CC 2017-07-25_09g NCMA Annual Report
MEMORANDUM
TO: CITY COUNCIL
FROM: CHRISTOPHER MAGDOSKU, PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR
BY: SHANE TAYLOR, UTILITIES MANAGER
SUBJECT: ANNUAL REPORT FOR THE 2016 NORTHERN CITIES MANAGEMENT
AREA
DATE: JULY 25, 2017
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended that the City Council receive and file the 2016 Northern Cities
Management Area (NCMA) annual report.
SUMMARY OF ACTION:
The attached technical report presents an assessment of groundwater conditions based
on data collected during the 2016 calendar year. The document satisfies a requirement
of the “Stipulation and Judgement After Trial” for the Santa Maria Groundwater Basin
Adjudication. This document is also useful for those wishing to understand the
groundwater basin used by the cities of Arroyo Grande, Grover Beach, Pismo Beach,
and the Oceano Community Services District. No action other than receiving and filing
the document is recommended at this time.
IMPACT ON FINANCIAL AND PERSONNEL RESOURCES:
Expenditures associated with the 2016 annual report in the amount of $66,000 are
budgeted in the Water Fund.
BACKGROUND:
NCMA Annual Report
Due to a California Superior Court Ruling in 2008, the rights to the Santa Maria
Groundwater Basin (SMGB) have been adjudicated to various agencies. Part of that
ruling established three management areas, including the Northern Cities Management
Area (NCMA), the Nipomo Mesa Management Area (NMMA) and the Santa Maria
Valley Management Area (SMVMA). The City of Arroyo Grande is part of the NCMA
along with the cities of Grover Beach and Pismo Beach, and the Oceano Community
Services District. Further, the court ruling mandated that “a monitoring program be
established in each of the three Management Areas to collect and analyze data
regarding water supply and demand conditions,” and an annual report be filed with the
Court within 120 days after the end of each calendar year.
In 2009, a technical group of the NCMA jurisdictions was formed to meet on a monthly
basis to coordinate water sampling and preparation of an annual report required by the
Court’s decision in the Santa Maria Groundwater Basin Adjudication. The NCMA
Item 9.g. - Page 1
CITY COUNCIL
PRESENTATION OF THE ANNUAL REPORT FOR THE NORTHERN CITIES
MANAGEMENT AREA
JULY 25, 2017
PAGE 2
Technical Group jointly selects consultants to provide engineering and water resource
technical services in order to meet the court ordered requirements for the Santa Maria
Groundwater Basin, as well as for overall water resource planning.
Through the NCMA Technical Group (NCMA TG), member agencies work together to
manage the SMGB and meet the annual reporting requirements of the Court Order.
The 2016 NCMA Annual Report, prepared by GSI Water Solutions, Inc. (GSI), was filed
with the Court in April 2016 after being reviewed by the City’s special water counsel.
ANALYSIS OF ISSUES:
NCMA Annual Report
The 2005 Stipulation, later affirmed in the 2008 Judgement, for the Santa Maria
Groundwater Basin Adjudication requires that each of the monitoring areas, identified in
the adjudication, develop a monitoring program that is sufficient to determine:
Land and water uses in the basin;
Sources of supply to meet those uses;
Groundwater conditions (including water levels and water quality);
Amount and disposition of developed water supplies; and
Amount and disposition of other sources of water supply in the NCMA.
The Stipulation additionally requires that each of the Management Areas prepare an
annual report, to be submitted to the court, that summarizes the results of the
monitoring program, changes in groundwater supplies, and any threats to groundwater
supplies.
In 2009, the NCMA TG selected Todd Engineers to initiate the NCMA monitoring
program, which included collection of water quality samples from coastal sentry wells,
and to begin development of the 2009 NCMA Annual Report. GEI Consulting
Engineers and Scientists performed the monitoring and prepared reports for 2010 -
2012, and Fugro Consultants for 2013 - 2015, all of which have been successfully
submitted to the Court.
The NCMA TG is currently facilitated by Water Systems Consulting, Inc. (WSC).
Together, the NCMA TG and WSC hired GSI to compile the data gathered during
quarterly groundwater monitoring and to create the 2016 NCMA Annual Report. A copy
of the full report is available for public viewing at the Arroyo Grande Public Works
Corporation Yard, 1375 Ash Street or it can be viewed on the City’s website by visiting
www.arroyogrande.org. The following list is a summary of the report’s highlights and
important information:
Item 9.g. - Page 2
CITY COUNCIL
PRESENTATION OF THE ANNUAL REPORT FOR THE NORTHERN CITIES
MANAGEMENT AREA
JULY 25, 2017
PAGE 3
1. During 2016, several wells throughout the NCMA exhibited an overall decline in
water level since the beginning of the year. In October 2015, two wells (30K03
and 28K02) in the east-central to northeastern portion of the NCMA reached
historic low water levels. Additionally, the water level in 33K03, located near the
NCMA/NMMA boundary continues to be near historic low levels.
2. The total water used in the NCMA in 2016 (surface, state water, groundwater,
and other water), including applied irrigation and private pumping by rural water
uses, was 8,108.30 acre feet (AF), compared to 8,988.45 AF in 2015, and is
summarized below in Table 1. Total ground water pumping was 3,511.46 AF
which is 37% of the 9,500 AF safe yield.
Table 1
Total Water Used in the NCMA in 2016 in Acre-Feet (AF)
Lake Lopez State Water Ground
Water
Other
Supplies Total
Arroyo Grande 1,704.20 0 164.98 79.0 1,948.18
Grover Beach 775.41 0 434.20 0 1,209.61
Pismo Beach 130.65 1,240.00 275.80 0 1,646.45
OCSD 0 667.58 4.78 0 672.36
Total Urban Use 2,610.26 1,907.58 879.76 79.0 5,476.60
Applied Irrigation 0 0 2,550.50 0 2,550.50
Rural Water Users 0 0 81.2 0 81.2
Grand Total Used 2,610.26 1,907.58 3,511.46 79.0 8,108.30
Even with the reduced pumping, water elevations throughout the area declined
by several feet, with some areas finishing the year with water elevations below
sea level. Typically, when pumping is less than the yield of an aquifer, the
remaining volume of groundwater results in increased groundwater in storage,
which is then manifested by rising water levels. The current condition, with
groundwater pumping at 37% of the safe yield and declining water elevations,
illustrates the impacts of the ongoing severe drought that has significantly
reduced recharge.
3. During 2016, there were no indications of seawater intrusion. There were slightly
elevated concentrations of Total Dissolved Solids in one well. Sodium and
chloride were within historical concentration ranges.
4. Rainfall for the 2016 calendar year was approximately 100% of the long-term
average rainfall. With 15.1 inches of rain, this is the second time since 2001 that
rainfall was equal to or greater than the long term average.
Item 9.g. - Page 3
CITY COUNCIL
PRESENTATION OF THE ANNUAL REPORT FOR THE NORTHERN CITIES
MANAGEMENT AREA
JULY 25, 2017
PAGE 4
5. The NCMA relies on three deep sentry wells to provide an index for tracking the
elevation and apparent health of the basin. The average of these well elevations
is referred to as the Key Well Index and the NCMA TG has established a Key
Well Index of 7.5 feet as an alert level to monitor for saltwater intrusion. Between
October 2007 and August 2009, groundwater levels remained below this
threshold, and high concentrations of chloride and sodium occurred in two of the
sentry wells late in 2009.
The deep well index started 2016 above the trigger value, with an index value of
9.18 in January 2016. By April 2016, the index value dropped to 8.53 (1.03 feet
above the trigger value). Between April 2016 and October 2016 the deep well
index remained below the index trigger value, reaching an index value of 5.64
feet in October. In October 2016, the deep well index began to rise and since
mid-December has been above the trigger value.
6. Groundwater contours for both the spring and fall of 2016 show areas below sea
level.
Based on the findings of this report, it is clear that the drought has had a serious impact
on the SMGB, however, the groundwater levels in the NCMA rebounded due to last
winter rains in early 2017 and are currently above the key well index by approximately
3.25 feet.
ALTERNATIVES:
The following alternatives are provided for the Council’s consideration:
1. Receive and file annual NCMA report; or
2. Provide staff other direction.
ADVANTAGES:
The NCMA Annual Report is required by the court and includes important monitoring
information pertinent to the City’s groundwater supply.
DISADVANTAGES:
No disadvantages have been identified.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:
No environmental review is required for this item.
PUBLIC NOTIFICATION AND COMMENTS:
The Agenda was posted at City Hall and on the City’s website in accordance with
Government Code Section 54954.2.
Attachment:
1. NCMA 2016 Annual Report
Item 9.g. - Page 4
Northern Cities Management Area
2016 Annual Monitoring Report
Prepared for
The Northern Cities Management Area
Technical Group
City of Arroyo Grande
City of Grover Beach
Oceano Community Services District
City of Pismo Beach
April 25, 2017
Prepared by
ATTACHMENT 1
Item 9.g. - Page 5
NCMA 2016 Annual Monitoring Report
- ii -
This page left blank intentionally.
Item 9.g. - Page 6
NCMA 2016 Annual Monitoring Report
- iii -
Northern Cities Management Area
2016 Annual Monitoring Report
This report was prepared by the staff of GSI Water Solutions, Inc., in collaboration with GEI Consultants,
Inc. (for calculation of the agricultural water demand estimates and report write-up), under the supervision
of professionals whose signatures appear heron. The findings or professional opinion were prepared in
accordance with generally accepted professional engineering and geologic practice.
GSI WATER SOLUTIONS, INC.
Paul A. Sorensen, PG, CHg Timothy A. Nicely, PG, CHg
Principal Hydrogeologist Supervising Hydrogeologist
Project Manager
GEI CONSULTANTS, INC.
Samuel W. Schaefer, PE
Senior Engineer
Item 9.g. - Page 7
NCMA 2016 Annual Monitoring Report
- iv -
This page left blank intentionally.
Item 9.g. - Page 8
NCMA 2016 Annual Monitoring Report
- v -
CONTENTS
Page
Executive Summary ...................................................................................................................... 1
Groundwater Conditions ................................................................................................... 1
Groundwater Levels ................................................................................................. 1
Change in Groundwater in Storage .......................................................................... 2
Groundwater Quality ................................................................................................ 3
Water Supply and Demand ............................................................................................... 3
Threats to Water Supply ................................................................................................... 4
1. Introduction ....................................................................................................................... 1
1.1 Description of the NCMA Technical Group............................................................ 2
1.2 Coordination with Management Areas .................................................................. 3
2. Area Description ................................................................................................................ 5
2.1 Setting ................................................................................................................... 5
2.2 Precipitation ........................................................................................................... 5
2.3 Evapotranspiration ................................................................................................ 6
3. Groundwater Conditions ................................................................................................... 7
3.1 Geology and Hydrogeology ................................................................................... 7
3.2 Groundwater Flow ................................................................................................. 7
3.3 Groundwater Monitoring Network .......................................................................... 8
3.4 Groundwater Levels ............................................................................................ 10
3.4.1 Groundwater Level Contour Maps .............................................................. 10
3.4.2 Historical Water Level Trends ..................................................................... 10
3.4.3 Sentry Wells ................................................................................................ 11
3.5 Change in Groundwater in Storage ..................................................................... 12
3.6 Water Quality ....................................................................................................... 13
3.6.1 Quarterly Groundwater Monitoring ............................................................. 13
3.6.2 Analytical Results Summary ....................................................................... 13
4. Water Supply and Demand ............................................................................................. 17
4.1 Water Supply ....................................................................................................... 17
4.1.1 Lopez Lake ................................................................................................. 17
4.1.2 State Water Project ..................................................................................... 20
4.1.3 Groundwater ............................................................................................... 20
4.1.4 Developed Water ........................................................................................ 22
4.1.5 Total Water Supply Availability ................................................................... 23
4.2 Water Use ........................................................................................................... 24
4.2.1 Agricultural Water Supply Requirements .................................................... 24
4.2.2 Rural Demand ............................................................................................. 29
4.2.3 Urban Production ........................................................................................ 30
Item 9.g. - Page 9
NCMA 2016 Annual Monitoring Report
- vi -
4.2.4 2016 Groundwater Pumpage ...................................................................... 31
4.2.5 Changes in Water Demand ........................................................................ 33
5. Comparison of Water Supply v. Water Demand ............................................................. 35
6. Threats to Water Supply ................................................................................................. 37
6.1 Threats to Local Groundwater Supply ................................................................. 37
6.1.1 Declining Water Levels ............................................................................... 37
6.1.2 Seawater Intrusion ...................................................................................... 38
6.1.3 Measures to Avoid Seawater Intrusion ....................................................... 38
6.2 Threats to State Water Project Supply ................................................................ 39
6.3 Threats to Lopez Lake Water Supply .................................................................. 39
7. Management Activities .................................................................................................... 41
7.1 Management Objectives ...................................................................................... 41
7.1.1 Share Groundwater Resources and Manage Pumping .............................. 44
7.1.2 Enhance Management of NCMA Groundwater .......................................... 46
7.1.3 Monitor Supply and Demand and Share Information .................................. 47
7.1.4 Manage Groundwater Levels and Prevent Seawater Intrusion .................. 48
7.1.5 Protect Groundwater Quality ...................................................................... 50
7.1.6 Manage Cooperatively ................................................................................ 51
7.1.7 Encourage Water Conservation .................................................................. 52
7.1.8 Evaluate Alternative Sources of Supply ...................................................... 58
8. References ...................................................................................................................... 61
Tables
Page
Table 1. NCMA TG Representatives ............................................................................................ 2
Table 2. Lopez Lake (FCWCD Zone 3 Contractors) Normal and 2016 LRRP Water Allocations
under LRRP Diversion Reduction Strategy (AFY) ................................................... 18
Table 3. Lopez Lake Municipal Diversion Reduction Strategy Low Reservoir Response Plan .. 18
Table 4. Lopez Lake Downstream Release Reduction Strategy Low Reservoir Response Plan 18
Table 5. 2016 Lopez Lake Discharges ....................................................................................... 19
Table 6. NCMA Groundwater Pumpage from Santa Maria Groundwater Basin, 2016 ............... 22
Table 7. Baseline (Full Allotment) Available Urban Water Supplies (AFY) ................................. 23
Table 8. 2016 Available Urban Water Supply, under 2016 Lopez LRRP 10% Municipal
Reduction Diversion (AF) ......................................................................................... 24
Table 9. 2016 NCMA Crop Acreages and Calculated Evapotranspiration ................................. 26
Table 10. 2016 IDC Model Results of Monthly Applied Water .................................................... 29
Table 11. Estimated Rural Water Use ........................................................................................ 30
Table 12. Urban Water Production (Groundwater and Surface Water, AF) ................................ 31
Table 13. NCMA Groundwater Pumpage from Santa Maria Groundwater Basin, 2016 (AF) ..... 32
Table 14. Total Water Demand (Groundwater and Surface Water, AF) ..................................... 33
Table 15. 2016 Water Demand by Source (AF) .......................................................................... 35
Item 9.g. - Page 10
NCMA 2016 Annual Monitoring Report
- vii -
Figures (all figures are presented at the end of the report)
Figure 1. Santa Maria Groundwater Basin
Figure 2. Northern Cities Management Area
Figure 3. Annual Precipitation 1950 to 2016
Figure 4. Locations of Precipitation Stations
Figure 5. Monthly 2016 and Average Precipitation and Evapotranspiration
Figure 6. Locations of Monitoring Wells
Figure 7. Depths of Monitoring Wells
Figure 8. Groundwater Level Contours Spring 2016
Figure 9. Groundwater Level Contours Fall 2016
Figure 10. Selected Hydrographs
Figure 11. Sentry Well Hydrographs
Figure 12. Hydrograph of Deep Well Index Level
Figure 13. Water Elevation, Conductivity, and Temperature, Well 24B03
Figure 14. Water Elevation, Conductivity, and Temperature, Well 30F03
Figure 15. Water Elevation, Conductivity, and Temperature, Well 30N02
Figure 16. Water Elevation, Conductivity, and Temperature, Well 36L01
Figure 17. Water Elevation, Conductivity, and Temperature, Well 36L02
Figure 18. Water Elevation, Conductivity, and Temperature, Well 32C03
Figure 19. Change in Groundwater Levels, April 2015 to April 2016
Figure 20. Chloride Concentrations in Monitoring Wells
Figure 21. Total Dissolved Solids Concentrations in Monitoring Wells
Figure 22. Piper Diagram of Water Quality in Select Monitoring Wells
Figure 23. NCMA Agricultural Land 2016
Figure 24. 2016 NCMA Estimated Applied Agricultural Water and Monthly Precipitation at the
Oceano Station
Figure 25. Municipal Water Use by Source
Figure 26. Total Water Use (Urban, Rural, Ag) by Source
Figure 27. Historical TDS, Chloride and Sodium, Index Wells and 30N03
Figure 28. Historical TDS, Chloride and Sodium, Wells 30N02, MW-Blue and 36L01
Appendices
Appendix A NCMA Monitoring Well Water Level and Water Quality Data
Item 9.g. - Page 11
NCMA 2016 Annual Monitoring Report
- viii -
This page left blank intentionally.
Item 9.g. - Page 12
NCMA 2016 Annual Monitoring Report
- ES-1 -
Executive Summary
The 2016 Annual Monitoring Report for the Northern Cities Management Area (NCMA; Annual
Report) is prepared pursuant to the requirements of the Stipulation and Judgment After Trial
(Judgment) for the Santa Maria Groundwater Basin Adjudication. The Annual Report provides an
assessment of hydrologic conditions for the NCMA based on data collected during the calendar
year of record. As specified in the Judgment, the NCMA agencies, consisting of the City of Arroyo
Grande, City of Grover Beach, City of Pismo Beach, and Oceano Community Services District
(CSD), regularly monitor groundwater in the NCMA and analyze other data pertinent to water supply
and demand, including:
Land and water uses in the basin
Sources of supply to meet water demand
Groundwater conditions (including water levels and water quality)
Amount and disposition of NCMA water supplies that are not groundwater
Results of the data compilation and analysis for calendar year 2016 are documented and discussed
in this Annual Report.
Groundwater Conditions
During 2016, water elevations in several water wells throughout portions of the NCMA exhibited an
overall decline, although there are some areas in the NCMA that have maintained more normal
groundwater levels. In the northeastern portion of the NCMA, some wells reached historical low
water levels near the end of 2016. In the portion of the basin near the boundary of the NCMA and
the Nipomo Mesa Management Area (NMMA), water elevations continue to be near historical low
levels.
Groundwater Levels
Of particular importance as a guide to the ability of the NCMA portion of the basin to prevent
seawater intrusion are the water elevations in the NCMA “sentry wells” near the coastline. The
water elevations from three of the key sentry wells are then averaged to generate the “Deep Well
Index,” which is an index developed by the NCMA in 2007 as a benchmark to gauge the health of
the basin. A Deep Well Index value above 7.5 feet is generally considered by the NCMA to indicate
that sufficient freshwater flow occurs from the east to the coastline to prevent seawater intrusion; a
continued Deep Well Index level below 7.5 feet is thought to indicate conditions suitable for
seawater intrusion.
Spring 2016. In the mostly urbanized area of NCMA north of Arroyo Grande Creek,
groundwater contours in the spring of 2016 generally showed a westerly groundwater flow
and gradient toward the ocean, and a southerly flow toward the Cienega Valley. These
positive groundwater gradients have been developed and maintained in most part because
the NCMA agencies have collaborated on water management and conservation efforts
keyed to the Deep Well Index to ensure that flow to the ocean continues to prevent seawater
Item 9.g. - Page 13
NCMA 2016 Annual Monitoring Report
- ES-2 -
intrusion. There are limited water level data in the central and southern portions of the area,
so the groundwater gradient and flow are less well known. This report infers the level in
those areas using historical trends and water level data from the NMMA farther to the east.
The data indicate that the Cienega Valley, the east-central part of the NCMA where
centralized agricultural pumping occurs, has very low water elevations. In the main
producing aquifer, spring 2016 levels were generally below “sea level”. Recorded elevations
were as low as -14.97 feet North American Vertical Datum of 1988 (NAVD88). (Note that 0
feet NAVD88 is approximately 2.7 feet below “Mean Sea Level”). By contrast, water
elevations in the primary production zone along the coast ranged from 6.21 to 8.26 feet
NAVD88.
Fall 2016. Fall 2016 groundwater contours show a similar trend with a continued lowering
of water elevations across the region. The northern urbanized area continued a westerly to
southerly groundwater flow gradient. In the Cienega Valley, water elevations were below 0
feet NAVD88 throughout most of the valley, with water elevations as much as -20.48 feet
NAVD88. Water elevations in the primary production zone along the coast ranged from 2.69
to 6.53 feet NAVD88.
Deep Wells. The Deep Well Index began 2016 at about 9 feet NAVD88, which is about 1.5
feet above the index reference value of 7.5 feet. The Deep Well Index value increased
steadily until mid-March, reaching a level slightly below 11 feet. Then, the level dropped
gradually throughout the spring and summer, dropping below the 7.5-foot reference level in
late May. The level then remained within the 5-foot to 7-foot level throughout the summer
and into mid-November, when the index value increased above the 7.5-foot level to finish
2016 at just over 9 feet.
NCMA/NMMA Boundary. The water elevation in the San Luis Obispo County monitoring
well installed to monitor basin conditions along the NCMA/NMMA boundary dropped below
0 feet NAVD88 in late August 2016 and remained at a low elevation until early October,
when the water level began to rise. Water elevations in this well typically show regular
seasonal fluctuations, and generally reflects aquifer conditions within the Cienega Valley.
Change in Groundwater in Storage
The relative change of groundwater levels and associated change in groundwater in storage in the
NCMA portion of the basin between April 2015 and April 2016 were estimated on the basis of a
comparison of water level contour maps created for these periods. Comparison of the April water
levels was chosen to comply with the Department of Water Resources reporting requirements under
the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA).
During the period of April 2015 to April 2016, there was a localized groundwater level decline in the
Cienega Valley likely related to a slight increase in agricultural pumping, reduced percolation of
precipitation recharge from the ongoing drought, and possibly reduced subsurface inflow recharge
from the east. A localized groundwater level rise in the northern urban areas is the result of reduced
municipal pumpage through collaboration of water management and conservation efforts. In the
coastal areas underlying the Oceano Dunes, the water levels were relatively unchanged during this
period. These factors combined to result in a calculated groundwater in storage increase by
approximately 340 acre feet.
Item 9.g. - Page 14
NCMA 2016 Annual Monitoring Report
- ES-3 -
Groundwater Quality
Total Dissolved Solids (TDS). TDS concentrations primarily measure the amount of salts in
the water. The primary standard for drinking water is TDS concentrations less than 500
milligrams per liter (mg/L). In general, TDS concentrations were within historical ranges in
all wells throughout 2016 with the exception of the Oceano CSD MW-Blue well (31H11;
MW-Blue well), which had an elevated TDS concentration of 780 mg/L (the typical range for
this well is 250 to 450 mg/L). This TDS concentration in MW-Blue well represents the highest
TDS concentration observed in the well since 2009-2010, when TDS concentrations were
elevated in several wells along the coast due to apparent incipient seawater intrusion.
Chloride. Chloride concentrations were within historical concentration ranges in all wells
throughout 2016. The MW-Blue well that exhibited high TDS concentrations had significantly
lower chloride levels than has been observed in the well since 2011, which mitigates the
initial concern that a high TDS level could portend an emerging seawater intrusion event.
The reason for the unusually high TDS concentration coupled with an abnormally low
chloride level is not known.
Sodium. Sodium concentrations were within historical concentration ranges in all wells
throughout 2016.
Water Supply and Demand
Total water use in the NCMA in 2016, including urban use by the NCMA agencies as well
as agricultural irrigation and private pumping by rural water users, was 8,108.3 acre feet
(AF), which is the lowest estimated total water use in the past 30 years or longer. Of this
amount, Lopez Lake deliveries were 2,610.26 AF, State Water Project deliveries totaled
1,907.58 AF, and groundwater pumping from the NCMA portion of the Santa Maria
Groundwater Basin (SMGB) accounted for approximately 3,511.46 AF (which also
constitutes the lowest production volume from the SMGB in more than 17 years).
Groundwater pumping from the Pismo Formation, outside the SMGB, accounted for 79 AF.
The breakdown is shown in the following table (following page).
In general, urban water demand has ranged from 5,476.6 AF (current year 2016) to 8,982
AF (2007). Demand since 2007 has steadily declined, with only slight increases in the trend
in 2012 and 2013. The decline in pumpage since 2013 was in direct response to a statewide
executive order by the governor to reduce the amount of water used in urban areas by 25%,
which was achieved locally by conservation activities implemented by the NCMA agencies.
Since 2013, when urban demand was 7,939 AF, urban demand has declined dramatically
to 6,855.37 AF in 2014; 5,942.95 AF in 2015; and 5,476.6 AF in 2016.
Agricultural acreage has remained fairly constant. Thus, annual applied water requirement
for agricultural irrigation has been relatively stable and varies mostly with weather
conditions. Acknowledging the variability resulting from weather conditions, agricultural
applied water is not expected to change significantly given the relative stability of applied
irrigation acreage and cropping patterns in the NCMA. Changes in rural demand have not
been significant.
Item 9.g. - Page 15
NCMA 2016 Annual Monitoring Report
- ES-4 -
Urban Area Lopez Lake
(AF)
State Water
Project
(AF)
SMGB
Groundwater
(AF)
Other
Supplies
(AF)
Total
(AF)
Arroyo Grande 1,704.20 0 164.98 79.0 1,948.18
Grover Beach 775.41 0 434.20 0 1,209.61
Pismo Beach 130.65 1,240.00 275.80 0 1,646.45
Oceano CSD 0.00 667.58 4.78 0 672.36
Urban Water Use Total 2,610.26 1,907.58 879.76 79.0 5,476.60
Agricultural Water Supply
Requirement 0 0 2,494 0 2,494
Rural Water Users 0 0 81.2 0 81.2
Nonpotable Irrigation by
Arroyo Grande 0 0 56.5 0 56.5
Total 2,610.26 1,907.58 3,511.46 79.0 8,108.3
Notes:
CSD = Community Services District
SMGB = Santa Maria Groundwater Basin
Threats to Water Supply
Total groundwater pumping from the SMGB in the NCMA (urban, agriculture, and rural
domestic) was 3,511.46 AF in 2016, which is 37 percent of the calculated 9,500 AF per year
(AFY) long-term yield of the NCMA portion of the SMGB. Despite significantly reduced
pumping, however, 2016 water elevations throughout the area remained comparable to
those in 2015. The agricultural area of Cienega Valley finished 2016 with water elevations
well below sea level.
When pumping is less than the yield of an aquifer, groundwater in storage increases as
manifested by rising water levels. The current condition, with groundwater pumping at 37
percent of the safe yield and steady or lowering water elevations, illustrates the impacts of
the ongoing severe drought that has significantly reduced recharge, and the continuing
impacts of groundwater pumping.
During 2016, there were no indications of seawater intrusion.
Item 9.g. - Page 16
NCMA 2016 Annual Monitoring Report
- 1 -
1. Introduction
The 2016 Annual Monitoring Report (Annual Report) summarizes hydrologic conditions for calendar
year 2016 in the Northern Cities Management Area (NCMA) of the Santa Maria Groundwater Basin
(SMGB) in San Luis Obispo County (County), California. This report was prepared on behalf of four
public agencies collectively referred to as the Northern Cities, which includes the City of Arroyo
Grande (Arroyo Grande), City of Grover Beach (Grover Beach), City of Pismo Beach (Pismo Beach)
and the Oceano Community Services District (Oceano CSD) (the NCMA agencies). These
agencies, along with local landowners, the County, the San Luis Obispo County Flood Control &
Water Conservation District (FCWCD), and the Coastal San Luis Resource Conservation District,
have managed local surface water and groundwater resources in the area since the late 1970s to
preserve the long-term integrity of water supplies.
The collaborative approach was recognized in the 2001 Groundwater Management Agreement
(which was based on the 1983 “Gentlemen’s Agreement”), formalized in the 2002 Settlement
Agreement between the NCMA agencies, Northern Landowners, and Other Parties (2002
Settlement Agreement), and incorporated in the 2005 Stipulation for the Santa Maria Groundwater
Basin Adjudication (Stipulation). On June 30, 2005, the Stipulation was agreed upon by numerous
parties, including the NCMA agencies. The Stipulation included the 2002 Settlement Agreement.
The approach then was adopted by the Superior Court of California, County of Santa Clara, in its
Judgment After Trial, entered January 25, 2008 (Judgment). Although appeals to that decision were
filed, a subsequent decision by the Sixth Appellate District (filed November 21, 2012) has upheld
the Judgment. On February 13, 2013, the Supreme Court of California denied a petition to review
the decision.
In a separate but related action, a motion was filed on September 29, 2015, by the Cities of Arroyo
Grande, Pismo Beach, and Grover Beach against the Nipomo Mesa Management Area (NMMA)
and FCWCD to enforce the terms of the Stipulation and Judgment. That action was ongoing
throughout 2016.
The Judgment orders the stipulating parties to comply with all terms of the Stipulation. As specified
in the Judgment and as outlined in the Monitoring Program for the Northern Cities Management
Area (Todd Groundwater, Inc. [Todd], 2008; NCMA Monitoring Program), the NCMA agencies are
to conduct groundwater monitoring of wells in the NCMA. In accordance with requirements of the
Judgment, the NCMA agencies collect and analyze data pertinent to water supply and demand,
including:
Land and water uses in the basin
Sources of supply to meet those uses
Groundwater conditions (including water levels and water quality)
Amount and disposition of other sources of water supply in the NCMA
The Monitoring Program requires that the NCMA gather and compile pertinent information on a
calendar year basis; this is accomplished through data collected by NCMA agencies (including
necessary field work), the FCWCD, requests to other public agencies, and from online sources.
Item 9.g. - Page 17
NCMA 2016 Annual Monitoring Report
- 2 -
Periodic reports, such as Urban Water Management Plans (UWMP) prepared by Arroyo Grande,
Grover Beach, and Pismo Beach, provide information about demand, supply, and water supply
facilities. Annual data are added to the comprehensive NCMA database and analyzed. Results of
the data compilation and analysis for 2016 are documented and discussed in this Annual Report.
As shown in Figure 1, the NCMA represents the northernmost portion of the SMGB, as defined in
the adjudication and by California Department of Water Resources (DWR; DWR, 1958) as the
Santa Maria River Valley groundwater basin (Basin 3-12). Adjoining the NCMA to the southeast is
the NMMA; the Santa Maria Valley Management Area (SMVMA) encompasses the remainder of
the groundwater basin. Figure 2 shows the locations of the four NCMA agencies within the NCMA.
1.1 Description of the NCMA Technical Group
The NCMA was formalized pursuant to the Stipulation. Following formation of the NCMA, the
participating agencies appointed respective agency staff to create a Technical Group (TG) to
effectively manage the area. In 2016, the TG was composed of the following representatives of
each of the NCMA agencies (Table 1).
Table 1. NCMA TG Representatives
Agency Representative
City of Arroyo Grande
Geoff English
Public Works Director
Shane Taylor
Utilities Manager
City of Grover Beach
Gregory A. Ray, PE
Director of Public Works/City Engineer
R.J. (Jim) Garing, PE
Consulting City Engineer for Water and Sewer
City of Pismo Beach Benjamin A. Fine, PE
Director of Public Works/City Engineer
Oceano Community Services District
Paavo Ogren
General Manager
Tony Marracino
Utility Systems Supervisor
Arroyo Grande, Pismo Beach, and Grover Beach contract with Water Systems Consulting, Inc.
(WSC) to serve as staff extension to assist the TG in its roles and responsibilities in managing the
water supply resources. The full TG contracts with a consulting firm to conduct the quarterly
Item 9.g. - Page 18
NCMA 2016 Annual Monitoring Report
- 3 -
groundwater monitoring and sampling tasks, evaluate water demand and available supply, identify
threats to water supply, and assist the TG in preparation of the Annual Report. In 2016, Fugro
Consultants, Inc., performed the technical assignments from January through August; in September
2016, GSI Water Solutions, Inc. (GSI), was selected to conduct the technical tasks for the remainder
of the year and prepare this 2016 Annual Report.
1.2 Coordination with Management Areas
Since 1983, management of the NCMA was based on cooperative efforts of the four NCMA
agencies in continuing collaboration with the County, FCWCD, and other local and state agencies.
Specifically, the NCMA agencies have limited their pumping and, in cooperation with FCWCD,
invested in surface water supplies to not exceed the agreed-upon yield of the NCMA portion of the
SMGB. In addition to the efforts discussed in this 2016 Annual Report, cooperative management
occurs through many means including communication by the NCMA agencies in their respective
public meetings, participation in the FCWCD Zone 3 Technical Advisory Committee (related to the
management and operation of Lopez Lake), and involvement in the Water Resources Advisory
Council (the County-wide advisory panel on water issues). The NCMA agencies also participated
in preparation and adoption of the 2007 San Luis Obispo County Integrated Regional Water
Management Plan (2007 County IRWMP) as well as the 2014 update of the County IRWMP. The
IRWMP promotes integrated regional water management to ensure sustainable water uses, reliable
water supplies, better water quality, environmental stewardship, efficient urban development,
protection of agriculture, and a strong economy.
Since the 2008 Judgment, the NCMA has taken the lead in cooperative management of its
management area. The NCMA TG met monthly throughout 2016 and has participated in the Santa
Maria Groundwater Basin Management Area (SMGBMA) technical subcommittee, which formed in
2009. The purpose of the SMGBMA technical subcommittee is to coordinate efforts among the
management areas such as enhanced monitoring of groundwater levels and sharing of data.
An NCMA Strategic Plan was developed in 2014 for the purposes of providing the NCMA TG with
a mission statement to guide future initiatives, providing a framework for identifying and
communicating water resource planning goals and objectives, and formalizing a 10-year work plan
for implementation of those efforts. Several key objectives were identified that are related to
enhancing water supply reliability, improving water resource management, and increasing effective
public outreach. Implementation of some of these efforts continued throughout 2016.
Item 9.g. - Page 19
NCMA 2016 Annual Monitoring Report
- 4 -
This page left blank intentionally.
Item 9.g. - Page 20
NCMA 2016 Annual Monitoring Report
- 5 -
2. Area Description
2.1 Setting
The SMGB as defined in the adjudication has three jurisdictional or management areas. As shown
in Figure 1, the NCMA represents the northernmost portion of the SMGB. Adjoining the NCMA to
the south and east is the NMMA, and the SMVMA encompasses the remainder of the groundwater
basin within the Santa Maria Valley.
The northern portion of the area is dominantly urban (residential/commercial). The Cienega Valley,
a low-lying coastal stream and valley regime, is the area south of Arroyo Grande Creek in the central
part of the area and is predominantly agricultural. The southern and southwestern portions of the
area are composed of beach dunes and small lakes, and comprise a recreational area with sensitive
species habitat.
2.2 Precipitation
Each year, climatological and hydrologic (stream flow) data for the NCMA are added to the NCMA
database. Annual precipitation from 1950 to 2016 is presented in Figure 3.
Historical rainfall data are compiled on a monthly basis for the following three stations:
Desert Research Institute (DRI): Western Regional Climate Center Pismo Station (Coop ID:
046943) for 1950 to present
DWR California Irrigation Management Information System (CIMIS) Nipomo Station (No.
202) for 2006 to present
San Luis Obispo County-operated rain gauge (No. SLO 759) in Oceano for 2005 to 2009
The locations of the three stations are shown in Figure 4. In recent years, it was noted that the
CIMIS Nipomo station may have been recording irrigation overspray as precipitation and the
precipitation data from the station may not be reliable. For this reason, only the DRI and County
gauges were used in this 2016 Annual Report for precipitation data. Note that precipitation values
are averaged for station readings only for months when data are available. Average values are not
weighted on the basis of station location versus the study area. Figure 3 is a composite graph
combining data from the two stations and illustrating annual rainfall totals from 1950 through 2016
(on a calendar year basis). Annual average rainfall for the NCMA is approximately 15.6 inches.
Monthly rainfall and evapotranspiration (ET) for 2016 as well as average monthly historical rainfall
and ET are presented in Figure 5. During 2016, below-average rainfall occurred in 7 months. Above-
average rainfall occurred in May and June, then again in October, November, and December. The
total for the year was 15.05 inches, approximately equal to the average annual rainfall for the area.
The average rainfall total for 2016 is only the second time since 2001 that the area has experienced
rainfall equal to or more than the long-term average.
Figure 3 illustrates annual rainfall and exhibits several multi-year drought cycles (e.g., 6 years,
1984-1990) followed by cycles of above-average rainfall (e.g., 7 years, 1991-1998). With the
Item 9.g. - Page 21
NCMA 2016 Annual Monitoring Report
- 6 -
exception of 2010, the period 2007 through 2015 (8 years) has experienced below-average annual
rainfall indicating a “dry” hydrologic period. This pattern continued into late-2016, when the
hydrologic pattern appears to have broken the serious drought that the area (and state) has
experienced for the past 5 years.
Typically, most regional rainfall occurs from November through April. The year 2016 was marked
by significantly lower than average rainfall in winter and spring (January, February, March, and
April). Above monthly average rainfall occurred in May and June, then again in October, November,
and December.
2.3 Evapotranspiration
The CIMIS maintains weather stations in locations throughout the state to provide real time wind
speed, humidity, and evapotranspiration data. The nearest CIMIS station to the NCMA is the
Nipomo station (see Figure 4). The Nipomo station has gathered data since 2006. While this station
may have been subject to irrigation overspray in recent years (noted in the precipitation section
above), it does not have a significant impact on the measurements used for calculating ET. The
monthly ET data for the Nipomo station is shown in Figure 5 for 2016 and average (10 years)
conditions. ET rate affects recharge potential of rainfall and the amount of outdoor water use
(irrigation). In 2016, ET was close to the average conditions; however, in every month except
January and December, ET exceeded rainfall.
Item 9.g. - Page 22
NCMA 2016 Annual Monitoring Report
- 7 -
3. Groundwater Conditions
3.1 Geology and Hydrogeology
The current understanding of the geologic framework and hydrogeologic setting is based on
numerous previous investigations, particularly Woodring and Bramlette (1950), Worts (1951), DWR
(1979, 2002), and Fugro (2015).
The NCMA overlies the northwest portion of the SMGB. Groundwater pumped from the sedimentary
deposits comprising the main production aquifer underlying the NCMA is derived principally from
the Paso Robles Formation, although the underlying Careaga Sandstone also is an important
producing aquifer, as well. Quaternary-age alluvial sediments fill the alluvial valleys.
Several faults either cross or form the boundary of the NCMA, as identified by DWR (2002), Pacific
Gas & Electric (PG&E; PG&E, 2014), and others. The Oceano Fault (USGS, 2006) trends
northwest-southeast across the central portion of NCMA and has been extensively studied by
PG&E (2014). Offshore, the Oceano Fault connects with the Hosgri and Shoreline fault systems
several miles west of the coast. Onshore, the Oceano Fault consists of two mapped fault splays,
including the Oceano Fault and the Santa Maria River Fault, which diverge northward of the Oceano
Fault in the Cienega Valley before trending into and across the Nipomo Mesa.
The extent that the Oceano and Santa Maria River faults impede groundwater flow within the aquifer
materials is unknown, but movement on the faults as mapped by PG&E (2014) may suggest a
possible impediment to flow with the Careaga Formation and, possibly, the Paso Robles Formation.
PG&E (2014) suggests that the existence of the Santa Maria River Fault is “uncertain,” but the
water elevation contour maps of the NCMA (Figures 8 and 9, discussed in more detail in Section
3.3.1), may suggest that the Santa Maria River Fault plays a potential, but unknown, role in
groundwater flow across the NCMA.
The Wilmar Avenue Fault generally forms the northern boundary of the NCMA, apparently acting
as a barrier to groundwater flow from the older consolidated materials north of the fault, southward
into the SMGB. There is no evidence, however, that the Wilmar Avenue Fault impedes alluvial flow
in the Pismo Creek, Meadow Creek, or Arroyo Grande Creek alluvial valleys.
3.2 Groundwater Flow
The groundwater system of the NCMA has several sources of recharge: precipitation, agricultural
return flow, seepage from stream flow, and subsurface inflow from adjacent areas. In addition, some
return flows occur from imported surface supply sources including Lopez Lake and the State Water
Project (SWP). Discharge in the region is dominated by groundwater production from pumping
wells, but minor discharge certainly occurs through phreatophyte consumption (deep-rooted plants
that draw groundwater from the water table) and surface water outflow. Historically, groundwater
elevations in wells throughout the NCMA and resulting hydraulic gradients show that subsurface
outflow discharge occurs westward from the groundwater basin to the ocean, which is an important
control to limit the potential of seawater intrusion. This westward gradient and direction of
Item 9.g. - Page 23
NCMA 2016 Annual Monitoring Report
- 8 -
groundwater flow still is prevalent throughout the northern portion of NCMA, although there is some
evidence recently that the westward gradient may have reversed in the area of Cienega Valley.
The following descriptions of the boundary conditions of the NCMA are derived primarily from Todd
(2007). The eastern boundary is coincident with the FCWCD Zone 3 management boundary and
with the northwestern boundary of the NMMA. Aquifer materials of similar formation, provenance,
and characteristics are present across the majority of this boundary, which allows subsurface flow
to occur between the NCMA and NMMA.
The northern and northwestern boundary is coincident with the Wilmar Avenue, which is located
approximately along Highway 101 from Pismo Creek to the southeastern edge of the Arroyo Grande
Valley. There is likely insignificant subsurface flow from the consolidated materials (primarily Pismo
Formation) north of the Wilmar Avenue Fault across the boundary into the SMGB; however, basin
inflow occurs within the alluvial valleys of Arroyo Grande, Meadow, and Pismo creeks.
The southern boundary is an east-west line, roughly along the trend of Black Lake Canyon.
Historically, and typically, it appears that groundwater flow is roughly parallel to the boundary,
suggesting that little to no subsurface inflow occurs across this boundary.
The western boundary follows the coastline from Pismo Creek in the north to Black Lake Canyon.
Given the generally westward groundwater gradient in the area, this boundary is the site of
subsurface outflow, and is an important impediment to seawater intrusion. The boundary is,
however, susceptible to seawater intrusion if groundwater elevations onshore decline, such as may
be imminently occurring in the central portion of NCMA along the Cienega Valley.
3.3 Groundwater Monitoring Network
The NCMA Monitoring Program includes: (1) compilation of groundwater elevation data from the
County, (2) water quality and groundwater elevation monitoring data from the network of sentry and
monitoring wells in the NCMA, (3) water quality data from the State Water Resources Control Board
(SWRCB) Division of Drinking Water (DDW), and (4) groundwater elevation data from municipal
pumping wells. Analysis of these data is summarized below in accordance with the July 2008
Northern Cities Monitoring Program.
Approximately 150 wells within the NCMA were monitored by the County at some time during the
past few decades. The County currently monitors 75 wells on a semiannual basis (April and
October) within the NCMA. Included within the County monitoring program are five “sentry well”
clusters (piezometers) along the coast, and County monitoring well No. 3 (12N/35W-32C03), on the
eastern NCMA boundary between the NCMA and NMMA (Figure 6). The County monitors more
than 125 additional wells in the SMGB within the County. Following the findings of the 2008 Annual
Report, the NCMA agencies initiated a quarterly sentry well monitoring program to supplement the
County’s semiannual schedule.
To monitor overall changes in groundwater conditions, representative wells within the NCMA were
selected for preparation of hydrographs and evaluation of water level changes. Wells were selected
based on the following criteria:
The wells must be part of the County’s current monitoring program, or part of a public
agency’s regular monitoring program.
Item 9.g. - Page 24
NCMA 2016 Annual Monitoring Report
- 9 -
Detailed location information must be available.
Construction details of the wells must be available.
The locations of the wells should have a wide geographic distribution.
The historical record of water level data must be long and relatively complete.
Many of the wells that have been used in the program are production wells that were not designed
for monitoring purposes and may be screened in various producing zones. Moreover, many of the
wells are active production wells or located near active wells and, therefore, potentially subject to
localized pumping effects that result in measurements that are lower than the regionally
representative water level. These effects are not always apparent at the time of measurement. As
a result, data cannot easily be identified as representing static groundwater levels in specific zones
(e.g., unconfined or deep confined). Hence, data should be considered as a whole in developing a
general representation of groundwater conditions.
The sentry wells (32S/12E-24Bxx, 32S/13E-30Fxx, 32S/13E-30Nxx, and 12N/36W-36Lxx) are a
critical element of the groundwater monitoring network and provide an early warning system to
identify and quantify potential seawater intrusion in the basin (Figure 6). Each sentry well consists
of a cluster of multiple wells allowing for the measurement of groundwater elevation and quality
from discrete depths. Also shown in Figure 6 are the Oceano CSD observation well cluster, a
dedicated monitoring well cluster located just seaward of Oceano CSD production wells 7 and 8,
and County monitoring well #3 (12N/35W-32C03). Figure 7 shows the depth and well names of the
sentry well clusters, the Oceano CSD observation well cluster, and County monitoring well #3.
The wells have been divided historically into three basic depth categories: shallow, intermediate,
and deep, which describes the relative depths of each monitoring well within the cluster and does
not necessarily describe the geologic unit and relative depth of the unit that the well screen
monitors. The shallow wells are between 30 and 65 feet deep. The intermediate depth wells are
less than 150 feet deep. The deep wells are as deep as 645 feet deep.
More recently, however, it is becoming apparent that it is important to recognize and identify the
geologic unit that each well monitors; the water level responses and water quality changes are quite
different between the shallow alluvial unit (24B01, 30F01, and 30N01), the Paso Robles Formation
(24B02, 30F02, 30N02, 30N03, 36L01, Oceano Green, Oceano Blue, and 32C03), and the deeper
Careaga Sandstone (24B03, 30F03, 36L02, Oceano Silver, and Oceano Yellow). The significance
of this level of differentiation, and the impact of the value of the Deep Well Index, will be studied
more extensively in the future.
Since beginning the sentry well monitoring program in 2009, 33 quarterly events have been
conducted with one each in May, August, and October 2009, and winter, spring, summer and fall
2010 through 2016, and January and April 2017 (the 2017 data will be included in the 2017 Annual
Report). These monitoring events include collection of synoptic groundwater elevation data and
water quality samples for laboratory analysis.
Item 9.g. - Page 25
NCMA 2016 Annual Monitoring Report
- 10 -
3.4 Groundwater Levels
Groundwater elevation data are gathered from the network of wells throughout the NCMA. Water
level measurements in these wells are used to monitor effects of groundwater use, groundwater
recharge, and as an indicator of risk of seawater intrusion. Analysis of these groundwater elevation
data has included development of groundwater surface contour maps, hydrographs, and an index
of key sentry well water elevations over time.
3.4.1 Groundwater Level Contour Maps
Contoured groundwater elevations for the spring (April 2016) and fall (October 2016) monitoring
events, including data from the County monitoring program, are shown in Figures 8 and 9,
respectively.
Groundwater level contours for April 2016 are presented in Figure 8. Overall, groundwater contours
in April show a westerly to southwesterly groundwater flow north of the Santa Maria River Fault.
Because of a limited number of wells and water level data in the southern portion of the area, the
groundwater gradient and flow are generally inferred on the basis of historical records and trends,
and water level data from the NMMA farther east. Based on the data, it appears that groundwater
production in the agricultural area in Cienega Valley south of Arroyo Grande Creek resulted in a
broad pumping depression, with water elevations as low as -15 feet NAVD88. In recent years, a
second pumping depression has appeared north of Arroyo Grande Creek in the area of greatest
municipal pumping, but that historical pumping depression did not form in 2016. Water levels in the
main production zone along the coast ranged from 6.21 to 8.26 feet NAVD88.
Groundwater level contours for October 2016 are presented in Figure 9. Groundwater contours in
October 2016 show a similar overall trend as in April 2016, although with a general lowering of
water levels across the region. Much of the area south of Arroyo Grande Creek appears to have
had water levels below 0 feet NAVD88 at this time, with water elevations in Cienega Valley as low
as -20.48 feet NAVD88. Water elevations in the main production zone along the coast ranged from
2.69 to 6.53 feet NAVD88.
3.4.2 Historical Water Level Trends
Hydrographs of several water wells in the NCMA that have been a part of the County well monitoring
program since at least 1995 are presented in Figure 10.
The hydrographs for wells 32D03 and 32D11 (Figure 10) are paired hydrographs for wells in the
vicinity of the municipal wellfields. Depending on duration of pumping of the municipal wells, water
levels in these wells historically have been below levels in other areas of the basin for prolonged
periods of time. The hydrographs show that, historically, groundwater elevations in these wells
generally have been above mean sea level. However, an area of lower groundwater elevations
(“trough”) beneath the active wellfield appeared during the period of reduced rainfall in 2007 and
2008. As illustrated in Figure 10, the water elevations of all the wells show a steady decline since
2011-12 to near sea level. The groundwater elevations in these wells are generally below the levels
observed in 2009-10, before water quality degradation was observed in the coastal wells (as is
discussed in more detail, later).
Item 9.g. - Page 26
NCMA 2016 Annual Monitoring Report
- 11 -
From the beginning of the year, all of the wells exhibited an overall decline in water level during
2016. The water level in well 33K03 (located near the NCMA/NMMA boundary) continues to be at
or near historical low elevations, reflecting the reduced recharge from the drought and potentially
reduced subsurface flow from the east.
3.4.3 Sentry Wells
Regular monitoring of water elevations in clustered sentry wells located along the coast are an
essential tool for tracking critical groundwater elevation changes at the coast. Groundwater
elevations in these wells are monitored quarterly as part of the sentry well monitoring program. As
shown by the hydrographs for the five sentry well clusters (Figure 11), the sentry wells provide a
long history of groundwater elevations.
Inspection of the recent data shown in Figure 11 compared to the historical record illustrates some
noteworthy trends:
The water level signature since 2013 of 30N02, one of the wells that experienced elevated
TDS and chloride levels in 2009-2010, looks quite similar to the water level signature of the
well in 2007-2010, immediately before and during the period of water quality degradation.
The decline in water levels since 2005-06 in the Oceano Dunes wells (36L01 and 36L02) is
notable and potentially significant. Except for a brief period 2012, well 36L01 is at an
historical low level, as is well 36L02.
The deepest wells in the clusters (24B03, 30F03, and 30N02) previously were identified as key
wells to monitor for potential seawater intrusion, and were suggested to reflect the net effect of
changing groundwater recharge and discharge conditions in the primary production aquifer. One of
the thresholds to track the status and apparent health of the basin is to average the groundwater
elevations from these three deep sentry wells to generate a single, representative index, called the
Deep Well Index. Previous studies suggested a Deep Well Index value of 7.5 feet NAVD88 as a
minimum threshold, below which the basin is at risk for eastward migration of seawater and a
subsequent threat of encroaching seawater intrusion. Historical variation of this index is
represented by the average deep sentry well elevations in Figure 12.
The Deep Well Index started 2016 above the threshold value, with an index value of 9.18 in January
2016. By April, the index value dropped to 8.53 (1.03 feet above the threshold value) and by the
mid-May the index value dropped below the 7.5-foot index level. Between mid-May and October
2016 the Deep Well Index remained below the index threshold value, reaching an index value of
5.64 feet in October. In late October, the Deep Well Index began to rise and since mid-December
has been above the threshold value (Figure 12).
Key wells (24B03, 30F03, 30N02, 36L01, 36L02, and 32C03) are instrumented with pressure
transducers equipped with conductivity probes that periodically record water level, water
temperature, and conductivity (Figures 13 through 18). (Note that transducer malfunctions in early
to mid-2015 resulted in variable conductivity data in some of the wells; all transducers were replaced
and are working properly). Wells 24B03, 30F03, and 30N02 comprise the wells used to calculate
the Deep Well Index. Wells 36L01 and 36L02 are adjacent the coast. Well 32C03 is the easternmost
well and adjacent to the boundary between the NCMA and NMMA. The following discusses 2016
water levels for these key wells:
Item 9.g. - Page 27
NCMA 2016 Annual Monitoring Report
- 12 -
Deep Well Index Wells: Water levels in wells 30N02 and 30F03 generally declined between
March and May 2016 and then remained depressed into October when they began to rise.
The water elevation in well 24B03 has remained relatively stable throughout 2016, with a
slight rise in water levels in late 2016.
Coastal Wells: The water level in well 36L01 remained several feet above 0 feet NAVD88
throughout 2016, and remained stable within a relatively narrow historical range. The water
level in well 36L02 illustrates a much greater seasonal fluctuation than has been seen in
36L01. The water elevation in 36L02 declined below 0 feet NAVD88 in late September and
remained below 0 feet NAVD88 into mid-October when it reached a near-historical low
recorded elevation. Since late October, the water elevation in 36L02 has risen more than
11 feet.
NCMA/NMMA Boundary: Well 32C03, which shows regular seasonal fluctuations, declined
below 0 feet NAVD88 in late August and remained at a low elevation until early October,
when the water level began to rise.
3.5 Change in Groundwater in Storage
The relative change of groundwater levels and associated change in groundwater in storage in the
NCMA portion of the SMGB between April 2015 and April 2016 were estimated on the basis of a
comparison of water level contour maps created for these periods. Comparison of the April water
levels was chosen to comply with the DWR reporting requirements under the Sustainable
Groundwater Management Act (SGMA).
The groundwater contour lines from each period were compared and the volumetric difference
between the two was calculated. The results are presented in Figure 19, which shows contours of
equal difference between water elevations of April 2015 and April 2016. The areas shown in Figure
19 represent areas of net gain and net loss in groundwater in storage. During this period, the
average water level rose by approximately 2 feet across the NCMA.
From the change of water levels, a volumetric change in groundwater storage was estimated, based
on aquifer properties (storage coefficient of 0.02) representative of the Paso Robles Formation in
the area as documented in the SMGB Characterization Project (Fugro, 2015). The net rise in
groundwater levels represented a net increase of groundwater in storage from April 2015 to April
2016 of approximately 340 AF.
During this period of April 2015 to April 2016, there was a localized groundwater level decline in the
Cienega Valley likely related to a slight increase in agricultural pumping, reduced percolation of
precipitation recharge from the ongoing drought, and possibly reduced subsurface inflow recharge
from the east. A localized groundwater level rise in the urban areas in the northern portion of the
NCMA is the result of reduced municipal pumpage. In the coastal areas underlying the Oceano
Dunes, the water levels were relatively unchanged during this period.
Item 9.g. - Page 28
NCMA 2016 Annual Monitoring Report
- 13 -
3.6 Water Quality
Water is used in several ways in the NCMA, each use requiring a certain minimum water quality.
Because contaminants from seawater intrusion or from anthropogenic sources potentially can
impact the quality of water in the basin, water quality is monitored at each of the sentry well locations
in the NCMA and County Well No. 3 (32C03).
3.6.1 Quarterly Groundwater Monitoring
Quarterly groundwater monitoring events occurred in January, April, July, and October 2016. During
each event, depths to groundwater were measured, and wells were sampled using procedures,
sampling equipment, and in-field sample preservation protocol pursuant to ASTM International
Standard D4448-01. The water quality data from these events and available historical data from
these wells are provided in Appendix A. Graphs of historical chloride and TDS concentrations over
time are presented in Figures 20 and 21, respectively, to monitor for trends that may aid in the
detection of impending seawater intrusion.
The historical water quality data indicate variable (at times significantly variable) water quality from
2009 through 2016 (Appendix A). The NCMA 2009 Annual Monitoring Report (Todd, 2010)
suggested that the observed historical variation in water quality data could be caused by several
reasons, such as variable permeability of geologic materials, potential mixing with seawater, ion
exchange in clay-rich units, and variability in surface recharge sources such as Arroyo Grande
Creek and Meadow Creek (Todd, 2010). Improved management of municipal groundwater demand
(overall reduction in pumping) since 2009 likely has contributed to groundwater quality becoming
relatively stable in the past few years.
3.6.2 Analytical Results Summary
Analytical results of key water quality data (chloride, TDS, and sodium) were generally consistent
with historical concentrations and observed ranges of constituent concentrations during 2016. In
general, no unusual or abnormal trends in water quality results were observed. However, it is noted
that most of the wells have TDS values at or near the highest values of their respective normal
historical ranges. Whether this creeping increase in TDS concentrations represents a trend worthy
of concern will be watched closely during the upcoming series of quarterly monitoring events.
Figure 22 is a Piper diagram, one of several means of graphically representing water quality. Of
interest is that there appear to be three separate water quality types found in the monitoring wells:
1. The Pier Avenue deep well (30N02, screened in the Paso Robles Formation from 175 to
255 feet) and Oceano Dunes intermediate well (36L01, screened in the Paso Robles
Formation from 227 to 237 feet) are, despite their different nomenclature as “deep” vs.
“intermediate” wells, screened in the same production zone in the Paso Robles Formation.
These two wells are high in sulfates relative to the other wells in the area, and represent
calcium-magnesium-sulfate rich water. Interestingly, both wells are relatively low in chloride,
which is significant because this zone, and well 30N02 in particular, was the site of the
apparent seawater intrusion event in 2009-2010.
2. The County monitoring well #3 (32C03) has an apparent water quality that is different than
any of the other wells in the area. It is relatively high in sodium and chloride. Its location in
Item 9.g. - Page 29
NCMA 2016 Annual Monitoring Report
- 14 -
the right quadrant of the diamond-shaped part of the diagram commonly characterizes a
sodium-chloride-rich groundwater representative of marine or deep ancient groundwater.
Although its overall water quality signature is different than seawater, it is more closely
representative of seawater than any of the other wells in the area. Well 32C03 is screened
from 90 to 170 feet, in the Paso Robles Formation.
3. All of the other wells in the monitoring network (except the MW-Blue well, discussed below)
fall into the third category of groundwater. These wells are all generally a calcium-
bicarbonate groundwater that is commonly associated with shallow groundwater. Of interest
is that this grouping of water quality represents groundwater from wells that are screened in
both the Paso Robles Formation and the Careaga sandstone (wells 24B03, 30F03, and
36L02 are screened in the Careaga sandstone; the others are screened in the Paso Robles
Formation).
4. The water quality outlier well represented in Figure 22 is the MW-Blue well. This well is
screened in the Paso Robles Formation from 190 to 210 feet and from 245 to 265 feet. The
observed water quality of this well in the four monitoring events represented on the graphic
are widely disparate, and may be an indication of vertical mixing of groundwater throughout
the vertical gradient of the Oceano monitoring well cluster, rather than suggesting a distinct
water quality. Of note, however, is that the MW-Blue well was one of three wells (with wells
30N02 and 30N03) that showed spikes in sodium and chloride in 2009-2010.
None of the water quality results from monitoring wells throughout 2016 indicate an incipient
episode or immediate threat of seawater intrusion. The slightly elevated TDS concentrations will be
closely observed to see whether a continuing trend is indicated. Since the decline of TDS, sodium,
and chloride concentrations following the 2009-2010 seasons, it is also clear that the location and
inland extent of the seawater-fresh water interface is not known, except for the apparent indication
that it was detected in well 30N02, 30N03, and MW-Blue, all of which are screened in the Paso
Robles Formation. No indications of seawater intrusion have been observed in wells screened in
the underlying Careaga sandstone. At this time, without additional offshore data, the location of the
interface or mixing zone is not known and will not be known unless and until it intercepts a
monitoring well.
The following sections for TDS, chloride, and sodium provide a snapshot of recent overall trends in
these select analytical results.
Total Dissolved Solids. Generally, all TDS concentrations from the monitoring wells throughout
2016 were within, or near, the historical range of concentrations (Figure 21). Noted exceptions
throughout the year include:
The TDS concentration in Highway 1 deep well (30F03; 580 mg/L) in January 2016 was
lower than the historical low concentration of 608 mg/L observed in July 2010.
The TDS concentration in Oceano Well No. 8 (630 mg/L) in January 2016 was lower than
the historical low concentration of 680 mg/L observed in October 2012 and January 2013.
The TDS concentration in Oceano MW-Yellow (screened in the Careaga sandstone from
625 to 645 feet) in January 2016 recorded a slightly higher than normal TDS concentration
of 460 mg/L (typical range of TDS concentrations is 360 to 430 mg/L). The historical high
TDS concentration in MW-Yellow is 770 mg/L in May 1983.
Item 9.g. - Page 30
NCMA 2016 Annual Monitoring Report
- 15 -
In April 2016, TDS concentrations from all the sentry wells were within historical ranges,
although the TDS concentrations in well North Beach Campground deep well (24B03; 680
mg/L), Pier Avenue intermediate well (30N03; 610 mg/L), and Oceano MW-Green (670
mg/L) were all on the upper limit of the historical range.
In July 2016, all TDS concentrations in the sentry wells were within the normal historical
ranges, except for Oceano MW-Yellow (screened in the Careaga sandstone from 625 to
645 feet), which had a TDS concentration of 510 mg/L; that was elevated from the previous
slightly high value of 460 mg/L in January 2016
In October 2016, all TDS concentrations in the sentry wells were within the normal historical
ranges, except for MW-Blue well screened from 190 to 210 feet and 245 to 265 feet that
had an elevated TDS concentration of 780 mg/L (typical range is 250 to 450 mg/L). This
TDS concentration value represents the highest TDS concentration observed in this well
since 2009-2010.
Chloride. Chloride concentrations from the wells throughout 2016 were within normal historical
concentration ranges. The Oceano MW-Blue well that exhibited an abnormally high TDS
concentration in October 2016 had a concomitant significantly lower chloride concentration (41
mg/L) than has been observed in the well since 2011.
Sodium. Sodium concentrations from the wells throughout 2016 were within normal historical
concentration ranges. The only exception was the North Beach Campground deep well (24B03) in
April 2016, which reported a sodium level of 55 mg/L, only slightly higher than the upper limit of the
normal range of 40 to 55 mg/L.
Item 9.g. - Page 31
NCMA 2016 Annual Monitoring Report
- 16 -
This page left blank intentionally.
Item 9.g. - Page 32
NCMA 2016 Annual Monitoring Report
- 17 -
4. Water Supply and Demand
4.1 Water Supply
The NCMA water supply consists of three major sources: Lopez Lake, the SWP, and groundwater.
Each source of supply has a defined delivery volume that varies from year to year.
4.1.1 Lopez Lake
Lopez Lake and Water Treatment Plant (Lopez Lake, which also is referred to as Lopez Reservoir)
is operated by FCWCD Zone 3, which provides water to the NCMA agencies and releases water to
Arroyo Grande Creek for habitat conservation and agricultural purposes. The operational safe yield
of Lopez Lake is 8,730 acre feet per year (AFY), which reflects the amount of sustainable water
supply during a drought of defined severity. Of this yield, 4,530 AFY have been apportioned by
agreements to contractors including each of the NCMA agencies plus County Service Area (CSA)
12 (in the Avila Beach area). Of the 8,730 AFY safe yield, 4,200 AFY are reserved for downstream
releases to maintain flows in Arroyo Grande Creek and provide groundwater recharge. The normal
and 2016 LRRP reduced FCWCD Zone 3 allocations are shown in Table 2.
In December 2014, FCWCD Zone 3 adopted a Low Reservoir Response Plan (LRRP). The purpose
of the LRRP is to limit downstream releases and municipal diversions from Lopez Reservoir to
preserve water within the reservoir, above the minimum pool, for a minimum of 3 to 4 years under
drought conditions. The 2016 LRRP FCWCB Zone 3 allocations are shown in Table 2 (following
page).
The LRRP is enacted if the total volume of water in the reservoir falls below 20,000 AF and the
County Board of Supervisors declares an emergency related to Zone 3. The actions, after the LRRP
is enacted, include: reductions in entitlement water deliveries; reductions in downstream releases;
no new allocations of Surplus Water from unreleased downstream releases; and extension of time
that agencies can take delivery of existing unused water, throughout the duration that the Drought
Emergency is in effect, subject to evaporation losses if the water is not used in the year originally
allocated. Included in the LRRP is an adaptive management provision that allows modification of
the terms of the LRRP to match the initially prescribed reductions based on actual hydrologic
conditions. The 2016 Zone 3 allocations are provided in Table 2 (following page).
The reduction strategies for the LRRP are tied to the amount of water in the reservoir. As the amount
of water in the reservoir drops below the triggers (20,000; 15,000; 10,000; 5,000; and 4,000 acre-
feet [AF]), the hydrologic conditions are reviewed and adaptive management used to meet the
LRRP objectives. The municipal diversions are to be reduced according to the strategies shown in
Table 3 (following page).
Item 9.g. - Page 33
NCMA 2016 Annual Monitoring Report
- 18 -
Table 2. Lopez Lake (FCWCD Zone 3 Contractors) Normal and 2016 LRRP Water Allocations
under LRRP Diversion Reduction Strategy (AFY)
Contractor Normal Water Allocation, (AFY) 2016 LRRP Reduced Allocation,
(AFY)
City of Arroyo Grande 2,290 2,061
City of Grover Beach 800 720
City of Pismo Beach 892 802.8
Oceano CSD 303 272.7
CSA 12 (not in NCMA) 245 220.5
Allocation Total 4,530 4,077
Downstream Releases 4,200 3,800
Total 8,730 7,877
Notes:
AFY = acre-feet per year, CSA = County Service Area, CSD = Community Services District, FCWCD = Flood Control & Water
Conservation District, LRRP = Low Reservoir Response Plan, NCMA = Northern Cities Management Area
The 2016 LRRP Water Allocations represent the initial prescribed action of the LRRP.
Table 3. Lopez Lake Municipal Diversion Reduction Strategy Low Reservoir Response Plan
Amount of Water in Storage (AF) Municipal Diversion
Reduction Municipal Diversion (AFY)
20,000 0% 4,530
15,000 10% 4,077
10,000 20% 3,624
5,000 35% 2,941
4,000 100% 0
Notes:
AF= acre-feet, AFY = acre-feet per year
The downstream releases are to be reduced according to the strategies described in Table 4. The
release strategies represent the maximum amount of water that can be released. The FCWCD
controls the timing of the reduced releases to meet the needs of the agricultural stakeholders and
to address environmental requirements.
Table 4. Lopez Lake Downstream Release Reduction Strategy Low Reservoir Response Plan
Amount of Water in Storage (AF) Downstream Release Reduction Downstream Releases (AFY)
20,000 9.5% 3,800
15,000 9.5% 3,800
10,000 75.6% 1,026
5,000 92.9% 300
4,000 100% 0
Notes:
AF= acre-feet, AFY = acre-feet per year
Item 9.g. - Page 34
NCMA 2016 Annual Monitoring Report
- 19 -
In the past, when management of releases resulted in a portion of the 4,200 AFY remaining in the
reservoir, or the contractors did not use their full entitlement for the year, the water was offered to
the contractors as surplus water. Surplus water deliveries to the NCMA agencies in 2016 equaled
72.64 AF (Grover Beach was the only agency to utilize surplus water in 2016).
Total discharge from Lopez Lake in 2016 was 5,731.30 AF, of which 2,610.26 AF were delivered
to NCMA contractors, 106.41 AF were delivered to CSA 12, and 3,014.63 AF were released
downstream to maintain flow in Arroyo Grande Creek (Table 5).
Table 5. 2016 Lopez Lake Discharges
Agency 2016 Allocation
Usage (AF)
2016 Surplus Usage
(AF)
2016 Total Lopez Lake
Water Delivery (AF)
City of Arroyo Grande 1,704.20 0.00 1,704.20
City of Grover Beach 702.77 72.64 775.41
City of Pismo Beach 130.65 0.00 130.65
Oceano CSD 0.00 0.00 0.00
Total NCMA 2016 Usage 2,537.62 72.64 2,610.26
CSA 12 (not in NCMA) 106.41 0.00 106.41
Downstream Releases 3,014.63 -- 3,014.63
Total 2016 Lopez Lake Deliveries 5,658.66 72.64 5,731.30
Notes:
AF= acre-feet, AFY = acre-feet per year, CSD = Community Services District, NCMA = Northern Cities Management Area
Source: FCWCD Zone 3 Monthly Operations Report
Throughout 2016, the reservoir was operated under the LRRP at a 10 percent reduction. As of
December 31, 2016, the total volume of water in storage in Lopez Lake was 11,047 AF (22.5
percent capacity), thus, the minimum of a 10 percent (to as much as a 20 percent) reduction is in
effect going into 2017. As a result, downstream releases and municipal deliveries, at least in early
January 2017, were subject to the target levels outlined in the LRRP, including:
Annual downstream releases at a maximum rate of 3,800 AF (actual releases may be less
if releases can be reduced while still meeting the needs of the agricultural stakeholders and
addressing the environmental requirements).
No unreleased downstream water will be available as surplus in 2017.
Municipal entitlements for Lopez Water Year 2017 (April 1, 2016, to March 31, 2017) are
reduced by 10 percent (total 4,077 AF).
Agencies may carry over any unused entitlement and/or surplus water from previous years.
The status of the reservoir and management actions related to the LRRP will be monitored
throughout 2017 and adjusted accordingly based on winter 2017 rainfall and storage in Lopez Lake.
Item 9.g. - Page 35
NCMA 2016 Annual Monitoring Report
- 20 -
4.1.2 State Water Project
Pismo Beach and Oceano CSD have contracts with FCWCD to receive water from the SWP. The
FCWCD serves as the SWP contractor, providing imported water to local retailers through the
Coastal Branch pipeline. Pismo Beach and Oceano CSD have contractual water delivery
allocations (commonly referred to as “Table A” water) of 1,240 AFY and 750 AFY, respectively (see
Table 7). (Pismo Beach contracts for 1,240 AF of SWP, but 100 AF are owned by Pismo Ranch
and 40 AF are owned by Brad Wilde, making 1,100 AF available to the City). In addition to its Table
A allocation, Pismo Beach holds 1,240 AFY of additional allocation with FCWCD. The additional
allocation held by Pismo Beach (usually referred to as a “drought buffer”) is available to augment
Pismo Beach’s SWP water supply when the SWP annual allocation (i.e., percent of SWP water
available) is less than 100 percent. In any given year, however, Pismo Beach’s total SWP deliveries
cannot exceed 1,240 AF. In 2016, Oceano CSD also executed a buffer agreement for SWP.
The final SWP annual allocation for contractors for 2016 was set at 60 percent of Table A
contractual allocation amounts on April 21, 2016. However, because SWP contractors have the
opportunity to store or bank a portion of their allocated water in San Luis Reservoir in any one year
for delivery during the next year, the volume of delivered SWP water may exceed that year’s Table
A allocation. Normally, carryover water is water that has been exported during the year from the
Delta, but has not been delivered, although storage for carryover water no longer becomes available
if it interferes with storage of SWP water for project needs.
For 2017, the initial allocation of the SWP contractors was set at 45 percent of Table A contractual
allocation amounts on December 21, 2016. With the heavy rain and snowfall experienced
throughout the state in late December 2016 and early January 2017, the allocation is expected to
be increased as the winter and spring progress.
The SWP supply has the potential to be affected by drought and environmental issues, particularly
involving the Delta smelt in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta. However, Oceano CSD and Pismo
Beach have been able to take delivery of their annual SWP allocation even with reduced SWP
supplies because FCWCD allocations to its subcontractors typically are fulfilled, even in dry years.
This is a result of FCWCD’s maintenance of excess, unused SWP entitlement. Therefore, even
when SWP supplies are decreased, the FCWCD’s excess SWP entitlement provides a buffer so
that contracted volumes to water purveyors, such as Oceano CSD and Pismo Beach, still may be
provided in full. As a result, during 2016, Oceano CSD took delivery of 667.58 AF of SWP water,
and Pismo Beach took delivery of 1,240 AF.
4.1.3 Groundwater
Each of the NCMA agencies has the capability to extract groundwater from municipal water supply
wells located in the central and northern portions of the NCMA. Groundwater also satisfies
agricultural irrigation and rural domestic demands throughout the NCMA. Groundwater use in the
NCMA is governed by the Judgment and the 2002 Settlement Agreement, which establishes that
groundwater will continue to be allotted and independently managed by the “Northern Parties”
(NCMA agencies, NCMA overlying owners, and FCWCD).
A calculated, consensus “safe yield” value of 9,500 AFY for the NCMA portion of the SMGB was
cited in the 2002 Settlement Agreement (through affirmation of the 2001 Groundwater Management
Agreement) among the NCMA agencies with allotments for agricultural irrigation (5,300 AFY),
Item 9.g. - Page 36
NCMA 2016 Annual Monitoring Report
- 21 -
subsurface outflow to the ocean (200 AFY), and urban use (4,000 AFY). The volume of the
allotment for urban use was subdivided as follows:
Arroyo Grande: 1,202 AFY
Grover Beach: 1,198 AFY
Pismo Beach: 700 AFY
Oceano CSD: 900 AFY
The basis of the safe yield was established in 1982 by a Technical Advisory Committee, consisting
of representatives from Arroyo Grande, Grover Beach, Pismo Beach, Oceano CSD, Avila Beach
Community Water District, Port San Luis Harbor District, the Farm Bureau, and the County to deal
with subdivision of an agreement not to exceed the safe yield of the “Arroyo Grande Groundwater
Basin.” The basis for the committee's analysis was DWR (1979). The Technical Advisory
Committee concluded that the safe yield was 9,500 AFY. These findings and the allocation of the
safe yield then were incorporated into a voluntary groundwater management plan (1983
“Gentlemen’s Agreement”) and were further formalized in the 2002 Settlement Agreement and the
2005 Stipulation for the SMGB Adjudication.
According to Todd (2007), the “safe yield” allotment for agricultural irrigation was estimated at that
time to be significantly higher than the actual agricultural irrigation requirement, and the calculated
amount for subsurface outflow is unreasonably low. Todd (2007) recognized that maintaining
sufficient subsurface outflow to the coast and preservation of a westward groundwater gradient are
essential to preventing seawater intrusion. Although the minimum subsurface outflow necessary to
prevent seawater intrusion is unknown, a regional outflow of 3,000 AFY was estimated as a
reasonable approximation.
The 2001 Groundwater Management Agreement provides that groundwater allotments of each of
the urban agencies can be increased when land within the corporate boundaries is converted from
agricultural use to urban use, referred to as an agricultural conversion credit. Agricultural conversion
credits equal to 121 AFY and 209 AFY were developed in 2011 for Arroyo Grande and Grover
Beach, respectively. These agricultural credits were unchanged during 2016 (Table 6).
Total groundwater use in the NCMA, including agricultural irrigation and rural uses, is shown in
Table 6 (descriptions of agricultural irrigation requirements and rural use estimation are provided in
Sections 4.2.1 and 4.2.2, respectively). Total estimated groundwater pumpage in the NCMA in 2016
from the SMGB was 3,511.46 AF.
Item 9.g. - Page 37
NCMA 2016 Annual Monitoring Report
- 22 -
Table 6. NCMA Groundwater Pumpage from Santa Maria Groundwater Basin, 2016
Agency
Groundwater Allotment
+ Ag Conversion Credit
(AF)
2016 Groundwater Use
(AF)
Percent Pumped of
Groundwater
Allotment
City of Arroyo Grande 1,202 + 121 = 1,323 164.98 12.5%
City of Grover Beach 1,198 + 209 = 1,407 434.20 30.9%
City of Pismo Beach 700 275.80 39.4%
Oceano CSD 900 4.78 0.5%
Total Urban Groundwater
Allotment / Use 4,000 + 330 = 4,330 879.76 20.3%
Agricultural Water Supply
Requirement 5,300 - 330 = 4,970 2,494 50.2%
Nonpotable Irrigation by Arroyo
Grande -- 56.5 --
Rural Water Users -- 81.2 --
Estimated Subsurface Outflow to
Ocean (2001 Groundwater
Management Agreement)
200 -- --
Total NCMA Groundwater
Allotment / Use 9,500 3,511.46 37%
Notes:
AF= acre-feet, CSD = Community Services District, NCMA = Northern Cities Management Area
4.1.4 Developed Water
As defined in the Stipulation, “developed water” is “groundwater derived from human intervention”
and includes infiltration from the following sources: “Lopez Lake water, return flow, and recharge
resulting from storm water percolation ponds.” Return flow results from deep percolation of water
used in irrigation that is in excess of the plant’s requirements and from outdoor uses of Lopez Lake
and SWP deliveries, and a minor component of return flows from other supplies pumped from
outside the NCMA boundaries (see Section 4.1.5). These return flows have not been estimated
recently, but would be considered part of the groundwater basin yield.
In 2008, Arroyo Grande, Grover Beach, and Pismo Beach prepared stormwater management plans.
To control stormwater runoff, and to increase groundwater recharge, each city now requires that
new development construct onsite retention or detention ponds. As these new ponds or basins are
constructed, the increase in groundwater recharge could result in recognition of substantial
augmentation of basin yield and provision of recharge credits to one or more of the NCMA agencies
(Todd, 2007). Thus a re-evaluation of estimated stormwater recharge is warranted as new recharge
facilities are installed and as additional information on flow rates, pond size, infiltration rates, and
tributary watershed area becomes available. Pursuant to the 2001 Groundwater Management
Agreement, recharge credits would be based on a mutually accepted methodology to evaluate the
amount of recharge that would involve quantification of factors such as Lopez Lake and SWP
recharge, stormwater runoff amounts, determination of effective recharge under various conditions,
and methods to document actual recharge to developed aquifers.
Item 9.g. - Page 38
NCMA 2016 Annual Monitoring Report
- 23 -
4.1.5 Total Water Supply Availability
The baseline (full allocation) water supply available to the NCMA agencies is summarized in
Table 7. The baseline water supplies include 100 percent Lopez Lake allocation, SMGB
groundwater allotments, agricultural credits, and 100 percent delivery of SWP allocations. This
baseline water supply does not include Lopez Lake surplus or SWP carryover because these
supplies vary from year to year and are not always available. The category “Other Supplies”
includes groundwater pumped from outside the NCMA boundaries (outside the SMGB). The
baseline supply for the NCMA agencies totals 10,625 AFY.
Table 7. Baseline (Full Allotment) Available Urban Water Supplies (AFY)
Urban
Area
Lopez
Lake
SWP
Allocation
(at 100%)
Groundwater
Allotment Ag Credit Other Supplies Total
Arroyo
Grande 2,290 0 1,202 121 160 3,773
Grover
Beach 800 0 1,198 209 0 2,207
Pismo
Beach 892 1,1001 700 0 0 2,692
Oceano
CSD 303 750 900 0 0 1,953
Total 4,285 1,850 4,000 330 160 10,625
Notes:
AFY= acre-feet per year, CSD = Community Services District, SWP = State Water Project
1: Pismo’s contractual allocation is for 1,240 AFY;,see Section 4.1.2 for additional details.
Table 8 summarizes the available water supply to the NCMA agencies in 2016, including Lopez
Lake allocations operating under the LRRP, Lopez Lake surplus water, the 2016 SWP 60 percent
Table A delivery schedule, and the available SWP carryover water.
Item 9.g. - Page 39
NCMA 2016 Annual Monitoring Report
- 24 -
Table 8. 2016 Available Urban Water Supply,
under 2016 Lopez LRRP 10% Municipal Reduction Diversion (AF)
Urban
Area
Lopez
Lake
Allocation
Lopez
Lake
Surplus
2016 SWP
Allocation
(at 60%
Delivery)
2016
SWP
Drought
Buffer
2016 SWP
Carryover
Ground-
water
Allotment
Ag
Credit
Other
Supplies
Total
(2016)
Arroyo
Grande 2,061 936.60 0 0 0 1,202 121 160 4,480.6
Grover
Beach 720 307.90 0 0 0 1,198 209 0 2,434.9
Pismo
Beach 802.8 1,227.60 660 744 263 700 0 0 3,970.41
Oceano
CSD 272.7 713.10 450 0 0 900 0 0 2,335.8
Total 3,856.5 3,185.20 370 248 496 4,000 330 160 13,221.7
Notes:
1In any given year, Pismo Beach’s total SWP deliveries cannot exceed 1,240 AF. In years when the Table A SWP allocation,
plus drought buffer, plus carryover exceed 1,240 AF (such as occurred in 2016), the total available SWP supply is capped at
1,240 AF.
AF = acre-feet, CSD = Community Services District, SWP = State Water Project
4.2 Water Use
Water use refers to the total amount of water used to satisfy the needs of all water user groups. In
the NCMA, water use predominantly serves urban production and agricultural applied water, and a
relatively small component of rural domestic use, which includes small community water systems,
and domestic, recreational, and agriculture-related businesses.
4.2.1 Agricultural Water Supply Requirements
For this 2016 Annual Report, the crop water requirements for irrigation demand estimations were
updated using the 2015 Integrated Water Flow Model (IWFM) Demand Calculator (IDC). The IDC
is a stand-alone program that simulates land surface and root zone flow processes and, importantly
for this 2016 Annual Report, the agricultural water supply requirements for each crop type. The IDC
applies user-specified soil, weather, and land use data to estimate and track the soil moisture
balances. More specifically, available water within the root zone is tracked for each crop to simulate
when irrigation events take place based on crop requirements and cultural irrigation practices.
Data Used in the IDC:
Land-use. The San Luis Obispo County Agricultural Commissioner’s Office (ACO) annually
compiles an estimate of irrigated acres in the County. A view displaying the irrigated
agricultural lands within NCMA for 2016 is shown in Figure 23. The 2016 survey indicates a
total of 1,454 acres of irrigated agriculture in the NCMA consisting predominantly of rotational
Item 9.g. - Page 40
NCMA 2016 Annual Monitoring Report
- 25 -
crops. Table 9 lists the crop types and acreages found in the NCMA that were used in the
IDC.
Climate Data. 2016 weather data from the FCWCD rain gauge in Oceano and the CIMIS
Nipomo Station (202) were used for precipitation and data related to reference ET values,
respectively. The data needed to calculate reference ET include solar radiation, humidity, air
temperature, and wind speed. Both weather stations are shown in Figure 4 along with another
rain gauge located in Pismo Beach.
ET Values by Crop Category. The DWR Consumptive Use Program (CUP) was used to
estimate potential ET values based on specific annual climate data and crop type. The CUP
used monthly climate data from the closest CIMIS station (202, Nipomo) and includes crop
coefficients to calculate ET values for the irrigated crop categories. Assumptions used in the
analysis include:
o Given that the NCMA is located near the coast, agricultural practices are influenced
significantly by the marine layer. As seen in Figure 4, the Nipomo CIMIS station used
for climatological data in both the CUP and IDC is located farther inland than the
easternmost boundary of NCMA and the recorded weather data do not fully account
for the cooling and moisture effects of the marine layer.
o Use of an unadjusted calculated ET results in a higher value than that actually taking
place in the NCMA. ET values within the marine layer can be as much as 25 percent
lower than that of the same crop located just outside of the marine layer influence.
The distance the marine layer extends inland can vary from less than ½ mile to as
much as 4 to 5 miles, depending on land topography. Low-lying areas have a higher
frequency of marine layer coverage, and for longer periods throughout the day.
o The NCMA is considered to be a low-lying area with boundaries extending between
2 and 5 miles inland. Recognizing that not all the crops would be affected by the
marine layer, but also accounting for the cooling influence over some of the area,
monthly ET values calculated on the basis of the CIMIS Nipomo Station data were
adjusted lower by 12 percent and are shown in Table 9.
o An additional amount of water is added to the crop consumptive demand to account
for inefficiencies in application of irrigation water. Based on the irrigation practices
prevalent in the NCMA, the consumptive use of applied water (ETAW) has been
increased by 10 percent to better estimate the actual volume of applied water (AW)
required by each crop due to inefficiencies in applying the water.
Soil Data. The Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) Soil Survey Geographic
Database (SSURGO) was used to collect soil parameters in the NCMA for use in the IDC.
The soil properties used include saturated hydraulic conductivity, porosity, and the runoff
curve numbers. The field capacity and wilting points were developed on the basis of the
described soil textures (i.e., sand, loam, sandy clay, etc.) and industry standards. The IDC
relies on soil properties for estimating water storage, deep percolation, and runoff; all of which
contribute to estimation of ETAW and to the 10 percent adjustment described above used in
computing AW.
Item 9.g. - Page 41
NCMA 2016 Annual Monitoring Report
- 26 -
Table 9. 2016 NCMA Crop Acreages and Calculated Evapotranspiration
Crop Type Acreage 2016 Potential ET1
(AF per acre)
Rotational Crops 1,309.2 1.82
Strawberry 122 0.8
Nursery Plants 12.3 1.0
Potatoes 10.5 1.9
Notes:
1See “ET Values by Crop Category,” in text section above.
2Rotational crops ET is based on a two- to three-crop rotation.
Data based on DWR Consumptive Use Program (CUP) data
ET = evapotranspiration, AF = acre-feet
Model Development and Computations
The IDC is written in FORTRAN 2003 using an object-oriented programming approach. The
program consists of three main components: (1) input data files, (2) output data files, and (3) the
numerical engine that reads data from input files, computes applied water demands, routes water
through the root zone, and prints out the results to the output files. The flow terms used in the root
zone routing are defined in the table below and shown in the graphic below. Drainage from ponded
areas (Dr) was not applicable because there are no ponded crops in the NCMA; and data related
to generic soil moisture (G) were not available.
P Precipitation User Specified
ET Evapotranspiration IDC Output
G Generic source of moisture (i.e., fog, dew) Data Not Available
Aw Applied water IDC Output
Dr Outflow resulting from drainage of ponded areas (rice,
refuges, etc.)
Not Applicable
RP Direct runoff IDC Output
Rf Return flow User Specified (fraction of applied water)
U Re-used portion of return flow User Specified (fraction of return flow)
D Deep percolation IDC Output
Notes:
Integrated Water Flow Model (IWFM) Demand Calculator (IDC)
Item 9.g. - Page 42
NCMA 2016 Annual Monitoring Report
- 27 -
Source: California DWR (2016).
All extracted geospatial information was applied to a computational grid within the IDC framework
to simulate the root zone moisture for 2016 in NCMA agricultural areas. The IDC provides the total
water supply requirement for each crop category met through rainfall and applied irrigation water in
agricultural areas based on user-defined parameters for crop evaporation and transpiration
requirements, climate conditions, soil properties, and agricultural management practices. Sources
for data related to crop demands (i.e., potential ET), climate conditions, and soil properties are
discussed above. The computations for actual crop ET (versus potential ET), applied water, and
deep percolation are described below.
The potential ET is the amount of water a given crop will consume through evaporation and/or
transpiration under ideal conditions (i.e., fully irrigated healthy crop). Fully irrigated conditions mean
that the water required to meet all crop demands is available. Water is available to the crops when
the soil moisture content within the root zone is between the field capacity and the wilting point.
When the soil moisture is above the field capacity, some water will go to runoff and/or deep
percolation; when the soil moisture is below the wilting point, it is contained in the smallest pore
spaces within the root zone and considered unavailable to the crops.
The difference between the field capacity and the wilting point is the total available water (TAW). In
IDC, when the soil moisture is above one-half of the TAW, the crop ET will be equal to the potential
ET. However, if the soil moisture is below one-half of the TAW, the plants will experience water
stress and ET decreases linearly until it reaches zero at the wilting point. This method of simulating
water stress is similar to the method described in Allen et al. (1998) to compute non-standard crop
ET under water stressed conditions.
The IDC monitors the moisture content within the root zone and applies water by triggering an
irrigation event when the calculated soil moisture is below a user-specified minimum allowable soil
moisture requirement. For this application of the IDC, the minimum soil moisture requirement was
set to trigger an irrigation event when the soil moisture fell below one-half the TAW to limit water
Item 9.g. - Page 43
NCMA 2016 Annual Monitoring Report
- 28 -
stress in the crops. During an irrigation event, the soil moisture content in the root zone reaches
field capacity. If precipitation occurs, soil moisture may increase above field capacity, generating
deep percolation, and potentially runoff, both depending on the quantity and temporal distribution
of rainfall.
Deep percolation is the vertical movement of water through the soil column flowing out of the root
zone resulting in the potential for groundwater recharge. The IDC applies the van Genuchten-
Mualem equation (Mualem, 1976; van Genuchten, 1985) to compute deep percolation using the
user-defined saturated hydraulic conductivity and pore size distribution.
Results
The total agricultural water supply requirement for 2016 was estimated to be 2,267 AF. The actual
applied water includes an additional 10 percent for irrigation efficiency, resulting in a total of 2,494
AF. The effective precipitation (i.e., rainwater used by the crop) was 423 AF (Table 10). Figure 24
illustrates the estimated crop water requirement for irrigation (plus irrigation efficiency) within the
NCMA as calculated by the IDC. Figure 24 displays the four identified crop types and their estimated
monthly applied water. In total, the rotational crops have the highest water supply requirement
because they cover the greatest area (see Figure 23) and have the greatest annual ET (Table 9).
Item 9.g. - Page 44
NCMA 2016 Annual Monitoring Report
- 29 -
Table 10. 2016 IDC Model Results of Monthly Applied Water
Monthly Applied Water (AF)
Annual Total
(AF)
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Rotational Crops
(AF) - - - 154 459 314 431 385 353 271 2 - 2,369
Strawberry (AF) - - - - - 27 30 22 23 - - - 102
Potatoes (AF) - - - - 2 4 4 3 - - - - 13
Flowering and
Nursery (AF) - - - - - - 2 3 3 2 - - 10
Total - - - 154 461 344 467 414 379 273 2 - 2,494
Monthly Precipitation (inches) Annual Total
(inches) Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Precipitation
(inches) 4.02 0.51 2.56 0.12 - - - - - 2.09 1.57 4.18 15.05
Monthly Unit Applied Water (AF/Acre) Annual Total
(AF/Acre) Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Rotational Crops
(AF/Acre) - - - 0.12 0.35 0.24 0.33 0.29 0.27 0.21 0.00 - 1.81
Strawberry
(AF/Acre) - - - - - 0.22 0.25 0.18 0.19 - - - 0.83
Potatoes (AF/Acre) - - - - 0.16 0.30 0.36 0.27 - - - - 1.09
Flowering and
Nursery (AF/Acre) - - - - - - 0.14 0.31 0.31 0.20 - - 0.96
Area Weighted
Average - - - 0.09 0.28 0.21 0.28 0.25 0.23 0.17 0.00 - 1.52
Notes:
AF = acre-feet, AF/Acre = acre-feet per acre
4.2.2 Rural Demand
In the NCMA, rural water demand refers to uses not designated as urban production or agricultural
irrigation demand and includes small community water systems, individual domestic water systems,
recreational uses, and agriculture-related business systems. Small community water systems using
groundwater in the NCMA were identified initially through a review of a list of water purveyors
Item 9.g. - Page 45
NCMA 2016 Annual Monitoring Report
- 30 -
compiled in the 2007 County IRWMP. These include the Halcyon Water System, Ken Mar Gardens,
and Pacific Dunes RV Resort. The Halcyon Water System serves 35 homes in the community of
Halcyon, while Ken Mar Gardens provides water supply to 48 mobile homes on South Halcyon
Road. The Pacific Dunes RV Resort, with 215 RV sites, provides water supply to a largely transitory
population and a nearby riding stable. In addition, about 25 homes and businesses have been
identified as served by private wells through inspection of aerial photographs of rural areas within
NCMA. Two mobile home communities, Grande Mobile and Halcyon Estates, are served by
Oceano CSD through the distribution system of Arroyo Grande; thus the demand summary of
Oceano CSD includes these two communities. Based on prior reports, it is assumed that the
number of private wells is negligible within the service areas of the NCMA agencies.
The Pismo Beach Golf Course (Le Sage Riviera Campground) uses an onsite water well for turf
irrigation. The water demand is not metered, and total water use is not known by the golf course
operators. An estimate of water demand for the golf course is based on the irrigated acreage, sandy
soils, near-ocean climate, and water duty factors from the U.S. Golf Association, Alliance for Water
Efficiency, U.S. Golf Courses Organization of America, and several other sources. The estimated
rural water use is provided in Table 11.
Table 11. Estimated Rural Water Use
Groundwater User No. of
Units
Estimated Water Use,
AFY per Unit
Estimated Water
Use, AFY Notes
Halcyon Water System 35 0.40 14 1
Ken Mar Gardens 48 0.13 6.2 2
Pacific Dunes RV Resort 215 0.03 6 3
Pismo Beach Golf Course -- -- 45 4
Rural Users 25 0.40 10 1
Current Estimated Rural Use 81.2
Notes:
1 Water use/unit based on 2000 and 2005 Grover Beach water use per connection, 2005 Urban Water Management Plan.
2 Demand based on metered water usage.
3 Water demand/unit assumes 50 percent annual occupancy and 0.06 acre feet per year per occupied site.
4 Estimated golf course demand, based on estimated water duty factor, annual evapotranspiration, and irrigated acreage.
4.2.3 Urban Production
Urban water production is presented in Table 12 for each of the NCMA agencies from 2005 through
2016. These values reflect Lopez Lake deliveries, SWP deliveries, and groundwater production
data, and represent all water used within the service areas of the four NCMA agencies, including
system losses as well as the portions of Arroyo Grande and Pismo Beach that extend outside the
NCMA. In general, urban water production has ranged from 5,476.60 AF (current year 2016) to
8,982 AF (2007). Urban production since 2007 has steadily declined, with only slight increases in
2012 and 2013. The decline in pumpage since 2013 was in direct response to a statewide executive
order by the governor to reduce the amount of water used in urban areas by 25%, which was
achieved locally by conservation activities implemented by the NCMA agencies. Since 2013, when
Item 9.g. - Page 46
NCMA 2016 Annual Monitoring Report
- 31 -
urban production was 7,939 AF, urban production has declined dramatically to the lowest level in
at least the past 12 years.
Table 12. Urban Water Production (Groundwater and Surface Water, AF)
Year Arroyo Grande Grover Beach Pismo Beach Oceano CSD Total Urban
2005 3,460 2,082 2,142 931 8,615
2006 3,425 2,025 2,121 882 8,453
2007 3,690 2,087 2,261 944 8,982
2008 3,579 2,051 2,208 933 8,771
2009 3,315 1,941 2,039 885 8,180
2010 2,956 1,787 1,944 855 7,542
2011 2,922 1,787 1,912 852 7,473
2012 3,022 1,757 2,029 838 7,646
2013 3,111 1,792 2,148 888 7,939
2014 2,752.12 1,347.19 1,949.24 806.82 6,855.37
2015 2,238.59 1,265.40 1,735.70 703.26 5,942.95
2016 1,948.18 1,209.61 1,646.45 672.36 5,476.60
Notes:
AF = acre-feet, CSD = Community Services District
4.2.4 2016 Groundwater Pumpage
Total SMGB groundwater use in the NCMA, including urban production, applied agricultural water
requirements, and rural demand, is shown in Table 13 (replication of Table 6). Total estimated
SMGB groundwater pumpage in the NCMA in 2016 was 3,511.46 AF, which represents the lowest
volume of groundwater production from the NCMA portion of the basin in at least the past 17 years.
Item 9.g. - Page 47
NCMA 2016 Annual Monitoring Report
- 32 -
Table 13. NCMA Groundwater Pumpage from Santa Maria Groundwater Basin, 2016 (AF)
Agency
Groundwater Allotment
+ Ag Conversion Credit
(AF)
2016 Groundwater Use
(AF)
Percent Pumped of
Groundwater Allotment
City of Arroyo Grande 1,202 + 121 = 1,323 164.98 12.5%
City of Grover Beach 1,198 + 209 = 1,407 434.20 30.9%
City of Pismo Beach 700 275.80 39.4%
Oceano CSD 900 4.78 0.5%
Total Urban Groundwater
Allotment / Use
4,000 + 330 = 4,330 879.76 20.3%
Agricultural Water Supply
Requirement
5,300 - 330 = 4,970 2,494 50.2
Nonpotable Irrigation by Arroyo
Grande -- 56.5 --
Rural Water Users -- 81.2 --
Estimated Subsurface Outflow to
Ocean (2001 Groundwater
Management Agreement)
200 -- --
Total NCMA Groundwater
Allotment / Use
9,500 3,511.46 37%
Notes:
AF = acre-feet, CSD = Community Services District, NCMA = Northern Cities Management Area
The estimated groundwater pumpage of 3,511.46 in 2016 represents about 37 percent of the
calculated yield of 9,500 AFY for the NCMA portion of the Santa Maria Basin. However, even with
the relatively low volume of pumping, water elevations throughout the area declined by several feet
as of October 2016, with some areas exhibiting October 2016 water elevations below sea level.
With an estimated safe yield of 9,500 AFY, the difference between the safe yield and groundwater
pumping normally would represent increased groundwater in storage and outflow to the ocean, an
unknown but major portion of which is needed to prevent seawater intrusion.
A graphical depiction of water use by supply source for each NCMA agency since 1999 is presented
as Figure 25. The graphs depict changes in water supply availability and use over time, including
the increased use of SWP water during the early years of the period when SWP Table A deliveries
were greater. During 2016, Pismo Beach and Oceano CSD greatly supplemented their municipal
water demand by maximizing use of SWP water supply, while reducing their reliance on
groundwater pumping and reducing Lopez Lake water (Oceano CSD used no Lopez Lake water in
2016).
As shown in Figure 26, groundwater pumpage reached a peak in 2007, and then declined in 2008,
2009, and 2010. From 2010 through 2013, pumpage increased slightly every year, but even so,
overall groundwater use remained significantly lower than historical annual pumpage rates. Since
2013, pumpage has steadily declined. In 2016, urban groundwater use declined to 879.76 AF,
which is 20.3 percent of the 4,330 AF of combined urban groundwater allotment and agricultural
conversion credit.
Item 9.g. - Page 48
NCMA 2016 Annual Monitoring Report
- 33 -
4.2.5 Changes in Water Demand
The historical water demands for urban uses, agricultural irrigation, and rural uses are shown in
Table 14.
Table 14. Total Water Demand (Groundwater and Surface Water, AF)
Year Arroyo
Grande
Grover
Beach
Pismo
Beach
Oceano
CSD
Total
Urban
Agricultural
Irrigation1
Rural
Water
Total
Demand
2005 3,460 2,082 2,142 931 8,615 2,056 36 10,707
2006 3,425 2,025 2,121 882 8,453 2,056 36 10,545
2007 3,690 2,087 2,261 944 8,982 2,742 36 11,760
2008 3,579 2,051 2,208 933 8,771 2,742 36 11,549
2009 3,315 1,941 2,039 885 8,180 2,742 36 10,958
2010 2,956 1,787 1,944 855 7,542 2,056 38 9,636
2011 2,922 1,787 1,912 852 7,473 2,742 38 10,253
2012 3,022 1,757 2,029 838 7,646 2,742 41 10,429
2013 3,111 1,792 2,148 888 7,939 2,742 42 10,722
2014 2,752.12 1,347.19 1,949.24 806.82 6,855.37 2,955.4 38.4 9,849.17
2015 2,238.59 1,265.40 1,735.70 703.26 5,942.95 3,008 37.5 8,988.45
2016 1,948.18 1,209.61 1,646.45 672.36 5,476.60 2,550.5 81.2 8,108.30
Notes:
1Irrigation applied water requirement includes agricultural irrigation plus SMGB non-potable irrigation by Arroyo Grande.
AF = acre-feet, CSD = Community Services District
In general, urban water demand has ranged from 5,476.60 AF (current year 2016) to 8,982 AF
(2007; Table 14). Demand since 2007 has steadily declined, with only slight increases in 2012 and
2013. The decline in pumpage since 2013 was in direct response to a statewide executive order by
the governor to reduce the amount of water used in urban areas by 25%, which was achieved
locally by conservation activities implemented by the NCMA agencies.
In the agricultural irrigation category, agricultural acreage has remained fairly constant. Thus,
annual applied water for agricultural irrigation varies mostly with weather conditions. Acknowledging
the variability caused by weather conditions (see Table 14), agricultural applied water requirements
are not expected to change significantly given the relative stability of applied irrigation acreage and
cropping patterns in the NCMA south of Arroyo Grande Creek.
Changes in rural demand have not been significant.
Item 9.g. - Page 49
NCMA 2016 Annual Monitoring Report
- 34 -
This page left blank intentionally.
Item 9.g. - Page 50
NCMA 2016 Annual Monitoring Report
- 35 -
5. Comparison of Water Supply v. Water Demand
The baseline available urban water supplies for each of the NCMA agencies is 10,625 AFY
(assuming 100 percent delivery of SWP allocation and assuming no Lopez Lake surplus water or
SWP carryover; refer to Table 7). In 2016, because of the availability of Lopez Lake surplus water
and SWP carryover water and despite a limited SWP annual allocation, the total available urban
water supply was 13,221.7 AF (Table 8).
As described in the 2001 Groundwater Management Agreement and affirmed in the 2002
Settlement Agreement, the calculated historical “safe yield” from the NCMA portion of the
groundwater basin is 9,500 AFY. Because all of the applied agricultural water requirement is
supplied by groundwater, the total available agricultural irrigation supply is a portion of the estimated
safe yield; this portion was allocated as 5,300 AFY for agricultural and rural use; the agricultural
conversion of 330 AFY reduces this allocation to 4,970 AFY. Of the estimated safe yield of 9,500
AFY, other than what is allocated for agricultural irrigation and rural use, the remaining 4,330 AFY
is allocated for urban water use (4,330 AFY, including 4,000 AFY groundwater allocation plus 330
AFY in agricultural conversion credit) and an estimated 200 AFY for subsurface outflow to the
ocean.
In 2016, the total estimated NCMA water demand was 8,108.30 AF (Table 15). The 2016 water
demand, by source, of each city and agency is shown in Table 15.
Table 15. 2016 Water Demand by Source (AF)
Urban Area Lopez Lake
State
Water
Project
SMGB
Groundwater
Other
Supplies Total
Arroyo Grande 1,704.20 0.00 164.98 79.0 1,948.18
Grover Beach 775.41 0.00 434.20 0.0 1,209.61
Pismo Beach 130.65 1,240.00 275.80 0.0 1,646.45
Oceano CSD 0.00 667.58 4.78 0.0 672.36
Urban Water Use Total 2,610.26 1,907.58 879.76 79.0 5,476.60
Agricultural Water Supply
Requirement 0.0 0.0 2,494 0.0 2,494
Rural Water Users 0.0 0.0 81.2 0.0 81.2
Applied Irrigation by
Arroyo Grande 0.0 0.0 56.5 0.0 56.5
Total 2,610.26 1,907.58 3,511.46 79.0 8,108.30
Notes:
AF = acre-feet, SMGB = Santa Maria Groundwater Basin, CSD = Community Services District
As shown in Table 15, urban water demand in 2016 to the NCMA was supplied from 2,610.26 AF
of Lopez Lake water, 1,907.58 AF of SWP water, and 879.76 AF of groundwater. The 79.0 AF of
Item 9.g. - Page 51
NCMA 2016 Annual Monitoring Report
- 36 -
“Other Supplies” delivered to Arroyo Grande consists of groundwater pumped from the Pismo
Formation, which is located outside of the shared groundwater basin.
Based on the calculated yield of the NCMA portion of the basin, the baseline (full allocation) total
available supply for all uses is 15,595 AFY, which is the sum of 10,625 AFY for urban use plus the
allocation for agricultural irrigation and rural area of 4,970 AFY. In 2016, factoring in the SWP
delivery schedule and availability of SWP carryover water and Lopez Lake surplus, the total
available supply for all uses (in 2016) was 13,221.7 AF, compared to actual 2016 NCMA water
demand of 8,108.3 AF. It must be noted, however, that this comparative review of available 2016
supply versus demand must be viewed with caution because of the potential threats to the
groundwater supply (see Section 6.1, below). As described earlier, the NCMA agencies pumped
only 20.3 percent of their “available” groundwater allotment, yet the change in groundwater in
storage in the basin was minimal; that is, water levels throughout the NCMA portion of the basin
were nearly the same at the end of 2016 as at the start of the year. Furthermore, some portions of
the basin, specifically in the agricultural irrigation area in Cienega Valley, ended 2016 with water
elevations below sea level. It is clear that the NCMA agencies could not have used their entire
groundwater allotment in 2016 without significantly lowering water elevations below current
conditions and potentially provide conditions conducive to seawater intrusion.
Item 9.g. - Page 52
NCMA 2016 Annual Monitoring Report
- 37 -
6. Threats to Water Supply
Because the NCMA agencies depend on both local and imported water supplies, changes in either
state-wide or local conditions can threaten the NCMA water supply. Water supply imported from
other areas of the state may be threatened by state-wide drought, effects of climate change in the
SWP source area, management and environmental protection issues in the Sacramento-San
Joaquin Delta that affect the amount and reliability of SWP deliveries, and risk of seismic damage
to the SWP delivery system. Local threats to the NCMA water supply similarly include extended
drought and climate change that may affect the yield from Lopez Lake and reduced recharge to the
NCMA and the SMGB as a whole. In addition, the NCMA portion of the SMGB is not hydrologically
isolated from the NMMA portion of the SMGB and the rest of the SMGB, and water supply threats
in the NMMA are a potential threat to the water supply sustainability of the NCMA.
There is a potential impact from seawater intrusion if the groundwater system as a whole, including
the entire Santa Maria Basin, is not adequately monitored and managed. In particular, the
management of the basin may need to account for sea level rise and the relative change in
groundwater gradient along the shore line.
6.1 Threats to Local Groundwater Supply
6.1.1 Declining Water Levels
Water levels continue to exhibit an overall declining trend in the NCMA. Important factors to
maintaining water levels are managing inflow and outflow.
Inflow: An important inflow component to the NCMA area is subsurface inflow into the
aquifers that supply water wells serving the NCMA. Historically, subsurface inflow to the
NCMA from the Nipomo Mesa along the southeast boundary of the NCMA is an important
component of groundwater recharge, which has been estimated to be approximately 1,400
AFY by NMMA reports. This inflow may be reduced from historical levels, as recognized in
2008-2009, to “something approaching no subsurface flow” because of lower groundwater
levels in the NMMA (NMMA 2nd Annual Report CY 2009, page 43). It appears that this
condition continues to worsen, as described in all subsequent NMMA Annual Reports
(NMMA, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, and 2016).
Outflow: A major outflow component is groundwater pumpage. Total groundwater pumping
in the NCMA (urban, agriculture, and rural domestic) was 3,511.30 AF in 2016, which is 37
percent of the court-accepted 9,500 AFY safe yield of the NCMA portion of the basin.
However, even with the reduced pumping, water elevations throughout the area declined by
several feet; some areas ended 2016 with water elevations below sea level. Typically, when
pumping is less than the safe yield, the remaining volume of groundwater results in
increased groundwater in storage, which then is manifested by rising water levels.
The current condition, with groundwater pumping at 37 percent of the safe yield and relatively stable
water elevations, illustrates the impacts of the ongoing severe drought that has significantly reduced
recharge. But it likely also illustrates the impacts of reduced subsurface inflow recharge from the
Item 9.g. - Page 53
NCMA 2016 Annual Monitoring Report
- 38 -
east (Nipomo Mesa). This condition of declining water levels in the NCMA, even though total
pumping is currently 37 percent of the basin safe yield, likely will be exacerbated if the NCMA
agencies are required to increase groundwater withdrawals because of a reduction in local surface
water supplies or SWP deliveries.
6.1.2 Seawater Intrusion
The NCMA is underlain by an accumulation of alluvial materials that slope gently offshore and
extend for many miles under the ocean (DWR 1970, 1975). Coarser materials within the alluvial
materials comprise aquifer zones that receive freshwater recharge in areas above sea level. If
sufficient outflow from the aquifer occurs, the dynamic interface between seawater and fresh water
will be prevented from moving onshore. Sufficient differential pressure to maintain a net outflow is
indicated by onshore groundwater elevations that are above “sea level” (currently equal to
approximately 2.7 feet NAVD88) and establish a seaward gradient to maintain that outflow.
The 2008 Annual Report documented that a portion of the NCMA groundwater basin exhibited
water surface elevations below 0 feet NAVD88 (NCMA 2008 Annual Monitoring Report (Todd,
2009)). Hydrographs for NCMA sentry wells (Figures 11 and 12) show coastal groundwater
elevations that were at relatively low levels for as long as 2 years. Such sustained low levels had
not occurred previously in the historical record and reflected the impact of drought on groundwater
levels. The low coastal groundwater levels indicated a potential for seawater intrusion.
Elevated concentrations of TDS, chloride, and sodium were observed in wells 30N03 and 30N02
beginning in May 2009, indicating potential seawater intrusion (Figures 27 and 28). (MW-Blue well
also showed elevated concentrations of TDS and chlorides, but a concomitant decline in sodium.)
Concentrations declined to historical levels in well 30N03 by July 2010, and declined in well 30N02
(one of the sentry wells comprising the Deep Well Index) to historical levels by October 2009.
Comparing well 30N02 to the other deep index wells, the other deep index wells showed no
elevated concentrations during the same time period. However, comparing well 30N02 to wells with
similar screen elevations (Figure 7), wells 36L01 (approximately 11,950 feet south of well 30N02)
and the MW-Blue well (approximately 3,300 feet east-southeast of well 30N02) suggested that
seawater intrusion perhaps progressed eastward as far as the MW-Blue well, but not as far south
as well 36L01 (Figure 28). While the TDS and chloride concentrations were elevated from August
2009 to July 2011 in the MW-Blue well, the sodium concentrations remained within historical levels.
During the same time period, TDS, chloride, and sodium concentrations remained within historical
levels in well 36L01. The well cluster at 32S/13E 30N may be relatively prone to seawater intrusion
because of the location near Arroyo Grande Creek and the more permeable sediments deposited
by the ancestral creek (NCMA 2009 Annual Monitoring Report) and the lower groundwater
elevations typical to the east (Figures 8 and 9).
During 2016, there were no indications of seawater intrusion.
6.1.3 Measures to Avoid Seawater Intrusion
In recognition of the risk of seawater intrusion, the NCMA agencies have developed and
implemented a water quality monitoring program for the sentry wells and Oceano CSD observation
wells. The NCMA agencies, FCWCD, and the State of California also have worked cooperatively
toward the protection of the sentry wells as long-term monitoring sites. Several measures are
employed by the NCMA agencies to reduce the potential for seawater intrusion. Specifically, the
Item 9.g. - Page 54
NCMA 2016 Annual Monitoring Report
- 39 -
NCMA agencies have voluntarily reduced coastal groundwater pumping, decreased overall water
use via conservation, and initiated plans, studies, and institutional arrangements to secure
additional surface water supplies. In addition, the City of Pismo Beach is collaborating with the City
of Arroyo Grande to evaluate a Regional Groundwater Sustainability Project (RGSP), which may
be capable of providing up to 2,390 AFY of additional water supply for agricultural irrigation or
groundwater recharge.
As a result, each of the four major municipal water users reduced groundwater use between 25 and
95 percent during the past several years. In 2016, municipal groundwater use was 879.76 AF, which
constitutes 20.3 percent of the urban user’s groundwater allotment (including agricultural
conversion credits) and 9.3 percent of the basin safe yield of 9,500 AF (Table 6).
Reduced groundwater recharge, whether it is from drought or reduction of subsurface inflow from
the north and east, can contribute to lowering groundwater levels and reduced subsurface outflow
to the ocean and could increase the potential threat of seawater intrusion.
6.2 Threats to State Water Project Supply
Both extended drought and long-term reduction in snowpack from climate change can affect SWP
deliveries. Despite the predictions of a strong El Niňo hydrologic year in 2016, the rainfall patterns
in the central coast of California did not result in the “drought-buster” that was hoped to pull
California from the impacts of the recent 5-year severe drought. However, rainfall in March/April,
and again in November/December of 2016 in the SWP source area resulted in storage capacity
levels of the state’s two largest reservoirs, Lake Shasta and Lake Oroville, at 73 and 56 percent
capacity, respectively, as of December 3, 2016. The allocation announcement by DWR, announced
on December 21, 2016, informed SWP contractors that their 2017 allocation would be 45 percent
of requests for deliveries. As the winter rainfall season progresses, the allocations often increase
by March or April. The last 100 percent allocation—difficult to achieve even in wet years largely
because of Delta pumping restrictions to protect threatened and endangered fish species—was in
2006.
The immediate threat of allocation reductions to Pismo Beach and Oceano CSD (the only SWP
contractors in the NCMA) has not significantly materialized during the past several years, as the
FCWCD’s excess SWP entitlement provides a buffer so that contracted volumes to water
purveyors, such as the Oceano CSD and Pismo Beach, still may be provided in full. However, the
SWP supply has the potential to be affected by drought as well as environmental issues, particularly
involving the Delta smelt in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta.
6.3 Threats to Lopez Lake Water Supply
Extended drought conditions in recent years have contributed to record low water levels in Lopez
Lake and impacts of climate change may affect future precipitation amounts in the Lopez Creek
watershed. As discussed in Section 4.1.1, the Zone 3 agencies developed and implemented the
LRRP in response to reduced water in storage in the lake. The LRRP is intended to reduce
municipal diversions and downstream releases as water levels drop in order to preserve water
within the reservoir for an extended drought. However, if drought conditions continue, even with
Item 9.g. - Page 55
NCMA 2016 Annual Monitoring Report
- 40 -
reduced diversions and releases, water from Lopez Lake may be unavailable, or at least
significantly reduced, to the Zone 3 agencies. Without access to water from Lopez Lake, the NCMA
agencies and local agriculture stakeholders may be forced to rely more heavily on their groundwater
supplies and increase pumping during extended drought conditions, which could result in lowering
water levels in the aquifer and an increased threat from seawater intrusion. Moreover, a reduction
in downstream releases from the reservoir, as mandated by the LRRP, likely will lead to reduced
recharge to the NCMA portion of the SMGB and further contribute to declining groundwater levels.
Item 9.g. - Page 56
NCMA 2016 Annual Monitoring Report
- 41 -
7. Management Activities
The NCMA and overlying private well users have actively managed surface water and groundwater
resources in the NCMA agencies area for more than 30 years. Management objectives and
responsibilities were first established in the 1983 “Gentlemen’s Agreement,” recognized in the 2001
Groundwater Management Agreement, and affirmed in the 2002 Settlement Agreement. The
responsibility and authority of the Northern Parties for NCMA groundwater management was
formally established through the 2002 Settlement Agreement, Stipulation, and Judgment After Trial.
Throughout the long history of collaborative management, which was formalized through the
Agreement, Stipulation, and Judgment, the overall management goal for the NCMA agencies is to
preserve the long-term integrity of water supplies in the NCMA portion of the SMGB.
7.1 Management Objectives
Eight basic Water Management Objectives have been established for ongoing NCMA groundwater
management:
1. Share Groundwater Resources and Manage Pumping
2. Enhance Management of NCMA Groundwater
3. Monitor Supply and Demand and Share Information
4. Manage Groundwater Levels and Prevent Seawater Intrusion
5. Protect Groundwater Quality
6. Manage Cooperatively
7. Encourage Water Conservation
8. Evaluate Alternative Sources of Supply
Each of these objectives is discussed in the following sections. Under each objective, the NCMA
TG has identified strategies to meet the objectives. These strategies are listed and then discussed
under each of the eight objectives listed below. Other potential objectives are outlined in the final
section.
A major management undertaking of the NCMA TG in 2014 was the development of a Strategic
Plan (WSC, 2014) to provide the NCMA with:
1. A mission statement to guide future initiatives
2. A framework for communicating water resource goals
3. A formalized the Work Plan for the next 10 years
Through the strategic planning process, the NCMA TG identified several key strategic objectives to
guide its efforts. These efforts include:
A. Enhance Water Supply Reliability
Prepare the NCMA agencies for prolonged drought conditions.
Item 9.g. - Page 57
NCMA 2016 Annual Monitoring Report
- 42 -
Develop a coordinated response plan for seawater intrusion and other supply
emergencies.
Analyze impacts of pumping on the groundwater basin.
Better protect against threats to groundwater sustainability.
B. Improve Water Resource Management
Update the 2001 Groundwater Management Agreement.
Develop more formalized structure/governance for the NCMA TG.
C. Increase Effective Outreach
Engage agriculture stakeholders.
Improve coordination with FCWCD and other regional efforts.
Increase communication with various City Councils and Boards of Directors.
The Strategic Plan formalized many of the water resource management projects, programs, and
planning efforts that the NCMA agencies, both individually and jointly, have been engaged in that
address water supply and demand issues, particularly with respect to efforts to ensure a long-term
sustainable supply. The following section discusses the major management activities that the
NCMA agencies have pursued during 2016 that incorporate the planning objectives outlined in the
2014 Strategic Plan.
In January 2015, the NCMA agencies developed a Water Supply, Production and Delivery Plan
(WSPDP) that applies the strategic objectives to the various supplies available to the area. The
NCMA area receives supplies from Lopez Lake, the SWP, and the underlying groundwater basin.
The purpose of the FY 2014/15 Water Supply, Production and Delivery Plan is to
provide the NCMA agencies with a delivery plan that optimizes use of existing
infrastructure and minimizes groundwater pumping from the SMGB. The plan
includes the development of a water supply and delivery modeling tool for the
NCMA agencies, evaluation of three delivery scenarios, and development of
recommendations for water delivery for FY 2014/15.
The WSPDP made recommendations that were implemented or subject to further study. These
recommendations are summarized in subsequent sections, and include:
Continue ongoing water conservation efforts to limit demand and make additional
supply available for potentially future dry years.
Immediately implement the strategies identified in Scenario 1 Baseline Delivery to
minimize SMGB groundwater pumping in the near term.
Develop an implementation plan to install the necessary appurtenances to allow
the Arroyo Grande/Grover Beach Intertie to be used to deliver additional Lopez
Lake water to Grover Beach. Based on the results of the Arroyo Grande/Grover
Beach Intertie Evaluation, construction of the 8-inch-diameter intertie appears to
be the most cost effective.
Perform additional analysis of a potential Grover Beach Pump Station to evaluate
temporary and permanent pump station alternatives.
Item 9.g. - Page 58
NCMA 2016 Annual Monitoring Report
- 43 -
These recommendations reinforce the ongoing management efforts by the NCMA and provide
potential projects to improve water supply reliability and protect water quality during the ongoing
drought. Ongoing work to implement the recommendations includes evaluation of additional
delivery facilities to add operational flexibility to ensure optimum use of all supplies.
Implementing the WSPDP has allowed the NCMA to minimize the use of groundwater thereby
protecting against seawater intrusion while meeting the needs of its customers and other water
users in the basin.
Additionally, in 2016, the NCMA agencies, in conjunction with the other Zone 3 agencies and the
FCWCD, began an initiative to evaluate potential extended drought emergency options. This
initiative included identification, evaluation, and ranking of potential options, shown below, available
to Zone 3 to improve the reliability of its water supplies if the drought continues. This evaluation of
options was completed by the Zone 3 Technical Advisory Committee and presented to the Zone 3
Advisory Committee and the County Board of Supervisors (BOS). As a result of these efforts, the
Zone 3 agencies and the County have pledged to work collaboratively together to continue to
evaluate and implement emergency water supply reliability options as required in a continued
drought.
Zone 3 Extended Drought Emergency Options:
Cloud Seeding. Investigate opportunities to use cloud seeding to enhance rainfall in the
Lopez Watershed. This could involve a cooperative agreement with the County.
State Water Project. Maximize importation of FCWCD SWP supplies, including
subcontractor and “Excess Entitlement” supplies.
o Evaluate delivery of SWP water to non-SWP subcontractors under emergency
provisions (e.g., Arroyo Grande, Grover Beach, etc.). (In November 2016, the voters of
Arroyo Grande approved Measure E-16 to authorize the purchase of SWP to
supplement the City’s existing water supplies during local water emergencies declared
by the Arroyo Grande City Council.)
Unsubscribed Nacimiento Water Project (NWP) Water. Investigate transfer/exchange
opportunities to obtain unsubscribed NWP water for the Zone 3 agencies (i.e., exchange
agreements with the City of San Luis Obispo and the Chorro Valley pipeline SWP
subcontractors).
Water Market Purchases. Investigate opportunities to obtain additional imported water and
deliver it to the Zone 3 agencies through the SWP infrastructure (e.g., exchange agreements
with San Joaquin/Sacramento Valley farmers, water broker consultation, groundwater
banking exchange agreements, etc.).
Morro Bay Desalination Plant Exchanges. Investigate opportunities to obtain SWP water
from Morro Bay by providing incentives for Morro Bay to fully utilize its desalination plant
capacity.
Land Fallowing. Evaluate potential agreements with local agriculture representatives to
offer financial incentives to fallow land within the Arroyo Grande and Cienega Valleys and
make that water available for municipal use.
Item 9.g. - Page 59
NCMA 2016 Annual Monitoring Report
- 44 -
Lopez Reservoir (Lopez Lake) Minimum Pool. Investigate the feasibility of extracting
water from Lopez Reservoir below the 4,000-AF minimum pool level.
Enhanced Conservation. Evaluate opportunities for enhanced water conservation by the
Zone 3 agencies beyond the Governor’s Mandatory Water Conservation Order (e.g., water
rationing, no outdoor watering, agriculture water restrictions, etc.) to preserve additional
water.
Diablo Canyon Power Plant Desalination. Use excess capacity from the Diablo Canyon
Power Plant’s Desalination Facility to supply water to the Zone 3 agencies through a
connection to the Lopez Pipeline. Estimates of the amount of unused capacity are
approximately 900 AFY. (In June 2016, Pacific Gas & Electric announced that the Diablo
Canyon Power Plant would close, thus putting this option at risk. However, discussions to
plan for long-term use of the desalination facility are ongoing.)
Nacimiento/California Men’s Colony Intertie. Complete design of a pipeline that would
connect the NWP pipeline to the California Men’s Colony (CMC) Water Treatment Plant.
Investigate opportunities for Zone 3 agencies to purchase NWP water and use exchange
agreements and existing infrastructure to deliver additional water to Zone 3 through the
Coastal Branch pipeline.
Emergency Indirect Potable Reuse Groundwater Recharge. Investigate opportunities to
develop an Indirect Potable Reuse (IPR) Groundwater Recharge System, under emergency
permits, to provide a supplemental supply for the Zone 3 agencies.
Emergency Seawater/Brackish Water Desalination Facility. Investigate opportunities to
develop a desalination facility, under emergency permits, to provide a supplemental supply
for the Zone 3 agencies.
Price Canyon Produced Water Recovery. Investigate opportunities to recover and use
produced water from ongoing oil operations in Price Canyon.
Upper Lopez Wells. Investigate potential water storage in aquifers upstream of Lopez Lake
and evaluate opportunities to obtain this water supply.
7.1.1 Share Groundwater Resources and Manage Pumping
Strategies:
Continued reduction of groundwater pumping, maintain below safe yield.
Coordinated delivery of Lopez Lake water to the maximum amount available, pursuant to
the Lopez Lake LRRP.
Continue to import SWP supplies to Oceano CSD and Pismo Beach.
Maintain surface water delivery infrastructure to maximize capacity.
Utilize Lopez Lake to store additional SWP water within San Luis Obispo County
Item 9.g. - Page 60
NCMA 2016 Annual Monitoring Report
- 45 -
Discussion:
A longstanding objective of water users in the NCMA has been to cooperatively share and manage
groundwater resources. In 1983, the Northern Parties (including water users in the NCMA area)
mutually agreed on an initial safe yield estimate and an allotment of pumping between the urban
users and agricultural irrigation users of 57 percent and 43 percent, respectively. In this agreement,
the NCMA agencies also established pumping allotments among themselves. Subsequently, the
2001 Groundwater Management Agreement included provisions to account for changes such as
agricultural land conversions. The agreements provide that any change in the accepted safe yield
based on ongoing assessments would be shared on a pro rata basis. Pursuant to the stipulation,
the NCMA agencies conducted a water balance study to update the safe yield estimate (Todd,
2007). As a result, the Northern Cities parties agreed to maintain the existing pumping allotment
among the urban users and established a consistent methodology to address agricultural land use
conversion.
In addition to cooperatively sharing and managing groundwater resources, the NCMA agencies
have coordinated delivery of water from Lopez Lake. At the same time, Pismo Beach and Oceano
CSD have continued to import SWP water. Both actions maximize use of available surface water
supplies. In response to the continuing drought throughout 2016 and the threat of diminishing water
supplies, Arroyo Grande approved a measure authorizing the City to purchase SWP water from the
FCWCD’s excess allotment on a temporary basis and only during a declared local water
emergency. Additionally, in 2016 through coordination with the Zone 3 agencies the FCWCD took
delivery of additional SWP water, above the SWP subcontractors requested amounts, and delivered
it in-lieu of water from Lopez Reservoir. This enable the FCWCD to retain additional water within
Lopez Lake to potentially make available to the Zone 3 agencies in the event of an extended
drought.
The WSPDP now provides a framework for the NCMA, as a whole, to actively and effectively
manage the groundwater resource, particularly in years of below normal rainfall and below “normal”
SWP delivery schedules. The WSPDP outlined a strategy to provide sufficient supplies to NCMA
water users despite the threat of reduced SWP delivery. Specifically, in 2016, municipal
groundwater pumpage at 879.6 AF was less than any year during the 18-year period from 1999
through 2016 (inclusive).
Many aspects of the NCMA’s water management strategy that shifted direction in 2014 as a result
of the severity of the ongoing drought continued through 2016. Adoption of the LRRP by FCWCD
resulted in the implementation of the first stage of LRRP reduction triggers, which protect the Lopez
Lake from running dry in any single year while providing flows for habitat protection in Arroyo
Grande Creek. In addition, the NCMA agencies have increased conservation efforts even more
than in previous years to adequately and safely manage the water resource (additional discussion
in Section 7.1.7).
Seawater intrusion is the most important potential adverse impact for the NCMA agencies to
consider in their efforts to effectively manage the basin. Seawater intrusion, a concern since the
1960s, would degrade the quality of water in the aquifer and potentially render portions of the basin
unsuitable for groundwater production (DWR, 1970). A Deep Well Index of the three primary deep
sentry wells of 7.5 feet (NAVD 88) has been recognized as the index, above which it is thought that
there is sufficient fresh water (groundwater) outflow to prevent seawater intrusion. From late 2009
Item 9.g. - Page 61
NCMA 2016 Annual Monitoring Report
- 46 -
to April 2013, the NCMA agencies’ management of groundwater levels and groundwater pumpage
maintained the sentry well index above the 7.5-foot level. However, for several weeks in April and
May 2013, from early July through mid-December 2013, and from mid-April 2014 through mid-
December 2014, the index value dropped below the target. In 2015, the index value was above the
Deep Well Index threshold from January through February; however, the index remained below the
target level from March through December 2015, generally between 4 and 7 feet below the 7.5-foot
target.
Similarly, in 2016, the Deep Well Index started the year above the threshold value, with an index
value of 9.18 in January. By mid-May the index value dropped below the 7.5-foot index level.
Between mid-May and October 2016, the Deep Well Index remained below the index threshold
value, reaching an index value of 5.64 feet in October. In late October 2016, the Deep Well Index
began to rise and since mid-December has been above the threshold value.
Another potential adverse impact of localized pumping includes reduction of flow in local streams,
notably Arroyo Grande Creek (Todd, 2007). The NCMA agencies (as Zone 3 contractors) have
participated with FCWCD in preparation of the Arroyo Grande Creek Habitat Conservation Plan
(HCP) that addresses reservoir releases to maintain both groundwater levels and habitat diversity
in the creek. The FCWCD contracted with ECORP Consulting in 2015 to conduct the additional
hydraulic studies to finalize the HCP. The work continued throughout 2016 and results are expected
in 2017.
7.1.2 Enhance Management of NCMA Groundwater
Strategies:
Develop a groundwater model for the NCMA/NMMA or the entire SMGB.
Coordinate with the County and NMMA to develop new monitoring well(s) in key locations
within the SMGB.
Develop a Salt and Nutrient Management Plan (SNMP) for the NCMA/NMMA.
Develop and implement a framework for groundwater storage/conjunctive use, including
return flows.
Update the 2001 Agreement Regarding Management of the Arroyo Groundwater Basin,
approved in 2002.
Discussion:
The NCMA agencies participated in the oversight of the performance of the SMGB characterization
study (Fugro, 2015), which was finalized with the distribution of the complete datasets in March
2016. The project was conducted as part of the County IRWMP 2014 updated, in part to prepare
for and to provide the foundational data for development of a numerical groundwater flow model
and preparation of a basin-wide SNMP. To date, the SNMP has not been initiated, but progress
was made during 2016 toward development of a numerical groundwater flow model, associated
with Regional Groundwater Sustainability Project (RGSP). The intent of the RGSP is to enable
Pismo Beach and the South San Luis Obispo County Sanitation District (SSLOCSD) to construct
an Advanced Treatment Facility (ATF) to produce Advanced Purified Water (APW) to augment its
water supply through injection to recharge the groundwater basin and provide a new, drought-proof,
Item 9.g. - Page 62
NCMA 2016 Annual Monitoring Report
- 47 -
source of water supply for the area. As part of the RGSP planning and technical studies, a localized
groundwater flow model was developed for the northern portion of the NCMA that evaluated the
concept of injecting APW into the SMGB to increase the recharge to the basin, improve water supply
reliability and help prevent future occurrences of seawater intrusion. The results of the modeling
study will be finalized in 2017.
Additional efforts were made in 2016 to proceed with expansion of the RGSP numerical
groundwater flow model upon completion of the Pismo Beach’s investigation, through funding by
SSLOCSD Supplemental Environmental Program (SEP). Those efforts will continue into 2017.
As part of the FCWCD’s SMGB characterization study (Fugro, 2015), continuous monitoring
transducers were installed in 2015 in coastal sentry wells 36L01 and 36L02 (which are part of the
NCMA monitoring program) and in wells 11N/36W-12C01 and 11N/36W-12C02. As a result,
continuous water level and field-parameter water quality data were collected from these wells
throughout 2016.
The monthly NCMA TG meetings provide for collaborative development of joint budget proposals
for studies and plans, and shared water resources. In addition, the monthly meetings provide a
forum for discussing the data collected as part of the quarterly monitoring reports.
7.1.3 Monitor Supply and Demand and Share Information
Strategies:
Develop coordinated Urban Water Management Plans (UWMPs) for the NCMA agencies.
Develop a coordinated Water Shortage Contingency Plan to respond to a severe water
shortage condition in the NCMA.
Share groundwater pumping data at monthly NCMA TG meetings.
Evaluate future water demands through comparison to UWMP projections:
o Arroyo Grande 2015 UWMP (revised and updated, January 2017)
o Pismo Beach 2015 UWMP (June 2016)
o Grover Beach 2010 UWMP
o Oceano CSD is not required to prepare an UWMP because the community
population does not meet the minimum requirement threshold.
Discussion:
Arroyo Grande and Pismo Beach prepared 2015 updated UWMPs during 2016. Oceano CSD is
not required to prepare an UWMP because the community population does not meet the minimum
requirement threshold; however, many of the aspects of a UWMP are addressed through
participation in the NCMA planning process.
Regular monitoring of activities that affect the groundwater basin, and sharing that information,
have occurred for many years. The monitoring efforts include gathering data on hydrologic
conditions, water supply and demand, and groundwater pumping, levels, and quality. The current
monitoring program is managed by the NCMA agencies in accordance with the Stipulation and the
Judgment, guided by the July 2008 Monitoring Program for the NCMA. The monitoring data and a
Item 9.g. - Page 63
NCMA 2016 Annual Monitoring Report
- 48 -
summary of groundwater management activities are summarized in the Annual Reports. Arroyo
Grande, Grover Beach, and Pismo Beach each have evaluated their future water demands as part
of their respective 2010 UWMPs and 2015 UWMP updates. The NCMA shares information with the
two other management areas (NMMA and SMVMA) through data exchange and regular meetings
throughout the Annual Report preparation cycle.
Management activities have become more closely coordinated among the NCMA agencies as a
result of prolonged drought conditions. In particular, the NCMA agencies implemented the LRRP to
limit municipal diversions and downstream releases from Lopez Reservoir to ensure that water is
available for future potentially dry years. In addition, the Zone 3 agencies (which include the NCMA
TG) initiated a long-term drought planning effort. The planning effort is intended to plan water
supplies if the present drought continues.
7.1.4 Manage Groundwater Levels and Prevent Seawater Intrusion
Strategies:
Use stormwater ponds to capture stormwater runoff and recharge the groundwater basin.
Install transducers in key monitoring wells to provide continuous groundwater elevation
data; the following wells have transducers:
o 24B03
o 30F03
o 30N02
o 36L01
o 36L02
o 32C03 (County Monitoring Well No. 3)
Collect and evaluate daily municipal pumping data to determine the impact on local
groundwater elevation levels.
Discussion:
Prevention of seawater intrusion through the management of groundwater levels is essential to
protect the shared resource. The NCMA agencies increase groundwater recharge with stormwater
infiltration and closely monitoring groundwater levels and water quality in sentry wells along the
coast.
Arroyo Grande and Grover Beach each maintain stormwater retention ponds within their
jurisdiction; the FCWCD maintains the stormwater system, including retention ponds, in Oceano
CSD. These ponds collect stormwater runoff, allowing it to recharge the underlying aquifers. There
are approximately 140 acres of detention ponds in Arroyo Grande and 48 acres of detention ponds
in Grover Beach. The stormwater detention pond in Oceano CSD is approximately one-half acre.
Grover Beach modified its stormwater system in 2012 to direct additional flow into one of its
recharge basins.
Although closely related to the objectives to manage pumping, monitor supply and demand, and
share information, this objective also specifically recognizes the proximity of production wells to the
Item 9.g. - Page 64
NCMA 2016 Annual Monitoring Report
- 49 -
coast and the threat of seawater intrusion. The NCMA agencies and FCWCD have long cooperated
in the monitoring of groundwater levels, including quarterly measurement by the NCMA of
groundwater levels in sentry wells at the coast. Upon assuming responsibility for the coastal
monitoring wells, the NCMA became aware of the need to upgrade their condition. In July 2010 the
wellheads (surface completions) at four sentry monitoring well clusters in the NCMA were
renovated:
24B01, -B02, and-B03
30F01, -F02, and -F03
30N01, -N02, and -N03
36L01 and -L02
The renovations included raising the elevations of the top of each individual well casing by 2 to 3
feet and resurveying relative to the NAVD88 standard in late September 2010 (Wallace Group,
2010). The individual well casings are now above the ground surface and protective locking steel
risers enclose each cluster. As a result of this work, the sentry wells in the NCMA now are protected
from surface contamination and tampering.
Quarterly measurement of groundwater levels aids in assessing the risk of seawater intrusion along
the coast. To enhance the data collection and assessment efforts, the NCMA installed transducers
in five of the key sentry monitoring wells to provide continuous groundwater levels at key locations.
By combining this with the collection and evaluation of daily municipal pumping data, the NCMA is
better able to determine the response of local groundwater levels to extractions and, therefore,
better manage the basin.
To gain insight into water level fluctuation and water quality variation in the area between the NCMA
and NMMA, a continuous monitor was installed in well 32C03 (County Well No. 3), which was
constructed and is owned by the County as part of the County-wide groundwater monitoring
network. Water level monitoring was initiated in April 2012, when sensors were installed to
document water level, temperature, and specific conductivity.
In 2015, continuous monitoring sensors were installed in coastal monitoring wells 36L01 and 36L02
located in the Oceano Dunes. Data from the transducers in these wells now are collected on a
quarterly basis along with the other sentry wells.
Additional studies to enhance basin management efforts that have been discussed by the NCMA
TG include:
Consider implementation of a monthly water level elevation data analysis of the sentry wells
during periods when the Deep Well Index value is below the index target of 7.5 feet NAVD88
for an extended period of time. Given that the index generally has remained steady because
of reduced groundwater pumping, the NCMA has deferred the issue of monthly analysis.
Consider implementation of a monthly analysis of electrical conductivity data from the wells
with downhole transducers during periods when the Deep Well Index value is below the
index target of 7.5 feet to track potential water quality degradation (an enhanced monitoring
schedule of County Well No. 3 is not necessary because background water quality does not
change or fluctuate significantly). If electrical conductivity data suggest water quality
Item 9.g. - Page 65
NCMA 2016 Annual Monitoring Report
- 50 -
degradation, implement a monthly sampling and monitoring program. Given that the index
generally has remained steady because of reductions in groundwater pumping, the NCMA
has deferred the issue of monthly analysis.
Assess the potential impacts on sentry well water level elevations from extended periods of
increased groundwater pumping by conducting analytical modeling analyses to predict
water level responses given certain pumping scenarios. These analyses may prove fruitful
as scenarios unfold regarding decreased SWP deliveries or short-term emergency cuts to
Lopez Lake deliveries.
The 2005 Stipulation requires Nipomo Community Services District (NCSD) and the other
Mesa parties to import 2,500 AFY to mitigate overpumping that may impact groundwater
inflow to the NCMA, and thus may facilitate seawater intrusion in both NCMA and NMMA.
On July 2, 2015, the NCSD began taking deliveries of SWP from the City of Santa Maria.
The current project capacity is 650 AFY and plans are underway to eventually take it to its
full capacity.
7.1.5 Protect Groundwater Quality
Strategies:
Perform quarterly water quality monitoring at all sentry wells and County Well No. 3.
Gather temperature and electrical conductivity data from monitoring wells to continuously
track water quality indicators for seawater intrusion.
Prepare an SNMP pursuant to state policy using the results of the SMGB characterization
study (Fugro, 2015).
Construct a recycled water system in Pismo Beach, pursuant to the results of the RGSP.
Support regional recycled water project planning through performance of a Recycled Water
Recycling Facilities Planning Study (RWFPS) by the South San Luis Obispo County
Sanitation District. The Draft RWFPS was completed in early 2017.
Discussion:
The objective to protect groundwater quality is closely linked with the objective for monitoring and
data sharing. To meet this objective all sources of water quality degradation, including the threat of
seawater intrusion, need to be recognized. Water quality threats and possible degradation affect
the integrity of the groundwater basin, potentially resulting in loss of use or the need for expensive
water treatment processes. Sentry wells are monitored quarterly and data from other NCMA
production wells are assessed annually. The monitoring program includes evaluation of potential
contaminants in addition to those that might indicate seawater intrusion. Temperature and electrical
conductivity probes have been installed in five monitoring wells to provide continuous water quality
tracking for early indication of seawater intrusion. A sixth sentry well cluster (36L) in the Oceano
Dunes was instrumented in April 2015 as part of the SMGB characterization study (Fugro, 2015).
The results of the SMGB characterization study provide the foundation for preparation of an SNMP.
Investigations continued throughout 2016 for work associated with Pismo Beach’s RGSP. These
efforts followed up on the City of Pismo Beach’s RWFPS to investigate alternatives for constructing
Item 9.g. - Page 66
NCMA 2016 Annual Monitoring Report
- 51 -
a recycled water system that will enable the NCMA agencies to beneficially use recycled water to
augment their groundwater supply and provide a new, drought-proof source of water supply for the
area. Preliminary engineering was performed throughout 2016, and is expected to be finalized in
2017, along with environmental review. Collaboration efforts among the City of Pismo Beach,
SSLOCSD and its member agencies identified two potential opportunities for moving forward with
a regional ATF that could treat flows from both the City of Pismo Beach and SSLOCSD’s WWTPs.
The two alternative ATF site locations, which include the SSLOCSD WWTP and an offsite location,
were evaluated in the SSLOCSD RWFPS. The Draft SSLOCSD RWFPS was published in early
2017 and analyzes the infrastructure requirements and costs for a regional ATF facility.
7.1.6 Manage Cooperatively
Strategies:
Improve agriculture outreach by enhancing coordination with local growers.
Coordinate groundwater monitoring data sharing and annual report preparation with the
NCMA, NMMA, and the SMVMA.
Improve interagency coordination among the NCMA agencies and include the County.
Discussion:
Since 1983, NCMA management has been based on cooperative efforts of the affected parties,
including the NCMA agencies, private agricultural groundwater users, the County, the FCWCD, and
other local and state agencies. Specifically, the NCMA agencies have limited their pumping and, in
cooperation with FCWCD, invested in surface water supplies so as to not exceed the safe yield of
the NCMA portion of the SMGB. Other organizations participate, as appropriate. In addition to the
efforts discussed in this 2016 Annual Report, cooperative management occurs through many other
venues and forums, including communication by the NCMA agencies in their respective public
meetings and participation in the Water Resources Advisory Council (the County-wide advisory
panel on water issues).
The NCMA agencies participated in preparation and adoption of the 2014 update of the County
IRWMP. The IRWMP promotes integrated regional water management to ensure sustainable water
uses, reliable water supplies, better water quality, environmental stewardship, efficient urban
development, protection of agriculture, and a strong economy. The IRWMP integrates all of the
programs, plans, and projects within the region into water supply, water quality, ecosystem
preservation and restoration, groundwater monitoring and management, and flood management
programs.
Since the Judgment, the NCMA has taken the lead in cooperative management of its management
area. The NCMA TG met monthly throughout 2016 and has been a willing and active participant in
the SMGBMA technical subcommittee, which first met in 2009. The purpose of the SMGBMA
technical subcommittee is to coordinate efforts among the management areas, such as enhanced
monitoring of groundwater levels and improved sharing of data. With the current threats to water
supply in all management areas, greater communication, analytical collaboration, and data sharing,
especially between NCMA and NMMA, are encouraged.
Item 9.g. - Page 67
NCMA 2016 Annual Monitoring Report
- 52 -
An outcome of actions initiated by NCMA in early 2016 resulted in several activities of increased
discussion and collaboration between the NCMA and NMMA. One of the initiatives was the
formation of an NCMA-NMMA Management Coordination Committee to discuss items of mutual
concern and develop strategies for addressing the concerns.
Another area of increased mutual collaboration between the NCMA and NMMA was the formation
of a technical team, consisting of representatives from the NCMA and NMMA, to collaboratively
develop a single data set of water level data points to prepare a consistent set of semiannual water
level contour maps for the NCMA and NMMA, so that the maps from each management area would
represent a mutually agreed upon condition at the NCMA/NMMA boundary.
A third initiative was to create a Modeling Subcommittee, composed of a select set of
representatives from the NCMA and NMMA, to discuss the feasibility and possible work scope for
the development of a numerical groundwater flow model of the SMGB, or at least that portion of the
basin north of the Santa Maria River.
7.1.7 Encourage Water Conservation
Strategies:
Share updated water conservation information.
Implement UWMPs.
Discussion:
Water conservation, or water use efficiency, is linked to the monitoring of supply and demand and
the management of pumping. Water conservation reduces overall demand on all sources, including
groundwater, and supports management objectives to manage groundwater levels and prevent
seawater intrusion. In addition, water conservation is consistent with state policies seeking to
achieve a 20 percent reduction in water use by the year 2020. Water conservation activities in the
NCMA are summarized in various documents produced by the NCMA agencies, including the 2015
Urban Water Management Plans (UWMP) of Arroyo Grande and Pismo Beach and the 2010 UWMP
of Grover Beach (Oceano CSD is not required to prepare an UWMP).
In addition to ongoing water conservation efforts, the drought conditions that extended throughout
2016 led the NCMA agencies to increase their effort to reduce water use. The statewide mandatory
water conservation requirements, signed into law on April 1, 2015, by the governor (Executive Order
B-29-15), which enacted mandatory water conservation requirements because of the ongoing
drought conditions and the historic low Sierra snowpack measurements, were continued into 2016.
The final regulations adopted by the SWRCB on May 5, 2015, imposed mandatory water use
reductions on Arroyo Grande, Grover Beach, and Pismo Beach, and these restrictions were
continued throughout 2016. Although not directly subject to these mandatory restrictions, Oceano
CSD also increased its water conservation efforts. The water conservation measures instituted by
each NCMA agency are summarized below.
City of Arroyo Grande
In 2015, Arroyo Grande implemented a series of water conservation restrictions and offered a
comprehensive program of water conservation incentives. On May 26, 2015, the City declared a
Item 9.g. - Page 68
NCMA 2016 Annual Monitoring Report
- 53 -
Water Shortage Emergency and implemented mandatory water conservation measures through
adoption of Resolution 4659.
On August 23, 2016, the City Council directed the staff to develop water supply condition “triggers”
that would prompt implementation of additional reductions of water supply use.
On October 25, 2016, the City Council adopted Resolution 4764 revising the Stage 1 water
emergency restrictions to increase mandatory conservation for dedicated irrigation meters from 25
to 50 percent.
On November 22, 2016, the City Council approved a modification of Resolution 4659 that included
the previously identified water condition triggers and required commercial customers with irrigation
meter accounts to further reduce from 25 to 50 percent. Additionally, the City approved a water
offset program to be effective during a prohibition on new water service connections.
Modification of the Stage 1 Water Shortage Emergency Resolution (Stage 1B) would trigger
additional water use restrictions if any one of the following events occurred:
1. Interruption to local water deliveries, water delivery system, or state-mandated reductions.
2. Lopez Reservoir level at or below 10,000 AF.
3. Six quarterly continuous monitoring events of sentry well water level reading in the SMGB
below the Deep Well Index threshold level of 7.5 feet or indications of seawater intrusion
are detected.
When any or all of the adopted trigger conditions exist, then the following additional water use
restrictions would be implemented:
1. Further reduce overall irrigation of City-owned non-sports field turf areas to 25 percent of
the water used for such irrigation in a year as specified in the adopting Resolution.
2. Increase the mandatory water use restrictions for residential water customers by 5 percent
for each of the three water rate tiers.
3. There shall be no new or additional water connections for any project that does not have all
required planning project approvals and entitlements at the time of the Certification that a
Triggering Condition exists. Smaller projects of less than four residential units or less than
5,000 square feet of commercial space shall be exempt from this restriction.
Notwithstanding this restriction, development projects may continue to be processed.
4. The City Council may provide that the restriction contained in item 3 will not apply to any
project that participates in the City’s approved water demand offset program by providing
water savings that offset their project’s water demand by a ratio of 1:1.5.
Mandatory water conservation measures include:
Use of water that results in excessive gutter runoff is prohibited.
No water will be used for cleaning driveways, patios, parking lots, sidewalks, streets, or
other such use except where necessary to protect the public health and safety.
Outdoor water use for washing vehicles will be attended and have hand-controlled water
devices.
Item 9.g. - Page 69
NCMA 2016 Annual Monitoring Report
- 54 -
Outdoor irrigation is prohibited between 10 a.m. and 4 p.m.
Irrigation of private and public landscaping, turf areas, and gardens is permitted at even-
numbered addresses only on Mondays and Thursdays, and at odd-numbered addresses
only on Tuesdays and Fridays.
No irrigation of private and public landscaping, turf areas, and gardens is permitted on
Wednesdays. Irrigation is permitted at all addresses on Saturdays and Sundays.
In all cases, customers are directed to use no more water than necessary to maintain
landscaping.
Emptying and refilling swimming pools and commercial spas are prohibited except to
prevent structural damage and/or to provide for the public health and safety.
New swimming pools may be constructed, however, they will have a cover that conforms to
the size and shape of the pool and acts as an effective barrier to evaporation. The cover
must be in place during periods when use of the pool is not reasonably expected to occur.
Use of potable water for soil compaction or dust control purposes in construction activities
is prohibited.
Hotel, motel, or other commercial lodging establishments will offer their patrons the option
to forego the daily laundering of towels, sheets, and other linens.
Restaurants or other commercial food service establishments will not serve water except
upon the request of a patron.
The City may impose fines for violation of mandatory conservation measures. Customers
who received a financial penalty may have their penalty waived if they attend a 2-hour water
conservation class.
In addition to the mandatory water conservation measures outlined above, the Water Shortage
Emergency resolution included a tiered billing system, whereby residential customers were
assigned a baseline amount of water, based on the amount of water used during the billing period
of 2013. Residential customers in Tier 1 then were required to reduce consumption by 10 percent,
customers in Tier 2 were required to reduce consumption by 20 percent, and customers in Tier 3
were required to reduce consumption by 30 percent.
To help manage the use of water, the City offers several water conservation incentive programs
designed to decrease overall water use, particularly outside (irrigation) use in the summer. The
conservation and incentive programs include:
Plumbing Retrofit Program. This program includes installation or adjustment of
showerheads, toilets, faucet aerators, and pressure regulators for single-family and multi-
family residential units constructed before 1992. This program has been in place since 2004
at an expense to the City of more than $1.55 million.
Cash for Grass. Because of its popularity and limited funding, this program was suspended.
Item 9.g. - Page 70
NCMA 2016 Annual Monitoring Report
- 55 -
StormRewards Program. This rebate program (administered by Coastal San Luis
Resource Conservation District) provides an incentive for landowners to install rain gardens,
rain barrels, dry wells, and porous pavement, and to remove impervious pavement.
Sustainable Landscape Seminar Series. This program offers monthly seminars on
sustainable landscaping practices. DVDs of the seminars are available at the County library
located at 800 West Branch Street in Arroyo Grande.
Smart Irrigation Controller and Sensor Program. This program offers Smart Irrigation
Controllers and Sensors at no charge to customers to encourage residents to upgrade their
old irrigation controllers with new weather-based sensor technology.
Washing Machine Rebate. This program pays water customers a one-time rebate for the
installation of a certified energy efficient Tier 3 washing machine.
Mandatory Plumbing Retrofit. Upon change of ownership of any residential property, the
seller must retrofit the property’s plumbing fixtures to meet defined low-water use criteria.
Arroyo Grande’s water conservation efforts have been successful; the ongoing programs have
decreased water use per residential connection from 186 gallons per capita per day (gpcd) in 2010
to 110 gpcd in 2016. With a defined target per capita usage for 2020 of 149 gpcd (based on the
City’s 2010 UWMP), the City has far exceeded its conservation goals originally set in 2010.
City of Pismo Beach
On August 8, 2014, Pismo Beach adopted several Water Conservation Incentive Programs to help
reduce water consumption and ensure reliable future water supply. The programs include:
Cash for Grass. This program reimburses residents for each square foot of lawn removed
(minimum 300 square feet) and replaced with drought-tolerant landscaping, which is
required to have drip or micro-spray irrigation and be on an automatic timer.
Free Catch Bucket Program. This program gives residents one free shower catch bucket
for capturing unused shower water and re-purposing it for irrigation or utility purposes.
Rain Barrel Rebate Program. This program reimburses residents up to $100 ($50 per rain
barrel) when up to two rain barrels are purchased and installed to use rain water, conserve
potable water, and reduce stormwater runoff.
Washing Machine Rebate. This program pays a one-time amount for the purchase and
installation of a certified energy-efficient Tier 3 washing machine.
Smart Irrigation Controller Program. This program pays a one-time amount toward the
cost of a new irrigation controller and associated sensors.
Irrigation Retrofit Program. This program provides a one-time rebate for conversion of a
manually operated irrigation system to automatic irrigation.
Waterless Urinal Rebate Program. This program provides a one-time rebate for each
conventional flushing urinal that is replaced with a flushless urinal.
High Efficiency Toilet Rebate Program. This program provides a one-time rebate for each
3.5-gallon per flush or higher toilet replaced with a 1.28-gallon per flush or lower toilet.
Item 9.g. - Page 71
NCMA 2016 Annual Monitoring Report
- 56 -
In 2015, Pismo Beach declared a "Severely Restricted Water Supply" and, subsequently, a
“Critically Restricted Water Supply.” The associated restrictions associated with the declarations
were continued throughout 2016, and included:
Use of water that results in excessive gutter runoff is prohibited.
No outdoor water use – except irrigation.
o No water will be used for cleaning driveways, patios, parking lots, sidewalks, streets,
or other such uses except where necessary to protect the public health and safety.
o Outdoor water use for washing vehicles or boats will be attended and have hand-
controlled watering devices.
o Using potable water in decorative water features that do not recirculate the water is
prohibited.
Outdoor Irrigation.
o Outdoor irrigation will be limited to no more than three assigned days per week.
o Outdoor irrigation is prohibited between 10 a.m. and 4 p.m.
o Irrigation of private and public landscaping, turf areas, and gardens is permitted at
even-numbered addresses only on Mondays and Thursdays and at odd-numbered
addresses only on Tuesdays and Fridays.
o Using outdoor irrigation during and 48 hours following measurable precipitation is
prohibited.
Restaurants will serve drinking water only in response to a specific request by a customer.
Hotels and motels must provide guests with the option of not having towels and linens
laundered daily.
Use of potable water for compaction or dust control purposes in construction activities is
prohibited.
On July 21, 2014 the City of Pismo Beach introduced the first-in-the-state waterless urinal mandate
and a 0.5-gallon per minute (gpm) restroom aerator retrofit requirement. The components of this
program includes:
Waterless urinal retrofits. All existing urinals in the City will be retrofitted to waterless
urinals before February 14, 2016. Exemptions to this section may be granted at the
discretion of the City Engineer under certain conditions.
Aerators. Residential construction will be fitted with aerators that emit no more than 0.5
gpm. Exemptions may be granted at the discretion of the City Engineer in cases to protect
public health and safety.
Sub-meters in new construction. All new multi-unit buildings, regardless of proposed use,
will be required to have a separate sub-meter capable of measuring the water use of every
usable unit, separate common space, and landscaping that is expected to use at least 25
Item 9.g. - Page 72
NCMA 2016 Annual Monitoring Report
- 57 -
gallons of water per day on average for the course of a year, regardless of the overall size
of the building. Buildings that have a separate water meter for each unit are exempt.
Faucet aerators. Restroom faucets in all publicly accessible restrooms, including those in
hotel rooms, lobbies and restrooms, restaurants, schools, commercial and retail buildings,
public buildings, and similar publicly accessible restrooms were retrofitted to install aerators
that emit no more than 0.5 gpm.
The water conservation efforts of Pismo Beach helped to reduce water consumption in the City by
23 percent in 2016 (1,646.45 AF) compared to 2013 (2,148.37 AF). The City is committed to
continuing implementation of water conservation programs.
On December 1, 2015 the City of Pismo Beach introduced a three tiered system of building
restrictions and enacted Tier I of the system.
City of Grover Beach
In June 2014, Grover Beach declared a Stage III Water Shortage that required all water customers
to reduce their water usage by 10 percent. Many of the prohibitions that had previously been
voluntary since declaration of the Stage II Water Shortage Declaration became mandatory with the
Stage III declaration. The declaration also provided the City with the authority to impose penalties
for failure to comply with the water reduction or use prohibitions. The Stage III Water Shortage
declaration, with associated prohibitions, continued throughout 2016. These prohibitions include:
Washing of sidewalks, driveways, or roadways where air-blowers or sweeping provides a
reasonable alternative.
Refilling of private pools except to maintain water levels.
Planting of turf and other new landscaping, unless it consists of drought-tolerant plants.
Washing vehicles, boats, etc. without a quick-acting shut-off nozzle on the hose.
Washing any exterior surfaces unless using a quick-acting shut-off nozzle on the hose.
Restaurant water service, unless requested.
Use of potable water for construction purposes, unless no other source of water or method
can be used.
Operation of ornamental fountain or car wash unless water is re-circulated.
Grover Beach has implemented demand management rebate programs including:
Cash for Grass Rebate Program
Smart Irrigation Controller and Sensor Rebate Program
Toilet Fixtures, Showerheads, and Aerators Retrofit Rebate Program
Washing Machine Rebate Program
In addition, Grover Beach sponsors workshops on drought tolerant landscaping. The 10-year
baseline average water use for Grover Beach is 140.7 gpcd. The water use for 2016 was 80 gpcd.
Item 9.g. - Page 73
NCMA 2016 Annual Monitoring Report
- 58 -
With a target per capita usage for 2020 of 113 gpcd, the City has far exceeded its conservation
goals originally set in 2010.
Oceano CSD
Given the population of its service area, Oceano CSD is not required to prepare an UWMP or
reduce water consumption as mandated by the Governor for Urban Water Suppliers. Outdoor water
use restrictions have been adopted, as required. In April 2015, Oceano CSD adopted a rate
increase that included tiered rates to promote water conservation; the conditions continued
throughout 2016.
Oceano CSD has essentially eliminated groundwater pumping (Oceano CSD pumped 0.5 percent
of its groundwater allotment), and is maintaining its annual allocation of Lopez Lake water in storage
as allowed pursuant to the LRRP. Water year 2016-17 was the third year in a row that Oceano CSD
stored 100 percent of its Lopez Lake allocation. Meanwhile, Oceano CSD’s conservation efforts
continue to be between 25 to 30 percent in comparison to 2013, thereby exceeding the Governor’s
goal of 25 percent. Overall consumption has declined to approximately 85 gpcd after the
implementation of drought conservation rates, illustrating that as a disadvantaged community, it is
responding effectively to conservation rates.
Oceano CSD’s demand is less than its annual allocation of SWP water, preserving local supplies if
needed in subsequent years, depending on SWP deliveries. In the event that SWP deliveries are
decreased to a level that is insufficient to meet Oceano CSD demand, then mandatory conservation
efforts will be implemented to match the available supply. If the supply is less than 55 gpcd needed
to meet health and safety needs, then the supply shortfall will be supplemented from Lopez Lake
supplies. Current SWP reliability analyses prepared by the DWR illustrate a low probability that
SWP water will not be able to meet Oceano CSD demands in any two consecutive years.
Additional strategies exist in the event of temporary non-delivery of SWP and Lopez Lake water
and other unforeseen circumstances. Post-drought strategies include resumption of groundwater
pumping, resumption of Lopez Lake deliveries, and storage of SWP water as provided in SWP
contracts.
7.1.8 Evaluate Alternative Sources of Supply
Strategies:
Evaluate expanded use of recycled water.
Analyze capacity of the Lopez Lake and Coastal Branch pipelines to maximize deliveries of
surface water. The following analyses have been completed:
o Lopez Lake Pipeline Capacity Evaluation
o Lopez Lake Pipeline Capacity Re-Evaluation
o Coastal Branch Capacity Assessment
o Lopez Bypass and State Water Delivery Evaluation
Item 9.g. - Page 74
NCMA 2016 Annual Monitoring Report
- 59 -
Optimize existing surface water supplies, including surface water storage through the
development of a framework for interagency exchanges and transfers, including SWP and
Lopez Lake supplies.
Maximize Lopez Lake pipeline capacity.
Improve Lopez Lake water treatment plant capacity and reliability.
Discussion:
The NCMA agencies continue to evaluate alternative sources of water supply that could provide a
more reliable and sustainable water supply for the NCMA. An expanded portfolio of water supply
sources will support sustainable management of the groundwater resource and help to reduce the
risk of water shortages. These alternative sources include:
State Water Project. Oceano CSD and Pismo Beach are currently SWP customers and
could use additional water deliveries. Both Pismo Beach and Oceano CSD increased their
SWP allocations by securing “drought buffers” to increase the availability of supply during
periods of SWP shortfalls. Grover Beach and Arroyo Grande are not SWP customers;
however, Arroyo Grande approved a measure in 2016 authorizing the City to purchase SWP
water from the FCWCD’s excess allotment on a temporary basis and only during a declared
local water emergency.
Water Recycling. As discussed in Section 7.1.5, the SSLOCSD prepared an RWFPS to
evaluate alternatives for a recycled water program that could provide a supplemental water
supply source and improve the water supply reliability for the City of Pismo Beach and the
SSLOCSD member agencies (Arroyo Grande, Grover Beach, and Oceano CSD).
Section 7.1.5 also describes ongoing efforts for the RGSP that will enable the NCMA
agencies to produce recycled water to augment their water supplies. Construction of the
new facility will allow for the use of recycled water to recharge the groundwater basin and
provide a new, drought-proof source of water supply for the area. As conceived, the project
includes construction of a distribution system that will inject advanced purified water into the
SMGB and will allow the NCMA agencies to increase recharge to the basin, improve water
supply reliability, and help to prevent future occurrences of seawater intrusion.
Lopez Lake Expansion. In 2008, the County sponsored a preliminary assessment of the
concept of installing an inflatable rubber dam at the Lopez Dam spillway. Subsequently, the
FCWCD Service Area 12 and Arroyo Grande, Grover Beach, and Pismo Beach funded a
study to further analyze the feasibility of increasing the yield of Lopez Lake by raising the
spillway height with an inflatable dam or permanent extension. The study was finalized in
2013 and identified the potential to increase the annual yield from Lopez Lake by 500 AFY
with a spillway height increase by 6 feet (Stetson, 2013). The NCMA agencies are continuing
to evaluate other aspects of the project, including pipeline capacity and impacts on the HCP
process.
Item 9.g. - Page 75
NCMA 2016 Annual Monitoring Report
- 60 -
Desalination. In 2006, Arroyo Grande, Grover Beach, and Oceano CSD used Prop 50
funds to complete a feasibility study on desalination as an additional water supply option for
the NCMA. This alternative supply is not considered to be a viable option at this time.
Previous efforts by the FCWCD to (1) evaluate the potential to expand the existing
desalination facility at the PG&E Diablo Canyon Power Plant and (2) connect it to the Lopez
Lake pipeline to provide a supplemental water supply for the Zone 3 agencies have been
put on hold since PG&E announced plans to close the power plant.
Nacimiento Pipeline Extension. In 2006, Arroyo Grande, Grover Beach, and Oceano CSD
completed a Nacimiento pipeline extension evaluation to determine the feasibility of delivery
of water from the Nacimiento reservoir to the NCMA. This alternative supply is not
considered to be a viable option at this time.
Item 9.g. - Page 76
NCMA 2016 Annual Monitoring Report
- 61 -
8. References
Allen, R.G., Pereira, L.S., Raes, D., and Smith, M. 1998. Crop evapotranspiration- Guidelines for
computing crop water requirements: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United
Nations, Irrigation and Drainage Paper 56, 300p.
California Department of Water Resources (DWR). 1958. San Luis Obispo County Investigation,
Bulletin No. 18, vol 1 and 2.
California Department of Water Resources (DWR). 1970. Sea-Water Intrusion: Pismo-Guadalupe
Area. Bulletin No. 63-3, 76 p.
California Department of Water Resources (DWR). 1975. Sea-Water Intrusion in California,
Inventory of Coastal Ground Water Basins, Bulletin 63-5.
California Department of Water Resources (DWR). 1979. Ground Water in the Arroyo Grande Area,
Southern District Report.
California Department of Water Resources. 2002. Water resources of the Arroyo Grande – Nipomo
Mesa area: Southern District Report, 156 p.
California Department of Water Resources Bay Delta Office. 2016. IWFM Demand Calculator IDC
2015: Theoretical Documentation and User’s Manual. Central Valley Modeling Unit.
California Polytechnic State University. 2012. California Evapotranspiration Data for Irrigation
District Water Balances, Irrigation Training & Research Center, San Luis Obispo, CA 93407-
0730.
Carollo Engineers. 2011. City of Pismo Beach 2010 Urban Water Management Plan.
City of Arroyo Grande. 2010. City of Arroyo Grande 2010 Urban Water Management Plan.
City of Grover Beach. 2010. City of Grover Beach 2010 Urban Water Management Plan.
EDAW, Inc. August 1998. San Luis Obispo County Master Water Plan Update.
Fugro Consultants, Inc. 2015. Santa Maria Groundwater Basin Characterization and Planning
Activities Study, Final Report. Prepared for San Luis Obispo County Flood Control and
Water Conservation District, December 30, 2015.
Miller, G. A. and Evenson, R. E. 1966. Utilization of Groundwater in the Santa Maria Valley Area,
California. USGS Water Supply Paper 1819-A.
Mualem, Y. 1976. A new model for predicting the hydraulic conductivity of unsaturated porous
media. Water Resources Res., 12, 513-522.
Northern Cities Management Area 2008 Annual Monitoring Report, prepared by Todd Engineers.
April 2009.
Northern Cities Management Area 2009 Annual Monitoring Report, prepared by Todd Engineers.
April 2010.
Northern Cities Management Area 2010 Annual Monitoring Report, prepared by GEI Consultants.
April 2011.
Item 9.g. - Page 77
NCMA 2016 Annual Monitoring Report
- 62 -
Northern Cities Management Area 2011 Annual Monitoring Report, prepared by GEI Consultants.
May 2012.
Northern Cities Management Area 2012 Annual Monitoring Report, prepared by GEI Consultants.
April 2013.
Northern Cities Management Area 2013 Annual Monitoring Report, prepared by Fugro Consultants.
April 2014.
Northern Cities Management Area 2014 Annual Monitoring Report, prepared by Fugro Consultants.
April 2015.
Northern Cities Management Area 2015 Annual Monitoring Report, prepared by Fugro Consultants.
April 2016.
Nipomo Mesa Management Area, 2nd Annual Report, Calendar Year 2009, prepared by the NMMA
Technical Group, April 2010.
Nipomo Mesa Management Area, 3rd Annual Report, Calendar Year 2010, prepared by the NMMA
Technical Group, April 2011.
Nipomo Mesa Management Area, 4th Annual Report, Calendar Year 2011, prepared by the NMMA
Technical Group, April 2012.
Nipomo Mesa Management Area, 5th Annual Report, Calendar Year 2012, prepared by the NMMA
Technical Group, April 2013.
Nipomo Mesa Management Area, 6th Annual Report, Calendar Year 2013, prepared by the NMMA
Technical Group, April 2014.
Nipomo Mesa Management Area, 7th Annual Report, Calendar Year 2014, prepared by the NMMA
Technical Group, April 2015.
Nipomo Mesa Management Area, 8th Annual Report, Calendar Year 2015, prepared by the NMMA
Technical Group, April 2016.
Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E). 2014. Central Coastal California Seismic Imaging
Project (CCSIP), report to the California Public Utilities Commission.
http://www.pge.com/en/safety/systemworks/dcpp/seismicsafety/report.page
Stetson Engineers. 2013. Lopez Lake Spillway Raise Project Report.
Superior Court of California, County of Santa Clara, in Judgment After Trial, entered January 25,
2008 incorporating 2002 Settlement Agreement among the Northern Cities, Northern
Landowners, and Other Parties, and 2005 Settlement Stipulation for the Santa Maria
Groundwater Basin adjudication.
Todd. 2007. Water Balance Study for the Northern Cities Area. Todd Engineers. April 2007.
Todd. 2008. Monitoring Program for the Northern Cities Management Area. Todd Engineers, July
2008.
Todd Engineers. 2010. Summary of Renovations for the Northern Cities Management Area Sentry
Wells, San Luis Obispo County, California.
Item 9.g. - Page 78
NCMA 2016 Annual Monitoring Report
- 63 -
U.S. Geological Survey. 2006. Quaternary fault and fold database for the United States.
http://earthquake.usgs.gov/regional/qfaults
Van Genuchten, M.T. 1985. A Closed-form solution for predicting the conductivity of unsaturated
soils. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J., 44, 892-898.
Wallace Group. 2010. Survey Report on the “Sentry” Well Elevation Establishment for Cities of
Arroyo Grande, Grover Beach, Pismo Beach and the Oceano Community Services District.
Water Systems Consulting, Inc. (WSC), 2014, Final Draft Strategic Plan for the Northern Cities
Management Area Technical Group, June 2014.
Woodring, W.P and Bramlette, M.N. 1950. Geology and Paleontology of the Santa Maria District,
California: U.S. Geological Survey, Professional Paper 222, 142 p.
Worts, G.G., Jr. 1951. Geology and ground-water resources of the Santa Maria Valley area,
California: U.S. Geological Survey Water-Supply Paper 1000, 176 p.
Item 9.g. - Page 79
NCMA 2016 Annual Monitoring Report
- 64 -
This page left blank intentionally.
Item 9.g. - Page 80
FIGURES
Item 9.g. - Page 81
This page left blank intentionally.
Item 9.g. - Page 82
Santa
Maria
Guadalupe
Nipomo
Arroyo
Grande
Grover
Beach
Pismo
Beach
Orcutt
Northern
Cities
Management
Area
Sa
n
L
u
i
s
O
b
i
s
p
o
C
o
u
n
t
y
Sa
n
t
a
B
a
r
b
a
r
a
C
o
u
n
t
y
£ 101
Nipomo Mesa
Management
Area
Santa Maria
Valley
Management Area
Date: December 23, 2016
Data Sources:
LEGEND
Northern Cities Management Area
Nipomo Mesa Management Area
Santa Maria Valley Management Area
Santa Maria Groundwater Basin (DWR 2016)
County Borders
Santa Maria Groundwater Basin
FIGURE 1
Northern Cities Management Area
San Luis Obispo County, California
Document Path: P:\Portland\672-Northern Cities Management Area\001-2016 Annual Rpt\Project_GIS\Project_mxds\Annual_Report\Figure_1_Santa_Maria_Groundwater_Basin.mxd
o 012345
Miles
Pacific
Ocean
Item 9.g. - Page 83
Grover
Beach
Arroyo
Grande
Oceano
Pismo
Beach
101
Sa
n
t
a
M
a
r
i
a
R
i
v
e
r
F
a
u
l
tPismoCreekArroyoGrandeCreekMeadowCreek L o s B erros Creek
O
c
e
a
n
o
F
a
u
l
t
Wil
m
a
r
A
v
e
n
u
e
F
a
u
l
t
Date: December 23, 2016
Data Sources:
LEGEND
Northern Cities Management Area
Nipomo Mesa Management Area
Santa Maria Groundwater Basin (DWR 2016)
Faults
Streams
Northern Cities Management Area
FIGURE 2
San Luis Obispo County, California
Document Path: P:\Portland\672-Northern Cities Management Area\001-2016 Annual Rpt\Project_GIS\Project_mxds\Annual_Report\Figure_2_Northern_Cities_Management Area.mxd
01
Miles
Pacific
Ocean
Item 9.g. - Page 84
P:\Portland\672-Northern Cities Management Area\001-2016 Annual Rpt\03 Annual Report\0 Admin Draft\Figures\Parts Fig 3 NCMA Annual Precip 1950 - 2016.grf
Annual Precipitation 1950 to 2016
FIGURE 3
Northern Cities Management Area
San Luis Obispo County, California
Item 9.g. - Page 85
P:\Portland\672-Northern Cities Management Area\001-2016 Annual Rpt\03 Annual Report\0 Admin Draft\Figures\Parts Fig 4 NCMA Locations of Precipitation Stations.grf
Locations of Precipitation Stations
FIGURE 4
Northern Cities Management Area
San Luis Obispo County, California
Item 9.g. - Page 86
P:\Portland\672-Northern Cities Management Area\001-2016 Annual Rpt\03 Annual Report\0 Admin Draft\Figures\Parts Fig 5 NCMA Monthly 2016 Precip and Evap.grf
Monthly 2016 and Average Precipitation and Evapotranspiration
FIGURE 5
Northern Cities Management Area
San Luis Obispo County, California
Item 9.g. - Page 87
County MW#3
Well 12N/35W
32C03
North Beach
Campground
Wells 32S/12E-24
B01, 02, 03
Highway 1
Wells 32S/13E-30
F01, 02, 03
Pier Avenue
32S/13E-30
N01, 02, 03 Oceano CSD
Observation Wells
(Green, Blue,
Silver, and Yellow)
Oceano Dunes
Wells 12N/36W-36
L01, 02
Oceano
Well
No. 8
101
Sa
n
t
a
M
a
r
i
a
R
i
v
e
r
F
a
u
l
tPismoCreek A rro y o G rande C r e ekMeadow Creek
L o s B erros Creek
O
c
e
a
n
o
F
a
u
l
t
Wil
m
a
r
A
v
e
n
u
e
F
a
u
l
t
Date: December 23, 2016
Data Sources:
LEGEND
NCMA Monitoring Wells
Northern Cities Management Area
Faults
Streams
Locations of Monitoring Wells
FIGURE 6
Northern Cities Management Area
San Luis Obispo County, California
Document Path: P:\Portland\672-Northern Cities Management Area\001-2016 Annual Rpt\Project_GIS\Project_mxds\Annual_Report\Figure_6_NCMA_Monitoring_Wells.mxd
01
Miles
Pacific
Ocean
Item 9.g. - Page 88
P:\Portland\672-Northern Cities Management Area\001-2016 Annual Rpt\03 Annual Report\1 Draft\Figures\Parts Fig 7 NCMA Depths of Monitoring Wells.grf
Depths of Monitoring Wells
FIGURE 7
Northern Cities Management Area
San Luis Obispo County, California
Item 9.g. - Page 89
101
7.1
3.3
2.732.4
3.5
5.8
9.84 2.94.1
5.31
3
111.03
-14.97 42.68
11.29
4.89
10.9
11.45
3.98
7.67
110
-2.44
6.21
7.21
8.84
8.1
7.86
9
10.06
10.66
10.41
8.26
7.56
4.559.5
7.92
33.2
3.65
8.35
5
5 300-10402
0
Sa
n
t
a
M
a
r
i
a
R
i
v
e
r
F
a
u
l
t
O
c
e
a
n
o
F
a
u
l
t
Wil
m
a
r
A
v
e
n
u
e
F
a
u
l
tPismoCreek
Arroyo Grande Cree kMeadow Creek
Los Berros
C
re
e
k
Date: March 22, 2017
Data Sources: SLO County, NCMA and NMMA Agencies
LEGEND
Wells Used in Groundwater Contouring
Groundwater Contour (feet, NAVD88)
Minor Groundwater Contour
Northern Cities Management Area
Streams
Faults
Groundwater Level Contours Spring 2016
FIGURE 8
Northern Cities Management Area
San Luis Obispo County, California
Document Path: P:\Portland\672-Northern Cities Management Area\001-2016 Annual Rpt\Project_GIS\Project_mxds\Annual_Report\Figure_8_NCMA_Water_Level_Contours_April_2016.mxd
01
Miles
Pacific
Ocean
Item 9.g. - Page 90
101
-1.3
-6.1
-5.22
-1.6
1.7
-2.9
0.7
5.59 -4.9-8.4
4
-5.3
6.48
111.02
-20.48 32.48
3.8
1.1
10.2
-9.71-2.5
110.6
-2.81
4.91
6.53
3.84
7
4.86
6.265.81
2.69
4.682.72
4.14
23.08
-0.7
0.21
5
5 201
0
0
-10
30Sa
n
t
a
M
a
r
i
a
R
i
v
e
r
F
a
u
l
tPismoCreekArroyoGrande Cree kMeadow Creek
Los Berros
C
re
e
k
O
c
e
a
n
o
F
a
u
l
t
Wil
m
a
r
A
v
e
n
u
e
F
a
u
l
t
Date: March 22, 2017
Data Sources: SLO County, NCMA and NMMA Agencies
LEGEND
Wells Used in Groundwater Contouring
Groundwater Contour (feet, NAVD88)
Minor Groundwater Contour
Northern Cities Management Area
Streams
Faults
Groundwater Level Contours Fall 2016
FIGURE 9
Northern Cities Management Area
San Luis Obispo County, California
Document Path: P:\Portland\672-Northern Cities Management Area\001-2016 Annual Rpt\Project_GIS\Project_mxds\Annual_Report\Figure_9_NCMA_Water_Level_Contours_October_2016.mxd
01
Miles
Pacific
Ocean
Item 9.g. - Page 91
1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015
-20
0
20
40
-20
0
20
40
-20
0
20
40
-20
0
20
40
60
Well -32D03
Well -32D11
Water Elevation, feet NAVD8832D03 and 32D11
28K02
30K03
33K03
P:\Portland\672-Northern Cities Management Area\001-2016 Annual Rpt\03 Annual Report\1 Draft\Figures\Parts Fig 10 NCMA Selected Hydrographs.grf *
Selected Hydrographs
FIGURE 10
Northern Cities Management Area
San Luis Obispo County, California
Item 9.g. - Page 92
P:\Portland\672-Northern Cities Management Area\001-2016 Annual Rpt\03 Annual Report\0 Admin Draft\Figures\Parts Fig 11 NCMA Sentry Well Hydrographs.grf
Sentry Well Hydrographs
FIGURE 11
Northern Cities Management Area
San Luis Obispo County, California
Item 9.g. - Page 93
P:\Portland\672-Northern Cities Management Area\001-2016 Annual Rpt\03 Annual Report\0 Admin Draft\Figures\Parts Fig 11 NCMA Sentry Well Hydrographs.grf
Hydrograph of Deep Well Index Level
FIGURE 12
Northern Cities Management Area
San Luis Obispo County, California
Item 9.g. - Page 94
P:\Portland\672-Northern Cities Management Area\001-2016 Annual Rpt\03 Annual Report\0 Admin Draft\Figures\Parts Fig 13 NCMA Well 24B03.grf
Water Elevation, Conductivity, and Temperature, Well 24B03
FIGURE 13
Northern Cities Management Area
San Luis Obispo County, California
Item 9.g. - Page 95
P:\Portland\672-Northern Cities Management Area\001-2016 Annual Rpt\03 Annual Report\0 Admin Draft\Figures\Parts Fig 13 NCMA Well 24B03.grf
Water Elevation, Conductivity, and Temperature, Well 30F03
FIGURE 14
Northern Cities Management Area
San Luis Obispo County, California
Item 9.g. - Page 96
P:\Portland\672-Northern Cities Management Area\001-2016 Annual Rpt\03 Annual Report\0 Admin Draft\Figures\Parts Fig 13 NCMA Well 30N02.grf
Water Elevation, Conductivity, and Temperature, Well 30N02
FIGURE 15
Northern Cities Management Area
San Luis Obispo County, California
Item 9.g. - Page 97
P:\Portland\672-Northern Cities Management Area\001-2016 Annual Rpt\03 Annual Report\0 Admin Draft\Figures\Parts Fig 13 NCMA Well 36L01.grf
Water Elevation, Conductivity, and Temperature, Well 36L01
FIGURE 16
Northern Cities Management Area
San Luis Obispo County, California
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
-5-4-3-2-101234567891011121314151617181920Water Elevation, feet NAVD880
400
800
1,200
1,600
2,000
Sp. Cond.uS/cmWell -36L01
Oceano Dunes Deep Well
Well Depth: 237 feet (Paso Robles Formation)
65
67
69
71
73
Temp.ºFItem 9.g. - Page 98
P:\Portland\672-Northern Cities Management Area\001-2016 Annual Rpt\03 Annual Report\0 Admin Draft\Figures\Parts Fig 13 NCMA Well 36L02.grf
Water Elevation, Conductivity, and Temperature, Well 36L02
FIGURE 17
Northern Cities Management Area
San Luis Obispo County, California
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
-5-4-3-2-101234567891011121314151617181920Water Elevation, feet NAVD880
400
800
1,200
1,600
2,000
Sp. Cond.uS/cmWell -36L02
Oceano Dunes Deep Well
Well Depth: 545 feet (Careaga Sandstone)
65
67
69
71
73
Temp.ºFItem 9.g. - Page 99
P:\Portland\672-Northern Cities Management Area\001-2016 Annual Rpt\03 Annual Report\0 Admin Draft\Figures\Parts Fig 13 NCMA Well 32C03.grf
Water Elevation, Conductivity, and Temperature, Well 32C03
FIGURE 18
Northern Cities Management Area
San Luis Obispo County, California
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
-5-4-3-2-101234567891011121314151617181920Water Elevation, feet NAVD880
400
800
1,200
1,600
2,000
Sp. Cond.uS/cmWell 12N/35W-32C03
County Monitoring Well No. 3
Well Depth: 170 feet (Paso Robles Formation)
65
67
69
71
73
Temp.ºFItem 9.g. - Page 100
101
Sa
n
t
a
M
a
r
i
a
R
i
v
e
r
F
a
u
l
t
O
c
e
a
n
o
F
a
u
l
t
Wil
m
a
r
A
v
e
n
u
e
F
a
u
l
tPismoCreek
Arroyo Grande C r e e kMeadow Creek
L o s B erros Creek
15-51
5
510510
5
0
Date: January 24, 2017
Data Sources: SLO County, NCMA and NMMA Agencies
LEGEND
Contours of Equal Difference in Water Level, feet
Area of Net Rise
Area of Net Decline
Northern Cities Management Area
Streams
Faults
Change in Groundwater Levels, April 2015 to April 2016
FIGURE 19
Northern Cities Management Area
San Luis Obispo County, California
Document Path: P:\Portland\672-Northern Cities Management Area\001-2016 Annual Rpt\Project_GIS\Project_mxds\Annual_Report\Figure_19_Water Level Change_April_2015 to 2016_DRAFT.mxd
01
Miles
Pacific
Ocean
Item 9.g. - Page 101
P:\Portland\672-Northern Cities Management Area\001-2016 Annual Rpt\03 Annual Report\0 Admin Draft\Figures\Parts Fig 20 NCMA Chloride Grouped.grf *
Chloride Concentrations in Monitoring Wells
FIGURE 20
Northern Cities Management Area
San Luis Obispo County, California
2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
0
100
2000
100
2000
100
2000
100
200
Well -24B03
Well -24B02
Well -30F01
-30F02
Well -30F03
Well -30N03
Well -30N02
Well -36L02
Well -36L01
Well -362C03Chloride Concentration, mg/lNorth Beach Campground
Highway 1
Pier Avenue
Oceano Dunes and 36C03
Item 9.g. - Page 102
P:\Portland\672-Northern Cities Management Area\001-2016 Annual Rpt\03 Annual Report\0 Admin Draft\Figures\Parts Fig 21 NCMA TDS Grouped.grf
Total Dissolved Solids Concentrations in Monitoring Wells
FIGURE 21
Northern Cities Management Area
San Luis Obispo County, California
2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
0
500
1,000
1,5000
500
1,000
1,5000
500
1,000
1,5000
500
1,000
1,500
Well -24B03
Well -24B02
Well -30F01Well
-30F02
Well -30F03
Well -30N03
Well -30N02
Well -36L02
Well -36L01
Well -362C03Total Dissolved Solids Concentration, mg/lNorth Beach Campground
Highway 1
Pier Avenue
Oceano Dunes and 36C03
Item 9.g. - Page 103
P:\Portland\672-Northern Cities Management Area\001-2016 Annual Rpt\03 Annual Report\0 Admin Draft\Figures\Parts Fig 22 NCMA iper Diagram.grfP
Piper Diagram of Water Quality in Select Monitoring Wells
FIGURE 22
Northern Cities Management Area
San Luis Obispo County, California10080604020010080604020100
80
60
40
20
0
020406080100100
80
60
40
20
0410080604020338060402080604020Carbonate (CO3) + Bicarbonate (HCO3)Cal
c
i
u
m
(Ca)
+ Ma
gnes
i
um
(Mg)Sulfate (SO4) + Chloride (Cl)Sodi
um
(Na
)
+ Pota
s
s
i
u
m
(K
)
– Seawater
– Groundwater
Base
Well –24B02
Well –24B03
Well –30F02
Well –30F03
Well –30N02
Well –30N03
Well –36L01
Well –36L02
Well –31H11 (Blue)
Well –32C03
Note: Data include "middle" and "deep" wells from 2016 quarterly sampling events.
Item 9.g. - Page 104
Date: January 27, 2017
Data Sources:
LEGEND
Northern Cities Management Area
Landscape
Garden Transplant Plants
Outdoor Transplant Plants
Potato
Rotational Crops
Strawberry
Uncultivated Land
NCMA Agricultural Land 2016
FIGURE 23
Northern Cities Management Area
San Luis Obispo County, California
Document Path: P:\Portland\672-Northern Cities Management Area\001-2016 Annual Rpt\Project_GIS\Project_mxds\Annual_Report\Figure_23_NCMA Agricultural Land_2016.mxd
o 01
Miles
Item 9.g. - Page 105
P:\Portland\672-Northern Cities Management Area\001-2016 Annual Rpt\03 Annual Report\0 Admin Draft\Figures\Parts Fig 24 2016 NCMA Estimated Agricultural Water Demand and Monthly Precipitation at the CIMIS Nipomo Station.grf
FIGURE 24
2016 Estimated Applied Agricultural Water and Monthly Precipitation At The Oceano Station
Northern Cities Management Area
San Luis Obispo County, California
Item 9.g. - Page 106
P:\Portland\672-Northern Cities Management Area\001-2016 Annual Rpt\03 Annual Report\0 Admin Draft\Figures\Parts Fig 25 NCMA Municipal Water Use by Source_r1.grf
Municipal Water Use by Source
FIGURE 25
Northern Cities Management Area
San Luis Obispo County, California
Item 9.g. - Page 107
P:\Portland\672-Northern Cities Management Area\001-2016 Annual Rpt\03 Annual Report\0 Admin Draft\Figures\Parts Fig 26 NCMA Total Water Use by Source.grf
Total Water Use (Urban, Rural, Ag) By Source
FIGURE 26
Northern Cities Management Area
San Luis Obispo County, California
Item 9.g. - Page 108
P:\Portland\672-Northern Cities Management Area\001-2016 Annual Rpt\03 Annual Report\0 Admin Draft\Figures\Parts Fig 27 NCMA TDS, Cl and Sodium Index Wells and 30N03.grf
Historical TDS, Chloride And Sodium, Index Wells And 30N03
FIGURE 27
Northern Cities Management Area
San Luis Obispo County, California
1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020
0
500
1,000
1,500
2,000
2,500
TDS, mg/l0
40
80
120
160
200
Chloride, mg/l0
200
400
600
800
Sodium, mg/lWell -24B03 (Paso Robles)
Well -30F03 (Paso Robles) Index Wells
Well -30N02 (Paso Robles)
Well -30N03 (Paso Robles)
30N02 Chloride
>600 mg/L
in 2009
(See Figure 19)
Item 9.g. - Page 109
P:\Portland\672-Northern Cities Management Area\001-2016 Annual Rpt\03 Annual Report\0 Admin Draft\Figures\Parts Fig 28 NCMA TDS, Cl and Sodium Wells 30N02 MW-Blue and 36L01.grf
Historical TDS, Chloride and Sodium, Wells 30N02, MW-Blue and 36L01
FIGURE 28
Northern Cities Management Area
San Luis Obispo County, California
1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020
0
500
1,000
1,500
2,000
2,500
TDS, mg/l0
40
80
120
160
200
Chloride, mg/l0
200
400
600
800
Sodium, mg/lWell -30N02 (Paso Robles)
Well -31H11 (Blue; Paso Robles Formation)
Well -36L01 (Paso Robles Formation)
Item 9.g. - Page 110
APPENDIX A
NCMA Monitoring Well Water Level and
Water Quality Data
Item 9.g. - Page 111
This page left blank intentionally.
Item 9.g. - Page 112
Appendix A: NCMA Sentry Wells Water Level Data, North Beach Campground, Shallow WellWellCommonNameAquiferConstructionTop of Casing Elevation(ft VD88)DateDepth to Water(feet)Groundwater Elevation(feet VD88)32S/12E-24B01 North Beach ShallowAlluviumScreened from 48-65' - 2-inch diameter13.58 1/10/2017 5.548.0432S/12E-24B01 North Beach ShallowAlluvium Height of steel casing added to the concrete pad elevation2.88 10/12/2016 6.547.0432S/12E-24B01 North Beach ShallowAlluviumPad elevation VD 8810.70 7/19/2016 6.786.8032S/12E-24B01 North Beach ShallowAlluviumTOC elevation prior to renovation (Approximate)10.7 4/12/2016 6.357.2332S/12E-24B01 North Beach ShallowAlluvium1/12/2016 5.178.4132S/12E-24B01 North Beach ShallowAlluvium10/13/2015 5.737.8532S/12E-24B01 North Beach ShallowAlluvium7/14/2015 6.067.5232S/12E-24B01 North Beach ShallowAlluvium4/14/2015 6.227.3632S/12E-24B01 North Beach ShallowAlluvium1/13/2015 5.837.7532S/12E-24B01 North Beach ShallowAlluvium10/14/2014 5.767.8232S/12E-24B01 North Beach ShallowAlluvium7/29/2014 5.997.5932S/12E-24B01 North Beach ShallowAlluvium6/4/2014 6.527.0632S/12E-24B01 North Beach ShallowAlluvium4/15/2014 5.957.6332S/12E-24B01 North Beach ShallowAlluvium1/14/2014 5.757.8332S/12E-24B01 North Beach ShallowAlluvium10/14/2013 6.077.5132S/12E-24B01 North Beach ShallowAlluvium7/9/2013 6.097.4932S/12E-24B01 North Beach ShallowAlluvium4/10/2013 7.006.5832S/12E-24B01 North Beach ShallowAlluvium1/14/2013 5.727.8632S/12E-24B01 North Beach ShallowAlluvium10/29/2012 5.927.6632S/12E-24B01 North Beach ShallowAlluvium7/23/2012 5.797.7932S/12E-24B01 North Beach ShallowAlluvium4/18/2012 5.588.0032S/12E-24B01 North Beach ShallowAlluvium1/11/2012 5.727.8632S/12E-24B01 North Beach ShallowAlluvium11/21/2011 5.807.7832S/12E-24B01 North Beach ShallowAlluvium7/26/2011 6.387.2032S/12E-24B01 North Beach ShallowAlluvium4/20/2011 6.407.1832S/12E-24B01 North Beach ShallowAlluvium1/24/2011 5.787.4232S/12E-24B01 North Beach ShallowAlluvium10/21/2010 6.377.2132S/12E-24B01 North Beach ShallowAlluvium7/27/2010 6.487.132S/12E-24B01 North Beach ShallowAlluvium4/27/2010 3.846.8632S/12E-24B01 North Beach ShallowAlluvium1/27/2010 3.137.5732S/12E-24B01 North Beach ShallowAlluvium10/19/2009 2.288.4232S/12E-24B01 North Beach ShallowAlluvium8/20/2009 3.257.4532S/12E-24B01 North Beach ShallowAlluvium5/12/2009 3.587.12\\PDX\Projects\Portland\672‐Northern Cities Management Area\001‐2016 Annual Rpt\Water Levels\NCMA_WL_SentryWells.xlsx1/27/2017Item 9.g. - Page 113
Appendix A: NCMA Sentry Wells Water Level Data, North Beach Campground, Middle WellWellCommonNameAquiferConstructionTop of Casing Elevation(ft VD88)DateDepth to Water(feet)Groundwater Elevation(feet VD88)32S/12E-24B02 North Beach Middle Paso RoblesScreened from 120-145' - 2-inch13.581/10/2017 5.338.2532S/12E-24B02 North Beach Middle Paso Robles Height of steel casing added to the concrete pad elevation2.88 10/12/2016 7.056.5332S/12E-24B02 North Beach Middle Paso RoblesPad elevation VD 8810.70 7/19/2016 7.615.9732S/12E-24B02 North Beach Middle Paso RoblesTOC elevation prior to renovation (Approximate)10.7 4/12/2016 6.377.2132S/12E-24B02 North Beach Middle Paso Robles1/12/2016 5.518.0732S/12E-24B02 North Beach Middle Paso Robles10/13/2015 6.616.9732S/12E-24B02 North Beach Middle Paso Robles7/14/2015 6.976.6132S/12E-24B02 North Beach Middle Paso Robles4/14/2015 7.136.4532S/12E-24B02 North Beach Middle Paso Robles1/13/2015 6.287.3032S/12E-24B02 North Beach Middle Paso Robles10/14/2014 6.616.9732S/12E-24B02 North Beach Middle Paso Robles7/29/2014 7.056.5332S/12E-24B02 North Beach Middle Paso Robles6/4/2014 8.255.3332S/12E-24B02 North Beach Middle Paso Robles4/15/2014 6.557.0332S/12E-24B02 North Beach Middle Paso Robles1/14/2014 6.347.2432S/12E-24B02 North Beach Middle Paso Robles10/14/2013 7.086.5032S/12E-24B02 North Beach Middle Paso Robles7/9/2013 7.176.4132S/12E-24B02 North Beach Middle Paso Robles4/10/2013 6.337.2532S/12E-24B02 North Beach Middle Paso Robles1/14/2013 5.617.9732S/12E-24B02 North Beach Middle Paso Robles10/29/2012 5.887.732S/12E-24B02 North Beach Middle Paso Robles7/23/2012 6.127.4632S/12E-24B02 North Beach Middle Paso Robles4/18/2012 5.488.132S/12E-24B02 North Beach Middle Paso Robles1/11/2012 5.478.1132S/12E-24B02 North Beach Middle Paso Robles11/21/2011 5.697.8932S/12E-24B02 North Beach Middle Paso Robles7/26/2011 6.517.0732S/12E-24B02 North Beach Middle Paso Robles4/20/2011 6.307.2832S/12E-24B02 North Beach Middle Paso Robles1/24/2011 5.697.5332S/12E-24B02 North Beach Middle Paso Robles10/21/2010 6.796.7932S/12E-24B02 North Beach Middle Paso Robles7/27/2010 7.056.5332S/12E-24B02 North Beach Middle Paso Robles4/27/2010 4.346.3632S/12E-24B02 North Beach Middle Paso Robles1/27/2010 3.387.3232S/12E-24B02 North Beach Middle Paso Robles10/19/2009 2.268.4432S/12E-24B02 North Beach Middle Paso Robles8/20/2009 4.096.6132S/12E-24B02 North Beach Middle Paso Robles5/12/2009 4.745.96\\PDX\Projects\Portland\672‐Northern Cities Management Area\001‐2016 Annual Rpt\Water Levels\NCMA_WL_SentryWells.xlsx1/27/2017Item 9.g. - Page 114
Appendix A: NCMA Sentry Wells Water Level Data, North Beach Campground, Deep WellWellCommonNameAquiferConstructionTop of Casing Elevation(ft VD88)DateDepth to Water(feet)Groundwater Elevation(feet VD88)32S/12E-24B03 North Beach DeepCareagaScreened from 270-435' - 2-inch13.581/10/2017 2.5910.9932S/12E-24B03 North Beach DeepCareaga Height of steel casing added to the concrete pad elevation2.88 10/12/2016 4.708.8832S/12E-24B03 North Beach DeepCareagaPad elevation VD 8810.70 7/19/2016 5.108.4832S/12E-24B03 North Beach DeepCareagaTOC elevation prior to renovation (Approximate)10.7 4/12/2016 3.819.7732S/12E-24B03 North Beach DeepCareaga1/12/2016 3.0110.5732S/12E-24B03 North Beach DeepCareaga10/13/2015 4.628.9632S/12E-24B03 North Beach DeepCareaga7/14/2015 4.768.8232S/12E-24B03 North Beach DeepCareaga4/14/2015 4.868.7232S/12E-24B03 North Beach DeepCareaga1/13/2015 3.599.9932S/12E-24B03 North Beach DeepCareaga10/14/2014 4.608.9832S/12E-24B03 North Beach DeepCareaga7/29/2014 4.788.8032S/12E-24B03 North Beach DeepCareaga6/4/2014 7.336.2532S/12E-24B03 North Beach DeepCareaga5/5/2014 5.368.2232S/12E-24B03 North Beach DeepCareaga4/15/2014 3.949.6432S/12E-24B03 North Beach DeepCareaga1/14/2014 3.819.7732S/12E-24B03 North Beach DeepCareaga10/14/2013 4.509.0832S/12E-24B03 North Beach DeepCareaga7/9/2013 4.489.132S/12E-24B03 North Beach DeepCareaga4/10/2013 3.4110.1732S/12E-24B03 North Beach DeepCareaga1/14/2013 2.4811.132S/12E-24B03 North Beach DeepCareaga10/29/2012 3.0110.5732S/12E-24B03 North Beach DeepCareaga7/23/2012 2.9810.632S/12E-24B03 North Beach DeepCareaga4/18/2012 1.9311.6532S/12E-24B03 North Beach DeepCareaga1/12/2012 2.1511.4332S/12E-24B03 North Beach DeepCareaga11/21/2011 2.9310.6532S/12E-24B03 North Beach DeepCareaga7/26/2011 3.1710.4132S/12E-24B03 North Beach DeepCareaga4/20/2011 3.2510.3332S/12E-24B03 North Beach DeepCareaga1/24/2011 2.6510.5832S/12E-24B03 North Beach DeepCareaga10/21/2010 4.608.9832S/12E-24B03 North Beach DeepCareaga7/27/2010 4.549.0432S/12E-24B03 North Beach DeepCareaga4/27/2010 1.439.2732S/12E-24B03 North Beach DeepCareaga1/27/2010 0.949.7632S/12E-24B03 North Beach DeepCareaga10/19/2009 0.819.8932S/12E-24B03 North Beach DeepCareaga8/19/2009 4.186.5232S/12E-24B03 North Beach DeepCareaga5/12/2009 3.187.52\\PDX\Projects\Portland\672‐Northern Cities Management Area\001‐2016 Annual Rpt\Water Levels\NCMA_WL_SentryWells.xlsx1/27/2017Item 9.g. - Page 115
Appendix A: NCMA Sentry Wells Water Level Data, Highway 1, Shallow WellWellCommonNameAquiferConstructionTop of Casing Elevation(ft VD88)DateDepth to Water(feet)Groundwater Elevation(feet VD88)32S/13E-30F01 Highway 1 Shallow Alluvium / Paso Robles Screened from 15- 30 and 40-55' - 1-inch23.161/10/2017 13.99 9.1732S/13E-30F01 Highway 1 Shallow Alluvium / Paso Robles Height of steel casing added to the concrete pad elevation2.80 10/12/2016 17.08 6.0832S/13E-30F01 Highway 1 Shallow Alluvium / Paso Robles Pad elevation VD 8820.36 7/19/2016 16.42 6.7432S/13E-30F01 Highway 1 Shallow Alluvium / Paso Robles TOC elevation prior to renovation (Approximate)20.4 4/12/2016 14.83 8.3332S/13E-30F01 Highway 1 Shallow Alluvium / Paso Robles1/12/2016 15.00 8.1632S/13E-30F01 Highway 1 Shallow Alluvium / Paso Robles10/13/2015 17.11 6.0532S/13E-30F01 Highway 1 Shallow Alluvium / Paso Robles7/14/2015 16.93 6.2332S/13E-30F01 Highway 1 Shallow Alluvium / Paso Robles4/14/2015 16.01 7.1532S/13E-30F01 Highway 1 Shallow Alluvium / Paso Robles1/13/2015 15.41 7.7532S/13E-30F01 Highway 1 Shallow Alluvium / Paso Robles10/14/2014 17.05 6.1132S/13E-30F01 Highway 1 Shallow Alluvium / Paso Robles7/29/2014 17.11 6.0532S/13E-30F01 Highway 1 Shallow Alluvium / Paso Robles6/4/2014 16.82 6.3432S/13E-30F01 Highway 1 Shallow Alluvium / Paso Robles4/15/2014 15.56 7.6032S/13E-30F01 Highway 1 Shallow Alluvium / Paso Robles1/14/2014 16.58 6.5832S/13E-30F01 Highway 1 Shallow Alluvium / Paso Robles10/14/2013 17.07 6.0932S/13E-30F01 Highway 1 Shallow Alluvium / Paso Robles7/9/2013 16.17 6.9932S/13E-30F01 Highway 1 Shallow Alluvium / Paso Robles4/10/2013 14.58 8.5832S/13E-30F01 Highway 1 Shallow Alluvium / Paso Robles1/14/2013 14.36 8.832S/13E-30F01 Highway 1 Shallow Alluvium / Paso Robles10/30/2012 14.95 8.2132S/13E-30F01 Highway 1 Shallow Alluvium / Paso Robles7/24/2012 14.00 9.1632S/13E-30F01 Highway 1 Shallow Alluvium / Paso Robles4/18/2012 13.42 9.7432S/13E-30F01 Highway 1 Shallow Alluvium / Paso Robles1/10/2012 13.80 9.3632S/13E-30F01 Highway 1 Shallow Alluvium / Paso Robles11/21/2011 13.78 9.3832S/13E-30F01 Highway 1 Shallow Alluvium / Paso Robles7/26/2011 13.50 9.6632S/13E-30F01 Highway 1 Shallow Alluvium / Paso Robles4/20/2011 12.82 10.3432S/13E-30F01 Highway 1 Shallow Alluvium / Paso Robles1/24/2011 13.33 9.9732S/13E-30F01 Highway 1 Shallow Alluvium / Paso Robles10/21/2010 16.55 6.6132S/13E-30F01 Highway 1 Shallow Alluvium / Paso Robles7/26/2010 15.68 7.4832S/13E-30F01 Highway 1 Shallow Alluvium / Paso Robles4/27/2010 11.02 12.1432S/13E-30F01 Highway 1 Shallow Alluvium / Paso Robles1/28/2010 12.73 10.4332S/13E-30F01 Highway 1 Shallow Alluvium / Paso Robles10/19/2009 14.33 8.8332S/13E-30F01 Highway 1 Shallow Alluvium / Paso Robles8/19/2009 14.34 8.8232S/13E-30F01 Highway 1 Shallow Alluvium / Paso Robles5/12/2009 12.38 10.78\\PDX\Projects\Portland\672‐Northern Cities Management Area\001‐2016 Annual Rpt\Water Levels\NCMA_WL_SentryWells.xlsx1/27/2017Item 9.g. - Page 116
Appendix A: NCMA Sentry Wells Water Level Data, Highway 1, Middle WellWellCommonNameAquiferConstructionTop of Casing Elevation(ft VD88)DateDepth to Water(feet)Groundwater Elevation(feet VD88)32S/13E-30F02 Highway 1 MiddlePaso RoblesScreened from 75-100' - 2-inch diameter23.161/10/2017 14.538.6332S/13E-30F02 Highway 1 MiddlePaso Robles Height of steel casing added to the concrete pad elevation2.80 10/12/2016 17.355.8132S/13E-30F02 Highway 1 MiddlePaso RoblesPad elevation VD 8820.36 7/19/2016 17.635.5332S/13E-30F02 Highway 1 MiddlePaso RoblesTOC elevation prior to renovation (Approximate)20.4 4/12/2016 15.98 7.1832S/13E-30F02 Highway 1 Middle Paso Robles1/12/2016 15.29 7.8732S/13E-30F02 Highway 1 Middle Paso Robles10/13/2015 17.29 5.8732S/13E-30F02 Highway 1 Middle Paso Robles7/14/2015 17.44 5.7232S/13E-30F02 Highway 1 Middle Paso Robles4/14/2015 16.94 6.2232S/13E-30F02 Highway 1 Middle Paso Robles1/13/2015 16.41 6.7532S/13E-30F02 Highway 1 Middle Paso Robles10/14/2014 17.33 5.8332S/13E-30F02 Highway 1 Middle Paso Robles7/29/2014 17.31 5.8532S/13E-30F02 Highway 1 Middle Paso Robles6/4/2014 18.00 5.1632S/13E-30F02 Highway 1 Middle Paso Robles4/15/2014 16.27 6.8932S/13E-30F02 Highway 1 Middle Paso Robles1/14/2014 17.01 6.1532S/13E-30F02 Highway 1 Middle Paso Robles10/14/2013 17.52 5.6432S/13E-30F02 Highway 1 Middle Paso Robles7/9/2013 17.15 6.0132S/13E-30F02 Highway 1 Middle Paso Robles4/10/2013 15.76 7.432S/13E-30F02 Highway 1 Middle Paso Robles1/14/2013 15.01 8.1532S/13E-30F02 Highway 1 Middle Paso Robles10/30/2012 15.27 7.8932S/13E-30F02 Highway 1 Middle Paso Robles7/24/2012 14.82 8.3432S/13E-30F02 Highway 1 Middle Paso Robles4/18/2012 14.38 8.7832S/13E-30F02 Highway 1 Middle Paso Robles1/12/2012 14.31 8.8532S/13E-30F02 Highway 1 Middle Paso Robles11/21/2011 14.94 8.2232S/13E-30F02 Highway 1 Middle Paso Robles7/26/2011 14.46 8.732S/13E-30F02 Highway 1 Middle Paso Robles4/20/2011 14.23 8.9332S/13E-30F02 Highway 1 Middle Paso Robles1/24/2011 14.36 8.9332S/13E-30F02 Highway 1 Middle Paso Robles10/21/2010 7.39 15.7732S/13E-30F02 Highway 1 Middle Paso Robles7/26/2010 16.21 6.9532S/13E-30F02 Highway 1 Middle Paso Robles4/27/2010 12.14 8.2232S/13E-30F02 Highway 1 Middle Paso Robles1/28/2010 13.09 7.2732S/13E-30F02 Highway 1 Middle Paso Robles10/19/2009 14.36 6.0032S/13E-30F02 Highway 1 Middle Paso Robles8/19/2009 14.81 5.5532S/13E-30F02 Highway 1 Middle Paso Robles5/12/2009 14.34 6.02\\PDX\Projects\Portland\672‐Northern Cities Management Area\001‐2016 Annual Rpt\Water Levels\NCMA_WL_SentryWells.xlsx1/27/2017Item 9.g. - Page 117
Appendix A: NCMA Sentry Wells Water Level Data, Highway 1, Deep WellWellCommonNameAquiferConstructionTop of Casing Elevation(ft VD88)DateDepth to Water(feet)Groundwater Elevation(feet VD88)32S/13E-30F03 Highway 1 DeepCareagaScreened from 305-372' - 2-inch23.161/10/2017 14.258.9132S/13E-30F03 Highway 1 DeepCareaga Height of steel casing added to the concrete pad elevation2.80 10/12/2016 17.825.3432S/13E-30F03 Highway 1 Deep Careaga Pad elevation VD 8820.36 7/19/2016 17.22 5.9432S/13E-30F03 Highway 1 Deep Careaga TOC elevation prior to renovation (Approximate)20.4 4/12/2016 14.908.2632S/13E-30F03 Highway 1 DeepCareaga1/12/2016 14.848.3232S/13E-30F03 Highway 1 DeepCareaga10/13/2015 18.874.2932S/13E-30F03 Highway 1 DeepCareaga7/14/2015 18.874.2932S/13E-30F03 Highway 1 DeepCareaga4/14/2015 17.925.2432S/13E-30F03 Highway 1 DeepCareaga1/13/2015 14.139.0332S/13E-30F03 Highway 1 DeepCareaga10/14/2014 18.984.1832S/13E-30F03 Highway 1 DeepCareaga7/29/2014 18.624.5432S/13E-30F03 Highway 1 DeepCareaga6/4/2014 22.270.8932S/13E-30F03 Highway 1 DeepCareaga5/5/2014 21.341.8232S/13E-30F03 Highway 1 DeepCareaga4/15/2014 16.147.0232S/13E-30F03 Highway 1 DeepCareaga1/14/2014 15.357.8132S/13E-30F03 Highway 1 DeepCareaga10/14/2013 17.305.8632S/13E-30F03 Highway 1 DeepCareaga7/9/2013 16.616.5532S/13E-30F03 Highway 1 DeepCareaga4/10/2013 14.698.4732S/13E-30F03 Highway 1 DeepCareaga1/14/2013 12.6210.5432S/13E-30F03 Highway 1 DeepCareaga10/30/2012 14.618.5532S/13E-30F03 Highway 1 DeepCareaga7/24/2012 14.508.6632S/13E-30F03 Highway 1 DeepCareaga4/18/2012 10.4312.7332S/13E-30F03 Highway 1 DeepCareaga1/12/2012 12.3710.7932S/13E-30F03 Highway 1 DeepCareaga11/21/2011 13.249.9232S/13E-30F03 Highway 1 DeepCareaga7/26/2011 14.228.9432S/13E-30F03 Highway 1 DeepCareaga4/20/2011 12.5110.6532S/13E-30F03 Highway 1 DeepCareaga1/24/2011 12.6710.6432S/13E-30F03 Highway 1 DeepCareaga10/21/2010 6.6216.5432S/13E-30F03 Highway 1 DeepCareaga7/26/2010 17.325.8432S/13E-30F03 Highway 1 DeepCareaga4/27/2010 11.3811.7832S/13E-30F03 Highway 1 DeepCareaga1/28/2010 10.9812.1832S/13E-30F03 Highway 1 DeepCareaga10/19/2009 14.188.9832S/13E-30F03 Highway 1 DeepCareaga8/19/2009 20.232.9332S/13E-30F03 Highway 1 DeepCareaga5/12/2009 17.685.48\\PDX\Projects\Portland\672‐Northern Cities Management Area\001‐2016 Annual Rpt\Water Levels\NCMA_WL_SentryWells.xlsx1/27/2017Item 9.g. - Page 118
Appendix A: NCMA Sentry Wells Water Level Data, Pier Avenue, Shallow WellWellCommonNameAquiferConstructionTop of Casing Elevation(ft VD88)DateDepth to Water(feet)Groundwater Elevation(feet VD88)32S/13E-30N01 Pier Ave ShallowAlluviumScreened from 15-40' - 1-inch diameter16.131/10/2017 7.898.2432S/13E-30N01 Pier Ave ShallowAlluvium Height of steel casing added to the concrete pad elevation2.60 10/12/2016 10.215.9232S/13E-30N01 Pier Ave ShallowAlluviumPad elevation VD 8813.53 7/19/2016 9.916.2232S/13E-30N01 Pier Ave ShallowAlluviumTOC elevation prior to renovation (Approximate)13.5 4/12/2016 8.937.2032S/13E-30N01 Pier Ave ShallowAlluvium1/12/2016 8.737.4032S/13E-30N01 Pier Ave ShallowAlluvium10/13/2015 10.116.0232S/13E-30N01 Pier Ave ShallowAlluvium7/14/2015 9.916.2232S/13E-30N01 Pier Ave ShallowAlluvium4/14/2015 9.516.6232S/13E-30N01 Pier Ave ShallowAlluvium1/13/2015 9.037.1032S/13E-30N01 Pier Ave ShallowAlluvium10/14/2014 9.956.1832S/13E-30N01 Pier Ave ShallowAlluvium7/29/2014 9.886.2532S/13E-30N01 Pier Ave ShallowAlluvium6/4/2014 9.546.5932S/13E-30N01 Pier Ave ShallowAlluvium4/15/2014 9.176.9632S/13E-30N01 Pier Ave ShallowAlluvium1/14/2014 9.616.5232S/13E-30N01 Pier Ave ShallowAlluvium10/14/2013 9.866.2732S/13E-30N01 Pier Ave ShallowAlluvium7/9/2013 9.406.7332S/13E-30N01 Pier Ave ShallowAlluvium4/10/2013 8.987.1532S/13E-30N01 Pier Ave ShallowAlluvium1/14/2013 8.607.5332S/13E-30N01 Pier Ave ShallowAlluvium10/29/2012 8.967.1732S/13E-30N01 Pier Ave ShallowAlluvium7/23/2012 8.547.5932S/13E-30N01 Pier Ave ShallowAlluvium4/18/2012 8.537.6032S/13E-30N01 Pier Ave ShallowAlluvium1/9/2012 8.747.3932S/13E-30N01 Pier Ave ShallowAlluvium11/21/2011 8.787.3532S/13E-30N01 Pier Ave ShallowAlluvium7/26/2011 9.017.1232S/13E-30N01 Pier Ave ShallowAlluvium4/20/2011 8.597.5432S/13E-30N01 Pier Ave ShallowAlluvium1/24/2011 8.187.3532S/13E-30N01 Pier Ave ShallowAlluvium10/21/2010 9.996.1432S/13E-30N01 Pier Ave ShallowAlluvium7/27/2010 8.977.1632S/13E-30N01 Pier Ave ShallowAlluvium4/27/2010 6.149.9932S/13E-30N01 Pier Ave ShallowAlluvium1/26/2010 4.9011.2332S/13E-30N01 Pier Ave ShallowAlluvium10/20/2009 6.539.6032S/13E-30N01 Pier Ave ShallowAlluvium8/20/2009 6.719.4232S/13E-30N01 Pier Ave ShallowAlluvium5/11/2009 6.0310.10\\PDX\Projects\Portland\672‐Northern Cities Management Area\001‐2016 Annual Rpt\Water Levels\NCMA_WL_SentryWells.xlsx1/27/2017Item 9.g. - Page 119
Appendix A: NCMA Sentry Wells Water Level Data, Pier Avenue, Middle WellWellCommonNameAquiferConstructionTop of Casing Elevation(ft VD88)DateDepth to Water(feet)Groundwater Elevation(feet VD88)32S/13E-30N03Pier Ave MiddlePaso RoblesScreened from 60-135' - 2-inch diameter16.131/10/2017 7.119.0232S/13E-30N03Pier Ave MiddlePaso Robles Height of steel casing added to the concrete pad elevation2.60 10/12/2016 10.136.0032S/13E-30N03Pier Ave MiddlePaso RoblesPad elevation VD 8813.53 7/19/2016 10.625.5132S/13E-30N03Pier Ave MiddlePaso RoblesTOC elevation prior to renovation (Approximate)13.5 4/12/2016 9.216.9232S/13E-30N03Pier Ave MiddlePaso Robles1/12/2016 7.988.1532S/13E-30N03Pier Ave MiddlePaso Robles10/13/2015 10.485.6532S/13E-30N03Pier Ave MiddlePaso Robles7/14/2015 10.885.2532S/13E-30N03Pier Ave MiddlePaso Robles4/14/2015 11.884.2532S/13E-30N03Pier Ave MiddlePaso Robles1/13/2015 9.406.7332S/13E-30N03Pier Ave MiddlePaso Robles10/14/2014 10.525.6132S/13E-30N03Pier Ave MiddlePaso Robles7/29/2014 10.225.9132S/13E-30N03Pier Ave MiddlePaso Robles6/4/2014 11.334.8032S/13E-30N03Pier Ave MiddlePaso Robles4/15/2014 9.316.8232S/13E-30N03Pier Ave MiddlePaso Robles1/14/2014 10.265.8732S/13E-30N03Pier Ave MiddlePaso Robles10/14/2013 10.725.4132S/13E-30N03Pier Ave MiddlePaso Robles7/9/2013 10.365.7732S/13E-30N03Pier Ave MiddlePaso Robles4/10/2013 8.267.8732S/13E-30N03Pier Ave MiddlePaso Robles1/14/2013 7.718.4232S/13E-30N03Pier Ave MiddlePaso Robles10/29/2012 8.018.1232S/13E-30N03Pier Ave MiddlePaso Robles7/23/2012 9.156.9832S/13E-30N03Pier Ave MiddlePaso Robles4/18/2012 6.729.4132S/13E-30N03Pier Ave MiddlePaso Robles1/11/2012 7.178.9632S/13E-30N03Pier Ave MiddlePaso Robles11/21/2011 6.459.6832S/13E-30N03Pier Ave MiddlePaso Robles7/26/2011 7.598.5432S/13E-30N03Pier Ave MiddlePaso Robles4/20/2011 6.659.4832S/13E-30N03Pier Ave MiddlePaso Robles1/24/2011 6.688.7532S/13E-30N03Pier Ave MiddlePaso Robles10/21/2010 10.765.3732S/13E-30N03Pier Ave MiddlePaso Robles7/27/2010 9.536.6032S/13E-30N03Pier Ave MiddlePaso Robles4/27/2010 6.147.3932S/13E-30N03Pier Ave MiddlePaso Robles1/26/2010 5.887.6532S/13E-30N03Pier Ave MiddlePaso Robles10/20/2009 6.566.9732S/13E-30N03Pier Ave MiddlePaso Robles8/20/2009 7.506.0332S/13E-30N03Pier Ave MiddlePaso Robles5/12/2009 6.337.20\\PDX\Projects\Portland\672‐Northern Cities Management Area\001‐2016 Annual Rpt\Water Levels\NCMA_WL_SentryWells.xlsx1/27/2017Item 9.g. - Page 120
Appendix A: NCMA Sentry Wells Water Level Data, Pier Avenue, Deep WellWellCommonNameAquiferConstructionTop of Casing Elevation(ft VD88)DateDepth to Water(feet)Groundwater Elevation(feet VD88)32S/13E-30N02Pier Ave DeepPaso RoblesScreened from 175-255' - 2-inch16.131/10/2017 7.348.7932S/13E-30N02Pier Ave DeepPaso Robles Height of steel casing added to the concrete pad elevation2.60 10/12/2016 13.442.6932S/13E-30N02Pier Ave DeepPaso RoblesPad elevation VD 8813.53 7/19/2016 12.403.7332S/13E-30N02Pier Ave DeepPaso RoblesTOC elevation prior to renovation (Approximate)13.5 4/12/2016 8.577.5632S/13E-30N02Pier Ave DeepPaso Robles1/12/2016 7.488.6532S/13E-30N02Pier Ave DeepPaso Robles10/13/2015 14.141.9932S/13E-30N02Pier Ave DeepPaso Robles7/14/2015 13.552.5832S/13E-30N02Pier Ave DeepPaso Robles4/14/2015 10.026.1132S/13E-30N02Pier Ave DeepPaso Robles1/13/2015 7.858.2832S/13E-30N02Pier Ave DeepPaso Robles10/14/2014 13.692.4432S/13E-30N02Pier Ave DeepPaso Robles7/29/2014 13.272.8632S/13E-30N02Pier Ave DeepPaso Robles6/4/2014 15.200.9332S/13E-30N02Pier Ave DeepPaso Robles5/5/2014 13.192.9432S/13E-30N02Pier Ave DeepPaso Robles4/15/2014 8.577.5632S/13E-30N02Pier Ave DeepPaso Robles1/14/2014 9.306.8332S/13E-30N02Pier Ave DeepPaso Robles10/14/2013 12.134.0032S/13E-30N02Pier Ave DeepPaso Robles7/9/2013 11.055.0832S/13E-30N02Pier Ave DeepPaso Robles4/10/2013 7.069.0732S/13E-30N02Pier Ave DeepPaso Robles1/14/2013 4.9811.1532S/13E-30N02Pier Ave DeepPaso Robles10/29/2012 8.527.6132S/13E-30N02Pier Ave DeepPaso Robles7/23/2012 8.317.8232S/13E-30N02Pier Ave DeepPaso Robles4/18/2012 3.4512.6832S/13E-30N02Pier Ave DeepPaso Robles1/11/2012 4.8811.2532S/13E-30N02Pier Ave DeepPaso Robles11/21/2011 5.3510.7832S/13E-30N02Pier Ave DeepPaso Robles7/26/2011 7.258.8832S/13E-30N02Pier Ave DeepPaso Robles4/20/2011 3.5312.6032S/13E-30N02Pier Ave DeepPaso Robles1/24/2011 3.6711.7632S/13E-30N02Pier Ave DeepPaso Robles10/21/2010 10.425.7132S/13E-30N02Pier Ave DeepPaso Robles7/27/2010 10.026.1132S/13E-30N02Pier Ave DeepPaso Robles4/27/2010 5.268.2732S/13E-30N02Pier Ave DeepPaso Robles2/25/2010 1.7211.8132S/13E-30N02Pier Ave DeepPaso Robles2/25/2010 1.7211.8132S/13E-30N02Pier Ave DeepPaso Robles1/26/2010 3.729.8132S/13E-30N02Pier Ave DeepPaso Robles10/20/2009 7.386.1532S/13E-30N02Pier Ave DeepPaso Robles8/20/2009 11.941.5932S/13E-30N02Pier Ave DeepPaso Robles5/11/2009 6.986.55\\PDX\Projects\Portland\672‐Northern Cities Management Area\001‐2016 Annual Rpt\Water Levels\NCMA_WL_SentryWells.xlsx1/27/2017Item 9.g. - Page 121
Appendix A: NCMA Sentry Wells Water Level Data, Oceano GreenWellCommonNameAquiferConstructionTop of Casing Elevation(ft VD88)DateDepth to Water(feet)Groundwater Elevation(feet VD88)32S/13E-31H10Oceano GreenPaso RoblesScreened from 110-130' - 3-inch30.491/10/2017 24.5010.1332S/13E-31H10Oceano GreenPaso RoblesCasing relative to concrete pad -4.14 10/12/2016 30.743.8932S/13E-31H10Oceano GreenPaso RoblesPad elevation above MSL, approximate34.63 7/19/2016 29.774.8632S/13E-31H10Oceano GreenPaso Robles4/12/2016 25.648.9932S/13E-31H10Oceano GreenPaso Robles1/12/2016 20.839.6632S/13E-31H10Oceano GreenPaso Robles10/13/2015 31.882.7532S/13E-31H10Oceano GreenPaso Robles7/14/2015 31.613.0232S/13E-31H10Oceano GreenPaso Robles4/14/2015 28.815.8232S/13E-31H10Oceano GreenPaso Robles1/13/2015 26.118.5232S/13E-31H10Oceano GreenPaso Robles10/14/2014 31.642.9932S/13E-31H10Oceano GreenPaso Robles7/29/2014 32.302.3332S/13E-31H10Oceano GreenPaso Robles6/4/2014 32.821.8132S/13E-31H10Oceano GreenPaso Robles4/15/2014 27.986.6532S/13E-31H10Oceano GreenPaso Robles1/14/2014 28.556.0832S/13E-31H10Oceano GreenPaso Robles10/14/2013 30.314.3232S/13E-31H10Oceano GreenPaso Robles7/9/2013 29.984.6532S/13E-31H10Oceano GreenPaso Robles4/10/2013 23.3011.3332S/13E-31H10Oceano GreenPaso Robles1/14/2013 23.5911.0432S/13E-31H10Oceano GreenPaso Robles10/30/2012 27.317.3232S/13E-31H10Oceano GreenPaso Robles7/25/2012 27.157.4832S/13E-31H10Oceano GreenPaso Robles4/18/2012 21.6512.9832S/13E-31H10Oceano GreenPaso Robles1/12/2012 23.2911.3432S/13E-31H10Oceano GreenPaso Robles11/21/2011 22.4612.1732S/13E-31H10Oceano GreenPaso Robles7/26/2011 25.519.1232S/13E-31H10Oceano GreenPaso Robles4/20/2011 114.79-80.1632S/13E-31H10Oceano GreenPaso Robles1/24/2011 106.59-71.9632S/13E-31H10Oceano GreenPaso Robles10/21/2010 112.71-82.2232S/13E-31H10Oceano GreenPaso Robles7/26/2010 95.61-65.1232S/13E-31H10Oceano GreenPaso Robles4/26/2010 63.90-33.4132S/13E-31H10Oceano GreenPaso Robles1/27/2010 43.71-13.2232S/13E-31H10Oceano GreenPaso Robles10/20/2009 29.201.2932S/13E-31H10Oceano GreenPaso Robles8/19/2009 24.555.9432S/13E-31H10Oceano GreenPaso Robles4/7/2009 28.122.3732S/13E-31H10Oceano GreenPaso Robles4/16/1996 20.709.79\\PDX\Projects\Portland\672‐Northern Cities Management Area\001‐2016 Annual Rpt\Water Levels\NCMA_WL_SentryWells.xlsx1/27/2017Item 9.g. - Page 122
Appendix A: NCMA Sentry Wells Water Level Data, Oceano BlueWellCommonNameAquiferConstructionTop of Casing Elevation(ft VD88)DateDepth to Water(feet)Groundwater Elevation(feet VD88)32S/13E-31H11Oceano BluePaso RoblesScreened from 190-210' and 245-265' 3in30.541/10/2017 25.009.6332S/13E-31H11Oceano BluePaso RoblesCasing relative to concrete pad -4.09 10/12/2016 30.743.8932S/13E-31H11Oceano BluePaso RoblesPad elevation above MSL, approximate34.63 7/19/2016 29.625.0132S/13E-31H11Oceano BluePaso Robles4/12/2016 25.139.5032S/13E-31H11Oceano BluePaso Robles1/12/2016 22.008.5432S/13E-31H11Oceano BluePaso Robles10/13/2015 32.701.9332S/13E-31H11Oceano BluePaso Robles7/14/2015 32.212.4232S/13E-31H11Oceano BluePaso Robles4/14/2015 28.416.2232S/13E-31H11Oceano BluePaso Robles1/13/2015 25.988.6532S/13E-31H11Oceano BluePaso Robles10/14/2014 32.701.9332S/13E-31H11Oceano BluePaso Robles7/29/2014 32.691.9432S/13E-31H11Oceano BluePaso Robles6/4/2014 34.020.6132S/13E-31H11Oceano BluePaso Robles4/15/2014 27.077.5632S/13E-31H11Oceano BluePaso Robles1/14/2014 27.866.7732S/13E-31H11Oceano BluePaso Robles10/14/2013 30.983.6532S/13E-31H11Oceano BluePaso Robles7/9/2013 29.365.2732S/13E-31H11Oceano BluePaso Robles4/10/2013 24.4510.1832S/13E-31H11Oceano BluePaso Robles1/14/2013 23.1411.4932S/13E-31H11Oceano BluePaso Robles10/30/2012 27.686.9532S/13E-31H11Oceano BluePaso Robles7/25/2012 27.187.4532S/13E-31H11Oceano BluePaso Robles4/18/2012 20.1014.5332S/13E-31H11Oceano BluePaso Robles1/12/2012 22.2612.3732S/13E-31H11Oceano BluePaso Robles11/21/2011 22.7311.9032S/13E-31H11Oceano BluePaso Robles7/26/2011 25.299.3432S/13E-31H11Oceano BluePaso Robles4/20/2011 22.5912.0432S/13E-31H11Oceano BluePaso Robles1/24/2011 24.879.7632S/13E-31H11Oceano BluePaso Robles10/21/2010 30.110.4332S/13E-31H11Oceano BluePaso Robles7/26/2010 24.745.8032S/13E-31H11Oceano BluePaso Robles4/26/2010 18.5212.0232S/13E-31H11Oceano BluePaso Robles1/27/2010 22.068.4832S/13E-31H11Oceano BluePaso Robles10/20/2009 27.503.0432S/13E-31H11Oceano BluePaso Robles8/19/2009 24.655.8932S/13E-31H11Oceano BluePaso Robles4/7/2009 27.652.8932S/13E-31H11Oceano BluePaso Robles4/16/1996 17.9012.64\\PDX\Projects\Portland\672‐Northern Cities Management Area\001‐2016 Annual Rpt\Water Levels\NCMA_WL_SentryWells.xlsx1/27/2017Item 9.g. - Page 123
Appendix A: NCMA Sentry Wells Water Level Data, Oceano SilverWellCommonNameAquiferConstructionTop of Casing Elevation(ft VD88)DateDepth to Water(feet)Groundwater Elevation(feet VD88)32S/13E-31H12Oceano SilverCareagaScreened from 395-435' and 470-510' 3in30.481/10/2017 24.809.8332S/13E-31H12Oceano SilverCareagaCasing relative to concrete pad -4.15 10/12/2016 31.003.6332S/13E-31H12Oceano SilverCareagaPad elevation above MSL, approximate34.63 7/19/2016 26.954.9832S/13E-31H12Oceano SilverCareaga4/12/2016 25.329.3132S/13E-31H12Oceano SilverCareaga1/12/2016 21.449.0432S/13E-31H12Oceano SilverCareaga10/13/2015 32.302.3332S/13E-31H12Oceano SilverCareaga7/14/2015 32.582.0532S/13E-31H12Oceano SilverCareaga4/14/2015 30.384.2532S/13E-31H12Oceano SilverCareaga1/13/2015 26.198.4432S/13E-31H12Oceano SilverCareaga10/14/2014 43.01-8.3832S/13E-31H12Oceano SilverCareaga7/29/2014 33.650.9832S/13E-31H12Oceano SilverCareaga6/4/2014 36.33-1.7032S/13E-31H12Oceano SilverCareaga4/15/2014 42.20-7.5732S/13E-31H12Oceano SilverCareaga1/14/2014 37.786.8532S/13E-31H12Oceano SilverCareaga10/14/2013 30.923.7132S/13E-31H12Oceano SilverCareaga7/9/2013 30.913.7232S/13E-31H12Oceano SilverCareaga4/10/2013 26.088.5532S/13E-31H12Oceano SilverCareaga1/14/2013 23.1211.5132S/13E-31H12Oceano SilverCareaga10/30/2012 27.147.4932S/13E-31H12Oceano SilverCareaga7/25/2012 27.686.9532S/13E-31H12Oceano SilverCareaga4/18/2012 20.1314.532S/13E-31H12Oceano SilverCareaga1/11/2012 23.0011.6332S/13E-31H12Oceano SilverCareaga11/21/2011 22.8511.7832S/13E-31H12Oceano SilverCareaga7/26/2011 25.239.432S/13E-31H12Oceano SilverCareaga4/20/2011 21.2713.3632S/13E-31H12Oceano SilverCareaga1/24/2011 22.0212.6132S/13E-31H12Oceano SilverCareaga10/21/2010 29.115.5232S/13E-31H12Oceano SilverCareaga7/26/2010 24.246.2432S/13E-31H12Oceano SilverCareaga4/26/2010 19.0411.4432S/13E-31H12Oceano SilverCareaga1/27/2010 21.059.4332S/13E-31H12Oceano SilverCareaga10/20/2009 27.522.9632S/13E-31H12Oceano SilverCareaga8/19/2009 29.341.1432S/13E-31H12Oceano SilverCareaga4/7/2009 31.32-0.8432S/13E-31H12Oceano SilverCareaga4/16/1996 29.201.28\\PDX\Projects\Portland\672‐Northern Cities Management Area\001‐2016 Annual Rpt\Water Levels\NCMA_WL_SentryWells.xlsx1/27/2017Item 9.g. - Page 124
Appendix A: NCMA Sentry Wells Water Level Data, Oceano YellowWellCommonNameAquiferConstructionTop of Casing Elevation(ft VD88)DateDepth to Water(feet)Groundwater Elevation(feet VD88)32S/13E-31H13Oceano YellowCareagaScreened from 625-645' 3-inch diameter30.521/10/2017 24.799.8432S/13E-31H13 Oceano Yellow Careaga Casing relative to concrete pad -4.11 10/12/2016 30.913.7232S/13E-31H13Oceano YellowCareagaPad elevation above MSL, approximate34.63 7/19/2016 29.585.0532S/13E-31H13Oceano YellowCareaga4/12/2016 25.259.3832S/13E-31H13Oceano YellowCareaga1/12/2016 21.668.8632S/13E-31H13Oceano YellowCareaga10/13/2015 32.282.3532S/13E-31H13Oceano YellowCareaga7/14/2015 32.602.0332S/13E-31H13Oceano YellowCareaga4/14/2015 30.424.2132S/13E-31H13Oceano YellowCareaga1/13/2015 26.328.3132S/13E-31H13Oceano YellowCareaga10/14/2014 41.12-6.4932S/13E-31H13Oceano YellowCareaga7/29/2014 33.720.9132S/13E-31H13Oceano YellowCareaga6/4/2014 36.55-1.9232S/13E-31H13Oceano YellowCareaga4/15/2014 39.06-4.4332S/13E-31H13Oceano YellowCareaga1/14/2014 27.806.8332S/13E-31H13Oceano YellowCareaga10/14/2013 30.833.8032S/13E-31H13Oceano YellowCareaga7/9/2013 30.414.2232S/13E-31H13Oceano YellowCareaga4/10/2013 26.098.5432S/13E-31H13Oceano YellowCareaga1/14/2013 23.2511.3832S/13E-31H13Oceano YellowCareaga10/30/2012 27.237.4032S/13E-31H13Oceano YellowCareaga7/25/2012 27.696.9432S/13E-31H13Oceano YellowCareaga4/18/2012 20.0514.5832S/13E-31H13Oceano YellowCareaga1/12/2012 23.0811.5532S/13E-31H13Oceano YellowCareaga11/21/2011 22.9811.6532S/13E-31H13Oceano YellowCareaga7/26/2011 26.737.9032S/13E-31H13Oceano YellowCareaga4/20/2011 21.3013.3332S/13E-31H13Oceano YellowCareaga1/24/2011 22.0112.6232S/13E-31H13Oceano YellowCareaga10/21/2010 28.222.3032S/13E-31H13Oceano YellowCareaga7/26/2010 25.505.0232S/13E-31H13Oceano YellowCareaga4/26/2010 19.1711.3532S/13E-31H13Oceano YellowCareaga1/27/2010 20.589.9432S/13E-31H13Oceano YellowCareaga10/20/2009 25.804.7232S/13E-31H13Oceano YellowCareaga8/19/2009 31.04-0.5232S/13E-31H13Oceano YellowCareaga4/7/2009 34.78-4.2632S/13E-31H13Oceano YellowCareaga4/16/1996 23.806.72\\PDX\Projects\Portland\672‐Northern Cities Management Area\001‐2016 Annual Rpt\Water Levels\NCMA_WL_SentryWells.xlsx1/27/2017Item 9.g. - Page 125
Appendix A: NCMA Sentry Wells Water Level Data, Oceano Dunes, Middle WellWellCommonNameAquiferConstructionTop of Casing Elevation(ft VD88)DateDepth to Water(feet)Groundwater Elevation(feet VD88)12N/36W-36L01 Oceano Dunes Middle Paso RoblesScreened from 227-237' - 2-inch26.771/10/2017 19.707.0712N/36W-36L01 Oceano Dunes Middle Paso Robles Height of steel casing added to the concrete pad elevation2.79 10/12/2016 21.864.9112N/36W-36L01 Oceano Dunes Middle Paso RoblesPad elevation VD 8823.98 7/19/2016 22.214.5612N/36W-36L01 Oceano Dunes Middle Paso RoblesTOC elevation prior to renovation (Approximate)24.0 4/12/2016 20.566.2112N/36W-36L01 Oceano Dunes Middle Paso Robles1/12/2016 18.768.0112N/36W-36L01 Oceano Dunes Middle Paso Robles10/13/2015 22.144.6312N/36W-36L01 Oceano Dunes Middle Paso Robles7/14/2015 21.844.9312N/36W-36L01 Oceano Dunes Middle Paso Robles4/14/2015 21.185.5912N/36W-36L01 Oceano Dunes Middle Paso Robles1/13/2015 19.896.8812N/36W-36L01 Oceano Dunes Middle Paso Robles10/14/2014 21.755.0212N/36W-36L01 Oceano Dunes Middle Paso Robles7/29/2014 21.575.2012N/36W-36L01 Oceano Dunes Middle Paso Robles6/4/2014 22.364.4112N/36W-36L01 Oceano Dunes Middle Paso Robles4/15/2014 19.896.8812N/36W-36L01 Oceano Dunes Middle Paso Robles1/14/2014 20.386.3912N/36W-36L01 Oceano Dunes Middle Paso Robles10/14/2013 21.715.0612N/36W-36L01 Oceano Dunes Middle Paso Robles7/9/2013 21.375.412N/36W-36L01 Oceano Dunes Middle Paso Robles4/10/2013 20.106.6712N/36W-36L01 Oceano Dunes Middle Paso Robles1/14/2013 18.628.1512N/36W-36L01 Oceano Dunes Middle Paso Robles10/31/2012 20.116.6612N/36W-36L01 Oceano Dunes Middle Paso Robles7/24/2012 19.427.3512N/36W-36L01 Oceano Dunes Middle Paso Robles4/20/2012 18.268.0312N/36W-36L01 Oceano Dunes Middle Paso Robles4/18/2012 23.832.9412N/36W-36L01 Oceano Dunes Middle Paso Robles1/11/2012 17.689.0912N/36W-36L01 Oceano Dunes Middle Paso Robles11/21/2011 18.088.6912N/36W-36L01 Oceano Dunes Middle Paso Robles7/26/2011 19.637.1412N/36W-36L01 Oceano Dunes Middle Paso Robles4/20/2011 18.268.5112N/36W-36L01 Oceano Dunes Middle Paso Robles1/24/2011 17.618.6812N/36W-36L01 Oceano Dunes Middle Paso Robles10/21/2010 20.755.5412N/36W-36L01 Oceano Dunes Middle Paso Robles7/27/2010 21.185.1112N/36W-36L01 Oceano Dunes Middle Paso Robles4/26/2010 15.948.0612N/36W-36L01 Oceano Dunes Middle Paso Robles10/21/2009 17.726.2812N/36W-36L01 Oceano Dunes Middle Paso Robles8/20/2009 19.164.8412N/36W-36L01 Oceano Dunes Middle Paso Robles5/11/2009 17.686.3212N/36W-36L01 Oceano Dunes Middle Paso Robles4/18/2009 15.958.0312N/36W-36L01 Oceano Dunes Middle Paso Robles10/26/1996 17.906.0812N/36W-36L01 Oceano Dunes Middle Paso Robles10/24/1996 17.206.7812N/36W-36L01 Oceano Dunes Middle Paso Robles6/8/1976 18.955.0312N/36W-36L01 Oceano Dunes Middle Paso Robles1/14/1976 16.637.3512N/36W-36L01 Oceano Dunes Middle Paso Robles1/8/1976 13.5010.48\\PDX\Projects\Portland\672‐Northern Cities Management Area\001‐2016 Annual Rpt\Water Levels\NCMA_WL_SentryWells.xlsx1/27/2017Item 9.g. - Page 126
Appendix A: NCMA Sentry Wells Water Level Data, Oceano Dunes, Deep WellWellCommonNameAquiferConstructionTop of Casing Elevation(ft VD88)DateDepth to Water(feet)Groundwater Elevation(feet VD88)12N/36W-36L02 Oceano Dunes DeepCareagaScreened from 535-545' 2-inch26.771/10/2017 16.1510.6212N/36W-36L02 Oceano Dunes DeepCareaga Height of steel casing added to the concrete pad elevation2.79 10/12/2016 27.86-1.0912N/36W-36L02 Oceano Dunes DeepCareagaPad elevation VD 8823.98 7/19/2016 25.761.0112N/36W-36L02 Oceano Dunes DeepCareagaTOC elevation prior to renovation (Approximate)24.0 4/12/2016 18.438.3412N/36W-36L02 Oceano Dunes DeepCareaga1/12/2016 16.2710.5012N/36W-36L02 Oceano Dunes DeepCareaga10/13/2015 27.17-0.4012N/36W-36L02 Oceano Dunes DeepCareaga7/14/2015 26.110.6612N/36W-36L02 Oceano Dunes DeepCareaga4/14/2015 22.244.5312N/36W-36L02 Oceano Dunes DeepCareaga1/13/2015 16.919.8612N/36W-36L02 Oceano Dunes DeepCareaga10/14/2014 26.300.4712N/36W-36L02 Oceano Dunes DeepCareaga7/29/2014 25.641.1312N/36W-36L02 Oceano Dunes DeepCareaga6/4/2014 25.221.5512N/36W-36L02 Oceano Dunes DeepCareaga4/15/2014 16.949.8312N/36W-36L02 Oceano Dunes DeepCareaga1/14/2014 18.768.0112N/36W-36L02 Oceano Dunes DeepCareaga10/14/2013 23.942.8312N/36W-36L02 Oceano Dunes DeepCareaga7/9/2013 23.153.6212N/36W-36L02 Oceano Dunes DeepCareaga4/10/2013 15.3511.4212N/36W-36L02 Oceano Dunes DeepCareaga1/14/2013 11.2415.5312N/36W-36L02 Oceano Dunes DeepCareaga10/31/2012 18.817.9612N/36W-36L02 Oceano Dunes DeepCareaga7/24/2012 19.057.7212N/36W-36L02 Oceano Dunes DeepCareaga4/18/2012 10.8115.9612N/36W-36L02 Oceano Dunes DeepCareaga1/11/2012 11.1815.5912N/36W-36L02 Oceano Dunes DeepCareaga11/21/2011 13.9912.7812N/36W-36L02 Oceano Dunes DeepCareaga7/26/2011 18.038.7412N/36W-36L02 Oceano Dunes DeepCareaga1/24/2011 9.3716.9212N/36W-36L02 Oceano Dunes DeepCareaga10/21/2010 19.776.5212N/36W-36L02 Oceano Dunes DeepCareaga7/27/2010 20.535.7612N/36W-36L02 Oceano Dunes DeepCareaga4/26/2010 9.2414.7612N/36W-36L02 Oceano Dunes DeepCareaga10/21/2009 17.656.3512N/36W-36L02 Oceano Dunes DeepCareaga8/20/2009 19.154.8512N/36W-36L02 Oceano Dunes DeepCareaga5/11/2009 14.389.62\\PDX\Projects\Portland\672‐Northern Cities Management Area\001‐2016 Annual Rpt\Water Levels\NCMA_WL_SentryWells.xlsx1/27/2017Item 9.g. - Page 127
Appendix A: NCMA Sentry Wells Water Level Data, Mountain View Road, Well No. 3WellCommonNameAquiferConstructionTop of Casing Elevation(ft VD88)DateDepth to Water(feet)Groundwater Elevation(feet VD88)12N/35W-32C03County MW-3Paso RoblesScreened from 90-170' 5-inch diameter47.701/10/2017 34.8512.8512N/35W-32C03County MW-3Paso RoblesCasing relative to concrete pad 10/12/2016 47.490.2112N/35W-32C03County MW-3Paso RoblesPad elevation above MSL, approximate47.70 7/19/2016 44.513.1912N/35W-32C03County MW-3Paso Robles4/12/2016 36.4111.2912N/35W-32C03County MW-3Paso Robles1/12/2016 36.4811.2212N/35W-32C03County MW-3Paso Robles10/13/2015 51.21-3.5112N/35W-32C03County MW-3Paso Robles7/14/2015 49.07-1.3712N/35W-32C03County MW-3Paso Robles4/14/2015 44.003.7012N/35W-32C03County MW-3Paso Robles1/13/2015 38.908.0012N/35W-32C03County MW-3Paso Robles10/14/2014 50.50-2.8012N/35W-32C03County MW-3Paso Robles7/29/2014 44.023.6812N/35W-32C03County MW-3Paso Robles6/4/2014 45.462.2412N/35W-32C03County MW-3Paso Robles4/15/2014 41.516.1912N/35W-32C03County MW-3Paso Robles1/14/2014 41.006.7012N/35W-32C03County MW-3Paso Robles10/14/2013 45.262.6612N/35W-32C03County MW-3Paso Robles7/9/2013 43.833.8712N/35W-32C03County MW-3Paso Robles4/10/2013 37.899.8112N/35W-32C03County MW-3Paso Robles1/14/2013 32.2615.4412N/35W-32C03County MW-3Paso Robles10/30/2012 40.057.6512N/35W-32C03County MW-3Paso Robles7/25/2012 38.629.0812N/35W-32C03County MW-3Paso Robles4/19/2012 23.0224.68\\PDX\Projects\Portland\672‐Northern Cities Management Area\001‐2016 Annual Rpt\Water Levels\NCMA_WL_SentryWells.xlsx1/27/2017Item 9.g. - Page 128
Appendix A: NCMA Sentry Wells Water Quality Data, North Beach Campground, Shallow WellWellDate TDS Chloride Sodium Potassium Calcium MagnesiumBicarbonate as CaCO3SulfateNitrate(as N)Total Kjeldahl NitrogenBoron Fluoride Iodide Manganese BromideTotal Alkalinity as CaCO3Carbonate as CaCO3Hydroxide as CaCO3Specific ConductivityIronBromide / Chloride RatioChloride / Bromide Ratio32S/12E-24B01 10/11/2016 3,100 1,400 700 44 210 220 450 190 0.26 2.1 0.18 ND 0.12 1.6 4.1450NDND 5120 1.3 0.0029 34132S/12E-24B01 4/12/2016 2,800 1,400 640 37 170 180 420 190 <0.48 2.2 0.16 <0.055 0.081 1.3 4.8420<8.2 <8.2 5,000 0.73 0.0034 29232S/12E-24B01 10/15/2015 3,230 230 560 34 160 170 413 42 <0.05 2.2 0.14 <0.10 0.091 1.1 0.68 413<10<10 4,880 0.54 0.0030 33832S/12E-24B01 4/15/2015 3,010 1,300 510 30 150 160 410 220 <0.05 2.9 0.15 <0.5 0.023 1.0 3.4410<10<10 4,760 0.72 0.0026 38232S/12E-24B01 1/14/2015 2,980 1,300 520 30 150 170 400 210 <0.25 2.2 0.14 <0.5 <0.021 1.0 2.9400<10<10 4,640 0.52 0.0022 44832S/12E-24B01 10/14/2014 3,160 1,100 530 32 150 170 390 180 0.32 2.2 0.16 <0.5 <0.01 1.1 <0.5 390<10<10 4,780 0.67 NA NA32S/12E-24B01 7/30/2014 2,950 1,300 520 29 140 170 440 190 <0.25 1.9 0.11 <0.5 0.03 1.1 2.6440<10<10 4,830 0.62 0.0020 50032S/12E-24B01 4/16/2014 2,880 1,200 560 29 140 140 390 190 <0.05 2.2 0.130 <0.5 0.03 0.92 2.9390<10<10 4,790 0.72 0.0024 41432S/12E-24B01 1/15/2014 2,870 1,300 540 30 140 160 380 214 <0.25 2.4 0.17 <0.5 <0.01 1.0 3.0380<10<10 4,800 0.71 0.0023 43332S/12E-24B01 10/15/2013 2,860 1,200 560 31 150 160 380 200 <0.25 2.2 0.13 <0.5 <0.01 1.0 3.0380<10<10 4,810 0.75 0.0025 40032S/12E-24B01 7/9/2013 2,960 1,300 560 32 150 160 395 215 <0.25 2.4 0.16 <0.5 <0.01 1.1 2.0395<10<10 4,850 0.81 0.0015 65032S/12E-24B01 4/10/2013 2,920 1,300 540 30 140 150 410 220 <0.25 1.9 0.16 <0.1 <0.01 1.00 3.5410<10<10 4,830 0.67 0.0027 37132S/12E-24B01 1/14/2013 2,630 1,300 540 30 140 140 410 220 <0.05 2.7 0.15 <0.1 <0.01 0.96 2.8410<10<10 4,790 0.72 0.0022 46432S/12E-24B01 10/29/2012 2,950 1,200 590 34 150 160 360 200 <0.25 2.4 0.18 <0.5 <0.01 1.1 11360<10<10 4,750 0.78 0.0092 10932S/12E-24B01 7/23/2012 3,010 1,400 530 30 120 130 397 210 <0.05 2.1 0.15 <0.1 0.041 0.86 3397<10<10 4,720 1.4 0.0021 46732S/12E-24B01 4/18/2012 3,000 1,500 450 27 120 120 400 230 <0.1 2 0.13 0.13 <0.01 0.89 3.12 400<10<10 4,660 0.6 0.0021 48132S/12E-24B01 1/11/2012 2,750 1,200 520 30 140 140 400 170 <0.1 4 0.18 0.1 0.033 0.94 3.2400<10<10 4,560 0.55 0.0027 37532S/12E-24B01 11/21/2011 2,740 1,200 410 25 130 120 380 200 <0.3 2.3 0.13 <0.6 0.053 0.9 2.73 380<10<10 4,470 0.7 0.0023 44032S/12E-24B01 7/25/2011 3,690 1,200 530 33 140 150 380 200.2 <0.05 1.8 0.14 <0.1 0.053 0.91 3.281 380<5<5 4,900 0.73 0.0027 36632S/12E-24B01 4/20/2011 2,810 1,214 500 27 140 130 400 216 <0.05 1.7 0.24 0.18 0.067 0.95 3.3400<2.0 <2.0 4,430 NA 0.0027 36832S/12E-24B01 1/24/2011 2,380 1,100 370 24 110 120 380 180 <0.15 1.8 0.16 <0.3 0.63 0.68 2.8380<2.0 <2.0 4,020 0.89 0.0025 39332S/12E-24B01 10/28/2010 2,330 960 390 25 140 140 350 160 <0.1 3.9 0.15 <0.1 NA 0.75 2.6350<10<10 3,860 1.3 0.0027 36932S/12E-24B01 7/27/2010 616 43 52.5 6.21 115 44.7 341 160 < 0.10 2.9 0.063 < 0.10 0.11 0.274 0.18 341< 1.0 < 1.0 1,000 9.34 0.0042 23932S/12E-24B01 4/27/2010 676 47 54.7 4.60 107 43.6 327 140 < 0.10 0.98 0.0714 < 0.10 < 0.10 0.0458 0.18 327< 1.0 < 1.0 990 4.06 0.0038 26132S/12E-24B01 1/27/2010 694 55 56.2 6.80 123 43.2 340 150 0.40 1.7 0.12 < 0.10 0.33 0.875 0.19 340< 1.0 < 1.0 1,000 16.6 0.0035 28932S/12E-24B01 10/19/2009 766 140 121 16.7 111 52.4 303 150 0.25 2.8 0.0959 0.11 < 0.10 0.208 0.47 303< 1.0 < 1.0 1,200 7.79 0.0034 29832S/12E-24B01 8/20/2009 705 94 86.8 11.7 116 35.6 286 150 0.21 2.7 NA < 0.10 0.12 0.248 0.38 286< 1.0 < 1.0 1,000 7.15 0.0040 24732S/12E-24B01 5/12/2009 695 100 82.1 13.2 108 45288 150 NA NA NA 0.11 NA 0.66 0.29 288< 1.0 < 1.0 1,100 23.9 0.0029 34532S/12E-24B01 3/26/1996 1,870 773 380 24.0 125 95427 154 0.2 NA 0.27 NA NA NA NANANANANA NA NA NA32S/12E-24B01 6/9/1976 1,706 667 400 16.2 94 95474 159 0.4 NA 0.12 0.5 NA NA NANA NANANANANANA32S/12E-24B01 1/17/1966 1,700 652 406 20.0 95 83440 175 1 NA 0.07 0.3 NA NA NANANANANA NA NA NAP:\Portland\672‐Northern Cities Management Area\001‐2016 Annual Rpt\Water Quality\NCMA_WQ_SentryWells.xlsx1/27/2017Item 9.g. - Page 129
Appendix A: NCMA Sentry Wells Water Quality Data, North Beach Campground, Middle WellWellDate TDS Chloride Sodium Potassium Calcium MagnesiumBicarbonate as CaCO3SulfateNitrate(as N)Total Kjeldahl NitrogenBoron Fluoride Iodide Manganese BromideTotal Alkalinity as CaCO3Carbonate as CaCO3Hydroxide as CaCO3Specific ConductivityIronBromide / Chloride RatioChloride / Bromide Ratio32S/12E-24B02 10/11/2016 660 35 48 4 120 39320 170 ND 0.26 0.069 0.038 0.023 0.18 0.12 320NDND953 0.75 0.0034 29232S/12E-24B02 7/19/2016 660 36 50 3.9 120 38320 160 <0.096 0.15 0.07 0.036 0.016 0.17 0.15 320<4.1 <4.1 947 0.67 0.0042 24032S/12E-24B02 4/12/2016 640 35 48 3.8 110 37300 160 <0.096 0.38 0.064 0.045 0.011 0.17 0.13 300<4.1 <4.1 939 0.53 0.0037 26932S/12E-24B02 1/12/2016 570 38 48 3.8 110 36290 170 <0.022 0.27 0.044 0.11 0.015 0.16 0.15 290<4.1 <4.1 951 0.48 0.0039 25332S/12E-24B02 10/15/2015 650 34 41 3.8 100 33306 160 <0.05 <1 0.054 <0.10 0.014 0.18 <0.10 306<10<10950 0.72 NA NA32S/12E-24B02 7/15/2015 650 35 50 3.0 120 36295 160 <0.05 <1 0.069 <0.1 0.01 0.16 <0.1 295<10<10950 0.69 NA NA32S/12E-24B02 4/15/2015 620 35 40 3.4 100 31300 170 <0.05 <1 0.066 <0.1 0.01 0.14 <0.1 300<10<10900 0.45 NA NA32S/12E-24B02 1/14/2015 640 36 41 3.3 110 32290 170 <0.05 <1 0.062 <0.1 <0.01 0.14 <0.1 290<10<10900 0.48 NA NA32S/12E-24B02 10/14/2014 630 30 41 3.9 100 32290 140 <0.05 <1 0.065 <0.1 <0.01 0.15 <0.1 290<10<10940 0.44 NA NA32S/12E-24B02 7/29/2014 620 33 42 3.5 100 33300 150 <0.05 <1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.01 0.14 <0.1 300<10<10940 0.37 NA NA32S/12E-24B02 4/16/2014 630 32 43 4.3 88 28300 150 <0.05 <1 0.067 <0.1 <0.01 0.12 <0.1 300<10<10940 0.32 NA NA32S/12E-24B02 1/15/2014 630 33 46 3.9 100 34290 165 <0.05 <1 <0.05 <0.1 <0.01 0.14 <0.1 290<10<10940 0.37 NA NA32S/12E-24B02 10/15/2013 630 30 44 3.8 98 32290 170 <0.05 <1 <0.05 <0.1 <0.01 0.13 <0.1 290<10<10920 0.39 NA NA32S/12E-24B02 7/9/2013 630 30 43 3.9 110 33295 170 <0.05 <1 0.076 <0.1 <0.01 0.14 <0.1 295<10<10940 0.6 NA NA32S/12E-24B02 4/10/2013 630 31 44 4 100 32310 160 <0.05 <1 0.08 <0.1 <0.01 0.13 <0.1 310<10<10940 0.41 NA NA32S/12E-24B02 1/14/2013 620 30 43 4 97 31305 170 <0.05 <1 0.079 <0.1 <0.01 0.12 <0.1 305<10<10950 0.72 NA NA32S/12E-24B02 10/29/2012 650 29 45 4.2 100 32280 160 <0.05 <1 0.074 0.14 <0.01 0.13 <0.1 280<10<10950 0.56 NA NA32S/12E-24B02 7/23/2012 650 35 45 4.3 87 27297 170 <0.05 <1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.01 0.12 <0.1 297<10<10950 0.43 NA NA32S/12E-24B02 4/18/2012 630 37 39 3.7 88 28310 171 <0.1 <1 <0.1 0.16 <0.01 0.099 <0.2 310<10<10950 0.26 NA NA32S/12E-24B02 1/11/2012 650 33 46 4.6 110 32300 150 <0.1 1.3 <0.1 0.21 <0.02 0.13 0.03 300<10<10950 1.7 0.0010 97132S/12E-24B02 11/21/2011 640 32 39 3.9 93 29290 150 <0.05 <1 0.064 <0.1 <0.01 0.096 <0.1 290<10<10930 0.32 NA NA32S/12E-24B02 7/25/2011 640 36 48 4.2 97 31290 165.3 <0.05 <1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.01 0.096 <0.1 290<5<5950 0.88 NA NA32S/12E-24B02 4/20/2011 620 39 46 7.4 90 36320 174 <0.05 <1 0.17 0.14 0.014 <0.005 <0.1 320<2.0 <2.0 950 NA NA NA32S/12E-24B02 1/24/2011 640 43 44 5.9 87 28270 170 <0.05 <1.0 0.11 <0.1 0.14 0.085 <0.1 270<2.0 <2.0 940 1.3 NA NA32S/12E-24B02 10/28/2010 650 43 50 4.5 110 35270 160 <0.1 <1.0 0.12 <0.1 NA 0.085 <0.3 270<10<10970 0.63 NA NA32S/12E-24B02 7/27/2010 598 42 48.9 4.29 111 40.5 318 160 < 0.10 1.3 0.0609 < 0.10 0.11 0.106 0.15 318< 1.0 < 1.0 980 2.84 0.0036 28032S/12E-24B02 4/27/2010 668 46 52.7 4.73 111 43.2 349 150 < 0.10 1.3 0.0666 < 0.10 0.14 0.101 0.16 349< 1.0 < 1.0 980 6.66 0.0035 28832S/12E-24B02 1/27/2010 622 45 58.0 5.39 115 32.2 270 160 0.18 0.84 0.117 < 0.10 0.14 0.209 0.16 270< 1.0 < 1.0 920 3.49 0.0036 28132S/12E-24B02 10/19/2009 600 49 59.1 5.12 112 30.1 281 160 < 0.10 0.98 0.0776 0.14 < 0.10 0.163 0.19 281< 1.0 < 1.0 870 1.14 0.0039 25832S/12E-24B02 8/20/2009 630 49 63.5 5.85 128 30.1 288 150 < 0.10 0.98 NA < 0.10 < 0.10 0.203 0.20 288< 1.0 < 1.0 920 3.22 0.0041 24532S/12E-24B02 5/12/2009 622 82 67.5 6.33 114 34.5 282 150 NA NA NA 0.11 NA 0.252 0.24 282< 1.0 < 1.0 990 6.76 0.0029 34232S/12E-24B02 3/26/1996 652 54 46 5 107 24344 169 0.2 NA 0.1 NA NA NA NANANANANA NA NA NA32S/12E-24B02 6/9/1976 565 34 52 4 104 27337 153 0.6 NA 0.02 0.5 NA NA NANANANANANANANA32S/12E-24B02 1/17/1966 651 62 79 5 101 32380 147 0 NA 0.05 0.3 NA NA NANANANANA NA NA NAP:\Portland\672‐Northern Cities Management Area\001‐2016 Annual Rpt\Water Quality\NCMA_WQ_SentryWells.xlsx1/27/2017Item 9.g. - Page 130
Appendix A: NCMA Sentry Wells Water Quality Data, North Beach Campground, Deep WellWellDate TDS Chloride Sodium Potassium Calcium MagnesiumBicarbonate as CaCO3SulfateNitrate(as N)Total Kjeldahl NitrogenBoron Fluoride Iodide Manganese BromideTotal Alkalinity as CaCO3Carbonate as CaCO3Hydroxide as CaCO3Specific ConductivityIronBromide / Chloride RatioChloride / Bromide Ratio32S/12E-24B03 10/11/2016 680 49 53 4 110 47340 160 ND ND 0.06 0.015 0.025 0.013 0.17 340NDND 1020 0.22 0.0035 28832S/12E-24B03 7/19/2016 690 47 54 4.1 110 46340 160 <0.096 0.32 0.063 0.017 0.016 0.013 0.20 340<8.2 <8.2 1,010 0.32 0.0043 23532S/12E-24B03 4/12/2016 680 48 55 4.1 110 45320 160 <0.096 0.21 0.056 0.019 0.018 0.012 0.17 320<8.2 <8.2 1,010 0.28 0.0035 28232S/12E-24B03 1/12/2016 610 51 53 4.0 110 46320 170 <0.022 0.11 0.037 0.038 <0.10 0.015 0.19 320<8.2 <8.2 1,050 0.27 0.0037 26832S/12E-24B03 10/15/2015 650 44 48 4.4 100 42325 160 <0.05 <1 <0.05 <0.10 0.016 0.010 <0.10 325<10<10 1,020 0.21 NA NA32S/12E-24B03 7/15/2015 680 46 60 40.0 120 47333 160 <0.05 <1 0.064 <0.1 0.01 0.010 <0.1 333<10<10 1,020 0.20 NA NA32S/12E-24B03 4/15/2015 650 46 44 3.5 96 38330 170 <0.05 <1 0.061 <0.1 0.012 0.0080 <0.1 330<10<10980 0.17 NA NA32S/12E-24B03 1/14/2015 670 47 48 3.6 110 43330 170 <0.05 <1 0.052 <0.10 0.01 0.090 <0.1 330<10<10970 0.17 NA NA32S/12E-24B03 10/14/2014 650 40 48 4.1 100 41330 142 <0.05 <1 0.061 <0.1 <0.01 0.010 <0.1 330<10<10 1,010 0.19 NA NA32S/12E-24B03 7/30/2014 650 45 45 3.1 94 40390 150 <0.05 <1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.01 <0.005 <0.1 390<10<10 1,020 0.19 NA NA32S/12E-24B03 4/16/2014 660 43 46 4.3 90 35330 150 0.23 <1 0.056 <0.1 <0.01 <0.005 0.11 330<10<10 1,010 0.16 0.0026 39132S/12E-24B03 1/15/2014 660 45 52 4.0 100 41320 165 <0.05 <1 <0.05 <0.1 <0.01 0.0090 <0.1 320<10<10 1,010 0.17 NA NA32S/12E-24B03 10/15/2013 720 40 51 4.0 100 40310 170 <0.05 <1 <0.05 <0.1 <0.01 0.0090 <0.1 310<10<10 1,010 0.2 NA NA32S/12E-24B03 7/9/2013 660 46 47 3.9 110 41310 170 <0.05 <1 0.066 <0.1 <0.01 0.0100 <0.1 310<10<10 1,010 0.27 NA NA32S/12E-24B03 4/10/2013 670 44 46 3.8 96 38320 160 <0.05 <1 0.071 <0.1 <0.01 0.0080 <0.1 320<10<10 1,010 0.19 NA NA32S/12E-24B03 1/14/2013 630 45 47 3.9 96 37320 170 <0.05 <1 0.065 <0.1 <0.01 0.0080 <0.1 320<10<10 1,010 0.26 NA NA32S/12E-24B03 10/29/2012 680 45 49 4.1 100 39305 158 <0.05 <1 0.069 0.1 <0.01 0.0090 <0.1 305<10<10 1,010 0.22 NA NA32S/12E-24B03 7/23/2012 670 49 47 4.1 86 35318 170 <0.05 <1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.01 0.0150 <0.1 318<10<10 1,010 0.24 NA NA32S/12E-24B03 4/18/2012 640 50 40 3.4 84 33320 160 <0.1 <1 <0.1 <0.2 <0.01 0.0070 <0.2 320<10<10 1,010 0.23 NA NA32S/12E-24B03 1/12/2012 660 46 48 3.2 92 36300 150 <0.1 <1 <0.1 0.35 <0.02 0.0080 <0.2 300<10<10 1,000 0.15 NA NA32S/12E-24B03 11/21/2011 660 43 41 3.7 91 34310 150 <0.05 1.6 0.046 <0.1 0.014 0.0090 <0.1 310<10<10970 0.12 NA NA32S/12E-24B03 7/25/2011 650 46 50 6.0 98 38310 159.6 <0.05 <1 <0.1 <0.1 0.011 0.0100 <0.1 310<5<5 1,010 0.21 NA NA32S/12E-24B03 4/20/2011 650 47 48 4.6 95 31310 168 <0.05 <1 0.11 0.08 0.015 0.0080 <0.1 310<2.0 <2.0 1,020 NA NA NA32S/12E-24B03 1/24/2011 660 46 44 5.6 87 33320 160 <0.05 <1.0 NA <0.1 0.15 0.0096 <0.1 320<2.0 <2.0 1,020 0.22 NA NA32S/12E-24B03 10/28/2010 660 44 48 3.8 110 39315 50 <0.1 <1.0 0.089 <0.1 NA 0.0120 <0.3 315<10<10 1,020 0.55 NA NA32S/12E-24B03 7/27/2010 610 44 51.4 8.34 112 41.6 328 160 < 0.10 1.8 0.0533 < 0.10 0.17 0.0602 0.16 328< 1.0 < 1.0 1,000 6.7 0.0036 27532S/12E-24B03 4/27/2010 666 45 53.2 4.84 118 44357 150 < 0.10 1.5 0.0636 < 0.10 0.1 0.0519 0.17 357< 1.0 < 1.0 980 9.71 0.0038 26532S/12E-24B03 1/27/2010 672 48 56.4 5.40 119 43.4 336 150 < 0.10 1.4 0.101 < 0.10 0.15 0.140 0.15 336< 1.0 < 1.0 1,000 5.18 0.0031 32032S/12E-24B03 10/19/2009 622 40 55.1 3.93 110 42.6 342 160 < 0.10 < 0.50 0.0613 < 0.10 0.13 0.0181 0.14 342< 1.0 < 1.0 880 0.343 0.0035 28632S/12E-24B03 8/19/2009 680 47 54.9 5.21 128 43.4 337 150 < 0.10 2.2 NA < 0.10 0.66 0.182 0.15 337< 1.0 < 1.0 1,000 14.3 0.0032 31332S/12E-24B03 5/12/2009 645 44 53.2 4.53 108 41.8 332 140 NA NA NA < 0.10 NA 0.124 0.16 332< 1.0 < 1.0 1,000 5.9 0.0036 27532S/12E-24B03 3/26/1996 646 41 52 4.3 104 42412 164 0.2 NA 0.12 NA NA NA NANANANANANANANA32S/12E-24B03 6/9/1976 569 36 53 3.7 85 39330 165 0 NA 0.06 0.4 NA NA NANANANANA NA NA NA32S/12E-24B03 1/17/1966 670 79 74 5 103 36345 158 1 NA 0 0.2 NA NA NANANANANA NANA NAP:\Portland\672‐Northern Cities Management Area\001‐2016 Annual Rpt\Water Quality\NCMA_WQ_SentryWells.xlsx1/27/2017Item 9.g. - Page 131
Appendix A: NCMA Sentry Wells Water Quality Data, Highway 1, Shallow WellWellDate TDS Chloride Sodium Potassium Calcium MagnesiumBicarbonate as CaCO3SulfateNitrate(as N)Total Kjeldahl NitrogenBoron Fluoride Iodide Manganese BromideTotal Alkalinity as CaCO3Carbonate as CaCO3Hydroxide as CaCO3Specific ConductivityIronBromide / Chloride RatioChloride / Bromide Ratio32S/13E-30F01 10/11/2016 480 62 72 2.3 46 2391 120 12 0.13 0.09 0.046 ND ND 0.3291NDND702 ND 0.0052 19432S/13E-30F01 4/13/2016 460 60 70 2.3 43 2190 120 52 0.2 0.086 0.054 <0.01 <.0040 0.3090<4.1 <4.1 696 <0.030 0.0050 20032S/13E-30F01 10/14/2015 450 58 61 2.1 39 1987 120 13 <1 0.084 <0.10 <0.01 <0.005 0.1887<10<10700 <0.05 0.0031 32232S/13E-30F01 4/15/2015 460 64 60 2.0 40 1990 130 12 <1 0.081 <0.1 <0.01 <0.005 0.202 90<10<10700 <0.05 0.0032 31732S/13E-30F01 1/14/2015 550 95 69 2 50 2498 140 12.50 <1 0.085 <0.1 <0.01 <0.005 0.298<10<10820 <0.05 0.0018 56232S/13E-30F01 10/14/2014 470 58 64 2 42 1984 120 10.00 <1 0.081 <0.1 <0.01 <0.005 0.284<10<10730 <0.05 0.0030 33732S/13E-30F01 7/30/2014 540 89 71 2 46 2494 130 13.6 <1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.01 <0.005 0.101 94<10<10860 <0.05 0.0011 88132S/13E-30F01 4/16/2014 610 122 78 3.3 47 22100 140 12 <1 0.100 <0.1 <0.01 <0.005 0.17 100<10<10970 <0.05 0.0014 71832S/13E-30F01 1/15/2014 510 80 69 2.3 45 2294 136 12.6 13.00 <0.1 <0.1 <0.01 <0.005 0.1994<10<10810 <0.05 0.0024 42132S/13E-30F01 10/15/2013 530 78 73 2.3 47 2286 140 12 <1 0.072 <0.1 <0.01 <.005 0.1786<10<10830 <0.05 0.0022 45932S/13E-30F01 7/10/2013 480 80 64 2.2 49 2285 140 12.2 <1 0.089 <0.1 <0.01 <0.005 <0.185<10<10770 <0.05 NA NA32S/13E-30F01 4/11/2013 460 60 60 2.20 38 1878 120 12 <1 0.091 <0.1 <0.01 <0.005 0.278<10<10710 <0.05 0.0033 30032S/13E-30F01 1/15/2013 440 65 64 2.40 40 1995 130 12 <1 0.090 <0.1 <0.01 <0.005 0.1195<10<10720 0.05 0.0017 59132S/13E-30F01 10/30/2012 470 60 66 2.50 43 2075 123 12 <1 0.087 <0.1 <0.01 <0.005 0.1375<10<10720 <0.05 0.0022 46232S/13E-30F01 7/24/2012 470 73 66 2.70 36 1886 120 13 <1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.01 0.019 0.1186<10<10720 <0.05 0.0015 66432S/13E-30F01 4/19/2012 450 72 52 1.90 32 1581 130 13 <1 <0.1 <0.2 <0.01 <0.005 <0.281<10<10700 <0.1 NA NA32S/13E-30F01 1/10/2012 460 67 61 2.00 35 1781 120 11 <1 <0.1 0.12 <0.01 <0.005 <0.181<10<10720 <0.1 NA NA32S/13E-30F01 11/17/2011 470 70 82 2.40 40 1978 120 12 <1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.01 <0.005 0.1678<10<10720 <0.1 0.0023 43832S/13E-30F01 7/25/2011 460 66 68 4.40 37 1978 117.4 12.17 <1 0.100 0.101 <0.01 0.014 0.178 78<5<5720 0.11 0.0027 37032S/13E-30F01 4/20/2011 460 71 69 2.60 36 1487 124 12 <1 0.180 0.11 <0.01 <0.005 0.1787<2.0 <2.0 730 NA 0.0024 41832S/13E-30F01 1/24/2011 510 75 64 4.00 34 1883 140 11 <1.0 0.170 0.11 <0.10 <0.005 <0.183<2.0 <2.0 780 <0.1 NA NA32S/13E-30F01 10/21/2010 540 100 73 2.00 43 2188 120 13 <1.0 0.067 <0.1 NA <0.005 <0.388<10<10894 <.1 NA NA32S/13E-30F01 7/26/2010 464 74 82.2 2.16 47.9 25.1 88.0 120 12 < 0.50 0.098 < 0.10 < 0.10 0.0817 0.37 88.0< 1.0 < 1.0 710 0.79 0.0050 20032S/13E-30F01 4/27/2010 534 72 77.1 2.59 45.8 23.6 100 140 9.8 0.56 0.129 < 0.10 < 0.10 0.112 0.29 100< 1.0 < 1.0 780 1.02 0.0040 24832S/13E-30F01 1/28/2010 725 140 99.9 2.70 76.4 35.8 214 170 1.6 0.84 0.120 < 0.10 < 0.10 0.112 0.56 214< 1.0 < 1.0 1,200 0.640 0.0040 25032S/13E-30F01 10/19/2009 522 74 85.6 2.35 52.8 26.3 102 150 13 0.70 0.136 0.13 < 0.10 0.123 0.32 102< 1.0 < 1.0 770 1.30 0.0043 23132S/13E-30F01 8/19/2009 648 92 98.9 3.84 63.1 31.9 113 190 10 0.56 NA < 0.10 0.12 1.03 0.32 113< 1.0 < 1.0 970 4.52 0.0035 28832S/13E-30F01 5/12/2009 792 110 108 2.89 80.2 39.9 136 280 NA NA NA < 0.10 NA 0.0353 0.39 136< 1.0 < 1.0 1,200 0.281 0.0035 282P:\Portland\672‐Northern Cities Management Area\001‐2016 Annual Rpt\Water Quality\NCMA_WQ_SentryWells.xlsx1/27/2017Item 9.g. - Page 132
Appendix A: NCMA Sentry Wells Water Quality Data, Highway 1, Middle WellWellDate TDS Chloride Sodium Potassium Calcium MagnesiumBicarbonate as CaCO3SulfateNitrate(as N)Total Kjeldahl NitrogenBoron Fluoride Iodide Manganese BromideTotal Alkalinity as CaCO3Carbonate as CaCO3Hydroxide as CaCO3Specific ConductivityIronBromide / Chloride RatioChloride / Bromide Ratio32S/13E-30F02 10/11/2016 600 52 50 2.9 89 40220 140 13 0.089 0.09 0.074 ND 0.025 0.6220NDND886 ND 0.0115 8732S/13E-30F02 7/20/2016 590 51 51 3.0 88 38220 130 58 0.14 0.091 0.072 <0.010 0.170 0.57 220<4.1 <4.1 880 0.033 0.0112 8932S/13E-30F02 4/13/2016 570 51 51 2.9 89 40200 130 58 0.08 0.1 0.086 <0.010 0.014 0.60 200<4.1 <4.1 876 <0.030 0.0118 8532S/13E-30F02 1/13/2016 610 53 51 2.9 89 38210 140 13 0.14 0.091 0.15 <0.010 0.035 0.47 210<4.1 <4.1 858 <0.030 0.0089 11332S/13E-30F02 10/14/2015 570 49 45 2.8 80 35212 130 13 <1 0.085 <0.10 <0.01 0.20 0.39 212<10<10890 0.078 0.0080 12632S/13E-30F02 7/15/2015 610 50 51 2.0 88 38204 140 13 <1 0.091 <0.1 <0.01 0.048 0.30 204<10<10890 <0.05 0.0060 16732S/13E-30F02 4/15/2015 570 51 43 2.7 78 34200 140 13.5 <1 0.085 <0.1 <0.01 0.087 0.42 200<10<10850 <0.05 0.0082 12132S/13E-30F02 1/14/2015 590 51 42 2.4 80 34210 140 13 <1 0.08 <0.1 <0.01 0.014 0.324 210<10<10860 <0.05 0.0064 15732S/13E-30F02 10/14/2014 600 46 42 2.6 76 32310 120 12 <1 0.08 <0.1 <0.01 0.22 0.37 310<10<10890 <0.05 0.0080 12432S/13E-30F02 7/30/2014 580 49 46 2.6 80 35210 130 13 <1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.01 0.02 0.27 210<10<10890 <0.05 0.0055 18132S/13E-30F02 4/16/2014 590 49 45 3.3 68 30200 130 12 <1 0.089 <0.1 <0.01 0.011 0.44 200<10<10890 <0.05 0.0090 11132S/13E-30F02 1/15/2014 580 50 45 2.7 76 31190 136 13.1 13.4 <0.1 <0.1 <0.01 0.054 0.4190<10<10890 <0.05 0.0080 12532S/13E-30F02 10/15/2013 570 50 45 2.7 75 33190 140 12 <1 0.69 0.19 <0.01 0.099 0.38 190<10<10890 <0.05 0.0076 13232S/13E-30F02 7/10/2013 570 50 38 2.6 78 32190 180 <0.05 <1 0.08 0.13 <0.01 0.14 <0.1 190<10<10880 <0.05 NA NA32S/13E-30F02 4/11/2013 590 50 41 2.6 70 30190 140 14 <1 0.09 0.1 <0.01 0.082 0.43 190<10<10880 <0.05 0.0086 11632S/13E-30F02 1/15/2013 550 50 44 2.9 72 31200 140 13 <1 0.09 0.1 <0.01 0.011 0.32 200<10<10880 0.12 0.0064 15632S/13E-30F02 10/30/2012 610 48 45 3.0 79 34188 135 13 <1 0.09 <0.1 <0.01 0.06 0.31 188<10<10890 0.011 0.0065 15532S/13E-30F02 7/24/2012 590 56 46 3.2 69 30194 140 14 <1 <0.1 0.11 <0.01 0.038 0.27 194<10<10880 <0.05 0.0048 20732S/13E-30F02 4/19/2012 600 60 40 2.7 68 30200 140 14 <1 <0.1 <0.2 <0.01 0.19 0.3200<10<10890 0.11 0.0050 20032S/13E-30F02 1/12/2012 610 52 45 3.0 73 32200 130 12 <1 <0.1 0.25 <0.02 0.29 0.33 200<10<10890 <0.1 0.0063 15832S/13E-30F02 11/21/2011 580 49 38 2.7 73 30190 120 13 <1 0.07 <0.1 <0.01 0.022 0.34 190<10<10870 <0.1 0.0069 14432S/13E-30F02 7/25/2011 590 52 46 5.1 73 31190 134.3 13.19 <1 <0.1 0.127 <0.1 0.025 0.387 190<5<5900 <0.1 0.0074 13532S/13E-30F02 4/20/2011 600 54 57 4.2 74 29200 141 13 <1 0.18 0.17 <0.01 0.025 0.38 200<2.0 <2.0 920 NA 0.0070 14232S/13E-30F02 1/24/2011 600 51 43 4.9 71 31210 140 12 <1.0 0.15 0.12 0.27 0.041 0.3210<2.0 <2.0 920 <0.1 0.0059 17032S/13E-30F02 10/28/2010 610 49 38 2.3 70 30210 130 11 <1.0 0.10 <0.1 NA 0.0094 <0.3 210<10<10920 <0.1 NA NA32S/13E-30F02 7/26/2010 560 49 45.8 2.95 85.4 36.8 223 130 11 2.5 0.0928 < 0.10 0.13 0.0646 0.59 223< 1.0 < 1.0 890 < 0.100 0.0120 8332S/13E-30F02 4/27/2010 634 51 50.3 3.12 87.9 38.6 225 130 10 0.8 0.112 < 0.10 < 0.10 0.615 0.51 225< 1.0 < 1.0 880 3.28 0.0100 10032S/13E-30F02 1/28/2010 604 44 52.2 4.47 92.1 38.5 230 150 11 1.4 0.127 < 0.10 < 0.10 0.913 0.48 230< 1.0 < 1.0 920 4.55 0.0109 9232S/13E-30F02 10/19/2009 566 49 49.5 2.80 88.3 37.6 240 140 11 1.0 0.0942 0.17 < 0.10 0.924 0.51 240< 1.0 < 1.0 850 2.15 0.0104 9632S/13E-30F02 8/19/2009 614 49 51.8 3.19 87.3 36.8 225 130 11 2.00 NA 0.10 < 0.10 2.24 0.54 225< 1.0 < 1.0 920 19.4 0.0110 9132S/13E-30F02 5/12/2009 514 54 48.7 3.26 81.1 34.9 206 120 NA NA NA 0.11 NA 1.87 0.53 206< 1.0 < 1.0 890 3.23 0.0098 10232S/13E-30F02 3/27/1996 678 49 52 3.8 98 42305 166 49 NA 0.16 NA NA NA NANANANANANANANA32S/13E-30F02 6/9/1976 637 48 55 2.8 98 43343 172 17.6 NA 0.1 0.5 NA NA NANANANANA NA NA NA32S/13E-30F02 1/20/1966 580 68 47 2 94 38280 152 27 NA 0.08 0.2 NA NA NANANANANA NA NA NAP:\Portland\672‐Northern Cities Management Area\001‐2016 Annual Rpt\Water Quality\NCMA_WQ_SentryWells.xlsx1/27/2017Item 9.g. - Page 133
Appendix A: NCMA Sentry Wells Water Quality Data, Highway 1, Deep WellWellDate TDS Chloride Sodium Potassium Calcium MagnesiumBicarbonate as CaCO3SulfateNitrate(as N)Total Kjeldahl NitrogenBoron Fluoride Iodide Manganese BromideTotal Alkalinity as CaCO3Carbonate as CaCO3Hydroxide as CaCO3Specific ConductivityIronBromide / Chloride RatioChloride / Bromide Ratio32S/13E-30F03 10/11/2016 680 48 41 2.6 110 49320 170 ND 0.11 0.056 0.13 0.042 0.02 0.22 320NDND992 ND 0.0046 21832S/13E-30F03 7/20/2016 660 47 44 2.9 110 51320 170 <0.096 <0.080 0.062 0.12 0.032 0.023 0.20 320<4.1 <4.1 992 0.04 0.0043 23532S/13E-30F03 4/13/2016 650 47 42 2.7 110 51310 170 <0.096 0.2 0.072 0.13 0.028 0.021 0.22 310<4.1 <4.1 981 0.03 0.0047 21432S/13E-30F03 1/14/2016 580 49 45 2.8 120 52310 180 0.05 0.1 0.061 0.2 <0.010 0.025 0.21 310<4.1 <4.1 947 0.054 0.0043 23332S/13E-30F03 10/14/2015 660 44 38 2.8 100 44306 160 <0.05 <1 <0.05 0.13 0.028 0.021 0.10 306<10<10990 <0.05 0.0023 44032S/13E-30F03 7/15/2015 670 45 45 1.9 120 51305 170 <0.05 <1 0.060 0.11 0.03 0.019 <0.1 305<10<10990 <0.05 NA NA32S/13E-30F03 4/15/2015 650 46 35 2.3 99 44300 170 <0.05 <1 0.056 0.126 0.02 0.015 0.1300<10<10950 <0.05 NA NA32S/13E-30F03 1/14/2015 670 46 36 2.2 100 45310 180 <0.05 <1 0.05 0.121 0.02 0.016 <0.1 310<10<10950 0.01 NA NA32S/13E-30F03 10/14/2014 660 41 35 3.0 99 42310 150 <0.05 <1 <0.05 <0.1 0.011 0.017 <0.1 310<10<10990 <0.05 NA NA32S/13E-30F03 7/30/2014 660 44 38 2.6 96 46300 160 <0.05 <1 0.28 0.12 0.02 0.015 <0.1 300<10<10990 <0.05 NA NA32S/13E-30F03 4/16/2014 640 44 36 3.3 55 38310 169 <0.05 <1 0.062 0.12 0.02 0.011 0.11 310<10<10990 <0.05 0.0025 40032S/13E-30F03 1/15/2014 650 45 35 2.5 90 41300 173 <0.05 <1 <0.05 0.13 0.01 0.015 0.12 300<10<10990 <0.05 0.0027 37532S/13E-30F03 10/15/2013 670 41 40 2.7 100 44280 179 <0.05 <1 <0.05 0.14 0.02 0.016 <0.1 280<10<10990 <0.05 NA NA32S/13E-30F03 7/10/2013 650 50 33 2.4 100 43290 140 13.5 <1 0.055 <0.1 0.02 0.017 0.23 290<10<10990 <0.05 0.0046 21732S/13E-30F03 4/11/2013 670 45 36 2.7 94 42300 170 <0.05 <1 0.06 0.13 0.02 0.016 0.12 300<10<10990 <0.05 0.0027 37532S/13E-30F03 1/15/2013 630 45 36 2.3 92 41295 180 <0.05 <1 0.06 0.11 <0.01 0.015 <0.1 295<10<10980 <0.05 NA NA32S/13E-30F03 10/30/2012 650 43 40 3.1 100 46280 170 <0.05 <1 0.06 <0.1 0.03 0.016 <0.1 280<10<10990 0.02 NA NA32S/13E-30F03 7/24/2012 640 51 36 2.7 81 37296 180 <0.05 <1 <0.1 0.17 <0.01 0.016 0.2296<10<10990 <0.05 0.0039 25532S/13E-30F03 4/19/2012 640 54 32 2.3 84 36290 180 <0.1 <1 <0.1 <0.2 0.01 0.014 <0.2 290<10<10990 <0.1 NA NA32S/13E-30F03 1/12/2012 660 46 39 2.1 94 42280 160 <0.1 <1 <0.1 0.2 0.025 0.016 <0.2 280<10<10990 <0.1 NA NA32S/13E-30F03 11/21/2011 650 43 33 2.6 93 39290 160 <0.05 <1 0.04 0.15 0.028 0.016 <0.1 290<10<10960 <0.1 NA NA32S/13E-30F03 7/25/2011 650 47 46 5.1 73 31190 170.5 <0.05 <1 <0.1 0.155 0.02 0.025 <0.1 190<5<5900 <0.1 NA NA32S/13E-30F03 4/21/2011 650 48 40 3.8 91 34280 179 <0.05 <1 0.1 0.2 0.029 0.015 0.11 280<2.0 <2.0 1,000 NA 0.0023 43632S/13E-30F03 1/24/2011 650 46 36 4.7 87 38300 170 <0.05 <1.0 0.11 0.17 0.24 0.016 <0.1 300<2.0 <2.0 990 <0.1 NA NA32S/13E-30F03 10/28/2010 650 46 37 2.7 100 43280 160 <0.1 <1.0 0.10 <0.1 NA 0.032 <0.3 280<10<10 1,000 0.53 NA NA32S/13E-30F03 7/26/2010 608 45 43.8 2.94 107 46.8 294 160 1.3 0.84 0.0479 < 0.10 0.10 0.129 0.24 294< 1.0 < 1.0 900 7.55 0.0053 18832S/13E-30F03 4/27/2010 668 48 40.8 2.91 101 44.7 304 160 0.21 0.84 0.0733 0.14 0.11 0.0694 0.23 304< 1.0 < 1.0 940 2.62 0.0048 20932S/13E-30F03 1/28/2010 656 40 43.1 3.91 112 47.2 310 180 < 0.20 2.8 0.0833 0.13 < 0.10 0.287 0.21 310< 1.0 < 1.0 980 4.80 0.0053 19032S/13E-30F03 10/19/2009 626 48 43.3 3.14 108 46.2 308 170 < 0.10 1.8 0.0646 0.22 < 0.10 0.255 0.17 308< 1.0 < 1.0 910 2.09 0.0035 28232S/13E-30F03 8/19/2009 672 45 43.1 3.15 111 44.3 290 170 < 0.10 2.5 NA 0.14 < 0.10 0.468 0.19 290< 1.0 < 1.0 980 18.5 0.0042 23732S/13E-30F03 5/12/2009 678 49 44.8 3.32 109 42.9 276 180 NA NA NA 0.17 NA 0.146 0.18 276< 1.0 < 1.0 960 1.16 0.0037 27232S/13E-30F03 3/27/1996 686 41 40 3.4 109 48379 197 0.2 NA 0.13 NA NA NA NANANANANANANANA32S/13E-30F03 6/7/1976 616 43 41 2.6 96 49333 190 0.4 NA 0.05 0.5 NA NA NANANANANA NA NA NA32S/13E-30F03 1/19/1966 642 69 49 4 109 40321 182 1 NA 0.05 0.3 NA NA NANANANANA NA NA NAP:\Portland\672‐Northern Cities Management Area\001‐2016 Annual Rpt\Water Quality\NCMA_WQ_SentryWells.xlsx1/27/2017Item 9.g. - Page 134
Appendix A: NCMA Sentry Wells Water Quality Data, Pier Avenue, Shallow WellWellDate TDS Chloride Sodium Potassium Calcium MagnesiumBicarbonate as CaCO3SulfateNitrate(as N)Total Kjeldahl NitrogenBoron Fluoride Iodide Manganese BromideTotal Alkalinity as CaCO3Carbonate as CaCO3Hydroxide as CaCO3Specific ConductivityIronBromide / Chloride RatioChloride / Bromide Ratio32S/13E-30N01 10/12/2016 900 180 130 32 77 61290 180 ND 0.53 0.19 0.34 0.021 0.11 1.7290NDND 1420 2.7 0.0094 10632S/13E-30N01 4/12/2016 790 110 110 27 55 46230 190 0.21 0.5 0.18 0.42 0.013 0.1 1.7230<8.2 <8.2 1,190 1.7 0.0155 6532S/13E-30N01 10/15/2015 740 120 100 27 52 41250 190 <0.05 <1 0.18 0.43 0.032 0.072 1.3250<10<10 1,220 1.8 0.0108 9232S/13E-30N01 4/14/2015 930 190 130 28 69 54360 170 <0.05 1.4 0.23 0.334 0.01 0.087 1.2360<10<10 1,500 2.5 0.0063 15832S/13E-30N01 1/14/2015 845 170 110 29.0 71 54320 180 <0.05 <1 0.21 0.332 0.01 0.087 1.2320<10<10 1,360 2.3 0.0071 14032S/13E-30N01 10/15/2014 790 140 110 30.0 62 53300 160 0.68 <1 0.21 0.29 <0.01 0.084 1.2300<10<10 1,350 2.5 0.0086 11732S/13E-30N01 7/30/2014 800 150 110 27.0 61 52310 160 <0.05 <1 0.81 0.33 0.01 0.081 1.1310<10<10 1,360 2.4 0.0073 13632S/13E-30N01 4/16/2014 850 160 112 26.0 55 43310 170 <0.05 <1 0.20 0.33 0.01 0.077 1.3310<10<10 1,410 2.4 0.0081 12332S/13E-30N01 1/15/2014 790 154 110 26.0 56 45260 190 <0.05 <1 0.19 0.41 <0.01 0.077 1.4260<10<10 1,340 2.5 0.0091 11032S/13E-30N01 10/15/2013 950 200 140 32.0 74 60330 180 <0.05 <1 0.21 0.33 0.01 0.095 1.3330<10<10 1,570 2.8 0.0065 15432S/13E-30N01 7/10/2013 830 175 120 29.0 71 54310 185 <0.05 <1 0.22 0.32 0.01 0.087 0.84 310<10<10 1,430 2.3 0.0048 20832S/13E-30N01 4/10/2013 860 180 120 29.0 67 54320 180 <0.05 1.1 0.21 0.31 0.01 0.087 1.2320<10<10 1,470 2.5 0.0067 15032S/13E-30N01 1/14/2013 800 170 120 32.0 66 53280 200 <0.05 1.1 0.22 0.26 <0.01 0.09 1.2280<10<10 1,380 2.5 0.0071 14232S/13E-30N01 10/29/2012 900 180 120 34.0 77 60300 190 <0.05 <1 0.21 0.40 0.011 0.098 1.2300<10<10 1,500 2.8 0.0067 15032S/13E-30N01 7/23/2012 840 190 120 31.0 56 45266 200 <0.05 <1 0.22 0.43 <0.01 0.096 1.2266<10<10 1,370 2.3 0.0063 15832S/13E-30N01 4/18/2012 1,050 280 140 31.0 59 47330 210 <0.1 1.4 0.2 0.50 <0.01 0.078 1.3330<10<10 1,680 2.4 0.0046 21532S/13E-30N01 1/9/2012 1,050 260 170 34.0 68 52307 200 <0.05 2.7 0.21 0.41 <0.01 0.088 1.9307<10<10 1,760 2.9 0.0073 13732S/13E-30N01 11/17/2011 1,300 360 320 40 90 69390 220 <0.1 <1 0.23 0.38 0.017 0.11 2.5390<10<10 2,210 3.4 0.0069 14432S/13E-30N01 7/25/2011 1,680 445 230 42 99 81380 255.5 <0.05 1.2 0.21 <0.1 <0.01 0.12 3.016 380<5<5 2,480 4.2 0.0068 14832S/13E-30N01 4/20/2011 890 210 130 26 68 46180 215 <0.05 <1 0.24 0.39 0.013 0.086 4.57 180<2.0 <2.0 1,550 NA 0.0218 4632S/13E-30N01 1/24/2011 870 180 100 28 84 46240 210 <0.05 <1.0 <0.1 0.34 0.12 0.24 3.63 240<2.0 <2.0 1,430 18 0.0202 5032S/13E-30N01 10/21/2010 890 190 120 26 58 45246 200 <0.1 <1.0 <0.1 0.37 NA 0.078 2.3246<10<10 1,498 <0.1 0.0121 8332S/13E-30N01 7/27/2010 917 200 130 30.0 75.0 56.2 241 220 < 0.10 < 0.50 0.165 0.29 0.23 0.101 2.8241< 1.0 < 1.0 1,400 2.61 0.0140 7132S/13E-30N01 4/27/2010 808 150 130 29 136 55.6 286 210 0.76 1.7 0.171 0.37 0.19 0.276 2.6286< 1.0 < 1.0 1,300 20.4 0.0173 5832S/13E-30N01 1/26/2010 902 210 155 33.5 156 66.4 307 230 < 0.10 1.7 0.317 0.30 0.12 0.333 3.2307< 1.0 < 1.0 1,500 27.3 0.0152 6632S/13E-30N01 10/20/2009 828 200 159 34.3 118 59.8 238 230 < 0.10 1.3 0.241 0.38 < 0.10 0.157 3.2238< 1.0 < 1.0 1,300 5.33 0.0160 6332S/13E-30N01 8/20/2009 835 160 150 27.8 121 49.4 235 220 < 0.10 1.3 NA 0.37 0.12 0.228 2.9235< 1.0 < 1.0 1,400 15.9 0.0181 5532S/13E-30N01 5/11/2009 960 180 175 33.5 86.7 46.2 274 220 NA NA NA 0.36 NA 0.113 3.2274< 1.0 < 1.0 1,500 2.26 0.0178 56P:\Portland\672‐Northern Cities Management Area\001‐2016 Annual Rpt\Water Quality\NCMA_WQ_SentryWells.xlsx1/27/2017Item 9.g. - Page 135
Appendix A: NCMA Sentry Wells Water Quality Data, Pier Avenue, Middle WellWellDate TDS Chloride Sodium Potassium Calcium MagnesiumBicarbonate as CaCO3SulfateNitrate(as N)Total Kjeldahl NitrogenBoron Fluoride Iodide Manganese BromideTotal Alkalinity as CaCO3Carbonate as CaCO3Hydroxide as CaCO3Specific ConductivityIronBromide / Chloride RatioChloride / Bromide Ratio32S/13E-30N03 10/12/2016 580 68 62 3.5 80 37170 140 15 ND 0.088 0.16 ND 0.56 0.76 170NDND879 0.17 0.0112 8932S/13E-30N03 7/19/2016 580 66 61 3.6 75 36160 130 65 0.20 0.084 0.16 <0.010 0.030 0.76 160<4.1 <4.1 864 <0.030 0.0115 8732S/13E-30N03 4/12/2016 610 69 60 3.4 75 36160 130 64 0.16 0.078 0.18 <0.010 0.0095 0.78 160<4.1 <4.1 895 <0.05 0.0113 8832S/13E-30N03 1/13/2016 570 72 62 3.4 77 35160 140 15 0.15 0.083 0.22 <0.010 0.0089 0.66 160<4.1 <4.1 867 0.079 0.0092 10932S/13E-30N03 10/15/2015 570 63 54 3.3 69 32162 130 15 <1 0.0161 0.23 <0.01 0.015 0.56 162<10<10860 <0.05 0.0089 11332S/13E-30N03 7/16/2015 580 65 65 3.0 81 35160 140 15 15.3 0.079 0.14 0.45 0.011 0.46 160<10<10880 <0.05 0.0071 14132S/13E-30N03 4/14/2015 580 65 49 2.9 65 31160 140 15.2 <1 0.078 <0.1 <0.01 <0.005 0.47 160<10<10860 <0.05 0.0072 13832S/13E-30N03 1/14/2015 610 68 53 3.0 73 34170 150 15 <1 0.074 0.151 <0.01 0.0540 0.43 170<10<10870 0.49 0.0063 15832S/13E-30N03 10/15/2014 560 59 52 3.5 67 32160 130 14 0.54 0.066 0.14 <0.01 <0.005 0.452 160<10<10890 <0.05 0.0077 13132S/13E-30N03 7/30/2014 580 65 55 3.2 69 32170 130 15 <1 <0.1 0.16 <0.01 <0.005 0.34 170<10<10910 <0.05 0.0052 19132S/13E-30N03 4/16/2014 610 63 55 4.3 65 29170 140 13.00 <1 0.08 0.15 <0.01 0.058 0.38 170<10<10910 <0.05 0.0060 16632S/13E-30N03 1/15/2014 610 66 54 3.2 67 31170 149 14.8 15 <0.1 0.16 <0.01 0.065 0.46 170<10<10910 0.27 0.0070 14332S/13E-30N03 10/15/2013 580 60 57 3.3 71 32170 150 14 <1 0.057 0.16 <0.01 0.370 0.41 170<10<10910 0.1 0.0068 14632S/13E-30N03 7/10/2013 590 60 48 3.1 71 31160 150 15.1 <1 0.074 0.18 <0.01 1.3 0.17 160<10<10900 0.43 0.0028 35332S/13E-30N03 4/10/2013 600 66 53 3.3 69 31160 150 15 <1 0.11 0.2 <0.01 0.064 0.35 160<10<10910 <0.05 0.0053 18932S/13E-30N03 1/14/2013 570 66 55 3.4 68 30165 150 15 <1 0.093 0.2 <0.01 0.028 0.27 165<10<10900 0.084 0.0041 24432S/13E-30N03 10/29/2012 610 60 56 3.7 74 33155 148 14 <1 0.081 0.2 <0.01 0.027 0.3155<10<10900 0.04 0.0050 20032S/13E-30N03 7/23/2012 600 71 56 3.5 61 28152 200 <0.05 <1 0.1 <0.1 <.002 0.120 0.3152<10<10890 0.44 0.0042 23732S/13E-30N03 4/18/2012 570 80 47 3.0 57 25150 150 16 <1 0.1 0.3 <0.01 <0.005 0.28 150<10<10880 <0.1 0.0035 28632S/13E-30N03 1/11/2012 570 67 55 3.9 68 30140 130 14 <1 0.1 0.2 <0.02 0.0510 0.39 140<10<10870 0.17 0.0058 17232S/13E-30N03 11/21/2011 600 67 47 3.2 64 28140 130 15 1.2 0.088 0.2 <0.01 <0.005 0.62 140<10<10850 <0.1 0.0093 10832S/13E-30N03 7/25/2011 590 67 47 5.0 54 24290 139.8 15 <1 <0.1 0.2 <0.01 0.0520 0.79 290<5<5890 0.14 0.0118 8532S/13E-30N03 4/20/2011 580 76 58 4.2 62 23140 142 16 <1 0.12 0.2 <0.1 0.0510 0.92 140<2.0 <2.0 890 NA 0.0121 8332S/13E-30N03 1/24/2011 570 76 48 4.8 55 25130 130 16 <1.0 0.12 0.2 <0.10 0.0088 1.7130<2.0 <2.0 900 <0.1 0.0224 4532S/13E-30N03 10/21/2010 550 69 59 3.3 65 31133 130 15 <1.0 <0.1 0.1 NA <0.005 1.1133<10<10886 <0.1 0.0159 6332S/13E-30N03 7/27/2010 528 72 55.1 3.41 68.7 31.0 139 130 15.0 < 0.50 0.0672 0.14 0.11 < 0.00500 1.3139< 1.0 < 1.0 860 < 0.100 0.0181 5532S/13E-30N03 4/27/2010 672 89 60.6 3.65 70.6 32.5 134 130 14.0 < 0.50 0.0779 0.18 0.11 < 0.00500 1.2134< 1.0 < 1.0 870 < 0.100 0.0135 7432S/13E-30N03 1/26/2010 606 110 75.0 4.51 77.8 34.3 126 130 14 1.4 0.0654 0.15 < 0.10 0.0130 1.3126< 1.0 < 1.0 990 0.653 0.0118 8532S/13E-30N03 10/20/2009 806 180 93.3 25.5 92.3 41.5 162 150 9.7 2.2 0.107 0.26 < 0.10 0.245 1.4162< 1.0 < 1.0 1,200 0.344 0.0078 12932S/13E-30N03 8/20/2009 1,070 190 151 61.6 112 44.2 130 130 16 3.4 NA 0.20 < 0.10 0.151 1.6130< 1.0 < 1.0 1,700 1.93 0.0084 11932S/13E-30N03 5/12/2009 602 97 63.4 3.96 72.9 32.2 122 120 NA NA NA 0.22 NA 24 1.2122< 1.0 < 1.0 900 2.24 0.0124 8132S/13E-30N03 3/27/1996 624 70 62 4 78 35150 161 106.8 NA 0.13 NA NA NA NANANANANA NA NA NA32S/13E-30N03 6/7/1976 705 90 54 2.9 99 43189 168 112.5 NA 0.08 0.5 NA NA NANANANANA NA NA NA32S/13E-30N03 1/21/1966 804 57 54 3 132 59410 250 1 NA 0.08 0.5 NA NA NANANANANA NA NA NAP:\Portland\672‐Northern Cities Management Area\001‐2016 Annual Rpt\Water Quality\NCMA_WQ_SentryWells.xlsx1/27/2017Item 9.g. - Page 136
Appendix A: NCMA Sentry Wells Water Quality Data, Pier Avenue, Deep WellWellDate TDS Chloride Sodium Potassium Calcium MagnesiumBicarbonate as CaCO3SulfateNitrate(as N)Total Kjeldahl NitrogenBoron Fluoride Iodide Manganese BromideTotal Alkalinity as CaCO3Carbonate as CaCO3Hydroxide as CaCO3Specific ConductivityIronBromide / Chloride RatioChloride / Bromide Ratio32S/13E-30N02 10/12/2016 1,000 50 77 5 160 69200 500 0.18 ND 0.15 0.11 ND ND 0.27 200NDND 1370 ND 0.0054 18532S/13E-30N02 7/19/2016 1,000 48 78 5 160 68200 500 0.97 0.17 0.15 0.11 <0.010 <0.0040 0.2200<8.2 <8.2 1,350 <0.030 0.0042 24032S/13E-30N02 4/12/2016 1,000 44 72 4.8 150 67190 470 1.0 <0.080 0.14 0.096 <0.010 <0.0040 0.21 190<8.2 <8.2 1,390 <0.030 0.0048 21032S/13E-30N02 1/13/2016 990 48 74 4.9 150 64190 520 0.27 0.12 0.14 0.22 <0.010 <0.0040 <0.046 190<8.2 <8.2 1,300 0.041 NA NA32S/13E-30N02 10/15/2015 1,040 47 64 4.6 140 60192 480 0.72 <1 0.13 0.18 <0.01 <0.005 <0.10 192<10<10 1,350 <0.05 NA NA32S/13E-30N02 7/16/2015 1,030 49 82 4.4 170 70190 480 1.4 1.52 0.15 <0.1 <0.01 <0.005 0.11 190<10<10 1,360 <0.05 0.0022 44532S/13E-30N02 4/14/2015 840 47 61 4.3 130 58190 500 0.576 <1 0.14 <0.3 <0.01 <0.005 <0.3 190<10<10 1,330 <0.05 NA NA32S/13E-30N02 1/14/2015 1,050 50 62 4.2 140 59190 520 0.40 <1 0.13 0.115 <0.01 <0.005 <0.1 190<10<10 1,320 <0.05 NA NA32S/13E-30N02 10/15/2014 1,040 44 65 5.0 140 58200 440 0.77 <1 0.13 <0.1 <0.01 <0.005 <0.1 200<10<10 1,370 <0.05 NA NA32S/13E-30N02 7/30/2014 1,020 45 66 4.6 140 60220 470 0.51 <1 0.10 0.13 <0.01 <0.005 <0.4 220<10<10 1,340 <0.05 NA NA32S/13E-30N02 4/16/2014 1,040 46 66 5.0 120 50190 520 0.47 <1 0.14 0.1 <0.01 <0.005 <0.1 190<10<10 1,350 <0.05 NA NA32S/13E-30N02 1/15/2014 1,060 45 60 4.1 120 49190 477 0.65 1.1 0.13 0.43 <0.01 <0.005 <0.2 190<10<10 1,370 <0.05 NA NA32S/13E-30N02 10/15/2013 1,030 46 70 4.9 140 58190 541 0.46 <1 0.12 0.18 <0.01 <0.005 <0.2 190<10<10 1,360 <0.05 NA NA32S/13E-30N02 7/10/2013 1,020 50 61 4.5 140 59185 500 0.63 <1 0.14 0.12 <0.01 <0.005 <0.1 185<10<10 1,370 <0.05 NA NA32S/13E-30N02 4/10/2013 1,080 48 60 4.3 120 52185 500 0.50 <1 0.15 <0.2 <0.01 <0.005 <0.2 185<10<10 1,360 <0.05 NA NA32S/13E-30N02 1/14/2013 1,010 48 63 4.5 120 53188 530 0.40 <1 0.14 <0.2 <0.01 <0.005 <0.2 188<10<10 1,350 0.07 NA NA32S/13E-30N02 10/29/2012 1,030 40 68 5.0 140 58180 500 <0.25 <1 0.14 <0.5 <0.01 <0.005 <0.5 180<10<10 1,360 <0.05 NA NA32S/13E-30N02 7/23/2012 1,040 54 63 4.5 110 48188 510 0.13 <1 0.15 0.15 <0.01 0.01 <0.1 188<10<10 1,360 <0.05 NA NA32S/13E-30N02 4/18/2012 990 60 56 4.2 110 47190 560 0.14 <1 0.12 0.21 <0.01 <0.005 0.28 190<10<10 1,360 <0.1 0.0047 21432S/13E-30N02 1/11/2012 1,040 49 64 4.9 130 54180 460 1.30 <1 0.17 0.16 <0.02 <0.005 <0.2 180<10<10 1,360 <0.1 NA NA32S/13E-30N02 11/21/2011 1,020 46 57 4.5 130 54180 450 0.15 <1 0.15 <0.2 <0.01 <0.005 <0.2 180<10<10 1,360 <0.1 NA NA32S/13E-30N02 7/25/2011 1,050 50 81 7.7 150 62180 479.1 0.15 <1 0.16 0.144 <0.01 0.006 <0.1 180<5<5 1,370 0.49 NA NA32S/13E-30N02 4/20/2011 1,030 52 63 5.4 130 44180 508 0.17 <1 0.19 0.2 <0.01 <0.005 <0.1 180<2.0 <2.0 1,380 NA NA NA32S/13E-30N02 1/24/2011 1,050 50 60 6.4 120 49190 490 0.24 <1.0 0.17 0.17 <0.10 0.064 <0.1 190<2.0 <2.0 1,380 0.12 NA NA32S/13E-30N02 10/21/2010 1,040 48 52 3.5 100 45181 460 0.15 <1.0 <0.1 <0.1 NA <0.005 <0.3 181<10<10 1,377 <0.1 NA NA32S/13E-30N027/27/2010 777 57 67.6 7.31 141 58.5 190 470 0.3 3.5 0.138 < 0.10 0.11 0.102 0.28 190< 1.0 < 1.0 1,300 3.43 0.0049 20432S/13E-30N024/27/2010 800 93 71.9 12.50 108 46.3 159 300 7.0 3.2 0.123 0.13 0.11 0.0776 0.7159< 1.0 < 1.0 1,100 3.27 0.0075 13332S/13E-30N022/25/2010 1,000 48 71.4 4.70 141 58.1 195 490 0.16 < 0.50 0.15 0.15 < 0.10 0.0393 0.16 195< 1.0 < 1.0 1,300 3.30 0.0033 30032S/13E-30N02 2/25/2010 1,010 74 76.9 10.2 138 55.8 195 440 0.13 2.4 0.142 0.16 < 0.10 0.0579 0.24 195< 1.0 < 1.0 1,400 1.69 0.0032 30832S/13E-30N02 1/26/2010 970 50 74.2 4.77 152 62.2 195 510 0.14 < 0.50 0.129 0.11 < 0.10 < 0.00500 0.16 195< 1.0 < 1.0 1,300 < 0.100 0.0032 31332S/13E-30N02 10/20/2009 2,080 690 274 151 239 101.0 220 400 < 0.10 7.0 0.201 0.16 0.87 0.398 2.0220< 1.0 < 1.0 2,800 5.50 0.0029 34532S/13E-30N02 8/20/2009 1,350 500 199 82.2 123 49.0 199 220 6.4 6.3 NA 0.23 0.14 0.339 2.8199< 1.0 < 1.0 2,100 4.91 0.0056 17932S/13E-30N02 5/11/2009 1,290 170 129 52 137 66.9 176 470 NA NA NA 0.18 NA 0.128 0.56 176< 1.0 < 1.0 1,800 5.24 0.0033 30432S/13E-30N02 3/27/1996 1,050 50 71 5.5 145 60243 516 0.9 NA 0.23 NA NA NA NANANANANANANANA32S/13E-30N02 6/7/1976 1,093 48 62 4.7 150 60248 484 0 NA 0.13 0.7 NA NA NANANANANANANANA32S/13E-30N02 1/21/1966 1,069 54 71 5 148 63232 483 0 NA 0.12 0.5 NA NA NANANANANA NA NA NAP:\Portland\672‐Northern Cities Management Area\001‐2016 Annual Rpt\Water Quality\NCMA_WQ_SentryWells.xlsx1/27/2017Item 9.g. - Page 137
Appendix A: NCMA Sentry Wells Water Quality Data, Oceano GreenWellDate TDS Chloride Sodium Potassium Calcium MagnesiumBicarbonate as CaCO3SulfateNitrate(as N)Total Kjeldahl NitrogenBoron Fluoride Iodide Manganese BromideTotal Alkalinity as CaCO3Carbonate as CaCO3Hydroxide as CaCO3Specific ConductivityIronBromide / Chloride RatioChloride / Bromide Ratio32S/13E-31H10 10/12/2016 700 33 40 3.2 120 59380 170 ND 0.22 0.062 0.18 0.012 0.15 0.12 380NDND 1040 5.3 0.0036 27532S/13E-31H10 7/20/2016 630 33 42 4.4 99 57370 150 <0.096 0.3 0.068 0.14 <0.01 0.19 0.14 370<8.2 <8.2 991 8.9 0.0042 23632S/13E-31H10 4/13/2016 670 37 46 3.4 120 57350 180 <0.096 0.21 0.078 0.19 0.011 0.23 0.14 350<8.2 <8.2 1,030 6.7 0.0038 26432S/13E-31H10 1/13/2016 380 37 49 9.9 6.8 46170 54 <0.022 0.43 0.044 0.088 0.014 0.084 0.19 21034<4.1 603 2.2 0.0051 19532S/13E-31H10 10/14/2015 320 32 33 2.7 17 48216 68 <0.05 <1 0.089 0.12 0.016 0.098 <0.10 22711<10600 1.4 NA NA32S/13E-31H10 7/15/2015 330 34 44 3.4 15 54195 81 <0.05 <1 0.082 <0.1 <0.01 0.081 <0.1 21318<10610 0.98 NA NA32S/13E-31H10 4/16/2015 660 35 33 2.7 99 48360 170 <0.05 <1 0.083 0.163 <0.01 0.17 <0.1 360<10<10 1,000 4.6 NA NA32S/13E-31H10 1/14/2015 760 55 56 3.0 110 50300 250 <0.05 <1 0.11 0.159 0.021 0.17 <0.1 300<10<10 1,070 4.2 NA NA32S/13E-31H10 10/16/2014 720 41 46 3.7 110 53330 200 <0.05 <1 0.10 <0.1 <0.01 0.17 <0.1 330<10<10 1,090 6.5 NA NA32S/13E-31H10 7/30/2014 660 34 35 2.4 95 49420 160 <0.05 <1 <0.1 0.16 <0.01 0.17 <0.1 420<10<10 1,040 6.5 NA NA32S/13E-31H10 4/17/2014 890 55 70 5.4 100 45250 380 <0.05 <1 0.15 0.12 0.01 0.31 0.13 250<10<10 1,260 4.9 0.0024 42332S/13E-31H10 1/16/2014 900 57 66 4.60 110 50240 360 <0.05 <1 0.180 0.2 0.02 0.32 <0.1 240<10<10 1,260 6.0 NA NA32S/13E-31H10 10/16/2013 690 30 40 3.40 100 49340 190 <0.05 <1 0.091 0.14 <0.01 0.23 <0.1 340<10<10 1,050 7.4 NA NA32S/13E-31H10 7/11/2013 860 60 50 4.40 110 47240 340 <0.05 <1 0.18 0.15 0.02 0.28 <0.1 240<10<10 1,230 4.9 NA NA32S/13E-31H10 4/11/2013 900 60 69 4.60 110 47250 350 0.82 <1 0.2 0.12 0.03 0.28 <0.2 250<10<10 1,250 5.7 NA NA32S/13E-31H10 1/16/2013 820 66 76 5.00 100 47260 320 <0.1 <1 0.21 0.13 <0.01 0.31 <0.2 260<10<10 1,230 4.2 NA NA32S/13E-31H10 10/30/2012 780 65 75 4.70 100 46255 280 <0.05 <1 0.19 0.14 0.04 0.23 <0.1 255<10<10 1,190 4 NA NA32S/13E-31H10 7/25/2012 830 76 80 5.30 96 45250 310 <0.05 <1 0.22 0.15 0.04 0.24 <0.1 250<10<10 1,220 6.7 NA NA32S/13E-31H10 4/19/2012 790 87 69 4.50 52 37250 270 <0.1 <1 0.19 0.21 0.05 0.17 <0.2 250<10<10 1,180 4 NA NA32S/13E-31H10 1/12/2012 760 76 85 4.00 79 40270 190 <0.1 <1 0.23 0.21 0.069 0.23 <0.2 270<10<10 1,150 4.8 NA NA32S/13E-31H10 11/21/2011 720 39 38 3.40 96 43320 180 <0.05 3.5 0.079 0.19 0.013 0.17 <0.1 320<10<10 1,050 4.8 NA NA32S/13E-31H10 7/25/2011 760 69 66 6.40 80 35310 208.8 <0.05 <1 0.16 0.17 0.041 0.23 0.199 310<5<5 1,170 5.3 0.0029 34832S/13E-31H10 1/24/2011 310 98 22 8.1 34 9.2 19.0 53 <0.05 <1.0 <0.1 0.2 4.42 0.4 0.63 19.0<2.0 <2.0 480 10 0.0064 15632S/13E-31H10 10/28/2010 290 81 26 9.3 64 11 160.0 68 <0.1 <1.0 <0.1 0.2 NA 0.85 0.36 160.0<10<10520 38 0.0044 22532S/13E-31H10 7/26/2010 438 85 34.3 1.93 61.7 30.4 30.0 210 < 0.10 < 0.50 0.0435 0.58 0.22 1.46 0.32 30.0< 1.0 < 1.0 690 36 0.0038 26632S/13E-31H10 4/26/2010 560 83 47.7 5.7 86.1 48.362 310 < 0.10 0.84 < 0.02 < 0.1 0.56 2.54 0.31 62.0< 1.0 < 1.0 880 233 0.0037 26832S/13E-31H10 1/27/2010 460 130 45.0 25.4 682 124 112 100 0.56 NA < 0.0200 0.21 0.25 32.4 0.49 112.0< 1.0 < 1.0 760 4,360 0.0038 26532S/13E-31H10 10/20/2009 362 92 39.6 2.92 19.2 45.1 76.8 110 < 0.10 < 0.50 0.0697 < 0.10 < 0.10 0.242 0.39 80.03.2< 1.0 590 11.4 0.0042 23632S/13E-31H10 8/19/2009 420 160 48.4 3.37 49.9 20.4 17.6 54 < 0.10 1.1 NA < 0.10 0.25 1.76 0.68 17.6< 1.0 < 1.0 690 242 0.0043 23532S/13E-31H10 5/16/1983 665 35 40 NA 85 65360 90 < 4 NA NA 0.2 NA 0.01 NA360NDND950 0.10 NA NAP:\Portland\672‐Northern Cities Management Area\001‐2016 Annual Rpt\Water Quality\NCMA_WQ_SentryWells.xlsx1/27/2017Item 9.g. - Page 138
Appendix A: NCMA Sentry Wells Water Quality Data, Oceano BlueWellDate TDS Chloride Sodium Potassium Calcium MagnesiumBicarbonate as CaCO3SulfateNitrate(as N)Total Kjeldahl NitrogenBoron Fluoride Iodide Manganese BromideTotal Alkalinity as CaCO3Carbonate as CaCO3Hydroxide as CaCO3Specific ConductivityIronBromide / Chloride RatioChloride / Bromide Ratio32S/13E-31H11 10/12/2016 780 41 49 3.9 120 57350 220 ND 0.12 0.097 0.16 0.021 0.28 0.16 350NDND 1100 8.10 0.0039 25632S/13E-31H11 7/20/2016 420 120 64 6.8 4.3 3860 39 <0.096 0.097 0.12 0.059 0.084 0.084 0.598929<4.1 617 9.0 0.0049 20332S/13E-31H11 4/13/2016 410 110 64 604 3.9 4051 56 <0.096 <0.080 0.11 0.058 0.084 0.053 0.589241<4.1 628 6.7 0.0053 19032S/13E-31H11 1/13/2016 450 120 70 7.7 4.5 3649 65 <0.022 <0.080 0.11 0.095 0.11 0.072 0.768637<4.1 675 8.6 0.0063 15832S/13E-31H11 10/14/2015 350 110 69 9.2 3.7 3142 74 <0.05 <1 0.16 <0.10 0.099 0.036 0.447533<10670 5.7 0.0040 25032S/13E-31H11 7/15/2015 380 120 85 11.0 4.3 3540 85 <0.05 <1 0.19 <0.1 0.1 0.05 0.409 6525<10690 9.6 0.0034 29332S/13E-31H11 4/16/2015 400 120 66 7.6 4.9 3654 100 <0.05 <1 0.17 <0.1 0.088 0.039 0.481 7622<10700 6.6 0.0040 24932S/13E-31H11 1/14/2015 420 125 68 7.0 6.4 3745 126 <0.05 <1 0.15 <0.1 0.097 0.038 0.396520<10720 3.5 0.0031 32532S/13E-31H11 10/16/2014 370 120 78 13.0 4.2 2953 77 <0.05 <1 0.17 <0.1 0.11 0.040 0.3588<10<10740 4.5 0.0029 34332S/13E-31H11 7/30/2014 450 120 71 4.4 9.6 4353 130 0.13 <1 0.15 0.12 0.1 0.078 0.297320<10800 8 0.0024 41432S/13E-31H11 4/17/2014 370 120 89 14.0 2.4 1776 39 <0.05 <1 0.16 <0.1 0.12 0.03 0.43 12145<10720 3.7 0.0036 27932S/13E-31H11 1/16/2014 350 122 89 15 2 1868 42 <0.05 <1 0.17 0.1 0.09 0.026 0.48 12557.5<10710 2.3 0.0039 25432S/13E-31H11 10/16/2013 360 100 98 20 3.1 1566 36 <0.05 <1 0.19 <0.1 0.11 0.057 0.38 13973<10710 4.1 0.0038 26332S/13E-31H11 7/11/2013 370 140 70 6.3 4 2382 40 0.4 <1 0.2 0.11 0.11 0.043 0.44 11735<10730 3.2 0.0031 31832S/13E-31H11 4/11/2013 340 90 81 14 2.9 1878 30 <0.05 <1 0.19 0.12 0.07 0.046 0.315577.5<10650 3.2 0.0033 30032S/13E-31H11 1/16/2013 360 107 99 7.1 3.3 24110 36 <0.05 <1 0.25 <0.1 <0.01 0.048 0.416555<10720 3.7 0.0037 26832S/13E-31H11 10/30/2012 380 97 100 6.4 4.5 24130 38 <0.05 <1 0.28 <0.1 0.1 0.09 0.216838<10720 6.1 0.0021 48532S/13E-31H11 7/25/2012 240 49 56 11 5.4 2299 43 <0.05 <1 0.16 0.19 0.023 0.11 <0.1 13233<10470 6.6 NA NA32S/13E-31H11 4/19/2012 380 100 87 5.5 3.5 26150 79 <0.1 <1 0.27 0.26 0.09 0.033 0.68 18030<10750 1.6 0.0068 14732S/13E-31H11 1/12/2012 480 96 110 4.9 5.6 33154 95 <0.1 <1 0.28 <0.2 0.11 0.01 0.306 18026<10850 0.2 0.0032 31432S/13E-31H11 11/21/2011 390 90 78 4.6 5.2 24111 86 <0.05 <1 0.19 0.13 0.092 0.014 0.28 12817<10720 0.5 0.0031 32132S/13E-31H11 7/25/2011 260 29 23 5.3 8.7 2084 80 <0.05 <1 <0.1 0.199 0.072 0.041 <0.189<5<5440 2.7 NA NA32S/13E-31H11 4/21/2011 580 118 70 19 49 178.8 274 <0.05 <1 <0.1 0.29 0.109 0.091 0.411.32.5<2.0 950 NA 0.0034 29532S/13E-31H11 1/24/2011 680 110 60 17 64 225.0 330 <0.05 <1.0 <0.1 0.22 0.96 0.16 0.31 11.26.2<2.0 1,040 10.0 0.0028 35532S/13E-31H11 10/21/2010 770 100 68 12 88 3114.0 380 <0.1 <1.0 <0.1 0.28 NA 0.054 <0.3 14.0<10<10 1,163 2.2 NA NA32S/13E-31H11 7/26/2010 783 130 80.1 8.58 142 42.0 2.8 450 < 0.10 < 0.50 < 0.0200 0.26 0.31 3.97 0.82.8< 1.0 < 1.0 1,200 593 0.0059 16932S/13E-31H11 4/26/2010 1,130 160 70.2 6.48 208 50.7 8.4 530 < 0.10 0.56 < 0.02 0.23 0.54 3.10 1.08.4< 1.0 < 1.0 1,600 383 0.0061 16532S/13E-31H11 1/27/2010 1,740 430 55.6 4.98 282 43.0 < 1.0 680 < 0.10 < 0.50 0.0819 0.14 0.41 9.41 2.0 < 1.0< 1.0 < 1.0 2,300 170 0.0047 21532S/13E-31H11 10/20/2009 2,250 1,000 19.5 2.40 487 22.5 5.0 410 < 0.10 0.98 0.0532 0.13 < 0.10 13.1 4.55.0< 1.0 < 1.0 3,100 236 0.0045 22232S/13E-31H11 8/19/2009 322 150 93.2 16.7 23.9 12.1 3.0 4.0 < 0.10 1.3 NA 0.19 0.5 0.7 0.74 23.020.0 < 1.0 640 153 0.0049 20332S/13E-31H11 5/16/1983 840 80 90 NA 100 50250 160.0 < 4 NA ND 0.2 NA 0.14 NA 250.0NDND 1,200 0.10 NA NAP:\Portland\672‐Northern Cities Management Area\001‐2016 Annual Rpt\Water Quality\NCMA_WQ_SentryWells.xlsx1/27/2017Item 9.g. - Page 139
Appendix A: NCMA Sentry Wells Water Quality Data, Oceano SilverWellDate TDS Chloride Sodium Potassium Calcium MagnesiumBicarbonate as CaCO3SulfateNitrate(as N)Total Kjeldahl NitrogenBoron Fluoride Iodide Manganese BromideTotal Alkalinity as CaCO3Carbonate as CaCO3Hydroxide as CaCO3Specific ConductivityIronBromide / Chloride RatioChloride / Bromide Ratio32S/13E-31H12 4/21/2011 410 97 100 7.2 3.5 2180 134 <0.05 <1 0.23 0.18 0.097 0.065 0.42 10020<2.0 770 NA 0.0043 23132S/13E-31H12 1/24/2011 440 92 90 9.2 3.4 2790 140 <0.05 <1.0 0.25 0.11 0.94 0.041 0.35 11020<2.0 810 2.2 0.0038 26332S/13E-31H12 10/21/2010 460 90 110 15 6.8 3294 140 <0.1 <1.0 0.2 0.1 NA 0.1 0.38 12430<10868 3.5 0.0042 23732S/13E-31H12 7/26/2010 478 83 109 5.94 52.9 30.4 122.0 94 < 0.10 <0.50 0.255 < 0.10 0.41 0.477 0.56 130.08.0< 1.0 730 61.0 0.0067 14832S/13E-31H12 4/26/2010 452 83 83 7.42 29.3 34.5 72.0 190 < 0.1 0.56 0.134 < 0.10 0.65 0.702 0.486.014.0 < 1.0 810 71.0 0.0048 20832S/13E-31H12 1/27/2010 496 71 92.2 10.6 22.9 39.1 13.0 230 <0.10 < 0.50 0.323 < 0.10 0.20 0.604 0.29 51.038.0 < 1.0 780 54.4 0.0041 24532S/13E-31H12 10/20/2009 564 71 80.8 8.63 33.2 49.8 49.6 310 <0.10 < 0.50 0.148 < 0.10 < 0.10 0.337 0.32 64.014.4 < 1.0 850 20.0 0.0045 22232S/13E-31H12 8/19/2009 522 180 148 71.6 95.2 8.42 30.0 3.5 <0.10 1.7 NA 0.24 0.52 2.36 0.76 170140 < 1.0 1,000 278 0.0042 23732S/13E-31H12 5/16/1983 630 40 40 NA 90 50330 80 < 4 NA NA 0.1 NA 0.02 NA330NDND900 0.05 NA NAP:\Portland\672‐Northern Cities Management Area\001‐2016 Annual Rpt\Water Quality\NCMA_WQ_SentryWells.xlsx1/27/2017Item 9.g. - Page 140
Appendix A: NCMA Sentry Wells Water Quality Data, Oceano Community Services District, Well No. 8WellDate TDS Chloride Sodium Potassium Calcium MagnesiumBicarbonate as CaCO3SulfateNitrate(as N)Total Kjeldahl NitrogenBoron Fluoride Iodide Manganese BromideTotal Alkalinity as CaCO3Carbonate as CaCO3Hydroxide as CaCO3Specific ConductivityIronBromide / Chloride RatioChloride / Bromide Ratio32S/13E-31H09 10/12/2016 720 46 49 2.8 120 56370 170 0.029 0.18 0.069 0.12 0.021 0.041 0.18 370NDND 1070 0.36 0.0039 25632S/13E-31H09 7/20/2016 680 45 50 2.9 120 56370 160 0.18 0.14 0.075 0.15 0.013 0.049 0.16 370<8.2 <8.2 1,060 0.33 0.0036 28132S/13E-31H09 4/13/2016 670 43 48 2.9 110 57350 160 <0.096 0.2 0.062 0.14 0.012 0.056 0.18 350<8.2 <8.2 1,040 0.46 0.0042 23932S/13E-31H09 1/12/2016 630 48 48 2.8 110 54350 180 0.051 0.14 0.042 0.24 0.017 0.047 0.36 350<8.2 <8.2 1,100 0.46 0.0075 13332S/13E-31H09 10/14/2015 680 43 44 3.1 100 50360 160 <0.05 <1 0.089 0.28 0.02 0.033 <0.10 360<10<10 1,060 0.18 NA NA32S/13E-31H09 7/15/2015 680 43 52 2.4 120 56360 170 <0.05 <1 0.079 0.11 0.01 0.033 <0.1 360<10<10 1,070 0.13 NA NA32S/13E-31H09 4/16/2015 680 49 41 2.4 100 47350 170 <0.05 <1 0.068 0.114 <0.01 0.039 <0.1 350<10<10 1,030 0.47 NA NA32S/13E-31H09 10/16/2014 670 40 43 2.8 110 50 3500 150 <0.05 <1 0.055 0.103 <0.01 0.03 <0.1 350<10<10 1,060 0.064 NA NA32S/13E-31H09 7/30/2014 670 43 43 2.2 110 48360 160 <0.05 <1 <0.1 0.15 <0.01 0.029 <0.1 360<10<10 1,070 0.057 NA NA32S/13E-31H09 4/15/2014 680 42 43 3.3 87 43340 170 <0.05 <1 0.09 0.11 <0.01 0.023 <0.1 340<10<10 1,070 0.05 NA NA32S/13E-31H09 1/16/2014 680 45 42 2.6 100 46360 171 <0.05 <1 <0.05 0.13 <0.01 0.032 <0.1 360<10<10 1,060 0.18 NA NA32S/13E-31H09 10/16/2013 670 40 44 2.6 100 47350 180 0.47 <1 <0.05 0.15 <0.01 0.03 <0.1 350<10<10 1,053 0.11 NA NA32S/13E-31H09 7/10/2013 670 44 43 2.8 110 52350 180 <0.05 <1 0.072 0.12 <0.01 0.032 <0.1 350<10<10 1,070 0.11 NA NA32S/13E-31H09 4/11/2013 720 43 40 2.7 98 46350 170 <0.05 <1 0.072 0.14 <0.01 0.029 <0.1 350<10<10 1,070 0.12 NA NA32S/13E-31H09 1/16/2013 660 43 43 2.7 100 47360 180 <0.05 <1 0.07 0.1 <0.01 0.031 <0.1 360<10<10 1,060 0.130 NA NA32S/13E-31H09 10/30/2012 660 40 44 2.9 110 49345 170 <0.05 <1 0.071 0.14 <0.01 0.03 <0.1 345<10<10 1,070 0.086 NA NA32S/13E-31H09 7/24/2012 700 47 44 2.8 93 45356 180 <0.05 <1 <0.1 0.17 <0.01 0.029 <0.1 356<10<10 1,070 0.660 NA NA32S/13E-31H09 4/25/2012 680 48 44 2.7 95 43350 200 <0.1 <1 <0.1 0.26 <0.01 0.032 <0.2 350<10<10 1,070 0.200 NA NA32S/13E-31H09 1/10/2012 690 45 44 2.6 100 44340 160 <0.05 <1 <0.1 0.2 <0.01 0.024 <0.1 340<10<10 1,070 0.100 NA NA32S/13E-31H09 11/22/2011 690 41 39 2.7 100 46350 160 <0.1 <1 0.046 <0.2 0.013 0.03 <0.2 350<10<10 1,010 0.0 NA NA32S/13E-31H09 7/25/2011 690 44 39 4.5 86 40340 166.9 <0.05 <1 <0.1 0.145 <0.01 0.026 <0.1 340<5<5 1,070 <0.1 NA NAP:\Portland\672‐Northern Cities Management Area\001‐2016 Annual Rpt\Water Quality\NCMA_WQ_SentryWells.xlsx1/27/2017Item 9.g. - Page 141
Appendix A: NCMA Sentry Wells Water Quality Data, Oceano YellowWellDate TDS Chloride Sodium Potassium Calcium MagnesiumBicarbonate as CaCO3SulfateNitrate(as N)Total Kjeldahl NitrogenBoron Fluoride Iodide Manganese BromideTotal Alkalinity as CaCO3Carbonate as CaCO3Hydroxide as CaCO3Specific ConductivityIronBromide / Chloride RatioChloride / Bromide Ratio32S/13E-31H13 10/12/2016 410 80 87 4.3 4.2 43190 22 ND ND 0.18 0.04 0.055 0.072 0.29 22033ND678 2.3 0.0036 27632S/13E-31H13 7/20/2016 510 91 99 5.1 2.4 34170 19 <0.096 <0.080 0.22 0.043 0.054 0.038 0.43 21044<4.1 694 1.2 0.0047 21232S/13E-31H13 4/13/2016 450 94 99 4.6 2.5 33150 25 <0.096 <0.080 0.22 0.054 0.045 0.035 0.44 20051<4.1 701 1.2 0.0047 21432S/13E-31H13 1/13/2016 460 99 97 4.8 2.6 32150 30 <0.022 <0.080 0.19 0.084 <0.010 0.038 0.53 19043<4.1 717 0.33 0.0054 18732S/13E-31H13 10/14/2015 370 85 91 4.8 3.1 32159 45 <0.05 <1 0.23 <0.10 0.060 0.043 0.26 18930<10710 0.30 0.0031 32732S/13E-31H13 7/15/2015 390 90 99 4.4 2.7 34145 55 <0.05 <1 0.21 <0.1 0.06 0.034 0.24 18540<10730 0.24 0.0027 37532S/13E-31H13 4/16/2015 360 89 86 4.8 2.6 31137 58 <0.05 <1 0.20 <0.1 0.057 0.030 0.266 17235<10680 0.42 0.0030 33532S/13E-31H13 1/14/2015 390 90 84 4.8 2 31140 61 <0.05 <1 0.18 <0.1 0.059 0.035 0.24 17030<10670 0.47 0.0026 38332S/13E-31H13 10/16/2014 370 80 84 5.0 3.2 32146 59 <0.05 <1 0.19 <0.1 0.055 0.044 0.18 17024<10720 0.61 0.0023 44432S/13E-31H13 7/30/2014 380 86 81 4.2 3.6 35158 61 <0.05 <1 0.16 <0.1 0.05 0.047 0.17 17517<10730 0.25 0.0020 50632S/13E-31H13 4/17/2014 380 84 86 5.2 3 26120 87 <0.05 <1 0.18 <0.1 0.08 0.032 0.314323<10730 0.45 0.0036 28032S/13E-31H13 1/16/2014 390 89 91 5.0 4.1 34119 103 <0.05 <1 0.20 <0.1 0.06 0.043 0.34 13617<10740 0.30 0.0038 26232S/13E-31H13 10/16/2013 410 84 87 4.7 5.3 33114 130 <0.05 <1 0.17 <0.1 0.08 0.053 0.312410<10760 0.28 0.0036 28032S/13E-31H13 7/11/2013 420 80 70 4.8 4.5 35116 120 <0.05 <1 0.19 <0.1 0.06 0.047 0.21 13620<10760 0.19 0.0026 38132S/13E-31H13 4/11/2013 450 77 77 4.7 5.8 38113 150 <0.05 <1 0.19 <0.1 0.06 0.069 0.212815<10780 0.15 0.0026 38532S/13E-31H13 1/15/2013 420 74 78 4.7 7.0 40110 180 <0.05 <1 0.18 <0.1 <0.01 0.087 <0.1 12515<10810 0.55 NA NA32S/13E-31H13 10/30/2012 380 88 99 5.7 3.3 30160 63 <0.05 <1 0.25 <0.1 0.08 0.035 0.31687.5<10740 0.33 0.0034 29332S/13E-31H13 7/25/2012 390 108 107 5.5 2.7 2913 66 <0.05 <1 0.28 <0.1 0.079 0.0037 0.23 168155<10750 0.84 0.0021 47032S/13E-31H13 4/19/2012 390 110 83 4.3 2.5 26400 68 <0.1 <1 0.22 0.23 0.09 0.032 0.39 42020<10790 0.24 0.0035 28232S/13E-31H13 1/12/2012 410 94 95 4.5 3.0 28300 68 <0.1 <1 0.24 <0.2 0.1 0.032 0.31 32020<10760 0.89 0.0033 30332S/13E-31H13 11/21/2011 410 94 83 4.6 3.4 30152 72 <0.05 <1 0.21 <0.1 0.09 0.035 0.31608<10730 0.65 0.0032 31332S/13E-31H13 7/25/2011 420 90 84 7.1 4.4 31148 91.8 <0.05 <1 0.20 <0.1 0.071 0.046 0.297 1502.5<5760 1.90 0.0033 30232S/13E-31H13 4/21/2011 380 88 110 6.3 4.0 27140 101 <0.05 <1 0.41 0.14 0.07 0.13 0.33 140<2.0 <2.0 750 N/A 0.0038 26732S/13E-31H13 1/24/2011 430 83 73 6 6.3 31160 100 <0.05 <1.0 0.22 0.11 0.66 0.078 0.28 160<2.0 <2.0 780 0.49 0.0034 29632S/13E-31H13 10/21/2010 410 87 100 3.9 6.0 33148 100 <0.1 <1.0 0.14 <0.1 NA 0.087 <0.3 148<10<10796 0.66 NA NA32S/13E-31H13 7/26/2010 446 94 93.0 8.81 10.2 32.0 38.4 120 < 0.10 < 0.50 0.142 < 0.10 0.32 0.196 0.48 56.017.6 < 1.0 700 22.4 0.0051 19632S/13E-31H13 4/26/2010 416 96 87.6 9.86 14.8 37.1 46.0 150 < 0.1 0.63 0.132 < 0.10 0.39 0.579 0.44 58.012.0 < 1.0 780 56.2 0.0046 21832S/13E-31H13 1/27/2010 498 89 79.6 10.2 15.6 38.0 31.0 180 < 0.10 0.56 0.132 < 0.10 0.19 0.283 0.38 51.020.0 < 1.0 810 23.6 0.0043 23432S/13E-31H13 10/20/2009 446 100 97.1 12.8 16.4 37.9 26.6 180 < 0.10 0.56 0.168 0.2 < 0.10 0.180 0.42 42.616.0 < 1.0 760 18.9 0.0042 23832S/13E-31H13 8/19/2009 426 160 101 18.9 93.2 29.1 64.4 36 < 0.10 0.98 NA 0.2 0.31 5.490 0.60 84.420.0 < 1.0 790 682 0.0038 26732S/13E-31H13 5/16/1983 770 60 70 NA 90 70330 120 9 NA NA 0.1 NA 0.02 NA330NDND 1,100 0.24 NA NAP:\Portland\672‐Northern Cities Management Area\001‐2016 Annual Rpt\Water Quality\NCMA_WQ_SentryWells.xlsx1/27/2017Item 9.g. - Page 142
Appendix A: NCMA Sentry Wells Water Quality Data, Oceano Dunes, Middle WellWellDate TDS Chloride Sodium Potassium Calcium MagnesiumBicarbonate as CaCO3SulfateNitrate(as N)Total Kjeldahl NitrogenBoron Fluoride Iodide Manganese BromideTotal Alkalinity as CaCO3Carbonate as CaCO3Hydroxide as CaCO3Specific ConductivityIronBromide / Chloride RatioChloride / Bromide Ratio12N/36W-36L01 10/12/2016 890 35 72 3.8 140 56190 430 0.42 0.11 0.17 0.036 ND ND 0.12 190NDND 1220 0.037 0.0034 29212N/36W-36L01 7/19/2016 920 37 69 3.6 130 50180 430 1.9 0.25 0.15 0.043 <0.010 <0.0040 0.10 180<8.2 <8.2 1,200 <0.030 0.0027 37012N/36W-36L01 4/12/2016 860 38 65 3.5 130 49180 390 2.0 <0.080 0.16 0.036 <0.010 <0.0040 0.12 180<8.2 <8.2 1,210 <0.05 0.0032 31712N/36W-36L01 1/14/2016 890 36 64 3.4 130 49180 410 0.47 <0.080 0.15 0.062 <0.010 <0.0040 0.10 180<8.2 <8.2 1,210 0.070 0.0028 36012N/36W-36L01 10/15/2015 920 37 63 4.2 120 47180 400 0.68 <1 0.15 <0.20 <0.01 <0.005 <0.20 180<10<10 1,210 <0.05 NA NA12N/36W-36L01 7/16/2015 930 39 74 2.8 140 50180 410 1.2 <1 0.15 <0.1 <0.01 <0.005 <0.1 180<10<10 1,210 <0.05 NA NA12N/36W-36L01 4/14/2015 890 38 55 3.1 110 44180 440 0.759 1.0 0.16 <0.2 <0.01 <0.005 <0.2 180<10<10 1,160 <0.05 NA NA12N/36W-36L01 1/13/2015 880 39 59 3.0 120 45180 440 0.584 <1 0.14 <0.1 <0.01 <0.005 <0.1 180<10<10 1,160 <0.05 NA NA12N/36W-36L01 10/15/2014 910 34 58 3.7 120 43180 380 0.950 <1 0.14 <0.2 <0.01 <0.005 <0.2 180<10<10 1,210 <0.05 NA NA12N/36W-36L01 7/30/2014 890 36 61 3.2 120 47180 390 0.603 <1 0.12 <0.2 <0.01 <0.005 <0.2 180<10<10 1,220 <0.05 NA NA12N/36W-36L01 4/16/2014 910 36 46 2.6 76 27180 440 0.77 <1 0.15 <0.1 <0.01 <0.005 <0.1 180<10<10 1,200 <0.05 NA NA12N/36W-36L01 1/16/2014 910 35 60 3.1 110 42180 416 1.00 1.1 0.14 <0.2 <0.01 <0.005 <0.2 180<10<10 1,190 <0.05 NA NA12N/36W-36L01 10/16/2013 910 40 63 4.5 120 43170 460 0.76 <1 0.13 <0.2 <0.01 <0.005 <0.2 170<10<10 1,210 <0.05 NA NA12N/36W-36L01 7/10/2013 910 39 54 3.2 120 42175 430 0.78 <1 0.14 <0.1 <0.01 <0.005 <0.1 175<10<10 1,210 0.18 NA NA12N/36W-36L01 4/11/2013 890 38 59 3.6 110 43180 420 0.82 <1 0.16 <0.2 <0.01 <0.005 <0.2 180<10<10 1,200 <0.05 NA NA12N/36W-36L01 1/15/2013 870 39 61 3.4 110 41178 440 0.57 <1 0.15 <0.2 <0.01 <0.005 <0.2 178<10<10 1,190 0.13 NA NA12N/36W-36L01 10/31/2012 910 35 66 4.0 130 46165 400 1.60 <1 0.16 0.2 <0.01 <0.005 <0.5 165<10<10 1,200 <0.05 NA NA12N/36W-36L01 7/24/2012 880 43 65 3.9 110 41168 420 <0.05 <1 0.16 <0.1 <0.01 0.02 <0.1 168<10<10 1,190 0.19 NA NA12N/36W-36L01 4/18/2012 880 47 52 3.2 95 36180 450 0.42 <1 0.12 <0.2 <0.01 <0.005 <0.2 180<10<10 1,190 <0.1 NA NA12N/36W-36L01 1/11/2012 790 41 64 4.1 120 44170 380 1.30 <1 0.19 0.18 <0.02 <0.005 <0.2 170<10<10 1,190 <0.1 NA NA12N/36W-36L01 11/21/2011 910 39 55 3.5 110 40180 380 0.37 <1 0.16 <0.2 <0.01 <0.005 <0.2 180<10<10 1,200 <0.1 NA NA12N/36W-36L01 7/25/2011 890 41 65 5.7 110 43170 408.9 0.39 <1 0.15 <0.1 <0.01 <0.005 <0.1 170<5<5 1,200 0.024 NA NA12N/36W-36L01 4/21/2011 890 42 61 4.2 100 30170 415 0.60 <1 0.19 0.07 <0.01 <0.005 <0.1 170<2.0 <2.0 1,200 NA NA NA12N/36W-36L01 1/24/2011 890 41 55 5.1 98 36180 400 0.50 <1.0 0.20 0.15 <0.10 <0.005 <0.1 180<2.0 <2.0 1,200 <0.1 NA NA12N/36W-36L01 10/21/2010 910 38 76 3.6 130 47169 400 0.39 <1.0 0.10 <0.1 NA <0.005 <0.3 169<10<10 1,213 <0.1 NA NA12N/36W-36L01 7/27/2010 707 36 64.2 3.70 127 47.4 182 420 0.40 < 0.50 0.158 < 0.10 < 0.10 < 0.00500 0.11 182< 1.0 < 1.0 1,100 < 0.100 0.0031 32712N/36W-36L01 4/26/2010 860 42 70.3 4.13 129 48.9 191 400 0.45 0.77 0.223 < 0.1 0.15 0.057 0.14 191< 1.0 < 1.0 1,100 4.53 0.0033 30012N/36W-36L01 10/21/2009 856 38 72.0 4.64 131 48.2 192 420 0.49 0.84 0.150 0.12 < 0.10 0.0994 0.13 192< 1.0 < 1.0 1,100 1.68 0.0034 29212N/36W-36L01 8/20/2009 890 39 78.0 4.21 138 48.1 184 390 0.49 0.56 NA < 0.10 < 0.10 0.185 0.14 184< 1.0 < 1.0 1,200 2.03 0.0036 27912N/36W-36L01 5/11/2009 832 63 83.8 4.88 111 45.4 204 330 NA NA NA 0.12 NA 0.551 0.22 204< 1.0 < 1.0 1,200 4.02 0.0035 28612N/36W-36L01 3/26/1996 882 35 66 4.8 124 47233 408 2 NA 0.24 NA NA NA NANANANANANANANA12N/36W-36L01 6/8/1976 936 38 72 3.5 130 48223 423 0.6 NA 0.15 0.7 NA NA NANANANANANANANAP:\Portland\672‐Northern Cities Management Area\001‐2016 Annual Rpt\Water Quality\NCMA_WQ_SentryWells.xlsx1/27/2017Item 9.g. - Page 143
Appendix A: NCMA Sentry Wells Water Quality Data, Oceano Dunes, Deep WellWellDate TDS Chloride Sodium Potassium Calcium MagnesiumBicarbonate as CaCO3SulfateNitrate(as N)Total Kjeldahl NitrogenBoron Fluoride Iodide Manganese BromideTotal Alkalinity as CaCO3Carbonate as CaCO3Hydroxide as CaCO3Specific ConductivityIronBromide / Chloride RatioChloride / Bromide Ratio12N/36W-36L02 10/12/2016 820 99 120 6.6 110 50270 240 ND 2 0.35 0.084 0.14 0.17 0.58 270NDND 1230 0.1 0.0059 17112N/36W-36L02 7/19/2016 820 97 110 6.2 95 45270 240 <0.096 2 0.33 0.081 0.1 0.15 0.65 270<8.2 <0.82 1,220 0.14 0.0067 14912N/36W-36L02 4/12/2016 800 96 100 6 94 44270 230 <0.096 1.8 0.32 0.12 0.12 0.14 0.81 270<8.2 <0.82 1,240 0.37 0.0084 11912N/36W-36L02 1/14/2016 860 96 110 6.4 99 47260 230 <0.018 1.6 0.34 0.10 0.078 0.17 0.65 260<8.2 <8.2 1,240 1.9 0.0068 14812N/36W-36L02 10/15/2015 800 89 96 6.0 91 0.15 266 230 <0.05 2.2 0.32 0.22 0.098 0.15 0.37 266<10<10 1,220 0.32 0.0042 24112N/36W-36L02 7/16/2015 840 97 120 5.9 110 46260 240 <0.05 2.44 0.34 0.11 0.11 0.15 0.59 260<10<10 1,230 0.16 0.0061 16412N/36W-36L02 4/14/2015 800 98 88 5.3 83 39270 240 <0.05 2.9 0.33 0.104 0.089 0.13 0.380 270<10<10 1,180 0.40 0.0039 25812N/36W-36L02 1/13/2015 820 100 91 5.5 86 39250 250 <0.05 2.2 0.31 0.105 0.09 0.13 0.322 250<10<10 1,190 0.077 0.0032 31112N/36W-36L02 10/15/2014 800 88 96 6.4 91 40260 210 <0.05 2.1 0.32 <0.1 0.092 0.14 0.358 260<10<10 1,230 0.12 0.0041 24612N/36W-36L02 7/30/2014 800 98 99 5.8 88 39280 210 <0.05 2.4 0.28 0.11 0.09 0.14 0.19 280<10<10 1,240 0.27 0.0019 51612N/36W-36L02 4/16/2014 820 95 89 6.3 73 31280 210 <0.05 2.3 0.31 <0.1 0.09 0.13 0.35 280<10<10 1,240 0.22 0.0037 27112N/36W-36L02 1/16/2014 800 100 87 5 76 33270 230 <0.05 2.3 0.31 0.23 0.09 0.14 0.44 270<10<10 1,230 0.41 0.0044 22712N/36W-36L02 10/16/2013 810 90 110 6.4 91 40260 240 <0.05 2.2 0.32 <0.1 0.1 0.15 0.32 260<10<10 1,220 0.54 0.0036 28112N/36W-36L02 7/10/2013 790 105 94 5.8 88 38260 240 <0.05 2.5 0.34 <0.1 0.08 0.13 0.11 260<10<10 1,240 0.31 0.0010 95512N/36W-36L02 4/11/2013 830 100 99 6.2 83 37260 220 <0.05 2.2 0.35 <0.1 0.098 0.14 0.45 260<10<10 1,240 0.60 0.0045 22212N/36W-36L02 1/15/2013 770 110 110 6.7 84 38265 220 <0.05 2.8 0.36 <0.1 0.02 0.14 0.20 265<10<10 1,240 0.61 0.0018 55012N/36W-36L02 10/31/2012 800 100 120 7.3 90 39265 200 <0.1 2.4 0.4 0.34 0.12 0.14 0.34 265<10<10 1,250 0.30 0.0034 29412N/36W-36L02 7/24/2012 800 134 125 7.4 83 35277 200 <0.05 2.3 0.42 0.13 0.12 0.14 0.31 277<10<10 1,250 0.52 0.0023 43212N/36W-36L02 4/18/2012 770 130 95 6.2 75 33270 210 0.42 4 0.35 0.36 0.12 0.13 <0.2 270<10<10 1,250 0.77 NA NA12N/36W-36L02 1/11/2012 900 122 110 7.2 95 37290 170 <0.1 4.8 0.48 0.28 <0.02 0.17 0.45 290<10<10 1,250 1.80 0.0037 27112N/36W-36L02 11/21/2011 780 130 95 6.1 77 33270 160 <0.1 <1 0.4 <0.2 <0.01 0.13 0.45 270<10<10 1,240 0.40 0.0035 28912N/36W-36L02 7/25/2011 790 129 110 9.1 74 33280 177 <0.05 2.3 0.36 0.12 0.14 0.13 0.51 280<5<5 1,280 2.30 0.0040 25212N/36W-36L02 4/21/2011 770 120 90 5.3 86 26280 206 <0.05 2.3 0.24 0.26 0.14 0.004 0.57 280<2.0 <2.0 1,270 NA 0.0048 21112N/36W-36L02 1/24/2011 800 120 95 7.6 75 30300 190 <0.05 2.3 0.39 0.16 1.31 0.13 0.53 300<2.0 <2.0 1,270 1.40 0.0044 22612N/36W-36L02 10/21/2010 770 120 130 7.6 89 44275 160 <0.1 3.4 0.48 <0.1 NA 0.15 0.54 275<10<10 1,293 0.12 0.0045 22212N/36W-36L02 7/27/2010 737 110 121 7.81 91.1 38.9 268 190 < 0.10 < 0.50 0.427 0.10 0.77 0.180 0.80 268< 1.0 < 1.0 1,200 0.845 0.0073 13812N/36W-36L02 4/26/2010 720 100 116 6.88 85.4 32.4 215 210 1.5 0.77 0.382 0.2 0.28 0.167 0.7215< 1.0 < 1.0 1,100 3.870 0.0070 14312N/36W-36L02 10/21/2009 638 99 113 6.15 81.6 23.0 172 200 < 0.10 3.2 0.268 0.33 57 0.128 0.61 172< 1.0 < 1.0 940 0.255 0.0062 16212N/36W-36L02 8/20/2009 785 100 131 6.66 89.8 36.6 290 190 < 0.10 3.8 NA 0.15 0.27 0.307 0.75 290< 1.0 < 1.0 1,200 0.830 0.0075 13312N/36W-36L02 5/11/2009 775 120 132 7.24 84 39.7 294 180 NA NA NA 0.18 NA 0.426 0.78 294< 1.0 < 1.0 1,300 0.958 0.0065 15412N/36W-36L02 3/26/1996 772 127 130 8.7 86 36390 148 0.2 NA 0.5 NA NA NA NANANANANANANANA12N/36W-36L02 6/8/1976 820 126 118 6.6 94 44393 184 0 NA NA 0.5 NA NA NANANANANA NA NA NAP:\Portland\672‐Northern Cities Management Area\001‐2016 Annual Rpt\Water Quality\NCMA_WQ_SentryWells.xlsx1/27/2017Item 9.g. - Page 144
Appendix A: NCMA Sentry Wells Water Quality Data, Mountain View Road, Well No. 3WellDate TDS Chloride Sodium Potassium Calcium MagnesiumBicarbonate as CaCO3SulfateNitrate(as N)Total Kjeldahl NitrogenBoron Fluoride Iodide Manganese BromideTotal Alkalinity as CaCO3Carbonate as CaCO3Hydroxide as CaCO3Specific ConductivityIronBromide / Chloride RatioChloride / Bromide Ratio12N/35W-32C03 10/13/2016 310 64 68 2.9 14 6.553 25 8.1 0.12 0.088 0.08 ND ND 0.1853NDND433 ND 0.0028 35612N/35W-32C03 7/20/2016 300 66 65 2.8 13 6.457 26 35 <0.08 0.087 0.03 <0.010 <0.0040 0.1657<4.1 <4.1 450 0.039 0.0024 41312N/35W-32C03 4/13/2016 290 65 66 2.8 14 6.551 26 36 0.086 0.083 0.039 <0.010 <0.0040 0.2251<4.1 <4.1 438 0.08 0.0034 29512N/35W-32C03 1/14/2016 290 69 68 2.9 14 6.350 27 8.6 <0.08 0.094 0.083 <0.010 <0.0040 0.1650<4.1 <4.1 430 0.079 0.0023 43112N/35W-32C03 10/14/2015 280 61 57 2.6 12 5.851 28 8.4 <1 0.090 <0.10 <0.01 <0.005 <0.10 51<10<10430 0.33 NA NA12N/35W-32C03 7/14/2015 280 64 67 2.7 14 6.250 30 8.0 <1 0.10 <0.1 <0.01 <0.005 <0.150<10<10440 0.22 NA NA12N/35W-32C03 4/15/2015 280 62 52 2.4 12 5.451 30 7.8 <1 0.081 <0.1 <0.01 <0.005 0.1151<10<10420 0.11 0.0018 56412N/35W-32C03 1/14/2015 290 63 56 2.3 13 5.851 30 8.2 <1 0.077 <0.1 <0.01 <0.005 0.151<10<10420 0.38 0.0016 63012N/35W-32C03 10/16/2014 270 55 54 2.7 13 5.751 26 7.3 0.3 0.069 <0.1 <0.01 0.005 <0.151<10<10430 0.35 NA NA12N/35W-32C03 7/30/2014 280 60 58 1.9 14 6.560 29 7.3 <1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.01 <0.005 <0.16017<10450 0.16 NA NA12N/35W-32C03 4/15/2014 270 57 55 2.2 12 554 29 7.1 <1 0.096 <0.1 <0.01 <0.005 0.1154<10<10430 0.21 0.0019 51812N/35W-32C03 1/16/2014 300 62 57 2.8 14 6.354 35 8.1 8.2 <0.1 <0.1 <0.01 0.008 0.1254<10<10450 0.47 0.0019 51712N/35W-32C03 10/16/2013 310 58 62 2.9 15 6.454 38 7.5 <1 0.06 <0.1 <0.01 0.009 0.154<10<10450 0.21 0.0017 58012N/35W-32C03 7/11/2013 290 60 45 2.4 14 5.961 30 7.4 <1 0.071 <0.1 <0.01 0.006 <0.161<10<10440 0.17 NA NA12N/35W-32C03 4/12/2013 330 58 55 2.9 16 6.660 35 7.5 <1 0.091 <0.1 <0.01 0.019 0.160<10<10460 0.49 0.0017 58012N/35W-32C03 1/15/2013 290 62 57 2.8 15 6.355 38 8.3 <1 0.089 <0.1 <0.01 0.01 <0.155<10<10470 0.23 NA NA12N/35W-32C03 10/30/2012 330 57 60 3.3 19 7.560 36 7.8 <1 0.09 <0.1 <0.01 0.033 <0.160<10<10470 1.9 NA NA12N/35W-32C03 7/25/2012 330 67 61 3.3 17 6.459 35 8.2 <1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.01 0.068 <0.159<10<10460 0.49 NA NA12N/35W-32C03 4/19/2012 370 74 52 2.9 30 12120 58 5 <1 0.17 0.2 <0.01 0.056 <0.2 120<10<10580 1.3 NA NAP:\Portland\672‐Northern Cities Management Area\001‐2016 Annual Rpt\Water Quality\NCMA_WQ_SentryWells.xlsx1/27/2017Item 9.g. - Page 145
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Item 9.g. - Page 146