The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutSR - RES-10936 - PART 2 APPENDICES 2015 URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN WATER QUALITY PROTECTION AND 0 MANAGEMENT � I� � �� . �'� =� � A �v ^,:f 4 a�� m�,.,�`�., � �y,� �� r � �� 2�; F 4 . ,u� `� . $ � ��k � �� r ��. x,�� . < ��`�� .�'��,[}� � � � �� - � ��`,�;�, �`.�l ',„m �� ,� �� :z` ` �."„„„°^„��,.r...�_.� � . , -. � � _¢ �» �. ' ��- ti' � x � .,_ .... .�..._. � ,�-, � ^�, � � .. � ,� . +�. ;� "'c�'7 .�a, �w K; � ., � . ... . , _ , , s oun ain a ey a ora ory' 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 Quaiity Protection and Management �� A� ��►LI�� TE�T� �� l� �T 8.1 �CVIID GRt��3 D ATER C�4JAL.IT1( PRc�TECT00N P�LI�1' 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 groundwaterfrom 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 aba#ement 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 supp�rt 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 additiona!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 8-1 Section 8 Water Quality Protection and Management 8.2 1�VEL.L DEVELOPMENT, MAI�AGEME�JT, AND CLt�SURE 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 Pian 2015 Update 8-2 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. 8.3 �t1ANAGING �ALlNITY IN V�JATER SUPPLIE� Increasing salinity is a significant water quality problem in many parts of the southwestern United States and Southem 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. 8.3.1 Regul�tion of S�lini�y in th� Watershed 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 8-3 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 " x' `x��#�.� a�� 1 �' OI'211ge COUIIt)/8S �.� s ��, � � � � �.�t�� ,�� `� �� :��'�;�'�,,� shown in Figure 8-1. � —�"' .�'- � '� .'�'� ``� ��, �„� ;d ,",� .�""�� "� � �� '� � � ' Historical ambient or r ��" . ,�' s:.,,� � � '' baseline conditions �•,+•�� '�et��v,�P ado Darrr a�°t.s''a � �� s�' �T� were calculated for � � � "� ` ��,��_��,� '°` �' levels of TDS and � ��. �, , � �tia� ��,�,� � " �` �;��, � � -� �� , - � � � � �� nitrates in each wy -s�" ��-�' � �� ,�''� � �" ` management zone. ,� � � � �„��'�"�' `��. " ""' �"� These levels were _�. � �_ ,� �� .�`�`� �� adopted as water • .► � � � � ~ , � o..��.co��e�� `;�� '� � quality objectives and ,� '� > � � '� ` ��<` -��'�` # incorporated into the � c �' �'^tr �.��''�i,; � ,�" � ��r,'�� ,�� Water Quality Control ,,, � �� «'f ,, .�.. ��, ��' ; Irvine �� °� �' �. Plan for the Santa Ana '�.t � p�. River Basin (Basin �'�� 4 � ��,� �` " Plan). The Basin Plan `°�.. ��, ;� ,�� . �"� �� ,�� _`�� specifies that current �, � '��,� ��'� � �° �� -� �� ,_ ;��`�� ambient concentrations `'•�,� �� "�'�'� � ��°"'��'''�� of TDS and nitrate ., ^,�-,,,, „ `'°�" �� % �"` � must be recalculated w ° , E �"`�,� ;� �:_;o�„w��ery every three years for ��"•'�a,, y;'� �Santa Ana River Watershed Boundary each of the S ~�� GroundwaterManagemantZone o{�..z�4 ��ry��e management zones. O�� '�ro O�ange County Figure 8-1: Groundwater Management Zones in Orange County OCWD Groundwater Management Plan 2015 Update 8-4 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 M�nagi�� Salir�ity in the C)range �ot�nty Gro��adwater �sir� 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 8-5 Section 8 Water Quality Protection and Management ,�t.-�,�� ;, �� r.� �' %�� a �,� �r�:��. � �� ,� '� �a ��`..� e� ��,� r r�� ti» ,...y�,, --.r�'�+�. - � , r - � �, _ � rt �., t �� .��,�A ��, r.J� � �"r � � �� ,,F/,�:� 'd 2�„'�' � � .d`.Y'�` �,,,{,rdk 1 J ... � I�� "u'rr ' '' �; �� ,�y,y�J� �!" � a,r�`!�. e "�" � ,...r.j. .r"�d�' . ♦ ' . )�� .. � .� . 1 'ti—"'✓�'� ,�'�� + "�=� ; r �j � � `�'� y ',� �'.�'",�r li=' ��,�; � �f��p�.� `�`��' �a`t�, tl a„�t# ,�,:�^ � .� ��j �� ' � , � " �'*�y �s� � �� +� _ , � �; ' - � � � � � �w'�- "�+ °;�+'�drfr ; � �"' _ � � � � � �¢ � ' ��`, � �",� � � � B ,l�� '"+�,._ � �� r ,c��`s' ;=�, �. �`�' y�.: � � it . � � � ,� � ''.�� "� � � .! :' "- � �� t� '!�, ��,�� 4', � , . ; ,,, ' � � �' �� `� SA-16H � �i ��, w�`�� '� :� � � r �F �``�.; � �. �, "��,': � � �,.. .� �1��a,��w •• ,��'• � �' _ ,,,� ,`;'� � �, ��r� �, �. � � � � "r � �, -.z+::.�:� �� % '� � "�. } � ,,'',� �'� � �, ,�``� ,��/ �` � � �� r �� ' ��,~~��. �.�r,; � � r ,, t+ s ,� �'�� p � � �° F.,�� .:��^'l��'�._. 0'� ¢x a a ' .� :.� (t�, q �+� ��y� �t � , �� f��"� � ' �`�°' �:f'� +�+4'- ��7 � {� g�") ��'�`t�< �a ` �p r a�,�� '-"'� �' "4� � �'�� . , �� r� ''�. �r' +�, -.� ,��,�. �"� . ;,' �;,r "�,,�` ��. � .� � ��a �'� �`' ��?��,: ``•.,�. :,t�" � � ``��• � �`"�r � � '� � � � r�Totai Dissolved Solids��mglL) � � , � ' 2010-2014 5-Year Average W E r �`" N�'` �i � «� � -� �; <300 • 7Q0-900 . �..,,,�, i �� ,� ' .. " a � � 300-500 • >900 � �`'`�••• � ��"` � • 500-700 0 10,000 20,0� �� t�� Feet !_.._�OCWG Boundary ,, r� u=�:A--�,�� .-��r�: �. , ._ 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 8-6 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 Ffow 40,000 200 11,000 GWRS Water Recharge in Anaheim 73,000 50 5,000 Unmeasured Recharge (Incidental) 66,OOQ 1,100 99,000 Injeetion Barriers Talbert 30,000 50 2,000 Alamitos 2,000' 350 1,000 Imported Water Recharged 65,OQ0 600 53,000 TOTAL 341,000 501* 233,000 * Flow-weighted average 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. Befinreen 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 ir� C�range Coun�y 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 o�cials 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 8-7 Section 8 Water Quality Protection and Management soo � - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - i � Recommended Secondary Dnnking � ; Water Standa�d for TDS=500 mglL! �___ ._.�� W __._ �_� � � 500 -- � I 2007=Treated,imported i � water used for injection; � no recycled water. i � ___ � 400 t_ _ - . __ _ _ _ _ _. . _ _ _ .._ _ _ __ -_' i I � I i Flow Weighted I ; Average TDS 300 _ .. _ _ . - - - - -- .__ _ _ , _ ._ _ __ _ ._ _. _- - (m9��) � � � � � I � � 200 —+- - - - - - - - -- -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - i i � 100 —�- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - i � 2008=Blend of GWRS product � � water(84%)and imported water(16°l0) � � l_—.`_ o � -�— - ; - - � , —�---- F 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 ��.3.4. Salin€ty Mar�agement Prajects This section describes salinity management projects operating in the Santa Ana River Watershed. Inland Empire 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 8-8 Section 8 Water Quaiity 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 Replsnishment 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 ; -- E [ 70 �—_ _ 60 ; ._.___._._ .__.____� 50 � � 40 : — ----�-----_ 30 : _�..___� ._._ � 20 _i___ _ -_----_ _�__ , 10 ; 0 � — GWRS Imported Water Figure 8-4: Tons of Salt in GWRS vs. Imported Water Coastal Pumpinq Transfer Proqram 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 8-9 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. Groundwater 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. 8.4 M�NA(�ElV1E[�T t�F NITR�TE� E�3 C�R�UI�DWATER 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. �CWD 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 Managernent Zone Water Quality Objective Ambient Quality Orange County 3.4 mg/L 2.9 mglL 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 DistricYs 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 �� , �,�, ,� � �� t�� greater than 50 percent of the $'��'s�t�� ' ��;b?,� � ��, ��; � � �.� � �� ,�� MCL are monitored on a �___ � � � �� . quarterly basis. Areas where � ,Cnyoke ^�a ��h��e�� +'.,,�` ".. . � <-�� e�•, r�a's ": cn��n�`„�"�'" � n a�� tPBt@ COt1C@Iltl"atIOI1S @XC@@C� �.� He��g � � � ni :'.� � � '`�-�;�'"Y°" '" the MCL are shown in Figure $ � �t�= �,� ,��a,,F� r a �� ,� `�` �� " ' 8-5. OCWD works with the _�' � r � �-�� ,.� .... % � �v��-.�`r� `� ��;,aA�� ,��:� Producers to address areas of ( � � ..+M� Mountaine �a � ,�� -�� "; high nitrate levels. The Tustin � <@ ��' `� � , ��, �,�;� � Main Street Treatment Plant is � �� _ �'� �'� � ° _ � an example of such an effort. „ . � ,� �; �"°"�� - � Within Orange County, nitrate "' H�� a � �`+W��"^s � . °��\ '�'��" 1Usnn.; �� . •, � 4 �� 'r+an��,� t, � �`. �eVe�S I11 gl'OUf1C�W8t@� .r' � �� " ,,.<�` �° �� ,��. , `��` generally range from 4 to � �� ''� '' �'' 7 mg/L in the Forebay area e:, �� `� � ti, � �� a ti, �`,`�`� `�� ,'- � •.,� ,� �� .� � .�' �< and from 1 to 4 mg/L in the `�., �°�.��, '„,�'^� �` �°,� ��' � �� Pressure area. Nine -ei ht � ��,� ,,, � tY 9 '�.,,� �, �� r,�� ° � �r ��? ��` percent of the drinking water �`��., �w� "�� r ��'� � � `� � wells meet drinking water ,,, � � � ��«�''"�Y�,� � � ��,� � ,� '"��.:,� � �� `� �� ,�.�� standards for nitrate. The two � � � � � � �� .��W � � percent above MCL are �� r� .,- , «�,� �� x� s ��''`».., '� �� ,� ��_ �� treated to reduce nitrate levels Q �o,� �� '"�'� ��,�` "��e-"�^Ex��""�� priorto being served to �•--� � ls�!�� `', E.•-..:,°C"'°�""`�" = customers. Figure 8-5: Areas with Elevated Nitrate Levels OCWD Groundwater Management Plan 2015 Update 8-11 Section 8 Water Quality Protection and Management ��.5 UCWD PRADC� ViiETL.�NDS 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 P�ado 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. K Yi 4 ; M � �OCWDOwnershipAreas w(.r�,�� Pf8d0 6881�1 b �County Bounderiea '" OCWD Ownership � a�___. � �� g ; {�� #Prado Wetlands o �� o �� Figure 8-6: Location of Prado Wetlands �OCWD Groundwater Management Plan 2015 Update 8-12 Section 8 Water Quality Protection and Management ,, r � ,� �� .;�� ..� � �� ~ �.; �� ;,� `� ,� q, �'.. � '��V -� ,"�a :� .�.,a� ,�r+� ^^+''. ;<� � ��; � * r, _. ; . ,. � I��,,,, I ��i �� vs. "`t r ?��r� ,a ,4« � �� 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 8-13 Section 8 Water Quality Protection and Management (Schoenop/ectus californicus) and cattail (Typha /atifolia). 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 p�ocess 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. E� Ktxfiem(:rnueYance Gfianr�W ,��- . . /�c.3 Ei gg / .� EZ �.:-' ��'�^'.'Ta { aa� �'9% �( _ �1��'� ` t61b �E � N `/ � v..�.��.�......�'� � p .W NB �� 'Ni�� Y..:�'::� F5 T � B C�� y . � �y' �� tti 7Eets�ans ��bIVERBK»� �e � � � �!� Ee pUNNH' f� �i'�f9 � � , '�� 7r S �u'c � . �""� lY%3 ��" : � N9 frT �� W� ,�'•, y� y` q y NP I 4 A��r� �,✓� 4��6�q€i&�„ �� `� � � ��' ` , � � s ,,��. �i "'� � , eLz ,�i� . f " r � `�. x� -...�'� . u ax . ,r..��, .,_..s.y� � � ;�...a•_—... H, ' � _, - � xr , � � �� Sg t�sz c,n.�ncnen� .L ' v�„��,a „� � --� t g,� � fi�� w � � Lh75 7�_ � VJ7�� lF � �� ,..�, 310 : ^�� .ox 9 � ' �..�.. � ry, 55 p � wie� wn �t we T-�,,,�� .,�....-- � . �.�,�� mm„�«,�sr�+�:.�cna,�� =.a-�"":�'�„� r.e � ��, ��z �.. ,; sa �,,. . .b wu� �!�..�^�` �t1 K"` � �` LECiBVD �./'� ws oa�n�n cn�,ai _.�`�'' sa ��• 4Vt7�.� .,r�" t�� ' ■ 6 fT VYEW 8D% j ��,„ � ! 1� S11 t • ifT WE1qB6% 4 'l1'tlK pPE WfA�� .r. }MON.PPF � itUWC[]NTROLVtLYE � P'ONDNUMBEH CHINO CA�K �O% PERCENI OF fQfPi Fi.OW ' .r--fi[Jw LIIPR:tYDN PRADO WETLANDS POND SCHEMATIC c> �+MP�=�§�� 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. �CWD Groundwater Management Plan 2015 Update 8-14 Section 8 Water Quality Protection and Management �.fi A�B� -GCJL�R�D C�R�U�9DUVAT�f� MANAGEI�IIE T 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 pa�ameters) 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 finro 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. � � �.� �� , �a�> �, � �..�� ..� �� > � �' �, �`�°�°`�'""- �`�-��; �� '� �� "�'�� Two facilities currently treat > �� ,, ,,,.� � �.,� � ` � ��Na��' � a;`: r�'' ;; � �� :� colored groundwater in Mw t � � �: ��,k ..� � •�� ,�a�� -�3; Orange County. In 2001, �� Y � r" �� „�„ �� •� ��".� `�� Mesa Water District opened ; � ��,,, � � �`� �, ,� � �,N ,.�-�`�� its Colored Water �,�� ' a� �� _ � �� , . � > � � � � �� Treatment Facility (CWTF) �' � �; � �' � ��, capable of treating 5.8 mgd. 3� � �� , � �s �r e� �,� �, j,�;� �. � �� This�facility was replaced in .� ��;° � � . - � �� '� �',� � .� �� ' �' 2012 by the 8.6-mgd Mesa � ��n �' � �� ` °� �' � ,x�` �, � � Water Reliability Facility �� that uses nano-filtration � � ��, � � � ,.��"` � ��'�� . ..•�'� �� '� �� " �� _'�' �, �-; � membranes to remove �, , '� "`" color. The second facility is , � § � �, �� ~ � �. � .� � � - ry the Deep Aquifer Treatment ��':� �� , � � ,°'-""'� � �� ,� System (DATS), a �`ti•,, �'�� { �� ,�� ;��°° �-• � �� aj �� treatment facility operated �.�.. ` ,,� �� '`�� ` �� :�'� °�� . � � � � � by the Irvine Ranch Water .� ��. � � �. , �W mf : M b YX` �� District since 2002 that '`• � �` .� M -, � `��*�:. ��,� � �� '� °� *�� -�- r° �°� uses nano-filtration � *� � � ' Y �� S+ Acdve Large-System Production Wbll '. ---..,� � �<� ,__ membranes. This facility S `».. � � � �� ,_„:wea or susPeccea eobred vl�ler o to,000 p,� � �AreaotObservedColwedWater purifies 7.4 mgd of amber- �Fest � � . R._..,#CICWDBoundary colored water. Figure 8-9: Extent of Amber-Colored Water OCWD Groundwater Management Plan 2015 Update 8-15 Section 8 Water Quality Protection and Management �.7 l�EGI.lL..ATI{�N ANC� N9ANA�EIVIE�JT �}F CONTAMINA�JTS 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. ��,7.1 Mefihyl Tertiary Butyl E�he� (MTB�} 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 unde�ground fuel tank releases. OCWD Groundwater Management Plan 2015 Update 8-16 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 Ng/L. The secondary MCL for MTBE is 5 Ng/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. �.7.2 �dol�fiile C)rgar�ic C�ra�pa�n�s 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. � �g� ` �`� ��'� � � Another area of VOC contamination was found in .�� n�' , � � � �. . � .�� . �� .� _ , m. __ `�� ° '��, �� ;�` ,� ��:: the Shallow Aquifer and portions of the Principal � � �q ,..� � � Aquifer in the northern portion of Orange County � ��' in the cities of Fullerton and Anaheim. The �-- — � � ��, � e 1 `��'T°°'`"""�"s � � �°� District's groundwater monitoring data indicate ' A` that the VOCs are migrating into the Principal �� '�'�� ' � �� A uifer, which is used for drinkin water . > q 9 �� . �' . �,'� � f _ �; supplies. Two of Fullerton's and one of t _ EI Toro MCAS, "�� ;��- � � ��rn^�i �,�'y�� Anaheim's production wells were removed from �� f . ,,, _ _ � ,, � :- t � nation service and destroyed due to VOC contami �� `��R �, �� in the area. The North Basin Groundwater � ., � - ,�� '-`'�� "� �'"-' �� described in Section 8.9 � � �� = s��T� � Protection Program, , �`� x�� ',� �� ,� � � �� was initiated in 2005 to minimize the spread of a �� _ 4 � ; �� °� �� , � �� , � �:� � »,,,�• �� .., the contamination and clean up the groundwater �� . �� w.�� .�� .�� - . in this portion of the basin. Figure 8-10: Groundwater Cleanup Projects Elevated concentrations of perchloroethylene (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 Califomia 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 8-17 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-Nitrosodimethyl�min� (�1DMA} 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 � �F�'�'f�� affected the water produced by WF � �� , � �``��... ��; -^� <. 21 injected into the Talbert Barrier. � NDMA concentrations are �� ,� � � �: �� ;� � � �fi. �. mamtained below the Notification �� : , . � ��3 ,��`�'�".�a��..�: � � � ``''� : Level at the GWRS plant through a Y�.. �� "`"'�`�� .�. :'�,�. �,,�� 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, �� _ '� �t �� tested at Imperial Highway, ° �� " '�� ',� ;.,��. ": � ' ., consistency has NDMA ' concentrations less than 2 ng/L. Figure 8-11: Sample Analysis at OCWD Laboratory 3.7'.4 � ,4-D�oxara� 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 �CWD Groundwater Management Plan 2015 Update 8-18 Section 8 Water Quality Protection and Management liter(Ng/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 Ng/L through a combination of source control measures, improved reverse osmosis, and advanced oxidation using ultraviolet light and hydrogen peroxide addition. 8.7.5 Perch�orate 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 Ana/ytica/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 8� 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 8-19 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. 8.7.6 S�lenium 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 Nn 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 Nocal 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. �.8 CC�NSTITUE�JT� t�F EMERGIN� CC�NCERN 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 Nnclude 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 8-21 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 DistricYs program for monitoring CECs is explained in Section 4. �.9 {��f�LI�J�U�/ATEF� Qt...JALIT`Y' IMPR�I/ NIE�3T PF�(�JECT� 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. � �� A� �' ��, � ��y;�r 5 �� `��h �., ----� � ., �i �� .a �. �:�� ,�`�4: � ��,�, �.. Y �y w �� r �«,�� Nt.e� .'� 4 f , � � ChiRO�` � s � � � � rk� Ffills j�� nta Ana`�`� m --,� �;a :'r�.�, �r�Can on `� r�� Norfh Basln GrounGwabr �i�� Y _ /��,� 'p .� ,,; �,,, ��.r /J e ,,¢,.�,c ProtacUon Pro � �s� »'�,�, �=;�, � ��l . ��,�� . . . =:3 � ^}"y��„'�� 4��';�� Y "� �'" �f�i '� �,�'^a :�„'-,��°. f�� "� e�a. cT �`�A' �a� � ��:�� +'�� YpL.��• y d f �, �4'l'��y. +^t;a:v�: �� J� ..� M�f ��. � � � � , 'ri � � �':r �''"�` ` � . � :,� '� �; �. e Y� ,r' RlveMew ��,�' �° � � , �� Odf Cowsa f�;'� �� -�� ""� '` �� lll�tilf e'� A � � p � :� �.^ir� "'..;� Nittato i� �`.��lr � .r�,�,y�� : R@IIIOy 4`,.rn" �' `8.-` :��" ��..i� ,.' 1RWD ��.�� "�:.:h'# s�� South Basln Groundvwar We11a �. :� �� ,r" Protectlon Proqwm� y��g � „� �r` �� ,.�,�" `. �t ATS '�. t+�� '� �'��ti � � Irvina s!� ,,$� !� �,� A "� a� � ��MW � Desalter� � �:; r'�� ', �`"� �� !bm ��."�'�:'I �j�r" ,� �� `•�;`�'��+ �� F..d°'��.�F ,�k�d` � *.' � �f� rf. „gJ�y'Y �p-, 1� �� 'tlj �� *`� �� , p �g� '~h„�, ��g �.; �':y�H�: §�T _ '.+"��P�� "�"��`• �ti'i � �. ,..`''��i'�` *�t�� .. � N ti"".,��t a �4 � � �� f �� ,r��° �,�,r'. � �. . � � �` j� � �.:�"�, � � ,;� i 'y^ 9i�� s�'� �� 7 � att� � � � ` . t '�4��" �aA'd}'� �.t,�". fy ��. ��,��,rt �� ..��* t t� � �� ' �r � � �� '" �� ♦�. � �� .�zT,�J y +d� 0 10.OQ0 ZO.OW � �� Project Location ; �N � �Feet . ..�`OCWD Boundary ' s��. a�', 1.....�i fr ,, .. Figure 8-12: Water Quality Improvement Projects OCWD Groundwater Management Plan 2015 Update 8-22 Section 8 Water Quality Protection and Management 8.�,1 �Jo�t� ��sin �r�und�nrater �rc�tection Pragrarn (NBGF'P) 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. > � C OMV/Y_M�lfAYt ¢4 6 ,,, C ..._... .._, uieu ♦nr+ , -... , _.. � \\�\��\��`�� ..�� cu un� . , .. , � ¢��yy�£,�wJff'''. g�.. F�F� \��\��.�..u\.. .�� . .. 4 � ` -` ...._ �. _1....... . _ .. . . -' . � ,,f»a. � � i �. � �� .� ; � �.: � � 4ftlN�iti IWPfllV4 �� v•••• �> y n' fi : �� `� � � � � � y � � �._�.� . .� .q� _ . s �,-� � "p �� _..:� � „� � � � v � V61 _Bt 4J�,✓,,. �P � � R�'tNeE#�CrR ,�,+,'F � .t'`�.✓ } � J$��,. �.�. 1 .� �`°' ,�` #� `� �, a�« �.,� a �, r � p' �, � ,,'�' � ` � � Y � � y� Y. +T r'' sce • �< a � ` � wx�.:v€ i y N,.np...�..,w.. c�Posm vac nwm.�anwa.r�a�rc« N CnmposiOeYOCMume Prnicp��Aqu�hr�rx mc .s �x.� . .rc. . . � w '�,J�?, E ^° `A ". "` ��_ soy ` ' Oetober 20'13 Composite VOC Pluma Map �,>G�;��+��,^t=��*^ Y North Basin G�oundwater Pratection Program .,w..,��<r�z.a,,._,.., o o.s i ��..�Erz,.��M� n�� Figure 8-13: North Basin Groundwater Contamination Plume 8.9.2 Sauth Basi� Gro�ndw�t�r Protectior� F'rc��rarn (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 8-23 Section 8 Water Quaiity Protection and Management is being developed in cooperation with regulatory agencies and stakeholders following the NCP process. �.� k �., , ' � � � "� ' � �,� `� �� , �, � , �'-' � �� , . ,� �, ��a _--__ :M� -- __ _�� E ,a..�. _ � __...--- — �; a__. � �� M� I? I�w.o-.,...,.. �y� � j ~"\ �,NtI �""° �� Santa Ana �r �,, ,��,� �. �. �, � � �s � � b1M.t ..rc Q' .\.- � .. .._...... ......._..........___. ._..._�'____— n:r. � \. RW0.! I ':. � • 6 . F' �.�r 511M��,��. E' in � M1MYN�I �y�. •..`\\ / , RMOd YM-0 \ L1M.{ ��.� y a � / � i � � \, � .�____.-__ R, .�' � _.I.___ .� -- _.._. j) � ; � . '� Mw0-) ^� ` - � ...... __..__ 1! �. `�\ �� 'r � �� `1•�,t��ti\ �`.. ~\ _� w.sHE�ftin�. - � .. 1-"'_"_ '__`M1 ' `• � � s h� �� \. I \\\y / HhE f i ._-.- �. . \� �. � �( ' _.� ��-" �, i .. w.�� .�! \,� , /" -J= `h .._�. �� ,�,�... l�,� zg��.. � � � � i y.„e w� t� �� r1/If18 �i� �� % - _ / ^�� "�'�., i'� «�/ ..QS/ / �`... . a /� . . , �... %� Figure 8-14: South Basin Groundwater Contamination Plume 8.9,3 MTE3E Remediatic�n 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 8-24 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 lrvine D�s�lter 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 T�tstin D�s�E�ers 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 Riv�r ldiew Ga�f Co�rse 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. �.�.7 lnri�e F�anch W�ter District Wells 21 and 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 8-25 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. �8.1� ��A EXEN�PT��N F li\61PRC�'�d�IL+l�6°�IT PRC}JE�T a 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) Irvine Desal#er Rernove nitrates, 2Qo1 10,000 Exemptian TDS, and VOCs Tustin Desa�ter Remove nitrates 1998 3,500 Exemption and TDS Tustin Nitrate Removal Remove nitrates 1998 1,000 Exemption River View Golf Course Remove VOCs 1998 350 ��laf BEA reduction Mesa WD Colored ��move Color 2000 8,7Q0 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 COLLABORATIVE WATERSHED PROGRAMS � ,� �� ,sx� �� , ,�� f� �u� M�� ill� ip�, �.„ �� 1 �a��.�� , � � ..,.. ..... ... . , � �. � .. . . . �> Natural Resources and Collaborative Programs are conducted in Orange County, Prado Basin and in the watershed upstream of Prado Dam. Watershed Proqrams • 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 Oranqe Countv 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 �CTIC� � TL1 L E� �E A� C LL RATIV� T'EF� HEC� PR �, 9.1 {�CW� �lATIJ AL RE�C�IJR�E P1�O�ftRMS — (�VERVIEW 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 vvhich 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 PRADO BASIN NATURAL RESOURCES to recharge the Orange County Groundwater Basin. The riparian woodland provides habitat for a wide variety of wildlife In addition to programs in the species, particularly birds.The avifauna is a diverse assemblage of Prado Basin, the District is a resident and migratory species. The raptor concentration in the partner in watershed-wide Prado Basin is among the largest in Southern Califomia. The efforts to eradicate the invasive Prado Basin also provides habitat for the federally and state listed plant Arundo donax, manages endangered southwestern willow flycatcher(Empidonax traillii habitat for rare and endangered extimus), least Bell's vireo(Vireo belli pusillas) and the state listed endangered yellow-billed cuckoo(Coccyzus americanus birds and conducts programs to occidentalis). However, the cuckoo has not been reported in protect the Santa Ana Sucker, several years.Additionally, several species designated by the an endangered fish. Wildlife California Department of Fish and Wildlife as"Birds of Special protection programs within Concern"occupy habitat in the basin. These include the Cooper's Orange County include the hawk(Accipiter cooperi), yellow warbler(Dendroica petechia)and construction of a bird island on yellow-breasted chat(Icteria virens). Burris Basin. �OCWD Groundwater Management Plan 2015 Update 9-1 Section 9 Naturai Resource and Collaborative Watershed Programs � ; �� ,� � � � �s ,��ti„ � � � � � � . . . . � ... � a� � �� ' � .. . t� �"�5u� � �a� �. �141 I1�I I��`��t��_ �.� � ��:�°� �� ,-t, _,,:��, ��,� :� �. ,, ;. � � ,, � � � � �� ,. . �r � .: . � ��.,;� :�� "� � .� ��r� �,�jf*'��,�� Y �� I+,t� � � �� "�� I k '�.�.,s ucu:� � � � � � ' � �� w�K ° '� � +�' x ��,�`ea�si,.�°� +;� r � K<a� . r,I'� i ��:,. ��..•�s I . V� �' �, . � ' . ��'+:�.: � .�"� .� ��; 4 ,�� >y, •^s� a�, � '.v'.;:.. ,y�. ....,�.. �i�� I�� '��I ��I�I I . . .. �� I Figure 9-1: View of Prado Basin Looking East with Prado Dam in Foreground 9.2 NATU L RE�OURCE PROGRAMS iN THE 1i1lATERSN�D 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 9-2 Section 9 Natural Resource and Collaborative Watershed Programs � .� �y : ;�� . � � � �" � � � i � � � z �� ,a r �, � C ` � f4 � 4� b � �'' � � Y " . � $ '� � ' � g ��" ' ` � � �. � � �, < � � �, �� d w a ,; ]a}y� • =; ^ � 3 '� � � � � a'� � '� � � C � � ^ Y � � � p � C 3 f � � � � ii.� �� $ � � � � ' � '3 h � � � �4' t � ! Oy¢' � � � �. l.a � At a;� � � 49 � C} ! � � � q G't � � 4:� ��§ � y � y�y � Q S �}¢ , g. � r �' � Q CC � � � � � 2 � CF. �" � C4 11` � S � � � !Il �@�y� �t +��? r..� y.' '�' m yQ� b � � L4 4 •• ra . 'I .s e. . .Yi .� .. _ _ ^ !i�'� � � � �_�� D�� a� �a �� .��:� �� : � � .� .� � � � '�ii, �. � � �,�, �� , - � , _ �� r, �..�.�+� �`` �- � � � .::� .�� z�� ;�� ., ' ��u�� 1�,�� I � . .. � i �� ;� .- � �� i Figure 9-2: Prado Mitigation Areas OCWD Groundwater Management Plan 2015 Update 9-3 Section 9 Natural Resource and Coilaborative Watershed Programs 9a2.3 L�a�t ��II'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 _ � � �,� i�`a�;; �y and extirpation was imminent. OCWD signed agreements ' ' ' ` �,°�' with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and the �a 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 ,u� ; ,. , 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 h "' (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. � � ��I�� 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 BeIPs vireo (Vireo pusillus be/li�) 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 g-4 • • . . " � • . • • . • • . . � • ' • • . „ -- � '..� �� u � �� ^ � �,� � < ° � � �� .�� . x y , �. � r . � � �• � s � � �� }� � . u� � ; � �� ' , w ,�" - ' , �. '�Ib _ * ;;:� � �:� _ `. � � ,� � � �, t f �� .�� ' '� � �, � / �� :� �� ,:� � � � , x-: . .. . . _ _ ;> : � � , . , . '� �� ; .A• � � ; , - ;. -� � ��g , � � ; .... � ��`� :� - . � �: m. . ,. .. � �. � � � �� ' � ,. �. �� •� � _ � >. v ` ',�� ,'� � �,�."":` � , � � . • � : - -• � • : ,; .. � ��... � � �t � & j�. 'f. � '� � � ` �, ^�� .�,� - a.:, ; � `�, � � � — �� ' � , .� f � � � ' i i .6�,. �` °�Yv„ , ,'S• `. � � _ i q.. . a y.� �` � �• . q '� � - � ��. � ��: S� P ��.:. '�.-� Y'�.'�9 �� 'x!" . � � � �� •�� . , � � � ..� �: �..;� �� -. � �+ . . •j �..� ` �. . � ...t S • � . ' . ' r . � �,+� 7-. '�'. � `�' t .�.`s��'�. �""r s ��"a „ � �� .i � � �� .�;' ... i., � . . a .« . . . . :.. , . _ Y-��S Z✓ w :x� •Is ♦ . . . . � .,+,i ^;,� '�� /'� �+t,,�� •�'�*.•�� .. ,� . . � + �.iL•' . . +�• � . •. . ��••i!�• r • �F� �,, =` • �':' ' � 'R}R. , , . � ti . .. �- . . ... r � x. v. , _.. __ .� ,�e q . -.- . _ • - .� . -_ _.r � l�' . ��—rt�a.�.� ' .� ^ �� 1'i S .• "' �' " ��Yt^ ..�► ' . • • .�.. _ .. ��y ��y� �� 'a �"��.F�� ,�� d� . " r ,. , ; � . . .�,."..._ , '�' .. ' .�.. 'ry y .a. � • -._, • � • : ' ' � ' � � � � '� � • � . � ' � � •� . � Section 9 Natural Resource and Coilaborative Watershed Programs 9.2.2 Arur�do Remova! . 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 F�� ° � t '! � ` '' � � r "��. � � < ��,.� ,� , n F!t.�. ... partnership with SAWA, a non- h� p� ,�� . profit corporation run by a five �� `,�:, �� ''� member board with one "�3 representative each from the OCWD and four Resource Conservation Districts. Other ' partners involved in these efforts include the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, California `�� ,� � �'�� ' �� I � � 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 9-6 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 S�nta Ana Su�ker 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 8� 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. ��= °,.��,, �� , � ':r �r. ,�� ;�_. � E- ��x��'�P .�� .r�l�� '.� :,,- ;: k 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 9-7 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 Iocalized 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 R .:. ^�. +, �n+�m f�� . ,"�P �„�P A^ e �� '� � �� Service, California � � � "'� '� Department of �.=;� � Fish &Wildlife, the Corps, and Santa Ana Regional Water ,�: " �� Quality Control �,� y:�; Board. Reports . .� �w �� -� �.:° �,,,��: and other - information are available online at www.sawpa.orq. Figure 9-8: Gabion in Santa Ana River Installed to Create Habitat for Santa Ana Sucker OCWD Groundwater Management Plan 2015 Update g-8 Section 9 Natural Resource and Collaborative Watershed Programs $�.2.4 N�tura4 R�so�rce Presgr�ms i� (�ran�e �o��ty Burris Basin Habitat Management Pian 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 Tems, most of them successful along � with Forester's Terns , �� ` � � ��'�'"`� ��` ��' �� , � � (210 nests, 457 eggs w ` � �� ° ;� � �� .��a� S t*�'E'dk X �� c r.;P�� . �;�`��°�� a�� r �`�� '� ��E��a� laid), Black Skimmers ,�..�:,�� ,�,w,,.„ ; ,��,�� u:. � �� (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. r. �� Figure 9-9: Bird Habitat Island Constructed in Burris Basin OCWD Groundwater Management Plan 2015 Update 9-9 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. p � �� -� �� '"�"` „�� .�� ,e . .a �.�� a Figure 9-10: Tree Swallows Nesting, Lower Santa Ana River, 2014 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 bico/or) or Western Bluebird (Sialia mexicana). There were 182 successful Tree Swallow broods and ��- �� ' �� a total of 648 fledglings produced. Bluebirds _ w �w�; __�� µ ew ��r _ �.; , �.,.,� ��_ � ""' occupied 38 boxes and produced 24 successful broods and 90 confirmed fledglings. Figure 9-11: Tree Swallow Nest Box �.3 CQLL�,BC►RATIVE WATERSHED PRC��A�tl; 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. :�anta Ana Watershed Pro�ect A�th�rit�; 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 wnclude 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: SAVIIPA 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. St�rm Vltater Quality Star�d�rds T�sk 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. �asin Monitoring Progr�m Task Forc� 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). S��inity (�lanage�ne�t and le�perrted Water Recharg� Workgrc��ap 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 Naturai Resource and Coilaborative 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. E�rr�err�ing Constikuents VVcsrkgrou�a "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. ;3anta An� Suck�r Conservatian Team 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 8�Wildlife are part of this effort. �Jr�� Water One Watershed lnifiative 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. lVl�ar,ici��l Water District c�f C�range Cou�ty 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 9-13 Sec#ion 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 o�cials and water managers who meet on a monthly basis to provide advice to OCWD and MWDOC on water supply issues (Figure 9-12). �a a� �� . : � �� ., ,a,,.� � �> �.k� ��' .. � . ..M . .� �d`. R n,rt,e . . ...... . � . . ,„[�p.. :,n . , �... .. � .� '."4' .k�.:;u�a... '� AMUTA�� hvice... i, ,..�„ ...:n �..� ,.. ��; �. y � i: �� .�.-.-.. \ . ��.. � "`. � '. .� ��'o ' ` `�� +�._. :� �� ..„ . . \ � �� \ 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. Oranqe 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 C7F A�EAS 1NITN�N BASIN 8-1 OUTSIDE UC1ND BCJIJNDARIES 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. La 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 �� ° ��'"� ��^ ��`}�`��.�,V the option of preparing a ' , �' � �s,n�mA�d��o Groundwater Sustainability Plan --_,_j_.�`_____ __ ,,� a 'County' �;f i --�- ' ��,�� for the La Habra SubBasin and , �� Nr�- � � ��' � '` ��° are collaborating with OCWD as Los Angelea �?` —�- —County s � - } �� '+ appropriate. � - .. ,��,:�,' � � ;� d :�� }� �� '�� Santa Ana Can� k ,y p � p Y � � '�� The areas in the Santa Ana a�' Canyon outside of OCWD are v � � r: �� , _.____,�,`,__._��, �'- , �,,x . located in Orange, Riverside and `�, ; ` � ��'� �� San Bernardino Counties. � o`e"9e .' �� ' Groundwater in this area of the �`., County k �' � ,,�''� �, � ' basin is shallow. Active � � production wells as shown in � .�a �'��Fy� Figure 9-13 are owned by the r, County of Orange and used to Far.iftc `* 5,,: ; �,<,.� Q G�� , � � ;�� "� '��: irrigate the Green River Golf � �,�� ?�� °��:�`: Course. Discussions befinreen the ° � f � � �" ' '� "�� 8 ' j�°� three counties and OCWD , . �l' �N � � � < r w.�-��' o z 4 ��,,��a�� +�� ` , �� `�� regarding management of this .:,�'...�...�M��S .,��t �;�,�� `� .�,� .� ° area are ongoin9- � �� e' � r� 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.� {� A�1t�E CflU�lTY 1lVATER RESt�URG��-R�L�TE� PLA�S North Oranqe County Inteqrated Regionai Water Manaqement Pian 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 Oranqe County Integrated Regional 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 Oran eq County 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 Naturai Resource and Collaborative Watershed Programs 1Nater Reliability Report Completed in 2015, this report assesses future demands, the reliability of the import system and need for future projects. CJrange County Munici�al 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 XV1.2 in Appendix XVI of the Technical Guidance Document that can be found at the following link: http•//cros ocqov com/qov/pw/watersheds/documents/wqmp/default.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 Coliaborative Watershed Programs Santa Ana Reqional Water Quality Control Board Santa Ana River Basin Water Quality Controi 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 CC)LLABC�RATl�'J WITH FE�?ERAI.. AND �TATE A��NCIE� This section summarizes the federal and state agencies that have regulatory authority over District operations and collaborate with OCWD. 9.�.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 o��F�,��'f�'�� T ��_�� downstream of the dam as long as consistent y��. �a=�� ° `��,;,E with the primary purpose of the dam for flood °' �� ,� °� �.r 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. 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 2Q15 Update g-18 Section 9 Natura! Resource and Collaborative Watershed Programs 'i'he 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. '1'he United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) implements and enforces Clean Water Act and Safe Drinking Water Act pr.ograms and provides support for cleanup of contaminated groundwater. 'T'he 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. '�.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 Age�ci�s � 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. 9.6,4 Regio��l 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 Quafity 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. 9.7 LAND U�E, D�V�.�.C)PM�N� A�1Q ��VIR�}NMENTAL REVIEVIJS 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 s, 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 -�-------------------- ` g�sin Recharge 500 '' 450 � � �"" � Groundwater Production 400 _��/��.________ _._. I 350 ' ___ _ 300 250 , 200 150 100 � 50 ; 0 , , -_ , . 3- . 1999-00 2002-03 2005-06 2008-09 2011-12 WATER YEAR Maintaining balance between recharge and production over the long-term assures sustainable basin management Sustainable Basin Management involves: • 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 • 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 Manageme�t � TI � Q LISTAI LF I � E= T � � �o.� g�� o�� 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 va/orem 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 -�r 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 DistricYs recharge facilities. 1 G.2 B�SI�J OF'ERATING 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 Constraints Less than . Improve control af seawater • Inerease g�oundwater flow to Las Angeles 200,000 intrusion County • �ower cost to pump groundwater • Possible impacts of high groundwater{evels • Maintain stable BPP; potential to in local areas increase BPP • Decrease opporkunity to recharge basin when • Increase supply of water fior low-cos#recharge water available pumping in dry years • Decrease potential for vertical migration of poor quality'water 200,000- • Minimal t� na impacts from high • Reduced amount of water in starage for 350,000 groundwater levels pumping during drought • Increase available storage • Increase risk of seawater intrusion capacity when recharge water available • Decrease groundwater outflow to Los Angeles Gounty 350,000 ta . Minimal to no problems with high • Reduce supply of water in storage available for 500,000 groundwater levels dry years • Increased available storage • Increase pumping costs capacity if large amount of . lncrease risk of seawater intrusion recharge water becomes . Some productian wells inoperable when available groundwater levels below 40�,000 acre-feet • Further decrease in groundwater , potential risk of increased land subsidence ouiflow to Los Angeles County . Potential increased risk of vertical rriigration of poor quality water • Need to increase purchase af imporked wa#er • 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 Pian 2015 Update 10-3 Section 10 Sustainabie 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. ;� LOWER GROUNDWATER LEVELS � ��e� 1 Higher cost to pump groundwater. �� Storage r�+ Less water available for � space � �' pumping during droughts. R� availdble ��`� �F ��' when � z � � �a� � '' � recharge ;� � , �� :. � -. � supplies � .. ,� � .e w, "� � ' � are �r�' � ��;" ,.... Lower cost _ � ��,, ;.:'�� .. .:`�` plentiful. " topump a`� ti° � ` � � � groundwater. �"' � � � � �.�' ��., ,�,�'� a � ��'`' � � ��,, �� :�� Reduced yields in � shallow wells. ��. ,��'.� Figure 10-1: Schematic Illustration of Impacts of Changing the Amount of Groundwater in Storage Z 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 1 a.3 A�,��9�1�JG PftODIJCT! �9 AND RECNARG� ."�� 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. �Santa Ana River Base Flow �Santa Ana River Storm Flow Recycled Water -Imported Water Acre-feet(x1000) Incidental Recharge Groundwater Production 550 ; � - - 500 -�----------- -- -- --- - 450 ; � - ---- - -.�� 400 -�- - ------ --- -- _ 350 �{ _._«..__..._.._.................._....._ 300 # � 250 � _ 200 ; 150 � i 100 _ 50 � l O ! � 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) Santa Ana Santa Ana River Base River Storm Recycled Imported Incidental Groundwater Water Year Flow Flow Water Water Recharge Production 1999-00 150,000 39,000 6,000 78,000 82,000 342,000 2000-01 153,000 29,000 2,000 96,000 50,000 334,000 2001-02 150,OOQ 12,000 4,000 67,000 38,000 337,000 2002-03 154,000 64,000 4,000 1Q9,000 58,000 291,000 2003-04 146,OQ0 37,000 2,004 88,000 59,000 285,000 2004-05 149,000 9b,000 4,000 95,000 159,000 244,000 2005-06 153,000 8Z,Q00 4,000 109,000 39,Q00 228,000 OCWD Groundwater Management Plan 2015 Update 10-5 Section 10 Sustainable Basin Management Santa Ana Santa Ana River Base River Storm Recycled Imported Incidental Groundwater Water Year Flow Flow Water Water Recharge 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,OOQ 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 1 Q.4 IVIANAGING BAS�N Pl� F'If�� 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 Section 10 Sustainable Basin Management �oo°io OCWD Assigned Basin Production Percentage 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 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 Mefihc�d�a9��y fcar Setting the B�sira F'roductiar� P�r�e�ot�ge 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 = BPP Total Water Demands _ Expected Reclaimed & Local Supplies Figure 10-4: BPP Calculation 10.4.2 BPP PQlicy 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 befin►een 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 wate�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°/a also would be considered. OCWD Groundwater Management Plan 2015 Update 10-8 Section 1� 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 30`n) 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 i00,000 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 BPP 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 ta 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. 1�.4,� B�sin Prc�duction Limi��ti�r� 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. 1 C�.5 SUPPLI' �t9ANAG�M�NT �TRAT�GIE� 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 Irri ation 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 Sustainabie Basin Management C_canjunctiv� l�s� and Water Tran�F�rs 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 �= � �---- ---�'� W a��.: and new injection wells for the Talbert Barrier. ---�:��. � � .� �`` ------� � y �� _ # �__� Any stored water can be extracted at a ___n �,� �,�� f, �w ��x minimum of 22,000 afy. �� "�� .� ��. �� ._ �.�.. The District reviews opportunities for � � �, � ��ti .�.�,� ' � �� „ � � additional conjunctive use projects that would �� : �m�... �° 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 � '�"' E �. �� to their impact on available storage and their �` � "`� , g ,�� »� ��.,�,��. reliability and cost effectiveness. '" �R""�''m°"�`� Figure 10-5: Areas Supplied by GAP Water 10.� RENIUVINC� 1IVIPEDIME�Vfi a TU CC�NJUh1CTlVE 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 OPPORTUNITIES TO REMOVE IMPEDIMENT Declining Santa Ana River base flow pperation 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 flexibiiity 158,600 acre-feet to WY 2013-14 low of to purchase imported water in iarge quantities when available 64,900 acre-feet Presence of Quagga Mussels in Recharge ope�ations planned to use Colorado River water in Colorado River water limits ability to basins that can readily be dewatered to control the spread of recharge only in basins that can be desiccated on a regular basis#o control Quagga Mussels their spread and to protect water supply Investigate potential to treat Colorado River water for Quagga, infrastructure. thereby increasinglocations 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 reptace 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 in�ltration 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. 1 t�.7 1EVATER C►EMANDS 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 ; ---..._._.._._.._.e____ __.._.��___�__��___ ______ 500 i______..____ _.__ ,�, �� ,_______..__ � 400 ' 300 � I 200 ' 100 ' O � , 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 S�ction 10 Sustainabie Basin Management ,.,.. 10.�.1 Pr�ject�d 1N�ter Dema�ds 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 DistricYs 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 �TL.yl./"'4� "R'�ild:��WV� ��W1�� V'1J�yV�� iJL,V��# i./ '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,'I 00 Fountain Valley 11,438 11,120 10,801 10,483 10,165 Fufferton 29,093 30,018 30,942 31,867 32,792 Garden Grove 26,316 27,463 28,611 29,759 30,907 Golden State WaterCompany 28,003 29,196 30;389 31,581 32,774 Huntington Beach 30,394 31,460 32,526 33,591 34,657 frvine Ranch Water District 63,447 69,587 75,728 81,868 88,008 ...�.;�, OCW� Groundwater Management Pian 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 3,1fi5 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 442,048 462,805 483,563 504,321 525,079 *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;?76,J29 2,442,T90 2,487,7�0 2,535,627 2,539,154 Source: MWDOC and Center for Demographics Research (2014) 1 f�.7,2 Water-lJse Eff��i�ncy �nd Cor�servatic�t� Prograr�s 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 e�ciency. 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. �fl.8 Rc�UGHT ANAt�EMEI�T 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. Table 10-8: Approaches to Refilling the Basin APPROACH DISCUSSION Decrease Total . Increase water conservation and water-use efficiency measures Water Demands Decrease BPP • Allows groundwater levels to recover rapidly • Decreases �evenue to the District • Increases water cost for producers • Does not require additional recharge facilities � Dependent upon other sources of water{e.g., impotted water) being available to substitute for reduced groundwater pumping Increase Recharge . Dependent on increased supply of recharge water • Water transfers and exchanges cauld 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 1 tJ.9 REC(�RD 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. fJCWD Groundwater Management Plan 2015 Update 10-16 FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT � �� . , � .� ,� x , l � v� � !- � '� . E �p J : � � � . _ . -.��........r..,,� � F • �� I f 1 r` +'rx .f „ � � } � '.(�✓ W'k�� `t � � �^ J r ♦ . .C' 2 , .� .y. t r � r. .a.� w � ^� r < 1 " ' Y� .� , e , S ; � . �..��. � . i � � � �.... ' n•. � � , �. _. .a .�'.� .,...,.,�.+.^'_ . , o . � ^'�J � - P ' �. �s! "` � , �\ �� { �� F r�� '� �i `^� ��,.. � :�^ °A �" ;L. � � h � . -.. �. ;� . t �r �y ��i X ..,a . W,u�" . ' ♦ .y , , .( . �.. , � , w �Y , . .. �. . � � . .'.. �S ` ' .' x^' �.. ' � � ' .r . -. , � ,.. ' „ . ': : �� ' ,2�/ �, �R !��,,;� � � ` �. � . _. + .,.� �� . � u � ` ��'> � - ``'� , �. �aa� � � _ ', > �,. .. �.. F .�� .��. �� . .. . �, .. . 6 ; . .> � ,. �i ... . �� ,{Ye�aVu�y p�k;ht♦ ��y s � . �. t . ` � HiFfitivV[fYtRTldCAV+.4�e��Y i '�. �. •�. � � � t ..+w.:, .N.....��t ��'� �+....... �{�yyp y;y y{y+ �y y��.yrv+�p {rv`^ � $dt 3? �4iN�4�£'Iwi.�'T]4�A��4aedMP .=•�i..., :, .� y�,r..� � flsdlR�Ns`�C "E ^' ,.� �� d� � _ r«-, , . a . �. .��:, . �� > � 3.. �. , �� e :: . �:,� , , �. �� ,ki k 7� A��`i ' r� � `',"�� i�..a w�a �i'A tl � �4 �<. � ,' .v a.. �,.� � ��,.,� s "'"`rs � ��«""' Y `�,` + s, `�t`� '.t � � �� . . . - ..-: � _ . � :�. , .., �t. .�.. + ..,� ' ,y„.:� ' wN'.",'�'4 , ....., ,..w."� 4 '=. « . . � ,y ..��, . , ., ' �w� ; - .. ; _.. . .'t. .. , :» ., ',.�. �� .... . ...�. .. .... ... . . . . .,.. . . .:-. . ' , .: „ . �...... .. �.,. ,.,•:'�.' . .,a,�.... .,.. . - � .. . , 'Districf l�eadqua�ters�n�ountain a11ey • 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 ��E�TiC� 11 FI CIA� MAI�A!GEM�IUT 11 .1 E�A�FGCF�t�U�1C} 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 e�ciently 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 DistricYs 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 `1 .2 O€�ERATII°�IG EXl�E�a�� 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 General Fund The DistricYs 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. JCWD Groundwater Management Plan 2015 Update 11-1 Section 11 Financial Management 11 .2.2 De�at Servi�e . 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 Wa��r Purchas�s 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 Capit�l Equiprner�t 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. 11 .2.� Refurbishmer�t and Repla�emer�t Fund 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 t�PERATI�lG 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�AP &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 Repler�i�h�ent Assessrr�e�ts 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. 11 .3.2 Prt�perty Taxes 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 DistricYs annual debt service expense. 11 .3.3 Qt�er Mi��ellan�ous Reven�ae 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. 11 ,4 F�ESERVES 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.� Res�rv� pc�lici�s 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 11-3 Section 11 Financial Management � 1 .4.2 Jper�t�r�g eserves This reserve category helps the District maintain sufficient funds for cash flow purposes and helps sustain the DistricYs 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 finrice 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 DistricYs financial obligations on a monthly basis. 11 .4.3 Replacer�er�t a�d Refurbishmen� Progr�m 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 Cieanup Res�rve Funds are reserved in this account to be used in the event that a portion of the basin becomes threatened by contamination. Over finro 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.� Ger�eral Cor�t�r�genci�s 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 Accc�unt 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 C�pita9 Irr�prflve��nt 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 � TI 1 F Alley, William M., 1984, Another Water Budget Myth: The Significance of Recoverab/e 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/ofr03-308/. Blomquist, William, 1992, Dividing the Waters: Governing Groundwaferin Southern California, Center for Self-Governance, San Francisco. Boyle Engineering Corporation and Orange County Water District, 1997, Coasta/ 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 Coastal8asin Investigation, Geo/ogy and Ground Water Storage Capacity of Valley Fill, Bulletin No. 45. California Department of Water Resources, 1961, Ground Water Basin Protection Project: Sanfa 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 Coasta/Plain of Orange County. ***** 1968, Sea-Waterintrusion: Bo/sa-SunsetArea, Orange County, Bulletin No. 63-2, pp. 186. "'***" 1989, Southern District, Ana/ysis 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. Orde� 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 Deve/opmenf 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 Refinemenf Report, prepared for Orange County Water District. CH2MHill, 2006, Chino Creek Integrated Plan: Guidance for Working Together to Protect, Improve, and Enhance fhe 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, Internationa/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 eva/uafion 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, Ana/ysis of Ground-Water System in Orange Counfy, California by Use of an E/ectrica/Analog Model, USGS Open-File Report. OCWD Groundwater Management Plan 2015 Update 12-2 Section 12 References Harley, et al, 1999, Mode/Advisory Panel Report. Prepared for OCWD. ***** 2001, Model Advisory Pane/Report. Prepared for OCWD. Interstate Technology 8� Regulatory Council. 2005. Perchlorate: Ov,erview of Issues, Status, and Remedial Options. Perchlorate-1. Washington D.C.: Interstate Technology & Regulatory Council Perchlorate Team. Available on the internet at http://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 Geo/ogical Survey, Book 6, A Modu/ar Three-Dimensiona/Finite-Difference Ground-Water F/ow Model. McGillicuddy, Kevin B., 1989, Ground Water Underf/ow 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 P/an Mills, William R. and Associates, Hydrogeology of the Yorba Linda Subarea and Impacts from Proposed C/ass lll Land�lls, prepared for the Orange County Water District, 1987. Montgomery, James M., Consulting Engineers, Inc., 1974, Bo/sa Chica Mesa Water Quality Study, prepared for Orange County Water District. ***** 1977, La Habra Basin Ground Wafer Study, prepared for City of La Habra, California. National Research Council. Hea/th Implications of Perch/orate 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 Scienfific Advisory Panel, OCWD's Santa Ana River Water Quality and Health Sfudy. ***** 2014, Fina/Report of the November 12, 2013 Meefing of the Independenf Advisory Pane/on Reviewing the Orange County Wafer 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, Eva/uafion of the Orange County Co/ored Water Groundwater Resource: Hydro/ogy, Water Quality and Treatment. *''*** June 1997, Issues Paper—Development of the Colored Water Zone. "`*** 1999, 2020 Master P/an Report for the Orange County Water District. ''**** 1970 to 2015, Engineer's Report on Groundwater Conditions, Water Supply and Basin Ufilization. ***** 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 P/an. ---------, 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. Gasbe/eucht. 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 Wafer Geology of the Coastal Zone Long Beach-Sanfa 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 G�oundwater 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, Integrafed Watershed P/an. ****'` 2004, Sanfa Ana River Projected Flow Impacts Report, March 2004. Singer, John A., 1973, Geohydrology and Artificial-Recharge Potentia/of the lrvine 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 Contro/Manua/for the Prado Dam and Reservoir, Santa Ana River. ***** 2004; Prado Basin Water Conservation Feasibility Study, Main Report and Draft Environmenfa/Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report, Draft F5 Document, July 2004. U.S Bureau of Reclamation, 2013, Climate Change Ana/ysis 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 ofAmbient Water Quality in the Santa Ana Wafershed for the Period 1987-2006, Fina/ Technica/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 af 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 8�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 Independent Advisory Panel IEUA 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 ng/L nanograms per liter ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS NBGPP North Basin Groundwater Protection Program -_ NOZ nitrite NO3 Nitrate 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 Santa Ana River Monitoring Program SARWQH 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 Ng/L micrograms per liter USFWS U.S. Fish 8�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 APPENDIXA 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,Apri115, 2015 Board of Director's Minutes,Apri115, 2015 Hydrospectives Newsletter, Apri12015 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 Budgeted: N/A Budgeted Amount: N/A To: Water Issues Committee Cost Estimate: N/A Board of Directors Funding Source: N/A Program/Line Item No.: N/A From: Mike Markus General Counsel Approval: N/A Engineers/Feasibility Report: N/A Staff Contact: G. Woodside/M. Westropp CEQA Compliance: Exemption to be filed upon Board receipt of final plan Subject: 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 S61168,AB1739,and SB1319 that combined are commonly refeRed 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 re are an u date to the District's GWMP Draft plan available for review by Board, Producers, March 2015 and the ublic 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 OCWD Staff Denis Bilodeau (not present) Mike Markus - General Manager Dina Nguyen (arrived 8:14 a.m.) Joel Kuperberg - General Counsel Shawn Dewane Judy-Rae Karlsen -Assistant District Secretary Philip Anthony Darla Cirillo, Jason Dadakis, Alicia Dunkin, Randy Fick, Roy Herndon, Adam Hutchinson, Alternates John Kennedy, Anny Lau, Lily Sanchez, Steve Sheldon (not present) Ben Smith, Dave Mark, Chris Olsen, Alex Vue, Jan Flory Marsha Westropp, Greg Woodside, Lee Yoo Harry Sidhu (not present) Roger Yoh (nat present) Others Cathy Green 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 CONSENT CALENDAR The Consent Calendar was approved upon motion by Director Anthony, seconded by Director Flory and carried [5-0] as follows. (Yes-Sarmienfo, Dewane, Anfhony, F/ory, Green/No— O] 1. Minutes of Previous Meetinq 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 Svstem 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 Invitin4 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 Management 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 Management Demonstration Project 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 altemate 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 u, � � r�s , � a.. d� � � .�2 SU u In This Issue: PrestderiYs Message-LeYs Clean it Uat Welcome New Board Member Roman Revna OC Water Summit Reqisha8on is Ocen Bili Dunivin...in His Own Wads Water Treatment Using Engineered WeHands Public Porticipation Sought far Groundwater ManagemeM Pian 2074 Tree Swailow Nestina Successful OCWD Environmentai Restoration Projects 1 Million Hits on YouTube Sinaaaore International Wafer Week 2014 Bi�e Paper OCWD Soard of Directors Last Cali for CWEF Sponsors.Presenters and Volunteers Presidenf Out in the Communitv Cathy Green OCWD in the News First Vice President January 20�5 oCwD Emplovees January Tours Denis R.Bilodeau,P.E. president's Message-Let's Clean it Up! Second Vice President Philip L.Anthony Orange County's economy thrives,in part,because of a reliable source of local water.The Orange County Water District(OCWD) Shawn Dewane is charged with managing and protecting the county's Jan M.Flory,ESC�. groundwater basin to ensure long-term production of clean Dina L.Nguyen,ESQ. water from our local sources at the lowest possible costs. Roman Reyna The groundwater basin is being threatened.In the North Basin, Stephen R.Sheldon near the cities of Fullerton,Anaheim and Placentia,industrial Harry S.Sidhu,P.E. contamination has seeped into the groundwater basin and has Roger C.Yoh, P.E. necessitated shutting down four wells.The contamination is from improper disposal of chemical solvents and other compounds Gsnera(Manager from as far back as the 1950s and 1960s.The dumping has Michael R.Markus stopped but once the pollution is in the ground,it can and P.E.,D.WRE. usually does spread.Read More... Welcome New Board Member Roman Reyna a Santa Ana City Councilman Roman Reyna has been appointed �� to the Orange County Water 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 recentiy served a two-year term on OCWD's Board.Read More... OC Water Summit Regishation is Open � Registration is now open for the 8th annual OC Water Summit,which will take 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 �""'�'" ��,�„�R SU��,T and business leaders.The OC WaterSummit is hosted by the Orange County Water District,Disneyland Resort and the Municipal Water District of Orange County.To register as a participant or sponsor,visit the Oranqe Counter Water Summit. Bill Dunivin...ln His Own Words William (Bili) R.Dunivin is a pioneer in the field of water reclamation and has dedicated his professional career,spanning 40 years,to advancing the field of water reuse and serving the public as an employee of the Orange County Water 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 OCWD 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 water 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 effiuent from upstream water treatment plants,contributed to high levels. Working together as the Engineering Research Center(ERC)for Re-Inventing the Nation's Urban Water Infrastructure (ReNUWIt),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 ReNUWIt'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 OCWD 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.It also allows the District to compete for and obtain state grants.This effort will update the existing plan that was adopted by the OCWD Board of Directors in 2009. The Groundwater Management Plan sets goals and basin management objectives and describes basin hydrology,groundwater and surface water 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 Westropp at mwestropp�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 OCWD is a leader in water and natural resource management,carrying out award-winning environmental programs that also provide water supply benefits.OCWD has a reputation of providing clean,fresh water 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 told. Read More... 1 Million Hits on YouTube AFFtDAV1T OF PUBLICATIUN PROOF OF PUBLICATION S"fA"CE OF CA[,IFORNIA, ) �SS. C'ounty of C:)range ) 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 entided matter. I am die 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 +��+*��K��+��.wrow.�.t County of Orange, State of California, under y +��r,�M�r pp,q��atx�Y4�Mr OirY#('��Ml�i �MI Aokt�pu�e ��*lb�iresaa�m tlY��Dt6�t 6�Q putq.or M soott� rs fh�nwlNr the date of November 19, 1905, Case No. A- �� +� wna.ot aid dr�aict,+�+oo�!sr+r.t�a.,rrr�v"':� 21046,that the notice,of which the annexed is �►��+'�w��+o rs. or w.rrw+�.►ar w«w apwkt�a�- 1A�p�n�w+t r� �ir�a tor pueis ooar�wn�1.on tlw drMR Grourd�r 1Aw�prr+�nt Pl�rt 8p16 tyo�M1�pAor by sd�n etltNrprt; a true printed copy,has been published in each �� ,��.�� , �0 a wrllrn np�t w liaurrt�r tKMrr CMM1dl.�lla�t�. regular and entire issue of said newspaper and ��* �:�+.��: cop�rrau e..r.�a..��n. not in any supplement thereof on the following ,��a�e��+y o�we��,.�,ana a�r+.►,wx on�n.e�,e p.,.��t� aaavE po+t cl�a eac �dda�.�Afi� MMral,a�a��amW� dates,to wit: .wsearw��.r��.r� t�»Sirar+aMwr�rw�rw vNn 7ana trper.r�ur.d a a tar.�ooa. April 13, 21, 2015 +►o�t�a+.or►krs eara o�or.aiors.�r�. � °"��r,o or qrticbrs+c t»hMla on Jrarrr rr 2��t a�o pen.�rry ctrrap►w�� elwk��.tar n,. 6Rsar1 ot DY�io�n to�t ri�1�r+dwrhr Mr�p�rr�t PYrt 20'M tip�d�M wM ti�po�t. I certify(or declare)under the penalty of perjury +�a+r,.o�r�e'.w�rt�r..+�ww.aaw�.00�+�. under the laws of the State of Califomia that the ��"`�x°�`'�'� � 1°0�Q foregoing is true and correcY': Executed at Santa Ana, Orange County, Galifornia,on Date April 21, 2015. /��'/ / _ Signature The Orange County Register 625 N.Grand Ave. Santa Ana,CA 92701 (714)796-2209 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 mwestroppCc�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 � � '� zn;;.c��w�u,mswdmmP•.. .�: �,a�'��°�� ,. }-�"*�! ��.IXaageCounry WaterOistr�..,x •.�' .�. � .�... . �_ . � . ._____—_ 'Y' .,� fite EdEt Yrew Favorihs Toalz Hetp —�� ;,.y.��,��Qrenge CQuniY Wa�er D+st.....�Goo4�e Aaaps�GoaSie � . �� ElIPlOYYEMT�SITEYAP �COMTALT SEARCN�XevworWs�� GO � 1 €:.. Q �.m a. . �� .. M� A9(Nlt lRANSPAIX[NCT B�JAqp�AG{X�AY CGFSERYAT;4N6[OUCATXSM [MYIQQMFN[Nt P4t34FAMF8PRbJ[C'i5 NEWS YXL PDrEg C+x«YTEP'S"tYL%f?C� tC>„ �+W��ENSUPVtYYAfLL�&tffY �.s fMYt0.0MYFNTAI.STFNURA'SIIIp ,a��¢�pUSTRTLEnSlERLf&LIMMtriATICM �w W�xEP qUAUT' �*�SOVxD FiM�1lC.4L WNRGEMENI F u_ � y s , ., �/�+.�� ,� y��1�w"�'C+�� ~ ^ m'� r�' 7.,.�'.(,� �� f�� .�" �(�" �."' " V ' �� t` �r_ F ,,.t" ,..�`:�" � . � ..,`y �~ . ��„ ` �.' �,...,.+�f _ ;.C � r)� ir„„..,� ,.. � ._ .y _ . ... ..... _. .._.. s Grouttdw�uf�lin�l� � i Twab '+�Faww � �, G W R $; OnnqeCou�ty.�..;,„ � � a�e5�rewwam�trctravnrr�rtmrtr� �,:,J watcr y� — � .. . , ...,. .'.., �._ }___._. ' .___.� (�B{i5 tx'.e fLr.�in�an � `�s�a`t� w�,a.,�r 4��{Y+�t ".�, ' un rt ng st 5 n I w .n. S y�t��=i��"�� )IM�� p�y<ts�kethe t z5 �� ,��9- s 2 o batt n4 sM �"" �; � ,�L na., y ., .: . '� i e�:;ura�" , � �Clifl QQSi)E7fpO��UdQ �� 4 , .. ..,,...,.• �- *� �- �xi.. ..�� . . a •s. Posting of Notice on OCWD Website (April 13, 2015 to June 17, 2015) Availability of Draft Groundwater Management Plan 2015 Update �}. i :k� wa cH.wticeen 5±i' z^;t a�' sa:tses�.4n E �t�r.� M �an:c+ �S'..1�l,.� .. �� ,r�(��rK�mCowNyWaterpud�et`��. ��+;";�. �aE,�",• � a. �.iL .-°�°�. . . �._.�.�...u...__.,........_ _._ , ..._�.._..._.�_....�. ��__...,._...._. .._F:Ce F.dit Vfew Fawntts��Taots�Help,.._.._.._.._._ „W„�..n....�,,,.�. -_.__ __""_.'.._ . . _. <`t]e�e Crnmry W aMr hict_ ,y Gapr�;e MapS�i+cx,x�M .... __.. ._... "' ........ ..._._... ..........__._. , . . . ....... OCWDXq826P9C Re .. ___ � �ri'.zrw.nrn ��:�: F«e.ti+'e.4. ___ , __. ...__ __. ny�mw s pac1,sk fx ?�_YSi-b n_ ,f�.• /�. OCWD 29HT,i00EEngMenf�IDeO��'�vC�J:np�+c!�f-�-.�k»-.�.s a=,=.or� OCWD700G]OVttrghroefaRaport.{:'w ��.,Y.u3,.t a e�:.�,o�� WalnrYouCarxCouM(?� UCWiI NUl.71M56 knqHMeYt IbQora�x'ar[.=H'.E^•A�.r",t r��s,:�,i tit.irr• � � acwo R�cx�rge rze�nm ��ti,.�� . .�, ... � e xr:s..,rt r�,�.;,,,t�u,,,,�. ... �"tn�Od �vmH.r,nm63 bt.r.�� t7t,rc.� r �rn::.(�:,;,,.#a�,.y,:,.�,r {.Y•:.i il.ih.n�twFHswl,ar.i�,li��n.� (Y.+i.1 f r,axtda,k^'fca-<". C3CWD Graundwater Manapement Plan Update �� <:pa r.tn,«.., � _� �.��,.�. . u�.� � �j ,:-i n fr�, wt��. F,�v��„« fln cn��', ,n�rt M�3j?.t t(ur.rUj_i%N �,WS��f nY�l rna o.,,pe ta.ny w«a�aautez exoura«.t��►kmgwnen�wo Zars updn:wu�.dr�rea mf uK cti'ms tka�a.�ta��m,..w�.wy�5.eaay. OGWD Long-Te�m Facilitres Rlan I�,rx;J.i..eirFa^�iv:i�-;4�leixH.t#dtt2�.-rti- OCWCt 8tldgBt �2ve[�zcuttf'Y.24�?,iS i<�,a.,,�ta i„��:;-v N�y�.za l:�.ti�i':'r�:i�.'_'E.".AutJ.7:: t+�uh,z��H�.��e i�i Fl 1ut t.:1 � !. ii�.x(Y'.q`ltt � yE �. .a. Posting of Notice on OCWD Website (April 13, 2015 to June 17, 2015) Availability of Draft Groundwater Management Plan 2015 Update �� .: rna�'�w�scyeWd.cnm env1' t�a.tP.AP �� Q> �i .,i, '�Ckang�CawapWMceOnGui�� `�b.a.,..�y�.�`*a:m. ._._._::�_.,.,.�_... _a FIIeECtf Vsew FiWNtK toods__�tQ_...,_..�,w....v.„�v.>_.._._�,.._.......�_... ._..__,....,...,_..,—_..,�.....- �_...._...a..__ .....__.. ___ . _.� :.��Qrs�n Cnunry Watw bkt,. .*fiqngPe Ma��C�ncx�lr. CI�MI�MC#t RICIMY'GGfiP�4i i[AtSGM.Moyrvpyls� 4(1 � �k� � �. . � . , d�= .. ... . .. AUVUi YHAxSHhN1.Mt.x UVM1HYd�titHWeS C(MYLNYAiK+t�itUUCA.�WM INNMUMM4Ml VeiUGYUMSIFXOJtC�S NLWS �. j"�{�, .\ _ . .. Fu�xy�mzww n-`�9sNFs�u�a m M mximr w Mirl+9inf��a aalnNnu wr A�xa.wwnwled vn yuqwaMu�.n x�lo JWa4N heraLa�Y0T�vw��enls If�vu dv��rv:a ateNr �arn Me fRFf bMe.PeaXr,w peaen cYk Hr rylkarwg hMm M q'1 Ma IWN vmiim eflGelef.pe�Nr�ren AMM1M he^.vn ym nN.Apl ln eavnnae Me Mes:ta&:e oMar• �� Press Re4eases 2015 ':�A 1 fi3'ri:.? +lV...,__�i'.�L"1J ,Sul�.tLlSgy�£ ✓1'bxn.!n4E i AUn.�n!3'.�Yi I ' x. .s 1 X_Y°P{f�Y....#f,<_Te P %'�<_f{ ��e��_xN:i _.� FS �:A?Hd'g.�ytin*4f„" siM�'mI?�rlY9yrvmG`r'i4.Wf�=W41� _. _,_ rN�:ViY3i'n..+.wrn-'�i.A'flciaAerL{3 � .. .-, �t'3'.rs..�za..sCa��1rS.N.i�s�.X-��t��?�a:2�3ttt�At�� -��••: S?('"!JC tl+� .kkiF,srrn u .. .. ._�__"�.��5'�M_.___>>�L"^S4 ZOid .... i, v"wH'Yr 4_w;+.�..{f...+x x . .:�a? rt ._i_t t_».�g tl.,it,yr5 _ �...� �r`KPU dC#tr;�� tcrin4'�H'a-x ertr3nf3. _. , .. :.'v�r v. �n,a�..�,w�r .. n,,,�.n:�.a r�„�,y.�,� .•?i ru��y'L:S�itu;;Evt.&�rt:t�f,irk5 ;t� v E?C'V;"'!3 .a,�A;ttj�'ndamr*9 .. i,yi..A4�+,3.�,q,iw.t+4 E ... +�i i t_�y 1YYiru.n.t i.0 NR b . .:,iry no.,yfn�-,>. r�;'-=�,r tr«:+..:±�t4.�_s_�,TM a us�,�, ��ra�.;;, ��u i:'{��Nfi�I_�a2ss�.!atPtssc�u..ea�+,�,:tttht.�s�.x,�.z�i..Aayv'..xcASw b+.�atutn.� I;a i f <,y�.t.flx�a.tmM F•�,�>:sv�,>,..i�.�,.: _....._ ..""_" ""'_ 1" 1Gw Y14 }` ,�,�'�Y'�.� �/ �_ V�� Posting of Notice on OCWD Website (April 13, 2015 to June 17, 2015) Availability of Draft Groundwater Management Plan 2015 Update , . �� a� � �.� , �l� �R'M�Y,M'1�#�P `e &3.t. � y �... .. A \ \ � � tt�_ 6 rr�ter.�e�.�*��§.rw��m, p �> �?.�.;�, v ., . .�: .._.,�.�.. ,,...�.�, � ...,, �..�.,�:.. .. . ..... .. , ...- ..,, . . . . r 3. C.w+e Sa,.W 7.q� tt�.a�, .. . ..�«.,....�.._ . .,..._...w... .._...�,.._.. . .. ,. ,is�.s i,:w^ Rx�w��,7�..� .�r:c+�y.s w.y,^��.',.a�gw c�n wwa� wxrw u�.�'.r° u�-> .r.+—w. wet t�° ' . . . ,. � . uo��.. +ww;+ew+ dn..,x�.ti+raw�a ,...ru �..r.�a..�...'.iw e�r+r..�rre wa.b.+.uBr,+9.s•+� etse �� fS"�IS , n., r u� . _:... � _ . , ,,. . ,, � _. _ .. �- ,. - r� �D1.4t..7d�3.,,,.. � _� r , , {ti.7�1'.�413�� _ .�t : 1A.tp�ft° � t;ti.7+}tt � �,, �;�•, r �+a r � . , ,a # � _ . , . 'i� ,1 m .. . � . . � '�t*�- � , .`r.i.:sP_ -�! . ",'x «�' .., .,�aT Pi ,5... �- .i�3. .�. � .� �r T.'°t"' :Y . E , . _� .. ... ,a,."�.r. •a�.r`: . �,. .. . s.�y ,yw� . _.,. ;s�� e x.. .:.a-� r, . ., x�w s� ='e . �7r,°. .,�: , .. .� e4r� `, . .:x"..�s�. .r .r�t" .r :.y x�na��.:x ,x... -_ ,zg �.� ,, � r mx.s 'R,+" .�%n .S' °"3, d n 5,...��„Y n n;;' .+ m�..'x3'', .c , , e d. .>�+� .�,w�,.1, r :yr�',a,•.a�^rr. . .:..� . , ,r.a,._ ,a. ��"'`.t�+`.z �,, , r,��, rx, '=..�v'9:?L� =Cs��_ .F�,'"�, a _ .�.. .�� , �� Q...„ , . _.. .m�. � , �.,., � ,,. ._ . �a"t ,,�„ ,� 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 Staff Philip Anthony Michael Markus, General Manager Denis Bilodeau Joel Kuperberg, General Counsel Shawn Dewane Janice Durant, District Secretary Jan Flory Gina Ayala, Pedro Barrera, Adrienne Campbell, Cathy Green Stephanie Dosier, Randy Fick, Dina Nguyen Roy Herndon, Bill Hunt, Judy-Rae Karlsen, Roman Reyna John Kennedy, Diane Pinnick, Eleanor Torres, Stephen Sheldon Michael Wehner, Greg Woodside, Harry Sidhu Nira Yamachika Roger Yoh (arrived 5:50 p.m.) � Others: 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 Proiect 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 Meetin�Minutes—Apri18, 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. Apri102 - Communication/Legislative Liaison Committee Apri108 - Water Issues Committee Apri109 - 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 far 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 Apri130 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 CalifornialArizona 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 � � c� cv .� �s. d 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 Plood Management Project of the Year Award 19th Annuol Children's Water Education Festival a Great Success! Groundwater Monaqement Act 2015 Draff Ready for Public Review Gelebrate 45th Annual Earth Day on April 22 OCWD Desal Citizens Advisory Committee Meetings Underway DesaITech Program a�d Registration Now Available OCWD Baard of Director5 Out in the Communitv President OCWD Employees Cathy Green March Tours First Vice President Denis R.Bilodeau,P.E. president's Message-State Water Bond Can Help O.C. Drought Crisis Second Y6ce Presid�nt Philip L.Anthony We are currently experiencing the worst California drought ever recorded in 165 years,with no end in sight.According to one Shawn Dewane NASA scientist,if we don't take measures to conserve water now, Jan M.Flory,ESQ. it may run out for the 38 million people,businesses and Dina L.Nguyen,ESQ. agriculture in this state. Roman Reyna Recently,the Govemor has called for mandatory—no longer Stephen R.Sheldon �� voluntary—water-use efficiency.We need to save 25 percent. Harry S.Sidhu,P.E. What else can be done? Roger C.Yoh,P.E. Luckily,the good people of the state approved the Water Quality,Supply and Infrastructure Act of 2014(Water Bond; General Manager Proposition 1)in last year's election.Read More... Michael R.Markus P.E.,�.wRE. Register for the 2015 OC Water Summit a - Rain today,gone tomorrow?Droughts in Colifornia are � expected to occur three out of every 10 years.Without pro per plannin g and investment in water infrastructure and �"'y�� policy,California's$1.9 trillion economy can come to a � standstill,having devastating npple effects on U.S.and `'°� � global markets.Join us for the 8th Annual Orange County " AT�R S�M�''��T Water Summit on May 15 from 7:30 a.m.to 1:30 p.m.to set imagination,innovation and investment into motion to keep water flowing. The annual OC Water Summit wilt take place at the Grand Californian Hotel at the Disneyland Resort.To register as a participant or sponsor,visit the Orange County Water 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 Water 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 awards banquet as ASCE OC honored �I outstanding individuals and projects for 2014. A total of 35 awards were given out,including 21 project awards and 14 individual awards. Read More... � . „;� (leff to rightJ 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 8.Associates and pasi president ASCE OC. 19th Annual Children's Water Education Festival a Great Success! :,,,.�.- � , v "'��;�.: ��,�•�� .. a, f ��. ��RI� ,::�.r{ �w " 9 ��. ,�a 1 '� �q. �.�N �� i �� & ry The 19th annual Children's Water 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 water and the environment;cuRiculum corresponded to Califomia Science Standards. The Orange County Water District's Groundwater Guardian Team,which includes OCWD, Disneyland Resort and the National Water Research Institute (NWRI),hosted the event on March 25 and 26,2015 at the University of California,Irvine (UC1�.Read More... Groundwater Management Act 2015 Draff Ready for Public Review The OCWD Draft Groundwater Management Act 2015 Update is available for public review and comment.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.Written comments submitted to either the District's post office box or via email at mwestroppQocwd.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.It 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 Water District Board,gathered for two meetings and is expected to meet again on April 23 and 30.Members were shown presentations about 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 1. Recognition of Service for Director Stephen Sheldon This item was deferred to a later date. 2. Commemoratin�ecky Mudd's Run for Children's Cancer Awareness The Board took the following action commending Public Affairs staff inember 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 Directar 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 Crroundwater 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 3 �� May 20, 2015 � EAST Greg Waodside, PG CHg ORANCiE Director of Pfanning and Natural Resources cot�ru�r�r Orange County Water District 01STRiCT 18700 Ward Street Fountain Valley, CA 92708 RE: Graund Water Management Program - 2015 Update East Orange County Water District Comments DiRECTo[ts Dear Greg, R"n�d B.se�� East Oran e Count Water District commends the Oran e Count Water Douglass S. Davert g y g y John Dulebohn District on the development of a thorough document and continued efforts to Seymour B. Everett III effectively manage the groundwater basin as the primary source of wate�for w�utaro va�ae�w� north Qrange Caunty. Our comments are presented below. Comment 1 Lisa Ohtund General Manager 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 refiect 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. Comment 2 E4CWD 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. Comment 3 Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the GWMP 2015 Update. Respectfully sub itt , ( , Lisa hlund eral Manager East Orange County Water District I85 N Mc Pherson Road Orange,CA 92869-3720 Cc: Art Valenzuela, City of Tustin www.encwd.cnm Ken Vecchiarelli, Golden State Water Gompany Ph: (714)538-5815 Jose Diaz, City of Orange Fax: (7l4)538-0334 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 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 provided recharge to wells in EOCWD's Retail Zone and other pumpers in the area. 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. ':�'� ��, � ;� Orange Gounty Water District 18700 Ward Street � '� . Fountain Valley, CA 92708 - ' � (714} 378-3200 NOTIGE t�F EXEMPTION From the Requirements of the California Environmental Quatity Act (CEQA) TO: COUNTY CL.ERK/County af Orange FROM: Orange +County Water District P.O_ Box 238 Pianning 8�Watershed Management Santa Ana, CA 92702 18700 Ward Street Fountain Valley, CA 92708 PROJECT TITLE: Orange Caunty 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 pragrams, NAME � ADDRESS OF APPLICANT: Orange County Water District, 18700 Ward Street, Fountain Valley GA 92708 NAME OF PUBLIC AGENCY APPRf3VING PROJECT: Orange County Water District EXEMPT STATUS: ❑ Ministerial (Sec. 15268) ❑ Declared Emergency(Sec. 15269(a) ) ❑ Emergency Project(Sec. 15269(a}&(b) ) ❑ General Rule(Sec. 15061(b)(3)) X Statutory Exemption: Section 15262 X Categaricaf Exemption: Class 6 Section 15346, Class 7 Section 15307 Class 8 Sectian 15308 REASON(S)WHY PRC?JECT 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 Groundwate�Management Plan does not bind, commit or predispose OCWD to further consideration, approva! or implementation of any potential project. Approval of the Groundwater Management P1an would not cause either a direct physical change to the envirvnment or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change to the environment. CONTACT PE SON: Marsha Westropp TELEPHONE Na: 714 378-8248 SIGNATURE: � ��-�( DATE: June 18, 2015 �� TITLE: Seniar Planner GERTIFICATION OF SECRETARY I do hereby certify that at its meeting held June 17, 2Q15, the Orange County Water District Board af 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. lN WlTNESS WNEREOF, l have executed this Certificate on June 18, 2015 ^��.�— '�— __ . --��.�-- 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� � �equired Plan Efements ` 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 su lies 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 roundwater sustainabilit lans 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 b roundwater extraction........................... 4.4; 5.2 Appendix B Sustainable Groundwater Management Act Required and Additional Plan Elements Vllater Gacie � �� OCWt3 ��o� � Requr�et�:��an Etements � � Ptari�; r , , � �� 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 roundwater rechar e 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 Stream flow........................................................ 4.3; 5.2.1; 5.2.2 Precipitation....................................................... . , -1 , g 5-7 52• 5 OFi . Evaporation........................................................ 3.3 Tidal influence..................................................... . . , . - . 425� 71 74 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 lan ma affect those lans Appendix B Sustainable Groundwater Management Act Required and Additional Plan Elements Water Cade Additionat Ptan Etemenfis OCWD Pran 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(fl 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........................................................ 10.72 Water recycling..................................................... 5.2. , .1-6.6 4• 6 Conveyance......................................................... 5.1-5.3; 6.1 Extraction projects (note: except for contamination clean up OCWD does not have extraction projects)............... g.g 10272.4(i) 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 10272.4Q) 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 uanti 10272.4(I) Impacts on groundwater dependent ecosystems 4.7 Appendix B Mandatory and Recommended Components of a Groundwater Mana ement Plan Water Code Mandatory Campaner�ts of a GWMP ' t}CWD Ptan Sect�an Sectian ' 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 g,3, 8.7, 8.9, 9.1-9.4, other public entities whose service area or g 6� 9 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 roundwater mana ement lan Appendix B Mandatory and Recommended Components of a Groundwater Mana ement Plan Water Qptionai Components of a GWMP OCWQ Plan Code Section Sectian 10753.8(a) The control of saline water intrusion 3.7.4, 3.7.5, 7.1-7.4 Identification and management of wellhead 3.1.1,Figure 10753.8(b) protection areas and recharge areas 3-3, 8.2, 9.5, 9.7 10753.8(c) Regulation of the migration of contaminated 8 7� g g� g,10 roundwater 10753.8(d) The administration of a well abandonment and $ 2 well destruction ro ram 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 roducers 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 i 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 rec clin and extraction pro'ects 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(I) With land use planning agencies to assess 9 7 activities which create a reasonable risk of roundwater contamination APPENDIX C Basin Management Obj ectives: Achievement of Sustainability for Long-Term Beneficial Uses of Groundwater U � = C N N N M M O V � �i' �f d' d' d' � � � � � � U +'' �' y-- � � � L Q� 0 'n'i 3 � � ,� O .� � Q a, 3 a� � �' �o Q, E `� � L' Y Q � � .� p N �'�' i � � � (�0 .� ?+ � O �' � � m ��,, (0 � i f0 m Q. v� � � Q �n °? °? � c�i ° 3 c � o � � ca co o w � � L � v, o � >, �' m 3 3 >, � � � O a� � t rn � � o � � y= ° .� c ,r �. � .� � � � >, � p � o fl- � � c� � � a — � tLC > 'C tn .� "C U � � _ N � O � Q � � � •� � y � L = � � J ` C L � � � � Q � � � � N � O � � y-�+ Q� � (6 � � � € � L � � L '� � � 3 u 3 � � 'm � w � �? � � � o N � += -c� � � a� a�i � � � i o� .� •� _ _ > m >, (n3 c�a � °' ;� �' Qa�i � �? 003 'L � a � � .� � o � o y c � 3 a�i � � Q � N O •.. :�. a� .o � �- L }' � � p � o � � o o = � � � � � � C O � �' w- E m � � o � � � c � m � � �n � � N °� 3 c � °� ` � �' � C� c �— � a- o o c a •.= L 4- � �o �.- � p > > � L � � N � o o �, � ° U o � y � �- a? F � o c � � � �' p � L � � a i U U O C L � v v�i d 3 3 ° ° � �' " � 'v, � � °� �a co "o > � rn � a�i a' cv "- Q � c� � � j c � -�p � � � � � m a N 0 ° � .r L .r N (/� •� U +-�' � � � � N �" � ..�.. � � � L ; c� � o rn = > � .� m 3 ca cn 3 '� �- `� � O' p r O c >+ c � G) 3 � N � O � N � 4- � (�'6 � .a O �> +�+ C '''' � Q �'+ C � C E m 3 rn ` = 'i. G L O � a?m 3 � � � �� a� � a. � c o �p � � .Q � 0 0 � � � �. -a .. � � '� � c '� 3 � _ � .. > " � > ` rnrn v� � �n c� OE � oo � oo � mc �, Uo u, � > C � 0 a a c°� U fl. o v � ¢ O rn ¢ � c� � ~ >'` s.- t0 � � � � � � � N C � � � � n � � � � C!� cC � J .ar � � � N pNj 'O � O C � a (0 � ,4,? �- t� � a. C ^ � � � .^�, Q 'C a � � 'i� E � `. � �� >. E a� � � c�c z X c N -� �' 3 0 �' � � � >, o '� � � w �� = � O �= -v c � � � � � � E c0 -� ..,. ca �' c � c4 m C � � O O � � � � � � ` v � U m C(Q (,7 � � p„ � (n ;� �' U � lC v! N � O G � Q�? � � � � � a � `C � � � N =p 0- � � �p � � 3 r,,, � 3 � � (p Q (� � � � � 3 c� ... N m � .� C � N N Q N � N � N N � O � >, C � m W � c0 � .� (a 3 O � N d � � w � O O � � '*+ C � C � +-' � C � O RI tp C� � � � C �0 � i. 'O �p C � � f0 tn °� a. � � �. N -�,�—, � 3 0�3 � c �, «S 'c Q- tA otS a� -� °� rn � >• V U � y+ � ' — r.� � N �' +-. � � � U � C � � � � � � � o E m � � c� t � � � � �s c. � � � F-�- Oa C� U° � -°'o m U° c�vl= � U° �' � � t� ii � Q � a� � � U O = m � � nj N V � d' 00 00 � 1� r. , � � � � � N L � � L � � � .= f6 � O � • t� � � "�' � � � � � � � N � � � � U Q- � N 'C O Cll � •L = � tN � �� '� � C � •L Rf '� � a.�+ cQ C � 0 O c � .Q C 0 N m � ° 3 a0� � L � ui o � ,.. � � � � m a� � � � ` � � � o c�'a � � �i a� a�i �� O � `o � � �n �°n a � o � � � E Q. �-- �- c v, cn .►_. m � • a� E � F' .Q •�.L o c� � � � 3 � a o . +- � N c � �'' � � c a c � E � � � � ` ? � � � '` .L a ._ � • � o � � � �n � � .... p_ � � � a� o ay L c o �' � �' � � 3 y � '� o a� w 3 �' �c� ` >, 3 3 •v�-i o �o c a� U � c � � a`� c 3 = � cn � rn •� v� +� _ 'a a� co � � � � rn � � c c� � c � � ;s� � .� m Q � � p y c cLo •; '�n ,03 � ,� � .� � � � c a� � ca � ce ca � � c a� � c? a� rn O � 'cv C� Q 3 � v ° •� � � � ° v�i o v� a�i a� � � co ,� L a � O � � � � m o � � � 'a ° � o � ° �. � N tn tn � � � p� � � � 4- � � o � N N � � cn � � ° � °� � c°� 3 t° 5 °� �' o � '� o N O y � o � � ° N � � o � ° ° � � � a N cn � �U� � o � � p v� -� fl? � � o a`� .c s � c� �o � c6 c � rn � °� � a � L *y m V j Q � L � :o •N � ,� � co 3 � a � t° .� Q � �� O � lC � O L � � � � tp � L- > a� o � .Q o � a? v c ` j 3 a� .u? c� � :�. � �.� � m rn � 3 � � o cn v� � m � .V N �S � 'p '''' O � tC Q �L "'' td � t '� � � �—' � � O � O � •L � � � p �,,0 .0 '*- � }, C � � p- � N '� O = N �O U N C O � N o�� = � p c�_U y C � C � � � � II1 ��m � �L � fa � V L � � .� U .fC .c6 O O N L 0 � _ � 3 •� U w ,� � '� � ,� � �. � '� � "'' +, L. t� � y � 0 tC � �p O O � i� Q. N �. O � � d .... c� � a. 3 � � � � .� a o � O � � v� � _ " � o � � � N c �' c0 J U' � � ''�`o /�y v�i �v� � �+ o c�`a � t� L '� O � V � m a= L '� 0 �— w'' 3 � �^' � � L L '0 � � � �../ � � � W � � V � � � � _ � � � O � _ � � 3 Q- p� t0 "C p- .-' i � � ..� d � .` � ,� � z � � � a � � ` � � _ "� O C C t� +-. � C 'C � .N � � C � = � � '''� � f0 N � � 4% f0 t0 > m � o -N � o 0 0 � '� 3 o c� � �n m 3 � N �- � 'a o. � � � � � ,..� � � Q � a ° ut°i �, a�i E .�? � N � v � � a� a c� :... ... c cB � o m c`o ` � o �. N +-• � C r- '++ � cB d •` N E C: tC V m � a' � c0 � C �� s N c � c a v � � � � �tS vi a� co t� � t� >_ c� � o c a m c y m W >' � �c �p O � � a � � i a�i u�i � v � c°� 'C � N � (p ,�,� t0 � N N � Qj .� � ° � _ � � d � q� c � n- cNa � c�"o � o � o � cV > c� o�s � � co = c � co � i c�o ° � � H c� i� �- � N V V � t�i� � 'C t�0 � V � � � t w 0 +-' � 0 0 � C .�.. � U � N � � v � Q � � � � � � 3 � � � � � v c�a � p � � � c�u m � x o �- o > � o d o � .� � � � a. 'co � HOd cn 3zw c.� � a w � cn v� Uao .� ¢ n. � O E 3 m M � C M M Q V � I� I� � si' � � � � � N � � � � � � 'p'� �L y"'� �L .� (n •� O � 3 c�n 3 u�i � o 0 4? � � c � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �n .� v� �.. > > v� � rn � o a�i o a=i = rn �' � � rn m ai � �.. �. c � .. .� m y •` � .`— 0 .� m � � � � c`a m � � iC � � r,� � tC V Ca � L �O N � E � E �. cu � � c� � o N � ,.�+ v� ° E ° � ° .�-''_' � � a�i c � ` 3 _ c � o � o v � .c a a cu °? � o E � � � � � E '� � '"' :a N �, vc' c� �, � J L� Q� � L N �O L N � � � C � � C � � C o � .� 3 a� �. 3 v ..�. � � � ca � �. cLc � � ,� � m � c� � = cc rn o � � � � � rn � � � � � 3 0 � v o cu � o 'rn 3 v=i � a=i L a � ¢ N � — � N t� � � N � N � C E N � � c�0 N � .� ��/� 2 � � � C OL .'�i... C OO � C � i � C � � � V J J � O L Q� � L N � L • � � N � � �C U� � ��/� « � . Q� � Q� � Q� � � 1 L � C L Q� V J O C (v U > a� Q> > a� rn > c � rn � ' L a� ++ � N v- � Q .}�-, � L�„ ;� � ,�+ O � � � C � c�p � O c o � o � ` � � � � � � = n v' .- cn 3 a� >. N i- cn cn � .� o � .� o � � ° ,s c�i a E o j � � � � � N � j � � ,n �- � � Q rn -a ,U�., � o � Q, � � .� � � c� °� ;Y ,a? 'v=—i :Y a? � Y �° Q o a�'i E ,� •°� Q v� � � � � c '� c� c � m � � L `- � °' a. O a' ` C� N <L v � � v � �' •`v c ° � c�a � � � � ° � � > � u�i � � v�i c�''u o � � �' � � a' � � v�i �o M � c a� 3 � a� 3 � s , m o V ,� � �i � � N 'in � _ �m � _ �in v O Y � c o" O o � � � � O � O p � O p � � n- '� � � � O t�i� 3 � L i w 'a � � � p � O.. N N 3 .� ° °' � ° �' � o� � o Q 'L � c �' c�e a`�i ^m � :� a� � :� a� � � � � o rn � � � ° o � � o � � o v� �' c '� :� ca a. `t -a OE _ � o. o � aoca�n > � c�a c�ooc�a � � ,� 'oo � � � O .S � O � � 5 c .� a E E a t- o a � � � -a � c � �s � O � •� c " ,n c � �n N J C1 � � � c°�i y � � � a? c � � .a � � � � � � c�a L fl � � � � � � � � Q `o � 3 � c°�i � v � N .�' 3 c c � � O J � 3 c o � c�i � � -�u cn � � � v o � ` m c -v o c �ro � � � � •" ' � � � ca � � � c� � i � 0 3 m c � ° � � � a� 3 c ° � � c -� o n a? °� a� � �L � L � � •O � � � � � O O � � � � � _ ; � "'' L � � � .L L '" � ,� � C � � � fd .0 C C •c V � p � p- •c V y- +'' � •• O > � � •N � � ` � � y m O C � O � N a cn O Q �[ � = 0 � � � > � � � � C > � w � Q O � m uj � E � Q � ° � � � ° m 3 `° � ° N rno � � o �, � � .rno � �' � � � o c c � ; � � N p � � � a � � N :� � � y � � � � t13 � +�' � � L � � N v � � o � o- � c � �, � o � N � � � � t a o N � � � � ° � � � �y = 3 � ° � N � � Q � � � � �^ ° a�IIi c`�a o � o � � o a�i a o � °' v' � v� 3 a �' �-- O a. u, � � a. U � O U v� � � = E '�n � N N � p C t() � U (V N N '� � CO Q � �t tt � N � V i" � � fn N � Q-' C L t/3 N O l'�6 � � t6 V� � � �. �,,0 V � p N � � � � i- � ""' L t� 'V ,} � � � N � � q� .� � � c s � `� 'L a� c °' � ° � 3 0 3 � ai m o � � � � •� � .� rn � _ � -o o � E cu = t0 m � ° � � � E � � � o � c L i �.�+ (� 3 Q) ,� � C V i=+ C = � L (0 �. � O � � � � E "'� t6 � � U O � (n � w- c '� � � � t�LO 0 � � ?, � ,G � � � � O � c/� ,4�—_— O � � � �S tC Z' E (0 V � �p C N � O � � .•.+ _ � `' � C N �. � L. C p +_ O (� " N O O '� '''' O N � � � t�n •� Q p) � � � E 3 J � � � � � � � �ca �' �, � �, > c o � � rn ° � a� �? � s a� o � � � � - c 3 � � Y � 3 a� o � ;4 � v c�°n �' � -�'v 'v��i a�i � � � � .c _ -a > � o rn y '� c a� � p ca v� � � � � m � � � � _ � � Q y � � � _ � V .a � o � � C� � cn c�i "- � o a? �� 3 � 3 � ° vi �, � � ,� ,� �. a� o .� � � g� ,,, � w a�i cn � � � c� c O � � � � N �' � w- 3 co 3 vcni � �^ m o •� c�e ° � N tA cn � � -L � � � c �v v cv co � > .a • � E � > � � � o � � � � w o � o ° � � .� c � `� � _ N � � o- � � c�a > � � rn � c v � ca •� � � c�i r N U -a a� � 3 � c p � c�a � cL�v = '� s .� `" c Q � � co � � � c� �, � � � cc ° c,...o -v 3 c � E > � � � � � c o o � v c .� � � 'm � v � � � '� ca a� � � m E a� L � '� .-�a c�i E � c�'a � V v .n a � Q- � -o ca � � � � � � o -0 3 c � N �^ � o c � � � � a� ° � m ° � c c � ca c� N � �v o � � '� rn � c a c � a ° rn c � c N 3 3 0' CJ � �m p �a :... � c w. � � �n �. � � ca c � � cNo � = C � � '+= 3 � � � C � O � E �Q. N � � � � N � O U � L 'C7 � '0 +-, O N � O U � _ � t0 N '� � � i0 0 = C O LO (0 � � C� U '0 3 C.) O a. .� o. � U a .� � � .� �, ... Z'' � � � � � m0 � �' � � � �a a� � J v � � � }� L � L � +� � � _ � � N � � .'.' � ta � cv � c� � U o .►-, � `-' � E � 0 3 � �' o � a� r- � � � � 4= > o � � � � � � � �- L •� IR � ; 'L C � � � !- � 0 4� _ �H `��' � � � � � C � � j � � lC N G � � Q N G � � � C y � � N > �.. � cC N C � � � O C ro j � � _ � � tp +' �._. � L� . >, m � � � � .� t� W �' O co � o ..� t1j � -�o °� m c , � �n a� c "' c � � � o � o N -a r'"'n m � � L � E � � � � � ^ , � � � � °� a � a y � 'j � � � � � � '� � � � � w a? � a� � � a� c� � � � _�m � � � � � .N � -� � � E � � � � .o O � c�a � o � .� O v o � x ca o 0 1— O � o a � � f— O n� >- U E '� U U o. � ct O � N � � � � t� N `— �,fj O l!� O C � � tn V � N ti.�.. f/) N O "-' � � � � N C� � '� C C V �4 y � � � � N W � (0 � � � � � C t0 c� +r � �+ tC •V � U N � L L' O l' � � � Q� Q� (� C � � � � � �. � C� {p a.. 'V O � 'p � tA = �p N t� V � � O >+ � �n o � co 3 co 3 � L ca a� � �. � a� � � o L � a� a rn = �, � � � V � � � Q � � c� � = o ,u? � m � O � � a o � c • � � ca .� � � O � � ` ` � E �- ,� �rn c�a � � rn � a� vi �- L � o � � � m m ca .� � a� c � > a� � a� cn � � o � 'v� •- a� = �..—�+ E, u�i crE tA � � m .�.. � � "� C � o ,a N � 'U � � _ � O Q N O � � � � � C O. ,C � � 't� O F— � +r O � -}—�, � 0 'v �c tn p� tn � C —� � � > 4N c�i� t � =' C � p c�0 tn � = O � � � � � .0 O � (0 '� L N 3 � td U C � Q. � ._� � � �n a a� �n c � � -a E � c 'ca �, .v � � � � � :,?� 3 .Q � � � `� o � c rn � c�'o � r � •�' a ` (n 3 — c °' a � •. °� � o c� � :� .n � c a � o 0 "- � � � � E � s � m � � � � � � E ° � � � � � .c a o +.: c`u � ,'.' � .� .� 'ca E v� c ,� m � a � � -►� cct U � � � � 3 > � o � a� � � ,.. � .� . � � `� o � � rn rn � � Q- � c�a � � .� o -� m c � � � � � Q, � o cn � ai o m � � � � (n tn co � c � -o rn � o .� � v� co � .� t N o � a� � � N tn (�0 � �J,J � t� tp � �? y N tn y �- t�C 'C � t�% � �+ � � N � = N � � ° � � � � > r�n c+,a ca m � � � � o � � N � � 3 � � ...r .� � � a� o a� � c y � w- c N 'c v� :c u� �C ca v� �, � E •� *� � :� � � c � ca V � � E � V � 3 2 � ° °� a� °� � •� cLo `� o o a� a � Z Q � � o -v .r � rn rn �.., rn � v� � � — � ... � �n ca N � � ,��., c � 'L •� � o v' .�c " � o n. t° " � ° � � V :��—. � a� .E � ° °? � c i o � � � a� -v c � o (� o > `�. � o � a� -g o' m � � L o � o N � c c� �' rn v� +.• � � a� o� � '> � � N cu °� " o� � ° � � c � = c � c� -� .c c � o . o rn c� v� c 3 .r � rn o a� �, L .a� � � � .. +, css � c � � � 3 -a �• a c � c �• � �n o 0 —, � co .�- Q- co O 'rn � � co cc � = ca � � .� m ?� a�i � � c � p ?� ca c � � � o c 'a E �' � 'S �- OE Z° o � c�am "c� NU c�coc cUa � � � � c � � t�— c � � a � � m � •� O � rnco U c� ._ 3 U ._ ca .,r � � � � � � N � a� � � �, �J � �' v�- � � j� � � ,'i•' � a,,, � y, C � � � �C L .�-+ C � ,C � tn c� tn 't� c0 td c9 � � (0 � ta �p ca C � � tfl � .c 3 c�i � � � v' c .� o o °° � � �a � m (A � � m � �' � ca � o � t .� � c c a � � � o � � p � � � W m c � � w > a� � `s o `�° �- 3 'n � °' c� op C� � 3 0 � a m m .� o a' � � o -Q u� m � � > Q � M L � c},a �s � � 3 � V � 'N � V � � � � .� � o � C � O � �' c � ?� O p � C .,., t0 � U � c��6 '� �.- -�p � ;+_ `�- ta V � .0 R3 � � m � W N � .� � p� "� a� � a� � �� 3 .�j � CV N � o ^ � ° � ° � � a��i -a �- o � ,c U o � c N N � � �. � c �. a- -� ^., � C� N � � U .� m rn a�i � � � a� � o m >. otS � >. � rn � V j .� � �. c = .� � •� v� ct3 c.� � �a -� � � � c � �� E v o m � � o � 3 v v c a ,� � c � ca � � � x c�o �- � �� n a� a� � o � c � � � p o I— O t1 >- "v, � � E � o s� t/� ° n. U �° � � � U 'S � N N N M cD c0 CO � C � M � � M M .; � 1.A M N .� � � � i � tn N U L O (0 r'�..� � � U � 7 N "-' '� O L C C N � fn � z- .Q � � p � = t N � � � � � � N •� C � � � .L � f6 � � � �.+�-' � Gj � .� N � "'' > � U � � t�Q � ""' !n �V -_ � � � p '+''-''+ � � � � � � r�.+ O t0 0 (Q L m O � �+�- �? L � r.—>'• "p � 0 ~.+ � � V 3 � U N '�'y � �, "- V sr � �a �O � tv!? N � � � � � c0 � C tC ,tn O p � N � 'y.�—.. ro t0 = �t0 � tA � O � N �, � 7 � F- � � s v 'v� u� L a� � c :� y � -0 3 � o. � � � � c � ai c'�'c � � c�o � � � � � � o (0 O � v 3 �— p :�'' � � = dj ;� N � � �.. J � v, a� ° t° � 3 N � � � � � N � — a' c '� L L � � C � � � � � � � .� (d � � •3 y (a Q N � �, ? ,� s �° � � `.�..' v � � � a .� y � � � � � cEa � ca _. ., c o co E .-. c �a � c� � a� (n � — c � .� °� �- as � > c v� p L ° � ,� � °� � �? ._ "p � � •� ta � � L E �' � tC � p, � � O w- iG Q. O � N � c c ° ° � -o ;� -�-� .__ a. ° � � a� � � v� 3 � c -�'a co }' � � C� •� � c�o m ° � � � � � � � c > � m � � � N � � "' � � Q- � �. a � � ' a� � 'L � o � � o rn o N c� E � :v � cn o � � c � � cn rn c`a � o � a� �' � a� � rn N � � � � o cn � •- ; O � � � ,L � O �p O N � L � _ � C � � Q � O O N � •-• � t� 3 � E c ° c� tn � N .c� • o. � `� p s � � = a� p a c"�n E o � � o � � � c�i a��i � a� c`�e .a? � v N -� N � ° ° o � � � E ° � � � � � .� 3 c� U Q � � .� � a, � � co � v ca c� � � � � a �X L cu .� � � N ° a�i m � •� c s � � -a m � c0 N ca � � � ° � � � p y c v >, � � � � m a� � V .�}—, � O � � o a� � c.�i � � .� � �- � � 'n rn >+ � N � N � 0 >' tp � L �"�N t�4 � N U N Q � � � � � O � N V C �'� ("j a � � � = � � s= � .Q m C N � � C6 C � f� � � p � � v � �- �. v � a� 3 � � � a > �' y ° = c �� tn O � A C .0 L > O � �L E N � .0 � 'j •C� O � 3 p L � � � c �n fl., � � ` � � � � t rn > > � � • n. OE _ � � � � sca Oa� o � � � � caC � U � � � a � � .... 3 t- � ... .� � .� U <t ..., 3 � .Q � o � a a o N � � � a �J � � � � � � N V -p ` .� i ....� C C C � p � � � (n � � �3 p � f0 .��, .� �.,� V � � � n L �. v, 3 '3 �' >, o � E cc � � � � � � � ,� � U Q � (�j � .� � •� � L .� � � � � � C � � � m � (� '�!�' U �-�- p � � c6 `�-� � �f � G � � � � ` � � m � �i � p '''' � C � >' V� O � � � �' N � ''_' � � � � .�.- �' O •v� N � _ � � fl. s ° E � ° n�i ,�' � � � � °� +� oY � � � `� � �a m c W � � _ � � 3 u�i >, > � � � N N � o o � � � � � � � � � � Y � � n .� o a� °� � E o c .� o c� > ca V .... v� V c� � rn 3 N U c�'-'a �� m � -� Q- ° � � � � � c�i m N a� -� � o, � �� c"a �' � � � � ��' ta � � � - > .� � � >, � Oti >- w' � a a. � oa� � � o � � U a� O �- � o�. �' � N � C � O U O � � � � �' � � � � � � � O Q,' >+ O N Q �. � .� E N � O ''� � � � C N � a � � c"�a E 3 �' � c o � � � � � � L � � �..: a� u °? v N � � � � td � o rn Q � a�i m c co �c a� 0 1� cu > 3 � •� � � � E �' � � � � c�'a co � v� �' � c � rn � L m � N � N J � Y � � � � � �- C .0 O � 0 tC L ,0 L = (Q �.+ U �I N U (� rt+ i N � N � �"_ � � � � � �p j � � � p. lC � O t9 � � � O L � � � U C � U � _ � � � _ +, (0 w.+ � _ 'a 'p fd � ,��,, � �,�,, O t� � U C J � 3 � � o � � � � c"_'o p E � o rn .5 ai 'c� � o � � ,n � E .� � �a � 3 v n a� � o- v u� ++ � `�" � U �'' 4? � � 'i. � � +�-� E � +L+ C N �C N }' >, � A � L tD 0 O � �C N " = t/) � � � � Q C � G � p � � � tn U � � � U � � C �. `�- C tC � N � N N o v� C c4 t6 m � � �- � N O � •� � � t�4 � y > _ � V U � � iN � ?� •� U � � � � o 0 o c � -� .� � � � c � �� c � c � u�i � � � � � � � � Q a E � �N �? �v�i "" t�c ai � c � > O � v�i � a rn '�°—, cv c `° � �� _ � � � o :,�.' "v� c�e N c� > _ � � ca ' � m � � -o ff � rn m � .—U co � -t N a� � _ � � a� c.� ` c>o c -a '�" °� f° c� � � co V � � � � .� E � �—� � .c a� c� �' a�i a o � m rn Z Q � L .fl � a� p � ° a�i o 'c � � � ca 3 c r� �j .� j � � a � v � m L ca -o � c��o � .n=i ai c ca � i+U-- U � � C � � � � � t�p � �(C � � U V o t�0 O c m = � f° n W c v� � U c �� Y � � � E .n � o � � m p a� _ � co � �� 3 ,� � ��. .�- ,z, � O E � � o o � o ' � � = u�i 3 t� a E > � c�v � , v a��i ,� � Q . N � a� � �' � rn uvi °� m rnJ � p � � _ `_ > n � a.., � �... � � m E � � •� c� E � � .� � � � � � � � � � � rn 3 � rn � E C N (A � � 3 atS N c c ° � o N c`a p� � � � a� ca 3 � c°� rn � � •� � o � v� � � �� o � ° __ ° 00 C ta � � � � � � � � � � �n '� n � op � � c� o � � W � Q � � E � � a� > � o, y = � � � v � � � c � � '� `� � � ° � � o ° 'in � a�i m `z �, �" _�n ° � � � `� L a� m � � � � � � m � � � � � � L ` W � L N CO D U N tC .a y uJ � V i O. � � V .� ..�'.. c +�.. N � O � �? M a� � � c� � � � � U � � _ � N � � � ` O � � � C 3 �, C) � •� � ayi o � � � c c'�o � � � a� � � a> -� .y � c�`� � � � � � 'nE ca � � � c°'o � �-� � � »-� � � .� ca � a c � a� � � -0 � .� � C a� `—° c6 � ctf Ry � ,� t0 t�0 a � t� F— O a. >- a •S a� °i' F— � � -� fl. _ � v, O a� � O C�.t U � M tn Cp N �- CD � �.i� � � N � LL' '+- L � O N y +-� y � �U � C >' v N 'C � �y � O c > v U � (TS � � � C > = V '`'' 3 C (B � � :�.+ N N '0 ~ `t > 3 a E � �o � N = a� � c�v � � o o � � .�. E 'v, .� L O t�0 C O .v �L. ,� � � .X� � t��n O ,}� L � �~ L � v, � L � � Q Q. � � � � Q ��+. � Q� Q V � U t� += "- 3 .� .� v � m � � E c :� 3 � � :�' -� c •� � v� .5 " � a� '�n N c c (� � � � � � � � +�' � .��+ � � � � C R7 � � ,C O � C E O � N � � � � N �� (� � � � p .°� � � L r�.. N � .s tn +-� N ,,- � cn a, v a� Q � o �- � rn � � � O L a � � 0 � Q c � C � � U� fn � N V V � .� � �, •- .0 � '� �+ L (� +-� .� � C � � � �3 G � N � V � � p� � � � � > > _ � � � 'V � .� t � � � v fl- C O � a� � rn � � Q � � � � °� p � (� .c �U c�'C o � °' � y ` � a� � � w' � � Q � c�a Q- � � o � ° c�e a� o � � O a) � E � a� � �- cn cn v� � a� `- E N fn .��-, � � � �' N � N O � :� � � ..L�. � U f/� Q� m � � �+ � � � � � � .� '� U 3 ,��, Q � O � (� ,+��.� Rf � L' � Q7 V �'' � � O � •C � •V � 0 w � Q t6 p� �N � �,, N GO N •V o � � "� � 0 3 � � � � � .� a at°i N ;� = o -� -a -� � o a� � � � o � � � � E +� � � � m .� F�- o. � G. w c�0 .� U � N � O � � v � N � � +r � � cB � � otS � � �• .-. }, E � � ° o o = �� c �� E •�, � 'u� o �J Q ro ��' � � �n c �' � � � � � C c4 ca � � � � � � � � � c � a� � ° m � u - v� . :� m � c� 'U � E o c�'a � a �� .t°c m � � c � -� .� � c � � � W � ° a�i cu � � rn w � � > � � � w., � o � � � � s � � � � •� o a�i °� m 3 — � 'x � � RT V N V �' .R5 fl. � � m � � .� � � � O O � � � � � � � � � C � 0 � � � � > � ,�-, ip O � -a +� � � tv i � (n � C d N c�v cLn E E � � > ; ,� � � � N � � � � C) � � � � � 3 � �. f0 � @ .� � N APPENDIX D Report on Evaluation of Orange County Groundwater Basin Storage and Operational Strategy s�NCE�� ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT . : � � D " z 9 ' � • ° REPORT ON � O'T��N OF�N�O, EVALUATION OF ORANGE COUNTY GROUNDWATER BASIN STORAGE AND OPERATIONAL STRATEGY CoastaJArea Pressure Area ; Farebay '�"��'�"" �-- � —► � � :t�n�o+nt��h� �;;�i ;5��#Ci�H 4�orf�►l�tl ,S 41 Q44 ��„ '� � �M '�'1{�iflf8!" ¢e �'eMi d� �-�.�?� �"ratt�Fpr�! Cor�E!»�¢ �-�tS tt�t}� ,„,�,iww�+� ��` �Aq��r �+4ntinst#, S-�3,il�'! '.�BB�:. ,�nnfiq�� ?Qt�f �rt.. r ��Rq�e�' . :�. . . : ::. . . . . . : . . . . . ::. � . . : . . . .. .: , � � � �' � rW 'v`ti„^ ;n, \� \ �^t *'�a� r � ��"` �1� .. j�,�t �,.,``*."S.� �"`'�` +. � a:�w ��.a€" � f�9��^�: -�"\�� ti�2�".l""' w �+ v�' �� -�y,�t `E w°�� "x�.�,`�� FULLBASIN �`" �t�� SHAILOW AQUIFER ...,. } ;.�.-.;� �� \��R��k �°�� ; �Es6matatl GraunOwafm ! 1 �, I �. �.�# •+� �'".,� ��EIC�Mfa1s Witlfin TM _ . t" � f � ) ( �. �€� �� ,',u/•aIF 'SOYIO�rAQuifat _ X � � / 7 7 �� E�',;. ,(fMAOdu�MNuI S�a LIVM); F t � �1 S f f \ _.�_,y __._ ,��. �� G `� � ; � t.'�i�r�.y�� i.°<'�"'"� '_... �t � _.� � �, ijl 'i —t ]w � � \ e.�� 1� �`�;� �� \ \ � C��{ii��,;�� ..woaa.,�vw 1�,�t `',� � \ ��.. ��'� � wdr..o�a��wr �'1k��''�\� ,` � � \ � `�... �� , ry.aonwwi ,%J ��r., `ti4�, � �t� �� s.. . '`y��`"� � MONonrpva� ..��l .�, � � �.� � ��.. �. A�.,�.� '4� � ��,� ' '^ t'„I� ', � �+ibm r,�owa�no w.y � �`"`•., "� ��ti ��ti^�'`-� .. `�-�.��. A �"t �r..�wea.i s�a��y . * �v..�.'�.,,�` �.. '�., �� ~"h, vf �� 1Nrr� . ,,r,�r"� �� l r,��y �,� h` �..�m �� ( ��{3 � �� l� ,..,x; .,4�` , d � �� 4:. �,'�.,�e"�..•'*�,A � � S �{ �r'l�'� '�' �P�^ �1it1 '�� f ~��t ��6 Jj��/� � �. ,� � J f��.� � �� 4 �.A�� .�� 4 � � �,sr,flFESS1�N 9 ��+�k`�p�� J. s ,t,��c{`� Prepared By: "1 � w pg Timothy J. Sovich, PE—Principal Engineer „� � Roy L. Hemdon, PG, CHg—Chief Hydrogeologist 2 " � � � � �� '`�,� �� FEBRUARY, 2007 �r '3 t ti �t?F CAUk� '� TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVESUMMARY............................................................................................................ 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 WaterLevel 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 Implerr�entation 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. Shaflow 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 Acknowled9ment 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 af 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 af 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 af 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 af 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 af represents the lowest acceptable limit of the basin's operating range. This lower limit of 500,000 af 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 af 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 finro- 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: 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. 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 af 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 af 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 af for November 2005. The discrepancy of 150,000 af in the finro 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 af and would have been 70,000 af 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 �... ......�.. '� 3 .a �w.<�.. . �� . � �k: ..� . � �� WY 1968-69 �� GW Production: 179,000 af �� ' � . � �. „ � � E „ ��`� � �1�� -�. , �� ,� r ��{ : � � . �,� �{� r �; ��. -C'� �� a �'�s � �C� ��r�'�4 � �� - .�...J� ��<�,�c�a €��, � � •' " ,�' 03 ��1�;�..�y��G��x'�;;�f�o°��+�"�J' l.n°°"''"y""� �`�'"�,� -�� }� , a E �, � �, n v ��`� � �'�,r�.� U � ;�,�,;- +��, t_� ';") �k.��,k.�, � �z `��,. _ � �� " �. ,r,�,a �,«�,�� 1 �& } ��,Y ""�'w•�� + v `�qqg�� .��d r a Q f1a��, ,,, � � .;,�� a . I' f}P 7��,1� a r».✓ .�.�c.».' , g �py lC z r.��.n ��C �`t a (. 6 °� �`��' .,"`�y,v� .,a'° e" t�,So �T ra C?t7 � � :�� . � � - �. ,w . { �� a ��d � f �� -�"'�t 4 �, � ��. �.� ,�� n � � � Anttu�l Gi'oundwater ' �. � ,�,o�� 1 o S, t7 ` t�? a � '. g ` ' �� ° _� � ` � �� P"roduction (af� M� ti , A >� �°�y �� , o°�,°�� • .�� ;w, : ,-�� i�� ' � F��' °c � � ,� �a #� � 100 .: ��'�c,-, ��, ��°6�"��; �� ° ��t� ,��` r�� `""�� Size of cirGe r � � �, �8 n �, �n � �, _� ��-d� .� `� ` �°, . �) �Op is proportiorral d4, �� C� � �a m � � �fM� C` �-, � �� ko Volume �� s �`�., ��t ° pQ� , � _, �� r�� , : -�°�' �:-:� 1,000 , ��,g�.,� ��;, . ., ; .� , � �y . nd , ' , C➢ t " lt � °g �,�—? '�1.� �,w �;� .. � e �''� � yra., o 'a^-�� "'�t,�"� � �'�"z �, ..�' " � � � � ;._ `"y^��~� b�'�'"�c{,�p ne a t r� f ��1 c';'� ;s+� .„�° • �S7� 4-� � �, 'a. ,,}�y ax o� '�.��,„„' �"� � ,'.3� 9 � t', . 'x �' �' � .m f%� � ��,;,. '�. � �� `, �' p . Y? � � , �, �i ,r �ocr � ` ��- ..... 6 R"�;F \ � � �r� � r�� Q ° � 01` � � r� °, � ,< � i �.� ��.�..wcv- ,. C. p l.� f 5�� . k ra� 4 /o * �a �* »� "� c� �c. � ��." , -,.- � � � � � �.� c� ,�- �-. �. { ) '��a �; ;� �`�`��. � � - ,; { � ..�� r �. ��. � '. � , � �� _ � �� " °�� .�.�� s�' �� .�< �, y} �� ,� ��#��,r`'� ��. _r - � . a �,�� . a � �. :�F �t YVY 2004-05 s;��; �� GW Production: 244,000 af s �; a�, e � � �� . ,�� , � ,�� .:%��+r� � �_ _ � �., � � , � -� .. �-� � � � � W �, � � __� -- ��_ �. � ,�� '� 1 �' �"` `� � '„�,"�� „„�"'� �,� q' � � .t `^�,� ,s"? � "��„,�,1 � �� ' F7�, �}� �� ,�� ,� ;` -- t r'^� .. �. . - -- -,.,,� {,.'� .:, �t..�''�, ^'.+,..r� ^ft°«��'`�:m... �� £� (��; c� � ,e�..M.��' , k.�, r�� .,. � � � i {? �.d,:� p�� , �_� � i �� t 1�1 f��.," i,«;� ,`'�r�w-: � t ` �,„.`e � � �J � J� +"� � s . .. , �. .��--�-�:,�. ��.� "�;, �,_,J �� ,,. .� , Annual Groundwater {,�°�' ` � �' 4:_j. �.�-��,�_j Tt� ; ��'' �� Praduction (a� �, �"�` � �;-� ry�f>�-� �?.r�._.�� " ,. '�� ,� 1� �_. �� Q � � )� � � � -''-��`��- -_ `�� -�-�� ''� ,�"�"'� Size of oirols �' �E 1� � ��;��=� �� `�� g ` �`- �� , . ,� � � �s proportional � � �, � "� � '�. c� �� .� � °��, to Volume a r.��`'��,��,y r� Z � ;�, � � �:� 1,OOQ . � � , � , � � . ��~�� ,� ` � t� � 4 � < �� `�- �t� {,�� ,�° �-�:� �,°�� ' ��t�� ° ��~�.�. � . ,..��..� �a.�� `�,,�. �� -- .(i�zl��,'' ` '`� b �,� a � r :--� �,+��.,��1�-�- °��. � � �:� . . � ;' ��.: � ��, �� " ., � ,,� v �`? �� (" �� t � 4�� m E�"� ;a�.� �.,^*„ � �`'"� "� % � �r x }� � �.- �` ��k�. {. ^� �� ,p r�� N�;A� v . � 5� � 1 �� 1-�. 1 .� ��T � "� +��E "�I"� .�:;" 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 WY 1968-69 WY 2004-05 Pumping Total Pumping: 179,000 af Total Pumping: 244,000 af Agricultural Pumping: 34,000 af Agricultural Pumping: 3,400 af No DRWF In-Lieu: 70,000 af 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. 6 Figure 1-2. Schematic of Groundwater Level Profles Across the Basin S W NE ELEV (Feet) Coastal Area Anaheim Forebay 250- 200- J F��` � 150 � 100 tr°ae 50 � Z005 '� -50 -100- Figure 1-3. Water Level Hydrograph for City of Anaheim Well 27 200 Well A-27 . ..... ......... .......... .. ................. y ...... .�ft�...... � � 150 d � � _ 0 � �a � 100 W d > d J d 50 � 3 Ground Surface Elev: 237 ft msl Screened Interval: 212- 287 ft bgs 0 1930 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 8 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 af 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 9 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 befinreen 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). Figure 3-1. Forebay and Pressure Area Schematic Profile S W NE ELEV (Feet) Coastal Area Pressure Area � Forebay �aheim 250- (Confined) � (Unconfined) f—;—► ..��::::::, �� 200 , �:::�adose:::: � :::�0+�:��. ::.::.::.: � 150 100-- Monitoring :�.. . ; 50 Well ::�:�:1��1`''�B�E� ;�; 0 , .. :_;.....:. _,. . . : .� . ......... . -50- : : ...: : �i�utfer ::::::::::: ; : . ..::...:......: . .�......... . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . -100 . : ; : . ::' 3.3 Traditional Storage Change Calculation Method Water Level Chanqe 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 finro 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 StoraQe Chanqe 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 y 150 � Well SAR-2 (near Burris Pit) � a� d � .� 0 100 � � > d W � 50 J �� MP1:141 feet bgs(Shallow Aquifer) � �—�MP6:741 feet bgs(Principal Aquifer) �.. � 3 0 2004 2005 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 Yorba Depth geach Ground Surfac Pressure Area Forebay Linda (feet) � � �� 0 � , � ��, � ��Q00 ��:�, �' � � ,. � "�m ' , .', � a�� A \\ Z�� 3�0�0 F �� g� � �� 0 miles 5 10 15 20 Methodoloqv 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 Coasta/Area pressure Area ; Forebay Anaheim �F et) ♦- � -'� 0 i i �r�ca�tin�t# S�t1 200 �tiall�r� ��i��cF ��Q.��i ' ;,,� ''� " �Xqu��er SeM� �Oti�d� �.f�'� �rinc[pa� ��d 5��.44� ��a ; :: 7,000 l�i�u�er �otifn� S�D:�!01 ° ` : � 1,500 ��P �C��in�d $�t.fi�� ►cqu�#er 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 ail water levels within a finro-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. Nn 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 artificialty 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 Mack 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 Weiis p�� T�O� ,� ��aID° � �� .:.� �s:t>� "X �� ,�'��', ,` 1 ��?pp ?2 ,_ � r'j .'��" x. � �•, , _..._..�....-e.--,i.. � d ..._ r ��O � .. � .:a .✓�' � lY �� a ��. � '+; ��;�'� �?Y -� ""p��...�, � #.n"1: �p,�*�' .A�� . � � � � �7 l --.2�' �`' � ""�Q ��`''�W"`J� ° 'i�� `^ ` �°`"�'4z*"��`, ��°�'�'° �� AL�LOW AQU F _.,-� _.�.�_ u. � , � �` ' ,.� �„ ._--._--�,� ,��' SH ER �� ,• ```�" �'�"''��'�"t'� `� '� �� +�� Esfimated Graandwater . � . ya �..; ' r` -- - � ;' .,�> ��.� r � Elevations Wilhin Ttte � �..�, F. " '. ( .�.�� p' �t. ' ��. ' � -�� Sh�low Aquifer �_ _�«� (FeetAbove WTean Sea Level) �1 . a '. �-,�� "r� .. y�; ��M��r�t . �� t� ra`�� .,.�^o» �e��"� -26-2 .n�, � t � �'\ ,1fp a.a �' E � � �' � � °e � � � �w: . �'S� � � �O�� W O " 'y�„ .,...... �Of � � �"W4 ,..y��.i a � " � �q4 � ^ �� , Acdve Production Wed _w.�-� . 1 .. � ;:e.,.. '��r ; � .. �'��t �' rs ..�� .- Inaclive Productia�4Ueil � -,�.. + �.. h _ �_m.e. ��_-- ..'� � '� ° �� ' ,�. � � z �. � In�eotion Weil ,t"";*. � ��_ Monitoring Well � Muttiport Monitortng YVeB o ^""', ,� �;, � , ,' �� n � ,^�t'� '� `ti� � "r� �Bas�n Maiel Boundary '"'''4`�, � � s �{, , �. �" ��, �� \ ` �,", �� "� E.� ��-r� � m: �t' t� t 7S y � `"r z� .r � � ,p�p' �� o N " � ;S" £`w s } ., f d ,E"9 u � s�� `~`'�: � g ` - ' c...t �. . , '' zo � " +� .� '�,�� f�,,,,��../' 2 � � � ` r� � �`� � ..� , � r�"`"�..,��."�"^y. � ,�, . ;.° ,.�^fiz' �+ t'., �. t >��' ',Y'�1�! �„"��"a� � w.x � '€,d'�',;,,,�; �� `�� '�\� �� ` �X�� > � �y � � H� x 'f� ` � � Proposed Shallow � ` � � ' ��. '",� „ ,� �o�,�� ,F�:y Aquifer Monitoring Well ' ,�t: t .°� �� ' � �� , "� � � '� �.. �' �'�`>� 's 'r� s a s� ��, GIS Application for Three-Layer Storage Chanqe 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-Laver 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 af 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 af for the same period. The rather large discrepancy of 40,000 af 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 OCWD Monitoring Well SAR-2 (near Burris Basin) 120 .� £ 100 18 ft �. d .'�d. gp c 0 :: > � 60 W 44 ft d d 40 � L ' d �+ 3 20 �a--�-� MP1:141 feet bgs(Shallow Aquifer) �--� MP6:741 feet bgs(Principal Aquifer) 0 2004 2005 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 af Traditional Method +147 000 af Shallow Aquifer Three-Layer Principal Aquifer Method Deep Aquifer +66 000 af +52,000 af Test Case 1 Test Case 2 (Nov-04 to Nov-05) (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 �.t � , � � , �,. .�_ ' = w �� 4, 3� ,. � {"� *� � � �r. � �' , ',� �� ,�� '" dt � � �"t. �"` _ � �� 4 $ � 3 `h*. _.... �,i ;,6 ....,. ,i.... �."..`y. . 1. ... :x ,x.. ^ '°w"�.., � a� ,� � 8 ' '�i 1969 data not availabl�in this area � � � � '�� _ , � , `�,� � �'.�� _...� • �� ,�� w � � �� ., . `� � "� � �"� ` �� A �� V��c� �aa � .' . �+�,y� s a.� x,.. �� X F. ��'��.�t�. � v � `�,�,�" "�.��" �� }t, . �� a�:��'Yav�'�'R'�.��\�w,�� ° �i� '�`b^�&P .,*�"�` � `' �`»�.��"" x�� ; 1 `� :�s �.�'' ,��, .;,��x.��.�,° r S ,,,�� :,��k�',�d` "�mR'`k#$�,.." ^f �� u � �.�3 � r�/f t�� ,F a�^a ��°.��( "S � � �'"` `�� ' Groundwater Level � � � - .� ,�_�� _��" Change(feet) ' � '� -. �-100--ao � � �� " j��S � -da to 28 � � : ��, �� , �� " ��'� �"�' � -24 to-10 �� ; �Y �v�� _1OtOO � �: . �� r ; � � \� ��"� � � .» � 0 to 10 ��A..a� ' � �' �`°�'�'' � � 7 0 to 20 �� .��"� 20 to 40 ��'� _� � 40 t0 80 '� - 8d#0160 �� x��" `.�; "'� , �� .� � "`�•'} ' �„�'�� i� � "�"�� ` � � � M� � �� , ' � Nov 69 to Jun 06 �� ,'�.,� �� ' � �`�.��.� ��"�°�� '��:��`�� c.� � � = f�',, � �: ...��r� -e� ,� � �� r�'� �� "" ,�' � � r. � �� .� �` 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 vvet 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 af 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 Iower 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 A 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 welts 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 regulariy 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 Figure 4-2. Full Basin Water Level at Anaheim Well 27 250 �' 2 50-60 ft Anaheim E o0 Lake � ��Full;'Water,Le,v,e1,-Jun,-94, ........... � ... O 150 ' ._ �.. � > d W � 100 , � d J ' � �v 50 � Well A-271adiacent to Anaheim Lake) 3 Screened Interval: 212-287 ft bgs 0 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 af 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 Figure 4-3. Shaliow Aquifer Groundwater Contours: Full Basin and June 2006 ,� . r ;�. ,� � :�� . � � � � - �.�� r ;*ava�`�a� `��`�. ' ��` � ��,i�;, � �� + . � . �° ,s :� ___,c..�..,r.......,v# ��/�i�,r .y`'�s�y+ ''�v '^+,. �t H�3 � � .��h nl . ( . . � "_.. q. �� , ��. i �w. a �,��\?p q �,"'" '.�'�Ip d'' � `"�. �.'� a?�.4... r� �� , . �s�: FULL BASIN _.,,w.�. � .__.._.. . �� ,. _ � , . � _,_._, � �� j ��$, ��.�°��°� SMALLOW AG�UIFER � } `"��"" �� :,� � ;,;'� **�A Estimated Groundwater �. r `-- __We�-„� � �. .,,�, ;,,�� "`��~ Eievatiorts Wilhin The � � ,�� `�'•� - �.. � � � �'r�tow Aquifer � � � � �� °' ; n�?��,r��+��t (FeetAbove Mean Sea teveq� �, •, .. ,. � �� " � � '..��-.,:,�-, .�--s y ,. �r.�� . *� :�� " ��.�so a � p' a g • �a� � w� ,�• ��$ � Ac�Fre ProducYfon Well � « 1� �. �� ,? .� tl�� liraeime vpoauction tvel� �. � � � �5..... _. .. .. . :� ... . � . . '"'� '�;,� �` � In'jecGon Wel9 'a _I � ,y � t`� r�� * , ng � MondoM WeN .1�,,,��`�� "� �,"`�� I , a '., , , � Multiport Mani[orinp Well w�,� � R =..., .• ; �_ ["`�Baain Mode!Bwr�ery '""+..,�,� �� so a.,ti� l.._.r I.ayer 1 � T. . r, m S �^~�Q . q9 � U � l'a 2 a � ��""`��. �-.: +a �; ��,�� 1� ,�Fy�, �^,'� � � '�' � t �� r� ' �� \p��g � 7, ,#�� ^f �� F . � _ �� . �'`°,_ �, � �e� +'tlt�� r'��' �, � / �,� :;,: , - � � �. �" �° �t� �' 1r.. �.�, t^: y"�w�,� y� -=''F-`� { �,�r � 'x"�� , � *,�.. ,,`.��, ��,.. ,'a�'x '��"� ; \ . � � � \ . y , �„ , r � � � � . � p� M �� . ��{ l; �c'�' "��@' ,,� , e , �en a y z.__ � +` e� � . < a� ae� a ;t _�_.�..r � �.,� ,� . �' � � � � ,� �� `4, �� ::� `�ra___... <��..,, ' a,�, �,� ��'!�� , � . J �z� �x, rto�;, �-�. .. �� w , , ��.,,,,��, ,� n"`�. �,0� � 4� dUN�2AO6 " �' `"' � � SHA�IOW AqU1FER � � � �__. -��_ �___„ �, �� ,y � �° �a �� EstimatedQ'oundwater �' 1' " �`: ��: �� v ElevationslNtl�inTlte �� •�, ` :�^ '� _. t"l� 8+ .: Sh�lowAquiter ' • `� �" �y. i"��`� �,.�"�",� (Pec3AbaveMean Sea Eeve1) � � r i ;�-y <•g°9�° � `�q� -:5-: *,� r ' k , 3l'�'ra �� d � -,� �, .ray � � "' t-380 w" �^ � � '� � � ��a ° Actrve Prockiclion Well � � �' �� i IhBCdVBpfudUC60rt1Ne11 "x� � � �.Y�� t .°�s,,. �r � InJecdon We18 f .�.^•s,,� �� ' � } �.. � - MortNtoAnp WeM m � .:�, � gb., � a�' t*� r MukipoR Mppi[a�ing WeN � � � as� � � .. �8esin Madel&oun�ry '!,. �. ' �'''...,v �.:, Layert '" ��.. � r,q,. � � { .,r; �" � * f ''�� o n' N' ,� 'c �r�' n r a , �",4 V '� �- , „d� �� '�� . � . . [ Yr�3� a y�� , � w�,s Mx� y�;..�c.r � �+ � ,a� , �"�" u � 4 *yi .. ♦ ge Y .`.�.�.�9��: ��''�� °"�:' ��i'r' � ,� � �` ' �;��, . � ' ppf+ �ef �y�y .Y� `� 5 , •�y .@' �fJ "M � �y�t� f r p m «�',�� Je��. 1 / �.y.' � ��8� �.; '�� "' ,�t [��* � {� F F � �.%.% ��'�w" '�;\ 1�4�. a�M 27 Figure 4-4. Shallow Aquifer Depth to Water: Full Basin and June 2006 �w �. i � "� y'�"T... �.�f�'� :�}ti�a i � , �'pa, `. h � � K �,�� g • - �:..�..' r° ,, �r�� ;i :.,. �'; .;r,?,n F %:�p:�~ �� : ,fFy }' ;. p M � g ! .. �� f�� 5�� 1� � "� � °3�- � „r !� z ��, d.• �s�.�ror �`_'"�"`3 ;. ,� g .a��.!"t *sr .. �� *��P��#f .a�'�+ .,,',�,^« � ...� ,,,�r� � :E... � � ` � D�pth To Watrr� +J�IIN�e �_� .;:.F � �. ,�'��- �.� {it bys) 1Ma ��_'�� >_30 " ;�d�� -30--20 :, ��, ��` -20--10 > ,.; .� �-10-d � �"` � [�0-10 � ;- 10-ZO � � �u�, :� a- ^`' 20-40 `, ' � ;��_ �ao-so � ,;, �� >so , �. � � ��"�� E; � �M ' * ' � r �� . � �� f4i�t�r,+r�,o-��tr r "�E i�, ri4�, :�"� ��,+�r>e��„,�. "'k � >P ' �Jx. Full Basin � �� `'° � ��' "" ' � ��, �` � � Shallow Aquifer . p � � ' � � fN= a�x��, �< � � �" y� R � .�,�� '�� *� �'�`'��, � � �� , _°�s �.� ` ' :: � ..Pvr � �'v� '"�v . � ." �? ;..^� ' .��,�� ^y �+ �� F ,w;? �� +��,`�},'` d , �� .' t"� tLw -1 ��a�°.-�■ k „>..�„A f�,�J��.� # `�*'� � .;:� �. ,� . 3' .L�w, ,w.. . .. .. �;' D�pth To Watsr a► ``"_ :�' (it dys) � � 30 �� '�� ,-� ��--� ��,.,� .:� "� �� -20--�0 =��-� �-�o-o ;�< ��'° ,:�: Qo-�o .°� �o-zo � '�� zo_ao ; . , ,g � '�� : �ao-Bo , .� '��' �>so � �� '�� '"�i�� xj ` '� ��` ��ar,��'J1�`r ��%�ti��,� y �� . W ��y�t1 c� � :� ,�� A: �" � � N' #° .� �;�x �,. �� ' June 2006 � �`�� , , Shallow Aquifer �� ' �� ;.� r, �r,,'. ,, r,�.... ,� °�'�� °'�.�n�: 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). Figure 4-5. Full Basin Water Level at Santa Ana Well 21 80 Ground Su ace 60 .� a E 40 � v 0 20 "Full" Basin Water Level = Jan 06 .... .............................................. .. � � > °� p _ _ _.. - - - - - _ _ W L d 3 -20 �a _ o -40 ` Production Well SA-21 � -60 Screened Interval:40a960 ft bgs (Principal Aquifer) -80 1965 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 Ground Surface 20 ... H � � � ��Full"�BasinWate�Level��April94�� O -20 :� �a d W -40 � d 3 -60 � _ o -80 � � Production Well MCWD-2 -100 Screened Interval:30�650 ft bgs (Principal Aquifer) -120 1980 1985 7990 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 stilt 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: Fuii Basin and June 2006 f , ��, ��. � �,� �} �F ,� "�:x �.;` , . r �a � ` � � +. ti , tA <,- _ . O P _ ,2__ } g 1t�' ° � `J';4 ��i.� L ' �A ':+ �+� .�l � rwt. ' - ^" >.'�� + � j � 220 �ar ,,�":*: ,� � "'�t�.+ . . . '�.,.. "�. �. :- � F.. � E � . �:. " � � � �,, � „ ,�,� � �� Fu�.�.easiN .r-.� �:,� � � . .__ _ „_ . •��„w,w..� �. .� � ; t'�b a�,�� PRINCIPAL AQUIFER � , , . � „, t ` ��+ .,, � f `. � . �"., Estimated G1'aundwater •, � - , � � �r�� r _�_ , v, � ��' ��5 � � ` Eleva'tioris Within Fhe '""""`"`+�, �!" _. �,. � �; � �� PnncipalAquifer �. � � x� .,�+", (FeetAhove Mean Sea Level) .,�"'YS„�,�,,,.�r -'� �». ,�:, � �}3 '`"��, �� rr'8 -2q-_10 n � , ,p r �' `,� 'a- ,�E - ��. � � �� ry- ws '� � 0 . -. , . � . . , �b......... .. o, \ f �, � # .<< t "*'�,� v � —^— 10-300 � �`�.:. ). �.+'� p:�.� ' AcW a ProducGon UUCN � ' "� � n Inacctive Production Well �r+ y "",� _ —� � *$r s�� t�. „r t3� IMec�fan 1Mell �� .. ; � � "� � � ';�,.,.,n., x�SO�, � � v, � '�, �-. ��\ � s 1N�nrtonng WeN . . „� "�^,,�! �. �*, �`". �� , a� � Muklpott Monitdrk�gVYeH �'" ' � � ��`"..a - �y 9� '"�4,,,"�� , �Bas�Model @wrtdary . .„ , : y . `• � �''"S; � �� ,„� �� . �� ,ti��w� �'r �.. , ° � ��. � � ��°��, a �,� y�.. � x� h� � $: 6; Y! � n �r� �� ,� ,�'°�+�* �n� � ty t �� '� � � "r f � � `�,`„' � . �x,� �"S, `S, , „a **,++.�.,«�5 ..�4. a4 � � �, �-�3�. �� - �.� �� .�.' � � �� v�. �� :a � �r,� � �" o � '� as ,+_��/ +��,�y " �r �� f � �` �y '"� ��`° „�r�f,�� i b ! ' �p ''i�' . "�' � ��-.�a� � d � ° � .dX"+�,� �.. ' ��51 ��.3 �t �."��..„.a: 1� .X¢ ' - 4 f�T� �� .»vl�.'-_. �._-,.�.�.�- � � � � � .� �� ?. � �rn. a �rg� 2s � ',^.r,�. r r . �s,. " � � mk.. .� r r � , E '�"�` '' ' p � � r JUNE 2006 -_,�-- • I r'�"'"-,<w ` —��"" � +� ''pa��' PRINCIPALAQUIFER - . _--_ �_: .� � _..� ��..�,. '��?� � `� � �� `�' Estimat�d Rroundwater > , ; � ' �� , � � • �� Elevatiorts Within Tlhe �-�..-��, �, � �� P[incipalAqtqfer �� --�' , "'� � � ;��X� �"^"� (PeetAbaveMean Sea levely� ' ��`` �e� �� -ss--�o � � �ra"" �� ` > � �'� �'`f�-�--�-_ ' � �� ! —o � �: � , �� " "� > >o-�oo , _ � d �+� �� , r,cutiev�oducno„+nrea � � � � �� "�� '_ „"�� . ^..,•'-�, , hraciive Produc9nn tAlell d.' r �•, , '" � ��. . �`�Y+ . ,.. q,. ..,..,,, _.,...— .�........ ^.. , ' ; „ � ., , .... ��, .; , ....� �.;�, ,.� � '#� tn`�ction VYe11 • •�� . .�� . � } tilol�itoiflp Wdl „o�` 4� '� . �R� „ �� ,, m Aloftipnrt Mon'Io�g VYaA �._�"^s. �' �" } �� a' � �Basin Model&wndary "�,' � `��-� ^ Layer2 � . s ' �pl �� ,,. � � + �" �� ,�^ �� , .,�, �`'! � � '"•�,,,�.,,,, � "�,' � '"�r ,�� »� �L �''*�� tp a� �. ,. "r" . ,�".� � �' .�c ,� a� ;� " ,,�'. . ,. a � ._ ^ J� , �. �� , � . �.�� "�, �� "� �� a� � �� ' �,� �� ,. . a..».-_'! •.r . �..�"`� ��, tia '"" i.'� 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 befinreen 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 su�cial 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 . ry � ,,,,, <�� ;` ��^��8� #� ry �„�� "�''� �� g ,,,(,r �� .,�,_,.,.y..0 . ...�,,..r. . ... . � y}�'� J ��. 1 "a ;l�"«,d�' �t ,..�`.::�..�.'�" � �#w ,%�� r1' � �� z � E 'h\� -T� � �� .. d �� *� �:..�� u,. �� ,ao�i �'�� '�.4 � `� �.�; FUE.��BA3tN�. ., � � z �.. � '��^ a �. ,.. ._...__ _� "^^,,�r �� `~--.��oo, r+�� . ` ��`�� OEfPAt�U1FER ..._.h � �t� � i � � �, o , „ ` � �� . Estimated Groundwater � r .� __..._._�: � � � : Elevations V�hthin The � ; t"" � `°, 'ao, _- `�� "� 088p Aquifer � �`x b, ��;j .�,"^�- �r d�a."rr�", iFeetAboveMean Sea level)�� •`q Q a1 t� µ � � � � .°� /� � � � re��' �` � -----15�--5 ��.�,,r � �� : � �� T Q �,..#, � � y � � :s � yl �;�- -.,, i �� :t�t7,Iy, rr -b-2�0 ~" ' � yj F°'� � AcWe Vraduction WeU a l ,,� ; � . ,��a.;° ' . �� ' � ` � tnac4ve Production 1M1Gei1 � � �� . � ,� � �_.._ . �.,�_ � . � .._ �'`�__�� .,� '� . '. � �,��.� � tn�ection YVefl � b �-- � � �.r � . , °`k E y.---'-------.r..,.� w� s ' MortR«ing V4lcN � a� '"' `''� � °� `° 7]^- "4� e� � ' � M4Mipod kloratwing Wetl f�; � � 1 �� , =� �• �, ``�,,,� `� ' � ' �Basin ModelBaundary . `.� � �� # �� R f � ��3 Ft " e --^-+• � � �.i� , �4 `,,� / �o o. a� o r}yc,s` �� + � �� ti° S o � � �'�{� ,�. s ; �J`� �,-_ � � $ y ,"4. �� Q r.�` �r, '�F' 41� ?^�r 4 ' ..'4g� .+� � a e�,� r� .S�"��' *, " M �'� � `,r" � � e , � .�' ��; � r„ ��t �.„.,..,, �� ,r�� ,�!.` � r'" � • 'S.. � �r a�� ``F � � �, �}`��.?t ""' ' \ ��„ ��?s t � ' �� 1'' sA�'' �*��.�a, _...,.._. 9� ��i. ��. ,_,� ,e �� , � �t.• � �kF i A'�, �rt j fi�w.�� d�. �„°� �� * r= .....E ''.,..� _� >.� �� .y^a.: � �- �n� S � . L,.� ro, c .Y ' � � --to� o 'oa�sx•+_,z :�',�°��' �'� � JU1VE 2006 __ <� �-- �'��., � � � ' ��r� OEEPRQUIFER ` ' � .� �o �w��.�- Estimated Groundwater � ^�," �,� �; _m�. �. ',� r _�,,.� : Et�evatiort�WiU�in The � € �` �,�.. � ,r'""� "" p A4u et � � a �� ;�+�`,: IFeet Above Mean Sea lavel) �' s� ' #Oa ,�� ,�. ...,,.._.._70__� , ? � �� , !�� , �^-�.ao * "..� � --`o _ � �*D "" ,� ,� ' --s-�sn � ,r �►� � � 1 � � �1�:��i. a ° Acli✓e Produclion VYeN , � . �� ., � •`. InacUve Produotiai Well , �. �' ��._... ._.,._�"�_.. � �.�_.......--�'� �;; � Iryeclion 1Ak11 ,, � �� `� ' "� _' �,. . - � `� $ � '�'� Monikodng Well `� , � � " ° '��. `�,,� � � o �� :, a., MulNpdtAAuniWtinpVYeB �� k' � 8asm ModelBaundary � ` � �l�3 j�� .,. T4J �� .NF ��V� •��y�, �^�` �H� ��✓ ty, y `� '�. ✓:. �`��n � �'r� � iF �.� �� z�a �^'�-• r"• � �� Ie "ti� � �Y '0� � " a` j' ��'"i': �� r � � �� . '+t, "�,� ��"� �< �€'� '� '�� y� w ,tl �� $�� ..1', .� � ��" '� 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 af 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 � Full Shallow Aquifer: 110,000 AF Principal Aquifer 20,000 AF -135,000 AF �� . :�� . ..� �� '� � Jun-06 34 To put the Shallow aquifer storage change from the full condition (110,000 a� 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 af 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 �� G -� . � ,��, , � � , �; � �, - , �. � � :� �� j �4 ', �� ., �,� �..�,✓# � � aVl i z x 4 . � �-�F� � p , �.,�� , �y�. r t � �� k"��'' k � A�� . ,�^" �. � a.. � ; ,. « . . - s ' '"�` �, '..�&' . .�, ` < _...M,. �� ,�� :. � ��L"�",'� �+-�� a,�� . � ��V �*»z.�-°° }��`"� �,�,,�,,��„�` � �` �� --—�[ .�.�t��`' tr,.!a_ '-� �t .� � +,�5 � :w- �� <�� ,.�. " �� ' r � add � `�� r, , < , � � � § `.��- ,; �'"# : ��.�,. � � . �� ,�'� �r�' �� ° �; . x '+�� _ A �.",� 3. . �'y�e� , ��.,..__ ?. ,.a � �"�' "�{� `k^ L _.W. ...�.,,._ . ��.,� � � ` .� '�, � "._., �.._.�:,4ig _�_ � - '� :1°' , � � '�`� .; � ., I�ressure � �� ,, ' ; �,. � . ��``�, � 3� � „ �� Area �� ,�.�� . `,,.. � � . i .� �f� ' � � 'E'�-J�OI' �@SS � ";;.`' �'��..' � -�`' � " �� " �,��, a � � � �.. �� , �;i° r �. ��—. � ��,� '� �. Shallow Aquifer "��` �� 'gp� f �� *e k i��.P �{w` �' Water Level Increase(ft)from �� ' � � �� r� �� Jun 2006 to Full Condition ;�;� °�� ,�� '� Ma� �',, �.`�' k� � ,� 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 af below the new full benchmark. 35 The June 30, 2005 accumulated overdraft for each aquifer layer was as foliows: Shallow aquifer: 166,000 af Principal aquifer: 25,000 af Deep aquifer: 10,000 af Total: 201,000 af 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 af 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 0 AF � New Full Benchmark - 135,000 AF June 30, 2006 66,000 AF - 201,000 AF June 30, 2005 5.3 Historical vs. New Accumulated Overdraft Estimates The new accumulated overdraft estimate of 201,000 af for June 2005 is 29,000 af less than the traditional method estimate of 230,000 af 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 finro 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) New Full 0 New Jun-06 � 100,000 135,000 AF `� Old Jun-05 �p 230,000 AF � 200,000 � New Jun-05 � 201,000 AF � 300,000 � � 3 v � 400,000 � 0 c a ro 500,000 o� n n °' o� o� � � °P � � � 4 7 7 � 3 7 7 7 7 3 � 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 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 resutting 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 af 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. 38 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 af 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 af 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 af 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 af 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 af did not appear to be acceptable, not even for short durations. At overdraft levels significantly below 500,000 af 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 af 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 af 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 af 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 1 Year (Above Average Annual Amounts) (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 af 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 af of reduced supplies in a dry year could result in a 270,000 af decrease in basin storage after 3 consecutive years of drought. Assuming the basin to be at the optimal target of 100,000 af 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 1 Year 3 Years (From Average Annual Amounts) (AF) (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 af accumulated overdraft. Figure 6-1. Strategic Basin Operating Levels and Optimal Target 0 AF New Full Conditi n Available storage for one wet year - 100,000 AF OCWD Operating Range Provides at least 3 years of drought supply above MWD storage - 418,000 AF � ^^ � ^� � � �,�,�,�� — -� — �, t � � „ �� .. ,�. �� ,�� a �� " �� '�„��' � �� - 500,000 AP ��.. .. ,,�, . .��:� . ��.Y �,.,.;;,,,.. . �� Lowest Acceptab/e 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 finro 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) BPP = Last Calendar Year�s _ Reclaimed 8 Total Water Demand 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 af 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 af 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 Reduce up to 50,000 AFY - 100,000 AF �� - 150,000 AF More active management of basin in conjunction with Use BPP availability of import+�d wa#er Formu/a ��d i�s�� c�t�l�tian F \ �� ::\ . �� ..�� \ - 418 000 AP �� ,� _ �,� � � � � ��,,,�, ,��,� �� ,��, � '� ��A�� :��ti�,��v�`� ��V�� .��` �� \�� ._ a�� ,�`'� \��`��,�\�� k�\��\�� \�\�� `� ��y a , �� i �� a n. ,��'` ��,�A - 500,000 AF , ,�� ,��, � �� :. � .�oa.�,�� r��e•.��a. ��,�`�\. 7. FINDINGS 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. 43 4. 1969 no Ivnger 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 DistricYs 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 af 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 af 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 af 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 af represents the lowest acceptable limit of the basin's operating range. This lower limit of 500,000 af 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 af 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 � � . �+ t� �-s ° � �y��' � � � °� � �.� �"A x �,. i6 �� ;�' «�. �� », ��,�� , :'�s� �`� � •�`,1 'l�� '�� v�°� ` a�, � x ��"� ��"�� .�� c q tid h� . "$ S �"'ds�� '�` ��: '°��,� ,�'S`q'� �r. .F� " , � `�� ' � 4�b t w:i '�<� "��a � � . , � h� � � .�' �' � a^�+� � §�} � � '� 1'� � "�,\°��s�" � �:� � `�� O .O a � I}�� r,R.. ` �� . f0. �.. �� +Y � �+�: ��.�{,,y.�,� �' . ..ryn�'� Q Po �Q: �- ', ,� �„ 'w �', .: i�-p"�'"�". � �xy' '�. � m �� 7' � ,. � `a,�,.� o 0 'z �° � ''�� ` � � �, � a,r � `a � `�y` ii ^ �. �.+ ��. � �^�w�q�y`t "� � " ,,, �: �^.q� \�� dp, � O� � �l . . �}� S.a,� r� . °��c�°� "�n,,, � .O �� O �\ �. " ,� " � aq� �,*.� 1 �"° ° O O d� �. �a.� "°" ,.,� 'm'hs' t. a y,.. , O ��".�,, ,P� : `°'�tu,„°m��.�: �'� ��,.. ��'` .: .,+ � � d ad��`� d� d �,� "'"�'"�� , ,w,� ,� ;..�,, �» � �� ' 8 � X '� ,,«,.w ."�� 1 A a� �° � p � d d a d ��*�. ., � '' u r . � � � � , �, r�� ,� -+�. �"`* � ,��` � ` � d � � . " s,� �� +� � ��, �`m _ �� R � O .��"' a�� s,�.� � '""� � `�."# O �' . O O m� � �'�„� ' :M �.� . � , � � �OD O �� '�ti .�"'" � '� e- .'� � p� Of ':�� :0.. ' � Cj � �� " d � N � � �. O � � �,� '.�O•� � m e- �a �.,��;. . . b ��`.� . �: � ,�a... � � � d g� � ' ��' �:,.. � d p . . � � _ ,.� � � ��t � � ��.,��/ �� a �o Q.� �, O.. � d.�� . . C �'6� O ,'..- � N � � � �' r .� � � C{ � � � . ' a,,,,,� �.��' ,,, "� � . c . e- �= d '. Ci �. p :.. �{ � � � . e �� .. a, � h ID �` t � " �, � o � � o � � � o -� � - ��; d , ' �a'`- ' � o d o � n, � o � , ^�, ".� �i a" � � ' a : � � d � o �:° � :�yb'> d r� ^�� 9 a o � a W o ' a o r t� a o N d . '.. �w� �i � N � � d .� . � ,�r � ..; � " p � � � _� ,�, a o �o' � 8a > �T'��' d o.� �� .. .e: �k��e�s � �� a a: �� o� �� ° � � � � a d � o , N .. � ` , a � o a a,= m �� F� „ ,� o �o N a � o � � a a� o �� . � � � � ' T � � � `� � � � .. ��+, � �� d d d N � �r � .�8 � o E• �� " `� �� a � 8 �� ° ��`� �� o . � �" � ��g �r o , o �� . � � � o' d �y' � 'a o � �� e ��so� � � o�� . �`� '� �o �'°a �, d ;�� m •r ��r o � � � ��;�� o � � o :� , � � , � r. � � � � � o .,�� yg'� '> ��+, �..,.� o � � �°. � �� d � "d,, � �� $�'; � , d � :d m � ' '� � � '° °�� ; " d � d' r' � � �x � � � ` �� o' � � �"� a ; v � �� ` o. .' a a d � �.. � �� m � o � � d d ��`� � d S� � � �' „�. �� d ;; � '''� , ` d � � � o `�`� � � d G '�v , / ! d i. � °�' �- es c a � � ^�','� ��t,� = � � c, +it�' a � � '+' � � � � �d � � ■ �'�o o ,� a n �.,. � - d d d p W o '�..t� ; •- �- � d d Gi m {�! o ; � Ul � . 0. p � p m Q, � �. .,.: � p � a{ � p � , ..� � o o a o o d d o S � a o d .� �� . � d - W � G � � � � ��; �' � d o d �� ,,, � � � a Q `� �r `� � �' a � a � a c � �' ��' � �� o ��' n � � J o �� d � ��?%��j p O �. 0 . �. � O � O O - � � � � = 0 CS a O :r � 1+ � .0 �+ O N :� ..� O. ��g � � � . . N m �' � Ci '� ` o " o d � Q� ,.. h�: Q � . N ��' � A� C� . �' � �� :. d f. a � .... � � � N O ; ;� � O � �.Y! � �� . U O N � r N lL d G , . �'�y � � � ^ f i C 0 � O 'O a'' �"-�� Q. I`- ': t. m � � `s� t � APPENDIX 2 Basin Model Storage Coefficient Values For Three-Layer Storage Change Method � � ��- ` � �" ,� ... N `' �f��e ..... ,k � �� . .,«� ,�„t* �ta ,,� �,, .@�"��r,„<� �� . , � . , y = .ti,t'� �'�, ?� �''��6 � �' "�;; `i'� `�'. �a='' � � �*v`�''.� ;��' �° �� 0 q f .��T�w`� � y w .`t.r 4 ��;"��, �'�.. }� � yr i �� : �` . ��}, �� ',� �"v�t". � . i � � • � �3� � . $. `" �.&4w � �6,0 5 �/'/% �/4 � � � ,� . y �� wei t iik�� .. � ��ya � � �i�� Q � A �$�� g � � w� 'y � �"+ a �� / �. �y/�'"��'�y��0��j��%i��„/ ,. V . V � 'is �� , y�.,t ..y � .. "� �"4�,� ';'°�w, '�ii �U�v/iZ`�r/iJ�H��y .�'/�,s4 , u � ,� � �++�,� � '� �; ' ��,.�,„.• � .. � � � �� o�i� f,�✓ w� ��ti . ti: 3 � �"� � � � '� � � ,� s� � r"t ��' zes ,� ,;� � �x , ;,c a 7 �.,. � � � �$ z�� ,�i,,,,/, � �" _ d ��,�','� � w � �y w! �� +. ��' � t"i�`��'se��A• � :� �"M�aow 3i �k.,. �'�� y✓ � + . � � �m�� z�. `,� . �,,. L c� � � � � � � �� t1� '�� $` � V �� '� B - t�;�. i 5 w. r y ^i � ��,;� � ew� ��`�V � � � � � � �� i�' �� C P,e� R �,�„ ��,� �, d ��.� �� `" , �, n "�� '��. '"",� � "t � � '� �.,� �.�� 'o o, .,� �� Y ��:. �� :�� `� "'°° � � � `�,�<� m �p � �' � rp (y �a � �"F�p.� - � ��-$ � �;s � � � �U O � � `n•' �." i0;�- � 4 � , s,�,. m s *yz^} b - ,� �., _ � ��.C N ,,,� � �O . � � � . :"�a._ �`:?' w N m N� �� r � ' � ` �o ; 5`! o ev o °� � r �o 0 0� o o�� a� � o �• � o i � �o� � o .��N w�, .'� � o 0 o � ' ` '$°*,� o�� o m o��b �� r ��' � o .�$ � �4 � aD�� e�4 .r . 0 O � O O' � { f , �-, � ., O .� \\\� Z O 0D w ', S x . � � �� o,` ` �a �` o '�4a � ` o. � � e � ��a�'r 'ao�� o� ,� o � � � � o �„ "�� O p ��0�'�*' N � . i � . � � - �'`�� p ' ( � � ' � �'�w' � �ODti� � p . O . � � , O T � O �'� ��.O. fy •�. O � ° k 3.... d'S �'� 0 � � 0 ; O � .. ,. �. . O � ' ; �"� �`.w~* . '��'�� / i pp% Y � �,... .� � � • , / �� . . � . i'� i:�� n �" � e,^�'� , ,, p, "�y//, 6� � . . O . � ��.O �h..,a ..� : ' � i p� i y p " ; ' �� .,d ; ."'�..� � t�., G/ k ��t , � . �� . .r � ,s,� / ! s1 � . .. �-� `.t� O O / �U9q00//�y/ � �}� ' �y �� . O v�r7 �j , � ��_ � � � O ' �� y' - .. � . �� .'i �`��^•�� N ✓�. ' . . ' { '. p `' .. E ,, O '�k�" � . .,a.� e : � L ��?.� 4 :� � p � � . � : O �«,; <; �� `� � �C. a si�.�� p �.�. .k � ��. O � O O � � . � �, �� p.� \�� m . �,. . p : . O ' � Y O �la,��,r. a� ��a`�� o �o o �o �a ��;� b ��R��y�` � , �� q ��o��: '�� ' � �`��h�� 0 0 o R ��a�� R . ' � � o � b o `� � �� ,. � �"�y^a��a : �� . . 'o , e � ��\�'�� o a . ��,�� `. �.�' ; r" � i � � > ��' rt��, e � � �:�� 3, ' ��o � �e� � � �. s �u��u�� \�VA\A�V��:�� O . � �r � ,��A �� 4'o 0 0 ' �� a�� i�� o�. � ��a��"�v` '� o o �o ' a o � v� ��y o � �e '° ' ��o�� } < o �p�"�� R ��u�� o ��"\��\�. r`` � �, fC � �€ '` �'� N � � 'o ' C � N 4� 'o. � a� o'`"' O � � �� >+ y � Q � � � d �'�'� a� t � � � a`� ' ` % � � � 3 � a�i � _ �+ o `. N �; � a�i3wii •� � _ �� o,'�� t�A � � p � {Q ; � -� . t +' .� V "' m � �� 7 .0 3 � �� . �r�' �� { � ��s � .s "��`,� �". ,,� qs� ,�. <��^,'� �� '� :� $ �., � `�� " �7�r,$ � �� i � �� .� *,,�`� L C � � �� ^��`", , '��, ,°�" ,. .A. °°F "��` ''^�,��... � C� '��,° i� �� p � !�� '""` ��.s �d ' � � ;� � s. � ��4 � �,� , � t � ��"'��°�a<� , �� 'r, �i , � �+ .� � � � Y '^°^t.; � � � v.�`4 � � . Q � Rz � �� '�'� t '� `� i, " � R ,.�r W- �r-.,�� .�- � ' �.� �� 3 v ... �� -, _ w � �� ., � ��. . _ , . ��-� � �� :� � � � , � �� _ � ° � � ��`'� "�� ,.� �� a t „ r � �� ' �'�� •— 9.. . #�,y�,�,;�`�*'�v��, -rX; ' f*��w a �„ � ,� Q �r , o � t�/� �5,�,., g � �F �.�� ' -� � ` � " o Vr � � "��""A� �i ' ,� '.,� b { ° . � x s � � �"�;,�+��&�.� �� " ��¢`� �p��,�� , "�s, O . � w V� V ��;�. �� °�-^�� '$ ' *��.�ky�� , � �x� . "e' a '. ^""'t�,. 6 � ��.y �� "��w��n �O s '� . �tt '�.. � . � �:X� � : �e� � p �� d '�S . ,£ � *y'�at��^ � �OD �� ,+. � '`74. o ' 0 :y,'��.a .�� / '��" � N � � w � �"" q ;'r, .0. `�,„. o a o �. r .�s ";� `k�� r " � �g � ,�, � Q ��, e r� � ¢'tr... ' o 'o � � o o ��x,� �� F�i� �, ry ��tr� �o. p , a�.�� -,� ��7 !!€�' N % . . �a..�.�"��"�� ` � � A�� O%; � g r � o + o r 7�' '��»,.,� �� e - �a �� , �� 0��4� , 4: �� jo. 1�'� a�'�a>. �� ,<�� y ��`" ti^.,- �'«� � ��\�� w � k} r 1t�{ � ` �"� R `�� Q � ��,.� � � � °`� e R. �s> Y 4 ?�.�„�; ,o' o 1^�R �;.�. . 1�. �h'�@ a.� � l0 ��; ,. ��^ � N . �� g �-�, �"� � o , �t,;. � � a �� o "� q '�'�`�, o m N g ,.�, � `R:" o e ' � � o ;; �� .. . � R.;:. 0 ,, m e 0 oe � $ Q � o � g .-. p N $ � , � N o � . . o >, tq � ' � . � � �� C �: � e � � � � _+�_.. N L O r � � �3 Q � a`� > 33a�i � � � � � '� � :� w �fA J o t v�i t p � � H 7 f/� U d m � � , a . k T °'6l�Ya. t�'.A�.,9�. .. +�+ � �� a � "w�� `��*"�"� �"` �., � � � = O , . � ��,"` ..� ` ` `�.«, 'e.''", S:` � p � � :� � �+ �u '�,�:� 'ffi �.. `'` h' �,` ^�,.,�', o d � �C� .� � �� , �, �"s � � � �'"� � ` o � w.°�, ��s "�' d ��` ��' �� N Q G> o � t��""��`�, �� s�=,�;,t "'' "�F a g � U g "" `d � �. � �t �,�. ° �.„, �r,� R � � � "'`>� `"++� :�� 1 � i �i, e�� G! Q� "�� .��' ° "�� iW I��' �� ,� �V G� � �`� a,�3 w ^�+ : �� „'�� o o " , . <� � � (� � a^ 0 �. �..� � *+. .�� .�.. � � � . � � � a o o � � �=�� '< . 8 .�. � �� , � o � ��,. � � � , g �� C� � o � � a 8 � � � a � ^ � � �' '� in �.: o�; o "» "�� , , n � � � a'� �?`,�� `��a �r,�� o d' Q � � �� O O N N�°�� Q� ' p�� " .�� .� � � $ �""`�°�^ p O� d�d cf d��.. �� o. o � 4 8, o p � � � S � o � �� aa�� g ;�g�� a � s f �� „ o T o,� o� `d,d d � o� �oo �, d ��o�� 8 ; O dr r, � r �pA�� 'c"bV1��"��'' �� ,� d � o 0 �� e� � d t�,�� D �d � g � � '� � � � o �� i �� 8 o d � � hs� � s � �� o� � � v� � � �,��i �� d o � ,d � �� o - f�� /��o��yiy'�"r,iti `` � o �`�+o � o �� i �' r �'i � �� 1: � �� , ��p u�/ii z. �o � � �' j( �� r `��ti�/',�/ii i,` :o "^'a.."��j i �A T'� %/��/� y �d � er �. � �� ,� Cjy�� a��0��' . . a p � � �s � o� d � � ' ° � / //"'. !� + ` �� r v i; o ei ,"r;� . �pd o p� � � o . . . . "��'f � � ' g � � � � � c �� 0 4, . � �� ,��, ° � �� r , � y � i/ O%v, � � � '� . TM; �.O s, � . �� d: �>, � � � � �` „�r� %� ; 4� o � s �.. .. � � �;r: o ,�.' ��_� ,,� o � r , ;d �q E,<:��, a . S � , � �� r . .. ��a�Yfff . tpV � ��g � ..�. p � �� ' ; , O Cj ) �� .�._ . �n� ..,...o^ G � ° � � � G , O .� . � �� `, .. G � �� d. $� ,d. p �':a sy� �`�� ,,: � a �� S � ��`� � �o� �� er��`�� e�"� �� a �� V�.��\A� ��\��\�� '� � ,' �v��v��ti�c�`;�� . ,� 7 C) �, f� a��`��\��r,��A��\��.�, r:� . ++ C � � N �a ��'� 4��` d ��' C N � `� � �a � � N �r��"��° � *�2.r N O L °��"�� "��`��a�� 7 .�... U T N � � �� w\�� a��\��`�� (C fO � r-. �+ � ;n ��a . \��v��r��a�\�� > � ' y f0 � �� y��,\��\��"a� N N N J .� � w � a ,�� 4� �F� u� � '� L s � � � ", � � � m ` a�e,�� L L �� xe�,�O�� ' F- 3m3a� ��a��: �� „�� '�'.^a* ' � , } G"�.•4e�. 9f"�� , ' � q ' I. , ��^'+f � ` „ � � i N R � F `k I S�� Y µ � t� yo-�' � 4 C ,� �� '� � � O �� '�k`A *✓*� �A. �� Y � �x.� � � �b�b�;:; ., y . �v :� � � �` { � �`a�� i� �� '�� '"�,, a �°,, � �C� � � ,.��,,,'�� "t �'�."s� '�� > �'� ��y. `� O � � ' �';;3 ��"�+`�' � + ;,,�e � +��`'� � , ,� . ''� a � � �, �� v ° -c ��.�°`�` `�� , .� �� C� .�'.�� .�,.,`�*��; �� a..:� � �� G� C "�s ��, �'`� t� � '��°� � •�j � -'�a; +� S,* � � "`° � �� . " , �LL� �, . � �. t � C � � � �°� ' � . � � � �, d � •� L � ��'�� . � '��-�., d � V � .�. �d g �°a fn = ` N ��° � a �. . , >��, o �.,�,' y v ; .. �,�. , d "' , "',-�� p; � . - � O' � o a � � � � a g d � � q a � � �� + O n , �: ��< . ,.. ;'4 , ; � . . <..,., . . �4�� 4�b�,,,� g . .. r'�i` +e�' a' . ,^1�y�� ti^' � ^n"� `��a ..1� °�;'- a �`,�;F �� r � � ' � . o .�► �� ;,_�� _ � �,� .� r �� ; " a ��, E ;�'F��., r'r � . .. . . v��K$�m�. ,0�,' �b 3 /� � � y, "m �� ' �� O. . . . . .. ��ry . . .. . � . . . � * .. ( . Or� m i .r � 0 �~ �� Y/, � 0 � Q T � a � � � O � � � � Q � � � � . N v� .", � .". +-• � � L � a� � � � � � � N C �' > � � � � � o c� y 3 .o-� t � �. � m J � w '� c c c p ��". ' I— � d � O � c� � a �� ,r ° � a � „� � f/� � � c ".�, `""s'. �"�,-r��, ' t �` � rw�, °��q b`� "!"� �`x �'' C � *A `P.�� :,��, �1 C � � ��a "i ; -,' "c- '""4, � .� � x.f ��t,"."�at ��1. �^,� *lpx.?p�,,R'� � .; � "'v,��. &�.. � �F � �. .,!��k��..� k k �. ��`."mro,�S i * �"°�.,. 'g E �'� �,.p, Q � (� �� . V '� �"��"�� ^€ � �Se �a � � � � _ � ^� �r�, �H,t � �:' :.. ��{ >: '�'� ��„' �_,m Q ` � -� ""�,�� ""��'` ,�t�"` >��a� "�° 'k, C � �+� � �� V � �"� � a � � g z�s �: :`'d o o � �,.„,.�; a :��" �" g 0 .,,=„ o p rt'�� y "_ �pO �p" .. , ; ;, ', � . O O , � ' *. � ' � � yz+ � O / / = O r / � � � �'ti a f"�� . r/�� '�i i /r I.� � �` . O (V t,�"�p ��"� ( �x- . � . r r � p p��_ � ry'i��a� / 70/y� / � � �' N; C r;• � , �� ,�^r �� ;�,.:' � „� � �-�� w, ��'.� �. � . �� ^� � $ � o : o $< k �O . . g � 0 ��. r �� Q � � �' �a . � r . �. � � � • � � � .. �4. E . . . . !. , � h; ��. � _ € � � � � �ii ��` ,-a� $ �� $ , �� : p� � � �d�%'i?��F � �� 8 '�� u� ' o N��S��r� ; �%'� +� � �� q yr��s�hq�r�x � '" �' u�, �' . .� � R ��l��F��s�u��i��;, �a�� ";, ti\ ,ti�r m r,�'� r iii4 r �\�� \ a �� /%i�� i �:' �, w�\�� ^w ..� � �� i�i��'�y0%'�rj�rJ�� ..� �O � 0 � � � ��?��".��/'4��i��t� * �� .: �, � � � � �� "�� '�' �x� '^� '�� k � �� \�`�� ,u ��i,� � �b� o ��\i� '��"�� „� �a�"��w��"a ��e�� u'�k�°'�� ' c"�e. �`��%� ,a �F��p e � � c'� ��`� � �\��.�: � a'�"��:, k��, 3H °� �p`�� ^� a� r d.�`.A `� . �� ``o��", i%��,�� 7 ��g��\\°��kg+� � ?� � y�"`'i""'�p k a ��. p A��V�� '�n "' ss.'.O a� �.�4� �.�� `� ��`�� rg= � cq c F� \\� � � ��,�` �.O��\�V`��. ��u\\�.. �� a � ^yc ��\ ��j��\ �� .r+ a � ��\� ,y��ti�oy��`�� ^ � F� " ��°��o� ��`��' ��+�.�� a��`\\� � ��g � � � � ��'�a��"� c ��a�� , � �a�� µ�. � ��' ;' ��„ �� o ��,„. �� . � �`�� s��"� W l� �r��"�� x�� `��y��: �; v`��i�c"� e . b �� ,' �*�' � �� " �x��*,� s� � fn t- � �� 5� s x � d"� N � � � � � s � � � � � \��\��? � u� � C � 0 M ��.a` g � L p cd G L � a�c 7 r-• U L � � � N � ,N �' � C � �� s > > i � M 2a �i 3� � � � � � •R� � �`�� V >. m �� H3m3 � ti ,�:� , ,. ° ... � �. ro _ r. a p �_,f� "SY U� Fp„ "y,��` s � 'ti �4 M 4'�E �t , '` t,`� �g,� k a � �n c .��..'. x�m *� w,�;�'. � �. ��w, C � 'y ', �.t 4�� yp� � , �+ �� "*.�,,�+; ° �; '� � d � �� a� . � •V � �� *'4a'��'��rl, .� 4� ��. '� 7 � � �� ,� ��` `° �� ""� �. Q � � . m�� , v � ��,��`�,,, �`..�� . � ; � a � d �� H. � � � . �' �-;_ � ,, , �. � � � a�i �� lµ�.�,, �.�„�, ..� � L � ��"�� '� "�y ' "' `i �� /� V �� qL � ,�� V/ _ '"r.a'+.:�.. �� k. � ��e, e �' �* a;�, .. d ^ ��, �, p � � � � � � � �� g �,:��u ;,�� o �� . =�� i. ;�;,. �� ;� � � �,��R � + �'. � ,.� � ��. �� t � � o N C � � a T Q � U Q� O � yLt N p M a`�i0 � •� 3 `m � �, � a� -o � > G� �o Y � _ � � �+ > � � � w � � {0 va�i � '.aF—� o �� m J H � m � � � � � APPENDIX 3 Water Level Change Maps For June 2006 to the New Full Condition k� x +4 qtt.. ��- ' � `3 �?�.p� � � �� f�4 . � 3 s� .t.�'� � �' � <a�� `� "��rC�'t �� '"J O 1`� �.-' t� �t �� „�;q�.;�-� � C O ��"'� ,'� ti- + O N M '� �,`' � '��'`.�'`;� �� + ^� �.F ,� G� � � O O -�,, �'^�, � � �` 7 � O ��x�� O O O O a � �� "`e,,» � ,,. 3 � E �.� �- Q _ o � „o � o u� t- c� �� , � a �; �`w`�� , . � 3 � �`' �t�, �t�,'�.�� c v� ` � .� � , �;�, o � d � . �� c � � � � �`�,��, _ J � _.� �-�;�.�� , . �_ �.- �; � g��3� � �� 7 .� L � �� '�� "',�,-` � � � ' �� '�, �'_ �,.7 V �",�� , � �' � � ,.� b� ., ,,�,,. � �a�. L i.�� ''�� '`a$ �� a ro'��, � � �wj °l��y�w �'',#N ..`� " .} �,�"� R %�, Y� �P ��qt i'd°�� a F . ;y .h�"," :�Cit` ,y $ �\ �t � � �h k�� .:. .�3 !` a ,u� � 1 �. '�i��'3Nr�.F+} d �� n�� , ��y�;�� q i *n � �� '�. �y ` ...v.�� , k�� Y.:r �a `�'a�°y �� y �*:. � ��'4;+� � �' � "�y f 5,.�' a �,� q� �'�:""�"�.. ~��: ,..<h � �`k. . � �'y,�„� �'�:, .w v �: � � � � �� : �'`�� .�':. ;� ��.;� �� . �,�� , � � � � � � ' � , w. _``� j ��, � � � � � `� J �• ��"N� � � . �� .� . . � �ae � t �� y �a �� j � a. ��, �� t��' ' � ��. �� 1�, ��• � ��. «� �eh��:rt � . . ��.. �s a �e �� a I �3 � �� t � .. '''+++��...��,,,�� .o,....� —.�..�+��.„ . �� ..e...a<�.+.....�.......«,., .,.f I� �� A� ��,,� �-°'� �,,•► ��, � t'-'`�� «a''�� ' �� '� � �� q ro��.. t r '`'�� k� 3" s �''��t,� � � ;�<� � ��f��: i �a'1 V- �."'�4�" � � � 'J O O M � �` � � �, :~ � +�+ m ��" �� Y � � � C7 iV '�t 00 '*� �;r.�,� ` ��€ „�...`"�„ � . .�.+� O O O , � , � � 7 r �p � �,�'�` � G� O� a +• .•-• .•-• �� "�, � �a�� , w,. �.� � �. �..x� (� p .;:z �'�° 3 •••� O O rJ � ��'�4 ��b, .�� '�; Q p � � _ .Q � O l[1 e— tV �T' a., ' �� . � � � N ` �� '�`'' , �� ,��`, � , � �, J � ��=� � c� ,. � � � � ��. . •v � �� , , . �� , � { a � , LL ��,�m�»w��,;� �°.' � � � „� ' ,,�, a �� . � � �, � � � � �� a �k�. "� � '1:,� a. �: � t � � �� g4�y�pdp � •�1� � ` �Q��,. � �`t�" � 9 w"� q i� •�.T ��t�e� 1�� y� < ' „ ,�� •"�. ��6�+��f�,��,^� ��r��t�$� ��, «� �f �^r' " ��o�.. ��p " �� a'�� t ' �� "�"a � �,��. .A' . .t'��" ,�� i �N�w,u^'�, '�� ,�'""a � ,� ��, � ,� �" b � � :- � � � �� " g �s*ry �}� .r� � . � .,,�.�. �� t � h d"��.�r. � � � � � � ��M 3:•�.� wM ��!� � G;.; ':��* j a�f`a .. � � ., S , �� n�• h $ ��,m { � ��., ��x �.. ��*� � �{� , a � , �� ,� .� �� p� .� .--�� *� a� ��, � � � � ti �, �� j °5 � � _.F � � ;� �y� y�� i a . _+"'" es,�� 3 ��'" � �'t'� � . �� "" `�'"�k"�"4•�. � O "��^� �,� � � #''�i Q CV �}' P� -c. �.'�9 &' �`,�� L � ' � � � � n �°" �� „ .�s O O O �`�, `�, �� " � }, f, 7�� + o yr �Hi �� 1 « �. � V o � ��b��`: 3 .� .•r }. o 0 o ti� � ; , � � �,� p ,� � � u'3 � N d� � * � . ,� � Q � N - �� ,,�� >�,,. � � ��.� �� `�"; �. , � � d �,� �'t��:.�� ' � �� .... C � � � �� r ' d J � � � � ;;..€ ��. d L ' � � / � ` �r Q � � � '""z.. ��° � � � �� " .�� . �s.�. / ,x .:� -�,,,, a�.,„� ��k,.... b � i� � O ��y .7�.ffi�� '� � ^. � �" �'4,�y�t'�W�,��z> . �°"'�� '�,,� . ,,,��y�., �� 4�:a,' . ��"s s � ;:�.s:. .. � ��wy� ''"�"�� _� ,�,� i s� �" � ,�w� ffi�� " �� ' +:` � „��"� `�` � wk�- �� . �"��..�..� ,�-.� "'M �:; . . .� .� ,. t � `� , � � �' °;°�„ , � _�, � � �� a�� , ��` r,,�•�-- ,�_,,Q�� '�- � �, � ! � . . �j �",;a`�: , � °,�� x c � "�� : �' �,� ._..,.� � �.4: +,e. '� t� +d�..1' � »ro�` »ro, � � � �� %`�� '4 a�„�,s�.��t, �/�' .. � � �` „ � � �'� � �F � +j t �� '� `p `rE ��` � � n� fi � F s �� .�� r �� a�.. '��"�� . j � �� r�� s�, � �� x: .w"""„k, � , i�� r . �. 1{�� "�, � ,l �I i' �'f U �� e � � ' �r ,+ J ,r�� r` Y � �° !� ��,.,✓ 'r r � � � / � � � �� .,�� ..�� g,� �` e' �� .�� , ��