC -33T4 LOS ANGELES COUNTY 330 281 306 Monitoring 1 LAC-33T9U LOS ANGELES COUNTY 50 25 40 Monitoring 1 LAC-33T9V LOS ANGELES COUNTY 190 133 158 Monitoring 1 LAC-33T9W LOS ANGELES COUNTY 200 179 189 Monitoring 1 LAC-33T9X LOS ANGELES COUNTY 885 273 283 Monitoring 1 LAC-33T9Y LOS ANGELES COUNTY 400 378 388 Monitoring 1 LAC-33TP13U LOS ANGELES COUNTY 79 46 66 Monitoring 1 LAC-33TP24U LOS ANGELES COUNTY 55 30 43 Monitoring 1 LAC-33TP24Y LOS ANGELES COUNTY 109 63 88 Monitoring 1 LAC -33U LOS ANGELES COUNTY 254 98 238 Injection 4 LAC-33U11V LOS ANGELES COUNTY 210 194 204 Monitoring 1 LAC-33U11W LOS ANGELES COUNTY 295 273 283 Monitoring 1 LAC-33U11X LOS ANGELES COUNTY 405 357 367 Monitoring 1 LAC -33U3 LOS ANGELES COUNTY 143 70 125 Injection 4 LAC-33UP05 LOS ANGELES COUNTY 83 63 73 Monitoring 1 LAC-33UP34 LOS ANGELES COUNTY 61 53 60 Monitoring 1 LAC-33UP3X LOS ANGELES COUNTY 120 94 105 Monitoring 1 LAC-33UP3Y LOS ANGELES COUNTY 169 151 161 Monitoring 1 LAC-33UP3Z LOS ANGELES COUNTY 1720 378 399 Monitoring 1 LAC-33UV LOS ANGELES COUNTY 308 213 262 Monitoring 1 LAC -33V LOS ANGELES COUNTY 294 119 269 Injection 4 LAC-33VP14U1 LOS ANGELES COUNTY 27 23 27 Monitoring 1 LAC-33VP14U2 LOS ANGELES COUNTY 84 79 83 Monitoring 1 LAC-33VP14U3 LOS ANGELES COUNTY 50 40 50 Monitoring 1 1 LAC-33VP15P LOS ANGELES COUNTY 100 57 1 82 Other Active Production 2 LAC-33VP22Z1 LOS ANGELES COUNTY 150 127 137 Monitoring 1 LAC-33VP22Z2 LOS ANGELES COUNTY 780 255 265 Monitoring 1 LAC-33VP46 LOS ANGELES COUNTY 80 61 71 Monitoring 1 LAC-33VP8 LOS ANGELES COUNTY 163 105 145 Monitoring 1 LAC -33W LOS ANGELES COUNTY 420 120 390 Injection 4 LAC -33W11 LOS ANGELES COUNTY 508 427 482 Monitoring 1,6 LAC -33W54 LOS ANGELES COUNTY 83 40 70 Monitoring 1 LAC-33WP14 LOS ANGELES COUNTY 108 57 87 Monitoring 1 LAC-33WP17 LOS ANGELES COUNTY 78 45 65 Monitoring 1 LAC-33WX LOS ANGELES COUNTY 448 379 423 Monitoring 1 LAC-33WXU LOS ANGELES COUNTY 74 45 60 Monitoring 1 LAC -33X LOS ANGELES COUNTY 452 170 430 Injection 4 LAC -33X10 LOS ANGELES COUNTY 517 425 475 Monitoring 1,6 LAC-33X20U LOS ANGELES COUNTY 110 85 95 Monitoring 1,6 LAC-33X20W LOS ANGELES COUNTY 325 294 304 Monitoring 1,6 LAC-33X20X LOS ANGELES COUNTY 415 377 387 Monitoring 1,6 LAC-33X20Y LOS ANGELES COUNTY 645 483 493 Monitoring 1,6 LAC-33XY LOS ANGELES COUNTY 475 409 1 451 Monitoring 1 LAC -33Y LOS ANGELES COUNTY 1 475 218 1 457 Injection 4 LAC -33Y10 LOS ANGELES COUNTY 1 125 75 1 115 Monitoring 1,6 LAC-33Y42U LOS ANGELES COUNTY 1 105 89 1 95 Monitoring 1,6 LAC-33Y42X LOS ANGELES COUNTY 1 660 362 1 372 Monitoring 1,6 I List of Wells in OCWD Monitoring Programs KEY Aquifer Zone: S=Shallow Aquifer, P=Principal Aquifer, D= Deep Aquifer Program: 1) monitoring well, 2) production well, 3) irrigation or industrial well, 4) injection well, 5) Mid -Basin Injection well, 6) seawater intrusion monitoring well, 7) well monitored by OCWD for Title 22 compliance, 8) North Basin Groundwater Protection Program wells, 9) South Basin Groundwater Protection Program wells, 10) wells in CASGEM monitoring program Well Name Well Owner Bore Depth Casing (ft. bgs) Sequence Screened Interval (ft.bgs) Top Bottom Type of Well Aquifer Zone Program LAC-33YP35 LOS ANGELES COUNTY 103 73 83 Monitoring 1 LAC-33YZ LOS ANGELES COUNTY 467 408 451 Monitoring 1 LAC -33Z LOS ANGELES COUNTY 484 206 461 Injection 4 LAC -33Z2 LOS ANGELES COUNTY 499 310 444 Injection 4 LAC-33ZPlT LOS ANGELES COUNTY 146 116 135 Monitoring 1 LAC-33ZPlU LOS ANGELES COUNTY 90 62 85 Monitoring 1 LAC-33ZPlX LOS ANGELES COUNTY 360 336 346 Monitoring 1 LAC -34D LOS ANGELES COUNTY 494 219 474 Injection 4 LAC -34D01 LOS ANGELES COUNTY 83 73 83 Monitoring 1 LAC-34DG LOS ANGELES COUNTY 477 405 450 Monitoring 1,6 LAC-34DP6 LOS ANGELES COUNTY 477 415 445 Monitoring 1 LAC-34EP13 LOS ANGELES COUNTY 363 305 335 Monitoring 1 LAC-34EP23 LOS ANGELES COUNTY 108 48 88 Monitoring 1 LAC-34EP48 LOS ANGELES COUNTY 735 255 265 Monitoring 1 LAC-34EV LOS ANGELES COUNTY 288 145 250 Injection 4 LAC-34EY LOS ANGELES COUNTY 488 410 455 Injection 4 LAC -34F LOS ANGELES COUNTY 487 410 450 Injection 4 LAC-34F5T LOS ANGELES COUNTY 185 140 170 Monitoring 1,6 LAC-34F5V LOS ANGELES COUNTY 242 195 225 Monitoring 1 LAC-34F5W LOS ANGELES COUNTY 288 235 275 Monitoring 1 LAC-34F5X LOS ANGELES COUNTY 372 300 360 Monitoring 1 LAC-34F5Y LOS ANGELES COUNTY 482 415 455 Monitoring 1 LAC-34FP13V LOS ANGELES COUNTY 120 95 105 Monitoring 1 LAC-34FP13X LOS ANGELES COUNTY 315 193 203 Monitoring 1 LAC-34FP40 LOS ANGELES COUNTY 68 45 55 Monitoring 1 LAC-34FX LOS ANGELES COUNTY 489 410 450 Injection 4 LAC -34G LOS ANGELES COUNTY 475 285 350 Injection 4 LAC-34G2V LOS ANGELES COUNTY 280 140 250 Injection 4 LAC-34G2Y LOS ANGELES COUNTY 489 405 445 Injection 4 LAC-34GH LOS ANGELES COUNTY 479 415 455 Monitoring 1,6 LAC -34H LOS ANGELES COUNTY 490 405 445 Injection 4 LAC-34HJX LOS ANGELES COUNTY 368 315 345 Monitoring 1 LAC-34HJY LOS ANGELES COUNTY 503 410 440 Monitoring 1,6 LAC-34HP17 LOS ANGELES COUNTY 90 55 75 Monitoring 1 LAC-34HP17P LOS ANGELES COUNTY 95 51 76 Other Active Production 2 LAC-34HP18P LOS ANGELES COUNTY 206 145 175 Other Active Production 2 LAC -341 LOS ANGELES COUNTY 456 270 315 Injection 4 LAC -341L LOS ANGELES COUNTY 440 385 420 Monitoring 1,6 LAC -341P12 LOS ANGELES COUNTY 109 43 93 Monitoring 1 LAC -34L LOS ANGELES COUNTY 420 146 400 Injection 4 LAC-34LPlU LOS ANGELES COUNTY 88 67 77 Monitoring 1 1 LAC-34LPlV LOS ANGELES COUNTY 210 166 176 1 Monitoring 1 LAC-34LPlZ LOS ANGELES COUNTY 900 1 609 619 Monitoring 1 LAC-34NP16 LOS ANGELES COUNTY 0 41 71 Monitoring 1 LAC-34QP22 LOS ANGELES COUNTY 91 55 80 Monitoring 1 LAC-34SP22P LOS ANGELES COUNTY 95 52 77 Other Active Production 2 LAC-34VP18 LOS ANGELES COUNTY 85 48 73 Monitoring 1 LAC-35SP24U LOS ANGELES COUNTY 83 59 69 Monitoring 1 1 LAC-35SP24Z1 LOS ANGELES COUNTY 180 157 167 Monitoring 1 LAC-35SP24Z2 LOS ANGELES COUNTY 825 1 210 220 Monitoring 1 LAC-35VP32Z1 LOS ANGELES COUNTY 213 189 199 Monitoring 1 LAC-35VP32Z2 LOS ANGELES COUNTY 855 483 493 Monitoring 1 LAC-36WP80 LOS ANGELES COUNTY 870 293 303 Monitoring 1 LAC-PZ1 LOS ANGELES COUNTY 16 10 16 Monitoring 1 LAC-PZ2 LOS ANGELES COUNTY 14 0 0 Monitoring 1 LAC-PZ3 LOS ANGELES COUNTY 16 0 0 Monitoring 1 LAC-PZ4 LOS ANGELES COUNTY 25 14 22 Monitoring 1 LAC-PZ5 LOS ANGELES COUNTY 64 33 49 Monitoring 1 LXMS-A LYON CHRISTMAS TREE FARMS 240 0 0 Inactive Production 2,3 MAGM-GG MAGNOLIA MEMORIAL PARK 168 0 0 Other Active Production 2,3 MNEE-A MALLONEE 400 0 0 Inactive Production 2,3 HMW -01 MANHEIM CA (COX ENTERPRISES) 75 55 75 Monitoring 5 1 HMW -02 MANHEIM CA (COX ENTERPRISES) 72 52 72 Monitoring I1 HMW -03 MANHEIM CA (COX ENTERPRISES) 50 30 1 50 Monitoring 1 HMW -04 MANHEIM CA (COX ENTERPRISES) 47 27 47 Monitoring 1 W-3789 MARDEN SUSCO PIPE SUPPLY CO. 0 0 0 Inactive Production 2 USMC-01MW101 MARINE CORPS AIR STATION 159 118 148 Monitoring 1 10 List of Wells in OCWD Monitoring Programs KEY Aquifer Zone: S=Shallow Aquifer, P=Principal Aquifer, D= Deep Aquifer Program: 1) monitoring well, 2) production well, 3) irrigation or industrial well, 4) injection well, 5) Mid -Basin Injection well, 6) seawater intrusion monitoring well, 7) well monitored by OCWD for Title 22 compliance, 8) North Basin Groundwater Protection Program wells, 9) South Basin Groundwater Protection Program wells, 10) wells in CASGEM monitoring program Well Name Well Owner Bore Depth Casing (ft. bgs) Sequence Screened Interval (ft.bgs) Top Bottom Type of Well Aquifer Zone Program USMC-01MW102 MARINE CORPS AIR STATION 142 95 135 Monitoring 1 USMC-01MW201 MARINE CORPS AIR STATION 77 27 57 Monitoring 1 USMC-02NEW01 MARINE CORPS AIR STATION 143 115 135 Monitoring 1 USMC-02NEW07 MARINE CORPS AIR STATION 150 103 143 Monitoring 1 USMC-02NEW11 MARINE CORPS AIR STATION 81 45 65 Monitoring 1 USMC-02NEW12 MARINE CORPS AIR STATION 256 209 249 Monitoring 1 USMC-02NEW13 MARINE CORPS AIR STATION 107 60 100 Monitoring 1 USMC-02NEW14 MARINE CORPS AIR STATION 111 40 105 Monitoring 1 USMC-02NEW15 MARINE CORPS AIR STATION 70 25 65 Monitoring 1 USMC-02NEW16 MARINE CORPS AIR STATION 70 25 65 Monitoring 1 USMC-02NEW2 MARINE CORPS AIR STATION 105 75 95 Monitoring 1 USMC-02NEW8A MARINE CORPS AIR STATION 111 84 104 Monitoring 1 USMC-02UGMW25 MARINE CORPS AIR STATION 84 55 75 Monitoring 1 USMC-05NEW1 MARINE CORPS AIR STATION 210 163 203 Monitoring 1 USMC-16MPE1 MARINE CORPS AIR STATION 194 146 191 Monitoring 1 USMC-16MW1 MARINE CORPS AIR STATION 183 155 180 Monitoring 1 USMC-16MW10 MARINE CORPS AIR STATION 199 165 195 Monitoring 1 USMC-16MW11 MARINE CORPS AIR STATION 182 160 180 Monitoring S 1 USMC-16MW12 MARINE CORPS AIR STATION 180 160 180 Monitoring 1 USMC-16MW13 MARINE CORPS AIR STATION 181 160 180 Monitoring 1 USMC-16MW14 MARINE CORPS AIR STATION 199 185 195 Monitoring 1 USMC-16MW15 MARINE CORPS AIR STATION 182 160 180 Monitoring 1 USMC-16MW16 MARINE CORPS AIR STATION 201 190 200 Monitoring 1 USMC-16MW2 MARINE CORPS AIR STATION 185 153 178 Monitoring S 1 USMC-16MW3 MARINE CORPS AIR STATION 185 158 183 Monitoring 1 USMC-16MW4 MARINE CORPS AIR STATION 196 155 190 Monitoring 1 USMC-16MW5 MARINE CORPS AIR STATION 196 155 190 Monitoring 1 USMC-16MW7 MARINE CORPS AIR STATION 194 145 190 Monitoring 1 USMC-16MW8 MARINE CORPS AIR STATION 189 165 183 1 Monitoring 1 USMC-16MW9 MARINE CORPS AIR STATION 187 165 183 Monitoring 1 USMC-17NEW1 MARINE CORPS AIR STATION 233 186 226 Monitoring 1 USMC-17NEW2 MARINE CORPS AIR STATION 131 83 123 Monitoring 1 USMC-24EX10 MARINE CORPS AIR STATION 165 115 160 Monitoring 1 USMC-24EX11 MARINE CORPS AIR STATION 222 135 180 Monitoring 1 USMC-24EX12A MARINE CORPS AIR STATION 252 115 160 Monitoring 1 USMC-24EX12B MARINE CORPS AIR STATION 225 165 210 Monitoring 1 USMC-24EX12C MARINE CORPS AIR STATION 272 220 260 Monitoring 1 USMC-24EX13A MARINE CORPS AIR STATION 172 110 160 Monitoring 1 USMC-24EX13B MARINE CORPS AIR STATION 213 165 205 Monitoring 1 USMC-24EX13C MARINE CORPS AIR STATION 282 230 270 Monitoring 1 USMC-24EX14 MARINE CORPS AIR STATION 195 115 185 Monitoring 1 USMC-24EX2 MARINE CORPS AIR STATION 215 109 209 Other Active Production 2 USMC-24EX20B MARINE CORPS AIR STATION 210 107 205 Other Active Production 2 USMC-24EX3 MARINE CORPS AIR STATION 186 0 0 Monitoring 1 USMC-24EX30B1 MARINE CORPS AIR STATION 158 105 150 Monitoring 1 USMC-24EX30B2 MARINE CORPS AIR STATION 156 105 150 Monitoring 1 USMC-24EX30B3 MARINE CORPS AIR STATION 182 170 175 Monitoring 1 USMC-24EX4 MARINE CORPS AIR STATION 195 104 190 Other Active Production 2 USMC-24EX40B2 MARINE CORPS AIR STATION 156 106 106 Monitoring 1 USMC-24EX5 MARINE CORPS AIR STATION 160 1 104 154 Other Active Production 2 USMC-24EX50B1 MARINE CORPS AIR STATION 156 105 150 Monitoring 1 USMC-24EX50B2 MARINE CORPS AIR STATION 156 105 150 Monitoring 1 USMC-24EX6 MARINE CORPS AIR STATION 178 0 0 Monitoring 1 USMC-24EX60B1 MARINE CORPS AIR STATION 160 106 151 Monitoring 1 USMC-24EX60B2 MARINE CORPS AIR STATION 158 105 150 Monitoring 1 USMC-24EX60B3 MARINE CORPS AIR STATION 225 218 223 Monitoring 1 USMC-24EX9 MARINE CORPS AIR STATION 214 120 200 Monitoring 1 USMC-241NO3 MARINE CORPS AIR STATION 169 91 160 Injection 4 USMC-2411\120131 MARINE CORPS AIR STATION 300 194 271 Injection 4 USMC-24MW10AB MARINE CORPS AIR STATION 143 130 140 Monitoring S 1 USMC-24MW10CD MARINE CORPS AIR STATION 245 230 240 Monitoring 1 USMC-24MW11AB MARINE CORPS AIR STATION 145 130 140 Monitoring S 1 USMC-24MW11CD MARINE CORPS AIR STATION 240 1 210 220 Monitoring 1 USMC-24MW12AB MARINE CORPS AIR STATION 140 1 127 1 137 1 Monitoring S 1 USMC-24MW12CD MARINE CORPS AIR STATION 231 203 213 Monitoring 1 USMC-24MW13AB MARINE CORPS AIR STATION 124 111 121 Monitoring S 1 USMC-24MW13CD MARINE CORPS AIR STATION 228 212 222 Monitoring 1 11 List of Wells in OCWD Monitoring Programs KEY Aquifer Zone: S=Shallow Aquifer, P=Principal Aquifer, D= Deep Aquifer Program: 1) monitoring well, 2) production well, 3) irrigation or industrial well, 4) injection well, 5) Mid -Basin Injection well, 6) seawater intrusion monitoring well, 7) well monitored by OCWD for Title 22 compliance, 8) North Basin Groundwater Protection Program wells, 9) South Basin Groundwater Protection Program wells, 10) wells in CASGEM monitoring program Well Name Well Owner Bore Depth Casing (ft. bgs) Sequence Screened Interval (ft.bgs) Top Bottom Type of Well Aquifer Zone Program USMC-24MW14AB MARINE CORPS AIR STATION 129 115 125 Monitoring S 1 USMC-24MW14CD MARINE CORPS AIR STATION 223 211 221 Monitoring 1 USMC-24MW15AB MARINE CORPS AIR STATION 137 125 135 Monitoring S 1 USMC-24MW15CD MARINE CORPS AIR STATION 236 220 230 Monitoring 1 USMC-24MW16 MARINE CORPS AIR STATION 340 80 300 Multiport Monitoring 1 USMC-24MW17 MARINE CORPS AIR STATION 340 75 310 Multiport Monitoring 1 USMC-24MW5 MARINE CORPS AIR STATION 181 140 168 Monitoring 1 USMC-24MW6 MARINE CORPS AIR STATION 195 170 190 Monitoring 1 USMC-24MW7 MARINE CORPS AIR STATION 208 120 200 Monitoring 1 USMC-24MW8 MARINE CORPS AIR STATION 380 105 350 Multiport Monitoring 1 USMC-24MW9AB MARINE CORPS AIR STATION 151 140 150 Monitoring S 1 USMC-24MW9CD MARINE CORPS AIR STATION 243 230 240 Monitoring 1 USMC-24NEW1 MARINE CORPS AIR STATION 260 225 245 Monitoring 1 USMC-24NEW4 MARINE CORPS AIR STATION 160 108 148 Monitoring S 1 USMC-24NEW5 MARINE CORPS AIR STATION 262 230 250 Monitoring 1 USMC-24NEW6 MARINE CORPS AIR STATION 193 165 185 Monitoring 1 USMC-24NEW7 MARINE CORPS AIR STATION 174 118 158 Monitoring 1 USMC-24NEW8 MARINE CORPS AIR STATION 170 122 162 Monitoring S 1 USMC-DW135 MARINE CORPS AIR STATION 135 115 135 Monitoring S 1 USMC-DW250 MARINE CORPS AIR STATION 254 215 250 Monitoring 1 USMC-DW350 MARINE CORPS AIR STATION 353 310 350 Monitoring 1 USMC-DW450 MARINE CORPS AIR STATION 454 414 450 Monitoring 1 USMC-DW540 MARINE CORPS AIR STATION 541 490 540 Monitoring 1 USMC-MP06 MARINE CORPS AIR STATION 500 105 455 Multiport Monitoring 1 USMC-MP08 MARINE CORPS AIR STATION 500 61 449 Multiport Monitoring 1 USMC-MP09 MARINE CORPS AIR STATION 500 1 59 463 Multiport Monitoring 1 USMC-MP10 MARINE CORPS AIR STATION 1202 218 1011 Multiport Monitoring 1 USMC-MW01A MARINE CORPS AIR STATION 500 466 486 Monitoring 1 USMC-MW01B MARINE CORPS AIR STATION 421 396 416 1 Monitoring 1 USMC-MW01C MARINE CORPS AIR STATION 358 330 350 Monitoring 1 USMC-MW01D MARINE CORPS AIR STATION 270 242 262 Monitoring 1 USMC-MW01E MARINE CORPS AIR STATION 233 205 225 Monitoring 1 USMC-MW02A MARINE CORPS AIR STATION 500 462 482 Monitoring 1 USMC-MW02C MARINE CORPS AIR STATION 386 358 378 Monitoring 1 USMC-MW02D MARINE CORPS AIR STATION 319 294 314 Monitoring 1 USMC-MW02E MARINE CORPS AIR STATION 253 198 233 Monitoring 1 USMC-MW03A MARINE CORPS AIR STATION 471 370 390 Monitoring 1 USMC-MW03B MARINE CORPS AIR STATION 310 280 300 Monitoring 1 USMC-MW03C MARINE CORPS AIR STATION 250 222 242 Monitoring 1 USMC-MW03E MARINE CORPS AIR STATION 172 124 164 Monitoring 5 1 1 USMC-MW04A MARINE CORPS AIR STATION 421 286 306 Monitoring 1 USMC-MW04B MARINE CORPS AIR STATION 421 190 210 Monitoring 1 USMC-MW05A MARINE CORPS AIR STATION 500 462 482 Monitoring 1 USMC-MW05B MARINE CORPS AIR STATION 364 321 341 Monitoring 1 USMC-MW05C MARINE CORPS AIR STATION 500 225 245 Monitoring 1 USMC-MW05D MARINE CORPS AIR STATION 147 83 133 Monitoring 1 USMC-MW05E MARINE CORPS AIR STATION 160 80 130 Monitoring 1 1 USMC-MW07 MARINE CORPS AIR STATION 90 25 65 Monitoring 1 USMC-MW100 MARINE CORPS AIR STATION 179 131 171 Monitoring 1 USMC-MW100A MARINE CORPS AIR STATION 138 93 132 Monitoring 1 USMC-MW101 MARINE CORPS AIR STATION 140 90 130 Monitoring 1 USMC-MW101A MARINE CORPS AIR STATION 105 68 98 Monitoring 1 USMC-MW103 MARINE CORPS AIR STATION 499 395 495 Monitoring 1 USMC-MW19A MARINE CORPS AIR STATION 500 1 448 468 1 Monitoring 1 1 USMC-MW19B MARINE CORPS AIR STATION 425 400 420 Monitoring 1 USMC-MW19C MARINE CORPS AIR STATION 500 257 277 Monitoring 1 USMC-MW19D MARINE CORPS AIR STATION 500 150 170 Monitoring S 1 USMC-MW19E MARINE CORPS AIR STATION 148 98 138 Monitoring 1 USMC-MW23 MARINE CORPS AIR STATION 115 64 104 Monitoring S 1 USMC-MW24 MARINE CORPS AIR STATION 80 51 71 Monitoring 1 USMC-MW25 MARINE CORPS AIR STATION 84 1 55 75 1 Monitoring 1 1 USMC-MW29 MARINE CORPS AIR STATION 120 95 135 Monitoring 1 USMC-MW29A MARINE CORPS AIR STATION 115 75 100 Monitoring 1 USMC-MW31 MARINE CORPS AIR STATION 153 105 145 Monitoring S 1 USMC-MW37 MARINE CORPS AIR STATION 137 89 130 Monitoring 1 USMC-MW39 MARINE CORPS AIR STATION 276 230 270 Monitoring 1 USMC-MW398-01 MARINE CORPS AIR STATION 231 198 228 Monitoring 1 12 List of Wells in OCWD Monitoring Programs KEY Aquifer Zone: S=Shallow Aquifer, P=Principal Aquifer, D= Deep Aquifer Program: 1) monitoring well, 2) production well, 3) irrigation or industrial well, 4) injection well, 5) Mid -Basin Injection well, 6) seawater intrusion monitoring well, 7) well monitored by OCWD for Title 22 compliance, 8) North Basin Groundwater Protection Program wells, 9) South Basin Groundwater Protection Program wells, 10) wells in CASGEM monitoring program Well Name Well Owner Bore Depth Casing (ft. bgs) Sequence Screened Interval (ft.bgs) Top Bottom Type of Well Aquifer Zone Program USMC-MW398-02 MARINE CORPS AIR STATION 231 199 229 Monitoring 1 USMC-MW398-03 MARINE CORPS AIR STATION 242 208 238 Monitoring 1 USMC-MW398-04 MARINE CORPS AIR STATION 232 201 231 Monitoring 1 USMC-MW398-05 MARINE CORPS AIR STATION 230 197 227 Monitoring 1 USMC-MW398-06 MARINE CORPS AIR STATION 228 196 226 Monitoring 1 USMC-MW398-08 MARINE CORPS AIR STATION 233 200 230 Monitoring 1 USMC-MW398-09 MARINE CORPS AIR STATION 242 190 240 Monitoring 1 USMC-MW398-10 MARINE CORPS AIR STATION 260 200 250 Monitoring 1 USMC-MW398-11 MARINE CORPS AIR STATION 267 200 250 Monitoring 1 USMC-MW398-12 MARINE CORPS AIR STATION 7 190 240 Monitoring 1 USMC-MW398-13 MARINE CORPS AIR STATION 245 193 243 Monitoring 1 USMC-MW398-13D MARINE CORPS AIR STATION 301 251 301 Monitoring 1 USMC-MW398-14 MARINE CORPS AIR STATION 242 192 242 Monitoring 1 USMC-MW398-15 MARINE CORPS AIR STATION 249 199 249 Monitoring 1 USMC-MW398-16 MARINE CORPS AIR STATION 247 194 244 Monitoring 1 USMC-MW398-17 MARINE CORPS AIR STATION 241 189 239 Monitoring 1 USMC-MW398-18 MARINE CORPS AIR STATION 267 194 244 Monitoring 1 USMC-MW398-19 MARINE CORPS AIR STATION 252 202 252 Monitoring 1 USMC-MW398-20 MARINE CORPS AIR STATION 253 201 251 Monitoring 1 USMC-MW398-21 MARINE CORPS AIR STATION 254 193 243 Monitoring 1 USMC-MW398-22 MARINE CORPS AIR STATION 162 120 160 Monitoring 1 USMC-MW398-23 MARINE CORPS AIR STATION 160 120 160 Monitoring 1 USMC-MW398-24 MARINE CORPS AIR STATION 162 120 160 Monitoring 1 USMC-MW398-25 MARINE CORPS AIR STATION 254 201 251 Monitoring 1 USMC-MW398-26 MARINE CORPS AIR STATION 253 202 252 Monitoring 1 USMC-MW398-27 MARINE CORPS AIR STATION 0 202 252 Monitoring 1 USMC-MW40 MARINE CORPS AIR STATION 275 220 260 Monitoring 1 USMC-MW41 MARINE CORPS AIR STATION 228 182 222 Monitoring 1 USMC-MW41A MARINE CORPS AIR STATION 194 145 185 1 Monitoring 1 USMC-MW43 MARINE CORPS AIR STATION 200 150 190 Monitoring 1 USMC-MW43B MARINE CORPS AIR STATION 143 100 141 Monitoring 1 USMC-MW45 MARINE CORPS AIR STATION 169 117 157 Monitoring 1 USMC-MW47 MARINE CORPS AIR STATION 169 116 156 Monitoring 1 USMC-MW48 MARINE CORPS AIR STATION 140 95 135 Monitoring 1 USMC-MW48A MARINE CORPS AIR STATION 111 74 104 Monitoring 1 USMC-MW50 MARINE CORPS AIR STATION 168 120 160 Monitoring 1 USMC-MW51 MARINE CORPS AIR STATION 172 125 165 Monitoring 1 USMC-MW52 MARINE CORPS AIR STATION 228 182 222 Monitoring 1 USMC-MW56 MARINE CORPS AIR STATION 140 92 132 Monitoring 1 USMC-MW57 MARINE CORPS AIR STATION 93 63 83 Monitoring 1 USMC-MW58 MARINE CORPS AIR STATION 86 69 89 Monitoring 1 USMC-MW59 MARINE CORPS AIR STATION 99 69 89 Monitoring 1 USMC-MW63 MARINE CORPS AIR STATION 281 235 237 Monitoring 1 USMC-MW64 MARINE CORPS AIR STATION 294 245 285 Monitoring 1 USMC-MW64A MARINE CORPS AIR STATION 255 210 250 Monitoring 1 USMC-MW65X MARINE CORPS AIR STATION 279 230 270 Monitoring 1 USMC-MW65XA MARINE CORPS AIR STATION 249 201 236 Monitoring 1 USMC-MW66 MARINE CORPS AIR STATION 305 250 290 Monitoring 1 USMC-MW66A MARINE CORPS AIR STATION 235 190 230 Monitoring 1 USMC-MW67 MARINE CORPS AIR STATION 245 187 227 Monitoring 1 1 USMC-MW67A MARINE CORPS AIR STATION 195 150 190 Monitoring 1 USMC-MW68 MARINE CORPS AIR STATION 308 190 210 Monitoring 1 USMC-MW68A MARINE CORPS AIR STATION 194 147 187 Monitoring 1 USMC-MW70 MARINE CORPS AIR STATION 172 125 165 Monitoring 1 USMC-MW71 MARINE CORPS AIR STATION 163 115 155 Monitoring 1 USMC-MW72 MARINE CORPS AIR STATION 159 90 130 Monitoring 1 USMC-MW73 MARINE CORPS AIR STATION 140 90 130 1 Monitoring 1 USMC-MW74 MARINE CORPS AIR STATION 140 90 130 Monitoring 1 USMC-MW75 MARINE CORPS AIR STATION 150 114 154 Monitoring 1 USMC-MW77 MARINE CORPS AIR STATION 145 150 170 Monitoring 5 1 USMC-MW79 MARINE CORPS AIR STATION 166 118 158 Monitoring 1 USMC-MW81 MARINE CORPS AIR STATION 223 176 216 Monitoring 1 USMC-MW82 MARINE CORPS AIR STATION 270 235 255 Monitoring 1 USMC-MW90 MARINE CORPS AIR STATION 145 95 135 1 Monitoring 1 USMC-MW91 MARINE CORPS AIR STATION 160 110 150 Monitoring 1 USMC-PSl MARINE CORPS AIR STATION 123 102 122 1 Monitoring 1 USMC-PS2 MARINE CORPS AIR STATION 135 103 133 1 Monitoring 1 13 List of Wells in OCWD Monitoring Programs KEY Aquifer Zone: S=Shallow Aquifer, P=Principal Aquifer, D= Deep Aquifer Program: 1) monitoring well, 2) production well, 3) irrigation or industrial well, 4) injection well, 5) Mid -Basin Injection well, 6) seawater intrusion monitoring well, 7) well monitored by OCWD for Title 22 compliance, 8) North Basin Groundwater Protection Program wells, 9) South Basin Groundwater Protection Program wells, 10) wells in CASGEM monitoring program Well Name Well Owner Bore Depth Casing (ft. bgs) Sequence Screened Interval (ft.bgs) Top Bottom Type of Well Aquifer Zone Program USMC-PS3 MARINE CORPS AIR STATION 123 102 122 Monitoring 1 USMC-PS3A MARINE CORPS AIR STATION 111 70 105 Monitoring 1 USMC-PS4 MARINE CORPS AIR STATION 123 98 118 Monitoring 1 USMC-PS5 MARINE CORPS AIR STATION 124 106 126 Monitoring S 1 USMC-PS6 MARINE CORPS AIR STATION 155 130 150 Monitoring 1 USMC-PS7 MARINE CORPS AIR STATION 129 106 126 Monitoring 1 USMC-PS8 MARINE CORPS AIR STATION 145 125 145 Monitoring S 1 USMC-RWl MARINE CORPS AIR STATION 504 430 470 Monitoring 1 USMC-RW2 MARINE CORPS AIR STATION 475 270 310 Monitoring 1 USMC-RW3 MARINE CORPS AIR STATION 403 370 390 Monitoring 1 USMC-RW4 MARINE CORPS AIR STATION 86 65 85 Monitoring 1 USMC-SGU1 MARINE CORPS AIR STATION 217 96 206 Other Active Production 2 USMC-SGU10 MARINE CORPS AIR STATION 230 99 199 Other Active Production 2 USMC-SGUll MARINE CORPS AIR STATION 231 106 216 Other Active Production 2 USMC-SGU12 MARINE CORPS AIR STATION 228 99 219 1 Other Active Production 2 USMC-SGU13 MARINE CORPS AIR STATION 228 98 218 Other Active Production 2 USMC-SGU14 MARINE CORPS AIR STATION 237 106 226 Other Active Production 2 USMC-SGU15 MARINE CORPS AIR STATION 229 99 219 Other Active Production 2 USMC-SGU16 MARINE CORPS AIR STATION 236 105 185 Other Active Production 2 USMC-SGU17 MARINE CORPS AIR STATION 236 105 180 Other Active Production 2 USMC-SGU18 MARINE CORPS AIR STATION 235 106 226 Other Active Production 2 USMC-SGU19 MARINE CORPS AIR STATION 246 111 231 Other Active Production 2 USMC-SGU2 MARINE CORPS AIR STATION 219 100 170 Other Active Production 2 USMC-SGU20 MARINE CORPS AIR STATION 239 111 231 Other Active Production 2 USMC-SGU21 MARINE CORPS AIR STATION 234 104 194 Other Active Production 2 USMC-SGU22 MARINE CORPS AIR STATION 227 99 219 Other Active Production 2 USMC-SGU23 MARINE CORPS AIR STATION 230 99 219 Other Active Production 2 USMC-SGU24 MARINE CORPS AIR STATION 234 99 1 224 Other Active Production 2 USMC-SGU25 MARINE CORPS AIR STATION 235 99 224 Other Active Production 2 USMC-SGU26 MARINE CORPS AIR STATION 235 160 225 Other Active Production 2 USMC-SGU27 MARINE CORPS AIR STATION 165 90 155 Other Active Production 2 USMC-SGU28 MARINE CORPS AIR STATION 220 146 211 Other Active Production 2 USMC-SGU29 MARINE CORPS AIR STATION 155 81 146 Other Active Production 2 USMC-SGU3 MARINE CORPS AIR STATION 225 99 114 Other Active Production 2 USMC-SGU30 MARINE CORPS AIR STATION 230 151 221 Other Active Production 2 USMC-SGU31 MARINE CORPS AIR STATION 149 70 140 Other Active Production 2 USMC-SGU32 MARINE CORPS AIR STATION 217 140 205 Other Active Production 2 USMC-SGU33 MARINE CORPS AIR STATION 154 1 70 145 Other Active Production 2 USMC-SGU34 MARINE CORPS AIR STATION 220 145 210 Other Active Production 2 USMC-SGU35 MARINE CORPS AIR STATION 155 75 145 Other Active Production 2 USMC-SGU36 MARINE CORPS AIR STATION 250 90 240 Other Active Production 2 USMC-SGU37 MARINE CORPS AIR STATION 250 90 240 Other Active Production 2 USMC-SGU38 MARINE CORPS AIR STATION 250 95 240 Other Active Production 2 USMC-SGU39 MARINE CORPS AIR STATION 200 90 190 Other Active Production 2 USMC-SGU4 MARINE CORPS AIR STATION 219 1 99 209 Other Active Production 2 USMC-SGU5 MARINE CORPS AIR STATION 215 96 206 Other Active Production 2 USMC-SGU6 MARINE CORPS AIR STATION 228 100 200 Other Active Production 2 USMC-SGU7 MARINE CORPS AIR STATION 230 104 224 Other Active Production 2 USMC-SGU8 MARINE CORPS AIR STATION 231 100 210 Other Active Production 2 USMC-SGU9 MARINE CORPS AIR STATION 228 98 218 Other Active Production 2 USMC-TF1MW1 MARINE CORPS AIR STATION 150 109 149 Monitoring 1 USMC-TF2MW1 MARINE CORPS AIR STATION 164 120 160 Monitoring 1 USMC-TF2MW4 MARINE CORPS AIR STATION 161 120 160 Monitoring 1 MSG-BP10L MCCOLL SITE GROUP 274 247 257 1 Monitoring S 1,10 MKSSN-SA MCKESSON WATER PRODUCTION. CO. 272 160 260 Other Active Production 2,3 W-2048 MEL MACK CO. 358 112 150 Inactive Production 2 ABBY -A MELROSE ABBEY FUNERAL CENTER 250 0 0 Other Active Production 2,3 MVCC-COSD1 MESA VERDE COUNTRY CLUB 200 0 0 Other Active Production 2,3,6 MVCC-COSD2 MESA VERDE COUNTRY CLUB 462 200 450 Other Active Production P 2,3,6 MVCC-COSD3 MESA VERDE COUNTRY CLUB 460 200 1 450 Other Active Production P 2,3,6 MCWD-11 MESA WATER DIST. 1060 330 1000 Active Large Production P 2,7 MCWD-113 MESA WATER DIST. 612 305 580 Active Large Production P 2,6,7 MCWD-2 MESA WATER DIST. 670 300 650 Monitoring P 1 MCWD-313 MESA WATER DIST. 610 242 572 Active Large Production P 2,6,7 MCWD-313M MESA WATER DIST. 1M880 920 Monitoring P 1,6 MCWD-5 MESA WATER DIST. 980 400 940 Active Large Production P 2,6,7 MCWD-6 MESA WATER DIST. 1093 310 1025 Active Large Production 1 P 2,6,7 14 List of Wells in OCWD Monitoring Programs KEY Aquifer Zone: S=Shallow Aquifer, P=Principal Aquifer, D= Deep Aquifer Program: 1) monitoring well, 2) production well, 3) irrigation or industrial well, 4) injection well, 5) Mid -Basin Injection well, 6) seawater intrusion monitoring well, 7) well monitored by OCWD for Title 22 compliance, 8) North Basin Groundwater Protection Program wells, 9) South Basin Groundwater Protection Program wells, 10) wells in CASGEM monitoring program Well Name Well Owner Bore Depth Casing (ft. bgs) Sequence Screened Interval (ft.bgs) Top Bottom Type of Well Aquifer Zone Program MCWD-7 MESA WATER DIST. 830 363 753 Active Large Production P 2,6,7 MCWD-8 MESA WATER DIST. 626 300 572 Inactive Production P 2,6,7 MCWD-8M MESA WATER DIST. 1000 870 880 Monitoring P 1,6 MCWD-9 MESA WATER DIST. 625 350 580 Active Large Production P 2,6,7 W-12133 METROPOLITAN WATER DIST. 400 0 0 Cathodic Protection 9 MIDC-2 MIDWAY CITY MUTUAL WATER CO. 420 228 420 Active Small Production 2,7 MISQ-FV MILE SQUARE PARK 300 0 0 Other Active Production 2,3 W-11192 MONITORINGTANA LAND CO. 981 870 916 Inactive Production 2 W-14809 MUTUAL WATER CO. 225 0 0 Inactive Production 2,3 W-14811 MUTUAL WATER CO. 265 0 0 Inactive Production 2,3 NATR-TWl NATURE CONSERVANCY 150 20 150 Other Active Production 2,3 NVLR-LAG1 NAVAL RECREATION STATION 546 478 524 Other Active Production 2,3 NVLR-LAH1 NAVAL RECREATION STATION 836 0 0 Other Active Production 2,3 NVLR-LAN1 NAVAL RECREATION STATION 634 580 620 Inactive Production 2,3 NVLW-4010 NAVAL WEAPONS STATION 59 45 55 Monitoring 1 NVLW-4012 NAVAL WEAPONS STATION 59 45 55 Monitoring 1 NVLW-4013 NAVAL WEAPONS STATION 58 45 55 Monitoring 1 NVLW-4014 NAVAL WEAPONS STATION 59 30 40 Monitoring 1 NVLW-4016 NAVAL WEAPONS STATION 58 42 52 Monitoring 1 NVLW-4018 NAVAL WEAPONS STATION 62 50 60 Monitoring 1 NVLW-4020 NAVAL WEAPONS STATION 62 50 60 Monitoring 1 NVLW-4021 NAVAL WEAPONS STATION 62 51 61 Monitoring 1 NVLW-7001 NAVAL WEAPONS STATION 33 20 30 Monitoring 1 NVLW-7002 NAVAL WEAPONS STATION 32 20 30 Monitoring 1 NVLW-7003 NAVAL WEAPONS STATION 32 20 30 Monitoring 1 NVLW-7004 NAVAL WEAPONS STATION 62 49 59 Monitoring 1 NVLW-7005 NAVAL WEAPONS STATION 62 50 60 Monitoring 1 NVLW-7006 NAVAL WEAPONS STATION 62 50 60 Monitoring 1 NVLW-7007 NAVAL WEAPONS STATION 62 50 60 Monitoring 1 NVLW-7008 NAVAL WEAPONS STATION 111 96 105 Monitoring S 1 NVLW-7009 NAVAL WEAPONS STATION 175 160 169 Monitoring 1 NVLW-7010 NAVAL WEAPONS STATION 41 30 40 Monitoring 1 NVLW-7011 NAVAL WEAPONS STATION 102 80 100 Monitoring S 1 NVLW-7012 NAVAL WEAPONS STATION 115 1 100 110 Monitoring 1 NVLW-7013 NAVAL WEAPONS STATION 108 95 105 Monitoring S 1 NVLW-7014 NAVAL WEAPONS STATION 187 160 170 Monitoring 1 NVLW-7015 NAVAL WEAPONS STATION 179 161 170 Monitoring 1 NVLW-7016 NAVAL WEAPONS STATION 110 95 105 Monitoring S 1 NVLW-7017 NAVAL WEAPONS STATION 42 30 40 Monitoring 1 NVLW-7018 NAVAL WEAPONS STATION 102 80 100 Monitoring S 1 NVLW-7019 NAVAL WEAPONS STATION 42 1 30 40 Monitoring 1 NVLW-7020 NAVAL WEAPONS STATION 0 19 29 Monitoring 1 NVLW-7021 NAVAL WEAPONS STATION 172 150 170 Monitoring 1 NVLW-7022 NAVAL WEAPONS STATION 32 20 30 Monitoring 1 NVLW-7023 NAVAL WEAPONS STATION 132 110 130 Monitoring 1 NVLW-7024 NAVAL WEAPONS STATION 27 15 25 Monitoring 1 NVLW-7025 NAVAL WEAPONS STATION 62 50 60 1 Monitoring S 1 NVLW-7027 NAVAL WEAPONS STATION 36 1 26 36 Monitoring 1 NVLW-7028 NAVAL WEAPONS STATION 62 50 60 Monitoring S 1 NVLW-7031 NAVAL WEAPONS STATION 145 130 140 Monitoring 1 NVLW-7032 NAVAL WEAPONS STATION 110 95 105 Monitoring 1 NVLW-7033 NAVAL WEAPONS STATION 170 155 165 Monitoring 1 NVLW-7034 NAVAL WEAPONS STATION 60 46 56 Monitoring 1 NVLW-7035 NAVAL WEAPONS STATION 103 90 100 1 Monitoring S 1 NVLW-7036 NAVAL WEAPONS STATION 170 1 150 160 Monitoring 1 NVLW-7037 NAVAL WEAPONS STATION 112 89 109 Monitoring 1 NVLW-7038 NAVAL WEAPONS STATION 102 80 100 Monitoring S 1 NVLW-7039 NAVAL WEAPONS STATION 159 143 153 Monitoring 1 NVLW-7040 NAVAL WEAPONS STATION 160 140 150 Monitoring 1 NVLW-7041 NAVAL WEAPONS STATION 146 133 143 Monitoring S 1 NVLW-7042 NAVAL WEAPONS STATION 151 136 146 1 Monitoring S 1 NVLW-7043 NAVAL WEAPONS STATION 150 136 146 Monitoring S 1 NVLW-7044 NAVAL WEAPONS STATION 158 123 143 Monitoring S 1 NVLW-7045 NAVAL WEAPONS STATION 157 135 155 Monitoring I S 1 NVLW-7046 NAVAL WEAPONS STATION 107 85 105 Monitoring 1 NVLW-70P00O2 NAVAL WEAPONS STATION 0 190 201 Monitoring 1,6 NVLW-70P00O3 NAVAL WEAPONS STATION 205 190 200 Monitoring 1,6 15 List of Wells in OCWD Monitoring Programs KEY Aquifer Zone: S=Shallow Aquifer, P=Principal Aquifer, D= Deep Aquifer Program: 1) monitoring well, 2) production well, 3) irrigation or industrial well, 4) injection well, 5) Mid -Basin Injection well, 6) seawater intrusion monitoring well, 7) well monitored by OCWD for Title 22 compliance, 8) North Basin Groundwater Protection Program wells, 9) South Basin Groundwater Protection Program wells, 10) wells in CASGEM monitoring program Well Name Well Owner Bore Depth Casing (ft. bgs) Sequence Screened Interval (ft.bgs) Top Bottom Type of Well Aquifer Zone Program NVLW-70P0004 NAVAL WEAPONS STATION 210 195 206 Monitoring 1,6 NVLW-EW7001 NAVAL WEAPONS STATION 33 20 30 Inactive Production 2 NVLW-EW7003 NAVAL WEAPONS STATION 130 95 120 Inactive Production 2 NVLW-RD01 NAVAL WEAPONS STATION 110 65 105 Monitoring 1 NVLW-RD02 NAVAL WEAPONS STATION 110 65 105 Monitoring 1 NVLW-RD03A NAVAL WEAPONS STATION 31 20 30 Monitoring 1 NVLW-RD03B NAVAL WEAPONS STATION 107 65 105 Monitoring 1 NVLW-RD04 NAVAL WEAPONS STATION 112 65 105 Monitoring 1 NVLW-RD05 NAVAL WEAPONS STATION 107 65 105 Monitoring 1 NVLW-RD06A NAVAL WEAPONS STATION 109 95 105 Monitoring 1 NVLW-RD06B NAVAL WEAPONS STATION 145 130 140 Monitoring 1 NVLW-SB2 NAVAL WEAPONS STATION 424 207 407 Inactive Production 2,3,6 NVLW-SB6 NAVAL WEAPONS STATION 802 548 655 Inactive Production P 2 BYNT-YLSE NEFF RANCH, LTD 90 34 70 Other Active Production 2,3 NB-DOLD NEWPORT BEACH 824 399 729 1 Active Large Production P 2,7 NB -DOLS NEWPORT BEACH 385 201 356 Active Large Production P 2,7 NB-TAMD NEWPORT BEACH 758 395 690 Active Large Production P 2,7 NB -TAMS NEWPORT BEACH 390 170 360 Active Large Production P 2,7 NBGC-GA10 NEWPORT BEACH GOLF COURSE 65 32 62 Monitoring S 1,6 NBGC-MW2 NEWPORT BEACH GOLF COURSE 65 35 65 Monitoring 1 NBGC-MW3 NEWPORT BEACH GOLF COURSE 65 35 65 Monitoring 1 NBGC-NB NEWPORT BEACH GOLF COURSE 498 192 218 Other Active Production 2,3,6 NDW-1 NIAGARA DRINKING WATER 510 270 500 Inactive Production 2,9 COCA -A NOR -CAL BEVERAGE CO. INC. 654 0 0 Inactive Production 2,3,8 NCS-NO2 NORCO COMMUNITY SERVICES 114 47 114 Other Active Production 2 GRGC-CO1 O.C. FLOOD CONTROL DIST. 96 34 67 Other Active Production 2,3 GRGC-COR1 O.C. FLOOD CONTROL DIST. 92 34 61 Other Active Production 2,3 GRGC-YL14 O.C. FLOOD CONTROL DIST. 0 0 0 Other Active Production 2,3 GRGC-YL15 O.C. FLOOD CONTROL DIST. 0 0 0 Other Active Production 2,3 GRGC-YL16 O.C. FLOOD CONTROL DIST. 0 0 1 0 Other Active Production 2,3 GRGC-YL4 O.C. FLOOD CONTROL DIST. 0 0 0 Other Active Production 2,3 GRGC-YL9 O.C. FLOOD CONTROL DIST. 0 0 0 Other Active Production 2,3 GRGC-YLA1 O.C. FLOOD CONTROL DIST. 0 0 0 Other Active Production 2,3 W-3763 O.C. FLOOD CONTROL DIST. 610 144 385 Inactive Production 2 W-629 O.C. FLOOD CONTROL DIST. 267 81 256 Monitoring 1 W-638 O.C. FLOOD CONTROL DIST. 176 71 162 Monitoring 1 VECT-GG O.C. VECTOR CNT. DIST. 224 0 0 Other Active Production 2,3 BSOA-I OC COUNCIL BOY SCOUTS/ANAHEIM 0 100 200 Other Active Production 2,3 W-19059 OC WASTE MANAGEMENT 60 27 57 Monitoring 1 OVWC-HB OCEAN VIEW MUTUAL WATER 180 0 0 Inactive Production 2,6 ABS -1 OCWD 286 MP1 25 35 Multiport Monitoring P 1 ABS -1 OCWD 286 MP2 75 85 Multiport Monitoring P 1 ABS -1 OCWD 286 MP3 255 265 Multiport Monitoring P 1 ABS -2 OCWD 180 155 165 Monitoring S 1 AM -1 OCWD 140 97 115 Monitoring 5 1 1 AM -10 OCWD 300 217 235 Monitoring S 1 AM -11 OCWD 278 218 240 Monitoring P 1 AM -12 OCWD 299 210 225 1 Monitoring S 1 AM -13 OCWD 279 252 270 Monitoring P 1 AM -14 OCWD 321 297 315 Monitoring P 1,8 AM -15 OCWD 320 300 317 Monitoring P 1,8 AM -15A OCWD 231 214 220 Monitoring S 1,8 AM -16 OCWD 320 300 315 Monitoring P 1,8 AM -16A OCWD 227 215 222 Monitoring 1,8 AM -17 OCWD 320 290 308 1 Monitoring P 1,8 AM -18 OCWD 320 291 309 Monitoring P 1,8 AM -18A OCWD 232 208 215 Monitoring 1,8 AM -19 OCWD 240 217 225 Monitoring 1 AM -19A OCWD 127 115 123 Monitoring S 1 AM -2 OCWD 160 87 100 Monitoring S 1 AM -20 OCWD 397 361 379 Monitoring P 1 AM -20A OCWD 268 1 250 258 Monitoring 1 AM -21 OCWD 269 250 258 Monitoring 1 AM -21A OCWD 179 157 165 Monitoring I S 1 AM -22 OCWD 356 339 353 Monitoring P 1,8 AM -22A OCWD 239 216 224 Monitoring 1,8 AM -23 OCWD 351 330 347 Monitoring P 1,8 16 List of Wells in OCWD Monitoring Programs KEY Aquifer Zone: S=Shallow Aquifer, P=Principal Aquifer, D= Deep Aquifer Program: 1) monitoring well, 2) production well, 3) irrigation or industrial well, 4) injection well, 5) Mid -Basin Injection well, 6) seawater intrusion monitoring well, 7) well monitored by OCWD for Title 22 compliance, 8) North Basin Groundwater Protection Program wells, 9) South Basin Groundwater Protection Program wells, 10) wells in CASGEM monitoring program Well Name Well Owner Bore Depth Casing (ft. bgs) Sequence Screened Interval (ft.bgs) Top Bottom Type of Well Aquifer Zone Program AM -24 OCWD 378 335 350 Monitoring P 1,8 AM -24A OCWD 305 279 294 Monitoring 1,8 AM -25 OCWD 365 340 358 Monitoring P 1,8 AM -25A OCWD 217 188 195 Monitoring S 1,8 AM -26 OCWD 388 377 383 Monitoring P 1 AM -27 OCWD 337 287 305 Monitoring P 1 AM -28 OCWD 398 358 376 Monitoring 1 AM -29 OCWD 365 340 358 Monitoring P 1,8 AM -29A OCWD 96 75 95 Monitoring 1,8 AM -3 OCWD 115 91 107 Monitoring S 1,10 AM -30 OCWD 375 349 367 Monitoring P 1,8 AM -30A OCWD 398 1 152 159 Monitoring S 1,8 AM -31 OCWD 358 335 353 Monitoring P 1,8 AM -31A OCWD 360 162 170 Monitoring S 1,8 AM -32 OCWD 398 335 353 Monitoring P 1,8 AM -33 OCWD 378 354 372 Monitoring P 1,8 AM -33A OCWD 238 206 221 Monitoring 1,8 AM -34 OCWD 354 317 335 Monitoring P 1 AM -34A OCWD 271 1 252 260 Monitoring 1 AM -35 OCWD 400 332 350 Monitoring P 1 AM -36 OCWD 398 369 387 Monitoring P 1 AM -37 OCWD 378 349 367 Monitoring P 1 AM -38 OCWD 358 316 334 Monitoring P 1 AM -39 OCWD 192 168 188 Monitoring 1,8 AM -39A OCWD 140 115 135 Monitoring S 1,8 AM -4 OCWD 300 187 205 Monitoring S 1 AM -40 OCWD 193 175 190 Monitoring 1,8 AM -40A OCWD 168 145 165 Monitoring S 1,8 AM -41 OCWD 200 190 200 1 Monitoring 1,8 AM -41A OCWD 167 156 166 Monitoring S 1,8 AM -42 OCWD 198 180 190 Monitoring 1,8 AM -42A OCWD 135 115 130 Monitoring S 1,8 AM -43 OCWD 100 80 100 Monitoring 1 AM -44 OCWD 162 140 160 Monitoring S 1 AM -44A OCWD 90 78 88 Monitoring 1 AM -45 OCWD 133 102 132 Monitoring S 1,8 AM -46 OCWD 130 94 124 Monitoring S 1 AM -47 OCWD 290 227 242 Monitoring P 1,8 AM -47A OCWD 170 160 170 Monitoring S 1,8 AM -48 OCWD 312 270 300 Monitoring P 1,8 AM -48A OCWD 152 116 146 Monitoring S 1,8 AM -49 OCWD 160 120 150 Monitoring S 1,8 AM -5 OCWD 250 230 245 Monitoring P 1 AM -50 OCWD 170 140 150 Monitoring S 1 AM -51 OCWD 130 105 125 Monitoring S 1 AM -51A OCWD 80 50 70 Monitoring 1 AM -5A OCWD 182 1 168 175 Monitoring S 1 AM -6 OCWD 300 232 250 Monitoring P 1 AM -7 OCWD 296 210 225 Monitoring S 1 AM -8 OCWD 300 268 285 Monitoring S 1,8 AM -9 OCWD 317 285 303 Monitoring S 1,8 AMD -1 OCWD 1511 MP1 104 114 Multiport Monitoring S/P/D 1,10 AMD -1 OCWD 1511 MP2 135 145 Multiport Monitoring S/P/D 1,10 AMD -1 OCWD 1511 MP3 180 190 Multiport Monitoring S/P/D 1,10 AMD -1 OCWD 1511 MP4 246 256 Multiport Monitoring S/P/D 1,10 AMD -1 OCWD 1511 MP5 330 340 Multiport Monitoring S/P/D 1,10 AMD -1 OCWD 1511 MP6 384 394 Multiport Monitoring S/P/D 1,10 AMD -1 OCWD 1511 MP7 524 534 Multiport Monitoring S/P/D 1,10 AMD -1 OCWD 1511 MP8 760 770 Multiport Monitoring S/P/D 1,10 AMD -1 OCWD 1511 MP8 1038 1048 Multiport Monitoring S/P/D 1,10 AMD -1 OCWD 1511 MP10 1390 1400 Multiport Monitoring S/P/D 1,10 AMD -10 OCWD 1510 934 954 Monitoring P 1 AMD -11 OCWD 1510 906 926 Monitoring P 1 AMD -12 OCWD 1020 940 960 Monitoring P 1 AMD -2 OCWD 1508 MP1 156 166 Multiport Monitoring S/P/D 1 AMD -2 OCWD 1508 MP2 260 270 Multiport Monitoring S/P/D 1 AMD -2 OCWD 1508 MP3 384 394 Multiport Monitoring S/P/D 1 17 List of Wells in OCWD Monitoring Programs KEY Aquifer Zone: S=Shallow Aquifer, P=Principal Aquifer, D= Deep Aquifer Program: 1) monitoring well, 2) production well, 3) irrigation or industrial well, 4) injection well, 5) Mid -Basin Injection well, 6) seawater intrusion monitoring well, 7) well monitored by OCWD for Title 22 compliance, 8) North Basin Groundwater Protection Program wells, 9) South Basin Groundwater Protection Program wells, 10) wells in CASGEM monitoring program Well Name Well Owner Bore Depth Casing (ft. bgs) Sequence Screened Interval (ft.bgs) Top Bottom Type of Well Aquifer Zone Program AMD -2 OCWD 1508 MP4 510 520 Multiport Monitoring S/P/D 1 AMD -2 OCWD 1508 MP5 658 668 Multiport Monitoring S/P/D 1 AMD -2 OCWD 1508 MP6 820 830 Multiport Monitoring S/P/D 1 AMD -2 OCWD 1508 MP7 1012 1022 Multiport Monitoring S/P/D 1 AMD -2 OCWD 1508 MP8 1150 1160 Multiport Monitoring S/P/D 1 AMD -2 OCWD 1508 MP9 1290 1300 Multiport Monitoring S/P/D 1 AMD -2 OCWD 1508 MP10 1440 1450 Multiport Monitoring S/P/D 1 AMD -3 OCWD 1416 MP1 66 76 Multiport Monitoring S/P 1,8,10 AMD -3 OCWD 1416 MP2 134 144 Multiport Monitoring S/P 1,8,10 AMD -3 OCWD 1416 MP3 210 220 Multiport Monitoring S/P 1,8,10 AMD -3 OCWD 1416 MP4 360 370 Multiport Monitoring S/P 1,8,10 AMD -3 OCWD 1416 MP5 480 490 Multiport Monitoring S/P 1,8,10 AMD -3 OCWD 1416 MP6 570 580 Multiport Monitoring S/P 1,8,10 AMD -3 OCWD 1416 MP7 820 830 Multiport Monitoring S/P 1,8,10 AMD -3 OCWD 1416 MP8 920 930 Multiport Monitoring S/P 1,8,10 AMD -3 OCWD 1416 MP9 1170 1180 Multiport Monitoring S/P 1,8,10 AMD -3 OCWD 1416 MP10 1282 1292 Multiport Monitoring S/P 1,8,10 AMD -4 OCWD 1515 MP1 204 214 Multiport Monitoring S/P/D 1,8 AMD -4 OCWD 1515 MP2 295 305 Multiport Monitoring S/P/D 1,8 AMD -4 OCWD 1515 MP3 380 390 Multiport Monitoring S/P/D 1,8 AMD -4 OCWD 1515 MP4 560 570 Multiport Monitoring S/P/D 1,8 AMD -4 OCWD 1515 MP5 700 710 Multiport Monitoring S/P/D 1,8 AMD -4 OCWD 1515 MP6 790 800 Multiport Monitoring S/P/D 1,8 AMD -4 OCWD 1515 MP7 935 945 Multiport Monitoring S/P/D 1,8 AMD -4 OCWD 1515 MP8 1055 1065 Multiport Monitoring S/P/D 1,8 AMD -4 OCWD 1515 MP9 1120 1130 Multiport Monitoring S/P/D 1,8 AMD -4 OCWD 1515 MP10 1265 1275 Multiport Monitoring S/P/D 1,8 AMD -4 OCWD 1515 MP11 1405 1415 Multiport Monitoring S/P/D 1,8 AMD -5 OCWD 1495 MP1 100 110 Multiport Monitoring S/P/D 1 AMD -5 OCWD 1495 MP2 200 210 Multiport Monitoring S/P/D 1 AMD -5 OCWD 1495 MP3 300 310 Multiport Monitoring S/P/D 1 AMD -5 OCWD 1495 MP4 414 424 Multiport Monitoring S/P/D 1 AMD -5 OCWD 1495 MP5 495 505 Multiport Monitoring S/P/D 1 AMD -5 OCWD 1495 MP6 640 650 Multiport Monitoring S/P/D 1 AMD -5 OCWD 1495 MP7 750 760 Multiport Monitoring S/P/D 1 AMD -5 OCWD 1495 MP8 920 930 Multiport Monitoring S/P/D 1 AMD -5 OCWD 1495 MP9 1025 1035 Multiport Monitoring S/P/D 1 1 AMD -5 OCWD 1495 MP10 1210 1220 Multiport Monitoring S/P/D 1 AMD -5 OCWD 1495 MP11 1320 1330 Multiport Monitoring S/P/D 1 AMD -5 OCWD 1495 MP12 1420 1430 Multiport Monitoring S/P/D 1 AMD -6 OCWD 1528 MP1 110 120 Multiport Monitoring S/P 1 AMD -6 OCWD 1528 MP2 150 160 Multiport Monitoring S/P 1 AMD -6 OCWD 1528 MP3 220 230 Multiport Monitoring S/P 1 AMD -6 OCWD 1528 MP4 275 285 Multiport Monitoring S/P 1 AMD -6 OCWD 1528 MP5 370 380 Multiport Monitoring S/P 1 AMD -6 OCWD 1528 MP6 495 505 Multiport Monitoring S/P 1 AMD -6 OCWD 1528 MP7 620 630 Multiport Monitoring S/P 1 AMD -6 OCWD 1528 MP8 710 720 Multiport Monitoring S/P 1 AMD -6 OCWD 1528 MP9 790 800 Multiport Monitoring S/P 1 AMD -6 OCWD 1528 MP10 900 910 Multiport Monitoring S/P 1 AMD -6 OCWD 1528 MP11 1090 1100 Multiport Monitoring S/P 1 AMD -6 OCWD 1528 MP12 1260 1270 Multiport Monitoring S/P 1 AMD -6 OCWD 1528 MP13 1405 1415 Multiport Monitoring S/P 1 AMD -7 OCWD 1520 MP1 120 130 Multiport Monitoring S/P/D 1,10 AMD -7 OCWD 1520 MP2 220 230 Multiport Monitoring S/P/D 1,10 AMD -7 OCWD 1520 MP3 270 280 1 Multiport Monitoring S/P/D 1,10 AMD -7 OCWD 1520 MP4 310 320 Multiport Monitoring S/P/D 1,10 AMD -7 OCWD 1520 MP5 370 380 Multiport Monitoring S/P/D 1,10 AMD -7 OCWD 1520 MP6 470 480 Multiport Monitoring S/P/D 1,10 AMD -7 OCWD 1520 MP7 578 588 Multiport Monitoring S/P/D 1,10 AMD -7 OCWD 1520 MP8 690 700 Multiport Monitoring S/P/D 1,10 AMD -7 OCWD 1520 MP9 805 815 Multiport Monitoring S/P/D 1,10 AMD -7 OCWD 1520 MP10 930 940 Multiport Monitoring S/P/D 1,10 AMD -7 OCWD 1520 MP11 1070 1080 Multiport Monitoring S/P/D 1,10 AMD -7 OCWD 1520MP12 1165 1175 Multiport Monitoring S/P/D 1,10 AMD -7 OCWD 1520 MP13 1295 1305 Multiport Monitoring S/P/D 1,10 AMD -7 OCWD 1520 i MP14 1420 1430 Multiport Monitoring S/P/D 1,10 List of Wells in OCWD Monitoring Programs KEY Aquifer Zone: S=Shallow Aquifer, P=Principal Aquifer, D= Deep Aquifer Program: 1) monitoring well, 2) production well, 3) irrigation or industrial well, 4) injection well, 5) Mid -Basin Injection well, 6) seawater intrusion monitoring well, 7) well monitored by OCWD for Title 22 compliance, 8) North Basin Groundwater Protection Program wells, 9) South Basin Groundwater Protection Program wells, 10) wells in CASGEM monitoring program Well Name Well Owner Bore Depth Casing (ft. bgs) Sequence Screened Interval (ft.bgs) Top Bottom Type of Well Aquifer Zone Program AMD -8 OCWD 2080 MP1 78 88 Multiport Monitoring S/P/D 1 AMD -8 OCWD 2080 P2 178 188 Multiport Monitoring S/P/D 1 AMD -8 OCWD 2080 MP3 314 324 Multiport Monitoring S/P/D 1 AMD -8 OCWD 2080 MP4 524 534 Multiport Monitoring S/P/D 1 AMD -8 OCWD 2080 MP5 660 670 Multiport Monitoring S/P/D 1 AMD -8 OCWD 2080 MP6 760 770 Multiport Monitoring S/P/D 1 AMD -8 OCWD 2080 MP7 856 866 Multiport Monitoring S/P/D 1 AMD -8 OCWD 2080 MP8 1000 1010 Multiport Monitoring S/P/D 1 AMD -8 OCWD 2080 MP9 1160 1170 Multiport Monitoring S/P/D 1 AMD -8 OCWD 2080 MP10 1286 1296 Multiport Monitoring S/P/D 1 AMD -8 OCWD 2080 MP11 1450 1460 Multiport Monitoring S/P/D 1 AMD -8 OCWD 2080 MP12 1564 1574 Multiport Monitoring S/P/D 1 AMD -8 OCWD 2080 MP13 1760 1770 Multiport Monitoring S/P/D 1 AMD -8 OCWD 2080 MP14 1944 1954 Multiport Monitoring S/P/D 1 AMD -8 OCWD 2080 MP15 2010 2020 Multiport Monitoring S/P/D 1 AMD -9 OCWD 1163 896 916 Monitoring S/P 1 BPM -1 OCWD 2211 MP1 128 138 Multiport Monitoring S/P/D 1,10 BPM -1 OCWD 2211 MP2 248 258 Multiport Monitoring S/P/D 1,10 BPM -1 OCWD 2211 MP3 456 466 Multiport Monitoring S/P/D 1,10 BPM -1 OCWD 2211 MP4 612 622 Multiport Monitoring S/P/D 1,10 BPM -1 OCWD 2211 MP5 776 786 Multiport Monitoring S/P/D 1,10 BPM -1 OCWD 2211 MP6 886 896 Multiport Monitoring S/P/D 1,10 BPM -1 OCWD 2211 MP7 1036 1046 Multiport Monitoring S/P/D 1,10 BPM -1 OCWD 2211 MP8 1264 1274 Multiport Monitoring S/P/D 1,10 BPM -1 OCWD 2211 MP9 1388 1398 Multiport Monitoring S/P/D 1,10 BPM -1 OCWD 2211 MP10 1498 1508 Multiport Monitoring S/P/D 1,10 BPM -1 OCWD 2211 MP11 1684 1694 Multiport Monitoring S/P/D 1,10 BPM -1 OCWD 2211 MP12 1800 1810 Multiport Monitoring S/P/D 1,10 BPM -1 OCWD 2211 MP13 1930 1940 Multiport Monitoring S/P/D 1,10 BPM -1 OCWD 2211 MP14 2105 2115 Multiport Monitoring S/P/D 1,10 BPM -2 OCWD 2227 MP1 180 190 1 Multiport Monitoring S/P/D 1,10 BPM -2 OCWD 2227 MP2 336 346 Multiport Monitoring S/P/D 1,10 BPM -2 OCWD 2227 MP3 494 504 Multiport Monitoring S/P/D 1,10 BPM -2 OCWD 2227 MP4 580 590 Multiport Monitoring S/P/D 1,10 BPM -2 OCWD 2227 MP5 774 784 Multiport Monitoring S/P/D 1,10 BPM -2 OCWD 2227 MP6 900 910 Multiport Monitoring S/P/D 1,10 BPM -2 OCWD 2227 MP7 1024 1034 Multiport Monitoring S/P/D 1,10 BPM -2 OCWD 2227 MP8 1240 1250 Multiport Monitoring S/P/D 1,10 BPM -2 OCWD 2227 MP9 1364 1374 Multiport Monitoring S/P/D 1,10 BPM -2 OCWD 2227 MP10 1490 1500 Multiport Monitoring S/P/D 1,10 BPM -2 OCWD 2227 MP11 1610 1620 Multiport Monitoring S/P/D 1,10 BPM -2 OCWD 2227 MP12 1760 1770 Multiport Monitoring S/P/D 1,10 BPM -2 OCWD 2227 MP13 1928 1938 Multiport Monitoring S/P/D 1,10 BPM -2 OCWD 2227 MP14 2070 2080 Multiport Monitoring S/P/D 1,10 BPM -2 OCWD 2227 MP15 2170 2180 Multiport Monitoring S/P/D 1,10 CB -1 OCWD 1543 MP1 76 86 Multiport Monitoring S/P/D 1,8 CB -1 OCWD 1543 MP2 140 150 Multiport Monitoring S/P/D 1,8 CB -1 OCWD 1543 MP3 440 450 Multiport Monitoring S/P/D 1,8 CB -1 OCWD 1543 MP4 659 669 Multiport Monitoring S/P/D 1,8 CB -1 OCWD 1543 MP5 870 880 Multiport Monitoring S/P/D 1,8 CB -1 OCWD 1543 MP6 1050 1060 Multiport Monitoring S/P/D 1,8 CB -1 OCWD 1543 MP7 1190 1200 Multiport Monitoring S/P/D 1,8 CB -1 OCWD 1543 MP8 1329 1339 Multiport Monitoring S/P/D 1,8 CB -1 OCWD 1543 MP9 1460 1470 Multiport Monitoring S/P/D 1,8 COSM-1 OCWD 2000 MP1 90 100 Multiport Monitoring S/P/D 1,6,10 COSM-1 OCWD 2000 MP2 152 162 Multiport Monitoring S/P/D 1,6,10 COSM-1 OCWD 2000 MP3 270 280 Multiport Monitoring S/P/D 1,6,10 COSM-1 OCWD 2000 MP4 350 360 Multiport Monitoring S/P/D 1,6,10 COSM-1 OCWD 2000 MP5 450 460 Multiport Monitoring S/P/D 1,6,10 COSM-1 OCWD 2000 MP6 540 550 Multiport Monitoring S/P/D 1,6,10 COSM-1 OCWD 2000 MP7 620 630 Multiport Monitoring S/P/D 1,6,10 COSM-1 OCWD 2000 MP8 720 730 Multiport Monitoring S/P/D 1,6,10 COSM-1 OCWD 2000 MP9 850 860 Multiport Monitoring S/P/D 1,6,10 COSM-1 OCWD 2000 MP10 980 990 Multiport Monitoring S/P/D 1,6,10 COSM-1 OCWD 2000 MP11 1100 1110 Multiport Monitoring S/P/D 1,6,10 COSM-1 OCWD 2000 MP12 1212 1222 Multiport Monitoring S/P/D 1,6,10 COSM-1 OCWD 2000 MP13 1432 1442 Multiport Monitoring S/P/D 1,6,10 19 List of Wells in OCWD Monitoring Programs KEY Aquifer Zone: S=Shallow Aquifer, P=Principal Aquifer, D= Deep Aquifer Program: 1) monitoring well, 2) production well, 3) irrigation or industrial well, 4) injection well, 5) Mid -Basin Injection well, 6) seawater intrusion monitoring well, 7) well monitored by OCWD for Title 22 compliance, 8) North Basin Groundwater Protection Program wells, 9) South Basin Groundwater Protection Program wells, 10) wells in CASGEM monitoring program Well Name Well Owner Bore Depth Casing (ft. bgs) Sequence Screened Interval(ft.bgs) Top Bottom Type of Well Aquifer Zone Program COSM-1 OCWD 2000 MP14 1594 1604 Multiport Monitoring S/P/D 1,6,10 COSM-1 OCWD 2000 MP15 1760 1770 Multiport Monitoring S/P/D 1,6,10 COSM-2 OCWD 1142 MP1 58 68 Multiport Monitoring S/P 1,6 COSM-2 OCWD 1142 MP2 113 123 Multiport Monitoring S/P 1,6 COSM-2 OCWD 1142 MP3 198 208 Multiport Monitoring S/P 1,6 COSM-2 OCWD 1142 MP4 307 317 Multiport Monitoring S/P 1,6 COSM-2 OCWD 1142 MP5 406 416 Multiport Monitoring S/P 1,6 COSM-2 OCWD 1142 MP6 540 550 Multiport Monitoring S/P 1,6 COSM-2 OCWD 1142 MP7 649 659 Multiport Monitoring S/P 1,6 COSM-2 OCWD 1142 MP8 757 767 Multiport Monitoring S/P 1,6 COSM-2 OCWD 1142 MP9 886 896 Multiport Monitoring S/P 1,6 COSM-2 OCWD 1142 MP10 1051 1061 Multiport Monitoring S/P 1,6 FFS-1 OCWD 1490 MP1 180 190 Multiport Monitoring S/P/D 1,8,10 FFS-1 OCWD 1490 MP2 360 370 Multiport Monitoring S/P/D 1,8,10 FFS-1 OCWD 1490 MP3 529 539 Multiport Monitoring S/P/D 1,8,10 FFS-1 OCWD 1490 MP4 819 829 Multiport Monitoring S/P/D 1,8,10 FFS-1 OCWD 1490 MP5 1059 1069 Multiport Monitoring S/P/D 1,8,10 FFS-1 OCWD 1490 MP6 1159 1169 Multiport Monitoring S/P/D 1,8,10 FFS-1 OCWD 1490 MP7 1299 1309 Multiport Monitoring S/P/D 1,8,10 FFS-1 OCWD 1490 MP7 1419 1429 Multiport Monitoring S/P/D 1,8,10 FM -1 OCWD 359 348 356 Monitoring P 1,8 FM -10 OCWD 250 215 235 Monitoring P 1,8 FM -10A OCWD 183 151 171 Monitoring S 1,8 FM -11 OCWD 280 236 256 Monitoring P 1,8 FM -11A OCWD 162 134 154 Monitoring S 1,8 FM -12 OCWD 241 206 226 Monitoring P 1,8 FM -12A OCWD 162 135 155 Monitoring S 1,8 FM -13 OCWD 243 210 230 Monitoring P 1,8 FM -13A OCWD 173 140 160 1 Monitoring S 1,8 FM -14 OCWD 277 234 254 Monitoring P 1,8 FM -14A OCWD 182 147 167 Monitoring S 1,8 FM -15 OCWD 261 218 238 Monitoring P 1,8 FM -15A OCWD 160 120 140 Monitoring S 1,8 FM -16 OCWD 282 248 268 Monitoring P 1,8 FM -16A OCWD 160 125 145 Monitoring S 1,8 FM -17 OCWD 280 250 270 Monitoring P 1,8 FM -18 OCWD 367 224 244 Monitoring P 1,8 FM -18A OCWD 160 121 151 Monitoring S 1,8 FM -19A OCWD 145 115 135 Monitoring S 1,8 FM -19B OCWD 270 230 260 Monitoring 1,8 FM -19C OCWD 399 365 385 Monitoring P 1,8 FM -1A OCWD 197 164 172 Monitoring S 1,8 FM -2 OCWD 352 320 338 Monitoring P 1,8 FM -20 OCWD 290 221 241 Monitoring P 1,8 FM -20A OCWD 160 130 150 Monitoring S 1,8 FM -21 OCWD 286 260 270 Monitoring P 1,8 FM -21A OCWD 169 140 160 Monitoring S 1,8 FM -22 OCWD 290 242 262 Monitoring P 1,8 FM -22A OCWD 180 150 170 Monitoring S 1,8 FM -23 OCWD 290 234 249 Monitoring P 1,8 FM -23A OCWD 155 128 143 Monitoring S 1,8 FM -24 OCWD 302 271 291 Monitoring P 1,8 FM -24A OCWD 200 154 174 Monitoring S 1,8 FM -25 OCWD 160 132 152 Monitoring S 1,8 FM -26 OCWD 155 145 155 Monitoring S 1,8 FM -27 OCWD 125 105 125 Monitoring S 1,8 FM -2A OCWD 237 226 234 Monitoring 1,8 FM -3 OCWD 298 257 263 Monitoring P 1,8 FM -4 OCWD 355 327 345 Monitoring P 1,8 FM -4A OCWD 170 142 160 Monitoring S 1,8 FM -5 OCWD 142 121 141 Monitoring S 1,8 FM -6 OCWD 405 150 310 Monitoring S 1,10 FM -7 OCWD 205 187 197 Monitoring 1,8 FM -7A OCWD 172 160 170 1 Monitoring S 1,8 FM -8 OCWD 150 114 134 Monitoring S 1,8 FM -9 OCWD 260 220 240 Monitoring P 1,8 FM -9A OCWD 240 166 186 Monitoring S 1,8 20 List of Wells in OCWD Monitoring Programs KEY Aquifer Zone: S=Shallow Aquifer, P=Principal Aquifer, D= Deep Aquifer Program: 1) monitoring well, 2) production well, 3) irrigation or industrial well, 4) injection well, 5) Mid -Basin Injection well, 6) seawater intrusion monitoring well, 7) well monitored by OCWD for Title 22 compliance, 8) North Basin Groundwater Protection Program wells, 9) South Basin Groundwater Protection Program wells, 10) wells in CASGEM monitoring program Well Name Well Owner Bore Depth Casing (ft. bgs) Sequence Screened Interval (ft.bgs) Top Bottom Type of Well Aquifer Zone Program FVM-1 OCWD 2000 MP1 134 145 Multiport Monitoring S/P/D 1,10 FVM-1 OCWD 2000 MP3 172 182 Multiport Monitoring S/P/D 1,10 FVM-1 OCWD 2000 MP3 220 230 Multiport Monitoring S/P/D 1,10 FVM-1 OCWD 2000 MP4 360 370 Multiport Monitoring S/P/D 1,10 FVM-1 OCWD 2000 MP5 450 460 Multiport Monitoring S/P/D 1,10 FVM-1 OCWD 2000 MP6 500 510 Multiport Monitoring S/P/D 1,10 FVM-1 OCWD 2000 MP7 560 570 Multiport Monitoring S/P/D 1,10 FVM-1 OCWD 2000 MP8 630 640 Multiport Monitoring S/P/D 1,10 FVM-1 OCWD 2000 MP9 810 820 Multiport Monitoring S/P/D 1,10 FVM-1 OCWD 2000 MP10 894 904 Multiport Monitoring S/P/D 1,10 FVM-1 OCWD 2000 MP11 1000 1010 Multiport Monitoring S/P/D 1,10 FVM-1 OCWD 2000 MP12 1120 1130 Multiport Monitoring S/P/D 1 1,10 FVM-1 OCWD 2000 MP13 1175 1185 Multiport Monitoring S/P/D 1,10 FVM-1 OCWD 2000 MP14 1230 1240 Multiport Monitoring S/P/D 1,10 FVM-1 OCWD 2000 MP15 1320 1330 Multiport Monitoring S/P/D 1,10 FVM-1 OCWD 2000 MP16 1492 1502 Multiport Monitoring S/P/D 1,10 FVM-1 OCWD 2000 MP17 1582 1592 Multiport Monitoring S/P/D 1,10 FVM-1 OCWD 2000 MP18 1834 1844 Multiport Monitoring S/P/D 1,10 GGM-1 OCWD 2086 MP1 150 160 Multiport Monitoring S/P/D 1,10 GGM-1 OCWD 2086 MP2 300 310 Multiport Monitoring S/P/D 1,10 GGM-1 OCWD 2086 MP3 464 474 Multiport Monitoring S/P/D 1,10 GGM-1 OCWD 2086 MP4 550 560 Multiport Monitoring S/P/D 1,10 GGM-1 OCWD 2086 MP5 740 750 Multiport Monitoring S/P/D 1,10 GGM-1 OCWD 2086 MP6 825 835 Multiport Monitoring S/P/D 1,10 GGM-1 OCWD 2086 MP7 950 960 Multiport Monitoring S/P/D 1,10 GGM-1 OCWD 2086 MP8 1070 1080 Multiport Monitoring S/P/D 1,10 GGM-1 OCWD 2086 MP9 1260 1270 Multiport Monitoring S/P/D 1,10 GGM-1 OCWD 2086 MP10 1515 1525 Multiport Monitoring S/P/D 1,10 GGM-1 OCWD 2086 MP11 1650 1660 Multiport Monitoring S/P/D 1,10 GGM-1 OCWD 2086 MP12 1768 1778 Multiport Monitoring S/P/D 1,10 GGM-1 OCWD 2086 MP13 2008 2018 Multiport Monitoring S/P/D 1,10 GGM-2 OCWD 2057 MP1 212 222 Multiport Monitoring S/P/D 1 GGM-2 OCWD 2057 MP2 294 304 Multiport Monitoring S/P/D 1 GGM-2 OCWD 2057 MP3 460 470 Multiport Monitoring S/P/D 1 GGM-2 OCWD 2057 MP4 715 725 Multiport Monitoring S/P/D 1 GGM-2 OCWD 2057 MP5 950 960 Multiport Monitoring S/P/D 1 GGM-2 OCWD 2057 MP6 1045 1055 Multiport Monitoring S/P/D 1 GGM-2 OCWD 2057 MP7 1145 1155 Multiport Monitoring S/P/D 1 GGM-2 OCWD 2057 MP8 1250 1260 Multiport Monitoring S/P/D 1 1 GGM-2 OCWD 2057 MP 1485 1495 Multiport Monitoring S/P/D 1 GGM-2 OCWD 2057 MP10 1625 1635 Multiport Monitoring S/P/D 1 GGM-2 OCWD 2057 MP11 1740 1750 Multiport Monitoring S/P/D 1 GGM-2 OCWD 2057 MP12 1900 1910 Multiport Monitoring S/P/D 1 GGM-2 OCWD 2057 MP13 1990 2000 Multiport Monitoring S/P/D 1 GGM-3 OCWD 2020 MP1 195 205 Multiport Monitoring S/P 1 GGM-3 OCWD 2020 MP2 310 320 Multiport Monitoring S/P 1 GGM-3 OCWD 2020 MP3 545 555 Multiport Monitoring S/P 1 GGM-3 OCWD 2020 MP4 640 650 Multiport Monitoring S/P 1 GGM-3 OCWD 2020 MP5 837 847 Multiport Monitoring S/P 1 GGM-3 OCWD 2020 MP6 1004 1014 Multiport Monitoring S/P 1 GGM-3 OCWD 2020 MP7 1104 1114 1 Multiport Monitoring S/P 1 GGM-3 OCWD 2020 MP8 1274 1284 Multiport Monitoring S/P 1 1 GGM-3 OCWD 2020 MP9 1539 1549 Multiport Monitoring S/P 1 GGM-3 OCWD 2020 MP10 1680 1690 Multiport Monitoring S/P 1 GGM-3 OCWD 2020 MP11 1780 1790 Multiport Monitoring S/P 1 GGM-3 OCWD 2020 MP12 1950 1960 Multiport Monitoring S/P 1 HBM-1 OCWD 2013 MP1 90 100 Multiport Monitoring S/P/D 1,10 HBM-1 OCWD 2013 MP2 190 200 1 Multiport Monitoring S/P/D 1,10 HBM-1 OCWD 2013 MP3 320 330 Multiport Monitoring S/P/D 1,10 HBM-1 OCWD 2013 MP4 482 492 Multiport Monitoring S/P/D 1,10 HBM-1 OCWD 2013 MP5 560 570 Multiport Monitoring S/P/D 1,10 HBM-1 OCWD 2013 MP6 700 710 Multiport Monitoring S/P/D 1,10 HBM-1 OCWD 2013 MP7 920 930 Multiport Monitoring S/P/D 1,10 HBM-1 OCWD 2013 MP8 1034 1044 Multiport Monitoring S/P/D 1,10 HBM-1 OCWD 2013 MP9 1126 1136 Multiport Monitoring S/P/D 1,10 HBM-1 OCWD 2013 MP10 1348 1358 Multiport Monitoring S/P/D 1,10 HBM-1 OCWD 2013 MP11 1460 1470 Multiport Monitoring S/P/D 1,10 21 List of Wells in OCWD Monitoring Programs KEY Aquifer Zone: S=Shallow Aquifer, P=Principal Aquifer, D= Deep Aquifer Program: 1) monitoring well, 2) production well, 3) irrigation or industrial well, 4) injection well, 5) Mid -Basin Injection well, 6) seawater intrusion monitoring well, 7) well monitored by OCWD for Title 22 compliance, 8) North Basin Groundwater Protection Program wells, 9) South Basin Groundwater Protection Program wells, 10) wells in CASGEM monitoring program Well Name Well Owner Bore Depth Casing (ft. bgs) Sequence Screened Interval (ft.bgs) Top Bottom Type of Well Aquifer Zone Program HBM-1 OCWD 2013 MP12 1540 1550 Multiport Monitoring S/P/D 1,10 HBM-1 OCWD 2013 MP13 1640 1650 Multiport Monitoring S/P/D 1,10 HBM-1 OCWD 2013 MP14 1930 1940 Multiport Monitoring S/P/D 1,10 HBM-2 OCWD 1010 MPl 110 120 Multiport Monitoring S/P 1,6,10 HBM-2 OCWD 1010 MP2 160 170 Multiport Monitoring S/P 1,6,10 HBM-2 OCWD 1010 MP3 245 255 Multiport Monitoring S/P 1,6,10 HBM-2 OCWD 1010 MP4 305 315 Multiport Monitoring S/P 1,6,10 HBM-2 OCWD 1010 MP5 360 370 Multiport Monitoring S/P 1,6,10 HBM-2 OCWD 1010 MP6 445 455 Multiport Monitoring S/P 1,6,10 HBM-2 OCWD 1010 MP7 520 530 Multiport Monitoring S/P 1,6,10 HBM-2 OCWD 1010 MP8 570 580 Multiport Monitoring S/P 1,6,10 HBM-2 OCWD 1010 MP9 675 685 Multiport Monitoring S/P 1,6,10 HBM-2 OCWD 1010 MP10 735 745 Multiport Monitoring S/P 1,6,10 HBM-2 OCWD 1010 MP11 845 855 Multiport Monitoring S/P 1,6,10 HBM-2 OCWD 1010 MP12 925 935 Multiport Monitoring S/P 1,6,10 HBM-4 OCWD 830 MP1 75 85 Multiport Monitoring S/P 1,6 HBM-4 OCWD 830 MP2 120 130 Multiport Monitoring S/P 1,6 HBM-4 OCWD 830 MP3 180 190 Multiport Monitoring S/P 1,6 HBM-4 OCWD 830 MP4 230 240 Multiport Monitoring S/P 1,6 HBM-4 OCWD 830 MP5 295 305 Multiport Monitoring S/P 1,6 HBM-4 OCWD 830 MP6 350 360 Multiport Monitoring S/P 1,6 HBM-4 OCWD 830 MP7 415 425 Multiport Monitoring S/P 1,6 HBM-4 OCWD 830 MP8 550 560 Multiport Monitoring S/P 1,6 HBM-4 OCWD 830 MP9 690 700 Multiport Monitoring S/P 1,6 HBM-5 OCWD 1019 MP3 70 90 Multiport Monitoring S/P 1,6 HBM-5 OCWD 1019 MPl 70 90 Multiport Monitoring S/P 1,6 HBM-5 OCWD 1019 MP2 70 90 Multiport Monitoring S/P 1,6 HBM-5 OCWD 1019 MP4 125 135 Multiport Monitoring S/P 1,6 HBM-5 OCWD 1019 MP5 170 180 Multiport Monitoring S/P 1,6 HBM-5 OCWD 1019 MP6 215 225 Multiport Monitoring S/P 1,6 HBM-5 OCWD 1019 MP7 245 255 Multiport Monitoring S/P 1,6 HBM-5 OCWD 1019 MP8 270 280 Multiport Monitoring S/P 1,6 HBM-6 OCWD 800 MP1 52 62 Multiport Monitoring S/P 1,6,10 HBM-6 OCWD 800 MP2 84 94 Multiport Monitoring S/P 1,6,10 HBM-6 OCWD 800 MP3 108 118 Multiport Monitoring S/P 1,6,10 HBM-6 OCWD 800 MP4 214 224 Multiport Monitoring S/P 1,6,10 HBM-6 OCWD 800 MP5 263 273 Multiport Monitoring S/P 1,6,10 HBM-6 OCWD 800 MP6 294 304 Multiport Monitoring S/P 1,6,10 HBM-6 OCWD 800 MP7 506 516 Multiport Monitoring S/P 1,6,10 HBM-6 OCWD 800 MP8 576 586 Multiport Monitoring S/P 1,6,10 IDM -1 OCWD 1123 MP1 85 95 Multiport Monitoring S/P/D 1,10 IDM -1 OCWD 1123 MP2 270 280 Multiport Monitoring S/P/D 1,10 IDM -1 OCWD 1123 MP3 335 345 Multiport Monitoring S/P/D 1,10 IDM -1 OCWD 1123 MP4 435 445 Multiport Monitoring S/P/D 1,10 IDM -1 OCWD 1123 MP5 630 640 Multiport Monitoring S/P/D 1,10 IDM -1 OCWD 1123 MP6 700 710 Multiport Monitoring S/P/D 1,10 IDM -1 OCWD 1123 MP7 760 770 Multiport Monitoring S/P/D 1,10 IDM -1 OCWD 1123 MP8 875 885 Multiport Monitoring S/P/D 1,10 IDM -1 OCWD 1123 MP9 990 1000 Multiport Monitoring S/P/D 1,10 IDM -1 OCWD 1123 MP10 1050 1060 Multiport Monitoring S/P/D 1,10 IDM -2 OCWD 1487 MP1 126 136 Multiport Monitoring S/P/D 1,9,10 IDM -2 OCWD 1487 MP2 234 244 Multiport Monitoring S/P/D 1,9,10 IDM -2 OCWD 1487 MP3 284 294 Multiport Monitoring S/P/D 1,9,10 IDM -2 OCWD 1487 MP4 352 362 Multiport Monitoring S/P/D 1,9,10 IDM -2 OCWD 1487 MP5 492 502 Multiport Monitoring S/P/D 1,9,10 IDM -2 OCWD 1487 MP6 1 612 622 Multiport Monitoring S/P/D 1,9,10 IDM -2 OCWD 1487 MP7 710 720 Multiport Monitoring S/P/D 1,9,10 IDM -2 OCWD 1487 MP8 886 896 Multiport Monitoring S/P/D 1,9,10 IDM -2 OCWD 1487 MP9 1050 1060 Multiport Monitoring S/P/D 1,9,10 IDM -2 OCWD 1487 MP10 1178 1188 Multiport Monitoring S/P/D 1,9,10 IDM -2 OCWD 1487 MO -11 1256 1266 Multiport Monitoring S/P/D 1,9,10 IDM -2 OCWD 1487 M012 1400 1410 Multiport Monitoring S/P/D 1,9,10 IDM -3 OCWD 704 1 1 652 672 Monitoring S/P 1 IDM -4 OCWD 726 654 674 Monitoring I S/P 1 1 IDP -1 OCWD 708 121 681 Injection 4 IDP -2R OCWD 680 300 340 Monitoring S/P 1 IDP -3 OCWD 602 1 125 505 Monitoring 1 22 List of Wells in OCWD Monitoring Programs KEY Aquifer Zone: S=Shallow Aquifer, P=Principal Aquifer, D= Deep Aquifer Program: 1) monitoring well, 2) production well, 3) irrigation or industrial well, 4) injection well, 5) Mid -Basin Injection well, 6) seawater intrusion monitoring well, 7) well monitored by OCWD for Title 22 compliance, 8) North Basin Groundwater Protection Program wells, 9) South Basin Groundwater Protection Program wells, 10) wells in CASGEM monitoring program Well Name Well Owner Bore Depth Casing (ft. bgs) Sequence Screened Interval(ft.bgs) Top Bottom Type of Well Aquifer Zone Program KBS -1 OCWD 244 209 219 Monitoring S/P 1 KBS -2 OCWD 303 MP1 96 106 Multiport Monitoring S/P 1 KBS -2 OCWD 303 MP2 210 220 Multiport Monitoring S/P 1 KBS -3 OCWD 92 80 90 Monitoring 1 KBS -4 OCWD 160 138 158 Monitoring S 1 KBS -4A OCWD 92 80 90 Monitoring 1 LAM -1 OCWD 2211 MP1 70 80 Multiport Monitoring S/P/D 1,10 LAM -1 OCWD 2211 MP2 220 230 Multiport Monitoring S/P/D 1,10 LAM -1 OCWD 2211 MP3 270 280 Multiport Monitoring S/P/D 1,10 LAM -1 OCWD 2211 MP4 470 480 Multiport Monitoring S/P/D 1,10 LAM -1 OCWD 2211 MP5 570 580 Multiport Monitoring S/P/D 1,10 LAM -1 OCWD 2211 MP6 830 840 Multiport Monitoring S/P/D 1,10 LAM -1 OCWD 2211 MP7 992 1002 Multiport Monitoring S/P/D 1,10 LAM -1 OCWD 2211 MP8 1070 1080 Multiport Monitoring S/P/D 1,10 LAM -1 OCWD 2211 MP9 1150 1160 Multiport Monitoring S/P/D 1,10 LAM -1 OCWD 2211 MP10 1250 1260 Multiport Monitoring S/P/D 1,10 LAM -1 OCWD 2211 MP11 1494 1504 Multiport Monitoring S/P/D 1,10 LAM -1 OCWD 2211 MP12 1610 1620 Multiport Monitoring S/P/D 1,10 MBI -1 OCWD 1239 530 1190 Injection 4,5 MCAS -1 OCWD 620 MP1 60 70 Multiport Monitoring S/P 1 MCAS -1 OCWD 620 MP2 150 160 Multiport Monitoring S/P 1 MCAS -1 OCWD 620 MP3 210 220 Multiport Monitoring S/P 1 MCAS -1 OCWD 620 MP4 270 280 Multiport Monitoring S/P 1 MCAS -1 OCWD 620 MP5 330 340 Multiport Monitoring S/P 1 MCAS -1 OCWD 620 MP6 450 460 Multiport Monitoring S/P 1 MCAS -1 OCWD 620 MP7 540 550 Multiport Monitoring S/P 1 MCAS -10 OCWD 389 1 347 377 Monitoring P 1 MCAS -2 OCWD 680 MP1 40 50 Multiport Monitoring S/P 1 MCAS -2 OCWD 680 MP2 130 140 Multiport Monitoring S/P 1 MCAS -2 OCWD 680 MP3 200 210 Multiport Monitoring S/P 1 MCAS -2 OCWD 680 MP4 370 380 Multiport Monitoring S/P 1 MCAS -2 OCWD 680 MP5 420 430 Multiport Monitoring S/P 1 MCAS -2 OCWD 680 MP6 490 500 Multiport Monitoring S/P 1 MCAS -2 OCWD 680 MP7 550 560 1 Multiport Monitoring S/P 1 MCAS -2 OCWD 680 MP8 620 630 Multiport Monitoring S/P 1 MCAS -3 OCWD 603 MP1 80 90 Multiport Monitoring S/P 1,10 MCAS -3 OCWD 603 MP2 160 170 Multiport Monitoring S/P 1,10 MCAS -3 OCWD 603 MP3 220 230 Multiport Monitoring S/P 1,10 MCAS -3 OCWD 603 MP4 340 350 Multiport Monitoring S/P 1,10 MCAS -3 OCWD 603 MP5 420 430 Multiport Monitoring S/P 1,10 MCAS -3 OCWD 603 MP6 490 500 1 Multiport Monitoring S/P 1,10 MCAS -4 OCWD 317 181 238 Monitoring S/P 1 1 MCAS -5A OCWD 159 120 130 Monitoring S 1 MCAS -6 OCWD 455 167 222 Monitoring S 1 MCAS -7 OCWD 1297 MP1 90 100 Multiport Monitoring S/P 1,10 MCAS -7 OCWD 1297 MP2 190 200 Multiport Monitoring S/P 1,10 MCAS -7 OCWD 1297 MP3 350 360 Multiport Monitoring S/P 1,10 MCAS -7 OCWD 1297 MP4 440 450 Multiport Monitoring S/P 1,10 MCAS -7 OCWD 1297 MP5 510 520 Multiport Monitoring S/P 1,10 MCAS -7 OCWD 1297 MP6 800 810 Multiport Monitoring S/P 1,10 MCAS -7 OCWD 1297 MP7 910 920 Multiport Monitoring S/P 1,10 MCAS -7 OCWD 1297 MP8 980 990 Multiport Monitoring S/P 1,10 MCAS -7 OCWD 1297 MP9 1100 1110 Multiport Monitoring S/P 1,10 MCAS -8 OCWD 437 392 410 Monitoring P 1 MCAS -9 OCWD 450 372 445 Monitoring P 1 MSP -10P OCWD 59 40 50 Monitoring 1 MSP -10T OCWD 211 70 140 Monitoring 1 OCWD-33Z11 OCWD 527 435 485 Monitoring 1,6 OCWD-34F10 OCWD 490 420 460 Monitoring 1,6 OCWD-34H25 OCWD 490 410 465 Monitoring 1 OCWD-34H5 OCWD 480 405 455 Monitoring 1,6 OCWD-341_10 OCWD 478 405 450 Monitoring 1,6 OCWD-34LS OCWD 400 340 1 380 1 Monitoring 1,6 OCWD-34N21 OCWD 494 1 424 1 464 1 Monitoring 1,6 OCWD-34NP7 OCWD 312 225 300 Monitoring 1,6 OCWD-34S OCWD 380 312 347 1 Injection 4 OCWD-34T01 OCWD 375 290 345 1 Monitoring 1,6 23 List of Wells in OCWD Monitoring Programs KEY Aquifer Zone: S=Shallow Aquifer, P=Principal Aquifer, D= Deep Aquifer Program: 1) monitoring well, 2) production well, 3) irrigation or industrial well, 4) injection well, 5) Mid -Basin Injection well, 6) seawater intrusion monitoring well, 7) well monitored by OCWD for Title 22 compliance, 8) North Basin Groundwater Protection Program wells, 9) South Basin Groundwater Protection Program wells, 10) wells in CASGEM monitoring program Well Name Well Owner Bore Depth Casing (ft. bgs) Sequence Screened Interval (ft.bgs) Top Bottom Type of Well Aquifer Zone Program OCWD-34U8 OCWD 424 359 384 Monitoring 1,6 OCWD-34V OCWD 320 260 300 Injection 4 OCWD-34V20 OCWD 456 387 417 Monitoring 1,6 OCWD-34VZX OCWD 199 147 177 Monitoring 1,6 OCWD-34VZY OCWD 265 215 235 Monitoring 1,6 OCWD-34WP5 OCWD 212 165 180 Monitoring 1,6 OCWD-34X40 OCWD 450 333 358 Monitoring 5 1,6 OCWD-34Z OCWD 191 110 150 Injection 4 OCWD-35DP5 OCWD 130 92 107 Monitoring 1,6 OCWD-35EOlX OCWD 98 65 85 Monitoring 1,6 OCWD-35EOlY OCWD 343 105 125 Monitoring 1,6 OCWD-35F OCWD 168 80 115 Injection 4 OCWD-35F20 OCWD 300 235 265 Monitoring 1,6 OCWD-35FP21 OCWD 85 36 71 Monitoring 1,6 OCWD-35G OCWD 182 80 145 Injection 4 OCWD-35H11 OCWD 230 200 220 Monitoring 5 1,6 OCWD-35H12 OCWD 300 137 147 Monitoring 1,6 OCWD-35H1X OCWD 257 131 171 Injection 4 OCWD-35H1Y OCWD 271 215 237 Injection 4 OCWD-35H2 OCWD 260 112 241 Injection 4 OCWD-3511 OCWD 271 190 240 Monitoring 1,6 OCWD-3511Y OCWD 378 264 294 Monitoring 1,6 OCWD-35K1 OCWD 275 193 243 Monitoring 1,6 OCWD-35K1V OCWD 112 90 110 Monitoring 1,6 OCWD-35K1Y OCWD 395 1 366 386 Monitoring 1,6 OCWD-35KP12 OCWD 87 47 67 Monitoring 1 OCWD-35NO1 OCWD 101 80 85 Monitoring S 1,6 OCWD-35T9 OCWD 1020 390 411 Monitoring 1,6 OCWD-36FP14Z1 OCWD 150 115 125 1 Monitoring 1,6 OCWD-36FP14Z2 OCWD 705 357 367 Monitoring 1,6 OCWD-36FPlX OCWD 160 136 146 Monitoring 1 OCWD-36FPlZ OCWD 1020 504 514 Monitoring P 1,6 OCWD-7 OCWD 48 28 48 Monitoring 1 OCWD-AIR1 OCWD 1518 1375 1460 Monitoring S/P 1,10 OCWD-ALK OCWD 320 217 317 Other Active Production 2,3 OCWD-AN1 OCWD 115 35 115 Monitoring 1 OCWD-AN2 OCWD 119 35 115 Monitoring 1 OCWD-BESS OCWD 302 172 189 Other Active Production 5 2,3 OCWD-BIO1 OCWD 124 25 115 Inactive Production 5 2 OCWD-BP1 OCWD 40 20 40 Monitoring 1 OCWD-BP2 OCWD 70 50 70 Monitoring 1 OCWD-BP3 OCWD 205 185 205 Monitoring 5 1 OCWD-BP4 OCWD 180 140 180 Monitoring 5 1 OCWD-BP5 OCWD 240 1 147 167 Monitoring 5 1 OCWD-BP6 OCWD 245 148 168 Monitoring 5 1 OCWD-BP7 OCWD 270 148 168 Monitoring 5 1 OCWD-BS10 OCWD 906 595 605 Monitoring 5/P 1,6 OCWD-BS103A OCWD 16 10 15 Monitoring 1,6 OCWD-BS105A OCWD 12 6 11 Monitoring 1,6 OCWD-BS11 OCWD 741 580 590 Monitoring 5/P 1,6 OCWD-BS15 OCWD 105 60 70 Monitoring 1,6 OCWD-BS16 OCWD 95 60 80 Monitoring 5 1,6 OCWD-BS16A OCWD 24 16 21 Monitoring 1,6 OCWD-BS18 OCWD 95 72 82 Monitoring 5 1,6 OCWD-BS18A OCWD 17 11 16 Monitoring 1,6 OCWD-BS19 OCWD 100 63 83 Monitoring S 1,6 OCWD-BS20A OCWD 27 6 11 Monitoring 1 OCWD-BS20B OCWD 85 71 81 1 Monitoring S 1,6 OCWD-BS21 OCWD 0 0 0 Monitoring S 1,6 OCWD-CTG1 OCWD 1330 1060 1220 Monitoring S/P/D 1,10 OCWD-CTG5 OCWD 1600 1040 1120 Monitoring P/D 1 OCWD-CTK1 OCWD 1444 1260 1315 Monitoring P/D 1 OCWD-Dl OCWD 926 1 780 880 Other Active Production P 2,3 OCWD-D3 OCWD 1050 1 560 1000 Other Active Production P 2,3 OCWD-D4 OCWD 1033 531 979Other Active Production P 2,3 OCWD-D5 OCWD 1050 597 1005 Inactive Production 2,3 OCWD-EW1 OCWD 324 160 295 Inactive Production 2,8 24 List of Wells in OCWD Monitoring Programs KEY Aquifer Zone: S=Shallow Aquifer, P=Principal Aquifer, D= Deep Aquifer Program: 1) monitoring well, 2) production well, 3) irrigation or industrial well, 4) injection well, 5) Mid -Basin Injection well, 6) seawater intrusion monitoring well, 7) well monitored by OCWD for Title 22 compliance, 8) North Basin Groundwater Protection Program wells, 9) South Basin Groundwater Protection Program wells, 10) wells in CASGEM monitoring program Well Name Well Owner Bore Depth Casing (ft. bgs) Sequence Screened Interval (ft.bgs) Top Bottom Type of Well Aquifer Zone Program OCWD-EW2 OCWD 230 130 196 Inactive Production S 2,8 OCWD-EW2A OCWD 207 122 188 Inactive Production S 2,8 OCWD-EW3 OCWD 270 150 249 Inactive Production 2,8 OCWD-EW3A OCWD 0 0 0 Inactive Production 5 2,8 OCWD-EW4 OCWD 275 130 255 Inactive Production 5 2,8 OCWD-FBM1 OCWD 140 38 138 Monitoring 5 1 OCWD-FBM2 OCWD 140 39 139 Monitoring 5 1 OCWD-FBR1 OCWD 100 30 90 Injection 4 OCWD-FC1 OCWD 185 165 185 Monitoring P 1 OCWD-FC2 OCWD 115 95 115 Monitoring 5 1 OCWD-FH1 OCWD 140 120 140 Monitoring 5 1 OCWD-GA1 OCWD 45 30 40 Monitoring 1 OCWD-GA2 OCWD 45 30 40 Monitoring 5 1,6 OCWD-GA3 OCWD 45 30 40 Monitoring 1 OCWD-GA4 OCWD 45 30 40 Monitoring 1 OCWD-GA5 OCWD 45 30 40 Monitoring 1 OCWD-GA6 OCWD 45 30 40 Monitoring 1 OCWD-GA7 OCWD 45 30 40 Monitoring 1,9 OCWD-GA9 OCWD 30 19 29 Monitoring 1 OCWD-HBM5A OCWD 22 16 21 Monitoring 1 OCWD-HBM6A OCWD 17 11 16 Monitoring 1 OCWD-11 OCWD 407 365 400 Injection 4 OCWD-110 OCWD 330 305 330 Injection 4 OCWD-111 OCWD 310 200 225 Injection 4 OCWD-112 OCWD 320 290 310 Injection 4 OCWD-113 OCWD 315 280 305 Injection 4 OCWD-114 OCWD 310 265 300 Injection 4 OCWD-115 OCWD 295 262 285 Injection 4 OCWD-116 OCWD 308 245 285 Injection 4 OCWD-117 OCWD 309 250 275 Injection 4 OCWD-118 OCWD 315 260 275 Injection 4 OCWD-119 OCWD 292 235 270 Injection 4 OCWD-12 OCWD 402 350 390 Injection 4 OCWD-120 OCWD 275 240 265 Injection 4 OCWD-121 OCWD 265 230 250 Injection 4 OCWD-122 OCWD 306 250 275 Injection 4 OCWD-123 OCWD 325 215 255 Injection 4 OCWD-124 OCWD 720 420 605 Injection P 4 OCWD-125 OCWD 662 120 320 Injection 4 OCWD-126A OCWD 220 60 195 Injection 5 4 OCWD-126B OCWD 430 271 400 Injection 4 OCWD-126C OCWD 697 476 660 Injection P 4 OCWD-127A OCWD 171 78 148 Injection 5 4 OCWD-127B OCWD 280 211 261 Injection 4 OCWD-127C OCWD 592 355 420 Injection P 4 OCWD-127M1 OCWD 23 17 22 Monitoring 1 OCWD-128A OCWD 163 80 140 Injection 5 4 OCWD-128B OCWD 258 185 235 Injection 4 OCWD-128C OCWD 698 360 460 Injection P 4 OCWD-128M1 OCWD 24 19 24 Monitoring 1 OCWD-129A OCWD 156 90 120 Injection 5 4 OCWD-129B OCWD 275 200 250 Injection 4 OCWD-129C OCWD 515 365 475 Injection P 4 OCWD-13 OCWD 380 340 380 Injection 4 OCWD-130A OCWD 187 95 160 Injection 5 4 OCWD-130B OCWD 322 230 295 Injection 4 OCWD-130C OCWD 708 425 650 Injection P 4 OCWD-131A OCWD 192 90 165 Injection 5 4 OCWD-131B OCWD 321 235 295 Injection 4 OCWD-131C OCWD 688 440 590 Injection P 4 OCWD-132A OCWD 181 90 155 Injection 5 4 OCWD-132B OCWD 326 226 295 Injection 4 OCWD-132C I OCWD 703 425 670 Injection P 4 OCWD-133A OCWD 183 61 156 Injection 5 4 OCWD-134A OCWD 160 60 135 Injection 5 4 OCWD-135A OCWD 155 60 115 Injection 5 4 25 List of Wells in OCWD Monitoring Programs KEY Aquifer Zone: S=Shallow Aquifer, P=Principal Aquifer, D= Deep Aquifer Program: 1) monitoring well, 2) production well, 3) irrigation or industrial well, 4) injection well, 5) Mid -Basin Injection well, 6) seawater intrusion monitoring well, 7) well monitored by OCWD for Title 22 compliance, 8) North Basin Groundwater Protection Program wells, 9) South Basin Groundwater Protection Program wells, 10) wells in CASGEM monitoring program Well Name Well Owner Bore Depth Casing (ft. bgs) Sequence Screened Interval (ft.bgs) Top Bottom Type of Well Aquifer Zone Program OCWD-136A OCWD 143 60 110 Injection S 4 OCWD-14 OCWD 360 330 355 Injection 4 OCWD-15 OCWD 365 320 345 Injection 4 OCWD-16 OCWD 355 315 335 Injection 4 OCWD-17 OCWD 345 315 336 Injection 4 OCWD-18 OCWD 335 300 325 Injection 4 OCWD-19 OCWD 340 300 330 Injection 4 OCWD-KB1 OCWD 200 180 200 Monitoring S 1 OCWD-LB1 OCWD 177 148 168 Monitoring S 1 OCWD-LB2 OCWD 65 15 30 Monitoring 1 OCWD-LB3 OCWD 175 145 165 Monitoring S 1 OCWD-LB4 OCWD 130 78 88 Monitoring S 1 OCWD-LV1 OCWD 155 135 155 Monitoring S 1 OCWD-Ml OCWD 123 75 110 Monitoring S 1,6 OCWD-M10 OCWD 336 280 305 Monitoring S 1 OCWD-M10A OCWD 17 11 16 Monitoring 1 OCWD-M11 OCWD 310 260 290 Monitoring S 1 OCWD-M12 OCWD 400 330 350 Monitoring 5 1 OCWD-M13 OCWD 400 360 395 Monitoring 5 1 OCWD-M13A OCWD 21 16 21 Monitoring 1 OCWD-M14A OCWD 360 200 300 Monitoring 5 1 OCWD-M14B OCWD 360 320 340 Monitoring 1 OCWD-M15A OCWD 340 195 290 Monitoring 5 1 OCWD-M15B OCWD 340 310 335 Monitoring 1 OCWD-M16 OCWD 337 295 315 Monitoring 5 1 OCWD-M17A OCWD 360 330 345 Monitoring 5 1 OCWD-M17B OCWD 360 210 305 Monitoring 1 OCWD-M18 OCWD 358 310 335 Monitoring 1 OCWD-M19 OCWD 285 215 265 Monitoring 5 1 OCWD-M2 OCWD 162 85 150 Monitoring 5 1,6 OCWD-M20 OCWD 278 255 270 Monitoring 5 1 OCWD-M21 OCWD 355 320 340 Monitoring 5 1 OCWD-M22 OCWD 348 230 270 Monitoring 5 1 OCWD-M23A OCWD 337 190 260 Monitoring 1 1 OCWD-M23B OCWD 337 295 320 Monitoring 1 OCWD-M24 OCWD 330 290 310 Monitoring 5 1 OCWD-M25 OCWD 200 65 185 Monitoring 5 1,6 OCWD-M26 OCWD 151 70 135 Monitoring 5 1,6,10 OCWD-M26A OCWD 16 11 16 Monitoring 1,6 OCWD-M27 OCWD 127 60 1 110 Monitoring 5 1,6 OCWD-M27A OCWD 22 11 16 Monitoring 1,6 OCWD-M28 OCWD 161 80 145 Monitoring 5 1,6 OCWD-M2A OCWD 25 17 22 Monitoring 1 OCWD-M30 OCWD 128 90 110 Monitoring 5 1,6 OCWD-M31 OCWD 180 82 162 Monitoring 5 1,6 OCWD-M36 OCWD 340 290 300 Monitoring 5 1,6 OCWD-M37 OCWD 368 338 348 1 Monitoring 5 1,6 OCWD-M38 OCWD 700 516 526 Monitoring 5/P 1,6 OCWD-M39 OCWD 622 250 270 Monitoring P 1,6 OCWD-M4 OCWD 352 295 330 Monitoring S 1,6 OCWD-M40 OCWD 900 330 520 Monitoring S/P 1,6 OCWD-M41 OCWD 450 370 390 Monitoring S/P 1,6 OCWD-M42 OCWD 645 608 628 Monitoring S/P 1,6 OCWD-M43 OCWD 695 520 540 1 Monitoring P 1,6 OCWD-M44 OCWD 502 295 305 Monitoring S/P 1,6 OCWD-M44A OCWD 125 100 125 Monitoring 1,6 OCWD-M45 OCWD 1014 780 790 Monitoring S/P 1 OCWD-M46 OCWD 1035 890 910 Monitoring P 1 1 OCWD-M46A OCWD 391 350 370 Monitoring 1 OCWD-M47 OCWD 1010 940 960 Monitoring P 1 OCWD-M48 OCWD 505 470 480 Monitoring S/P 1,6 OCWD-M49A OCWD 24 16 21 Monitoring 1,6 OCWD-M49B I OCWD 85 56 81 Monitoring 1,6 OCWD-M5 OCWD 325 1 285 305 Monitoring 5 1,6 OCWD-M50 OCWD 25 16 21 Monitoring 1,6 ONE OCWD 43 28 38 Monitoring 1,6 OCWD-M51B OCWD 130 75 105 Monitoring 1,6 26 List of Wells in OCWD Monitoring Programs KEY Aquifer Zone: S=Shallow Aquifer, P=Principal Aquifer, D= Deep Aquifer Program: 1) monitoring well, 2) production well, 3) irrigation or industrial well, 4) injection well, 5) Mid -Basin Injection well, 6) seawater intrusion monitoring well, 7) well monitored by OCWD for Title 22 compliance, 8) North Basin Groundwater Protection Program wells, 9) South Basin Groundwater Protection Program wells, 10) wells in CASGEM monitoring program Well Name Well Owner Bore Depth Casing (ft. bgs) Sequence Screened Interval(ft.bgs) Top Bottom Type of Well Aquifer Zone Program OCWD-M52A OCWD 61 46 56 Monitoring 1,6 OCWD-M52B OCWD 150 120 140 Monitoring 1,6 OCWD-M52C OCWD 237 210 230 Monitoring P 1,6 OCWD-M52D OCWD 460 330 350 Monitoring P 1,6 OCWD-M53A OCWD 38 22 32 Monitoring 1,6 OCWD-M53B OCWD 132 115 125 Monitoring S 1,6 OCWD-M53C OCWD 229 208 218 Monitoring 1,6 OCWD-M54B OCWD 150 105 125 Monitoring 1,6 OCWD-M6A OCWD 305 260 285 Monitoring S 1,6 OCWD-M6B OCWD 305 185 235 Monitoring 1,6 OCWD-M7A OCWD 293 190 220 Monitoring S 1,6 OCWD-M7B OCWD 293 240 260 Monitoring 1,6 OCWD-M8 OCWD 346 275 310 Monitoring S 1,6 OCWD-M9 OCWD 311 250 295 Monitoring S 1,6 OCWD-MRSH OCWD 540 199 219 Monitoring P 1,6 OCWD-P1 OCWD 197 64 179 Monitoring S 1,6 OCWD-P10 OCWD 150 90 130 Monitoring S 1,6 OCWD-P2 OCWD 186 56 174 Monitoring S 1 OCWD-P3 OCWD 181 66 166 Monitoring S 1,6 OCWD-P4 OCWD 163 70 150 Monitoring S 1,6 OCWD-P6 OCWD 178 85 150 Monitoring S 1,6 OCWD-P7 OCWD 149 80 135 Monitoring S 1,6 OCWD-PD3A OCWD 11 4 9 Monitoring 1 OCWD-PD3B OCWD 22 1 15 20 Monitoring 1 OCWD-PD6A OCWD 10 3 8 Monitoring 1 OCWD-PD6B OCWD 22 15 20 Monitoring 1 OCWD-PDE4 OCWD 0 30 213 Monitoring 1 OCWD-PDHQ OCWD 180 100 180 Other Active Production 2 OCWD-PZ6 OCWD 32 10 30 1 Monitoring 1 OCWD-PZ8 OCWD 32 10 30 Monitoring 1 OCWD-RVW1 OCWD 80 1 67 77 Monitoring S 1 OCWD-RVW1A OCWD 50 39 49 Monitoring 1 OCWD-SA22R OCWD 350 310 330 Monitoring S/P 1,6 OCWD-T2 OCWD 380 300 360 Monitoring S/P 1,6 OCWD-T3 OCWD 180 110 170 Monitoring S 1,6 OCWD-T4 OCWD 178 68 168 Monitoring S 1,6 OCWD-T5 OCWD 396 285 295 Monitoring S 1,6 OCWD-W1 OCWD 398 0 0 Monitoring 1 OCWD-YLR1 OCWD 51 35 40 Monitoring S 1 OCWD-YLR2 OCWD 51 32 37 Monitoring S 1 OCWD-YLR3 OCWD 51 31 36 Monitoring S 1 OM -1 OCWD 245 217 235 Monitoring 1 OM -2 OCWD 250 211 219 Monitoring 1 OM -2A OCWD 135 118 125 Monitoring S 1 OM -4 OCWD 253 221 230 Monitoring 1 OM -4A OCWD 122 112 117 Monitoring S 1 OM -6 OCWD 251 196 204 Monitoring 1 OM -8 OCWD 320 285 293 Monitoring 1 OM -8A OCWD 180 156 164 Monitoring S 1 SAM -1 OCWD 215 191 196 Monitoring S 1,9 SAM -2 OCWD 220 204 214 Monitoring S 1,9 SAM -3 OCWD 225 198 208 Monitoring S 1,9 SAM -4 OCWD 210 185 195 Monitoring S 1,9 SAM -5 OCWD 205 182 192 Monitoring S 1,9 SAM -6 OCWD 205 176 186 Monitoring S 1,9 SAR-1 OCWD 1530 MP1 150 170 Multiport Monitoring S/P/D 1,10 SAR-1 OCWD 1530 MP2 290 300 Multiport Monitoring S/P/D 1,10 SAR-1 OCWD 1530 MP3 320 330 Multiport Monitoring S/P/D 1,10 SAR-1 OCWD 1530 MP4 360 370 Multiport Monitoring S/P/D 1,10 SAR-1 OCWD 1530 MP5 510 530 Multiport Monitoring S/P/D 1,10 SAR-1 OCWD 1530 MP6 580 590 Multiport Monitoring S/P/D 1,10 SAR-1 OCWD 1530 MP7 820 840 Multiport Monitoring S/P/D 1,10 SAR-1 OCWD 1530 MP8 890 900 Multiport Monitoring S/P/D 1,10 SAR-1 OCWD 1530 MP9 910 920 Multiport Monitoring S/P/D 1,10 SAR-1 OCWD 1530 MP10 1010 1020 Multiport Monitoring S/P/D 1,10 E-1 OCWD 1530 MP11 1110 1120 Multiport Monitoring S/P/D 1,10 SAR-1 OCWD 1530 MP12 1280 1290 Multiport Monitoring S/P/D 1,10 27 List of Wells in OCWD Monitoring Programs KEY Aquifer Zone: S=Shallow Aquifer, P=Principal Aquifer, D= Deep Aquifer Program: 1) monitoring well, 2) production well, 3) irrigation or industrial well, 4) injection well, 5) Mid -Basin Injection well, 6) seawater intrusion monitoring well, 7) well monitored by OCWD for Title 22 compliance, 8) North Basin Groundwater Protection Program wells, 9) South Basin Groundwater Protection Program wells, 10) wells in CASGEM monitoring program Well Name Well Owner Bore Depth Casing (ft. bgs) Sequence Screened Interval(ft.bgs) Top Bottom Type of Well Aquifer Zone Program SAR-1 OCWD 1530 MP13 1370 1380 Multiport Monitoring S/P/D 1,10 SAR-1 OCWD 1530 MP14 1441 1451 Multiport Monitoring S/P/D 1,10 SAR-10 OCWD 1150 1100 1115 Monitoring P 1,5 SAR-11 OCWD 1214 1100 1110 Monitoring P 1,5 SAR-2 OCWD 1520 MP1 140 150 Multiport Monitoring S/P/D 1 SAR-2 OCWD 1520 MP2 270 280 Multiport Monitoring S/P/D 1 SAR-2 OCWD 1520 MP3 310 320 Multiport Monitoring S/P/D 1 SAR-2 OCWD 1520 MP4 470 480 Multiport Monitoring S/P/D 1 SAR-2 OCWD 1520 MP5 610 620 Multiport Monitoring S/P/D 1 SAR-2 OCWD 1520 MP6 740 750 Multiport Monitoring S/P/D 1 SAR-2 OCWD 1520 MP7 880 890 Multiport Monitoring S/P/D 1 SAR-2 OCWD 1520 MP8 980 990 Multiport Monitoring S/P/D 1 SAR-2 OCWD 1520 MP9 1020 1030 Multiport Monitoring S/P/D 1 SAR-2 OCWD 1520 MP10 1100 1110 Multiport Monitoring S/P/D 1 SAR-2 OCWD 1520 MP11 1230 1240 Multiport Monitoring S/P/D 1 SAR-2 OCWD 1520 MP12 1350 1360 Multiport Monitoring S/P/D 1 SAR-3 OCWD 1494 MP1 160 170 Multiport Monitoring S/P/D 1,10 SAR-3 OCWD 1494 MP2 230 240 Multiport Monitoring S/P/D 1,10 SAR-3 OCWD 1494 MP3 410 420 Multiport Monitoring S/P/D 1,10 SAR-3 OCWD 1494 MP4 510 520 Multiport Monitoring S/P/D 1,10 SAR-3 OCWD 1494 MP5 640 650 Multiport Monitoring S/P/D 1,10 SAR-3 OCWD 1494 MP6 770 780 Multiport Monitoring S/P/D 1,10 SAR-3 OCWD 1494 MP7 950 960 Multiport Monitoring S/P/D 1,10 SAR-3 OCWD 1494 MP8 1070 1080 Multiport Monitoring S/P/D 1,10 SAR-3 OCWD 1494 MP9 1195 1205 Multiport Monitoring S/P/D 1,10 SAR-3 OCWD 1494 MP10 1265 1275 Multiport Monitoring S/P/D 1,10 SAR-3 OCWD 1494 MP11 1390 1400 Multiport Monitoring S/P/D 1,10 SAR-4 OCWD 1520 MP1 115 125 Multiport Monitoring S/P/D 1 SAR-4 OCWD 1520 MP2 320 330 Multiport Monitoring S/P/D 1 SAR-4 OCWD 1520 MP3 470 480 Multiport Monitoring S/P/D 1 SAR-4 OCWD 1520 MP4 590 600 Multiport Monitoring S/P/D 1 SAR-4 OCWD 1520 MP5 730 740 Multiport Monitoring S/P/D 1 SAR-4 OCWD 1520 MP6 860 870 Multiport Monitoring S/P/D 1 SAR-4 OCWD 1520 MP7 970 980 Multiport Monitoring S/P/D 1 SAR-4 OCWD 1520 MP8 1060 1070 Multiport Monitoring S/P/D 1 SAR-4 OCWD 1520 MP9 1160 1170 Multiport Monitoring S/P/D 1 SAR-4 OCWD 1520 MP10 1395 1405 Multiport Monitoring S/P/D 1 SAR-5 OCWD 1964 MP1 80 90 Multiport Monitoring S/P/D 1 SAR-5 OCWD 1964 MP2 170 180 Multiport Monitoring S/P/D 1 SAR-5 OCWD 1964 MP3 360 370 Multiport Monitoring S/P/D 1 SAR-5 OCWD 1964 MP4 616 626 Multiport Monitoring S/P/D 1 SAR-5 OCWD 1964 MP5 760 770 Multiport Monitoring S/P/D 1 SAR-5 OCWD 1964 MP6 940 950 Multiport Monitoring S/P/D 1 SAR-5 OCWD 1964 MP7 1080 1090 Multiport Monitoring S/P/D 1 SAR-5 OCWD 1964 MP8 1190 1200 Multiport Monitoring S/P/D 1 SAR-5 OCWD 1964 MP9 1290 1300 Multiport Monitoring S/P/D 1 SAR-5 OCWD 1964 MP10 1540 1550 Multiport Monitoring S/P/D 1 SAR-5 OCWD 1964 MP11 1730 1740 Multiport Monitoring S/P/D 1 SAR-5 OCWD 1964 MP12 1820 1830 Multiport Monitoring S/P/D 1 SAR-6 OCWD 1574 MP1 200 210 Multiport Monitoring P 1 SAR-6 OCWD 1574 MP2 360 370 Multiport Monitoring P 1 SAR-6 OCWD 1574 MP3 470 480 Multiport Monitoring P 1 SAR-6 OCWD 1574 MP4 574 584 Multiport Monitoring P 1 SAR-6 OCWD 1574 MP5 700 710 Multiport Monitoring P 1 SAR-6 OCWD 1574 MP6 780 790 Multiport Monitoring P 1 SAR-6 OCWD 1574 MP7 1080 1090 Multiport Monitoring P 1 SAR-6 OCWD 1574 MP8 1180 1190 Multiport Monitoring P 1 SAR-6 OCWD 1574 MP9 1270 1280 Multiport Monitoring P 1 SAR-6 OCWD 1574 MP10 1500 1510 1 Multiport Monitoring P 1 SAR-7 OCWD 1483 MP1 110 120 Multiport Monitoring S/P 1 SAR-7 OCWD 1483 MP2 170 180 Multiport Monitoring S/P 1 SAR-7 OCWD 1483 MP3 310 320 Multiport Monitoring S/P 1 SAR-7 OCWD 1483 MP4 440 450 Multiport Monitoring S/P 1 SAR-7 OCWD 1483 MP5 604 614 Multiport Monitoring S/P 1 SAR-7 OCWD 1483 MP6 740 750 Multiport Monitoring S/P 1 SAN OCWD 1483 MP7 856 866 Multiport Monitoring S/P 1 SAR-7 OCWD 1483 MP8 1190 1200 Multiport Monitoring S/P 1 List of Wells in OCWD Monitoring Programs KEY Aquifer Zone: S=Shallow Aquifer, P=Principal Aquifer, D= Deep Aquifer Program: 1) monitoring well, 2) production well, 3) irrigation or industrial well, 4) injection well, 5) Mid -Basin Injection well, 6) seawater intrusion monitoring well, 7) well monitored by OCWD for Title 22 compliance, 8) North Basin Groundwater Protection Program wells, 9) South Basin Groundwater Protection Program wells, 10) wells in CASGEM monitoring program Well Name Well Owner Bore Depth Casing (ft. bgs) Sequence Screened Interval (ft.bgs) Top Bottom Type of Well Aquifer Zone Program SAR-7 OCWD 1483 MP9 1350 1360 Multiport Monitoring S/P 1 SAR-8 OCWD 267 MP1 34 44 Multiport Monitoring S 1 SAR-8 OCWD 267 MP2 84 94 Multiport Monitoring S 1 SAR-8 OCWD 267 MP3 150 160 Multiport Monitoring S 1 SAR-9 OCWD 2008 MP1 148 160 Multiport Monitoring S/P/D 1,10 SAR-9 OCWD 2008 MP2 236 248 Multiport Monitoring S/P/D 1,10 SAR-9 OCWD 2008 MP3 406 418 Multiport Monitoring S/P/D 1,10 SAR-9 OCWD 2008 MP4 488 500 Multiport Monitoring S/P/D 1,10 SAR-9 OCWD 2008 MP5 604 616 Multiport Monitoring S/P/D 1,10 SAR-9 OCWD 2008 MP6 724 736 Multiport Monitoring S/P/D 1,10 SAR-9 OCWD 2008 MP7 872 884 Multiport Monitoring S/P/D 1,10 SAR-9 OCWD 2008 MP8 1068 1080 Multiport Monitoring S/P/D 1,10 SAR-9 OCWD 2008 MP9 1258 1270 Multiport Monitoring S/P/D 1,10 SAR-9 OCWD 2008 MP10 1473 1484 Multiport Monitoring S/P/D 1,10 SAR-9 OCWD 2008 MP11 1567 1578 Multiport Monitoring S/P/D 1 1,10 SAR-9 OCWD 2008 MP12 1719 1730 Multiport Monitoring S/P/D 1,10 SAR-9 OCWD 2008 MP13 1815 1826 Multiport Monitoring S/P/D 1,10 SAR-9 OCWD 2008 MP14 1889 1900 Multiport Monitoring S/P/D 1,10 SBM -1 OCWD 2023 MP1 74 84 Multiport Monitoring S/P/D 1,6,10 SBM -1 OCWD 2023 MP2 144 154 Multiport Monitoring S/P/D 1,6,10 SBM -1 OCWD 2023 MP3 240 250 Multiport Monitoring S/P/D 1,6,10 SBM -1 OCWD 2023 MP4 370 380 Multiport Monitoring S/P/D 1,6,10 SBM -1 OCWD 2023 MP5 510 520 Multiport Monitoring S/P/D 1,6,10 SBM -1 OCWD 2023 MP6 696 706 Multiport Monitoring S/P/D 1,6,10 SBM -1 OCWD 2023 MP7 910 920 Multiport Monitoring S/P/D 1,6,10 SBM -1 OCWD 2023 MP8 1250 1260 Multiport Monitoring S/P/D 1,6,10 SC -1 OCWD 720 MP1 44 54 Multiport Monitoring S/P 1 SC -1 OCWD 720 MP2 90 100 Multiport Monitoring S/P 1 SC -1 OCWD 720 MP3 150 160 Multiport Monitoring S/P 1 SC -1 OCWD 720 MP4 194 204 Multiport Monitoring S/P 1 SC -1 OCWD 720 MP5 294 304 Multiport Monitoring S/P 1 SC -1 OCWD 720 MP6 390 400 Multiport Monitoring S/P 1 SC -2 OCWD 879 MP1 46 56 Multiport Monitoring S/P 1 SC -2 OCWD 879 MP2 94 104 Multiport Monitoring S/P 1 SC -2 OCWD 879 MP3 146 156 Multiport Monitoring S/P 1 SC -2 OCWD 879 MP4 190 200 Multiport Monitoring S/P 1 SC -2 OCWD 879 MP5 248 258 Multiport Monitoring S/P 1 SC -2 OCWD 879 MP6 300 310 Multiport Monitoring S/P 1 SC -3 OCWD 1500 MP1 224 234 Multiport Monitoring P/D 1 SC -3 OCWD 1500 MP2 410 420 Multiport Monitoring P/D 1 SC -3 OCWD 1500 MP3 576 586 Multiport Monitoring P/D 1 SC -3 OCWD 1500 MP4 710 720 Multiport Monitoring P/D 1 SC -3 OCWD 1500 MP5 1018 1028 Multiport Monitoring P/D 1 SC -3 OCWD 1500 MP6 1150 1160 Multiport Monitoring P/D 1 SC -3 OCWD 1500 MP7 1230 1240 Multiport Monitoring P/D 1 SC -3 OCWD 1500 MP8 1370 1380 Multiport Monitoring P/D 1 SC -3 OCWD 1500 MP9 1460 1470 Multiport Monitoring P/D 1 SC -4 OCWD 1498 MP1 100 111 Multiport Monitoring S/P/D 1,10 SC -4 OCWD 1498 MP2 198 209 Multiport Monitoring S/P/D 1,10 SC -4 OCWD 1498 MP3 268 279 Multiport Monitoring S/P/D 1,10 SC -4 OCWD 1498 MP4 391 402 Multiport Monitoring S/P/D 1,10 SC -4 OCWD 1498 MP5 482 493 Multiport Monitoring S/P/D 1,10 SC -4 OCWD 1498 MP6 572 583 Multiport Monitoring S/P/D 1,10 SC -4 OCWD 1498 MP7 658 669 Multiport Monitoring S/P/D 1,10 SC -4 OCWD 1498 MP8 827 838 Multiport Monitoring S/P/D 1,10 SC -4 OCWD 1498 MP9 1078 1089 Multiport Monitoring S/P/D 1,10 SC -5 OCWD 1500 MP1 123 133 1 Multiport Monitoring S/P/D 1,10 SC -5 OCWD 1500 MP2 196 206 Multiport Monitoring S/P/D 1,10 SC -5 OCWD 1500 MP3 290 300 Multiport Monitoring S/P/D 1,10 SC -5 OCWD 1500 MP4 468 478 Multiport Monitoring S/P/D 1,10 SC -5 OCWD 1500 MP5 667 677 Multiport Monitoring S/P/D 1,10 SC -5 OCWD 1500 MP6 804 814 Multiport Monitoring S/P/D 1,10 SC -5 OCWD 1500 MP7 932 942 Multiport Monitoring S/P/D 1,10 SC -5 OCWD 1500 MP8 1020 1030 Multiport Monitoring S/P/D 1,10 SC -5 OCWD 1500 MP9 1234 1244 Multiport Monitoring S/P/D 1,10 SC -5 OCWD 1500 MP10 1426 1436 Multiport Monitoring S/P/D 1,10 SC -6 OCWD 2213 MP1 90 100 Multiport Monitoring S/P/D 1 29 List of Wells in OCWD Monitoring Programs KEY Aquifer Zone: S=Shallow Aquifer, P=Principal Aquifer, D= Deep Aquifer Program: 1) monitoring well, 2) production well, 3) irrigation or industrial well, 4) injection well, 5) Mid -Basin Injection well, 6) seawater intrusion monitoring well, 7) well monitored by OCWD for Title 22 compliance, 8) North Basin Groundwater Protection Program wells, 9) South Basin Groundwater Protection Program wells, 10) wells in CASGEM monitoring program Well Name Well Owner Bore Depth Casing (ft. bgs) Sequence Screened Interval(ft.bgs) Top Bottom Type of Well Aquifer Zone Program SC -6 OCWD 2213 MP2 200 210 Multiport Monitoring S/P/D 1 SC -6 OCWD 2213 MP3 300 310 Multiport Monitoring S/P/D 1 SC -6 OCWD 2213 MP4 540 550 Multiport Monitoring S/P/D 1 SC -6 OCWD 2213 MP5 785 795 Multiport Monitoring S/P/D 1 SC -6 OCWD 2213 MP6 960 970 Multiport Monitoring S/P/D 1 SC -6 OCWD 2213 MP7 1120 1130 Multiport Monitoring S/P/D 1 SC -6 OCWD 2213 MP8 1325 1335 Multiport Monitoring S/P/D 1 SC -6 OCWD 2213 MP9 1460 1470 Multiport Monitoring S/P/D 1 SC -6 OCWD 2213 MP10 1540 1550 Multiport Monitoring S/P/D 1 SC -6 OCWD 2213 MP11 1680 1690 Multiport Monitoring S/P/D 1 SC -6 OCWD 2213 MP12 1890 1900 Multiport Monitoring S/P/D 1 SC -6 OCWD 2213 MP13 2025 2035 Multiport Monitoring S/P/D 1 SC -6 OCWD 2213 MP14 2115 2125 Multiport Monitoring S/P/D 1 SCS -1 OCWD 313 MP1 24 34 1 Multiport Monitoring S/P 1 SCS -1 OCWD 313 MP2 90 100 Multiport Monitoring S/P 1 SCS -1 OCWD 313 MP3 142 152 Multiport Monitoring S/P 1 SCS -1 OCWD 313 MP4 178 188 Multiport Monitoring S/P 1 SCS -1 OCWD 313 MP5 220 230 Multiport Monitoring S/P 1 SCS -1 OCWD 313 MP6 295 305 Multiport Monitoring S/P 1 SCS -10 OCWD 230 206 216 Monitoring 1 SCS -11 OCWD 405 384 394 1 Monitoring S 1 SCS -12 OCWD 405 275 285 Monitoring S 1 SCS -13 OCWD 200 180 190 Monitoring 1 SCS -2 OCWD 401 MP1 134 145 Multiport Monitoring S/P 1,10 SCS -2 OCWD 401 MP2 174 185 Multiport Monitoring S/P 1,10 SCS -2 OCWD 401 MP3 212 223 Multiport Monitoring S/P 1,10 SCS -2 OCWD 401 MP4 260 270 Multiport Monitoring S/P 1,10 SCS -2 OCWD 401 MP5 325 335 1 Multiport Monitoring S/P 1,10 SCS -3 OCWD 52 31 42 Monitoring 1 SCS -4 OCWD 50 21 32 Monitoring 1 SCS -5 OCWD 51 22 43 Monitoring 1 SCS -6 OCWD 154 147 153 Monitoring S 1 SCS -7 OCWD 142 125 141 Monitoring S 1 SCS -8 OCWD 130 108 129 Monitoring S 1 SCS -9 OCWD 205 153 173 Monitoring S 1 SCS -B1 OCWD 43 18 43 Monitoring 1 SCS -132 OCWD 29 19 29 Monitoring 1 SCS -133 OCWD 26 16 26 Monitoring 1 TIC -67 OCWD 902 245 900 Monitoring P 1 W-14659 OCWD 27 12 27 Monitoring 1 WBS -2A OCWD 177 MP1 50 60 Multiport Monitoring S 1 WBS -2A OCWD 177 MP2 90 100 Multiport Monitoring S 1 WBS -2A OCWD 177 MP3 135 145 1 Multiport Monitoring S 1 WBS -3R OCWD 256 MP1 75 85 Monitoring S 1 WBS -3R OCWD 256 MP2 215 225 Monitoring S 1 WBS -4 OCWD 295 55 220 Multiport Monitoring S/P 1,10 WMM-1 OCWD 2015 MP1 109 119 Multiport Monitoring S/P/D 1 WMM-1 OCWD 2015 MP2 359 369 Multiport Monitoring S/P/D 1 WMM-1 OCWD 2015 MP3 480 490 Multiport Monitoring S/P/D 1 WMM-1 OCWD 2015 MP4 600 610 1 Multiport Monitoring S/P/D 1 WMM-1 OCWD 2015 MP5 740 750 Multiport Monitoring S/P/D 1 WMM-1 OCWD 2015 MP6 810 820 Multiport Monitoring S/P/D 1 WMM-1 OCWD 2015 MP7 889 899 Multiport Monitoring S/P/D 1 WMM-1 OCWD 2015 MP8 980 990 Multiport Monitoring S/P/D 1 WMM-1 OCWD 2015 MP9 1060 1070 Multiport Monitoring S/P/D 1 WMM-1 OCWD 2015 MP10 1210 1220 Multiport Monitoring S/P/D 1 WMM-1 OCWD 2015 MP11 1309 1319 Multiport Monitoring S/P/D 1 WMM-1 OCWD 2015 MP12 1364 1374 Multiport Monitoring S/P/D 1 WMM-1 OCWD 2015 MP13 1430 1440 Multiport Monitoring S/P/D 1 WMM-1 OCWD 2015 MP14 1565 1575 Multiport Monitoring S/P/D 1 WMM-1 OCWD 2015 MP15 1619 1629 Multiport Monitoring S/P/D 1 WMM-1 OCWD 2015 MP16 1740 1750 Multiport Monitoring S/P/D 1 WMM-1 OCWD 2015 MP17 1800 1810 Multiport Monitoring S/P/D 1 WMM-1 OCWD 2015 MP18 1940 1950 Multiport Monitoring S/P/D 1 1 0-1 ORANGE 500 236 416 Inactive Production 2 0-15 ORANGE 506 200 492 Active Large Production P 2,7 0-18 ORANGE 714 372 574 Active Large Production P 2,7 30 List of Wells in OCWD Monitoring Programs KEY Aquifer Zone: S=Shallow Aquifer, P=Principal Aquifer, D= Deep Aquifer Program: 1) monitoring well, 2) production well, 3) irrigation or industrial well, 4) injection well, 5) Mid -Basin Injection well, 6) seawater intrusion monitoring well, 7) well monitored by OCWD for Title 22 compliance, 8) North Basin Groundwater Protection Program wells, 9) South Basin Groundwater Protection Program wells, 10) wells in CASGEM monitoring program Well Name Well Owner Bore Depth Casing (ft. bgs) Sequence Screened Interval (ft.bgs) Top Bottom Type of Well Aquifer Zone Program 0-19 ORANGE 1060 444 1014 Active Large Production P 2,7 0-20 ORANGE 1210 400 1130 Active Large Production P 2,7 0-21 ORANGE 1366 482 1252 Active Large Production P 2,7 0-22 ORANGE 1282 342 802 Active Large Production P 2,7 0-23 ORANGE 958 370 640 Active Large Production P 2,7 0-24 ORANGE 826 420 800 Active Large Production P 2,7 0-25 ORANGE 993 430 885 Active Large Production P 2,7 0-26 ORANGE 1210 460 1170 Active Large Production P 2,7 0-27 ORANGE 960 425 890 Inactive Production 2,7 0-3 ORANGE 216 207 216 Active Large Production 2,7 0-4 ORANGE 726 280 711 Active Large Production P 2,7 0-5 ORANGE 751 156 723 Active Large Production 2,7 0-8 ORANGE 870 570 850 Active Large Production P 2,7 0-9 ORANGE 910 546 888 Active Large Production P 2,7 OASI-SA ORANGE COAST PLUMBING 326 226 288 Inactive Production 2 EMA-AH5 ORANGE COUNTY 84 0 0 Other Active Production 2,3 TIC -73 ORANGE COUNTY 926 324 915 Inactive Production 2,3 CEM2-A ORANGE COUNTY CEMETERY DIST. 401 0 0 Other Active Production 2,3,8 NVLW-SB ORANGE COUNTY PRODUCTIONUCE LLC 430 1 200 420 Other Active Production 2,3 RUIZ-5A1 ORANGE COUNTY PRODUCTIONUCE LLC 0 0 0 Other Active Production 2,3 RUIZ-5A3 ORANGE COUNTY PRODUCTIONUCE LLC 425 210 390 Other Active Production 2,3 RUIZ-61`1 ORANGE COUNTY PRODUCTIONUCE LLC 426 210 390 Other Active Production 2,3,6 OWOD-GG ORANGEWOOD ACADEMY 180 159 179 Other Active Production S 2,3 PSCI-AM14 PACIFIC SCIENTIFIC 118 93 113 Other Active Production 2 PSCI-AM21 PACIFIC SCIENTIFIC 116 95 116 Other Active Production 2 PSCI-AM22 PACIFIC SCIENTIFIC 119 99 119 Other Active Production 2 PSCI-AM25 PACIFIC SCIENTIFIC 115 69 114 Other Active Production 2 PSCI-AM26 PACIFIC SCIENTIFIC 120 69 114 Other Active Production 2 PSCI-AM31 PACIFIC SCIENTIFIC 114 68 113 1 Other Active Production 2 PSCI-AM32R PACIFIC SCIENTIFIC 116 70 115 Monitoring 1 PSCI-AM33 PACIFIC SCIENTIFIC 115 7 114 Other Active Production 2 PSCI-AM34 PACIFIC SCIENTIFIC 114 102 112 Other Active Production 2 PSCI-AM35 PACIFIC SCIENTIFIC 115 7 112 Other Active Production 2 PSCI-AM36 PACIFIC SCIENTIFIC 115 9 114 Other Active Production 2 PSCI-AM37 PACIFIC SCIENTIFIC 114 102 112 Or Active Production 2 PSCI-AM38 PACIFIC SCIENTIFIC 114 69 113 Or Active Production 2 PSCI-AM39 PACIFIC SCIENTIFIC 115 69 113 Or Active Production 2 PSCI-AM40 PACIFIC SCIENTIFIC 127 109 124 Monitoring 1 PSCI-AM41 PACIFIC SCIENTIFIC 116 109 114 Monitoring 1 PSCI-AM6 PACIFIC SCIENTIFIC 115 103 113 Monitoring 1 PSCI-AT1 PACIFIC SCIENTIFIC 146 129 144 Monitoring 1 PAGE -F PAGE AVE. MUTUAL WATER CO. 378 186 364 1 Active Small Production 2,7,8 PLMW-A PALM MUTUAL WATER CO. 280 0 0 Inactive Production 2,3 PLMD-HB PALMDALE-CEDAR WATER ASSOC. 180 0 0 Inactive Production 2 PUSD-LB PARAMOUNT UNIFIED SCHOOL DIST. 155 126 139 Other Active Production 2 W-3767 PARK STANTON PLACE 131 0 0 Inactive Production 2,3 PWC -29H PARK WATER CO. 462 388 409 Inactive Production 2 PWC -6G PARK WATER CO. 854 421 807 Other Active Production 2 W-15063 PARKVIEW MUTUAL WATER CO. 250 0 0 1 Inactive Production 2 PAUL -COS PAULARINO WATER ASSOC. 450 0 0 Inactive Production 2 PINE -0 PINE WATER CO. 0 0 0 Inactive Production 2 PIRT-HB PIRATE WATER CO. 156 0 0 Other Active Production 2,6 W-17527 POWERLINE OIL CO. 0 0 0 Inactive Production 2,3 SNDR-SA PRIVATE 1030 930 990 Other Active Production D 2,3,9 SHAF-WM PRIVATE 125 0 0 Other Active Production 2 ANDR-A PRIVATE 82 0 0 Other Active Production 2 ANNA -0 PRIVATE 0 0 0 Other Active Production 2 ARAK-WM PRIVATE 0 0 0 Other Active Production 2 BLSO-SA PRIVATE 100 0 0 Inactive Production 2,3 BOIS-A PRIVATE 235 0 0 Other Active Production 2 BSBY-GG PRIVATE 148 0 0 Other Active Production 2 BXBY-SB PRIVATE 305 150 290 Other Active Production 2,3 CALL -FV PRIVATE 214 0 0 OtherActive Production 2,3 CO -8 PRIVATE 221 0 0 Other Active Production 2,3 CO -9 PRIVATE 250 144 234 Other Active Production 2,3 COOP -SA PRIVATE 138 0 0 Inactive Production 2 COUR-HBB2 PRIVATE 138 0 0 Inactive Production 2 31 List of Wells in OCWD Monitoring Programs KEY Aquifer Zone: S=Shallow Aquifer, P=Principal Aquifer, D= Deep Aquifer Program: 1) monitoring well, 2) production well, 3) irrigation or industrial well, 4) injection well, 5) Mid -Basin Injection well, 6) seawater intrusion monitoring well, 7) well monitored by OCWD for Title 22 compliance, 8) North Basin Groundwater Protection Program wells, 9) South Basin Groundwater Protection Program wells, 10) wells in CASGEM monitoring program Well Name Well Owner Bore Depth Casing (ft. bgs) Sequence Screened Interval (ft.bgs) Top Bottom Type of Well Aquifer Zone Program COUR-HBB3 PRIVATE 226 120 216 Inactive Production 2,3 CREST -BR PRIVATE 530 187 523 Other Active Production 2,3 CULBK-CE1 PRIVATE 0 0 0 Other Active Production 2 DAVI-O PRIVATE 185 0 0 Other Active Production 2 DETT-BP PRIVATE 0 0 0 Inactive Production 2 DOSS -BP PRIVATE 0 0 0 Inactive Production 2 ECKH-A PRIVATE 260 0 0 Or Active Production 2 ENCS -GG PRIVATE 155 0 0 Inactive Production 2,3 FAVI -C PRIVATE 130 0 0 Inactive Production 2 GHAV-GG PRIVATE 200 168 188 Other Active Production S 2,3 GORD-LW PRIVATE 0 0 0 Other Active Production 2 GRNT-CE PRIVATE 0 0 0 Other Active Production 2 HNCK-C PRIVATE 90 0 0 Inactive Production 2,3 HOWD-A PRIVATE 217 0 0 Inactive Production 2 HTCH-WM PRIVATE 120 0 0 Inactive Production 2 HUNTZ-SA PRIVATE 146 100 145 Other Active Production 2,3 ICHI-HB PRIVATE 128 0 0 Other Active Production 2 JAME-CO PRIVATE 376 1 192 250 Other Active Production 2 KNAS-S PRIVATE 205 0 0 Other Active Production 2 KUBO-FV PRIVATE 133 122 132 Other Active Production 2 LCRO-FV PRIVATE 0 0 0 Other Active Production 2 MCGA-A PRIVATE 0 0 0 Other Active Production 2 MCGN-BP1 PRIVATE 260 50 255 Other Active Production S 2 MKSN-WM PRIVATE 137 127 137 Inactive Production 2 MONITORINGG-O PRIVATE 480 1 80 480 Other Active Production 2,3 MONITORINGT-A PRIVATE 110 0 0 Other Active Production 2 MSER-A PRIVATE 100 0 0 Other Active Production 2 MSSM-A PRIVATE 135 0 0 Inactive Production 2 NAKM-A PRIVATE 120 0 0 Inactive Production 2 NAKT-BP PRIVATE 110 0 0 Other Active Production 2 NESL-GG PRIVATE 0 0 0 Other Active Production 2 NORT-A PRIVATE 0 1 0 0 Inactive Production 2 NVLW-SB3 PRIVATE 680 0 0 Other Active Production P 2,3 PEAR -GG PRIVATE 143 0 0 Inactive Production 2 PEIR-A PRIVATE 137 0 0 Inactive Production 2 PTCK-SA PRIVATE 300 0 0 Inactive Production 2,3 PURS-SB PRIVATE 252 0 0 Other Active Production 2,3,6 RMW-SFS PRIVATE 540 0 0 Other Active Production 2 RWLM-GG PRIVATE 132 1 0 0 Other Active Production 2 SAND -BP PRIVATE 70 0 0 Inactive Production 2 SANZ-C PRIVATE 84 76 83 Other Active Production S 2 SCHN-GG PRIVATE 144 0 0 Other Active Production 2 SINC-C PRIVATE 130 0 0 Inactive Production 2 SWAN -C PRIVATE 185 1 0 0 Inactive Production 2 TAOR-A PRIVATE 254 0 0 Inactive Production 2 VGNA-A PRIVATE 165 0 0 Inactive Production 2,3 W-10699 PRIVATE 141 0 0 Inactive Production 2 W-10894 PRIVATE 365 357 364 Inactive Production 2 W-11104 PRIVATE 320 230 300 Inactive Production 2 W-12745 PRIVATE 270 0 0 Inactive Production 2 W-12753 PRIVATE 250 0 0 Inactive Production 2 W-12791 PRIVATE 80 0 0 Inactive Production 2 W-12819 PRIVATE 0 0 0 Inactive Production 2 W-1311 PRIVATE 345 0 345 Inactive Production 2 W-13112 PRIVATE 935 701 933 Inactive Production 2 W-13118 PRIVATE 600 343 575 Inactive Production 2,3 W-13207 PRIVATE 260 0 0 1 Inactive Production 2 W-13285 PRIVATE 130 0 0 Inactive Production 2 W-14805 PRIVATE 170 0 0 Inactive Production 2,3 W-15791 PRIVATE 0 0 0 Inactive Production 2,3 W-15793 PRIVATE 0 0 0 Inactive Production 2,3 W-15803 PRIVATE 0 0 0 Inactive Production 2,3 W-15817 PRIVATE 158 0 0 Inactive Production 2 W-15857 PRIVATE 100 0 0 Inactive Production 2 W-15880 PRIVATE 97 0 0 Inactive Production 2,3 W-15962 PRIVATE 450 0 0 Inactive Production 2,3 W-16004 PRIVATE 165 0 0 Inactive Production 2 32 List of Wells in OCWD Monitoring Programs KEY Aquifer Zone: S=Shallow Aquifer, P=Principal Aquifer, D= Deep Aquifer Program: 1) monitoring well, 2) production well, 3) irrigation or industrial well, 4) injection well, 5) Mid -Basin Injection well, 6) seawater intrusion monitoring well, 7) well monitored by OCWD for Title 22 compliance, 8) North Basin Groundwater Protection Program wells, 9) South Basin Groundwater Protection Program wells, 10) wells in CASGEM monitoring program Well Name Well Owner Bore Depth Casing (ft. bgs) Sequence Screened Interval (ft.bgs) Top Bottom Type of Well Aquifer Zone Program W-18700 PRIVATE 300 200 300 Other Active Production 2,3 W-19049 PRIVATE 340 60 260 Other Active Production 2,3 W-19051 PRIVATE 430 180 400 Other Active Production 2,3 W-19053 PRIVATE 440 360 440 Other Active Production 2 W-19055 PRIVATE 360 140 360 Other Active Production 2,3 W-20906 PRIVATE 0 0 0 Inactive Production 2,3 W-2268 PRIVATE 226 140 190 Inactive Production S 2,3 W-2447 PRIVATE 180 157 178 Inactive Production S 2,3 W-3063 PRIVATE 310 292 300 Inactive Production 2,3 W-376 PRIVATE 370 290 370 Inactive Production 2 W-3765 PRIVATE 0 0 0 Inactive Production 2 W-3795 PRIVATE 0 0 0 Inactive Production 2,3 W-428 PRIVATE 311 0 0 Inactive Production 2,10 W-432 PRIVATE 300 117 137 Inactive Production S 2,10 W-5304 PRIVATE 0 0 0 Inactive Production 2 W-5306 PRIVATE 292 0 0 Inactive Production 2 W-615 PRIVATE 374 188 364 Inactive Production 2,3 W-6523 PRIVATE 175 0 0 Inactive Production 2 W-702 PRIVATE 324 294 318 Inactive Production 2,3 W-7040 PRIVATE 192 0 0 Inactive Production 2,3 W-7046 PRIVATE 257 0 0 Inactive Production S 2 W-830 PRIVATE 200 191 200 Inactive Production 2 W-856 PRIVATE 406 271 401 Inactive Production 2 W-860 PRIVATE 348 0 0 Inactive Production 2 W-9172 PRIVATE 98 50 97 Inactive Production 2 W-9180 PRIVATE 200 0 0 Inactive Production 2 WALL -A PRIVATE 45 16 45 Other Active Production 2 WARN-WHNY PRIVATE 0 0 0 1 Inactive Production 2,3 WLMS-A PRIVATE 0 0 0 Other Active Production 2 WMIL-WM PRIVATE 300 260 300 Inactive Production 2 WMIL-WM2 PRIVATE 650 150 640 Other Active Production 2 WRNE-WTOM PRIVATE 0 0 0 Other Active Production 2 NOBL-O R.J. NOBLE CO. 476 290 474 Other Active Production P 2 FURU-HB RAINBOW DISPOSAL 150 0 0 Other Active Production 2,6 W-4152 RAINBOW DISPOSAL 202 142 178 Inactive Production 2 RAY-MW06 RAYON CO. 191 150 190 Monitoring 1 RAY-MW09 RAYON CO. 194 152 192 Monitoring 1 RAY-MW16 RAYON CO. 180 149 179 Monitoring 1 RAY-MW17 RAYON CO. 204 173 193 Monitoring 1 RAY-MW21 RAYON CO. 238 212 232 Monitoring 1 RAY-MW23 RAYON CO. 236 215 235 Monitoring 1 RAY-MW24 RAYON CO. 338 310 330 Monitoring D 1 RAY-MW25 RAYON CO. 805 449 480 Monitoring D 1 RAY-MW26 RAYON CO. 805 459 499 Monitoring P 1 RAY-MW27 RAYON CO. 550 475 515 Monitoring P 1 RAY-MW28 RAYON CO. 425 335 375 Monitoring P 1 RAY-MW29 RAYON CO. 266 200 240 Monitoring P 1 RAY-MW30 RAYON CO. 635 596 616 Monitoring P 1 RAY-MW31 RAYON CO. 1100 946 996 Monitoring P 1 RAY-MW32 RAYON CO. 1153 1070 1100 Monitoring P/D 1 RAY-MW33 RAYON CO. 1080 980 1020 Monitoring P 1 RAY-MW34A RAYON CO. 290 220 280 Monitoring 1 RAY-MW34B RAYON CO. 540 486 536 Monitoring P 1 RAY-MW34C RAYON CO. 709 556 576 Monitoring P 1 RAY-MW35 RAYON CO. 1104 990 1040 1 Monitoring P 1 RAY-MW36 RAYON CO. 1030 934 994 Monitoring P 1 RAY-MW37 RAYON CO. 916 770 820 Monitoring P 1 RAY-MW39 RAYON CO. 1080 982 1012 Monitoring P 1 RAY-MW40 RAYON CO. 1040 930 970 Monitoring P 1 RAY -P07 RAYON CO. 117 108 130 Monitoring S 1 RAY -P09 RAYON CO. 130 110 130 Monitoring S 1 RIDG-O RIDGELINE PERATIONS, INC. 63 55 60 Inactive Production 2 RVGC-SA RIVER VIEW GOLF 300 156 216 Other Active Production 2,3 ROBSN-YLl I ROBERTSON READY MIX 67 21 65 Inactive Production 2,3 RCA -AR ROMAN CATHOLIC ARCHBISHOP -LA 20 0 Other Active Production 2 W-8813 S FARGO BANK, INC. 13 3 13 Monitoring 1 SAKI-SA13 SAKIOKA & SONS, ROY K. 463 0 0 Other Active Production 2,3,9 33 List of Wells in OCWD Monitoring Programs KEY Aquifer Zone: S=Shallow Aquifer, P=Principal Aquifer, D= Deep Aquifer Program: 1) monitoring well, 2) production well, 3) irrigation or industrial well, 4) injection well, 5) Mid -Basin Injection well, 6) seawater intrusion monitoring well, 7) well monitored by OCWD for Title 22 compliance, 8) North Basin Groundwater Protection Program wells, 9) South Basin Groundwater Protection Program wells, 10) wells in CASGEM monitoring program Well Name Well Owner Bore Depth Casing (ft. bgs) Sequence Screened Interval (ft.bgs) Top Bottom Type of Well Aquifer Zone Program SAKI-SA11 SAKIOKA FARMS 187 0 0 Inactive Production 2,9 SA -16 SANTA ANA 978 305 950 Active Large Production P 2,7 SA -18 SANTA ANA 654 245 623 Active Large Production P 2,7 SA -20 SANTA ANA 981 390 940 Active Large Production P 2,7 SA -21 SANTA ANA 986 400 960 Active Large Production P 2,7 SA -24 SANTA ANA 688 352 654 Active Large Production P 2,7 SA -26 SANTA ANA 1186 330 1140 Active Large Production P 2,7,9 SA -27 SANTA ANA 1152 396 1140 Active Large Production P 2,7 SA -28 SANTA ANA 1200 250 980 Active Large Production P 2,7 SA -29 SANTA ANA 1090 450 1050 Active Large Production P 2,7 SA -30 SANTA ANA 989 440 900 Active Large Production P 2,7 SA -31 SANTA ANA 1310 1 465 1240 Active Large Production P 2,7 SA -32 SANTA ANA 1060 307 1030 Inactive Production P 2,7 SA -33 SANTA ANA 1080 425 935 Active Large Production P 2,7 SA -34 SANTA ANA 1000 370 520 Active Large Production P 2,7 SA -35 SANTA ANA 1520 429 1480 Active Large Production P 2,7 SA -36 SANTA ANA 1510 570 1290 Active Large Production P 2,7 SA -37 SANTA ANA 1560 348 1480 Active Large Production P 2,7 SA -38 SANTA ANA 1510 400 1270 Active Large Production P 2,7 SA -39 SANTA ANA 1350 590 1290 Active Large Production P 2,7 SA -40 SANTA ANA 1335 550 1305 Active Large Production P 2,7 SA -41 SANTA ANA 1010 525 978 Active Large Production P 2,7 SA -7 SANTA ANA 960 426 907 Inactive Production 2 W-12903 SANTA ANA 423 0 0 Inactive Production 2 SACC -SA SANTA ANA COUNTRY CLUB 536 205 406 Other Active Production P 2,3,6 SAVI-16 SANTA ANA VALLEY IRRIGATION CO 752 1 262 825 Inactive Production 2,3 SFE -2 SANTA FE ENERGY CO. 294 0 0 Inactive Production 2,3 SFE -3 SANTA FE ENERGY CO. 205 0 0 Inactive Production 2,3 SFE -4 SANTA FE ENERGY CO. 180 0 0 Inactive Production 2,3 SFS -12 SANTA FE SPRINGS 1556 940 1430 Active Large Production 2 SFS -2 SANTA FE SPRINGS 1250 336 1218 Other Active Production 2,3 SAVS-ASC SAVANNA SCHOOL DIST. 1301 0 0 Other Active Production 2,3 SB -BC SEAL BEACH 1050 370 1020 Active Large Production P 2,7 SB -BEV SEAL BEACH 920 400 800 Active Large Production P 2,6,7 SB -LAM SEAL BEACH 1200 360 1170 Active Large Production P 2,7 SB -LEI SEAL BEACH 840 420 840 Active Large Production P 2,6,7 SID -3 SERRANO WATER DIST. 604 296 584 Active Large Production P 2,7 SID -4 SERRANO WATER DIST. 650 290 520 Active Large Production P 2,7 SWD-5 SERRANO WATER DIST. 750 310 720 Active Large Production P 2,7 SCC -Dl SERVICE CHEMICAL 124 113 123 Monitoring 1,9 W-15094 SHELL OIL CO. 104 58 95 Inactive Production 2 W-15098 SHELL OIL CO. 350 0 0 Inactive Production 2 W-15100 SHELL OIL CO. 115 80 115 Inactive Production 2 W-2507 SHELL OIL CO. 437 230 340 Inactive Production 2 W-2523 SHELL OIL CO. 115 70 100 Inactive Production 2 W-2505 SIGNAL OIL AND GAS 121 76 104 Inactive Production 2,3 W-9170 SIGNAL OIL AND GAS 92 80 90 Inactive Production 2 RODE -A SILICON SALVAGE 218 178 208 Other Active Production S 2 SILV-YL SILVERADO CONSTRUCTORS 78 40 66 Other Active Production S 2,3,10 W-3783 SO. CA EDISON 458 0 0 Inactive Production 2,9 SMWC-BF4 SOMERSET MUTUAL WATER CO. 1070 0 0 Other Active Production 2 SMWC-BFFWR SOMERSET MUTUAL WATER CO. 1076 0 0 Active Small Production 2 W-13380 SOMERSET MUTUAL WATER CO. 875 0 0 Inactive Production 2 FOND -A SOURCE REFRIGERATION 250 0 0 Inactive Production 2 MIYA-BP SOURN CA EDISON 400 0 0 Inactive Production 2,3 SCE-DASUB SOURN CA EDISON 0 0 0 Other Active Production 2 SCE-LBDM SOURN CA EDISON 366 100 347 Inactive Production 2,3 SCE-LBSG SOURN CA EDISON 340 190 340 1 Inactive Production 2,3 SCE-YLCS SOURN CA EDISON 104 5 103 Inactive Production S 2,3,10 TIC -127 SOURN CA EDISON 134 0 0 Monitoring S 1 TIC -140 SOURN CA EDISON 787 0 0 Monitoring 1 W-13195 SOURN CA EDISON 527 0 0 Inactive Production 2,3 W-15807 SOURN CA EDISON 150 0 0 Inactive Production 2,3 W-15874 SOURN CA EDISON 188 0 0 Inactive Production 2 SCGC-1 SOURN CA GAS CO. 300 0 02ther Active Production 2,3 SCGC-O SOURN CA GAS CO. 405 0 0 Other Active Production 2,3 W-11198 SOURN SERVICE CO., LTD. 952 716 948 Other Active Production 2,3 34 List of Wells in OCWD Monitoring Programs KEY Aquifer Zone: S=Shallow Aquifer, P=Principal Aquifer, D= Deep Aquifer Program: 1) monitoring well, 2) production well, 3) irrigation or industrial well, 4) injection well, 5) Mid -Basin Injection well, 6) seawater intrusion monitoring well, 7) well monitored by OCWD for Title 22 compliance, 8) North Basin Groundwater Protection Program wells, 9) South Basin Groundwater Protection Program wells, 10) wells in CASGEM monitoring program Well Name Well Owner Bore Depth Casing (ft. bgs) Sequence Screened Interval (ft.bgs) Top Bottom Type of Well Aquifer Zone Program SCSH-SA1 SOUTH COAST SHORE HOA 450 280 430 Other Active Production 2,3 SMID-D4 SOUTH MIDWAY CITY WATER CO. 142 0 0 Inactive Production 2 SMID-D5 SOUTH MIDWAY CITY WATER CO. 630 300 600 Active Small Production 2,7 SPRK-SA SPARKLETTS DRINKING WATER CORP 246 154 212 Other Active Production 2,3 W-8292 SPRAYON PRODUCTIONUCTS 105 80 98 Monitoring 1 W-8294 SPRAYON PRODUCTIONUCTS 101 80 100 Monitoring 1 W-8296 SPRAYON PRODUCTIONUCTS 99 70 90 Monitoring 1 W-3801 STATE OF CA 725 254 407 Inactive Production 2,3 STEP -A STEPAN CO. 275 210 275 Other Active Production 2,3,8 SWS-26137 SUBURBAN WATER SYSTEMS 820 0 0 Inactive Production 2,3 SWS-409W3 SUBURBAN WATER SYSTEMS 1460 540 1420 Active Large Production 2 SWS-410W1 SUBURBAN WATER SYSTEMS 1312 617 1237 Other Active Production 2 ANGS-HBM3 TERMO PETROLEUM 1510 146 1440 Multiport Monitoring 1 TEX-W1 TEXACO, INC. 30 5 30 Monitoring 1 W-8805 TEXACO, INC. 45 15 45 Monitoring 1 W-8807 TEXACO, INC. 45 15 45 Monitoring 1 W-8809 TEXACO, INC. 45 15 45 Monitoring 1 W-8811 TEXACO, INC. 45 15 45 Monitoring 1 W-8815 TEXACO, INC. 35 25 35 Monitoring 1 W-18289 TOSCO MARKETING CO. 150 120 150 Monitoring 1 W-18291 TOSCO MARKETING CO. 140 105 140 Monitoring 1 W-18293 TOSCO MARKETING CO. 140 105 140 Monitoring 1 T868 -S1 TRACT 868 MUTUAL WATER CO. 200 0 0 Inactive Production 2 T868 -S2 TRACT 868 MUTUAL WATER CO. 0 0 0 Inactive Production 2 TREE -SA TREESWEET PRODUCTIONUCT CO. 416 150 398 Inactive Production 2,3 TLLC-F2 TRUE LOVE LURAN CHURCH 350 190 350 Other Active Production 2,3,8 T-1751 TUSTIN 375 200 311 Inactive Production 2 T -17S2 TUSTIN 1003 310 490 Inactive Production 2 T-1754 TUSTIN 520 200 480 1 Active Large Production P 2,7 T -BENE TUSTIN 627 290 590 Inactive Production P 2 T-COLU TUSTIN 1470 560 1160 Active Large Production P 2,7 T -ED TUSTIN 1492 500 840 Inactive Production 2,7 T-LIVI TUSTIN 617 300 617 Inactive Production 2 T-MS3 TUSTIN 630 300 630 Active Large Production P 2,7 T-MS4 TUSTIN 1180 330 880 Active Large Production P 2,7 T-NEWP TUSTIN 375 234 267 Active Large Production S 2,7 T-PANK TUSTIN 614 323 614 Inactive Production P 2,9 T -PAS TUSTIN 1260 440 1225 Active Large Production P 2,7 T -PROS TUSTIN 630 270 630 Active Large Production P 2,7 T-TUST TUSTIN 827 306 776 Active Large Production P 2,7 T-VNBG TUSTIN 1129 480 900 Active Large Production P 2,7 T-WALN TUSTIN 1191 397 995 1 Active Large Production P 2,7,9 T-YORB TUSTIN 863 385 850 Inactive Production P 2 USGS-NAWQA1 U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY 24 14 24 Monitoring 1 USGS-NAWQA10 U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY 24 14 19 Monitoring 1 USGS-NAWQA11 U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY 49 39 44 Monitoring 1 USGS-NAWQA12 U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY 24 14 19 Monitoring 1 USGS-NAWQA13 U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY 34 24 29 Monitoring 1 USGS-NAWQA14 U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY 74 69 74 Monitoring 1 USGS-NAWQA15 U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY 39 29 34 Monitoring 1 USGS-NAWQA16 U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY 44 34 39 Monitoring 1 USGS-NAWQA17 U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY 19 9 14 Monitoring 1 USGS-NAWQA18 U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY 29 19 24 Monitoring 1 USGS-NAWQA19 U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY 19 9 14 Monitoring 1 USGS-NAWQA2 U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY 21 10 15 Monitoring 1 USGS-NAWQA20 U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY 0 14 19 Monitoring 1 USGS-NAWQA21 U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY 24 14 19 Monitoring 1 USGS-NAWQA22 U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY 144 134 139 Monitoring 1 USGS-NAWQA23 U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY 34 24 29 Monitoring 1 USGS-NAWQA24 U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY 49 34 39 Monitoring 1 USGS-NAWQA25 U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY 19 9 19 Monitoring 1 USGS-NAWQA26 U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY 29 19 24 Monitoring 1 USGS-NAWQA27 U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY 19 9 19 Monitoring 1 USGS-NAWQA28 U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY 19 9 19 1 Monitoring 1 USGS-NAWQA29 U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY 19 9 19 Monitoring 1 USGS-NAWQA3U.S.GEOLOGICALSURVEY 21 12 17 Monitoring 1 USGS-NAWQA30 U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY 19 9 19 1 Monitoring 1 35 List of Wells in OCWD Monitoring Programs KEY Aquifer Zone: S=Shallow Aquifer, P=Principal Aquifer, D= Deep Aquifer Program: 1) monitoring well, 2) production well, 3) irrigation or industrial well, 4) injection well, 5) Mid -Basin Injection well, 6) seawater intrusion monitoring well, 7) well monitored by OCWD for Title 22 compliance, 8) North Basin Groundwater Protection Program wells, 9) South Basin Groundwater Protection Program wells, 10) wells in CASGEM monitoring program Well Name Well Owner Bore Depth Casing (ft. bgs) Sequence Screened Interval (ft.bgs) Top Bottom Type of Well Aquifer Zone Program USGS-NAWQA31 U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY 24 14 19 Monitoring 1 USGS-NAWQA4 U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY 24 14 19 Monitoring 1 USGS-NAWQA5 U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY 20 10 15 Monitoring 1 USGS-NAWQA5 U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY 20 10 15 Monitoring 9 USGS-NAWQA6 U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY 20 10 15 Monitoring 1 USGS-NAWQA7 U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY 29 19 24 Monitoring 1 USGS-NAWQA8 U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY 23 13 18 Monitoring 1 USGS-NAWQA9 U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY 29 19 24 Monitoring 1 UOC-138 UNION OIL CO. 79 60 75 Inactive Production 2,3 UOC-139 UNION OIL CO. 79 60 75 Inactive Production 2,3 COS-PLAZ UNKNOWN 779 0 0 Monitoring P 1 W-14764 UNKNOWN 0 0 0 Inactive Production 2 W-18102 UNKNOWN 130 110 130 Monitoring 1 W-3629 UNKNOWN 162 0 0 Inactive Production 2,3 W-8298 UNKNOWN 115 0 0 Monitoring 1 W-8300 UNKNOWN 85 0 0 Monitoring 1 W-8304 UNKNOWN 49 0 0 Monitoring 1 W-8306 UNKNOWN 85 0 0 Monitoring 1 W-8308 UNKNOWN 182 0 0 Monitoring 1 W-18607 UNOCAL BIRCH HILLS 130 1 25 130 Other Active Production 2 W-18609 UNOCAL BIRCH HILLS 0 25 120 Monitoring 1 W-18611 UNOCAL BIRCH HILLS 120 25 120 1 Monitoring 1 W-18613 UNOCAL BIRCH HILLS 120 45 120 Injection 4 W-18615 UNOCAL BIRCH HILLS 120 45 120 Injection 4 W-18617 UNOCAL BIRCH HILLS 120 45 120 Injection 4 W-18637 UNOCAL BIRCH HILLS 120 45 120 Injection 4 W-18639 UNOCAL BIRCH HILLS 120 45 120 Injection 4 W-18641 UNOCAL BIRCH HILLS 120 45 120 Injection 4 MTSN-SA VERSAILLES ON LAKE APT 914 0 0 1 Other Active Production 2,3 CRES-A VICTORY BAPTIST CHURCH 541 485 525 Active Small Production 2,7 Al -HB VILLAGE NURSERIES 305 188 300 Other Active Production 2,3 W-13235 VIRGINIA COUNTRY CLUB 1285 915 1010 Monitoring 1 CATH -S W. CARINE ST. MUT. WTR. CO. 170 0 0 Other Active Production 2,3 DISN-AE1 WALT DISNEY PRODUCTIONS 400 0 0 Inactive Production 2,3 DISN-AH1 WALT DISNEY PRODUCTIONS 0 0 0 Inactive Production 2,3 FU1S-A WALT DISNEY PRODUCTIONS 642 446 1 628 Inactive Production 2,3 W-846 WALT DISNEY PRODUCTIONS 325 0 0 Inactive Production 2 WRD-CERRITOS-1 WATER REPLENISHMENT DIST. 1221 1155 1175 Monitoring 1 WRD-CERRITOS-2 WATER REPLENISHMENT DIST. 1504 1350 1370 Monitoring 1 WRD-LAKEWOOD-1A WATER REPLENISHMENT DIST. 1020 989 1009 Monitoring 1 WRD-LAKEWOOD-113 WATER REPLENISHMENT DIST. 172 140 160 Monitoring 1 WRD-LAKEWOOD-2 WATER REPLENISHMENT DIST. 2160 1960 2000 1 Monitoring 1 WRD-LAMIRADA-1 WATER REPLENISHMENT DIST. 1257 1130 1150 Monitoring 1 WRD-LONGBEACH-1 WATER REPLENISHMENT DIST. 1495 1430 1450 Monitoring 1,6 WRD-LONGBEACH-6 WATER REPLENISHMENT DIST. 1550 1490 1510 Monitoring 1 WRD-LONGBEACH-8 WATER REPLENISHMENT DIST. 1515 1435 1455 Monitoring 1 WRD-NORWALK-1 WATER REPLENISHMENT DIST. 1432 1400 1420 Monitoring 1 WRD-NORWALK-2 WATER REPLENISHMENT DIST. 1502 1460 1480 Monitoring 1 WRD-SEALBEACH-1 WATER REPLENISHMENT DIST. 1505 1345 1365 Monitoring S/P/D 1,6 WRD-WHITTIER-1A WATER REPLENISHMENT DIST. 1298 1180 1200 Monitoring 1 WRD-WHITTIER-113 WATER REPLENISHMENT DIST. 640 600 620 Monitoring 1 WM-107A WESTMINSTER 1040 350 980 Active Large Production P 2,7 WM-11 WESTMINSTER 820 325 790 Active Large Production P 2,7 WM-125 WESTMINSTER 930 1 374 860 Active Large Production P 2,6,7 WM-3 WESTMINSTER 365 285 365 Active Large Production P 2,7 WM-4 WESTMINSTER 1209 345 1125 Active Large Production P 2,7 WM-6 WESTMINSTER 694 176 660 Active Large Production 2,7 WM-75A WESTMINSTER 1041 410 996 Active Large Production P 2,7 WM-RES1 WESTMINSTER 920 390 880 Active Large Production P 2,7 WM-RES2 WESTMINSTER 960 340 937 Active Large Production P 2,6,7 WM-SC4 WESTMINSTER 454 1 425 454 Active Large Production P 2,7 WMEM-WE WESTMINSTER MEMORIAL PARK 149 0 0 Inactive Production 2,3 WMEM-WPAR WESTMINSTER MEMORIAL PARK 614 140 599 Inactive Production 2,3 WMEM-WW WESTMINSTER MEMORIAL PARK 488 95 442 Other Active Production 2,3 WHS-CHS40 WHITTIER UNION H.S. DIST. 836 0 0 Inactive Production 2 WHS-SH550 WHITTIER UNION H.S. DIST. 804 228 780 Active Small Production 2 W-14807 WILLIAM LYON CO 490 0 0 Inactive Production 2 36 List of Wells in OCWD Monitoring Programs KEY Aquifer Zone: S=Shallow Aquifer, P=Principal Aquifer, D= Deep Aquifer Program: 1) monitoring well, 2) production well, 3) irrigation or industrial well, 4) injection well, 5) Mid -Basin Injection well, 6) seawater intrusion monitoring well, 7) well monitored by OCWD for Title 22 compliance, 8) North Basin Groundwater Protection Program wells, 9) South Basin Groundwater Protection Program wells, 10) wells in CASGEM monitoring program Well Name Well Owner Bore Depth Casing (ft. bgs) Sequence Screened Interval (ft.bgs) Top Bottom Type of Well Aquifer Zone Program WOOD-INLK WOODBRIDGE VILL HOMEOWNER ASSN 910 370 890 Inactive Production P 2,3 WOOD-ISLK WOODBRIDGE VILL HOMEOWNER ASSN 845 210 800 Inactive Production P 2,3 YLCC-35C2 YORBA LINDA COUNTRY CLUB 425 388 404 Inactive Production 2,3 YLCC-35C4 YORBA LINDA COUNTRY CLUB 510 188 472 Other Active Production 2,3 YLCC-35F3 YORBA LINDA COUNTRY CLUB 460 130 450 Other Active Production 2,3 YLWD-1 YORBA LINDA WATER DIST. 427 90 340 Active Large Production 2,7 YLWD-10 YORBA LINDA WATER DIST. 465 90 406 Active Large Production 2,7 YLWD-11 YORBA LINDA WATER DIST. 547 149 514 Active Large Production 2,7 YLWD-12 YORBA LINDA WATER DIST. 544 80 498 Active Large Production 2,7 YLWD-15 YORBA LINDA WATER DIST. 213 133 198 Active Large Production S 2,7 YLWD-18 YORBA LINDA WATER DIST. 1050 250 570 Active Large Production P 2,7 YLWD-19 YORBA LINDA WATER DIST. 611 280 581 Active Large Production P 2,7 YLWD-20 YORBA LINDA WATER DIST. 600 225 570 Active Large Production P 2,7 YLWD-5 YORBA LINDA WATER DIST. 395 90 340 Active Large Production 2,7 YLWD-7 YORBA LINDA WATER DIST. 361 137 259 Active Large Production 2,7 37 APPENDIX F Monthly Water Resources Report WATER RESOURCES SUMMARY June 2014 INFLOWS & OUTFLOWS Total for Year to Date - (acre-feet) Month This Year Last Year BASIN SUPPLIES Water Purchases from MWD (excludes In Lieu) Water into MWD Storage Account (excludes In Lieu) SAR & Santiago Creek Flows (accounts for storage to/from recharge facilities) GWRS Water to Forebay GWRS Water to Talbert Barrier OC -44 Water to Talbert Barrier Alamitos Barrier Water Incidental Recharge (estimated) Evaporation from Recharge Basins River Flow Lost to Ocean Total Groundwater Recharge WATER PRODUCTION Groundwater Production MWD Storage Program Withdrawals Total Groundwater Production :1_Fy1►1:1_1IF_\►[yd 3,890 0 5,788 610 606 0 0 1,650 (263) 0 12,280 30,759 2,376 33,136 50,701 0 90,335 34,263 31,900 6 2,140 19,800 (2,407) (500) 226,238 331,156 7,634 338,789 24,356 15,571 115,065 45,422 27,205 4 1,722 19,698 (2,309) 4( 40) 246,294 309,295 0 309,295 Change in Groundwater Storage (20,855) (112,552) (63,001) Change in Groundwater Storage excluding MWD Stored Water (18,479) (104,918) (78,572) Accumulated Overdraft ------ 354,552 242,000 Accumulated Overdraft excluding MWD Storage ------ 394,189 289,902 IN LIEU WATER OCWD In Lieu Purchases MWD In Lieu Storage :� II:IN1:a:1wd10119i1 V LTiI_%IIM01 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total In Lieu 0 0 0 1. MWD Water Deliveries to Producers 7,874 97,059 111,098 2. Basin Production Percentage 75.0% 76.0% 73.6% 3. Total Water Demand 42,549 451,867 436,275 4. Total GWRS Production 1,216 66,163 72,627 5. Green Acres Project Water 517 5,071 6,540 6. SAR Water Quality - Total Dissolved Solids (TDS) of SAR below Prado Dam (ppm) 724 ------ 710 - Total Nitrogen of SAR below Prado Dam (ppm) 4.6 ------ 4.3 7. Month -End Water Storage Behind Prado Dam 0 ------ 1 8. Month -End Water Storage in Recharge Facilities 10,151 ------ 8,322 9. Water Storage Change in Recharge Facilities (2,028) 1,829 (10,168) 10. Total Artificial Recharge 10,632 206,438 226,597 11. Monthly Mean Temperature at Santa Ana Fire Station (F) 71.4 ------ 70.1 12. Rainfall at FHQ (inches) 0.00 5.09 5.85 7/10/2014 v LL a H (100) Accumulated Overdraft (500) 1969 200 150 LL 100 50 L O C 0 -50 c� U -100 -150 1974 1979 1984 1989 1994 1999 2004 2009 2014 2019 Calendar Year Overdraft Overdraft w/o MWD Storage Water YTD Change in Groundwater Storage in OCWD LO O 1` M O O N M Iq LO O 1` M O O N M Iq 4Lo O ti M O O N M 4 Lo O ti M O O N C7 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O Water Year Page 2of9 PRODUCERS WATER USAGE SUMMARY June 2014 (AF except BPP) (Est 4% of Subtotal) TOTAL: 30,759 0 0 1,539 10,251 42,549 451,867 436,275 80.8% 76.0% 73.6% OCWD (Talbert Barrier) 0 na na 606 0 606 31,906 27,209 OCSD (GAP) na na na 72 na 72 1,509 3,478 Estimated 7/10/2014 16:13 Page 3 of 9 2013-14 2012-13 JUNE 2013-14 2012-13 WATER Ground- In MWD CUP Reclaimed Total Total YTD YTD 2014 YTD YTD AGENCY water Lieu In Lieu Water Import Demand Demand Demand BPP BPP BPP Anaheim 4,158 0 0 0 1,963 6,120 68,064 66,593 67.9% 76.6% 68.3% Buena Park 1,043 0 0 0 456 1,498 15,275 15,189 69.6% 78.1% 65.4% East Orange County 100 0 0 0 0 100 1,070 1,036 100.0% 77.3% 58.4% Fountain Valley 972 0 0 180 0 1,153 11,800 11,319 100.0% 74.3% 68.0% Fullerton 2,171 0 0 0 703 2,874 30,058 28,697 75.5% 70.8% 67.9% Garden Grove 2,266 0 0 0 448 2,714 26,233 25,819 83.5% 80.1% 73.3% Golden State 1,652 0 0 0 1,057 2,710 27,313 27,448 61.0% 69.8% 67.8% West OC System 1,492 0 0 0 118 1,610 16,286 16,397 92.7% 97.3% 92.9% East OC System 400 0 0 0 700 1,100 11,027 11,050 36.4% 34.5% 30.5% Huntington Beach 1,563 0 0 0 1,411 2,973 31,137 29,907 52.6% 59.7% 68.0% Irvine Ranch 4,750 0 0 1,094 63 5,907 67,882 61,183 98.7% 98.8% 97.7% DRWF Clear 2,668 0 0 0 2,668 27,811 27,765 0.0% na na DRWF Color 692 0 0 0 692 8,707 8,858 0.0% na na La Palma 206 0 0 0 0 206 2,210 2,190 100.0% 74.2% 77.0% Mesa Water (MW) 1,460 0 0 147 354 1,962 20,037 20,814 80.5% 89.2% 85.4% MW Clear 926 0 0 0 926 11,153 11,474 0.0% na na MW Color 534 0 0 0 534 5,622 5,357 0.0% na na Newport Beach 1,359 0 0 69 242 1,669 17,558 16,297 84.9% 64.6% 70.8% Orange 2,103 0 0 0 898 3,001 32,616 31,385 70.1% 70.9% 67.3% OCWD (GAP) 61 0 0 1 0 61 443 1,097 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% Santa Ana 2,698 0 0 48 985 3,731 40,221 39,443 73.3% 70.1% 68.2% Seal Beach 97 0 0 0 295 393 3,901 3,697 24.8% 59.6% 69.3% Serrano 269 0 0 0 53 323 3,381 3,194 83.5% 68.1% 60.8% Tustin 746 0 0 0 600 1,346 12,594 12,254 55.4% 63.6% 74.9% Westminster 920 0 0 0 251 1,172 12,623 12,451 78.6% 65.8% 68.0% Yorba Linda 1,234 0 0 0 462 1,697 16,956 16,102 72.8% 69.0% 68.0% SUBTOTAL: 29,829 0 0 1,539 10,241 41,608 441,372 426,114 80.8% 76.0% 73.6% Other Producers 930 na na 0 10 941 10.495 10,161 (Est 4% of Subtotal) TOTAL: 30,759 0 0 1,539 10,251 42,549 451,867 436,275 80.8% 76.0% 73.6% OCWD (Talbert Barrier) 0 na na 606 0 606 31,906 27,209 OCSD (GAP) na na na 72 na 72 1,509 3,478 Estimated 7/10/2014 16:13 Page 3 of 9 ►e 350 LL 250 0 200 U 0 150 ^L n 50 x 500 LL 400 -0 300 c� E 200 (D r) 100 0 I Annual Groundwater Production Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 YTD Total Demand in OCWD LO O 1` M O O N M Iq LO O 1` M O O N M Iq 4Lo O ti W O O N M 4 Lo O ti W O O N C7 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O Water Year ■ Groundwater MWD+OCWD In Lieu CUP Withdrawals Import Recycled Water Page 4of9 250 200 LL Q 150 0) L v 100 ry 50 0 300 250 200 LL Q ~ 150 a) 2) L 100 U N ry n Annual Forebay Recharge Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun 2011-12 * 2012-13 2013-14 YTD Artificial Recharge by OCWD LO O 1` M O O N M Iq LO O 1` M O O N M Iq 4Lo O ti m O O N m 4 Lo O ti m O O N C7 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O Water Year ■ SAR & Santiago Purchases CUP Direct GWRS Page 5of9 RECHARGE AREAS REPORT June 2014 FLOWS TO RECHARGE AREAS (AF) Percolation (AF) Remarks RIVER SYSTEM 947 About 1/3 of river used (all flow diverted for fishin) DESILTING SYSTEM 60 OC -28a (MWD) OFF -RIVER SYSTEM 788 Includes Off River, Olive (passive) and 5 Coves WARNER SYSTEM 1,790 Includes Foster and Conrock basins OLIVE BASIN 0 See off river ANAHEIM LAKE 218 OC -28a water MINI -ANA LAKE 3 OC -28a water MILLER BASIN 1,221 GWR inflow and OC -28a KRAEMER BASIN 1,179 OC -28a water MIRA LOMA 471 GWR inflow LA JOLLA BASIN 1,318 PLACENTIA BASIN 0 RAYMOND BASIN 634 FIVE COVES BASIN na See off river BURRIS BASIN 468 RIVER VIEW BASIN 0 SANTIAGO BASINS 925 SANTIAGO CREEK 4 TOTALS 10,026 5 -YR AVERAGE 17,409 FLOWS TO RECHARGE AREAS (AF) STORAGE CHANGES (AF) Imperial Headgates (estimated) 3,760 GWRS 610 OC -28 (MWD) 0 OC -28a (MWD) 3,890 CB -11 0 CB -18 0 Est'd local Forebay inflow below Imperial 0 Est'd local Santiago inflow (estimated) 0 Irvine lake releases (OC -13 MWD) 0 Villa Park Dam releases (estimated) 0 Precip at Warner Basin (inches) 0 Precip direct to open water surfaces 0 NOTAL INFLOW 8,260 LOSSES FROM RECHARGE AREAS (AF) Est'd SAR flow past Chapman Ave. 0 Est'd Santiago Cr. flow to SAR Est'd flows past Raymond Basin Calc'd evap (inches) Estimated 6.3 Est'd evaporative losses 263 263 SUMMARY (AF) TOTAL INFLOW 8,260 TOTAL LOSSES 263 STORAGE CHANGE -2,028 CALC'D PERCOLATION 10,026 Page 6 of 9 STORAGE CHANGES (AF) Facility Begin End Net Deep basins 6,521 5,431 -1,091 Santiago Pits 5,658 4,720 -938 River 0 Off -river 0 Irvine Lake TOTAL 12,179 10,151 -2,028 LOSSES FROM RECHARGE AREAS (AF) Est'd SAR flow past Chapman Ave. 0 Est'd Santiago Cr. flow to SAR Est'd flows past Raymond Basin Calc'd evap (inches) Estimated 6.3 Est'd evaporative losses 263 263 SUMMARY (AF) TOTAL INFLOW 8,260 TOTAL LOSSES 263 STORAGE CHANGE -2,028 CALC'D PERCOLATION 10,026 Page 6 of 9 Page 7of9 DEEP BASINS MONTHLY STATUS June 2014 (values in acre-feet) Facility Storage Storage Maximum Total Max Avg Avg W.S. Start End Storage Perc Perc Perc Elev Desilting Ponds 230 136 230 30 na na na Fos-Huckleberry 522 530 630 0 na na na Conrock Basin 559 568 660 0 na na na Warner Basins 2,404 2,538 2,810 1,790 na na na Olive Pit 0 0 183 0 na na na Anaheim Lake 546 47 2,300 218 54 7 174 Mini-Anaheim Lk 0 4 21 3 na na na Miller Basin 39 76 340 1,221 68 41 206 Kraemer Basin 510 426 1,050 1,179 80 39 194 Mira Loma 33 0 62 471 74 13 213 La Jolla Basin 0 8 36 1,318 53 44 201 Placentia Basin 120 0 350 na na na na Raymond Basin 100 140 370 634 na na na Five Coves Basins 148 88 350 na na na na Burris Pit 1,310 870 2,670 468 19 16 156 River View Basin 0 0 12 0 na na na Santiago (Bond) 4,032 3,466 8,690 925 41 31 228 Santiago (Blu Dia) 1,625 1,254 5,240 0 0 0 228 Totals 12,179 10,151 26,004 8,257 Prado Dam 3 0 25,000 Page 7of9 20 15 Cn a) U 10 M ry 5 ME rN 0 LL a) 70 a) 0- E H 65 55 Cumulative Forebay Rainfall __-*------- 0------ 0 Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun 25 -Yr Avg. Rain t 2012-13 2013-14 Temperature at Santa Ana Fire Station Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun 15 -yr. Avg. 2012-13 2013-14 Page 8of9 0 J 20 10 i- O 0 Q� L11 -10 J L -20 -30 -40 �IFslIA21:III mMITI VV121girl[*]L, IIk1101 �I2C ytvJa14w0iolytyla]Ikyjm� 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 TalbertrLambda Aqu&r Merg6noe Zone Perforated Inb val- 71 -135 ft. hgs Talbert Barrier I njectian protective Levet to Prevent Seawater Intrusion TA LBERT BARRIER INJECTION WELL ■ Huntington Beath mes-a Talbert lambda Aquifer Mergence Zone 0 I- 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 - Fountain Valley Gmundwauw Production IRWD Groundwater Production - Mesa Water Groundwater Production Huntington 13eachGroundwawProduction - Nev4porf Beach Groundwater Production O ND -M26 Newport Mesa l Page 9of9 APPENDIX D City Ordinance ATTACHMENT A URGENCY ORDINANCE NO. 1457 ORDINANCE NO. 1457 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA, FINDING AND DETERMINING THE NECESSITY FOR AND AMENDING THE WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN The City Council of the City of Tustin does hereby ordain as follows: SECTION 1: Findings. The City Council finds and determines as follows: A. Article X, Section 2 of the California Constitution declares that waters of the State are to be put to beneficial use, that waste, unreasonable use, or unreasonable method of use of water be prevented, and that water be conserved for the public welfare. B. Conservation of current water supplies and minimization of the effects of water supply shortages that are the result of drought are essential to the public health, safety and welfare. C. Regulation of the time of certain water use, manner of certain water use, design of rates, method of application of water for certain uses, installation and use of water -saving devices, provide an effective and immediately available means of conserving water. D. The California Water Code empowers any public entity which supplies water at retail or wholesale to adopt and enforce a water conservation program to reduce the quantity of water used by those within its service area. E. It is essential that this ordinance take effect upon adoption for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health or safety due to the statewide water emergency, and based upon the facts described below. F. On January 17, 2014, the Governor proclaimed a State of Emergency to exist throughout the State of California due to severe drought conditions. On April 25, 2014, the Governor issued a second proclamation declaring a continued State of Emergency and noting that drought conditions had persisted for the last three years. Ordinance No. 1457 1089228.1 G. Governor Brown issued Executive Order B-29-15 on April 1, 2015 instituting emergency actions and mandatory water use reductions for the State of California and Urban Water Suppliers, including the City of Tustin. H. State snowpack levels, as indicated by manual surveys and automatic gauge measurements throughout the Sierra Nevada, have been below normal for four consecutive years. The official projections for the State of California show well below normal runoff for the fourth consecutive year. State runoff that replenishes the state's reservoir system, as indicated by the Department of Water Resources, has been below normal levels eight of the last nine years. Rainfall levels locally have been below normal for three consecutive years. The dry year storage available to Metropolitan Water District has been reduced by approximately 55 percent since January 2012. Storage in the state's reservoir system is well below normal levels, with Lake Orovilfe at 50 percent of capacity. Runoff in the Colorado River system, as indicated by the Bureau of Reclamation, has been below normal levels 13 of the last 16 years. Storage in the Colorado River system is well below normal levels, with Lake Mead at 40 percent of capacity. J. A potable water shortage now exists so it is vital for the City, as an urban water supplier, and for its customers to take immediate action to restrict certain uses of water to conserve this limited and vital resource. K. In the future, water conservation conditions will be found to exist upon the occurrence of one or more of the following: 1. An Executive Order and/or Declaration issued by the Governor. 2. A general local or state-wide water supply shortage due to limited supplies. 3. Distribution or storage facilities of the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, the Municipal Water District of Orange County, the East Orange County Water District, or the City of Tustin become inadequate. 4. A major failure of the supply, storage and distribution facilities of the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, the Municipal Water Ordinance No. 1457 10892293 District of Orange County, the East Orange County Water District, or of the City of Tustin occurs. L. The conditions prevailing in the State and in the Orange County area require that the available water resources be put to maximum beneficial use to the extent to which they are capable, and that the waste or unreasonable use, excessive runoff, or unreasonable method of use, of water be prevented and that the conservation of such water be encouraged with a view to the maximum reasonable and beneficial use thereof in the interests of the people served by the City of Tustin and for the public welfare. SECTION 2: Repeal of Ordinance 1060. This Ordinance supersedes the provisions of Ordinance No. 1060. Ordinance No. 1060 shall be repealed effective upon the effective date of this Ordinance. SECTION 3. CEQA Exemption, The City Council of the City of Tustin finds that this Ordinance and actions taken pursuant to this Ordinance are exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act as specific actions necessary to prevent or mitigate an emergency pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21080(b)(4) and the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15269(c) and as an action taken by a regulatory agency as authorized by state law and local ordinance to maintain, restore or enhance a natural resource (limited water supplies). The City Clerk of the City of Tustin is hereby authorized and directed to file a Notice of Exemption as soon as possible following adoption of this Ordinance. SECTION 4: Chapter 10 of Article 4 of the Tustin City Code is hereby added to read as follows: 4950. Declaration of Policy. The California Water Code permits public entities which supply water at retail to adopt and enforce a water conservation program to reduce the quantity of water used by the people therein for the purpose of conserving the water supplies of such public entity. The City Council of the City of Tustin hereby establishes a comprehensive Water Conservation Program pursuant to the California Water Code based upon the need to conserve water supplies and to avoid or minimize the effects of any future shortages. This Chapter establishes regulations to be implemented during times of declared water shortages. It establishes four stages of drought response actions to be implemented Ordinance No. 1457 1089228.1 in times of shortage, with increasing restrictions on water use in response to worsening drought conditions and decreasing available supplies; 4951. Application. The provisions of this Article shall apply to all persons, customers, and property served by the City of Tustin water service. 4951. Authorization. The City Manager and his or her designated representatives are hereby authorized and directed to implement the provisions of this Ordinance. Each "Enforcement Officer" as that term is used in Part 6 of Chapter 1 of Article 1 of the Tustin City Code are authorized to enforce this Chapter through administrative citation proceedings. 4952. Water Conservation Stages. No customer of the City shall knowingly make, cause, use, or permit the use of water supplied by the City for residential, commercial, industrial, institutional, manufacturing, agricultural, governmental or any other purpose in a manner, or during a period of time, prohibited by this Chapter. AT NO TIME SHALL WATER BE WASTED OR USED UNREASONABLY. The following stages of restrictions shall take effect upon declaration as provided in Section 4953, A. STAGE 1 — VOLUNTARY COMPLIANCE — WATER WATCH. STAGE 1 applies during periods when the City determines, in its sole discretion, that due to drought or other water supply conditions, a water supply shortage or threatened shortage exists and a consumer demand reduction is necessary to make more efficient use of water and appropriately respond to existing water conditions. Notice of the reduction required of City customers shall be promptly given by the means deemed most effective by the City Manager or designee(s). During STAGE 1, all elements of STAGE 2 shall apply, but shall apply on a voluntary basis only. B. STAGE 2 — MANDATORY COMPLIANCE — WATER ALERT. STAGE 2 applies during periods when the City determines, in its sole discretion, that due to drought or other water supply conditions, a water supply shortage or threatened shortage exists and a mandatory consumer demand reduction is necessary to make more efficient use of water and appropriately respond to existing water conditions. The Declaration and Notice of the reduction required of Ordinance No. 1457 1089228.1 City customers shall be given in accordance with Section 4953. During STAGE 2, the following water conservation measures shall apply except when reclaimed or recycled water is used. 1. Between April 1 and October 31, lawn watering and landscape irrigation will be limited to two days a week, including construction meter irrigation, and is not permitted between the hours of 6:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. Any high efficiency sprinkler nozzle that qualifies for a rebate from the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California and drip irrigation or a similar water efficient watering system shall be limited to a maximum of 15 minutes per irrigation station. All other irrigation is limited to a maximum of 5 minutes per irrigation station. A "designated irrigation day" is determined by the last digit in the street address. Properties with addresses ending in an even number may use water on Tuesday and Saturday. Addresses ending with an odd number may use water on Wednesday and Sunday. During the period from November 1 and March 31, lawn watering and landscape irrigation will be further limited to one day a week, with even -numbered street addresses watering on Tuesday and odd -numbered street addresses watering on Wednesday. "Even -numbered" means street addresses ending with the following numerals: 0 (Zero), 2 (Two), 4 (Four), 6 (Six), 8 (Eight). Street addresses ending in '/2 or any fraction shall conform to the permitted uses for the last whole number in the address. "Odd -numbered" means street addresses ending with the following numerals: 1 (One), 3 (Three), 5 (Five), 7 (Seven), 9 (Nine). Street addresses ending in '/2 or any fraction shall conform to the permitted uses for the last whole number in the address. No Customer of the City shall water or irrigate any lawn, landscape, or other vegetated area in a manner that causes or allows water flow or runoff onto an adjoining sidewalk, driveway, street, gutter or ditch. 2. Irrigation of landscapes shall not occur during and forty eight (48) hours following measureable precipitation. "Measurable Ordinance No. 1457 1089228.1 precipitation" shall mean a one-quarter (114) inch or more of rainfall falling within the City of Tustin within any 24-hour period. 3. Water shall not be used to wash down streets, gutters, sidewalks, driveways, parking areas, tennis courts, patios, pool decks, or other paved areas, except to alleviate immediate fire or sanitation hazards. Water shall not be used in a manner that causes runoff such that water flows onto adjacent property, non -irrigated areas, private or public walkways, roadways, parking lots, or structures. 4. Washing of autos, trucks, mobile homes, buses, trailers, boats, airplanes and other types of mobile equipment shall be limited to quick rinses and be done with a hand-held bucket or a hand-held hose equipped with a positive shut-off nozzle. Washing is permitted at any time on the immediate premises of a commercial car wash. Further, such washing is exempted from these regulations where health, safety and welfare of the public is contingent upon frequent vehicle cleaning such as garbage trucks and vehicles used to transport food and perishables. 5. Watering parks, school grounds, public facilities, and recreational fields is not permitted between the hours of 6:00 a.m, and 6:00 p.m. 6. Restaurants shall not serve water to their customers except when specifically requested. 7. Hotels and motels must provide guests with the option of choosing not to have towels and linens laundered daily and shall prominently display notice of this option in each guestroom. 8. The operation of any ornamental fountain or similar structure is prohibited unless the fountain or structure internally recycles the water it uses. 9. All water leaks shall be repaired immediately. 10.Agriculture users and commercial nurseries as defined in the Metropolitan Water District Code are exempt from STAGE 2 Ordinance No. 1457 1089228.1 irrigation restrictions, but will be required to curtail all non- essential water use. 11.The "dump and fill' practice of swimming pool maintenance is prohibited. Pools may be topped off to prevent damage to pump and filter equipment. 12. Customers that utilize turf for beneficial public use may apply for an exemption from the designated irrigation day provision of Stage 2. A conservation plan shall be provided that provides specific actions that will be taken to reduce potable water use by the amount required by the State Water Resources Control Board. Designated irrigation days shall remain in effect until the City has reviewed and approved the customer conservation plan. Exemptions shall be revoked if required conservation amounts are not met. 13. Exceptions: The restrictions in STAGE 2, subsections 1 through 11 above are not applicable to that use of water necessary for public health and safety or for essential governmental services such as police, fire and other similar emergency services, or when the use is necessary to comply with a term or condition in a permit issued by a City, state or federal agency. C. STAGE 3 — MANDATORY COMPLIANCE — WATER WARNING. STAGE 3 applies during periods when the City determines, in its sole discretion, that due to drought or other water supply conditions, a water supply shortage or threatened shortage exists and a further consumer demand reduction is necessary beyond that which is likely to be achieved through STAGE 2 restrictions, in order to make more efficient use of water and appropriately respond to existing water conditions. Declaration and Notice of the reductions required of City customers shall be given in accordance with Section 4953. During STAGE 3, all provisions of STAGE 2 shall remain in effect or take effect in addition to, and except as amended by, the following mandatory water conservation measures. These restrictions continue to apply except when reclaimed or recycled water is used. Ordinance No. 1457 1089228.1 1. Lawn watering and landscape irrigation will be limited to one day a week, including construction meter irrigation, and is permitted only on designated irrigation days and only between the hours of 6:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. Any high efficiency sprinkler nozzle that qualifies for a rebate from the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California and drip irrigation or a similar water efficient watering system shall be limited to a maximum of 15 minutes per irrigation station. All other irrigation is limited to a maximum of 5 minutes per irrigation station. A "designated irrigation day" is determined by the last digit in the street address. Properties with addresses ending in an even number may water lawns and landscape on Tuesday. Addresses ending with an odd number may water lawns and landscape on Wednesday. Irrigation of landscapes shall not occur during and for forty eight (48) hours following measureable precipitation. "Measurable precipitation" shall mean a one-quarter (114) inch or more of rainfall falling within the City of Tustin within any 24-hour period. 2. Washing of autos, trucks, mobile homes, buses, trailers, boats, airplanes and other types of mobile equipment is prohibited. Washing is permitted at any time on the immediate premises of a commercial car wash. The use of water by all types of commercial car washes not using partially reclaimed or recycled water shall be reduced in volume by 20%. Further, such washings are exempted from these regulations where the health, safety and welfare of the public is contingent upon frequent vehicle cleaning such as garbage trucks and vehicles used to transport food and perishables. 3. Agricultural users and commercial nurseries shall use water only between the hours of 6:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. and may be subject to additional restrictions if the state, regional or local agency or jurisdiction deems necessary. The City will make a good faith effort to inform agricultural users and commercial nurseries of any such restrictions. Monetary penalties will be passed through to agricultural customers, if assessed by the State Water Resources Control Board, Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, or Municipal Water District of Orange County, Ordinance No. 1457 1089228.1 4. The operation of any ornamental fountain or similar structure is prohibited at all times, even when recycled water is used. 5. Construction water shall not be used for earthwork or road construction purposes unless authorized as a mitigation or erosion control, compaction or backfilling earthwork or as required by the Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) Control Measure F- 4. 6. The use of water for commercial, industrial, institutional, manufacturing or processing purposes shall be essential use only. All outdoor irrigation is prohibited. 7. Filling of uncovered pools is prohibited. 8. Customers that utilize turf for beneficial public use may apply for an exemption from the designated irrigation day provision of Stage 3. A conservation plan shall be provided that provides specific actions that will be taken to reduce potable water use by the amount required by the State Water Resources Control Board. Designated irrigation days shall remain in effect until the City has reviewed and approved the customer conservation plan. Exemptions shall be revoked if required conservation amounts are not met. 9. Exceptions: The restrictions in STAGE 3, subsections 1 through 7 above are not applicable to that use of water necessary for public health and safety or for essential governmental services such as police, fire and other similar emergency services, or when the use is necessary to comply with a term or condition in a permit issued by a City, state or federal agency. D. STAGE 4 — MANDATORY COMPLIANCE — WATER EMERGENCY. STAGE 4 applies when the City determines, in its sole discretion, that due to drought or other water supply conditions, a water supply shortage or threatened shortage exists and a further consumer demand reduction is necessary beyond that which is likely to be achieved through STAGE 3 restrictions, in order to make more efficient use of water and appropriately respond to existing water Ordinance No. 1457 1089228.1 conditions, or a major failure of any supply or distribution facility, whether temporary or permanent, occurs in the water distribution system of the State Water Project, Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, Municipal Water District of Orange County, East Orange County Water District or City facilities. Notice of the reduction required of City customers shall be promptly given in accordance with Section 4953, During STAGE 4, all provisions of STAGES 2 and 3 shall remain in effect or take effect in addition to, and except as amended by, the following additional mandatory water conservation measures. These restrictions shall continue to apply except when reclaimed or recycled water is used: 1. All outdoor irrigation of vegetation is prohibited. 2. Washing of autos, trucks mobile homes, buses, trailers, boats, airplanes and other types of mobile equipment is prohibited. Washing is permitted at any time upon the immediate premises of a commercial car wash. The use of water by all types of commercial car washes shall be reduced in volume by 50%. Further, such washings are exempted from these regulations where the health, safety and welfare of the public is contingent upon frequent vehicle cleaning such as garbage trucks and vehicles used to transport food and perishables. 3. Filling, refilling or adding of water to swimming pools, spas, ponds and artificial lakes is prohibited. 4. Watering of parks, school grounds, public facilities and recreation fields is prohibited with the exception of plant materials classified to be rare, exceptionally valuable, or essential to the wellbeing of rare animals. 5. The use of water from fire hydrants shall be limited to firefighting or related activities necessary to maintain the health, safety and welfare of the public. 6. Use of water for agricultural or commercial nursery purposes, except for livestock watering, is prohibited. Ordinance No. 1457 1089228.1 7. New construction meters or permits for unmetered service will not be issued. Construction water shall not be used for earth work or road construction purposes, except to maintain the health, safety and welfare of the public or as required by the Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) Control Measure F-4. 8. The use of water for commercial, industrial, institutional, manufacturing or processing purposes shall be reduced in volume by 50% or as mandated by the State Water Resources Control Board and limited to off-peak hours, whichever is greater. 9. No water shall be used for air conditioning purposes. 10. Exceptions: The restrictions in STAGE 4 subsections 1 through 9 above are not applicable to that use of water necessary for public health and safety or for essential governmental services such as police, fire and other similar emergency services, or when the use is necessary to comply with a term or condition in a permit issued by a City, state or federal agency. 4953. Mandatory Conservation Phase Implementation. A. The City shall monitor the projected supply and demand for water by its customers on a daily basis. B. The City Manager shall determine the extent of the conservation required through the implementation and/or termination of particular conservation stages in order for the City to prudently plan for the supply water to its customers and/or to comply with regulations and/or restrictions implemented by the State Water Resources Control Board, Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, Municipal Water District of Orange County, or East Orange County Water District. Thereafter, the City Manager may order that the appropriate stage of water conservation be implemented or terminated in accordance with the applicable provision of this Ordinance. C. The declaration of STAGE 2, STAGE 3 or STAGE 4 shall be made by public announcement and notice shall be published a minimum of once per week for three (3) consecutive weeks in a newspaper of general Ordinance No. 1457 1089228.1 circulation. The stage designated shall become effective immediately upon announcement. D. The declaration of any STAGE 2, STAGE 3 or STAGE 4 shall be reported to the City Council at its next regular meeting. The City Council shall thereupon ratify the declaration, rescind the declaration, or direct the declaration of a different stage. 4954. Failure to Comply. A. Each day a violation of this Chapter occurs is a separate offense subject to a separate fine. B. During a STAGE 1 condition as provided herein, compliance with the Stage 1 conservation measures are voluntary and generally will not result in fines or notices of violation, except when it is determined that unreasonable waste or unreasonable use of water has occurred. C. Following a declaration of a STAGE 2, STAGE 3 or STAGE 4 condition, administrative citations shall be issued to violators of the applicable restrictions of such STAGE. Administrative citations shall be issued in accordance with the procedures set forth in Part 6 of Chapter 1 of Article 1 of the Tustin City Code. D. The first violation of this Chapter by any violator shall subject the violator to a fine of One -Hundred dollars ($100.00). Upon a second violation of any provision of this Chapter within one (1) year from the date of the first violation, the violator shall be subject to a fine of Two - Hundred dollars ($200.00). Upon a third and each subsequent violation of any provision of this Chapter within one (1) year from the date of the first violation, the violator shall be subject to a fine of Five Hundred dollars ($500.00). E. Upon the fifth violation of any provision of this Chapter within any two (2) year period, the City may install a flow restricting device in the customer's water service line for a period not less than 48 hours and until the customer satisfies the City that the failure to comply will not continue. In addition to demonstrating to the City's satisfaction that the failure to comply will not continue, the customer shall pay all applicable fines prior to removal of the flow restricting device. Ordinance No. 1457 1494228.1 F. For the sixth and each subsequent violation of any provision of this Chapter within any two (2) year period, the City may discontinue water service for a period of not less than 24 hours and until the customer satisfies the City that the failure to comply will not continue. In addition to demonstrating to the City's satisfaction that the failure to comply will not continue, the customer shall pay all applicable fines and service charges for restoration of service prior to the restoration of water service. G. Nothing herein limits the availability of any other civil or criminal remedy, sanction, penalty, fine, or order, that is authorized, or that may hereafter be authorized, for violation of the Tustin City Code, or for violation of any Federal or State law. 4955. Regulatorx Fine Recovery. To the extent that a City water customer causes or contributes to causing a regulatory agency to levy a fine against the City resulting from that customer's violations of one or more provisions of this Chapter, the customer shall, within thirty days of mailing of written demand from the City, reimburse the City for the fine, or such portion of the fine as such customer contributed to causing, and associated administrative costs, if any. 4956. Appeal Procedures. A. Appeals of any administrative citations or other, fine, penalty, or notice issued pursuant to this Chapter shall be made in accordance with the procedures set forth in Part 6 of Chapter 1 of Article 1 of the Tustin City Code. B. A declaration of any water conservation STAGE may be appealed by any individual and may be appealed only to the City Council. An appeal of a declaration of water conservation STAGE shall be filed with the City Clerk during normal business hours within ten (10) calendar days of the date of the declaration and shall be accompanied by a deposit or fee as required by City Council resolution or ordinance. Any such appeal shall be made in writing and shall specify the declaration appealed from, the specific action or relief sought by the appellant in the appeal, and the reasons why the declaration should be modified or reversed. Filing of a written appeal shall not stay the effective date of a declaration. A Ordinance No. 1457 1089228.1 hearing date shall be set within sixty (60) calendar days of filing of the appeal for the City Council to decide whether a sufficient basis exists for the existing declaration of the water conservation STAGE, or if a different STAGE should be declared. At the conclusion of the hearing, the City Council may uphold, modify or reverse the declaration, or may decide to take no further action on the appeal. A decision of the City Council on such appeal shall be final. SECTION 5. PropertV Maintenance Standards - Landscaping. Tustin City Code Sections 5502m(1) and 5502m(2) shall be amended to read as follows: 5502m(1). Landscaping. All landscaping shall be maintained in a condition free of dead, decayed, overgrown or discarded plant material. During the pendency of any Water Conservation Stage 2, 3 or 4 declared pursuant to Chapter 10 of Article 4 of the City Code, it shall be acceptable to allow lawns and other live turf to go dormant, however all other dead decayed, overgrown or discarded plant material shall be removed. All synthetic turf material shall be maintained in accordance with the Synthetic Turf Standards and subject to the approval of the Community Development Director. 5502m(2). Landscape irrigation. Landscape irrigation pipes and sprinkler heads shall be maintained in good working order so as to cover all landscaped areas. During the pendency of any Water Conservation Stage 2, 3 or 4 declared pursuant to Chapter 10 of Article 4 of the City Code, landscape irrigation pipes and sprinkler heads shall be maintained to prevent leaks and overspray on to solid surfaces such as streets, sidewalks, driveways, or walkways. SECTION 6. Property Maintenance Standards Paved Areas. Tustin City Code Section 9267c shall be amended to read as follows: 9267c. Paved Areas. Paved areas may be improved with impervious materials including, but not limited to, concrete, bricks, slate or stone tiles, decorative stamped concrete, or any other permanent hardscape. No decomposed granite, gravel, or other loose materials shall be allowed. 1. During the pendency of any Water Conservation Stage 2, 3 or 4 declared pursuant to Chapter 10 of Article 4 of the City Code, Ordinance No. 1457 1089228.1 unimproved and/or unpaved portions of the front yard setback area in residential districts or front yards in commercial or industrial districts shall be improved and maintained with appropriate landscaping that is free of weeds and overgrown plant material and/or synthetic turf maintained in accordance with the Synthetic Turf Standards and subject to the approval of the Community Development Director. 2. At all times other than during the pendency of any Water Conservation Stage 2, 3 or 4, unimproved and/or unpaved portions of the front yard setback area in residential districts or front yards in commercial or industrial districts shall be improved and maintained with appropriate landscaping in a healthy and vigorous condition and/or synthetic turf maintained in accordance with the Synthetic Turf Standards and subject to the approval of the Community Development Director. SECTION 7. Effective Date. This ordinance shall take effect immediately upon adoption. SECTION 8. Publication. The City Clerk shall cause this ordinance to be published in a newspaper of general circulation within 10 days after its adoption. Delay in publishing the ordinance or delay in publishing notice as herein required shall not delay the effective date of this Ordinance or of the declaration of conservation STAGE. SECTION 9. Severability. If any section, sub -section, clause or phrase in this Ordinance or the application thereof to any person or circumstances is for any reason held invalid, the validity of the remainder of this Ordinance or the application of such provisions to other persons or circumstances shall not be affected. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Tustin at the special meeting held on 20th day of May, 2015. CHARLES E. PUCKETT, Mayor Ordinance No. 1457 1084228.1 JEFFREY C. PARKER, City Clerk Ordinance No. 1457 1089228.1 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE } ss CITY OF TUSTIN ) CERTIFICATION FOR ORDINANCE NO. 1457 JEFFREY C. PARKER, City Clerk and ex -officio Clerk of the City Council of the City of Tustin, California, do hereby certify that the whole number of the members of the City Council of the City of Tustin is five; that the above and foregoing Ordinance 1457 was duly passed and adopted at a special meeting of the Tustin City Council held on the 20th day of May, 2015, by the following vote: COUNCILMEMBER AYES: COUNCILMEMBER NOES: COUNCILMEMBER ABSTAINED: COUNCILMEMBER ABSENT: Ordinance No. 1457 1089228. ] APPENDIX E Notification of Public and Service Area Suppliers Department Douglas S. Stack, P.E. Director March 16, 2016 of Public Works Mr. Ken Vecchiarelli Golden State Water Company General Manager, Orange County District 500 Cameron Street Placentia, CA 92870 Re: Notice of Preparation of Tustin's 2015 Urban Water Management Plan Dear Mr. Vecchiarelli, The City of Tustin (City) is in the process of preparing its 2015 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP). UWMPs are prepared by California's urban water suppliers to support their long-term resource planning and ensure adequate water supplies are available to meet existing and future water demands. Every urban water supplier that either provides over 3,000 acre-feet of water annually or serves 3,000 or more connections is required to prepare an UWMP every five years. Pursuant to the requirement of California Water Code, Division 6, Part 2.6 Urban Water Management Planning, Section 10621 (b), every urban water supplier required to prepare a plan shall, at least 60 days prior to the public hearing on the plan required by Section 10642, notify any city or county within which the supplier provides water supplies that the urban water supplier will be reviewing the plan and considering amendments or changes to the plan. This letter is intended to notify GSWC that the City is in the process of preparing the 2015 UWMP. Based on the City's current schedule, a draft will be available for review prior to the public hearing, which is tentatively scheduled for lune 7, 2016. If GSWC would like more information or have any questions, please direct any inquiries to: Art Valenzuela Public Works Water Services Manager 714-573-3382 avalenzuela@tustinca.org 300 Centennial Way, Tustin, CA 92780 • P: (714) 573-3150 0 F (714) 734-8991 a www.tustinca.org Department Douglas S. Stack, P.E. Director March 15, 2016 of Public Works Mr. Paul Cook Irvine Ranch Water District General Manager P.O. Box 57000 Irvine, CA 92619 Re: Notice of Preparation of Tustin's 2015 Urban Water Management Plan Dear Mr. Cook, The City of Tustin (City) is in the process of preparing its 2015 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP). UWMPs are prepared by California's urban water suppliers to support their long-term resource planning and ensure adequate water supplies are available to meet existing and future water demands. Every urban water supplier that either provides over 3,000 acre-feet of water annually or serves 3,000 or more connections is required to prepare an UWMP every five years. Pursuant to the requirement of California Water Code, Division 6, Part 2.6 Urban Water Management Planning, Section 10621 (b), every urban water supplier required to prepare a plan shall, at least 60 days prior to the public hearing on the plan required by Section 10642, notify any city or county within which the supplier provides water supplies that the urban water supplier will be reviewing the plan and considering amendments or changes to the plan. This letter is intended to notify IRWD that the City is in the process of preparing the 2015 UWMP. Based on the City's current schedule, a draft will be available for review prior to the public hearing, which is tentatively scheduled for June 7, 2016. If IRWD would like more information or have any questions, please direct any inquiries to: Art Valenzuela Public Works Water Services Manager 714-573-3382 avalenzueia@tustinca.org 300 Centennial Way, Tustin, CA 92780 - P: (714) 573-3150 - F: (714) 734-8991 • www.tustinca.org Department Douglas S. Stack, E.E. Director March 15, 2016 of Public Works Mr. Hugh Nguyen County of Orange Clerk -Recorder 12 Civic Center Plaza, Room 101 Santa Ana, CA 92701 Re: Notice of Preparation of Tustin's 2015 Urban Water Management Plan Dear Mr. Nguyen, The City of Tustin (City) is in the process of preparing its 2015 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP). UWMPs are prepared by California's urban water suppliers to support their long-term resource planning and ensure adequate water supplies are available to meet existing and future water demands. Every urban water supplier that either provides over 3,000 acre-feet of water annually or serves 3,000 or more connections is required to prepare an UWMP every five years. Pursuant to the requirement of California Water Code, Division 6, Part 2.6 Urban Water Management Planning, Section 10621 (b), every urban water supplier required to prepare a plan shall, at least 60 days prior to the public hearing on the plan required by Section 10642, notify any city or county within which the supplier provides water supplies that the urban water supplier will be reviewing the plan and considering amendments or changes to the plan. This letter is intended to notify the County that the City is in the process of preparing the 2015 UWMP. Based on the City's current schedule, a draft will be available for review prior to the public hearing, which is tentatively scheduled forJune 7, 2016. If the County would like more information or have any questions, please direct any inquiries to: Art Valenzuela Public Works Water Services Manager 714-573-3382 avalenzuela@tustinca.org 300 Centennial Way, Tustin, CA 92780 • P: (714) 573-3150 • F: (714) 734-8991 • www.tustinca.org Department Douglas S. Stack, P.E. Director March 15, 2016 Mr. Rob Hunter of Public Works Municipal Water District of Orange County General Manager P.Q. Box 20895 Fountain Valley, CA 92708 Re: Notice of Preparation of Tustin's 2015 Urban Water Management Plan Dear Mr. Hunter, The City of Tustin (City) is in the process of preparing its 2015 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP). UWMPs are prepared by California's urban water suppliers to support their long-term resource planning and ensure adequate water supplies are available to meet existing and future water demands. Every urban water supplier that either provides over 3,000 acre-feet of water annually or serves 3,000 or more connections is required to prepare an UWMP every five years. Pursuant to the requirement of California Water Code, Division 6, Part 2.6 Urban Water Management Planning, Section 10621 (b), every urban water supplier required to prepare a plan shall, at least 60 days prior to the public hearing on the plan required by Section 10642, notify any city or county within which the supplier provides water supplies that the urban water supplier will be reviewing the plan and considering amendments or changes to the plan. This letter is intended to notify MWDOC that the City is in the process of preparing the 2015 UWMP. Based on the City's current schedule, a draft will be available for review prior to the public hearing, which is tentatively scheduled for June 7, 2016. If MWDOC would like more information or have any questions, please direct any inquiries to: Art Valenzuela Public Works Water Services Manager 714-573-3382 avalenzuela@tustinca.org 300 Centennial Way, Tustin, CA 92780 • P: (714) 573-3150 • F: (714) 734-8991 0 www.tustinca.org Department Douglas S. Stack, P.E. Director March 15, 2016 Ms. Lisa Ohlund of Public Works East Orange County Water District General Manager 185 N. McPherson Road Orange, CA 92869 Re: Notice of Preparation of Tustin's 2015 Urban Water Management Plan Dear Ms. Ohlund, The City of Tustin (City) is in the process of preparing its 2015 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP). UWMPs are prepared by California's urban water suppliers to support their long-term resource planning and ensure adequate water supplies are available to meet existing and future water demands. Every urban water supplier that either provides over 3,000 acre-feet of water annually or serves 3,000 or more connections is required to prepare an UWMP every five years. Pursuant to the requirement of California Water Code, Division 6, Part 2.6 Urban Water Management Planning, Section 10621 (b), every urban water supplier required to prepare a plan shall, at least 60 days prior to the public hearing on the plan required by Section 10642, notify any city or county within which the supplier provides water supplies that the urban water supplier will be reviewing the plan and considering amendments or changes to the plan. This letter is intended to notify EOCWD that the City is in the process of preparing the 2015 UWMP. Based on the City's current schedule, a draft will be available for review prior to the public hearing, which is tentatively scheduled for June 7, 2016. If EOCWD would like more information or have any questions, please direct any inquiries to: Art Valenzuela Public Works Water Services Manager 714-573-3382 avalenzuela@tustinca.org 300 Centennial Way, Tustin, CA 92780 • P: (714) 573-3150 a F: (714) 734-8991 • www.tustinca.org Department Douglas S. Stack, P.E. Director March 15, 2016 of Public Works Mr. Mike Markus Orange County Water District General Manager P.O. Box 8300 Fountain Valley, CA 92728 Re: Notice of Preparation of Tustin's 2015 Urban Water Management Plan Dear Mr. Markus, The City of Tustin (City) is in the process of preparing its 2015 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP). UWMPs are prepared by California's urban water suppliers to support their long-term resource planning and ensure adequate water supplies are available to meet existing and future water demands. Every urban water supplier that either provides over 3,000 acre-feet of water annually or serves 3,000 or more connections is required to prepare an UWMP every five years. Pursuant to the requirement of California Water Code, Division 6, Part 2.6 Urban Water Management Planning, Section 10621 (b), every urban water supplier required to prepare a plan shall, at least 60 days prior to the public hearing on the plan required by Section 10642, notify any city or county within which the supplier provides water supplies that the urban water supplier will be reviewing the plan and considering amendments or changes to the plan. This letter is intended to notify OCWD that the City is in the process of preparing the 2015 UWMP. Based on the City's current schedule, a draft will be available for review prior to the public hearing, which is tentatively scheduled for June 7, 2016. If OCWD would like more information or have any questions, please direct any inquiries to: Art Valenzuela Public Works Water Services Manager 714-573-3382 avalenzuela@tustinca.org 300 Centennial Way, Tustin, CA 92780 0 P: (714) 573-3150 • F: (714) 734-8991 • www.tustinca.org Department Douglas S. Stack, P.E. Director March 15, 2016 Mr. David Cavavos City of Santa Ana of Public Works City Manager 20 Civic Center Plaza, 81h Floor P.O. Box 1988, M31 Santa Ana, CA 92701 Re: Notice of Preparation of Tustin's 2015 Urban Water Management Plan Dear Mr. Cavavos, The City of Tustin (City) is in the process of preparing its 2015 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP). UWMPs are prepared by California's urban water suppliers to support their long-term resource planning and ensure adequate water supplies are available to meet existing and future water demands. Every urban water supplier that either provides over 3,000 acre-feet of water annually or serves 3,000 or more connections is required to prepare an UWMP every five years. Pursuant to the requirement of California Water Code, Division 6, Part 2.6 Urban Water Management Planning, Section 10621 (b), every urban water supplier required to prepare a plan shall, at least 60 days prior to the public hearing on the plan required by Section 10642, notify any city or county within which the supplier provides water supplies that the urban water supplier will be reviewing the plan and considering amendments or changes to the plan. This letter is intended to notify your agency that the City is in the process of preparing the 2015 UWMP. Based on the City's current schedule, a draft will be available for review prior to the public hearing, which is tentatively scheduled for lune 7, 2016. If your agency would like more information or have any questions, please direct any inquiries to: Art Valenzuela Public Works Water Services Manager 714-573-3382 avalenzuela@tustinca.org 300 Centennial Way, Tustin, CA 92780 0 P: (714) 573-3150 0 F: (714) 734-8991 • www.tustinca.org APPENDIX F Adopted UWMP Resolution Will be incorporated in future draft once available APPENDIX G Bump Methodology Smith Final Technical Memorandum #1 To: Karl Seckel, Assistant Manager/District Engineer Municipal Water District of Orange County From: Dan Rodrigo, Senior Vice President, CDM Smith Date: April 20, 2016 Subject: Orange County Reliability Study, Water Demand Forecast and Supply Gap Analysis 1.0 Introduction In December 2014, the Municipal Water District of Orange County (MWDOC) initiated the Orange County Reliability Study (OC Study) to comprehensively evaluate current and future water supply and system reliability for all of Orange County. To estimate the range of potential water supply gap (difference between forecasted water demands and all available water supplies), CDM Smith developed an OC Water Supply Simulation Model (OC Model) using the commercially available Water Evaluation and Planning (WEAP) software. WEAP is a simulation model maintained by the Stockholm Environment Institute (http: //www.sei-us.org/weap) that is used by water agencies around the globe for water supply planning, including the California Department of Water Resources. The OC Model uses indexed -sequential simulation to compare water demands and supplies now and into the future. For all components of the simulation (e.g., water demands, regional and local supplies) the OC Model maintains a given index (e.g., the year 1990 is the same for regional water demands, as well as supply from Northern California and Colorado River) and the sequence of historical hydrology. The planning horizon of the model is from 2015 to 2040 (25 years). Using the historical hydrology from 1922 to 2014, 93 separate 25 -year sequences are used to generate data on reliability and ending period storage/overdraft. For example, sequence one of the simulation maps historical hydrologic year 1922 to forecast year 2015, then 1923 maps to 2016 ... and 1947 maps to 2040. Sequence two shifts this one year, so 1923 maps to 2015 ... and 1948 maps to 2040. The OC Model estimates overall supply reliability for MET using a similar approach that MET has utilized in its 2015 Draft Integrated Resources Plan (MET IRP). The model then allocates available imported water to Orange County for direct and replenishment needs. Within Orange County, the OC Model simulates water demands and local supplies for three areas: (1) Brea/La Habra; (2) Orange County Basin; (3) South County; plus a Total OC summary (see Figure 1). Orange County Reliability Study, Water Demand Forecast and Supply Gap April 2016 Page 2 Three Study Regions in Orange County (Based an Mix of Local and Imported Water Sources Rl1Hi1<71 1v1BM1Lea�1CAlER aaTPoCi 6. L{ FriLYU Blgyt F'/fi[ > 111i1FBi 1MI6i �61RCr /WI.IB� QL1116E �lHl SERE 11816196. G'1ar ORYI[E �y� C01�Y R 6M06161P.E YW61 � 8T BEflaGM1 1161M G &f'1fiI1JYH 1YQER wlwr>tin w_1Er mrel.ao 9'wxoe/ 111aER HPM'9Rr2a YOIILiON MK3l� BHfTM1 WYiG.YdiM1 R�-6 w�vai deaacr wM1rEn aarnicr ave as6xcr ur_� estell vert=x firer esw.ww rwglramo solrnl toner swrl a ravErx ova�w91 orange County Water District (2015) N BrealLa Habra 8 2.5 8 10 idles VV+E South Orange County Figure 1. Geographic Areas for OC Study The OC Model also simulates operations of the Orange County Groundwater Basin (OC Basin) managed by the Orange County Water District (OCWD). Figure 2 presents the overall model schematic for the OC Model, while Figure 3 presents the inflows and pumping variables included in the OC Basin component of the OC Model. A detailed description of the OC Model, its inputs, and all technical calculations is documented in Technical Memorandum #2: Development of OC Supply Simulation Model. Final 4-20-16 Orange County Reliability Study, Water Demand Forecast and Supply Gap April 2016 Page 3 fmpacrz jr� CNMUM Climate Lhireig&Gmeraredkom Ir Lange eimGCM; dawicxrafed rt, dwnerrrt¢idntfaeido,CWftt1 o Rlxrr amim 3onra Aha Yvaferyhedj Aggr4�gatq of Regignal Surface Rese rwairs Aggregate at Regional GW ' Banking Programs kTorn MEJ'i pubbOed reports Ngw OC Yhm swF de&erles m Mff. Delta From 2WS Reb'obft Report Jwath and wohoert CaO fix to Oertal yytWW Augments Chert IY�R#F2KS deNuems, from W;IE published imports MET'S Supplies & Dernand5 €alarado Rawer R00f-level demands f£FS r£glOnGl f4[4� filyp11F9 CRA defiwFiex ED MdT. Truer, !.!(T urlu 3CP 0CWD 6"n S l' ' 1 d' supwoptlans 4 QC upp ies (in€ u ang WRit4ff GW.RS waxerJ_ OC NorkPotable demands - — - HorAX Bmin Reny sled LYatEr BAR Basedow: �� {,W Suppllas Figure 2. Overall Schematic for OC Model 5 MVdd Replenishment: Target = 55,01)0 AFY Y . GWR$ GVVRS 1n.NGW: 130,001) RfY try 2422 MVJDOC Klcan Fofaeast Total Demands SPP OCWD Basin with Demand Factors Incidental Recharge: linear correlation to rainfall (OCWD,2014) T h11F:i.W� sv a. a;• W1) rsh ed repo rta ar&hp+tlrd V! ---------- Figure 3. Inflows and Pumping Variables for OC Basin Component of OC Model Final 4-20-16 'S ��', BAR Basedow: �� High, Medium, Law �. 11Dtiv bused On OC4VD Long-term Facilities N 411-M1hrDOC Plan (2014); 00% AR Shxmflow based On r$infall, Uunicipalities (Fullerton, hinged to basin population, maximum Anaheim, Santa Ajna)- Mean Forecaslwiih 9 Other Miscellaneous IBmperature ragression Demand Factors Rumpiwfoutflows % rKhar-ge ba�xi on SAR Vilatermasler and CK, f dais regression Figure 3. Inflows and Pumping Variables for OC Basin Component of OC Model Final 4-20-16 Orange County Reliability Study, Water Demand Forecast and Supply Gap April 2016 Page 4 The modeling part of this evaluation is a necessity to deal with the number of issues impacting water supply reliability to Orange County. Reliability improvements in Orange County can occur due to water supply investments made by MET, the MET member agencies outside of Orange County, or by Orange County agencies. In this sense, future decision-making regarding reliability of supplies should not take place in a vacuum, but should consider the implications of decisions being made at all levels. This technical memorandum summarizes the water demand forecast for Orange County and the water supply gap analysis that was generated using the OC Model. The outline for this technical memorandum is as follows: • Section 1: Water Demand Forecast for Orange County • Section 2: Planning Scenarios • Section 3: Water Supply Gap • Section 4: Conclusions • Section 5: References 2.0 Water Demand Forecast for Orange County The methodology for the water demand forecast uses a modified water unit use approach. In this approach, water unit use factors are derived from a baseline condition using a sample of water agency billing data and demographic data. In early 2015, a survey was sent by MWDOC to all water agencies in Orange County requesting Fiscal Year (FY) 2013-14 water use by billing category (e.g., single-family residential, multifamily residential, and non-residential). In parallel, the Center for Demographic Research (CDR) in Orange County provided current and projected demographics for each water agency in Orange County using GIS shape files of agency service areas. Water agencies were then placed into their respective areas (Brea/La Habra, OC Basin, South County), and water use by billing category were summed and divided by the relevant demographic (e.g., single-family water use - single-family households) in order to get a water unit use factor (expressed as gallons per day/demographic unit). In addition, the water agency survey collected information on total water production. Where provided, the difference between total water production and billed water use is considered non - revenue water. Table 1 summarizes the results of the water agency survey information and calculates the water unit use factors for the three areas within Orange County. Final 4-20-16 Orange County Reliability Study, Water Demand Forecast and Supply Gap April 2016 Page 5 Table 1. Water Use Factors from Survey of Water Agencies in Orange County (FY 2013-14) i Units represent: SF Res = SF accounts or SF housing (CDR) if SF account data looks questionable. MF Res =total housing (CDR) minus SF units. Com/Instit=total employment (CDR) minus industrial employment (CDR). Industrial = industrial employment (CDR). 'Unit Use represents billed water consumption (gallons/day) divided by units. To understand the historical variation in water use and to isolate the impacts that weather and future climate has on water demand, a statistical model of monthly water production was developed. The explanatory variables used for this statistical model included population, temperature, precipitation, unemployment rate, presence of mandatory drought restrictions on water use, and a cumulative measure of passive and active conservation. Figure 4 presents the results of the statistical model for the three areas and the total county. All models had relatively high correlations and good significance in explanatory variables. Figure 5 shows how well the statistical model performs using the OC Basin model as an example. In this figure, the solid blue line represents actual per capita water use for the Basin area, while the dashed black line represents what the statistical model predicts per capita water use to be based on the explanatory variables. Using the statistical model, each explanatory variable (e.g., weather) can be isolated to determine the impact it has on water use. Figure 6 presents the impacts on water use that key explanatory variables have in Orange County. Final 4-20-16 SF Res Units' Unit Use' MF Res Units Unit Use Com/Instit. Units Unit Use Indust. Units Unit Use Non Revenue total acc % Basin Area ANAHEIM 50,030 441 58,618 193 169,902 90 19,260 160 63,004 7% BUENA PARK 16,455 346 8,600 224 31,566 137 4,837 39 19,004 11% FOUNTAIN VALLEY 12,713 336 6,964 141 30,282 124 2,093 134 17,149 13% FULLERTON 26,274 454 22,575 176 60,839 115 6,251 398 31,557 5% GARDEN GROVE 31,400 422 17,580 295 48,394 134 7,221 163 No data GSWC 38,038 383 17,218 215 58,901 122 6,857 68 HUNTINGTON BEACH 44,605 297 35,964 154 69,266 99 10,355 58 52,855 6% IRVINE RANCH WATER DISTRICT 39,182 444 80,854 196 263,393 80 39,484 207 85,508 9% MESA WATER DISTRICT 16,585 320 23,173 215 80,999 97 4,832 87 No data NEWPORT BEACH 19,455 329 15,517 177 59,754 86 26,517 5% ORANGE 28,545 470 15,483 246 96,606 97 No data 35,363 9% SANTA ANA 35,547 461 42,027 288 151,008 96 No data TUSTIN 11,788 505 9,435 253 25,265 79 1,293 92 14,178 3% WESTMINSTER 17,648 318 10,973 215 24,148 109 976 84 20,379 5% YO RBA LINDA WATER DISTRICT 22,046 586 3,746 249 22,164 120 2,745 230 No data Weighted Average 411 211 97 167 7.3% South County IRVINE RANCH WATER DISTRICT 16,581 444 12,864 196 32,554 80 22,730 9% MOULTON NIGUEL WATER DISTRICT 47,673 345 17,077 189 70,067 156 Included in 55,149 10% SAN CLEMENTE 12,047 361 9,045 186 22,921 119 commerical/ No data SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO 7,176 502 6,146 206 16,483 158 institutional 11,277 3% SANTA MARGARITA WATER DISTRICT 36,022 436 19,885 268 37,241 254 category 54,129 2% Weighted Average 397 216 158 65% Brea/La Habra BREA 9,094 425 6,898 160 42,654 93 5,931 140 No data LA HABRA 11,995 436 8,051 177 17,331 90 680 135 13,674 6% Weighted Average 431.06 169.31 92.13 139.49 6% i Units represent: SF Res = SF accounts or SF housing (CDR) if SF account data looks questionable. MF Res =total housing (CDR) minus SF units. Com/Instit=total employment (CDR) minus industrial employment (CDR). Industrial = industrial employment (CDR). 'Unit Use represents billed water consumption (gallons/day) divided by units. To understand the historical variation in water use and to isolate the impacts that weather and future climate has on water demand, a statistical model of monthly water production was developed. The explanatory variables used for this statistical model included population, temperature, precipitation, unemployment rate, presence of mandatory drought restrictions on water use, and a cumulative measure of passive and active conservation. Figure 4 presents the results of the statistical model for the three areas and the total county. All models had relatively high correlations and good significance in explanatory variables. Figure 5 shows how well the statistical model performs using the OC Basin model as an example. In this figure, the solid blue line represents actual per capita water use for the Basin area, while the dashed black line represents what the statistical model predicts per capita water use to be based on the explanatory variables. Using the statistical model, each explanatory variable (e.g., weather) can be isolated to determine the impact it has on water use. Figure 6 presents the impacts on water use that key explanatory variables have in Orange County. Final 4-20-16 Orange County Reliability Study, Water Demand Forecast and Supply Gap April 2016 Page 6 Adjusted R` 0.90 0.91 0.89 _ I 0,91 Standard Error ** 0.07 I 0.09 0.04 0.07 Explanatory Variable All at All at All at All at Significance*** <0.00Q1 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 'Adjusted RI greater than 0.70 considered good overall correlation- **: Standard Errors less than 0.19 considered good overall predictive models. "'Explanatory Var iables are considered statistically sign lfcant (walld) at the 4,45 level or less. Figure 4. Results of Statistical Regression of Monthly Water Production 350 300 250 CL 200 M 2 150 M CL M U 100 a 50 0 n n A ; 1- 1 1 11 1' 1 rj 11 • 1 1 � 1 1/ 1 1 1 � r1-1-1 1 1 11 p 11 11� 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 11 11 1 1 11 1 1 11 11 11 II 1 1 1 1 1 111 d1 Ii it iii $ 11i 1 111 ii 11 #1 o1 i1 i, �1 /ry it w 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ' 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 11 1' 11 � U 1 11 of i 11 �i ii to I'd 1 to l 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 jj jl �1 11 1 1 jl 11 11 11 �1 1� �� 1 I 11 1 1 11 1 1 11 11 11 1 1 1 1 11 11 1 1 Y 11 11 11 1 1 �1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 11 1 11 11 111 M 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Ijl -�—1'1 11 t1�--It Actual ----• Predicted O -1 N M lzl- Ln l0 r` 00 M O -1 N M lzl- Ln l0 r` 00 M O -1 N M Ql Ql Ql Ql Ql Ql Ql Ql Ql Ql O O O O O O O O O O c -I c -I c -I c -I c -I c -I c -I c -I c -I c -I c -I c -I c -I c -I c -I N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N Figure S. Verification of Statistical Water Use Model Final 4-20-16 Orange County Reliability Study, Water Demand Forecast and Supply Gap April 2016 Page 7 Hot/Dry Weather* +6% +996 +6% +6% Coc1/Wet Weather** -4% -7% -5% -5% Economlc Recession*** -13% -1296 -1396. -13% Drought Conservation -6% -5% -5% -r>% Passive/Active Cons. _2 -17% (Since 1990) -7% -19% *FY 2613-14 for Hot Wry Weather, relative to average (1990-2014). **FY 1997-98 for Cool /Wet Weather, relative to average (1990-2014). *** Comparing unemployment for FY 2069-16 to average {1996.2614}_ Figure 6. Impacts of Key Variables on Water Use 2.1 Base Demand Forecast (No Additional Conservation post 2014) For the purposes of this analysis three types of water conservation were defined. The first type is passive conservation, which results from codes and ordinances, such plumbing codes or model landscape water efficient ordinances. This type of conservation requires no financial incentives and grows over time based on new housing stock and remodeling of existing homes. The second type is active conservation, which requires incentives for participation. The SoCal Water$mart grant that is administered by MET, through its member agencies, provides financial incentives for approved active water conservation programs such as high efficiency toilets and clothes washer retrofits. The third type is extraordinary conservation that results from mandatory restrictions on water use during extreme droughts. This type of conservation is mainly behavioral, in that water customers change how and when they use water in response to the mandatory restrictions. In droughts past, this type of extraordinary conservation has completely dissipated once water use restrictions were lifted—in other words curtailed water demands fully "bounced back" (returned) to pre -curtailment use levels (higher demand levels, within a relatively short period of time (1-2 years). The great California Drought, which started around 2010, has been one of the worst droughts on record. It has been unique in that for the last two years most of the state has been classified as extreme drought conditions. In response to this epic drought, Governor Jerry Brown instituted the first-ever statewide call for mandatory water use restrictions in April 2015, with a target reduction of 25 percent Water customers across the state responded to this mandate, with most water agencies seeing water demands reduced by 15 to 30 percent during the summer of 2015. Water agencies in Southern California also ramped up incentives for turf removal during this time. Because of the unprecedented nature of the drought, the statewide call for mandatory water use restrictions, and the success of turf removal incentives it was assumed that the bounce back in water use after water use restrictions are lifted would take longer and not fully recover. For this study, it was assumed (hypothesized) that unit use rates would take 5 years to get to 85 percent Final 4-20-16 Orange County Reliability Study, Water Demand Forecast and Supply Gap April 2016 Page 8 and 10 years to get to 90 percent of pre -drought water use levels. After 10 years, it was assumed that water unit use rates would remain at 90 percent of pre -drought use levels throughout the planning period -reflecting a long-term shift in water demands. Table 2 presents the assumed bounce back in water unit use rates (derived from Table 1) for this drought. Table 2. Bounce Back in Water Unit Use from Great California Drought Water Billing Sector Single -Family Residential Time PeriodBrea/La 2015 Habra .. 431 OC Basin .. 411 South County .. 397 2020 366 349 337 2025 to 2040 388 369 357 Multifamily Residential 2015 169 211 216 2020 144 179 183 2025 to 2040 152 190 194 Commercial (or combined commercial/ industrial for South County) 2015 92 97 158 2020 78 83 134 2025 to 2040 83 87 142 Industrial 2015 139 167 NA 2020 119 142 NA 2025 to 2040 126 150 NA * Units for single-family and multifamily are households, units for commercial and industrial are employment. Table 3 presents the demographic projections from CDR for the three areas. These projections were made right after the most severe economic recession in the United States and might be considered low given that fact. In fact, draft 2015 demographic forecasts do show higher numbers for 2040. Table 3. Demographic Projections Demographic Single -Family Housing .. 2020 Brea/La Habra 20,463 OC Basin 386,324 South County 133,989 TotalTime . County 540,776 2030 20,470 389,734 138,709 548,913 2040 20,512 392,387 142,008 554,907 Multifamily Housing 2020 18,561 453,758 118,306 590,625 2030 19,113 468,972 125,030 613,115 2040 19,585 478,362 126,736 624,683 Commercial Employment (or combined commercial/ industrial employment for South County) 2020 63,909 1,254,415 255,050 1,573,374 2030 64,961 1,304,353 266,553 1,635,867 2040 65,743 1,343,509 271,808 1,681,060 Industrial Employment 2020 6,583 138,474 NA 145,057 2030 6,552 137,763 NA 144,315 2040 6,523 137,066 NA 143,589 Final 4-20-16 Orange County Reliability Study, Water Demand Forecast and Supply Gap April 2016 Page 9 To determine the water demand forecast with no additional (post 2014) water conservation, the water unit use factors in Table 2 are multiplied by the demographic projections in Table 3; then a non -revenue percentage is added to account for total water use (see Table 1 for non -revenue water percentage). These should be considered normal weather water demands. Using the statistical results shown back in Figure 4, demands during dry years would be 6 to 9 percent greater; while during wet years demands would be 4 to 7 percent lower. Table 4 summarizes the demand forecast with no additional conservation post 2014. In year 2040, the water demand with no additional conservation for the total county is forecasted to be 617,466 acre-feet per year (afy). In 2014, the actual county water demand was 609,836; in 2015, the demand was 554,339 and the projected forecast for 2016 is 463,890. This represents a total water demand growth of only 1.25 percent from 2014 to 2040. In contrast, total number of households for the county is projected to increase 4.24 percent for the same period; while county employment is projected to increase by 6.22 percent. Table 4. Normal Weather Water Demand Forecast with No Additional Conservation Post 2014 Brea / La Habra OC Basin Baseline Demand Forecast (no new conservation) SF AFY SF AFY MF AFY COM AFY IND AFY Non Rev Total AFY AFY 2015 9,404 3,140 6,190 1,033 1,186 20,953 2020 8,397 2,992 5,605 874 1,072 18,941 2025 8,894 3,262 6,033 921 1,147 20,257 2030 8,913 3,342 6,105 917 1,157 20,434 2035 1 8,913 3,501 6,163 913 1,169 20,659 2040 1 8,919 3,513 6,205 909 1,173 20,719 OC Basin South County Baseline Demand Forecast (no new conservation) SF AFY MF AFY COM AFY IND AFY Non Rev AFY Total AFY 2015 175,544 100,997 127,252 26,027 30,087 459,907 2020 150,978 91,182 116,082 22,015 26,618 406,874 2025 161,270 99,782 127,803 23,190 28,843 440,889 2030 162,368 101,780 131,640 23,073 29,320 448,181 2035 1 162,772 103,766 134,543 22,958 29,683 453,722 2040 1 162,969 105,890 137,083 22,840 30,015 458,797 South County Total Orange County Baseline Demand Forecast (no new conservation) SF AFY MF AFY COM IND AFY AFY Non Rev AFY Total AFY 2015 56,181 26,940 41,990 7,507 132,616 2020 50,644 24,300 38,355 6,798 120,097 2025 55,512 27,191 42,443 7,509 132,655 2030 56,832 27,562 43,280 7,660 135,335 2035 57,350 27,884 43,970 7,752 136,956 2040 1 57,635 28,047 44,459 7,809 137,950 Total Orange County 2.2 Future Passive and Baseline Active Water Conservation 2.2.1 Future Passive Water Conservation The following future passive water conservation estimates were made: • High efficiency toilets - affecting new homes and businesses (post 2015) and remodels • High efficiency clothes washers - affecting new homes (post 20 15) • Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance - affecting new homes and businesses (post 2015) Final 4-20-16 Baseline Demand Forecast (no new conservation) SF AFY MF AFY COM AFY IND AFY Non Rev AFY Total AFY 2015 241,129 131,076 175,431 27,059 38,780 613,476 2020 210,019 118,473 160,042 22,889 34,488 545,911 2025 225,676 130,236 176,279 24,111 37,499 593,801 2030 228,113 132,685 181,025 23,990 38,137 603,950 2035 1 229,034 135,151 184,676 23,871 38,604 611,338 2040 1 229,524 137,450 187,747 23,750 38,996 617,466 2.2 Future Passive and Baseline Active Water Conservation 2.2.1 Future Passive Water Conservation The following future passive water conservation estimates were made: • High efficiency toilets - affecting new homes and businesses (post 2015) and remodels • High efficiency clothes washers - affecting new homes (post 20 15) • Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance - affecting new homes and businesses (post 2015) Final 4-20-16 Orange County Reliability Study, Water Demand Forecast and Supply Gap April 2016 Page 10 High Efficiency Toilets A toilet stock model was built tracking different flush rates over time. All new homes (post 2015) are assumed to have one gallon per flush toilets. This model also assumes a certain amount of turn- over of older toilets due to life of toilet and remodeling rates. This analyses was done for single- family, multifamily and non-residential sectors. The following assumptions were made: • Number of toilet flushes is 5.5 per person per day for single-family and multifamily homes. • Household size is calculated from CDR data on persons per home. In single-family, household size decreases over time. • Number of toilet flushes is 2.5 per employee per day for non-residential. • Replacement/remodeling rates are 7% per year for 5 gal/flush toilet; 6% per year for 3.5 gal/flush toilets; and 5% per year for 1.6 gal/flush toilets. Table 5 shows this toilet stock model for the OC Basin for single-family and non-residential sectors as an example. Table 5. Toilet Stock Model for OC Basin (example) Final 4-20-16 OC Basin Single -Family # Flushes Year Total Housing Portion of Homes with Gal/Flush Toilets 7 5 3.5 1.6 1 Av Flush Savings (GPD/H) Savings (AFY) 17.40 2000 348,114 3,133 53,261 123,232 168,487 - 2.84 17.40 2013 379,999 - 4,794 27,111 348,094 - 1.78 17.40 2015 381,806 - 4,122 23,858 313,285 40,541 1.69 17.37 2020 386,324 - 2,680 16,700 234,964 131,980 1.50 3.32 1,435 17.31 2025 389,734 - - 11,690 176,223 201,821 1.35 5.98 2,610 17.23 2030 392,387 - - 8,183 132,167 252,037 1.25 7.54 3,312 17.14 2035 393,363 - - 51728 99,125 288,509 1.19 8.64 3,806 17.05 20401 393,840 - - 4,010 74,344 315,486 1.14 9.43 4,159 Final 4-20-16 OC Basin Non -Residential # Flushes Year Empl 7 Portion of Emp with Gal/Flush Toilets 5 3.5 1.6 1 Av Flush Savings (GPD/E) Savings (AFY) 3,298,440 2015 1,319,376 13,194 131,938 461,782 712,463 1.50 3,510,508 2020 1,404,203 8,576 92,356 346,336 956,935 1.34 0.41 641 3,633,438 2025 1,453,375 5,574 64,649 259,752 1,123,399 1.23 0.67 1,083 3,729,448 2030 1,491,779 3,623 45,255 194,814 1,248,087 1.16 0.84 1,404 3,801,693 2035 1,520,677 2,355 31,678 146,111 1,340,533 1.12 0.96 1,635 3,864,600 2040 1,545,840 1,531 22,175 109,583 1,412,551 1.08 1.04 1,808 Final 4-20-16 Orange County Reliability Study, Water Demand Forecast and Supply Gap April 2016 Page 11 High Efficiency Clothes Washers It was assumed that all new clothes washers sold after 2015 would be high efficiency and roughly save 0.033 afy per washer'. These savings would only apply to new homes (post 2015), and only for the single-family sector. Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance (2015 The new California Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance (MWELO) will take place in 2016. For single-family and multifamily homes it will require that 75 percent of the irrigable area be California Friendly landscaping with high efficiency irrigation systems, with an allowance that the remaining 25 percent can be turf (high water using landscape). For non-residential establishments it will require 100 percent of the irrigable area to be California Friendly landscaping with high efficiency irrigation systems (and no turf areas). There are exemptions for non -potable recycled water systems and for parks and open space. To calculate the savings from this ordinance a parcel database provided by MWDOC was analyzed. This database had the total irrigable area and turf area delineated for current parcels. For each parcel, a target water savings was set depending on the sector. For residential parcels, 25 percent of the total irrigable area was assumed to be turf and the savings from a non-compliant parcel was estimated. For each square feet of turf conversion the estimate savings is 0.00013 afy'. Table 6 summarizes the per parcel savings for the total county using this method. Table 6. Estimated Parcel Savings from MWELO for Total Orange County * Assumes 25% turf conversion for single-family and multifamily, and 100% for businesses. The conservation savings in afy/parcel where then multiplied by new homes and businesses (post 2015), assuming a 75 percent compliance rate. 2.2.2 Future Baseline Active Water Conservation To estimate a baseline water savings from future active water conservation measures, the actual average annual water savings for the last seven years for the SoCal Water$mart program within Orange County were analyzed. A continuation of this program through 2040 at similar annual implementation rates was assumed to be representative of a baseline estimate for active water conservation into the future. ' Per MET's SoCal Water$mart conservation estimates, table provided by MWDOC (2015). Final 4-20-16 Orange County Reliability Study, Water Demand Forecast and Supply Gap April 2016 Page 12 New active conservation measures or more aggressive implementation of existing active conservation will be evaluated as part of a portfolio analysis of water demand and supply options in Phase 2 of the OC Study. 2.2.3 Total Future Water Conservation Savings Combing future passive and active water conservation results in a total estimated water savings, which is summarized in Table 7. The total passive and active conservation for the total Orange County is shown in Figure 7. Table 7. Future Passive and Baseline Active Water Conservation Savings Brea/La Habra Area OC Basin Single -Family Savings (AFY) Multifamily Savings (AFY) Non -Residential Savings (AFY) MWELO MWELO HEC Pass Toilets Active Total MWELO Toilets Active Total MWELO Toilets Active Total 2020 186 32 78 8 304 11 51 5 67 63 32 17 112 2025 169 33 131 15 348 13 85 10 108 79 52 34 166 2030 166 34 163 30 394 16 106 20 142 91 67 68 226 20351 156 34 186 61 437 21 127 40 188 101 77 136 314 20401 149 34 203 79 465 21 137 53 211 108 85 177 370 OC Basin South County Single -Family Savings (AFY) Multifamily Savings (AFY) Non -Residential Savings (AFY) MWELO HEC Pass Toilets Active Total MWELO Toilets Active Total MWELO Toilets Active Total 2020 272 148 1,435 221 2,076 61 1,217 171 1,449 759 641 556 1,956 2025 430 260 2,610 441 3,742 96 2,165 342 2,603 1,199 1,083 1,112 3,394 2030 542 347 3,312 883 5,084 118 2,738 684 3,540 1,542 1,404 2,224 5,170 20351 557 379 3,806 1,766 6,5091 139 3,182 1,369 4,6901 1,801 1,635 4,447 7,883 20401 544 395 4,159 2,472 7,5701 162 3,537 1,916 5,615 1 2,026 1,808 6,226 10,059 South County Total County Single -Family Savings (AFY) Multifamily Savings (AFY) Non -Residential Savings (AFY) MWELO HEC Pass Toilets Active Total MWELO Toilets Active Total MWELO Toilets Active Total 2020 558 251 507 116 1,432 11 335 160 506 582 119 329 1,029 2025 812 406 877 232 2,326 22 599 321 942 960 202 657 1,819 2030 972 514 1,148 463 3,097 25 761 642 1,428 1,133 257 1,314 2,704 20351 990 556 1,332 927 3,805 1 27 876 1,283 2,187 1,275 298 2,628 4,201 20401 967 580 1,480 1,112 4,1391 29 969 1,540 2,537 1 1,376 327 3,154 4,857 Total County Final 4-20-16 Single -Family Savings (AFY) Multifamily Savings (AFY) Non -Residential Savings (AFY) MWELO HEC Pass Toilets Active Total MWELO Toilets Active Total MWELO Toilets Active Total 2020 1,017 431 2,020 344 3,812 83 1,602 337 2,022 1,404 792 901 3,097 2025 1,411 698 3,618 688 6,416 132 2,848 673 3,653 2,238 1,337 1,803 5,378 2030 1,680 895 4,624 1,377 8,575 159 3,606 1,346 5,111 2,766 1,728 3,606 8,100 20351 1,704 969 5,325 2,754 10,752 188 4,185 2,692 7,065 3,177 2,010 7,212 12,399 20401 1,660 1,009 5,842 3,663 12,175 212 4,643 3,509 8,363 1 3,510 2,219 9,557 15,286 Final 4-20-16 Orange County Reliability Study, Water Demand Forecast and Supply Gap April 2016 Page 13 FA 35,000 Q 30,000 fA = 25,000 20,000 0 i 15,000 v 0 10,000 U 5,000 16,700 AFY in 2040 19,100 AFY in 2040 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 Passive Active Figure 7. Total Water Conservation in Orange County 1.3 With Conservation Demand Forecast Subtracting the future water conservation savings shown in Table 7 from the base water demand forecast shown in Table 4 results in the water demand forecast with conservation that is used to model potential water supply gaps for the OC Study. Table 8 presents the demand forecast by area and total Orange County, while Figure 8 presents the historical and forecasted water demands for total Orange County. Note: Price elasticity of water demand reflects the impact that changes in retail cost of water has on water use. Theorystates that if pricegoes up, customers respond by reducing water use. A price elasticity value of -0.2 implies that if the real price of water increases by 10916, water use would decrease by 2%. Price elasticity is estimated by detailed econometric water demand models, where price can be isolated from all other explanatory variables. Many times price is correlated with other variables making it difficult to estimate a significant statistical value. In addition, there is a potential for double counting reduction in water demand if estimates of future conservation from active programs are included in a demand forecast because customers who respond to price take advantage of utility -provided incentives for conservation. MST's 2015 IRP considers the impact of price elasticity in their future water demand scenarios, but does not include future active conservation in its demand forecast. The OC Study included future estimates of water conservation from active conservation, and thus did not include a price elasticity variable in its statistical modeling of water demand. Including both price elasticity and active conservation would have resulted in "double counting" of the future water savings. Final 4-20-16 Orange County Reliability Study, Water Demand Forecast and Supply Gap April 2016 Page 14 Table 7. Water Demand Forecast with Conservation Brea / La Habra OC Basin South County With Conservation Demand Demand SF AFY MF AFY CII AFY Non Rev AFY Total AFY 2020 8,094 2,925 6,368 1,043 18,429 2025 8,546 3,154 6,789 1,109 19,598 2030 8,519 3,200 6,796 1,111 19,626 2035 8,475 3,313 6,762 1,113 19,663 2040 1 8,454 3,302 6,745 1,110 19,611 South County 700,000 600,000 L L 500,000 a� 41 a 400,000 a� °1 300,000 v Q 200,000 100,000 With Conservation Demand Demand SF AFY MF AFY CII AFY Non Rev AFY Total AFY 2020 49,212 23,793 37,326 6,620 116,951 2025 53,186 26,250 40,624 7,204 127,263 2030 53,735 26,135 40,575 7,227 127,672 2035 53,545 25,697 39,769 7,141 126,151 2040 1 53,496 25,509 39,602 7,116 125,725 700,000 600,000 L L 500,000 a� 41 a 400,000 a� °1 300,000 v Q 200,000 100,000 Total Orange County With Conservation Demand SF AFY MF AFY CII AFY Non Rev AFY Total AFY 2020 148,902 89,733 136,077 26,230 400,941 2025 157,528 97,180 147,532 28,157 430,396 2030 157,284 98,240 149,476 28,350 433,350 2035 156,263 99,076 149,552 28,342 433,233 2040 1 155,399 100,275 149,797 28,383 433,854 Total Orange County Actual<,�lMMP Projected (Average Weather) 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 Existing Levels of Conservation New Passive & Baseline Active Conservation Figure 8. Water Demand Forecast for Total Orange County 3.0 Planning Scenarios At the start of the Orange County Water Reliability Study, a workgroup was formed made up of representatives from Orange County water agencies. This OC Workgroup met 13 times during the Final 4-20-16 With Conservation Demand SF AFY MF AFY CII AFY Non Rev AFY Total AFY 2020 206,207 116,451 179,770 33,893 536,321 2025 219,260 126,583 194,945 36,470 577,257 2030 219,537 127,575 196,848 36,688 580,647 2035 218,283 128,086 196,082 36,596 579,047 2040 1 217,349 129,087 196,144 36,610 579,189 Actual<,�lMMP Projected (Average Weather) 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 Existing Levels of Conservation New Passive & Baseline Active Conservation Figure 8. Water Demand Forecast for Total Orange County 3.0 Planning Scenarios At the start of the Orange County Water Reliability Study, a workgroup was formed made up of representatives from Orange County water agencies. This OC Workgroup met 13 times during the Final 4-20-16 Orange County Reliability Study, Water Demand Forecast and Supply Gap April 2016 Page 15 12 -month Phase 1 of the study. During the first four meetings of the OC Workgroup, three basic planning scenarios emerged, each with and without a California WaterFix to the Delta—thus resulting in six scenarios in total. While there was discussion on assigning probabilities or weights to these planning scenarios, consensus was not reached on which scenario was more probable than the others. Assignment of the likelihood that one scenario is more probable than the others will be revisited in Phase 2 of the Orange County Reliability Study. There was, however, general agreement that all of the scenarios represent plausible future outcomes and thus all scenarios should be evaluated in terms of assessing potential water supply gaps (difference between forecasted water demands and existing water supplies). It is important to note that the purpose of estimating the water supply gaps for Orange County is to determine what additional MET and Orange County water supply investments are needed for future reliability planning. Thus, other than the California WaterFix to the Delta, all planning scenarios assume no new additional regional or Orange County water supply investments, with a couple of exceptions. In Orange County, it was assumed that existing and planned non -potable recycling projects would build additional supplies out into the future. It was also assumed that the OCWD GWRS Phase 3 expansion project would be implemented by 2022 to increase the recycled supplies for groundwater replenishment from 100,000 afy to 130,000 afy. To develop the planning scenarios, the OC Workgroup considered the following parameters: • California WaterFix to Sacramento -San Joaquin Delta (Cal Fix), which impacts the reliability of the State Water Project. • Regional MET water demands and supplies, which impacts the availability of water from MET and supply reliability for Orange County. • Orange County water demands, which impacts the supply reliability for Orange County. • Santa Ana River baseflows, which impacts the replenishment of the OC Basin and the supply reliability for the water agencies within the OC Basin. • Climate variability impacts on regional and local water demands and supplies, which impacts the availability of water from MET and the supply reliability for Orange County. The definition of the six scenarios are: Scenario 1a - Planned Conditions, No Cal Fix: Essentially represents MET's IRP planning assumptions, with very little climate variability impacts (only impacting Delta supplies and not through 2040), no California Fix to the Delta, and no new regional or OC water supply investments. • Scenario 1b - Planned Conditions, with Cal Fix: Same as Scenario 1a, but with new supply from the California Fix to the Delta beginning in 2030. Final 4-20-16 Orange County Reliability Study, Water Demand Forecast and Supply Gap April 2016 Page 16 Scenario 2a - Moderately Stressed Conditions, No Cal Fix: Moderate levels of climate variability impacts (affecting Delta, Colorado River, and Santa Ana watershed), slightly lower regional local supplies than MET assumes in IRP, 4% higher demand growth reflecting climate impacts and higher demographic growth, no California Fix to the Delta, and no new regional or OC water supply investments. The higher demand growth and fewer local supplies reflects potential future impacts if our existing demographics are low and if local supplies become more challenged, a continuation of the trend in recent times. • Scenario 2b - Moderately Stressed Conditions, with Cal Fix: Same as 2a, but with new supply from California Fix to the Delta beginning in 2030. Scenario 3a - Significantly Stressed Conditions, No Cal Fix: Significant levels of climate variability impacts (affecting Delta, Colorado River, and Santa Ana watershed), 8% higher demand growth reflecting climate impacts and higher demographic growth, no California Fix to the Delta, and no new regional or OC water supply investments. • Scenario 3b - Significantly Stressed Conditions, with Cal Fix: Same as 3a, but with new supply from California Fix to the Delta beginning in 2030. All of these scenarios were deemed plausible and likely carry about the same likelihood of occurring. While no attempt was made to specifically assign the probability of any one of the six scenarios occurring over the others, some might postulate that Scenario 2 would be the most likely to occur given that most climate experts believe we are already seeing evidence of climate variability impacts today. But even with this postulation, assigning a probability to the success of the Cal Fix would be difficult at this time. 4.0 Water Supply Gap To plan for future water supply reliability, a gap between forecasted water demands and existing supplies (plus planned projects that are a certainty) should be estimated. In past planning efforts, this gap is often done for average conditions or at best, using one reference drought condition. However, due to recent droughts and environmental restrictions in the Delta, a more sophisticated approach to estimating the potential water supply gap is needed. The OC Model, described in detail in TM #2: Development of OC Supply Simulation Model, uses "indexed -sequential" simulation to evaluate regional water demands and supplies, and Orange County water demands and supplies. All model demands and supply sources are referenced to the same hydrologic index—meaning that if a repeat of the year 1991 occurred, the OC Model would represent the availability of Delta water supplies in 1991 to MET, the availability of Colorado River water supplies in 1991 to MET, and the local Santa Ana watershed conditions in 1991. The OC Model also preserves the historical sequence of the hydrologic years. This is necessary because the source of availability of Delta and Colorado River water supplies are hydrologic models run by California Department of Water Resources (DWR) and the Bureau of Reclamation (BOR). These hydrologic models incorporate water rights (or contract rights) and storage conditions that are run using a specific sequence of hydrologic conditions. Both MET IRP and OC modeling of water supply maintain these sequences in order to Final 4-20-16 Orange County Reliability Study, Water Demand Forecast and Supply Gap April 2016 Page 17 preserve the accuracy of the DWR and BOR model inputs. The hydrologic period used by the OC Model is 1922 to 2014 (which differs from MET's IRP which is 1922 to 2012). The forecastperiod is 2015 to 2040. Thus, in the OC Model there are 93 25 -year sequences that are mapped to the forecast period. When the year 2014 is reached in any of the sequences, the next year wraps back around starting in 1922. Table 8 illustrates how the indexed -sequential method works. Using the SWP system as an index, approximately 12 of the 93 historical hydrologic years (13 percent) are considered critically dry; 20 years (22 percent) are considered very wet; and the remaining 61 years (65 percent) are along the below -normal, normal, and above -normal spectrum. 4.1 Assumptions for Supply Gap Analysis Figure 9 presents the overall assumptions for the water supply gap analysis. Figure 10 presents more specific assumptions regarding groundwater in the OC Basin. In addition to these assumptions, the following summarizes some of the differences between the MET IRP and the supply gap analysis for the OC Study: Simulation Period: MET IRP uses a historical hydrology from 1922 to 2012; while the OC Study uses a historical hydrology from 1922 to 2014—capturing the recent drought. Cal Fix: When the Cal Fix is included, MET IRP assumes that new supply from Cal Fix begins in 2020, based on the assumption that a "commitment" to move forward with the Cal Fix project will result in regulatory relief, beginning in 2020; while the OC Study assumes that supplies from Cal Fix begins when project is fully operational in 2030. Water Conservation: MET IRP only includes new passive conservation in their demand forecast (with new active conservation being reserved as a new supply option); while the OC Study assumes new passive and baseline new active conservation for water demands in Orange County (additional new active conservation will be evaluated in Phase 2 of the OC Study). Final 4-20-16 Table 8. Illustration of Indexed -Sequential Supply Simulation Hydrologic Simulation Hydrologic Simulation Hydrologic Simulation Forecast Year Year—Sequence 1 Year—Sequence 2 ... Year—Sequence 93 2015 1922 1923 2014 2016 1923 1924 1922 2040 1947 1948 1946 Using the SWP system as an index, approximately 12 of the 93 historical hydrologic years (13 percent) are considered critically dry; 20 years (22 percent) are considered very wet; and the remaining 61 years (65 percent) are along the below -normal, normal, and above -normal spectrum. 4.1 Assumptions for Supply Gap Analysis Figure 9 presents the overall assumptions for the water supply gap analysis. Figure 10 presents more specific assumptions regarding groundwater in the OC Basin. In addition to these assumptions, the following summarizes some of the differences between the MET IRP and the supply gap analysis for the OC Study: Simulation Period: MET IRP uses a historical hydrology from 1922 to 2012; while the OC Study uses a historical hydrology from 1922 to 2014—capturing the recent drought. Cal Fix: When the Cal Fix is included, MET IRP assumes that new supply from Cal Fix begins in 2020, based on the assumption that a "commitment" to move forward with the Cal Fix project will result in regulatory relief, beginning in 2020; while the OC Study assumes that supplies from Cal Fix begins when project is fully operational in 2030. Water Conservation: MET IRP only includes new passive conservation in their demand forecast (with new active conservation being reserved as a new supply option); while the OC Study assumes new passive and baseline new active conservation for water demands in Orange County (additional new active conservation will be evaluated in Phase 2 of the OC Study). Final 4-20-16 Orange County Reliability Study, Water Demand Forecast and Supply Gap April 2016 Page 18 • Climate Variability: MET IRP only includes minimal impacts of climate variability for Delta water supplies through 2030; while the OC Study includes a range of climate scenario impacts on water supplies from Delta, Colorado River and Santa Ana Watershed through 2040. MET Demand5* 2300,000 1.850.000 1,920.000 2,028,000 OCWD Bann demands`* 453,000 410,000 425,000 434,000 QC Total Demandse* 510,(I0D 554,i)OD .. 555,000 579,000 * with future passive coinservailon onty ** with future pa551ve and baseline new active ciamerration 0roundwaterSupply la,{100* 18$,5** Z13,50p * Based on firm yleld from Le Habra Basin and groundwater purchases from Maln San Gabr•Iel Basin, ie Indy QWR5. $AR bos441pw5, 5AR atprmflows, inokkn#4kI re�hprgxr wTrppltnishmgnt, gnd mismII.PnC4N8 pumping. QC Basin Recycled Water 22,004 27,700 South County ReryOed Water 23,91)0 41,800 Tot a I 45,900 69,500 Note: Irvine Ranch Water District (IRWD) is split between the Basin and South County Figure 9. Overall Assumptions for Water Supply Gap Analysis Groundwater Rep lenishrnentSystern (GW RS) SAR Basellow Irnid level assumption) SAR Storm now I anrerage of al hytiroioglesj SAR IocidentalRech arge (average of all hydrologie5) MET Replenishment (average of all hyd rol ogi es) * BEA Outflows 100,000 130,000 100,000 to 130,000 53r000 53,000 34,00D to 53,000 53.00D 53,000 6,000 to 150,000 59.001) 59,000 20.1)4D to 140,000 54.000 34,000 0 to 65,0 o .22roag -9,000 -22,00 to -9,000 Mise. Pumping (golf courses, e!te-j •8,500 -8,500 .8,5 Go Net Groundwater for OC Bastin Agencies 288,500 311,500 168,000 to 455,000 " While OCWD replenishment target is 65,000 AFY, replenishment water is r►ot assumed to be taken duan$ very wet years when SAR stormFdows are highr and only a portion of replenishment water is available during years in which MET is in allocatim of imparted water. Figure 10. Assumptions for Groundwater in OC Basin Final 4-20-16 Orange County Reliability Study, Water Demand Forecast and Supply Gap April 2016 Page 19 4.2 Availability of Water from MET Key to the assessment of water reliability for Orange County is estimating the availability of imported water from MET under a wide range of scenarios. Availability of MET water to Orange County is a function of the water demands on MET and the reliability of imported water from the Colorado River and Delta to MET, supplemented by withdrawals from various MET storage accounts. 4.2.1 Demands on MET MET water demands represent that difference between regional retail water demands (inclusive of groundwater replenishment) and regional local supplies (which includes groundwater, Los Angeles Aqueducts, surface reservoirs, groundwater recovery, recycled water, and seawater desalination). Table 9 presents the MET demand forecast under normal/average weather conditions. A significant challenge for MET in terms of reliability planning is it represents the "swing" water supply for the region. This compounds the variability on demands on MET due to weather and hydrology. For retail water demands, variations in weather can cause water use to change + 5 to 9 percent in any given year due to varying demands for irrigation and cooling. In addition to retail water demand variability, local supplies can vary ± 80 percent for the Los Angeles Aqueducts and + 55 percent for surface reservoirs. Thus, the variability for demands on MET in any given year can be ± 15 to 25 percent This fact alone makes storage so key in assuring supply reliability for MET and the region. Table 9. Demands on MET Total Demand (AFY) 1 exte L 9 Retail M&I 3,707,546 3,865,200 3,954,814 Los Angeles Aqueduct 169,822 163,121 159,537 fRetailricultural Barrier 66,500 66,500 66,500 ment 292,777 272,829 272,847 Total Demand 6,645 7,650 3,698 Local Supplies (AFY) Groundwater Production 1,308,101 1,321,220 1,322,197 Surface Production 113,705 113,705 113,705 Los Angeles Aqueduct 261,100 264,296 267,637 Seawater Desalination 50,637 50,637 50,637 Groundwater Recovery 142,286 158,816 162,688 Recycled Water 425,131 468,862 495,698 Other Non -Metropolitan Imports 13,100 13,100 13,100 Total Local Supplies 2.314.061 2.390.637 2.425.663 Demand On MET (AFY) Consumptive Use 1,743,866 1,826,245 1,880,131 Seawater Barrier 11,635 8,708 5,877 Replenishment 167,083 142,060 142,027 Total Net Demand on Metr000litan 1.922.584 1.977.013 2.028.035 Final 4-20-16 Orange County Reliability Study, Water Demand Forecast and Supply Gap April 2016 Page 20 4.2.2 Supplies from Colorado River and Delta MET's water supply from the Colorado River, via the Colorado River Aqueduct (CRA), has historically been the backbone to MET's supply reliability. Before the settlement agreement between lower Colorado River Basin states and water agencies that use Colorado River water within California, MET kept the CRA full at 1.2 million acre-feet (maf) per year or nearly at that level in many years. The settlement agreement requires California to live within its 4.4 maf apportionment, and dictates how Colorado River water within California is prioritized. This eliminated most of the surplus water that MET was using to keep the CRA full. To deal with this challenge, MET has developed a number of water transfers and land fallowing programs to mitigate the impacts of the settlement agreement. The 2015 MET IRP is assuming that it will maintain minimum CRA supply of 0.90 maf, with a goal of a full CRA during dry years, when needed (although it is not specified exactly how that will occur). For the OC Study, we have assumed similar baseline assumptions as the MET IRP, but have added some uncertainties with regard to climate scenarios under Scenario 2 and more significant impacts under Scenario 3. Under significant climate scenario impacts (Scenario 3), where the BOR simulates that Lake Mead elevation would fall below 1,000 feet about 80 percent of the time, the OC Study assumed MET would get a proportionate share of shortages that are allocated by BOR. Exactly how BOR would manage water shortages when Lake Mead elevation falls below 1,000 is uncharted territory, but assuming some proportional allocation of Colorado River water among the Lower Basin states and within California is a plausible scenario. Figure 11 presents the assumed CRA water supplies to MET for the OC Study with (Scenario 3) and without (Scenarios 1 & 2) significant climate scenario impacts. Under the significant climate scenario (Scenario 3), there is a 50 percent probability that CRA deliveries would be below 815,000 afy and a 20 percent probability that CRA deliveries would be below 620,000 afy. The other main source of imported water available to MET is from the Delta and is delivered to Southern California via the State Water Project (SWP). Although MET's contract for SWP water is 2.0 maf, it has never received that amount Prior to the QSA (in 2003) when MET relied more heavily on CRA supplies, the maximum water taken by MET from the SWP exceeded 1.1 maf in only three years (1989, 1990 and 2000). Beginning in 2001, MET has tried to maximize their delivery of SWP water. In very wet years, MET typically receives about 1.7 maf of supply from the SWP (about 80 to 85% of their total contract). More typically, MET receives closer to 1.2 maf of supply from the SWP (about 60% of their maximum contract). Droughts and environmental regulatory restrictions in the Delta have greatly impacted the reliability of SWP supply. Biological opinions regarding endangered species not only limit Delta exports during dry years, but have greatly impacted exports during more normal years when water agencies such as MET are counting on such water for storage replenishment Final 4-20-16 Orange County Reliability Study, Water Demand Forecast and Supply Gap April 2016 Page 21 1,200,000 1.000,000 1 t4iii*•ice' Average Del lverles *.=• Base with ICS (5c 1) _ 0.92 MAF 400,000 :'F Base w/CC Irnpacts (Sc 3) = 0.77 MAF U 200,D00 =average values fl 100°x6 90% 8096 70% 6D% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Probabllkyof Exceedance —Base with ICS , •• • Base wiSignificant CC Impacts Figure 11. Colorado River Aqueduct Deliveries to MET To stabilize the decline in SWP deliveries, California has committed to the California WaterFix (Cal Fix) and California EcoRestore. In the long-term, the preferred alternative identified in Cal Fix is expected to increase SWP deliveries (above what they otherwise would have been) by providing more flexible water diversions through improved conveyance and operations. It is important to note that the Cal Fix does not generate NEW water supplies per se, but allows supplies lost due to regulatory restrictions to be regained. This project would also provide much needed resiliency during seismic events in the Delta. The new conveyance and diversion facilities will allow for increased water supply reliability and a more permanent solution for flow -based environmental standards. The anticipated implementation of the Cal Fix is expected to be around 2030. Assuming a more flexible, adaptive management strategy, MET is assuming that if Cal Fix moves forward that regulatory relief from further biological opinions in the Delta would occur and SWP deliveries would return to pre -biological opinion deliveries as soon as 2020. However, some might argue this is an optimistic assumption, and there is no certainty that such relief would occur until the project is operational. Therefore for the GAP analysis, the OC Study assumed that improved SWP deliveries from Cal Fix would begin in 2030. Climate variability can further reduce the reliability of SWP deliveries. The source of water that is pumped from the Delta originates in the Sierra Nevada Mountains as snowpack. It is widely accepted by climate and hydrology experts that climate scenario impacts on snowpack-driven water supplies is even more significant because even a fraction of a degree increase leads to early snowmelt which reduces the ability to capture river flows in surface reservoirs. Using methods described in TM#2, CDM Smith and its climate scenario expert Dr. David Yates estimated the potential impacts to the SWP under significant climate scenario. These estimates are similar to Final 4-20-16 Orange County Reliability Study, Water Demand Forecast and Supply Gap April 2016 Page 22 earlier work that California DWR did on climate scenario impacts on SWP reliability. Figure 12 presents the full range of SWP deliveries to MET with and without Cal Fix and with and without significant climate scenario impacts. As shown, the Cal Fix greatly improves the reliability of SWP supplies to MET—with an average increase in supply (restoration of supplies compared to the no project alternative) of over 400,000 afy. Significant climate scenario reduces SWP deliveries by an average of 200,000 afy, even with the Cal Fix. Figure 12. State Water Project Deliveries to MET 4.2.3 Overall MET Reliability In addition to CRA and SWP water, MET has significant surface storage and groundwater storage programs. MET also has a number of water transfers in the Central Valley. These investments have been critical for the region's supply reliability during droughts. However, since the first MET IRP in 1996 MET has had to allocate its imported water to its member agencies three in the last seven years. Using the indexed -sequential simulation method described in TM#2, MET water reliability can be illustrated for several hydrologic sequences. Figures 13, 14 and 15 utilize just 2 of the 93 hydrology sequences to demonstrate how the analysis works. Figure 13 shows the MET demands and supplies without a Cal Fix for the forecast period 2015 to 2040 with the last 25 -year hydrologic sequence of 1989 to 2014 imposed. In other words, forecast year 2015 is 1989, 2016 is 1990 ... and 2040 is 2014. Of all the 93 possible 25 -year hydrologic sequences, this one is the worst in terms of cumulative supply shortages. Final 4-20-16 2,000, D00 Average Dellyerles 1,800,D00 Exfsting ISc 1a} = 0.82 MAF t *.•. Existing w/CC (5r 3a) - 0.63 MAF 1,6QO,00D Delta Fix (5c ,lbs = 2.26 MAF ++� 1,4D0, 000 Delta Fix w/CC (5c 3bj a 1.07 MAF •' " . F ..::...,....w.« 1,200,000 – .. •, . • • .. •+ 1.000.000 600,000 400,000 ......., .. values 200,000 .average 0 - _ 100% 80% 60% 40% 20% Probability of Exceedance —Existing, •• •, Delta Fix wf Significant CC Impacts Delta Fix •• •• Existing w/ Significant CC Impacts Figure 12. State Water Project Deliveries to MET 4.2.3 Overall MET Reliability In addition to CRA and SWP water, MET has significant surface storage and groundwater storage programs. MET also has a number of water transfers in the Central Valley. These investments have been critical for the region's supply reliability during droughts. However, since the first MET IRP in 1996 MET has had to allocate its imported water to its member agencies three in the last seven years. Using the indexed -sequential simulation method described in TM#2, MET water reliability can be illustrated for several hydrologic sequences. Figures 13, 14 and 15 utilize just 2 of the 93 hydrology sequences to demonstrate how the analysis works. Figure 13 shows the MET demands and supplies without a Cal Fix for the forecast period 2015 to 2040 with the last 25 -year hydrologic sequence of 1989 to 2014 imposed. In other words, forecast year 2015 is 1989, 2016 is 1990 ... and 2040 is 2014. Of all the 93 possible 25 -year hydrologic sequences, this one is the worst in terms of cumulative supply shortages. Final 4-20-16 Orange County Reliability Study, Water Demand Forecast and Supply Gap April 2016 Page 23 Figure 14 shows Met demands and supplies without a Cal Fix for a more normal hydrology sequence imposed on the forecast period (this sequence begins with 1950 and ends in 1975). Even with a normal hydrology, there are still some water shortages in the later years. Figure 15, shows this same hydrology (1950 to 1975) but with a Cal Fix. Under this scenario, regional storage replenishes greatly and shortages in the later years are eliminated. When all 93 hydrologic sequences are simulated, and under all six scenarios representing various climate scenarios and Cal Fix assumptions, the probability of MET shortages exceeding 15 percent can be derived. A regional 15 percent shortage is similar to the allocation MET imposed in 2015. Figure 16 presents this probability of MET shortage. The results presented here for Scenario 1 with and without Cal Fix are similar to those presented in MET's Draft IRP. 3.000,000 2, 5 00,000 2,000,000 a 1,500,000 u d 2,aoo,�afl 500,000 0 Extreme Drought Hydrology (1989-2014) u, t0r~ W v, c__I N fi cto Lor- woo NNNNfNNNNNmMrrp MrnCflMrnro?7,�r o ca o 0 o ca o o c o 0 0 0 o 0 0 Q v 0 o 0 o o (a o CRA SWP Storage Toke+ SWPTransfers Storage Put —Demands —Ending Period Storage Figure 13. MET Reliability under Drought, for Scenario 1a (no Climate variability, no Cal Fix) Final 4-20-16 Orange County Reliability Study, Water Demand Forecast and Supply Gap April 2016 Page 24 3, s0o,i700 3,{100,000 2,500,000 m 2,000,000 - 1,500,000 1,000,000 500, No Average Hydrology (1950-1975) Ln tv r4 co 9� o r+ ry M sr U) v3 r-, Cry M 0 —1 N m v err %D V, oo a, o r, r, r, r " r " ra N N N N N r a M M m En M rn an m rn en � o v o v oC� o v o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 rw r4 " fq ry " fNra fN ry r4 " fN ry 4N rw rw rw CRA SVVP Swro�, TAko� + SWP Tranfers Stord i' FIut —Demands —Ending Pcrsod Storage Figure 14. MET Reliability under Average Hydrology, for Scenario 1a (no Climate variability, no Cal Fix) Average Hydrology (1950-1975) 3,500,000 3,000,000 2,500,000 2,000,000 � ;u 1,5o0,0oQ 1,000,000 50Q,000 0 v,+.a n cc or i •i N rn qr ui w r, W 01 a r„ .1 un do P- M M 6 ..4 w4 • w4 • 4 +. N N ry N N N N rN N av m r++ m m from rrl rO -• n1 RN 0 0 0 0 0 0 CD o a o 0 0 o c3 o 0 0 0 o 2 o 0 0 0 0 0 N N N --J " I N N N N fV N N AI ey ni 1'4rV " " " N r# N r4 N Ir CRA SWP GW Bank, 5W Storage F3aw to Storage _Deniancls —Ending Period Storage Figure 15. MET Reliability under Average Hydrology, for Scenario 1b (no Climate variability, with Cal Fix) Final 4-20-16 Orange County Reliability Study, Water Demand Forecast and Supply Gap April 2016 Page 25 SO% 9 Ln �q 70% A 10113 60% M t 50% LU 40% 2 30% p/ }r 20% M M L0_ 10% CL 0% Sc 1a Sc 2a Sc 3a Sc lb Sc 2b Sc 3b Without Cal Fix With Cal Fix 2030 E 2040 Figure 16. MET Supply Reliability (Percent of Time MET Supply Shortage Greater than 15%) As shown in Figure 16, the impacts of climate variability (Scenarios 2 and 3) can be significant in increasing the probability and magnitude of MET shortages. In 2040, significant climate scenario (Scenario 3) can increase the probability of shortage by 60 percent without Cal Fix. The analysis also shows the enormous benefit that Cal Fix can have on MET reliability, decreasing the probability of shortage from 50 percent in 2040 to 10 percent under Scenario 2. 4.3 Orange County Water Supply Gap When MET shortages occur, imported water is allocated to Orange County based on MET's current drought allocation formula. For the OC Basin, the estimation of the water supply gap required that the OC Model be able to simulate the way OCWD manages the OC Basin. The OC Basin's Basin Production Percentage (BPP) was set in the model to look forward each year and estimate all inflows to the basin, then set the BPP so that the cumulative overdraft in the basin would not exceed 500,000 af. In addition, the model does not allow the change in overdraft to exceed certain thresholds—essentially trying to keep some managed overdraft in the basin. Note: Modeling the management of the OCWD basin is complex, especially with respect to future uncertainties. The discussion of this effort herein was an initial attempt to reflect on how the BPP could be set within the context of a modeling effort. Since this initial effort, CDM Smith and OCWD have met a number of times to refine the analysis for the Phase 2 effort. The refined analysis will be documented in the final Project Technical Memorandum. Final 4-20-16 Orange County Reliability Study, Water Demand Forecast and Supply Gap April 2016 Page 26 Figure 17 presents a simulation of the OC Basin for the forecast period of 2015 to 2040, under an extreme drought hydrology of 1989 to 2014. Under Scenario 1, with no climate scenario and no Cal Fix, Figure 17 shows the pumping from the basin (blue line), the sources of inflows to the basin (shaded color areas), the cumulative basin overdraft (red line), and the BPP (dashed black line read on right-hand axis). Extrenw Drpught Hydrolop 11989-2014) When the other local Orange County water supplies from the Brea/La Habra and South County areas are added to the simulation, the OC Model estimates the overall supply reliability for the OC County total. Using all 93 hydrologic sequences, a probability chart can be created. The probability chart shows the percent time that any water shortage occurs and to what magnitude. Figure 18 shows the overall reliability for OC County total for Scenarios 1a, 2a and 3a (no Cal Fix) for the year 2040. As shown on this chart, there is a 50 percent chance that some level of shortage occurs for Scenario 1a. This probability of some shortage occurring increases to 80 percent for Scenario 2a and 98 percent for Scenario 3a. The average shortages are 32,000 afy, 74,000 afy, and 126,000 afy for Scenarios 1a, 2a, and 3a respectively. Figure 19 compares Scenarios 1, 2, and 3 with and without the Cal Fix. As shown in Figure 19, the Cal Fix dramatically reduces the probability of shortages and thus the average shortages. The average shortages under the Cal Fix are 5,000 afy, 17,000 afy, and 64,000 afy for Scenarios 1b, 2b, and 3b respectively. The one thing to note, however, is that the maximum shortages (which occur about 1 to 3 percent of the time) are not reduced substantially with the Cal Fix. These maximum shortages may require a multipronged strategy to minimize or eliminate, such as new base -loaded supplies, storage, water transfers and mandatory restrictions on some water uses. Final 4-20-16 1a0co'" • 100 Average Flumping = 321,004 AF Average Oaerdraft = 251,000 Af 94 000,00Q Avera g£ VP 69 �k ++~;% �4TMyr�' `ti 8o a � � 10 Q- 600,000~~ 'Y� 60 G u7 5o a 400000 40 G ` 30 204,000 20 10 4 CSAR 9a30I0W $AR 5tprmflaw + Inrr ReCharle �IMGWRS MWD Imports —Rumpfng —swcumdveedoverdraft --- BPP Figure 17. Simulation of OC Basin under Drought, for Scenario 1a (no Climate scenario, no Cal Fix) When the other local Orange County water supplies from the Brea/La Habra and South County areas are added to the simulation, the OC Model estimates the overall supply reliability for the OC County total. Using all 93 hydrologic sequences, a probability chart can be created. The probability chart shows the percent time that any water shortage occurs and to what magnitude. Figure 18 shows the overall reliability for OC County total for Scenarios 1a, 2a and 3a (no Cal Fix) for the year 2040. As shown on this chart, there is a 50 percent chance that some level of shortage occurs for Scenario 1a. This probability of some shortage occurring increases to 80 percent for Scenario 2a and 98 percent for Scenario 3a. The average shortages are 32,000 afy, 74,000 afy, and 126,000 afy for Scenarios 1a, 2a, and 3a respectively. Figure 19 compares Scenarios 1, 2, and 3 with and without the Cal Fix. As shown in Figure 19, the Cal Fix dramatically reduces the probability of shortages and thus the average shortages. The average shortages under the Cal Fix are 5,000 afy, 17,000 afy, and 64,000 afy for Scenarios 1b, 2b, and 3b respectively. The one thing to note, however, is that the maximum shortages (which occur about 1 to 3 percent of the time) are not reduced substantially with the Cal Fix. These maximum shortages may require a multipronged strategy to minimize or eliminate, such as new base -loaded supplies, storage, water transfers and mandatory restrictions on some water uses. Final 4-20-16 Orange County Reliability Study, Water Demand Forecast and Supply Gap April 2016 Page 27 200,060 — 180,040 1so,o0o 144,040 220,000 20a,1300 2 84,404 4A Uo,oaa 46,404 24,404 0% 109 0 = average values ?L)' 1r.N Q% 5% 00% 70% Row 40� ior� —Sc is - no Fix Sc 2a - no Fix —Sc 3a - no Fix Figure 18. Probability of Water Shortages (Gap) for Orange County Total, No Cal Fix 240,1000 — 180,000 1�aa4a 140,000 � 1�10,100a 140,1000 t sg460 64,000 40,000 24,040 0% 10% 20% 3096 41096 50K 6W 70% 80% 90% 100% 5c is - no Fix — Sc 2a - no Fix Sr 3a - na Fix ---st 1b -with Fix ---St 2b -with Fix Sc --- 3b - with Fix Figure 19. Probability of Water Shortages (Gap) for Orange County Total, with Cal Fix Final 4-20-16 Orange County Reliability Study, Water Demand Forecast and Supply Gap April 2016 Page 28 This supply reliability analysis was done for all three areas of the Orange County, Brea/La Habra, OC Basin, and South County. The average water shortages (averaged for all 93 hydrologic sequences) are shown in Table 10 for all six scenarios. Table 10. Summary of Average Water Supply Gap for Orange County Areas (acre-feet year) Numbers in parentheses ( � represent %d water demand 5.0 Conclusions While no attempt was made during Phase 1 of the OC Study to assign the likelihood of any one of the six scenarios occurring over the others, some might postulate that Scenario 2 would be the most likely to occur given that most climate experts believe we are already seeing evidence of climate variability impacts today. This all said, a number of observations can be made from this study, which are: 1. The most sensitive model parameters are: • Whether or not the Cal Fix is implemented, and by when The extent that climate variability impacts our supply reliability, which can take many forms: - Loss of the snowpack in the Sierras and Rocky's affecting imported water - Higher reservoir evapotranspiration - Reduced groundwater recharge statewide and locally - Increased water demands for irrigation and cooling from higher temperatures - Requires increase storage to capture and utilize available supplies Final 4-20-16 { Brea f La [labra a -no Fix b- with Fix a -no Fix b -with Fix a -no Fix b- with fix 2020 110(1%) 11011%) 160 {1961 160 (L%1 250(1%) 250 [1%) 2040 820(4%) 130 [1961 1.80019%) 430 0% 3,100115%) 1.600 (9%) OC Basin a - no Fix b - with Fix a -no Fix b - with Fix a -no Fix b - with Fix 3020 3.800 (1,A) 3.800(1%) 5,3M Ilii SrA00 (1%1 x,100 (2%) 9,300 12%) X40 19,000(S%) 2.80011%) 49.000 (12961 11r000 (3%1 85,000 120%) 42r000 11"v South County a —no Fix b —with Fix a —no Fix b —with Fix 8 — no Fix b — with fix 2020 2,100 [2%1 x,704 12%) 3,40013961 3,000 53%1 4. W (4%) 4,800 14%) 2040 12rd60 (!a%) 1,9Dd f2'6) 23rd00 (15961 5,600 (M6) 38,1004 12;1%) 2Q,Q00 IIMA) OC Total a - m Fix b -with Fix a - n4 fix b -with Fix a -no Fix b- with Fix 2020 6x000 (1%) 6,000 [1%) S,SW {2%j 8500 P%] 14.0000%) 14,00{1 13961 2040 32,000(6%) 4804 11%) 74,000 (13961 17,000 )3911 126,000{2196] 64,000 311961 Numbers in parentheses ( � represent %d water demand 5.0 Conclusions While no attempt was made during Phase 1 of the OC Study to assign the likelihood of any one of the six scenarios occurring over the others, some might postulate that Scenario 2 would be the most likely to occur given that most climate experts believe we are already seeing evidence of climate variability impacts today. This all said, a number of observations can be made from this study, which are: 1. The most sensitive model parameters are: • Whether or not the Cal Fix is implemented, and by when The extent that climate variability impacts our supply reliability, which can take many forms: - Loss of the snowpack in the Sierras and Rocky's affecting imported water - Higher reservoir evapotranspiration - Reduced groundwater recharge statewide and locally - Increased water demands for irrigation and cooling from higher temperatures - Requires increase storage to capture and utilize available supplies Final 4-20-16 Orange County Reliability Study, Water Demand Forecast and Supply Gap April 2016 Page 29 2. The range in water supply gaps carry different implications, namely: • Under Scenario 1a (no climate variability, no Cal Fix), supply shortages are fairly manageable, with average shortages in 2040 being about 6% of demand with an occurrence of about 4 in 10 years. • Under Scenario 2a (moderate climate variability, no Cal Fix), supply shortages require moderate levels of new investments, with average shortages in 2040 being about 13% of demands with an occurrence of about 5 in 10 years. • Under Scenario 3a (significant climate variability, no Cal Fix), supply shortages require significant levels of new investments, with average shortages in 2040 being about 21% of demands with an occurrence of about 6 in 10 years. • Scenarios with Cal Fix significantly reduce average shortages by 85% for Scenario 1, by 77% for Scenario 2, and by 50% for Scenario 3 in 2040. • Modest shortages begin in 2020, 8,500 AF per year on average (about 2% of demands) with an occurrence of about 1 in 10 years 3. Decisions made by Orange County water agencies to improve water supply reliability with local water supply investments should consider the following: • The large influence of the Cal Fix. MET and Orange County are much more reliable with the Cal Fix; however, the following questions are posed: — What is the implication for triggering Orange County supply investments as long as the Cal Fix is an uncertainty? — How long should Orange County wait to see where the Cal Fix is headed? 3, 5 or 10 years? — What types of Orange County supply investment decisions would be beneficial whether or not the Cal Fix proceeds ahead? • MET is potentially undertaking a NEW Indirect Potable Reuse project. — What are the implications of this project for decision-making in Orange County? • Other MET investments in its recommended 2015 IRP. — What success rate does Orange County attribute to these planned MET water supply investments? — Will the success rate be influenced by the Cal Fix? (e.g., additional storage without Cal Fix may not provide much benefit if there is no replenishment water during normal hydrologic years) Phase 2 of the OC Study seeks to address these observations in a collaborative way by providing insights as to the various cost implications of different portfolios made up from MET, the MET member agencies and Orange County water supply options and to discuss policy implications for MET and Orange County. The combined information from Phases 1 and 2 would give local decision Final 4-20-16 Orange County Reliability Study, Water Demand Forecast and Supply Gap April 2016 Page 30 makers both an idea of the risk of water supply shortages under a wide range of plausible scenarios, and the range of cost implications for mitigating the shortages. The intent of the OC Study, however, is to not to make any specific recommendations as to which supply options should be implemented, but rather present common information in an objective manner for local decision making. 6.0 References Center for Demographic Research (2015). Demographic forecasts for Orange County water agencies provided to MWDOC. Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (2005). The Regional Urban Water Management Plan. Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (2013). Inland Feeder ... at a glance. Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (2015). httl2://www.mwdh2o.com/mwdh2o/12ages/ol2erations/ol2sOl.html Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (2015). Draft Integrated Resources Plan. Municipal Water District of Orange County (2011). 2010 Urban Water Management Plan. Municipal Water District of Orange County (2015). Existing and Planned Recycled Water Supply/Use in Orange County. From: Robert Hunter, To: Planning & Operations Committee, June 1 2015. Municipal Water District of Orange County (2015). Historical SoCalWater$mart conservation savings for Orange County. Data provided to CDM Smith. Orange County Water District. (2007). 2005-2006 Engineer's Report on the groundwater conditions, water supply and basin utilization in the Orange County Water District. Orange County Water District Board of Directors, February 2007. Orange County Water District (2013). 2011-2012 Report on Groundwater Recharge in the Orange County Groundwater Basin. Orange County Water District (2014). Long -Term Facilities Plan 2014 Update. Orange County Water District (2015). Draft OCWD Water Management Plan 2015. United States Bureau of Reclamation (2007). Colorado River Interim Guidelines for Lower Basin Shortages and Coordinated Operations for Lakes Powell and Mead: Appendix D, Lower Division States Depletion Schedules. D-3. http: //www.usbr.gov/lc/region /programs/strategies/FEISlindex.html Final 4-20-16 Orange County Reliability Study, Water Demand Forecast and Supply Gap April 2016 Page 31 United States Bureau of Reclamation (2011). Operation Plan for Colorado River System Reservoirs (24 -Month Study). httl2://www.usbr.gov/lc/region/g4000/24mo/index.html United States Bureau of Reclamation (2012). Colorado River Basin Water Supply and Demand Study: Appendix G, Analysis & Evaluation. G2-5 to G2-6. httl2:/ lwww.usbr.gov/lc/region[programs/crbstudy/finalrel2ortlindex.html United States Bureau of Reclamation (2013). Hood River Basin Study: Groundwater Modeling. Presentation, August 191h 2013. South Coast Water District (2015). Draft Water Supply Allocation Plan, February 12, 2015. California Department of Water Resources, State Water Project (2015). Draft Delivery Capability Report. Yates, D., Averyt, K., Flores -Lopez, F., Meldrum, J., Sattler, S., Sieber, J., and Young, C. (2013). A water resources model to explore the implications of energy alternatives in the southwestern US. Environ. Res. Lett., 8, 14 pp. Final 4-20-16 APPENDIX H AWWA Water Loss Audit Worksheet U U N >O `o_ O O N cc W Q7 a) N (0 N w > N � W L c OCL Q (0 W O N U ca N W (0 > W O ` = 0 C O J O O C _ d O N j U N O d =0 M 0 Q O 0 LO 07 w Y Q m � O 0 OC cc mO 0 .0 C C O N N fN/1 O O W a N U W O O w .N U O_ O W m C O m m E 6 E 0 E LO N U 0 O N (0 N S m m 0 w N O 0 cc m c 0 0 cc Q O O m EMJ L E C fq T N N C m N C o O N 07 O � .N 7 N O O_ O O -O O N N 0 W O O N 16 O J O Q (0 O N—" 0 0 > (0 d -0 _ N 0 0 O U N (0 (0 2 CLAn L N 07 00m� L N w U C O Jv d C U > > O N O O L a) a) N J 0 N H w > o N C U7 c Cl! O d ` C U CL d _O — O J N N L C N r O C O 0 _ O N ._ =o N O m U0 w O 0 N U to N u d O D c 10 o X = = U O E2 d W — N d U < c U O` Q O T C d J C O LO" N U W v 0 3 N H `o m O � N z _T E U Z U) O = o ° v J O a+ Z � m C N> N O N m E 3 m c o 0 — v E o u E o O _ m J u ° 01 U°0 w v v 3 O v 0 a+ .O N 42:' N n c vv9 U c v— p m CNCO Yana+ m -O � c C Y ui w D u O G � > C U o m 0 = o C v E 0 m 0 m O J E c v u ' m C C v O 0 ` m 0 0 a+ m a ui w D N 4 O 0 0 a+ c \ N 0 a 0 v .Q O N O D N 0 Y a+ O CL CL d N > N ,a�n+ u am+ J = 7 J Y " a w a a vw E� ° `m ° L o m L Q � .„„. Free Tlater Audit Software: Click to access definition Water Audit Report for: Tustin 0 Click to add a comment Reporting Year: 2014 11 7/2013 - 6/2014 Please enter data in the white cells below. Where available, metered values should be used, if metered values are unavailable please estimate a value. Indicate your confidence in the accuracy of the input data by grading each component (n/a or 1 -10) using the drop-down list to the left of the input cell. Hover the mouse over the cell to obtain a description of the grades All volumes to be entered as: ACRE-FEET PER YEAR To select the correct data grading for each input, determine the highest grade where the utility meets or exceeds all criteria for that grade and all grades below it. Master Meter and Supply Error Adjustments WATER SUPPLIED <----------- Enter grading in column'E' and'J-----------> Pcnt: Value: Volume from own sources: On[n1a 0.000 acre-ft/yr D0 Water imported: 0 11,113800acre-fuyrWater exported:0W 0.000 acre-ft/yr 00 WATER SUPPLIED: AUTHORIZED CONSUMPTION 11,113.800 acre-fuyr Billed metered: =pnl 10,778.000 acre-ft/yr Billed unmetered:QO 0.000 acre-ft/yr Unbilled metered:= 0.000 acre-ft/yr Unbilled unmetered: 00 138.923 acre-ft/yr Default option selected for Unbilled unmetered - a grading of 5 is applied but not displayed AUTHORIZED CONSUMPTION: 10,916.923 acre-fuyr WATER LOSSES (Water Supplied -Authorized Consumption) 196.877 acre-fuyr Apparent Losses Unauthorized consumption: 00 27.785 acre-ft/yr acre-ft/yr 4 acre-fuyr d I acre-ft/yr Enter negative % or value for under -registration Enter positive % or value for over -registration Click here: 0 for help using option buttons below Pcnt: Value: 1-25%1Z•) 1 acre-ft/yr Use buttons to select percentage of water supplied OR vTe Pcnt: Value: 0-25%1 • 1 1acre-ft/yr Default option selected for unauthorized consumption - a grading of 5 is applied but not displayed Customer metering inaccuracies: 00� 141.959 acre-ft/yr 1.30% • acre-ft/yr Systematic data handling errors: 0 26.945 acre-ft/yr 1 0-25%1 * acre-fuyr Default option selected for Systematic data handling errors - a grading of 5 is applied but not displayed Apparent Losses: 01 196.689 acre-fuyr Real Losses (Current Annual Real Losses or CARL) Real Losses = Water Losses - Apparent Losses: 0.189 acre-fuyr NON -REVENUE WATER WATER LOSSES: NON -REVENUE WATER: = Water Losses + Unbilled Metered + Unbilled Unmetered SYSTEM DATA 196.877 acre-fuyr 0 1 335.800 acre-fuyr Length of mains: 0 0a 177.5 miles Number of active AND inactive service connections: 0 7 14,165 Service connection density: 80 conn./mile main Are customer meters typically located at the curbstop or property line? No (length of service line, beyond the property 7 20.0 ft boundary, that is the responsibility ofthe utility) Average length of customer service line: 0M COST DATA Average operating pressure: p00 50.0 psi Total annual cost of operating water system:00�s $17,493,567 $/near Customer retail unit cost (applied to Apparent Losses): 0 0 s $3.08 $/100 cubic feet (ccf) Variable production cost (applied to Real Losses): 0 0 a $793.70 $/acre -ft ase Customer Retail Unit Cost to value real losses WATER AUDIT DATA VALIDITY SCORE: *** YOUR SCORE IS: 74 out of 100 *** A weighted scale for the components of consumption and water loss is included in the calculation of the Water Audit Data Validity Score PRIORITY AREAS FOR ATTENTION: Based on the information provided, audit accuracy can be improved by addressing the following components: 1: Water imported 2: Billed metered 3: Customer metering inaccuracies AWWA Free Water Audit Software v5.0 Reporting Worksheet 1 U) / / ± § 0 § y �D ƒ 0k \ \ \ ƒ \ > / 44 & ' k / / 0 ƒ > 0 0 0 5 E g ± § \ � 0 y 0 y 0 ) \ \ J 2 2 2 \ > \ / / / ) % % % % / R R co @ 3± p ? ƒ/ g 7 7 g % g 2 e — � _ _ ¥ & & 6 6 6 6 / 6 t6 ibof>5 CD E 0 ƒ k 0 0 LU \ \ � � k E ƒ ƒ § _ U) m @ ƒ > > f 7 / ƒ ƒ / 5 5 5 5 k k k\ q 2 2 Q \ $ \ \ b� § §tee \ ƒ % � J 0 co o k® R k // 2 b G a 2 « � -j � = m > ® e ® $ 5 0 § \ / / o G / « e 0 ±o 5 R o 5 0 o A= -0 o ± x 5 « + e\ 2 2$ o o o f> 2 p f .. / ƒ / / / / k : o k / = ~ < ® \ § / / ) \ \ / § e LU co \ 0 00 y LU 2 a o 0 \ > > -J0 / f @ / \ / / / / / § \ ° � k 5 eƒ $ > t E ¢ R \ f \ b 5 co / o o= 2 7 m « - = § \ m o ± / « $ e C/) 0 & co k < / § / LTJ/ ƒ \ T 2 J co 2 LL / o $ o a k w 0 J ) % \ < / m \ E § ° E O Ac / U U) \ ) 4 E E 3 E +/ E E { JE { § )§ G$E E E { k \ g § 7 ) ° G 7 ) « ) I 7 2 ( \ k ƒ a / 0 §E ) \ \ « / \ 0 0 E E § e § § 0 \ \ > F k E j L) \ E g E \ \ „ @ \ C14 / \ < / k \ r \co / / / § / \ } / ƒ § E 0 G < \ / .[ N j k } } § j j ` ( 0 `f ` \ / ( / ` s D \ \ \/ § \ \ 0 2 ] + 3 0 o = \ 0 # 7 § c ® > k e ° / � ° B | | ) | \ CD \ CD — �k ° 2 k §� k 06 r- kƒ m 2 | 2 n | I a | | ) . | c c o n m W) m LO r m ° |E $ k k § k ] |/ k �m \ |& § U) U) U) § § u e 2 § 2 �k § § § § t 0. , 3 r o a / ) k 3� k / � E § E a § c3 c x / § \8 j\ o o , 2 |£ 2 £ U � m 2 2 � mo 2 � § 2 m|ma @ k k § 2 0■§ o■ o I m -im2Pw2-jk 0 | | § ; | 0 2 § u ■ 0 | 2 n o co z | ° 2 k 2 ; 2 § L C § J « CL « | | 2 2 k | ) B | co | k k ) § & � 0 g $ § © -2 2 § | 5 a \ \ « Q | J cc | 3 k kcc � � � | � / / k� j LU �| ; | / k a � m § { � �)£ o L k $ e 2 E 2 � 0 a B OO N N N N N N $ }sod v 0 N M O N � r � _ O A �y N 3 H L LSD d O � � v 0. C T w O CL d > R cc d D O a� v s s O C � O C 6 .0 C C O N Na C N O a Q O- E N � O t 7 N � � L � > i f6 -0t C -C + 0 o 3 ai aiai E u O u 20 O > CN m an aJ aJ (a H 0 0 D v v v 3 v 0 a � v X � v v v v 0 Z 0 LO a� °c 3 0 0 =O Y W O u m O U O d Q N X Q W W O a > > of > O Z C O , m LL o U o Y u -O a Q U `0 0 Z � II a E D W C U Nv O O a v j >" o LLID �-j cc ■ O U) O O Z o v a m y _ a) a) O U E E ' c o v L N E E N v v E o 0 O O O W O O O �O O O O V O O O N OO o 0 ~ O U) Ln O O O O O O O O O W O O O �O O O O V O O O N O ■ ■ ■ ■ N w ■ ■ OO N N N N N N $ }sod v 0 N M O N � r � _ O A �y N 3 H L LSD d O � � v 0. C T w O CL d > R cc d D O a� v s s O C � O C 6 .0 C C O N Na C N O a Q O- E N � O t 7 N � � L � > i f6 -0t C -C + 0 o 3 ai aiai E u O u 20 O > CN m an aJ aJ (a H 0 0 D v v v 3 v 0 a � v X � v v v v 0 Z 0 LO a� 3 0 0 =O Y W O u m O U O d Q N X Q W W O a > LL Q Q =O a E D W C U Nv O O a v 0 3 a 3 ■ u O 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 T W O O O O� O O O O ti APPENDIX I Water Use Efficiency Implementation Report k., T O N 00 m I� V r N O r 0) 00 M N O m N LO I-- U7 00 m O fD ffl O 00 > r O r U7 m O V O V U7 r O L y O C14 ONO G m N U7 � C fa N 7 c>C fn L - U N O N O 0 0) U L m Ch LO O COO fro O +O+ O ffl V U7 X V O r V ffl L ' y rj fh - N m O N fh CL � LC > ,,m^ VJ O 001- 00 O V ffl (fl 00 ffl I� I- U) y Cl)Cl)00 0) 0) r O m N (0 O r O V G r ffl U7 (h m V 0) 00 ffl O U7 m 00 N (.0V U7 fh O O U7 000 U7 C Cl) C00 � N N O > L y C�0 r O � N C00 Oro V L L N CO U7 U7 Cl) 00 O V O a� N f0 V yU) V (D LL N � N 0 V a N r m ffl f0 0) O ++ O N 00 fh N 00 00 L r_ oc L N N � L U y c Cl) N Om�UN O0 (0 O Ny L 0) O V r U7 00 O C f0 ' O O R Cl) N 0) r O O U7 I-- co Or � U C00 (.0N O (h N N r N r a� CY) aa) L r_ U) U) LO LO U) ._ Ui LO l!7 Ui Ui 4- o p s? s? s? s? R o 0 o E E E E y +, O O co C O O O O O cn cn cn z° E N R L D VI-- N I-- ffl O U7 Cl) I-- N U7 O O O O O O O O O 0) 0) O O O O O O O O 0) 0) 0) 0) (T 0) L f0 CL E fn tm t C y O 00 E 7 a r E p a E o 1E�4 rn R w fu c °rn E E U) tm O •� a1 O N U) d O M rn L 8 a m w a o° c fEa - fu is E E E E fu 0) x o a a E fu a y s d U CL � E °� - R� E O R rn p 0� U) R tm '0 u fr= �, fA u l4 U tm d R Nd O :� N F- V L N E -i G >, V d ci i t cn C 0) fA N 00) M l4 V+ d m O C fA fD LL fA l4 � 3 fu W P: 0) Cl) lEi4 0) W fD J fD s ,� O fu rn t 0) E t '� cD E o C1 x U X in l4 -a O C1o cn 0° ii S CL x x cn m x cn T O N No 0) Cil r T M (O le le W O le le M LO W M N N W (O f-- le T Cil (O M N N Cil r O f- f'- W W T Cil le Cil M N 1- y Cil f.- Cil t, W r f-- (O l O r T <O (O C%4 -e T N LO <O T M M Cil f'- O M O (O M r f'- M f'- M N W W M N LL T w R Q J N y R r M r f'- 'Rt LO M M 0 CO CO N M 00 LO r M Cil 00 - T LO Q Cil M 00 M Cil O Cil r C-1 LO M M M O N Cil O (O f.- Cil f.- O O (O 00 T Cil M LO M f-- O O y i O R <O -e M <O W M f-- (O f- (O r -e Cil O Cil -e r (OM 0 00 f'- r 00 W Cil r Cil O -e r 00 M r f-- a) O (O M r r f.- f- a) f0 -e 4 T O 00 O LO N LO M N N le (O Cil (O r N r (O LO f.- N -e (O r N T M f'. M U y O Cil M M le (O O M (O f'- (O r N W 0 0 Cil W O M W le M O f'- W R LL M r O N N M W f0 f0 T O T N"t N"t O M N f0 T O T T N c! "t f" d 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N O 0 0 0 0 r 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 T Q N R 7 C C rs U � y U r. -C%4 MJ CO fO f'- M O CO M Cil N LO M 00 N (O f'- N M N LO M r.-00 f, r CO M Cil N N M e M N O MJ a) M e T a) T O Co le N MJ M 00 M T r,- r N N rl Ci1 N a, M a, M1 r. M M1 M M1 M M1 f'- M1 M <O N fC r T T N M -e f-- N r N W N M r N W r r N M Cl C N 00 H O M - Cil f'- N fO M fO M1 O M I- Il- <O le r N M1 M1 Cil N O Co T e N N M- O W f-- N r N N M M MJ M -e N r N T M M fO r (O M N O N LL r 00 M Cil N f'- -e Cil Cil O LO O N TN 00 f0 00 f.- O Cil fO N T T m r r f0 Y') r W W M M W Cil Cil f0 m e m M N fO le W O MJ O t T T T T M M M T T T T T Q to U- LL f0 W r N N M M1 M1 r.- to r N M M N Cil O Cil M1 M N f. -le r O N= f0 W Cil f0 r N M W N Cil f0 f, Cil f0 N a Lo W f0 M M T T T T T N N C r T T (O T O Mf U- U- m M r MMJ Cil O O r M MJ T O M MJ f0 le M M f0 N W M W M r N f0 r W r f0 n O M U) T M M r Cil W O M 00 f-- r N r W Lff fO N T T T T N M t --T T N T Lf9 T T M LL N MJ O N W fO MJ N O W fO f-- fO M N N O fO M r O N N f'- W M 0 r r Lff M W W f'- N MJ r, r <O r O f-- MJ N r <O M O f-- MJ T T T T T N Uf> T T T (O r N r N ID r N N M U- LL r f0O M N Cil r M M r Cil fO fO N f-- f'- Cil O M LC1 T T M N le Cil le <O r W M N fO M M MfO N f'- f'- Cil M N Cil -e Cil M O 00 N M W f'- N Cil W r N T C%4 -e MJ Cil (O r N r r M ' r M r T T M M f0 r N r r O T LL O N Cil M NN r 00 r -e N M) f-- M O f- r M M f.- f.- f.- M W M) � r r M f. O fO r M N N N f-- MJ MJ r to LO le Nle f.- T M r r N M N r N r M O r M LL Cil O fO MJ fO f'- r O M M le N M f'- le r Lo Mr Co MJ f-- r. -le fO N le Cil MJ M O f.- Nr, W O le f'- LO M N W N (O le M M t` f0 <O O co r r T N M -e f.- W N f, N ' r N f-- r r N M r O r W LL 00M1 -e N M Cil -eT Q N (O LO I. -M f0 O MJ CO M r M 'D r 0 0 f0 O n f. r r r N T T T N O M O -e MJ f-- MJ O M T M f-- -e N T� f'- N to M O r f0 N co f0 M M r <O T f.- T MJ M W Cl O N r.- U- f. -N M1 00 r LC1 co Cil T N (O M f-- Cil N M) <O Cil f'- O f'- Cil N M W fO O M 00 T 0i1 O M M f0 f'- Cil M MJ M MJ a to M O f0 MJ T 00 O t r N N M f.- 0i> N fO N M r N fO T T N N LL LL N R N H p p (D � p � U a m p o s (E (E m (>E Z ami m d C E (B Z O U >' O '� C C (CE d' (E > C O O O (UE O O U J C C O L O .� O O O O Q U yE m y C C E (E 0) O N O 7 = C C= d O) (n 7 (E (E C C C (E =01 �> Q m m W W W O O= J J J 2 Z 0 O (n (n (n (n (n (n >} T O N i i a LU k Cl) ) LU E F- F- Cl) - F -m .\\$\\((.\.kk\/\\ §j�� E_____�___;,===m= „ _,__====,2 }o ! |°; E_=====mmG===,;�,;,g=,=,=,_�@ ` /o §k`==,,,;;)�_ E_;_;;; ;====2 ` yo :| @| 2| j, w [ ;,; , , jo oN ,______=====m §o \\ $ § 2 2 o ( ==G\2 __ , - !t - \«7\:�: - 2: . ■ )\2{)\ \\://)f(o , )- =\/)::$§ \/jj\))7))/\j\/))//))/\////- m;;;§1;2;;@%lg;lk;; _°«=l�2�6.....G©2; os 0000==02 \\\ °,«;�l;;;!@;!;@;;;m;2;g2g;;j 5/ ____________________ , �� |2 ol___;;====2====�__;_;__» 0110 1 1lol§5 QE.___________________________ 5/ .0==(=G;;201°;°W,2 �) °10 „ 1.22,,!_,,,«!;! 228,,� QE.___________________________ 5/ =@G 5/ ____________________ §` 0=a====2G°na=====___� �/ °GG2;m�§q;==#q/kqe!§°>!00 0 m0 ~—| 01;;Ge 5/ ___________________IT_ 2 , 2=«,=,_,; I| =__________!7 ~_| �) °®00 OW ,;,�_„ _, I| ________=====2 ~_| 10, 11 0.111 °§E I| ____________________ ~_| =====______=====m g=====___=====g f:)a OC:§ Z)«1`°/)®]E*� ;/ -_J //!\))7{)\\j\)a)))f/\/))// 9 I V ON w IL LLl F - /Q W LLl cn LLl F- X fLL V Z m J a J Q U CLLI CG G O U F - CQ G LLLI r J U N U Z LLl Q W 0 w J J F- N Z o U y TY E LL O u y � o � o � R �o W c o E �o� R o E 0 T o �Um a �o� o U m > ` U o a o m W o u y o L o mU o S E a mR o o 0 o "ate N t: _ U > - F U U J � o m 2 o U o a o N > o m o 0 U K m - - K LU W f0 00 O N r a N 00 00 00 a r N a 0 f, O N O Cl) O a 0 0n 00 f0 o rn R y a M O Cn N N O M 00 (C f0 M Cn 00 f� a f� 00 N 00 N r a r UO N f0 M N M 00 00 M a a N r M 00 M a f0 s R o c y> N N N E R ° R CO U N R U IL M 0n O O M N W N N W W O M-4 W O N r O a 0 0 N N O f� y - N 0 N 00 f0 f� N f0 N N 00 Cn 00 Cn O f� N f0 f0 � a a 00 O 00 000 M Cn a U0 N M a r � N M N M M 00 M 00 N a M M R M a O F M CO V O -O O CII OOCIACCOCCOCCOO LO O LOO) V dW) O Ufl N Ufl CIA M It } N LL N O Ufl O Ufl O n O O O MMUfl O CII OOO N O LO O O LO N Ufl LO co co f0 } r N LL O O O O M O N LL y In O O O V O 0 0 o o 0 0-00 0 cc 0 0 0 M M N O o O N U- LL N X 0 0 I� V O In CO CO O O O O Ln M 0 41 O O O O V O O Ln 0 f0 N d) N M M M In V Ufl V co I- co co w Cn LL V O)O N N co Ufl N V0 O M (fl In O O O O O O N cc co O a I- M N CO O) O O Ufl O N V N V co N Ufl co N a } r M LL p V N O M O O L CO W M d) d) In M O V O O In CO W f� O N N V M Lno N 0 I� Ln N W N N m N � M N LL T 0 M N O N In W V V d) In O M 41 I� V of M O N O V V In V M V d) M d) N V O W I� I- V M V In CO N M N V CO N M } O a LL 00 O M O O In CO W cc M MC 'I N CO O O M O In O O M 00 N Ln V V N d) N V d) V 1-- O } O LL � O N R N F D 0 U �j U U D> U N co Q 4) U a) N a)> U U a '- 0 > > T d i _ R E m U R 0 0 U a) t 0 N R N R ^2 Q d N C7 (n O N R R c R Z m 0: E R N> > p U C 0: o O o 0 U 00 J O p C O -a N .E O R R c R �O O a O M 'N 0: o N O H -6 c c 2 d N c c c c R N J J J 0] 0] W W LL (7 (7 S Z O U) U) U) U) U) U) U) H H > } o U y TY E LL O u y � o � o � R �o W c o E �o� R o E 0 T o �Um a �o� o U m > ` U o a o m W o u y o L o mU o S E a mR o o 0 o "ate N t: _ U > - F U U J � o m 2 o U o a o N > o m o 0 U K m - - K LU W y 0 0 0 0 0 0 N X M LO O N LO X O N O M O OV O r O M d l4 00 V 0 0) 0 0 Ch N O N— 0 00 U7 I-- O O O 00 O O N N 0— 0 N o N U7 O 00 O O 00 Cfl N V O O Cfl m m O Cfl O r O O 00 Cfl O O O j4 p (.0U7 V O r 0) V 00 N r m 01-- 0) O r V m m O O 00 V m I O F -LL V N V N V r - U) Q Cl) tm " a) r >' 0 t4 O NCD O O ON O V NO LO LO O O X O (Do O V O O X O O T N Cl) Cl) Oro N N 0) O M O000 Cfl Cfl O Ln T CO (V N } T LL NO N O O N M t N O V m O O I -- O Cfl O O V O O 00 O u'l Ln N O m m Cfl N N — r O O 00 0 Cfl M r 00 r Ui (fl m V Ch I* � T '01 (V N T } LL NO N O O N I— V N O— U7 O O M O V O O x O O x O (O N O m m 0) N N — r O 0) r 0 Q) r 00 LO (fl m N N T M T 0 N N T } LL NO N O O N L0 V N O V O N O M 0 0 0 O (b O O 00 O wM N O m m 0) N N O V Cfl Cfl L0 Cfl wr X I- U7 (.0N N 0) 1- N T 0 T T } LL N O O O O N (b N O O M CO O M O N O O x O O 00 O M N N O m Ch Cfl V N U7 V N Cfl Cfl Cfl 11. r X Ch V (fl N N O) N T T 0 T T } LL O Cl) O O O O V m m V O (b L0O 0 0 0 O O N O O O r - T O N Ch m V V N (b O) I V (.0N W T OO Ch N L0 N I-- - r- 01--0 OrO O O N r N O 77 O 7 O Cfl 00 00 00 O 00 0 CDN Ch N V N ONO 1\ N O V NO 1! COO Q) CO O O T } LL O O O V O O V O x r m O 0 Cl) N O Cl) O O O O O x 0 Ln G O000 Cl) 00 U7 N ONO V Cl V M CD } LL O O O N O O V O O O O O O O O N O O O C X LD O CNLD W N MO O Cl) N 0) r-, r- N O } LL 0001 O O O O(D O O O COO Ch O O 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 n N L M O N (fl N 0 Q) T CD O } LL W O O O O) O O O O Om0 O O O O r- N O O LO O M O O O O O O M O CO n T O } LL 0 0 0 O O O O� O O O O O� O O O O O O O 0 X E O coN Y O N LO O r } LL N CO O H U cl 0 pcl D U a) U 3: coU a) a) ) 'Q m *= D Y o Co a) > o a) m a) Co U Uco a) U a) C-) n m °) Co O i U` (n O O CO CO C6 (6 Z m C C6 U> >� U in O >+ CL > O O '� C C i0) CC co E> > C= t, a) a) co a) O U O J co O co co 7co m t U a)Co N H 7 O C C '� 2 CL O 7 O 2 C C C N 7 N C) Q CO 7 CO co W W O W (6 U` ( O 2— co J co J co J O Z O m (n m co m co a) co co O co H 7 H>} O O O 1� M m O O O) 00 O O 0 N N w N O CD 0) N T W N T O CD 0) W T M N O T 01M1: a c� O w IL z O U " W W a � U W N H d a �° CL cl)o W m U E O ' w z CL J a cn D 0 z 0000�o�o�oo�om0�oo�o�o�i�000 ■000000�000000�000000�00000ee �000000m000000m000000m0000000 �moonot000nommoonomnv000i �onomo�enomo�onomo�omenme �000000me00000m000000moov000e �o�oo�o�m�oo�o�o�oo�o�o�m�o�m n0000m000000m000000moov000v 000000m000000m000000moom000m ,VIII �III� III �III�� U Z /W V a M� W 0 W J J a F— F— LU — F— W 2 V/ F- LU J_ O H Z W U M LL W /2 V ■■ 0) E a1 0 a` C O r y C 0 U v C v 0 J C U O 0 L 0 L r O O n O le W N W w M M O M n 0 M W W I- le le M N O n W r I- M (D M 0 0 0 Vn r n N OR OR O n N O N 0 0 0 In N m M (D W 00 n (D M M � O In � N M (D A M m M M M O M 00 N N N� O M O I- 7 co 0 0 0 7 7 co 7 0 LLQ I- N 7 7 0 0 Lf) O N O O 7 M (O I- N O 7 t` 0 M lf) (O N t` t` N 7 M Lf) Lf) O N (O lf) Lf) (O - O 7 O I- (0 I, M CO O LO O I- N M 7 LO N M M O) N N7 Lf) IV) N IZE ico N l(D Lf) 7 lf) Lf)(O O 7 (O Lf) Lf) CO N N 7 (O Lf) O Co CO Lf) I- Lf) I- I- I- CO O I- lf) 7 I- N N co Lo 7 0 M 7 Lf) co Lf) 7 7 N co 7 t` N I- 7 M t` O M CO N I- N O M t` (O M (O O N O 7 O I- N 7 0 N I- co co O Lf) I- O O N N N O co 7 lf) N (O N M S Lf) M O I- O �_ t` I� O Lf) (O O 7 M t` O 7 N N 0 0 lf) 7 0 M 0 M (O N N M O N N co M M N M N M O lf) t` t` O O N Lf) N N t` N N 0 7 Lo O O M 0 N 7 (O 7 (O co 7 M N 7 0 7 7 7 M t` N if O (O co 7 co M co O O O O O N O O O O O O O � O O O N O 0 0 0 0- cco M 7 NT (O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O M O O O O M co N O co r- O N t` 7 t` M lf) O M t` M M O 7 O N 0 t` M N O N co t` N co N 7 � 7 N 7 N O co CO (O — CO 7 (O M 7 CO 7 (O N7 O) O) (O N Lo M O I- (o (o 7 t` M Lo M r` lf) NM N M N Lo I- co (O lf) 7 Nr— c Mm O N Lo co 7N lf) N M 7 t` M M M M t` M M (O N 7 M N M (o N 7 7 7 7 0 (O co O O O N co co I- 7 7 (O N 7 I- O N O co N— O N co Co 7 Lo N M N N Lf I- N O N O (0 O) (O t` N 0 0 7 0 Nr— N 7 N— 0 7 Co Lo M 7 N co Co Lo NM O (O N N N N co 0) N O N 0 7 (O M Lf) N M t` O Lo O O I- lf) co O N O (O t` 7 0 O co M lf) O_ 7 N N N (O t` N O O O O O O N N O O O O O O O O O O O N N O O O O N N M N m N 0 c 0 F p m U CS O 2 i m O�m 21; LL U 0 D F d� R N N O d L d > } R N � � � N LL U f6 N co O O O M I- L(i V N O OJ O OJ O L(i N N 0 V O V I� O M co O N O O W M M m N 0� W O V co I� N O co W m N 0 G � W 0 Cfl 0 LO C N O V M W M C0- W N N r V CO M ON CO 0 N m ON W m N W M(D � W co N M Cfl 0 m a N V I- co w O U L CO CL I- I- CO CO LO I- CO CO V N I- LO O NCF) CO CO M N N V Lo O OCF) CF) O co CO LO OCF) V co O O LO V O I- N V O N r- VCF) LO L() M Cfl Cl LQ Cl Cfl - M M O G O -- N OCl I� O Cfl N M N d I� r- (fl r- I- I- CO O L0 I- O CO N O LO CF) O O N V O 0 V F- O N U-) Lo O O N N V W O� N, O N m N N co IN JU, LO M 000 Cfl O O O (fl CF) Cfl O 00 M I- O N co O O O O V 00 I- a VN CO- V O Cfl co Cl O V V O co N V� I� LQ Cfl Cfl (fl Cl O � co LQ O W E N W LL N Lo m m LL N O U M N Lii N r } N N N N r -(D I- O M� V � O � O� 0N O OM (Y) I- V V V O CO co �� co V� 0L(i V 'IT N V O M M O V L(i O I� O r LL N V WCl N W VCl O V LO Cfl G 0 C� LQ M V LQ M V N Lo Cfl L(i LO M O Cfl N co W M L" N LV W O L(i T [217 CO I� CflO N� O co N� W O O O 0 I- N r— O W V O CO O I- N M N I- O M 'IT 0') co 0 N V I- O M O m O LO M M O 0 E O O Cfl N O S co W Cfl W N V M 0 W O Lo N O W O M N L(i N V V V N N LCJ O M N N LES M V M( O N M LO CO U - M v } O N Cfl M I- O LO V V I- LO O LO MCF) LO CO CO r- NI O CO a LL N W � I- Cfl M V O co LQ O r- 000 LQ Cfl S O co W V Cfl I- Cfl LO N �� 1 O V�� M -LO V W N r- co N V O M a Ln d W ID V M V O O � L(i V N N 'IT V O Cfl CD co � M co N 0 O 7 V COcn � I� � O I,- I"T N I"T I"T M Io N I"T 1'� N O O O O O O O 00 O O O� O O O OM 0 0 0 0 007 N N 0 O 7 E V V N r- C L17 EW (D V M co O p UM M I- O V N N V LO N V O O CO CO M V V CO CO O N O O O W } CF) CO CO LO I- N V CO co V MCF) V 01- CO LL Cl LQ N N I� Cfl LQLQ N I� co N V - r- CF) - Cfl V NCfl y LO V V co N O V W N N M co N coN C'4 I"T 117 IN IIL(i O O O W V O O I- V O O N O M O M M O O O O M O O O O M N O co co V N Cfl U) O a) V N E I-- LQ N V M I� M I� Cfl M V I- co N N CO M N V N O UM co N } LD O O O N V MCF) V O O V I- CO CO N V O M N 000 a LL N O Cfl CO Cfl CO Cfl Cl) LQ W N CO W CO Cfl CO Cfl Cl) LQ V LQ L(i Cl CO O V LQ L(i Cfl N V V LQ CO Cl O r I- V V N N O M N 0000 O 0 0 01-00 O O O O O O O O O E CD V CO Cl CO W CD Cfl C4 N Cl N Cfl V N N E cF) O CO Cl) O CO- N a r C.) N r 170 O co O M co O O O O M I- M V N O V O O O N O O O a } CF) N O CF) CO LD Cl) I- CO LO O LO Cfl O r N LL N M I- M O LQ Cfl V LQ I- V V M LQ O M W N Ln co V V NV N O N O00 V N N O I Io N r 0-0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0-e 0 0 0 0 � E r fD LCJ M E to M^ cm r r CD O a O r U 0 } O O O O O O OO O O ^ O 0 0 0 0 O� 0 0 O O O O a LL CIA -e O O -e M 0) 0) NW y LCJ - M Fl I � N . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . N R O O F- � U s � U N 6 0 0, 0 ?� m U Q i a OL (6 N (6 Z O m U L p U (n O (6 (6 m C (6 C (6 0 O Q U (6 m L 7 C (6 ~ 7 (N6 O M O 7 '� (6 (6 O O N m m m N N 0 7 0 0 m m W W LL U` ( 2 Z 0 M M M M M M H H>} U Z /W V Q m LW I.L O LL w LU a. W '1 v / `W W FLU 5 L O 2 ti O O LO T T T O M O N It T- T LO r O U L 0 <n r O M r� M O� M 0 0 to O� to 0 to d'1 N O O to r to 0 O r = O O r 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 6 r r 6 t`') 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 T n E L U N O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O r O 0 0 0 0 0 0 r O 2 Y +� U 0 M r O M 1- 0 0 0 T O M O CO M r CO a) 1- N N r It It O r M o N T T N N r to T T N co to 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 tU O to = T_ LO T U U y 0 0 0 0 0 r O N to O O r O O M r O N T r O r 0 0 00 - O 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 O O O T O O O O O O O T N N O 2 LO i+ � U T to T T T T T to T >� Y co N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 2 M U T r 0 d1 O M O O N r O O O N N to to 0 0 to O O O O CO LL (p T T T Y V/ M O C r >' V ° (B � to O O Y O O (B O > p MWO U O U O Q'L t(o� O i �>m M 7.O_7 COL U(=3B c�C QZS LLLcav� UVJ O ' E m MO7 Jcv p ° om � cO =3m p m O (B (B (B O � ° �: O c4 L C (B C (B C M _ O O _p O >O O mmW WLLUU2 JJ -12200 0(A(A( 00E-F— ti O O LO T T T O M O N It T- T LO r O U L 0 U Z W Q LUM� W 0 J J `Q 'r^ v! Z LL F— U_ r W 2 F— Z Cl) N O N O N M Lel u 0 +' fa M O (O N M S (C) r O (fi M (fi (O 00 00 O H O (O 6 f-� O N S � N N r N N N (O Cl) r r N N M Q fC N fC � � N LL U m OOOOOOO(n(cOOOOOOOOoo)000000(c(n O (O (n O I r N 19t Cl) (O Cl) O T 00 O 00 r f- (O (n CO N N (n N 00 N r (p (n (O O T T O /\ V T L d M(O M O M M O O T M CO CO (n N D N f� N T O O M (O 00 (n to 00 to 00 M (O N O N r N O O M O r 0 f- N M (n r 0 N (O O M N M O O N f" N O (O f� 00 00 O O 00 00 (O Q N r O (O (n CO N f� f� M f-- O r M.4 00 00 (O r M r CO N r r Cl) Cl) N r r N r (O N r T T N Cl) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O T O U 0 T o o o (:i .,i (OO O O O O 00 O O O O f- (O o o'i o o o o >- O 00 1- (C) O O O N 'IT 00 LL d 00 to N O r (n to O O T N N 00000001,T O O O O O O O O LO O O O O O O O O M N N 00 (O T T LO 00 O O T U a) O 00 M 00 f- f- 0 M 0 0 0 0 (O N O (n 'i o (n O o o o o o r (O O 00 O (O O T S 00 N O M f- M r M f- O 0 0 0 LL d (C) O M� T N M 0 T S N (O (n f-- CO N r CO M 00 M N M N .11 r N N T rl N I r - 1-1:f I C4 r O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 O 00000000000 N� 0c CSI LO 19t(O E r N c (C) r CO � N (O O r co GO C U co O M to O 11 M O O N 0 0 0 (O (n (n CO T O f,- O (C) (O (n M 00 to f- (O O r (D N O Cl) N O (C) O (O r r N r r CO '9t U- r (C) O r O (C) (p O O (O (O r N N 0 00 r M 00 f- N (O 00 N r N r M N M M M (C) (O f- r f- to r to 00 N r N LL T T T N T N T CO T O O O O O O O r (p O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O (O O M LO LO Cl E 0000 E (O 00 O T T co U 0 I- O O O M'qt O (O N O Of� r N Cl) CO N O O 00 f- (O 00 O O N 0 r 0 M (O N N "tr O N I O N >- T (p 00 A T O 'ITO r T 0 T M O M M N T f- f- 00 LL N Cl) r r (p (C) r M -Ir N O N N r (p N r N T T T T T T Cl) QI T N fC O O � U O O U O _ O U O (n Q N �, CO �' U c/) O m (B z E c m o U 'm C -)� N> c p O O O U OU J C O p C O C O .0 O N (4 + Q O) U N m U (n O 7 � 0) (n 7 ?� C C C N 7 � (n 7 m p (4 O 7 '� (4 (4 (4 O O O N m m O O O 7 >O O NCO m W W LL C� C� _- J J J Z O Cn Cn Cn Cn Cn U) H H N O N O N M Lel u W E R C1 0 CL C 0 N W O U v C d C1 a :E y a r M f0 O r O M M M N f, a r M N a O f0 N N 00 00 0n W M N a a f- N f0 r N N r f- Cn a f0 O 00 f0 O O 00 N a f0 o m N6 0n 0n 00 M 0n M N 00 N a M N MN a a f� f� N N a N f0 r a a a N M O r 00 O M 0n M M f� N a 0n f0 O 00 r y > > f0 a O ML 00 00 00 0n - f0 M MM M O O M- N a c a 00 M M N N M N f, M M f, N M a r M M � y U y O f4N r 00 f0 O O N O 00 r Cn O M f0 N r N M f0 N a f� M M 00 M r a)0 O a 0 r 00 00 a)00 f� O O N f0 H O N f0 f0 r f0 O N m Cn N M N O f� M m M f-- f0 N 00 Cn f0 00 M M rM 00 W r W N f0 r r f0 a M W N N .N, m N a F ITT N M O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O V O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 V O 00 O LL 00 V m N O N M M M CO V O CD M d) V d) N N N V N V O V M co V N N O LD M M N N N V CD co r O LL r M I- co 0) CO O CO CO O C14 COVCIJ CD O O COW CO O N COM N InIn O co coW O w O N LL wW O CD W LO CD co O l2 N O m In CO N O V V O N O O co N N CD M N N W co Io— N N CD V I� N W O M V N N O M LL CD O CO CO C11 co co In O) O) O CO O) LO CO V O LO IN G CO CO d) co LO M d) V L(') d) OO d) � N N W CD V l0 l() CO O co LL N O N V V V N N O O r --O W V LOM N d) co V W W M M W m r— L(') V 0 O) CD N CO O) m CO O I— co N W I— N CO CD O V l0 co co W O) I" r N d) CO co W LO N r� co �_ CD l() M N CD I— N } LL M co COD N L) 7 V M VI V OV V LO N I" CD N N dVOMN CO M MnN dM) CWO O O N N M C(DO N d) O d) d)InN V oO N O N CO CO M N N N N M r LL N LD m O V CO In M W N LD L(') co . L(') CO V N CO O CO CO CD CO O L(') C co N In N m LO O In V W V O) CD O W O) I� CD O d) l() W CO V V V LD 0O � V O) W I— I-- In co W O N N O) l0 CD I� CO N N N N U- LL I— V LD O I— co d) V O N W M CD M M I— r— M N M M O M V M oO CD N co LO M m N CD V r W M N M N l0 N W l() L(') m M I� M r V I� V CD M CO m M N m M V O l() O m M I— O) O O N— CO N V LL N O V O) I� CO � N CD CD LO N CO LO co co 41 OO CO LO N N O N O V CD V I� l0 l0 Lo M LD l0 O) O) V l() O N CO O M l() r� O) T N CD N N O) M— l() l() V L(') W N d) N O) O N V V N a) N co N co co N N O co U- LL a) N O LD m V d) m m M V V M N M M W m I— d) NLO O) CD V CD N N LO W O N O M W V O O V I— N LO M O) LO N m M— V VSO CO N N V co O M V M 00 a) N CO N— N N N LL 00 d) N M d) W O M N CD V m m CD W m W m M m V N"' CD I- l0 m O N co CD W W m N CO CD N l() N I— I", r N r V m O CD m l0 M CD CD V O co CD V V N co CD m O V CD I", r m N N N O N LL r d) M M M CD O V W V N NO M M M N M I— N r— M co m M N M M r- CD M m CD O) V O CD I— CD LO N N N LO CD O I— O) L(') co �_ d) d) m LO M CD V m LO CD O) V I— I� w m CO N co U- LL w O) I— O V CD O) CO CD O CO NVN CD CD CD O 00 M dO O) W � D� V WMI", �V COoO V W Dd co N N coW � N CD co L)� CD CD O) V co r� oO N Cn N LL 0) M N M M M M M CD MLO O_ V O) co V LO I— V O O W I— 1— CD ` I— CD co co CD �_ M CD CD l0 M CD l0 O) W O N O) CD LO V CD I— CD W co CD M N N N I— r* -W m CD O) V LO I— N LO N p R CO M V V N ` } CL N R O Q U cL)QU N mco Y N> Q o O N m N U co a) N (� N C. L Q> N C co N d > 0: U) 0] (co (6 ,� (6 Z 0] N C R N> Rp U C >` R> C wQ C co a' co Q �j C r N co N 2 N O c) O J C co O C O -a N .� -6 p R R R p_ U R m L R d O N H c c 2 d N c c c R L Q 0] 0] W W W C7 C72 �JJJ��ZI .. (n (n (n (nHH>} W