Resolution No. 2013-073 (2)N
7
C �
�..
1- _ ¢ _
w
z � ti c R''
c O 6 � _ _
W F
_ — _
-� � D .-
.:
�._..__...___..- :e
�.
14; .
r
0
N
N
O
O
C
O
c�a
C
V �
L
o a
V
E
a �
E �
cu
'x �
�o �
� -o
c ro T.
ou �?
a, �
c�i .�
ri >, �
�' ro c
� °� �on
� � �
tL. C� cr
�
�
� �
p
§
R
|
§
/
ƒ
�
2
/
/
[
\ /
.
-
/ S
$ �
!
/
-
/ z
� S=
N
O
N
N
O
O
N_
C
O
Y
Y
C
d
V
C
�
E
E
v
x
�o
�u
cc
z CC
a �
p
cu
on ;!
r
cc m
w
va
Ll
c
Eo
r-: G 1-1
t
O
O
on
C5
LL
:
� �..
..
\2
§
r
/
/
{
�
[
0
0
E
§
7
/
�
I
�
{
{
b
=
\
/
R
/
\\
/
\\
= 2
\
m
//
E
E
cc
LL
9
C�
N
N
P
Q
N_
C
G
m
LZ ra
. �
m
&
\
E
/
E
�
E
D
E
_
[
&
/
i
z
\
(
§
/\
V5
\3
/
\\
�
op
Irl
O
ti
cl:
'Ell
Sites of, environmcntal concern were identified based on data provided by the United States
Environmental Protection Agency (USLPA) and Calilornia State Water- Resources Control
Board (SWR('B) Geotracker websites, and include land disposal sites. cleanup program sites.
military cleanup sites. and National Priorities List Superlund cleanup sites. Contaminant plumes
associated with Superlund sites were digitized from recent monitoring reports and represent the
maximum delineated lateral extent of groundwater contamination. Sites of environmental
concern. including plume delineations, are shown on Figure 7-19.
7.1.2 Groundwater Quality in the Los Angeles Gateway Region
7.1.2.1 Color
Colored groundwater is found to occur naturally within the deeper coastal aquifers of the Los
Angeles and Orange County Coastal Plain Groundwater Basins. While not considered hazardous
to public health, colored groundwater is regulated with a secondary MCL of 15 Color Units for
purely aesthetic reasons. Figure 7-1 shows the distribution of color within the Los Angcles
Gateway Region, confirming that the coastal areas are most impacted by color in excess of the
MCL (i.e.. the City of Long Beach). Some scattered occurrences of color in excess of MCL are
located throughout other areas of the Region.
7.1.2.2 Iron
Iron in groundwater is primarily naturally occurring but can be leached from steel well casing. It
is regulated under a CDPH secondary MCL of 300 micrograms per liter (µg/L) and is generally
not considered a significant health risk. Figure7-2 shows that iron in excess of the MCL is fairly
evenly distributed throughout the Region north of the City of Long Beach.
7.1.2.3 Manganese
Manganese in groundwater is naturally occurring and is regulated under a CDPH secondary
MCL of 50 µg/L for aesthetic reasons as it can result in black staining. Figure 7-3 shows that
manganese in excess of the MCL is fairly evenly distributed throughout the Gateway Region.
7.1.2.4 Odor
Odor is commonly associated with colored water and is regulated with a CDPH secondary MCL
of 3 Threshold Odor Number (TON) for aesthetic reasons. Figure 7-4 shows that odor is not a
widespread water quality problem within the Los Angeles Gateway Region and that its
occurrence is limited to scattered areas.
7.1.2.5 Specific Conductance
Specific conductancc is a measure of how well water will conduct electricity and is a function of
the concentration of ions within the water. As such, it is an indirect measure of the concentration
of dissolved solids. It is regulated under a CDPH secondary MCL recommended )unit of 900
microsiemens per centimeter (µS/em), an upper limit of 1,600 µS/cm, and a short-term
maximum of 2,200 µS/cm. Figure 7-5 shows that there are a large number of wells exceeding
the recommended lower limit, particularly within the area north of Long Beach and Lakewood.
Gateway Integrated 7-22
Final
Regional Water Management Plan .tune 2013
7.1.2.0 Sullate
Sulfat(: is naturally occurring component ol'groundwater and is a major anion associated with
total dis�,olyc(I solids (H)S). It does not pose n risl, to public health and is regulated under a
CDPI I secondary MC'L for aesthetic reasons. There is a CDPI] recommended limit of 25O
milligrams per liter (mg/L) an upper limit ol'500 mg/L. and a short-term maximum af'
600 mg/L.. figure 7-6 shows that there are few wells exceeding the recommended lower limit.
and that those that do are primarily located east of and sub parallel to the San Gabriel River.
7.1.2.7 Total Dissolved Solids (TDS)
TDS is it measure ol'the concentration solids dissolved within water. It is regulated under a
CDPI] secondary MCL recommended limit of'500 mg/L. an upper limit of 1,000 mg/L. and a
short-term maximum of 1.500 mg/L. Figure 7-7 shows that there are a large number of'wclIs
exceeding the recommended lower limit. particularly within the areas directly down gradient of
the Los Angcics and Montebello Forebays. Those wells with the highest concentrations of'TDS
arc primarily located in the Forebay areas. and in the southern portion of the Long, Beach
(presumably (file to seawater intrusion).
7.1.2.8 Turbidity
The origin of turbidity within groundwater can be from mobilization of fine formation materials
such as silt and clay. from drilling fluid additives utilized during wel] drilling. and decomposition
ofwell casing and or piping materials. It poses no risk to public health and is regulated for
aesthetic reasons with a CDPH secondary MCL oi' 5 nephclometric turbidity units (NTIJ).
Figurc 7-8 shows that turbidity is not a widespread water duality problem \yithin the Los Angeles
Gateway Region and that its occutTcnce is limited to scattered areas.
7.1.2.9 Aluminum
Aluminum is a naturally occurring metal sound in groundwater that is regulated under a CDPI-I
secondary MCI. of'200 µg/L and is generally not considered a significant health risk. Figure 7-9
Shows that there arc few wells with aluminum in excess of the MCL sporadically distributed
throughout the Region.
7.1.2.10 Arsenic
Arsenic in groundwater is naturally occurring and is regulated under a CDPI] primary MCL of
10 µg/L. It is considered a health risk and is known to result in cancer of the skin and bladder.
and effects such as high blood pressure and diabetes. Figure 7-10 shows that arsenic in excess of
MCL primarily occurs within the pressure zone of the Central Basin, with some scattered
occurrences in the lorebav areas.
7.1.2.11 1,2-Dichlorocthane
1.2-dichlorocthane is a synthetic chemical primarily used in the manufacture of other chemicals.
It is known to cause potential central nervous system disorders. and adverse lung. kidney. liver.
and gastrointestinal effects. It is regulated under a CDPI] primary MCL of 0.5 pg/L. Figure 7-
1 1 shows that 1.2-dichlorocthane in excess of'MCL primarily occurs in very few scattered
Gateway Integrated 7-23
Final
Regional Water Management Plan June 201
locations Nvilhin the Los Angeles Gateway Region. near Norwalk. Huntington Park. and
Horcncc.
7.1.2.12 Carbon Tetrachloride
Carbon tetrachloride is a synthetic chemical primarily used in the manufacture of
chlorolluorocarbon propellants and refrigerants, and has been used as a dry cleaning agent and
fire extinguisher. It is known to be a potential carcinogen and can result in liver problems. It is
regulated under a CDPH primary MCL of 0.5 µg/11. Figure 7-12 shows that carbon tetrachloride
in excess of MCI, primarily occurs in the northwestern portion of the Los Angeles Gateway
Region,. in Huntington Park and Florence.
7.1.2.13 Tetrachloroethylene (PCE)
PCE is a synthetic chemical solvent used as a dry-cleaning agent, metal degreaser, and in the
textile industry. 1t is known to be a potential carcinogen and can result in liver problems. It is
regulated under a CDPH primary MCL of 5 µg/L. Figure '7-13 shows that PCE in excess of the
MCL primarily occurs within and immediately down gradient of tile forebay areas, particularly
in the Cities of Commerce. Bell Gardens, South Gate, and Norwalk.
7.1.2.14 Trichloroethylene (TCE)
TCE is a synthetic chemical primarily used as a dry-cleaning agent and in the textile industry. It
is known to be a potential carcinogen and can result in liver problems. It is regulated under'a
CDPH primary MC1_, of 5 µg/L. Figure 7-14 shows that TCL in excess of the MCL occurs
primarily within and immediately down gradient of the forebay areas, particularly in the cities of
Florence. Maywood. Commerce, Bell Gardens, Lynwood, and Norwalk.
7.1.2.15 Gross Alpha
A radionuclide is an atom with an unstable nucleus which emits energy in the form of rays or
high speed particles. 'This type of radiation can create "ions" by displacing electrons in the
human body and disrupting the function of DNA. The three major types of ionizing radiation
include alpha particles, beta particles and gamma rays. Alpha emitting radionuclides can be
found naturally in groundwater from dissolved nuclides and are a known carcinogen. Gross
alpha is regulated under a CDPH primary MCL of 15 picocuries per liter (pCi/L). Figure 7-15
shows that there are few wells with gross alpha in excess of MCL and that those are primarily
located within and immediately down gradient of the Montebello Forebay.
7.1.2.16 1,4-Dioxane
IA-dioxane is a highly soluble synthetic chemical utilized as a stabilizer and solvent, and as a
component in cosmetics and detergents. It is classified by the United States Environmental
Protection Agency (USEPA) as a possible human carcinogen but does not have an established
MCL. It is regulated under a CDPH Notification Level (NL) of I µg/L. Figure 7-16 shows that
the occurrence of 1.4-dioxane in excess of the NL is widespread within and down gradient of the
forebay areas, particularly in the Cities of Commerce, South Gate, Downey, and Norwalk.
Gateway Integrated 7-24 Final
Regional water Management Plan .tune 2013
7.1.2.17 N-Nitrosodimethylamine (NDMA)
NDIv1A V ;i highly soluble synthetic chemical utilized in the manufacture of other chemicals.
liquid rocket fuel. and a variety of products. 11 k also formed as a byproduct of disinfection
during treatment. It is classified by CDPH and the USEPA as a human careinopen
and is regulated under a CDPH N1. of 0.01 pg/L. Limited groundwater duality data is available
for NDMA in the Gateway Region. Figure 7-17 shows that NDMA has been detected in the
fartheSI upgradicnt portions of the Montebello Forcbay where the San Gabriel and Rio Hondo
Rivers cmcr the Central Basin. The source of these occurrences may be the discharge of
disinfected wastewater from upgradient wastewater treatment plants. NDMA in this area may
also be part ofthc contaminant plume associated with the Baldwin Park Operable Unit which has
migrated down from the San Gabriel Basin.
Due to the formation of NDMA during wastewater treatment. LACSD has been aggressively
working to investigate NDMA and reduce concentrations for over eight years, key cnbns
include implementation of a modified chlorination procedure at the treatment plants that has
Significantly reduced effluent NDMA concentrations. as well as implementation of ultraviolet
disinfection at one of the treatment plants. Additional actions taken include modifications to
operations. implementation of source control measures. and numerous research projects on
NDMA formation and attenuation.
LACSD has additionally completed a thorough study of attenuation and dilution of NDMA in the
Montebello 1'orchay area. During the study. extensive monitoring was conducted of groundwater
wells in the Montebello Forebay area and a model was developed to predict subsurface NDMA
concentrations. Both the sampling and the modeling, indicated that there are no production wells
exceeding or predicted to exceed the NL for NDMA.
7.1.2.18 p1i, Laboratory
The pH of water is a measure of the hydrogen -ion concentration within it. The scale ranges from
0 to 14. with a pl I of 7 indicating neutral water. A pH greater than 7 indicates that the water is
basic and a pl1 of less than 7 indicates that the water k acidic. pH is regulated under a (T)PH
secondary MCL and must be maintained between 45 and 81 pH Units. Figure 7-18 shoves that
III-] is above the upper limit of the MCI, of 8.5 in a iew scattered wells within the basin, and for
most of the wells in the southernmost portion of the I_ms Angeles Gateway Region. within the
City of Long Beach.
7.1.2.19 Point Sources of Contamination
Figure 7-19 shows the location of various point sources (Acontamination and sites with the
potential for contamination, including. Superfund sites, land disposal sites. military cleanup sites.
and cleanup program sites. Other sites of a more local concern. underground storage tanks
(leaking or otherwise). arc not shomm on the map as they are too numerous to depict. From a
regional perspective. the six (6) Superfund sites shown on Figure 7-19 present the greatest
concern for the protection ofgroundwater resources as they represent significant areas of
contamination. 'They include the following sites and general types of contamination:
Gateway Integrated 705 Final
Regional \vatcr Management Plan June 201
• Pemaco - MavNvood: VOCs (TC1 . L I-Dichloroeihylene [DCE]. and Benzene)
• Jervis 13. Webb: VOCs (TCE. DCF,. and PCE)
• Cooper Drum Company VOCs (TCE and DCE)
So. Avenue Industrial Area (Seam Masters): VOCs (TCE and DCE)
• Omega Chemical Corporation: VOCs (l'CI , TCE. IA-Dioxane, DCA, and Freon)
• Waste Disposal, Inc.: VOCs and Metals
Of particular concern is the Omega Chemical Corporation site which has resulted in a
contaminant plume measuring approximately four (4) miles in length and spanning several City
boundaries.
7.2 Review of Groundwater Monitoring
This section presents a review of existing groundwater monitoring programs within the Los
Angeles Gateway Region, identifies data gaps, and provides recommendations for improvement.
Ground and surface water issues within the Los Angeles Gateway Region are regional in nature
and affect multiple consumers throughout a number of communities and cities. Therefore, basin
management. monitoring, and improvement projects must be a collaborative effort among
purveyors, stakeholders. and government entities. A comprehensive regional groundwater
monitoring network that records water level and water quality data is essential for evaluating
existing conditions and detennining problem areas.
7.2.1 Purpose and Scope
The purpose of this section is to review existing groundwater monitoring programs within the
Los Angeles Gateway Region and to identify data gaps and areas where monitoring could be
improved.
The scope of work to achieve these of jectives includes:
• Description of existing monitoring networks and sources of data.
• Revicw ofexisting and proposed monitoring features and methodology.
• Review of -measurement and reporting frequency.
• Identification of data gaps and potential improvements to the existing monitoring network.
7.2.2 Location of Project Area
Figure 7-20 shows the Gateway Cities and WRD monitoring well locations.
Gateway Integrated 7-26 Final
Regional Water Managcrncnt Plan June 2013
_� :f
V
C
.�
v
a
J
4+
C'
Gil [L
'F.
Q Gl
,�
4�
�) r(i
41 �.
� �
4.
tli �'!
F
N � i
h :> , r
c: G
4+
C
`� �co
� �� C!
11- �..' �
7.2.3 Sources of Data
Data used for this analysis were obtained from multiple sources. The primary sources and
types of data arc summarized as follows:
• Water Replenishment District of Southern California 2012 : Well locations. depth -
specific groundwater quality and groundwater elevations.
• California Department of Public Health (2012): Historical groundwater quality data.
• California Department of Water Resources (1961 and 2004): Basin descriptions and
geology.
• California State Water Resources Control Board Geotraeker Website (2012): Point sources
of contamination or potential contamination.
• U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2009-2012): Superfund site locations and details.
7.2.4 Geohydrology of the Los Angeles Gateway Region
7.2.4.1 Regional Geohydrologic Setting
The Los Angeles Gateway Region is located primarily within the Central Basin. a structural
trough located within the Southgate Santa Ana Depression, which is composed of the
Paramount Syncline, the Los Alamitos Fault. and the Norwalk Syncline. The Central Basin
is separated to the north by a surface divide, the La Brea high, and on the northeast and east
by Tertiary rocks of the Elysian, Repetto, Merced and Puente Hills. Coyote Creek, a regional
drainage. forms the southeastern boundary, while the Newport Inglewood fault system and
the associated uplift forms the southwestern boundary (DWR, 2004 and 1961).
The sediments that fill the Central Basin are derived from surrounding mountains. Whcre
these sediments are saturated in the subsurface, they form the basin's aquifers. Subsurface
alluvial sediments consist of alternating layers of sand, gravel, silt, and clay in varying
proportions. As with any alluvial groundwater basin, many different interconnected water -
bearing zones make up the aquifer system.
The Central Basin Pressure and Non -Pressure Areas (see Figure 7-20) are hydraulically
downgradient from the Montebello Forebay (the most significant area of recharge within the
basin), the Los Angeles Forebay, and the Whittier Area. The pressure area comprises the
portion of the Central Basin that is generally deeper and contains thick and/or multiple fine-
grained (i.e.. silt and clay) layers that tend to confine or pressurize the groundwater beneath
them. In contrast to the Central Basin Pressure Area is the forebay, which is considered the
area of the groundwater basin where groundwater flow is less impeded by aquitards allowing
deeper aquifers of the basin to be in more direct hydraulic continuity witli shallow aquifers
and surface deposits. Thus, the aquifers of the basin are replenished (recliarged) primarily
from the percolation of surface water.
The southern portion of the Los Angeles Gateway Region is located within the West Coast
Basin. The West Coast Basin is bounded on the east by the Newport -Inglewood fault zone.
which acts as a partial barrier to groundwater movement in the area (DWR, 2004). Seawater
intrusion has occurred in aquifers nearest to the coast, and is currently addressed with a
protective line of iniection wells. Recharge to the West Coast Basin comes primarily from
Gateway Integrated 7-28 Final
Regional Water Management Plan June 2013
undcrilm" from the Central Basin throu;ph ;11)d over the fault /one. Minor rccharcc to tic
upper mluircr:. rc>:ults from infiltration of surface vvatcr from the I.os Am,cic�: and SNI)
Gahricl Diver!;.
7.2.f) Stratigraphic Units
7.2..1 Bedrock
Bedrocl� st.n-rounding the Central Basin consists of low permeability T ertiary sedimentary
units of the Pico and Reguo Formations. Thesc formations consist primarily of sihmones.
intcrbccided with sandstones and conglomerates ormmine origin. These units arc found
below the maximum depth of mom of Be areas water supply wells and data related to their
ahility to produce appreciable quantities of water is not certain --however. oil well data
indicates that the quality orwater produced from these units is unsuitable for potable use
(DNVK. 1961 ).
7.212 Alluvium
Saturated and unsaturated sediments in the Central and West Coast Basins consist of Tcrdory
and Quaternary marine and non -marine alluvial materials. Generally. these deposits consist
of ahcnwlhg layers of sand. gravel. silt. and clay in varying proportions. Where these
sediments arc saturated in the subsurface. they e b form thasin's aquifers. The two main
ester hearing formations are. the San Pedro and Lakewood Formations. each of which
consists of numerous aquifers of Quaternary age.
7.2.6 Groundwater
7.2.6.1 Aquifer Systems
In the Central Basin. Be San Pedro and Lakewood Formations have been generally
subdivided in to the following principal aquifers:
Gaspur
LXposition
Gardena/Gage
1-lollydale
5. .1c it erson
6. Lynwood
7. Silverado
S. Sunnyside
Ise shallowest aquifers in the Central Basin arc comprised Of the Gaspur/l xposition aquifer
system. These two aquifers are hydraulically connected in the Montebello Forebav and arc
not easily distinguishable. The sediments that form the Gaspur aquifer are river channel
deposits consisting primarily ofcourse sand and gravel. Sediments of the Exposition aquifer
are similar but were deposited by the ancestral I_ms Angeles River and are located primarily
to the west of the Whittier Narrows area U)VVR. 1961). Below the Gaspur and F",xposition
aquifers arc deposits of the Gage/Gardena aquifer system. vwhich typically consists of fine- to
coarse -grained sand and gravel which merges with the overlying Gaspur aquifer in the
Whittier Narrows area. The deeper aquifers beneath the Gage aquifer include (in order of
increasing depth below the ground surface) the Hollydalc..lefferson. Lynwood. Silverado.
and Sunnyside aquifers. The Lynwood and Silverado aquifers any the primary sources of
municipal groundwWcr supply. and most of the wells within the Central Basin are screened.
Gmem y lntecrawd 7-29 Final
Regional Walcr Management Plan June 2M3
to sonic degree. within these aquifers. Groundwater production from the Sunnyside aquifer
is limited to very deep municipal and industrial supply wells.
Major aquifers found in the West Coast Basin include:
L Gaspur
2. Gardena
3. Gagc
4. Lynwood
5. Silverado
6. Sunnyside
The shallowest aquifer in the West Coast Basin, the Gaspur aquifer, occurs only in the
Dominguez Gap area and has been heavily intruded by seawater. The Gardena aquifer.
consisting of varying proportions of sand and gravel with minor amounts of silt and clay, is
known to produce relatively high quantities of water to wells. The Gage aquifer (or "200-ft
sand") consists primarily of sand, is not present within the Long Beach Plain, and is of
relatively low permeability. The deeper aquifers of the San Pedro Formation include (in
order of increasing depth below the ground surface) the Lynwood and Silverado aquifers.
The Lynwood aquifer (or "400-11 gravel") consists of sand and gravel with minor amounts of
silt and clay, is relatively permeable, and provides groundwater to wells located primarily in
the Torrance. and Inglewood areas of the West Coast Basin. The Silverado aquifer,
consisting of fine- to coarse -grained sand and gravel, is the primary source of municipal
groundwater supply in the West Coast Basin and supplies 80 to 90 percent of extracted
supply (DWR, 2004). The Sunnyside or undifferentiated Lower San Pedro aquifer occurs
beneath the Silverado in some portions of the West Coast Basin and is known to yield only
minor amtnnrts of water 10 wells.
7.2.6.2 Groundwater Occurrence and Movement
Groundwater within the Gateway Region generally flows in a south and southwesterly
direction from areas of recharge (i.e., the forebays) towards the Pacific Ocean under a
hydraulic gradient averaging approximately 20 ft/mile.
7.2.6.3 Historical Groundwater Elevations
Historically, groundwater levels in the Central Basin were declining in the first half'of the
20th century as a result of agricultural pumping. This decline continued through the l 950s
when groundwater levels began to rise, corresponding with reduced pumping, and artificial
recharge of imported water in the Whittier Narrows area. With few exceptions, groundwater
levels have generally increased since the mid-l950s and early 1960s as artificial recharge has
increased and pumping for agricultural use has decreased. Groundwater levels in many wells
have returned to their pre- 1940s levels.
7.2.6.4 Groundwater Quality
Naturally occurring constituents of primary concern within groundwater of the Central and
West Coast Basins include, but are not limited to. total dissolved solids (TDS), color, arsenic,
Gateway Integrated 7-30 Final
Regional Water Management Plan June 2013
rrian�.�nrc���. „nil iron. Groundwater i� also impacted by cordanlinalion from local industry
and Irom orpanic contaminants moving., throuph \Vhitticr Narrows from the San Ciahricl
Bay -in. `>,nthcti( contaminants of concern include "Ichlorocthy lene (TUA
tetrachImocth.lcnc (PCE). and 1.4-dioxanc.
7.2.7 Existing Monitoring Network
Gmmnckatcr quality and levels within the Cennal and )Nest Coast Basins are formally
monitored by the NV'RD in cooperation with the l_)nitedStates Geological Survey (USGs) and
43 cities in southern Los Angeles County. AVRD's Regional Groundwater Monitoring
Program currently consists of a network of300 nested monitoring wells at over 50 locations
(multiple yells per location having perforations at varying depths), In addition to collecting
and reporting data Ifom its monitoring well network. WVRD compiles and evaluates data from
the California Department of Public Health (CDPH) database. a publicly available database
of purveyor and individual production well water quality data for wells within California.
NVINO) regularly compiles and analyzes this data and publishes the findings in an annual
Regional (huuncha ter Monitoring Report (RGWMR).
7.2.7.1 rAonitoring Features
Monitoring Wells
NVithin \V'RD's current network of 300 monitoring wells. 161 are located within the Los
Angeles Gateway Region at 31 separate locations (sec Figure 7-20). These nested
monitorinp, wells arc screened in specific aquifers to allow for a more detailed assessment
chemical occurrence and migration, and the health of the groundwater basin. Nearly 500
groundwater samples and over 100 individual water quality constituents are collected and
analyzed annually from individual aquifers. In addition to groundwater quality. the 'XRD
monitoring wells arc utilized to monitor groundwater levels.
Maintaining historical groundwater level records is essential for the management of any
groundwater hasin. Lowering ofgroundwater levels below the perforated intervals or near
the pump howls of production wells can result in costly mitigation measures (e.g. lowering of
pump bowls). In extreme cases, lowered groundwater levels can result in adverse
environmental impacts. Thus. representative groundwater level measurements are a key
component upon which basin management decisions are made. Dedicated groundwater
monitoring wells (wells that are not pumped). arc essential to obtaining representalivc
groundwater level measurements Q., "static- groundwater levels that are not directly
influenced by pumping). Groundwater levels measured in production wells that arc
frequently pumped often do not represent static conditions because the pump in the well
cannot be turned off long enough for the water level to completely return to static (pre -
pumping) conditions in the well.
Production Wells
The Los Angeles Gateway Region includes more than 50 water purveyors supplying water to
35 cities. Production wells in the Central and West Coast Basins are perforated at varying
depths and often span multiple aquifer systems and restrictive boundaries. AWater from these
supply, wells may be considered a blend of water quality from multiple aquifer zones and can
Galmnly Nwgmtcci 7-31 Final
Regional \eater Management Plan June 2W 3
produce a wide range of Avater quality results. Figure 7-21 shows the approximate locations
ofproduction wells, both municipal and irrigation. within the Los Angeles Gateway Region'.
7.2.8 Measurement Frequency
7.2.8.1 Groundwater Levels
Groundwater levels in the monitoring network are ew-rently being measured by NNIRD at a
minimum of every three months. Howcver. some monitoring wells contain automaticc data
loggers which arc capable of measuring and recording water levels on a daily basis. Levels
arc recorded to the nearest 0.01 foot. Hydrographs presenting this data can be found in
WRD's RGWMR (WRD, 2012).
7.2.8.2 Groundwater Quality
Groundwater samples are collected from WRD's monitoring wells on a semiannual basis
(i.e., twice per year). The results of the water quality laboratory analyses are presented
annually in tabular and map forms along with selected water quality data from local
production wells as provided by CDPH. Ten (10) constituents have been selected by WRD
as being most representative of overall groundwater quality:
• Total Dissolved Solids (TDS)
• Iron
• Manganese
• Nitrate
• Chloride
• chromium
• Trichloroethylene (TCE)
• Tetrachloroethylene (PC1 )
• Arsenic
• Perchlorate
• Hexavalent
` The locations of these wells as shown on Figure7-21 have been randomly shifted to protect the privacy and
security of the Nvc11 owner and do not represent exact locations.
Gateway Integrated 7-32 Final
Regional Water Management Plan June 2013
7.2.9 Data Management
Groundwater level and water quality data is collected and reported by WRD in cooperation
with the IJSGS. Results can be found on WRD's wcbsite where the data is presented using
an interactive map interface along with customizable search options. Monitoring well
construction details. including well specifications and screen depths, are provided in a tabular
format. Production volumes, water levels, and water quality data are provided by local
purveyors for the majority of the active and inactive production wells in the West Coast and
Central Basins.
As mentioned previously, data compiled and reviewed by WRD is published annually in the
RGWMR. The RGWMR presents groundwater level and water quality data from the
previous water year which runs from October 1 through September 30.
7.2. 10 Identification of Data Gaps
The monitoring program currently being implemented by WRD was evaluated for the
purposes of improving monitoring and reporting, of groundwater levels and water quality
within the Los Angeles Gateway Region. A thorough understanding of basin conditions is
critical to maintaining clean groundwater sources for municipal supply, identifying potential
areas of concern, preventing overdraft, and combating sea water intrusion. Although WRD's
monitoring network is very thorough, several locations in the Central and West Coast Basins
were identified for potential improvement. Since WRD intelligently designs and constructs
monitoring wells to be representative of individual aquifer systems, it is assumed that the
vertical distribution of data is adequate wherever an existing nested monitoring well is
present.
7.2.10.1 Groundwater Levels
Spatial Distribution
WRD's extensive network of nested monitoring wells is located throughout the Los Angeles
Gateway Region; however, some areas have been identified where spatial data gaps exist.
Data gaps were identified by applying a 1.5-mile buffer zone surrounding each of the
existing monitoring wells. In this way, areas with greater than three miles between
monitoring wells were identified. These areas are shown on Figure 7-22 as gaps between the
1.5-mile buffers and include the following major locations:
• Bellflower/Paramount
• Long Beach
• Cerritos
• Whittier
• South Gate
• Lynwood
• LakcNvood
Gateway tntegra►ed 7-34 Final
Regional hater Management Plan Junc 2013
NVRI7 W indicated that i1 is planning on installing sip (0) additional ncstc(I III (,rIiIoIint, \vcll�.
Ihrcc (3) n1 vNhich arc located within the area'. idenlilicd as data gaps (i.e.. �.ouith (iatc,
L.ylmood.:nid I alxwood). The locations of Ihcsc \VR,.D proposed monitoring \\clls arc
sho��i7 as asterisks on J=figure 7-23.
Frequency of Monitoring
Grouild"nicr levels my currently monitored by WI D at minimum every 3 months (ix,.
quarterly). There are also several monitoring wells that are equipped with pressure
transducers and data -logging equipment that measure and record water levels on a daily
basis. Quarlerly monitoring ofwater levels is an acceptahle frequency which can be
cffectiycly used to identify seasonal variations.
U10.2 Groundwater Quality
Groundwater quality in the Los Angeles Gateway Region is monitored on a regular basis by
production well purveyors, CDPI I, WRD. and others in order to identify and mitiaatc
negative impacts to underlying aquifers and to protect public health. Possible negative
impacts Amy include contamination from chemicals used in industry. illegal discharges. past
agricultural activities. leaking Iuel tanks. disposal sites. and seawater intrusion Iron over
pumping (&groundwater wells near the coast. Occurrence and concentrations of these
chemiuds can vary depending on pumping conditions and aquifer recharge. and as such.
regular monitoring is required to detect changes.
Spatial Distribution
(_"amcWhzing specific aquifer properties is critical to hiroper well design. and the ability to
track the wain l and horizontal migration of contaminant plumes is critical to mitigation
cfforts. The seven locations identified in Section 4.1.1 (i.e.. Bellflower/Paramount. long,
Beach. Cerritos. VThher. South Gate. Lynwood, and Lake\vood) also apply as sites where
additional water quality monitoring would be beneficial. Monitoring of sea water intrusion
along the coast near Long Beach is one such site where focused efforts should continue.
Other sites of environmental concern can be found in Figure 7-24. and include Superlund
sites. land disposal sites, military cleanup sites, and cleanup program sites. Monitoring of
existing wells or installation of additional wells in these locations should continue to be a top
priority.
Frequency of Monitoring
Groundwater is sampled from monitoring wells within WRD's network and submitted to
State-ccrlilied laboratories on a semiannual basis during both the wet and dry periods of the
year Q. spring/wimcr and summer/lall) so that seasonal variations in groundwater quality
can be documented. Groundwater quality results from municipal production wells arc
submitted to CDPH at a minimum of every three (3) years by individual purveyors in order to
comply Nyith the We of California Title 22 rule. The semiannual monitoring frequency
implemented by AND. in addition to the 3-year production well sampling frequency for
CDPH compliance, is considered adequate.
Gatemay Imepowd T35 Final
Regional \eater Management Plan We 2O 13
x
O
m
Z
a>
O
C
O
F
F
d
0.
C
aFi
'y
E
eo
0
ti
cry a
N
.0
Pr,
ti
�
� C
ii
C� a
cr
1'11`41 l Quolify Constifucnt
W R I ) currcnlly rcports results for 68 \vatcr duality constituents from sarnl?Ics colfccled fronu
their ncsacd monitoring well network. Chemical constituents include general mineral and
phy�.iral properlics. inorganics. metals. and volatile organic compounds. These constiluenL;
arc suf,f icicnt Vol general monitoring: however. monitoring of additional constituents nuav he
beneficial. W ler quality data for monitoring). municipal. and irrigation wells \v,ithin the Loy
Angela Gateway Region vyore obtained iron \VRD and CDPI I water quality dat;rbascs. In
an effort to idcnlik areas within the Gateway Region that are impacted by contaminants in
excess of rcgrrintory limits. historical groundwater quality data over the period of record from
2002 to 2012 were queried for constituents in excess of the iollo"Ing minimum regulalor;
levels. regardless ofthe aquifer(s) screened by the "Al.
• Primary Maximum Contaminant Levels (M('I.,$)
• Secondary MCf.,s
In addition. historical groundwater quality data over the relatively recent past (i.e.. from 20O2
to 2012) were queried for constituents in excess of the following advisory levels, regardless
()fill(' aquilcr(s) screened by the well.
• Notilication bevels (previously referred to as Aclion Levels)
• Archived Advisory Lcyels
"I'hosc constilucnts in excess of these regulatory and/or advisory levels at 10 or greater
locations were considered areas of signif icanl regional groundwater quality impairment and
selected for mapping. The 1o11owing 14 constilucnts N\ere found to be in excess of minimum
rcgtrlator.y and/or advisory levels at 10 or greater locations and wcre mapped as points of
varying diameter according to concentration level (GEOSCIFNCE. 2013):
• Color
• Odor
• p1l
• Turhidil�
• Specific Conductance
Total Oissolved Solids (TDS)
h-o n
• MangallCSe
• Sulfate
• Aluminum
• Arsenic
• "T Orachloroethylow (PCE)
• Trichloroethylow (TCE)
• 1.4-dioxanc
One of these 14 constituents impacting groundwater in the Los Angeles Gateway Region has
not been included in WRD's annual RG\\ NJJ� .
Gatc\Vay Inrclraicd T 3 Q Finial
Regional Water M,in,+gcmcnt Plan June 2111
• 1.4-diOX1111e
1.4-dioxonc. an industrial solvent stabilizer, has notification levels (i.c., a CDPH health based
advisory Icvel). but have not been assigned an MCL. This constituent has been identified by
CDPFI and the USEPA as being a contaminant of emerging concern. Other emerging
contaminants or groups of contaminants not reported in the RGWMR include:
• 1,2.3-trichloropropane
• NDNIA
• Tcrt-Butyl-Alcohol (TBA)
• Pharmaceuticals
• Personal Care Products
• Gross alpha
Special attention should be paid to these constituents of emerging conccm as they may have
an impact on human health regardless of whether an MCL has currently been assigned. It
would be beneficial for fixture WRD groundwater monitoring reports to includee these
chemicals for reference, several of which have been included in the USEPA's Unregulated
Contaminant Monitoring Rule 3 (UCMR 3). a monitoring requirement of specific public
water systems, which is currently in effect through 2015.
7.2.12 Findings
Based on this evaluation of existing groundwater monitoring practices and groundwater
quality within the Los Angeles Gateway Region, the following findings have been identified:
There are seven (7) major areas within the Los Angeles Gateway Region that have been
identified as spatial (vertical and lateral) data gaps within the WRD monitoring network:
o 13ellflower/Paramount
o Long Beach
o Cerritos
o Whittier
o South Gate
o Lynwood
o Lakewood
• Current semiannual groundwater quality sampling of monitoring wells as implemented by
WRD is adequate and allows for monitoring of seasonal variations in groundwater quality.
• The current quarterly monitoring frequency for groundwater levels as implemented by
WRD is adequate and allows for reporting of seasonal fluctuations in groundwater levels.
• Current groundwater quality monitoring and reporting frequencies for local production
wells are considered adequate for effective monitoring of'blended groundwater quality.
UCMR 3 groundwater quality monitoring as required by USEPA is a proactive approach to
monitoring and early identification of emerging contaminants of concern.
• CDPH and the USEPA identify 1,4-dioxanc as an emerging contaminants of concern.
GLOSCIINCE (2013) found 1,4-dioxane to be a constituents of concern within the
Gateway Region . though it was not currently reported within WRD's annual RGWMR. .
Gateway Integrated 7-40 Final
Regional Water Management Plan June 2013
l F�� Colltm im" constituents Or chcmic.]l prmih�i h;+o c hccn identified h� C DI'I I sold tl;(
PA ;i,, rmcrjv,"W contaminants off mean and air not cmcntly reported MAW 0N'RI
onnu;il
cI-,'--'-iricliloropropanc
cPhat"macc[IIicaIs
PCrSonal Care Products
c NDK1A
c, Gross Alpha
7.2.13 recommendations
The iollowinj� reconnnendadons include suggested changes to existing monitoring and
reporting, programs within the Los Angeles Gateway Region that may improve spatial and
temporal coverage of Be data being collcctcd.
In addition to WRITS planned construction of ncstcd monitoring wells in South Gatc.
Lynwood. and Lakewood. four additional monitoring wells located in
13cllilo��cr/Paramount. Long Beach. Cerritos. and Whitlicr Nould help to provide more
aquifrr-specific groundwater ICvcl and water data in areas that arc currently lacking
dcdlCaICd monitoring, wells.
• The 1ol lowing groundwater quality constituents and chemical groups identified by the
CDPI1 and t IS1 PA as being, chemicals of emerging emwem and may be considered as an
addition to future WRD Regional Groundwater Monitoring Reports.
c, I.2.3-ti-ichloropropanc
c, TI A
o Pharmaceuticals
o Personal ('are Products
(;foss Alpha Was found by GEOSOENCI (2013) to be a constituent of concern within the
Los Angeles Gateway Region. I1 should also he noted that 1.4-dioxane was found to be in
excess of its respective notification Ievcl in over ten wells within the LA Gateway Region
fir the period of record from 2002 to 2012 (GEOSCIENCE. 20131 It is recommended that
these two constituents. at a minimum. he included within VVRD's sampling and reporting
protocol.
�J 1.4-dloNanc
o Ofoss alpha
Gateway Iniermw(j 7-41 Final
Regional \Water Nlanagcnient Plan Jmc 2013
8 Storm Water and Flooding Issues
8.1 Flooding Problem Areas
In order to assess and catalog existing problem areas for flooding in the Gateway IRWMP
Region, Tetra "Lech created an online survey. The survey was intended to be a simple vehicle to
collect flooding information from stakeholders who have extensive experience in their respective
communities. The survey was created using c , i:'ior,l � ,.com and was provided in the
following format: --- ---
1. Name
2. Affiliation/Organization
3. Title
4. Email Address
5. Describe the flooding issues at Location #L including address or cross streets. [a] How sever is
the flooding at this location? (e.g.. mild, moderate, sever). [b] What size storms cause flooding
at this location? (e.g., only large storms?)
6. Additional questions for Locations #21, 43, #4, and #5
As shown above. the stakeholders were generally asked to describe the locations. frequency and
severity of known flooding problems. The location of flooding problems was described by
address and/or cross street. The severities of flooding were ranked as mild, moderate, or severe.
Flooding frequency is related to the size storm event that causes the flooding (i.e., flooding
during small storms means more frequent flooding). Areas that should be considered most
problematic are those which exhibit severe flooding from small storms. It is acknowledged that
the relative ranking of severity and frequency is not precisely defined and is subjective; follow-
up work could be perlormed to quantify the flooding depths and frequency at identified
locations.
Each of the surveys was compiled into an electronic database and is included in Appendix E. In
total, there were responses from 17 agencies and 70 locations were reported. Responses to the
survey indicate that there are several locations within the Gateway IRWMP Region that
experience severe flooding and many more that experience mild to moderate flooding. Figure 8-1
highlights the results of the survey geographically with graphics that are color -coded to identify
flooding severity and storm frequency. A general summary of the survey results includes the
following:
Severe flooding;: Nine areas in Huntington Park, sections of Downey, and one location in
Bellflower were reported to have severe flooding from small storms. The second most
susceptible areas were described as exhibiting severe flooding from medium storms. Two
locations in Montebello and one location in Santa Fe Springs were reported to have severe
flooding from moderate storms. The third most susceptible areas were described as
exhibiting severe flooding from large storms. Several locations in Cudahy, South Gate, and
Lynwood were reported to have severe flooding from large storms.
Gateway Integrated 8-1 Final
Regional Water Management Plan June 2013
• Moderate flooding: Many locations throughout the Gateway IRWMP Region were
identified as ha%,ing moderate flooding. Only one location in Santa Fe Springs was identified
as susceptible to moderate flooding from small storms. Several locations in Montebello,
Commerce, Downey. and Santa Fe Springs were reported as susceptible to moderate flooding
from medium storms. And many locations in Vernon, Paramount, Bellflower. Lakewood.
and Norwalk were reported as susceptible to moderate flooding from large storms.
• Mild flooding: Mild flooding associated with medium storms was reported in Bell Gardens
and mild flooding associated with large storms was reported in Bell Gardens and Montebello.
Gateway Integrated 8-2 Final
Regional Water Management Plan June 2013
Figure 8-1. IRWMP Survey Responses for Flooding
Gateway Integrated 8-3 Final
Regional Water Management Plan June 2013
8.2 Storm Water Quality Problem Areas
Storm water quality problem areas in the Gateway Region were assessed using a hydrodynamic
water quality model. The approach used the water quality model to identify areas within the
region that have the potential to generate storm water pollutants. The Watershed Management
Modeling System (WMMS) developed by Los Angeles County Flood Control District (Tetra
"Tech 2010a; Tetra "Tech 2010b) was used to evaluate current water quality conditions within the
Gateway IRWMP Region. The watershed model component of the WMMS is the Loading
Simulation Program C++ (LSPC). LSPC is a comprehensive data management and modeling
system that is capable of representing loading, both flow and water quality, from non -point and
point sources and simulating in -stream processes. LSPC as configured for the WMMS simulates
the Gateway IRWMP Region as a series of hydrologically connected sub -watersheds. The LSPC
model in WMMS is calibrated to existing conditions in the Gateway IRWMP Region for runoff,
total nitrogen (TN). total phosphorus (TP), copper (Cu), lead (Pb), zinc (Zn), total suspended
solids (TSS), and fecal coliform.
The LSPC model was run over the period of 1998 to 2006, and the relative annual average yield
of pollutants (e.g., pounds per acre per year) from each subwatershed within the Gateway Region
was calculated. Results of the LSPC model are shown in Figures 8-1 through 8-8 to highlight
"Hot Spot"" contribution areas for each of the calibrated constituents. The figures are color coded
to show the relative generation of storm water runoff and pollutants. A "loading factor" was
applied to each of the maps to facilitate a color -coded rendering of the storm water runoff and
pollutant generation within the Gateway IRWMP Region. To determine the range of average
annual pollutant and/or runoff contributions by watershed, match the color on the map with the
color- in the loading key. Then, multiply the range of values in the loading key by the "baseline"
shown at the top of the loading key. The resulting range of values is the average annual pollutant
loads/runoff volume for the area of interest. Section3.8.1 listed the designated beneficial uses for
surface waters in the Gateway Region and identified which stream reaches are impaired.
The results shown in Ogures.84 tbiougl $-9 are the first step in identifying where storm water
best management practices (BMPs) could provide the greatest benefits. To refine the analyses
for storm water/total maximum daily load planning, additional analyses should be performed
including the fbllowing:
1. Assess the relative impact of the pollutant -generating areas on receiving water quality.
For example, areas that are very close to receiving waters can have a higher impact on
receiving water quality even if the pollutant load generated from those areas is lower
compared to upstream areas (due to attenuation/decay during downstream travel).
2. Consider the cost-effectiveness of available BMPs. Wide arrays of BMPs are available to
storm water agencies to reduce flows and pollutants. Each type of BMP will have its own
cost effectiveness depending on location, performance, capital cost, and
operation/maintenance. Approaches to BMP selection should be compared, including using
distributed BMPs across the watershed versus using centralized BMPs that capture and/or
treat large drainage areas. The types of available BMPs are discussed in the next section.
These analyses can be performed within LSPC and the other components of the WMMS. The
SUSTAIN component of WMMS is designed as a decision support system used to develop,
Gateway Integrated 8-4 Final
Regional Water Management Plan .Lune 2013
evaluate, and select optimal BMP combinations at various watershed scales based on cost and
effectiveness. SUSTAIN could help the Gateway Authority partnership determine which BMP
alternatives (types_ locations. and sizes) provide the greatest benefit for achieving management
objectives while balancing costs.
Also, it should be noted that the results below are most useful for considering tit�et "�eulher
impacts. Dry weather impacts are often highly dependent on localized sources (e.g.. leaking
sewer lines or birds for bacteria loading).
Gateway Integrated 8-5 Final
Regional Water Management Plan June 2013
a
LL
x x
�� f +, la," 5. ie E y •� o
�y �vt. k" 4 f6 X O O
t0 a ¢^` U tt
Al
� � t
Q.
771,
Ale
' a �
r,
w k LL � U 4 fit+
ti
0' D
r �;
wR E D r
4'
_ m
CD
CD
c iF ; '•
pp
�b r
Ali
IRK
I Ale
� It C d � 4 I � ,�,' r !�_ �,� ;• f4w 9� r �} �� � 1
cm
'47 co
Z 3 £dkIiSll n a yip '
LL
cc
E:
lL
'� ; � "z. w r y�Etaa ;� '] ,�i?�" j'► "tFra+., a m
14
tto
x x x x
o v 1�1 w
Cl) �
1, k.,�: Ma, i + ;lH �71 ` �� ,�•- �. to c co ta � ri m
(
21
x'tu i
` s14
A%a IT
ir
CL
k
W
i t
491ID
oyo +
'S
cp ! — y
C9a P-
L t' -
0
� ro
o N
o ss,+0 a ^'`� La Anor.c River 1 w'
g
n J
*6 ivy •� a r a` � � rn
vy
tJC
14
e ell
r f$r 1. t
..'c�
{ a
O
C
a
U)
Cl)
;9
O
F-
O
N
I
t0
m
0)
N
O �
d
rn "
C
V U
O
U
a
J bA
_N CZ
co
C
C1 cs a�
LL i C.:_,
,tea. i� ,, � L � .. ,{ray,, m•
O # r
RE tlAv"
O w
41
$sad t x
•lii ; , i x_ w R ;-i: J na X .xn x uxi n _o
� u7 N th C tD
IL im
Cy
'Ile
IF
cc
Ail
t
f" r( k g' m •. 1t ai X t
N 5 oc
i,.
(r Z s W
lC
xr-
p
u m
0
• T 1�1 �' W� �' E Z C
_
m fix.
mF5 00
kfi _.. m tlttCD
0qj
r z
®�c0
y Y
'; 4 f� 1W,
T
k' f �t • +$ C
cz
c b
k''t
C
fs co ;1
LL
V
1
19
T
00
m
am
CD
NNC
1.1.
Qn
cv�
CO
C
a
�
J
y �
�3
L
L
3 0
a)
U-
C7
LL a
X X X
y m X
I rAr
7
�~ • n�� • t AYY �L~ O t9
IL IM
r
to ", s'� � ''e i �,#�tr�. � '�' �' �a �r j�� ��~r�° �,'�• n�� y�!;,
CY
•� y., �+ "� `m � as '�' tt t��r4 a. 4f �. `' ,� �' '�*,e ,�
CD
0 D q
a r,kwNo-A �
Les Angeles lover
r � -
.�-
.� a
Vl C
7
O OG
z
Q
U)
O
t
a
N
O
I
CO
O
O
N
I
co
0)
a)
N
C �
a 01
C
U � �
c
�3
co
3 0
M v
LL �J
L
a
a
0
U
m
0
0
N
I
o
m
m
� O
.d
all LL
o^ x x x x x
' K a r
rr �•, y 'A4,. "z � �'•"..' � } sq 4 t Er: ro i f 're '. �j �` a'�'�aS*y��.�§ � �w°
e —NOc
dy 'a
�`'r, lA>•°
WWI
f 4Jii N ` ,i` �
r « i ��' ►�' .� �. ��-
�y.��
ID
In
_ � x
u t p'
U
,41
V%-i
�T.W
co
CD
�
CD
(14
��"4, m L Rive,
Igloo t,
71
ao
ay #`� # as a{ii r '" � .� )" '•. �� p�KT ��+F ;. � �+ '� �• ,�,:' d' L'.
C Chi
A�
jel-
,a s ins
•t y *� _ �..•r � }fie 00 ?, �•
U Eli
LM
U- CL
8.3 Best Management Practices
Given the multiple contaminant sources that contribute to storm water impacts and diverse urban
land uses in the Gateway IRWMP Region. the Gateway Authority faces multiple challenges
when selecting storm water BMPs. including their locations, types, sizes, and quantifying their
performance. Most of the structural BMPs that are appropriate for the Gateway Region fall into
two main categories:
1. Centralized BMPs: practices that treat relatively large drainage areas including extended
dry detention basins and water quality wet ponds.
2. Distributed BMPs: practices that treat local runoff including swales, bioretention, rain
barrels, cisterns, parking lot retrofits, permeable pavement, and downspout disconnection.
In many areas. centralized BMPs provide an economy -of -scale over distributed practices because
they are able to capture/treat a larger drainage area; however, the cost and availability of land in
the Gateway Region could greatly increase the cost of centralized BMPs. Nevertheless.
centralized BMPs would still be considered for flow reduction/ water quality treatment in at least
two cases: (1) where publicly -owned land is available, and (2) for total maximum daily loads
(TMDL,$) with large pollutant reduction requirements, meaning centralized BMPs might be
necessary to meet flow and/or water quality objectives (despite their high cost).
When distributed BMPs are correctly implemented and maintained, significant storm water flow
and water quality improvements can be realized, and could be more cost-effective than
centralized facilities. It should be noted that it is often difficult to ensure that distributed BMPs
are being maintained to perform as designed. For example, rain barrels are only effective if they
are emptied regularly for irrigation. Permeable pavement is only effective when it is free of
sediment and other clogging debris. The large and/or varied type of distributed BMPs often
makes it difficult to implement a regular maintenance program. On the other hand, distributed
BMPs may provide additional multi -use benefits when compared to centralized BMPs including
improved neighborhood aesthetics.
Some pollutant sources — like metals, fertilizers and pet waste — cannot be addressed by a limited
number of structural BMPs; therefore, non-structural BMPs including public policies, education.
and outreach may be necessary to support pollutant load reduction efforts. Potential non-
structural BMPs include water conservation, true source control (e.g.. eliminating copper from
brake pads or banning pesticide use), citizen education. illicit discharge elimination. and channel
restoration. Also. there are dry weather -specific BMPs that could be considered including low
flow diversions which are not discussed herein.
The following descriptions outline the general characteristics of centralized and distributed
BMPs.
Gateway Integrated 8-14 Final
Regional Water Management Plan June 2013
8.3.1 Centralized BMPs (draining/treating larger
areas)
8.3.1.1 Dry Extended Detention
These devices store storm water runoff and reduce storm
water peal: flow rates. Storm water enters the device
through an inlet, which may be a grass -lined channel or
storm water pipe. An embankment detains storm water.
and an outlet riser controls the downstream release rate of
the impounded water. Storm water is detained for a longer
period of time than in conventional dry detention ponds;
the longer detention time allows for more removal of Total
Suspended Solids (TSS) and nutrients from the storm water.
8.3.1.2 Water quality (wet) ponds
A wet pond maintains a permanent pool of water. This
device stores storm water runoff and reduces storm water
flow. The ponding of storm water allows excess sediment
to settle out of the water and encourages bacteria to use
excess nutrients. Portions of other pollutants may also be
removed. Storm water first enters a forebay, which is a
small depression lined with rocks that slows the incoming
storm water- flow and settles out larger particles. The outlet
structure and emergency spillway control the rate of water
draining out of the pond.
8.3.2 Distributed BMPs (draining/treating smaller areas)
8.3.2.1 Bioretention
Bioretention areas are depressions filled with 2 to 4 feet of
sandy soil and planted with drought and flood tolerant
plants. Storm water drains into the surface of the
bioretention area and, as the water infiltrates through the
sandy soil, the soil and plants remove a portion of'
pollutants. In areas with sandy loam or other highly
permeable soils. the water treated by the bioretention cell
will infiltrate into the native soil. In areas that have soils
with low permeability (typically clay -dominated soils), a
gravel layer and underdrain pipe are placed below the
sandy soil layer. Once the storm water infiltrates through
the treatment cells sandy soil, it is drained out of the device through the underdrain pipe. Most
bioretention areas are designed so that up to a foot of water can pond in the cell during a rain
event. A weir is included in the bioretention area to bypass excess water above the ponding
Gateway Integrated 8-15 Final
Regional Water Management Plan June 2013
depth. Since bioretention areas use mulch and a variety of shrubs and small trees, they can be
easily incorporated into existing landscaping.
8.3.2.2 Swales
A grass Swale is a grass -lined channel with sloped banks.
Culverts are used to pass storm water under driveways
and streets. Unlike water quality swales, grass swales do
not have a sandy soil layer or gravel underdrains. Grass
swales are used to convey storm water runoff and slow
storm water flow. They are an alternative to storm sewer
pipes, which produce higher storm water flows than
grass swales, especially for smaller storm events. Grass
swales also remove some sediment if the storm water
flow is controlled.
8.3.2.3 Rainwater harvesting
Rainwater harvesting reduces runoff during a storm
event by retaining a portion of the runoff for future use.
This can be accomplished by using storage tanks called
cisterns or rain barrels. Cisterns are tanks that hold
rainwater for irrigation and other uses. The cistern
pictured to the right can hold over 200 cubic feet of
water. These can be pre -manufactured or constructed
onsite. They also can be incorporated inconspicuously
into the side of a building. Rain barrels typically hold
less water than cisterns, about 8 cubic feet per rain
barrel. if these devices are designed properly and if
77
_w �5.
.%' �.
water is reused frequently, they can be used to control
storm water runoff; reduce storm water flow, and remove some pollutants.
8.3.2.4 Retrofit of parking area to disconnect impervious surfaces
This strategy involves the re -design of a parking lot so that runoff is captured and treated in
distributed storm water BMPs like bioretention. Grass swales may be employed as a conveyance
to the bioretention, providing additional pollutant removal.
8.3.2.5 Disconnect downspouts
This practice involves reducing the amount of concentrated storm water runoff leaving a site by
disconnecting roof downspouts from drainage systems. Some houses or other buildings may not
be directly connected to the municipal storm sewer system, but still may have an onsite drainage
system or diffused runoff that could be disconnected. The roof runoff is diffused and directed
into natural areas, gardens, bioretention cells. etc.
Gateway Integrated 8-16 Final
Regional Water Management Plan June 2013
8.3.2.6 Permeable pavement
Permeable pavement differs from conventional
asphalt and concrete in that it allows for infiltration of
water during a rainfall event. Permeable pavement
types include porous asphalt, porous concrete (shown
to the right). and paving stones interspersed with
sandy soil or other porous fill. These types of
pavement vary in vehicular traffic capacity. Grass
parking lots, reinforced with plastic rings, are
typically used for overflow parking, while some
permeable pavement can be designed to handle more
frequent traffic.
8.4 Summary of Storm Water Problem Areas
The flooding survey and LSPC water quality model generated a multitude of maps with areas
that could potentially be targeted by storm water management strategies. These maps were
combined into two figures that compose a screening lcr,el assessment to assist with prioritization
management needs within the Gateway IRWMP Region, as follows:
figure 8-10 shows prioritized focus areas for flood mitigation measures based on results
from the flooding survey. The map is not intended to be an exhaustive list of flood prone
areas; rather, it is intended to be a starting point when developing a more rigorous plan for
addressing flooding issues. The potential prioritization in terms of flooding severity/frequency
is expressed in order from I (red) to 4 (green). Note that these are areas in lvhich flooding
issues occur, it may be necessary or cost-effective to capture storm water in other/upstream
areas to reduce the frequency/severity of flooding in these highlighted areas.
Figure 8-1l shows primary and secondary focus areas for runoff and water quality
management needs for the entire Gateway IRWMP Region. Like the flooding maps, the runoff
and water quality maps and discussion below are solely intended to be a starting point when
developing a more rigorous water quality improvement plans (TMDL implementation plans).
The potential prioritization for efforts to reduce storm water runoff/pollutants is shown as high
priority (purple) and secondary priority (green). As described in Section 8.2, these highlighted
areas are based on wet weather pollutant generation, efforts to quantify the relative impact of
these areas on receiving water quality and cost-effectiveness of BMPs in these areas are
important next steps.
The identified storm water problem areas provide another "layer" of information for the Gateway
stakeholders to develop projects that meet the overall goals and objectives of the IRWMP. The
storm water information herein should be combined with water supply and water quality
information to identify, rank, and implement projects that provide multiple uses and benefits for
the Gateway Region.
Gateway Integrated 8-17 Final
Regional Water Management Plan
June 2013
M
74,
o
`' 6 "f € r yi{„X ii Kid l: cW T► 1`�., &. N (6 N1AA(0
'r��?+l
W t,
LL
a yr �„t 'j �; g � .,;• �, � �� O
t lY `�, 7 -•,;, w
o
u � -
I �
u
o0
41r,fr
ri, �
A
Win
C 4
La HnyelesRiver
LL
m aet}Y ecr
r ka#� w .�, "` vti t«r,„G• 2` N
�'� cµa t ,r. "t. •ihi j�.;� r 'k ass .� . C°.s+. �j��,�� w � �.. � Q
cc
cz
PA { x r '� 'krs r' w A �'}taE cf'"' " i °r .«R0b•
m d
err § dt�"
i .h y, N c a
��_ � •y� n � "9t',yyT `� fib' - (t � � K (.J � N
cz
Z •r�_C+, v t� 3 a• r
n_ cU
rJ �
�3
� � v
it C7
m
l
S L, - y,`_ 1p" 'ill' s i� $^ 'i'i^{ ,I+t�f� +� '�, •1n+Sr3 s . `� "., �R�`�''`� 4 « i;$. '- Q L
a :' ie' ti�.a .. ,, .�'a e � 'red' Y ' �' `irJ• R �"d #�f � q x � �r f,, •. � �
t ;.s {.�y Nlt � e+�� ¢ � �, ' � a e �t'���!�y.... k ++'�.sr ��tts� �`'.•�, � ^i�A 9 � � O
RINI
'•"• { �„ r.t y4 sr e a,s^7F'"� a^ 3'"; ��ti � ,� ���� s-'* �� ' �
?p
�.:�, ',<x a _. f � �� �"�� r��� � a 7 � � >rr., x ri�i ' ii � �� �if Ir { �'r • w Q.
u
$+hp, Ale
#''�
, _ r • }J�,� gig$ ..+x t i t. �''xY K`d .a�' t la�*'.y ra$t � _'� � ,� to
n.+e 4}h"�� IL i '10 j � $Y a �, .o * � •'
Ag
E.' u a
t1 EJEf (21Y4f
q
E
.3 � 2`7$. - 2 J C 6 n ate° •y, -«+' m
f a r 4 1 ®
t11 wm a o
F�
I
9 Water Supply and Demand. Today and in the
Future
This chapter hresents the current and future water supply and demand conditions for the Gateway
Region. This was done in the form of a water valance by determining how much water is
expected to be available or coming into the Gateway Region (supply), how much water is
expected to be used in the Region (demand). and the difference in how much water is expected to
be available and how much water is expected to he used (surplus or deficit). In this way a general
picture can he formed ofthe Gateway Region's water needs as a whole for the present and into
the future. In addition. the conditions of -the water supplies and demands were analyzed for each
water supplier within the Gateway Region. allowing for the identification of those water
suppliers within the Gateway Region that may he expecting a shortage in future supply and those
water sr.tppliers 117a1 are in the position to assist when there is a water shortage. thus halanc.ing the.
entire Gateway Rcgion's water supply and demand volumes.
This chapter will discuss how the water balance was developed, the results of tlic water balance.
and rcconmundations for balancing the Gateway Rcgion's water. The Gateway Region's water
balance analyzes future water supply and demand for both average water year conditions and
drought year conditions.
9.1 Sources
The 2010 tlrhan \eater Management Plans (IJWN1Ps) for the water suppliers in the Gateway
Region provided the primary sources of information used to develop the Gateway Region water
halanc-c. According to the Urban Water Management Planning Act (California Water Code
§10610 et seq.). a 11WMP is required to be prepared every five years by urban water suppliers
who have either 3.000 or more connections or provide 3.000 acre-feet or more of water per year
to their customers.
For the areas within the Gateway Region not included in an UWNIP. information was provided
by water suppliers via email or telephone correspondence or gathered from plans and reports
produced bN' water suppliers.. including infrastructure annual reports and groundwater
replenishment reports. A list of sources is provided in Table 9-1.
Gateway Integrated 9-1 Final
Regional Water ML•anagcment Plan lone 2013
Table 9-1. Gateway Region Water Balance Sources
2010 Urban Water Management Plans
•
Bellflower -Somerset Mutual Water Company
0
City of Whittier
•
California Water Service Company— East Los Angeles
9
Golden State Water Company — Artesia
District
Golden State Water Company — Bell/Bell Gardens
•
Central Basin Municipal Water District
.
Golden State Water Company— Florence -Graham
•
City of Cerritos
0
Golden State Water Company — Norwalk
•
City of Compton
0
Golden State Water Company — Southwest
•
City of Downey
•
Long Beach Water Department
•
City of Huntington Park
.
Montebello Land and Water Company
•
City of Lakewood
&
Orchard Dale Water District
•
City of Lynwood
•
Park Water Company
•
City of Monterey Park
•
Pico Rivera Water Authority
•
City of Paramount
•
Pico Water District
•
City of Santa Fe Springs
•
Suburban Water District
•
City of South Gate
•
City of Vernon
Other Documents
•
City of Bellflower Municipal Water System 2011 Annual Report
•
Adopted 2012 RTP Growth Forecast, Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG)
•
Water Replenishment District of Southern California Monthly
Production Summary (Acre-feet) for 2004-2010
•
Gateway Regional Water Conservation Alliance Report, Los Angeles
Gateway Region Integrated Regional Water
Management Authority, June 2011 (Gateway Alliance Report)
Water Suppliers Contacted
•
Bellflower -Somerset Mutual Water Company
0
City of Santa Fe Springs
•
City of Bellflower
0
City of Signal Hill
•
City of Compton
0
City of South Gate
•
City of Downey
•
City of Vernon
•
City of Huntington Park
•
City of Whittier
•
City of La Habra Heights
•
Long Beach Water Department
•
City of Lakewood
•
Orchard Dale Water District
•
City of Maywood
0
Pico Rivera Water Authority
•
City of Paramount
0
City of Norwalk
9.2 Background
There are a number of factors that influence water supply and demand in the Gateway Region.
primarily climate and population. The Gateway Region lies in the Southern California Coastal
plain where the climate can be characterized as Mediterranean with cool, wet winters and warm,
dry summers. The average maximum and minimum temperatures are 56.6°F and 77.6°F,
respectively, and the average rainfall is about 14.5 inches per year. This combination of mild
temperatures and low rainfall makes the area ideal for residential uses.
The Gateway Region is also susceptible to droughts due to the low annual rainfall and the
relatively high evapotranspiration (ETo) rate. Evapotranspiration is the water lost to the
atmosphere by evaporation and transpiration and can occur on rivers and lakes, soil, snow. and
plants. The average evapotranspiration for the Gateway Region is about 47.2 inches per year.
Gateway .Integrated 9-2 Final
Regional Water Management Plan June 2013
'I ahlc 9-I J)"" the average annual temperalures. rairlfa)) totals- and rvapolranspiratiorl tota),
coIIccIcd f ('Ili the 20I U t_1i)r the \o,IICl supI)IICI,', Within the Gateway Refion.
loble 9-2. Average Annual Climate Inlorm.ntion lorthn Gatr+wav Pnninn
\1 aler sur r1 tier-- - -.- - _
Ia o
Inches
Rainfall
Inches
\1inimrnn
I cInveraIur'c
F
Masirnun
'I enrperalurc
01:
Re1111owcr-sontrrscl N1\4'l_
46.3
16.02
55.7
79.1
CWSC - Last Lr>>, Aclr,
49.7
14.8
55,8
_
-74
Central Rusin
40.02---
15.38
55.7
79.1
City of Ccrri1w -- -
40-1
12.14
54.8
74.2
Cih of Comptol'
46.3
14.80
55.8
74
Cih of Downcy _ _
403
14.28
55.7
79.1
Citw of)4untii�tlon Pal i
14.80
55.8
74
Cite of L,akcwood
40.3
13.73
54.7
--
74.3
Cih of Long Rcarh --- -_
Not Givcn
Not Given
Not Givcn
Nol Givcn
('ity of l.wnvwood
49.7
14
55.9
--
71.8
Cih of, Montchello --_-
Not Givcn
Not Givcn
Not Givcn
Not Givcn
('ily of Norwalk _ _
46.3
I5.4
69.4
89.-1 -
Cih of(hrhard
Not Given
13
Not Given
Not GiNVII
Cite° o1 Parmiou" t-
46.3
12.15
54.7
74.2
Cih of Santa Fc `�I,rings
40.3
15.4
69.a
- 80.7 --
(,it) of, South (ialc
40.3
14.34
54.5
83.1
Cite of Vernon -
-
15.1
48.3
84.R
City of Whilliei
55.1
17.8
54
GSW(' Artesia_
41? --
11.89
_
54.8
_77
74.2 ---
(iSWC - RcIURcII G:udcns
44.3 -�--
14.55
55.7
79.1
GSWC - Plorencc-Grohurr'
-
44.2
_
14.77
55.8
-
7�l
GSWC - Norwalk_
41.2
14.55
55.
79.1
GSWC - southwcsl _
41.2
11.98
55.1
70.2
Pm'k Walcr _ __
46.3
12.1
Not Givcn
74
Pico Rivera Wales Aulhorilw
49.7
14.78
58.6
77.5 -
Pico Water Dislricl
-
49.7
14.78
58.6
77. 5
suhurban Mato Systems
57.06
14.47
Not Givcn
79.3
_ Galcss_av Region Average
47.2
14.29
56.(r
77.6
Notes:
1. Clinudc yalucs vvrre a�llecled from each water
2. MMC: 1v1utunl \N nicr Compam
3. CVdSC: Calil')rnia V1'ater Service Company
4. M WD: Mctmpolilan Water District
5. GSWC: Golden state Water Company
suPllhcr's 2010 11WN1P.
-
The Galewav Region is mostly built out and is not expected to experience significant further
growth in population. Between the years 2000 and 2010. the Gateway Region grew about 0.4
percent_ as seen in Table 9-3. Populatirnl forecasts reported in the UWMPs indicate a grovviii of
about five percent over the next 20 years ending in 2030 ("fable 9-4).
Gateway lnlegralud 9-3 Final
Regional Watcl Management Plan lone 201 3
2
c
i
v
C
r
4
00
C,
t—
r)
R
�c
N v)
OC
ram'
C
vJ N
C
rJ'
or, N
M
N
C
�
N
F.
3
v
c
11
OC
OC
N
cc
r
N
C,
K
•7
�c
th OC
S'J
j-
C
N
N
�.
VC
'�J
IN
N
00
N
00
N
O
OC
N
v)
01
N
U
r;M
M
r
�',
OC
V
V_.
td
J
V
Q
"Cl
F
v)
W)
N
tt
OC
(—
N
vl
O
O1
't 00
fV
C,
�c
V
oC
1'
v)
N
^•
^�
N
�r
O
N
n
N
t—
t�
C�
M
O
n
C,
oc O
C1
O�
.- C,
M
rj,
C
N
�C
W)
'r
fJ
C�
N
�D
M
'c7
OC
t.,)
O
00
C)
t`
nj'
V)
C�
O M
.
M
V
ct
et
C1
N
W)
00
V
.�
�C
N
C
C
Ct
v)
N
�p
00
t
C,
V�'
OC
Q
t '
a.C.
G
>
0U
.0
i
C
C
C
C
O
-'t
oc
-Y
OC
00
M
00
�'
N
C,
00
N
M
N
Vl
t�1
O
�)
r
OC
OC
O
oc
M
lc
�D
t—
oC
v)
O
OC
'e7
QC
Wl
C,
ct
O
N
M,
n
t�
'cl'
^
7
OC
V)
OC
W)
N
M
v) �c
N
M
M [�
00
'T
ry
'r•
N
t
.--
N
M
et,
t�
C
cr.
M
�'
M
C,,
l�
^
00
C,
O
00
�„
N
OC N
-.I-
V'
C
C1
N
\D
V)
t`
v)
Wl
C
ro
C
O
V
R
.fi
C
V
ro
V
C
C
C
w
C
a
0.
c
x
�
cad
W
t
ro
`
V
C7
c
o
i
o
ro
o
v
o
ro
C] r
alCL
C
V
>
E
o
n
V
_
k
E
E
v
3
3
r
x
Y
c
F>
K
c
c
G •�
�
Q)
V
a)V
4J
C
G
O
td
C
%
c
C
F�
E
U¢
m
m
m
c�
C
ro
ro
ro
O
>>
r
Z
C a
a,
V)
W. r.l
i
F
V
V
LL f i
C'
C
U I G' I �� I C 1^'• I C, I �C I 'T I Lf' I I ,�� I O I I~ I C� 11 • I e' I C' I r., � I I I C 11^,1 I a• I C, I N I C, 17_.
c _ c - `c '
^ ^t n c.'. O ram., — o^ C 11, '
^ r., '� C C.
�C r. -t C. �c 'L C^
^t LC C oC C' ,f,
1
fl v r G� ri C , r, '^' C ^i
^ C C. �., v, G w r �. p� C.. r'J C <t C\ ^ r, •- r �{, r'. N K>
� c �. �, c• � f.i c o: , Q. - °'; c N c: r C` N�•
-I ,f, 1c•
N
C
w
h
V
O
LL
C
fa
r
7
r1
F
c
� � E
E
C
d
F_F
tb
3
CL
C
G
C
G
G
C
C
C
U
CV
U
C.%
t0
cr
i
r✓•
.�
�.•
�,
,,
c.
L,
�,
✓
�5
J
FJ
F
F-
i CC
C
L
U
v cJ
v
V
U
U
V
C
U
U
L
C
C
L
1
O
C-
a
G
v
C
9.2.1 Senate Bill X7-7 and the Water Conservation Act of 2009
The Senate Bill X7-7 (SBX7-7), the Water Conservation Act of 2009 (Act) was signed into law
November 2009. This legislation set a goal of achieving a 20 percent statewide reduction in
urban per capita water use, and requires urban retail water suppliers to set 2020 Urban Neater Use
Targets to meet that goal. Commonly referred to as the 20 x 2020 Plan, the Act identifies the
methodologies. water use targets and reporting requirements that apply to urban water suppliers.
It directed the California Department of Water Resources (DWR) to develop technical
methodologies and criteria to ensure the consistent implementation of the Act. and to provide
guidance to urban retail water suppliers in developing baseline water use and compliance water
use targets. Each urban retail water supplier must include the following information in their
UWMPs, beginning in their submittal for 2010:
Baseline Daily Per Capita Water Use (Baseline)
2020 Urban Water Use Target (2020 Target)
2015 Interim Urban Water Use Target (2015 Interim Target)
According to Sections 10608.20(a)(1) and 10608.28 of the California Water Code. urban retail
water suppliers may plan, comply, and report the above information on a regional basis, an
individual basis. or both.
The Gateway Regional Alliance was formed by participating water suppliers within the Gateway
Region to examine the Region's compliance with the SBX7-7 Water Conservation Bill ol'2009
(SBX7-7). The results were reported in the Gateivav Regional Water Conserwilion Alliance
Report (Gateway Alliance Report, Los Angeles Gateway Region Integrated Regional Water -
Management Authority, June 2011). and will be used in the analysis of the water balance.
9.2.2 Methodology
9.2.2.1 Data Collected
Because the main sources of information for developing the Gateway Region water balance were
UWMPs. the data collected for all water suppliers was based on the information available in
UWN4Ps. The information gathered consisted oftotal yearly water demand and total yearly water
supply volumes for the water suppliers within the Gateway Region. This data was collected for
the current year (2010) and future years through 2030 for an average year and the third year in a
multiple -dry year period. The DWR Guidebook to Assist Urban H'ater Suppliers to Prepare a
2010 Urban 11'ater Alanagement Plan (Guidebook) defines these periods, which are used in the
development of the Gateway Water Balance:
Average year period: a year or an averaged range of years in the historical sequence that
most closely represents median runoff levels and patterns. It is defined as the median runoff
over the previous 30 years or more. This median is recalculated every 10 years.
Multiple -dry year period: generally considered to be the lowest average runoff for a
consecutive multiple year period (three years or more) for a watershed since 1903. For
example. 1928-1934 and 1987-1992 were the two multi -year periods of lowest average runoff
Gateway Integrated 9-6 Final
Regional Water Management Plan June 2013
IfIIIl1Jl.' dllt :`001 cei11ur; in tale AnIral ValkV haif). 1upplicrs should detcl-milk tlliti for c�i( If
vyater�,l�r( Iir'rn which they receive supplies.
I or the purp(��:cs A the (_Adewav Region water balance. drought year conditions arc (lefined a>
the third year daring, I multihlc-dry year pcHod or the vvOrst case scenario water shoriapc.
Additional inl'urnlation collected included:
• \Vatcr demand volumes by use: i.c.. residential. commercial, industrial, institutional,
landscape. recycled uses.
Water supply sources and the volume of water per source, i.e. groundwater. water
purchased from a wholesaler. recycled water
• City population projections produced by the Southern California Association of
Governments (SLAG)
Daily per capita baselines and conservation goals calculated by the water suppliers
according to 1107-7.
9.2.2.2 Data Review
Data collected I'ron-1 the 2010 11AIMPs were reviewed and for consistency and accuracy. 'phis
consisted of:
• Restricting the veater balance period to 201420MY Some UVVMPs provided data and
projections from the 2010 through 2035: however. as both 2005 and 2035 were optional
according to the MVIT Guidebook. not all water suppliers provided projections for2035.
Therefore. the time period for the water balance extends from 2010 through 2030. for which all
I, IWN4Ps provided data.
• Including recycled water demand in the total demand volume. when applicable.
• Including unaccounted for system losses in the total demand vol(nnn when applicable.
• Spot-checking that totals and units are correct. In cases of discrepancies. published totals
were used over calculations of data by water use.
• Verifying that all projections included current and expected conservation efforts.
To analyze water reliability. the supply by source and total demand for the third year ofthe
multiple -dry year period was used. While all the 1_JWN41's included water reliability data
according to the Guidebook, data came in varying levels (ifdetaH. When there was not sufficient
data. water suppliers were contacted to request the data or for guidance on how to estimate the
data. If no guidance was received. the following assumptions were made to complete the data:
• Ground" ter supply was maintained at existing rights. Carryover and exceedence
provisions were not included unless specified in the UWN111 or by the water supplier.
Recycled water supply was onnined unless specified in the t1WMP or by the water
supplier that recycled water is considered a reliable source.
When specified as a reliable source. imported water was used to make up the difference
bel\V'ec'n total supply and groundwater.
Gatevvgay Integrated 07 final
Regional Neater rManagCnlenl Plnn June 2M 3
• The worst -case scenario water supply and demand volumes were used when given in lieu
of the third year in a multiple -dry ,year period and considered equivalent.
The reviewed data for each UWMP was entered into a spreadsheet. Table 9-5 is an example ofa
UWMPs reviewed data.
Table 9-5. Example UWMP Data
A
B
C
D
E
F
1
Water Supplier 1
2010
2015
2020
2025
2030
2
Average Supply
3
Source 1
4
Source 2
_
5
Total
133 + 84
C3 + C4
D3 + D4
E3 + E4
F3 + F4
6
Average Demand
7
Use 1
8
Use 2
9
Total
B7 { B8
C7 + C8
D7 + D8
E7 + E6
F7 + F8
10
Average Year Surplus/Deficit
B5 - B9
C5 - C9
D5 - D9
E5 - E9
F5 - F9
11
12
2010
2016
2020
2025
2030
13
Drought Year Supply
14
Source 1
15
Source 2
16
Total
B14 + B16
C14 + C15
D14 + D15
E14 + E15
F14 + F15
17
Drought Year Demand Total
18
Drought Year Surplus/Deficit
B16 - B17
C16 - C17
D16 - D17
E16 - E17
F16 - F17
Gateway Integrated 9-8 final
Regional Water Management Plan ,line 2013
9.2.Z. Calc:ulrrtion!
Llli)ris Neer(. 1,:k( n to collect the data in 'I,Ihlc 9-4 for cvcr� veater supplier within the gatevyaN
Regioul. including for those Avnlcr suppliers with an t 1\VNIP and those not required to have an
t_I\\TIP. VOILA-1 i'urlher information was needed front a water supplier. they were contacted and
requested to provide as much of the data in 'fable 144 as was ,iv lilah, The pjlowing water
suppliersvvcrc contacted:
{ Bcllllowcr-Somerset Mutual \Voter
Cornpam
('it\ of Bellflower
• Cite of Compton
('ity of Downcy
City Of' I luntington Park
Cite of I .a I labra 1 Icights
• Oly or Lakewood
• City of Maywood
R 0tv of Norwalk
Cite of Paramount
City of Santa A Springs
City of Signal ]-till
City of South Gaic
• Coy of Vemon
• City of Whittier
• Long Beach \\pater Dcpartmcnl
Orchard Dalc Watcr District
Pico Rivera Water Authority
1'Or some Watrr suppliers models were developed to lilt in some or all of the predicted future
water supplies and demand. The models used information collected from UWMPs and other
documents 1o1 neighhAng areas within the Gateway Region. The models werc developed using
these attrih KS:
1. Percentape of volumes of \vater supply by sot►rcc.
2. Percentage of volumes of water demand by usc.
3. Per capita water usc. using values either from the (Ine gay Alliance Report or calculated
using historical data.
Additional data from Nl\\ID's and CBM\\/D's 2010 11"AlPs were also used in predicting I'Lourc
water supply and demand.
121A Example Water Supply and Demand Model - City of Maywood
Because recent data could not be obtained from all of the water suppliers to the City of
Maywood (Maywood Mutual # I Maywood Mutual 42. and Maywood Mutual R3 Y a model was
developed based on the assumption that per capita water use and population growth rate- NVould
be comparable that those: of the City of Huntington Park. According to the 2010 LI\\'MP.
Huntin!_1lon Park's hascline per capita wMcr use according to the 20 x 2020 Plan calculation
methods is 77 gpcd. I (sing a per capita demand of 77 gallons per day and the Southern California
Association of Governments (SLAG) forecasted population for the City of Maywood. a
lorccasted total demand for average years Nvas calculated.
7o calculate average year supply% h was assumed that the supply would be equal to the demand.
In additiori according to the City of Maywood Water Quality Assessment (Decemher NI0). the
City of Maywood uses imported water and groemd\Vater. Using the calculated forecasted demand
Gateway Integrated 49
Final
Regional \Valet Manaecmcut Plan June 21A ;
and tlhc forecasted imported water volume for the City of Maywood's three water supplier
provided in CBM WD's 2010 UWMP, the forecasted groundwater was determined.
To be conservative. drought condition supplies were assumed to be the same as average year
supplies. Demands were assumed to be about 5 percent greater during drought conditions. as was
assumed in different 2010 UWMPs.
9.2.3 Results
See the list below and Figure 9-1 for the cities within the Gateway Region that were included in
the water balance.
• Artesia
•
La Habra Heights
• Pico Rivera
• Bell
•
La Mirada
• Santa Fe Springs
• Bell Gardens
•
Lakewood
• Signal Hill
• Bellflower
•
Long Beach
• South Gate
• Cerritos
•
Lynwood
• Vely1011
• Commerce
•
Maywood
• Whittier
• Compton
•
Montebello
• Some Los Angeles
• Cudahy
•
Monterey Park
County
• Downey
•
Norwalk
Unincorporated
• Hawaiian Gardens
•
Orchard Dale
• Huntington Park
•
Paramount
Gateway Integrated 9-10 Final
Regional Water Management Plan June 2013
BLIA
"C)I 'T I I
LA MIRADA
I. AMOT N I:
Bf LIA I (M El-
LPF I DOS
Si(i\ Ul—
T- t jl� j:
- 71
t ONG
BLA('H
S from oe h,toeles Count- 20'0
Figure 9-1 Citict; Included in the Gateway Region Water Balance
9-1 1 Final
Regional \Voter NbnaI,(-Ijj(,Ijj 111"Ill
hilic 2013
Due to the lack of information, only portions of the unincorporated areas within the Gateway
Region were included in the water balance.
Current water supplies for the Gateway Region consists of groundwater. imported water, and
recycled water. A,, a whole, the Gateway Region is heavily dependent on groundwater. with a
majority of the water suppliers receiving most, if not all, of their supply from groundwater. Of
total current supplies for the Gateway Region, 66.7 percent is groundwater. 28.8 percent is
imported water, 4.4 percent is recycled water, and less than I percent of the water can be
classified as other, which includes sources such as banked groundwater. Forecasting to 2030. the
average water supply distribution will remain essentially the same, with a small increase in
recycled water use. See Figure 9-2 for a comparison in current and future water supplies.
2010 Water Supplies 2030 Water Supplies
a ?Rol: 0.03%
k, Groundwater
Ir Imported Water
Recycled Water
U Other
Figure 9-2. Average Year Water Supplies for the Gateway Region
9.2.3.1 Water Supply and Demand during Average Year Conditions
The Gateway Region will have enough water supplies through 2030 based on average water
years. Current water supplies are about 292,900 ac-ft/year, 4,400 ac-ft/year above what is
demanded. This surplus is forecasted to increase by the year 2020 to about 13,800 ac-11/year, and
will continue to increase through 2030. with an expected surplus of about 14,200 ac-ft/year.
Table 9-6 shows the supply and demand totals for average water years for 2010, 2020, and 2030.
The increase in average year surplus can be attributed to the assumptions made by the water
suppliers in their UNNIMPs:
• The water service area is fully built -out and water demands will increase only due to
redevelopment within current development limits.
• Conservation measures, including programs and policies will be fully implemented.
• Capital improvement projects involving; water use efficiency and water supply will be
completed.
• Recycled water projects will be completed.
• Recycled water will gradually replace potable water for uses such as landscaping and
irrigation.
Gateway Integrated 9-12 Final
Regional water Management Plan .tune 2013
u G
c
c
co
c
c
c
c
c c
c c
c c
c c
c c
c
c
c
c c
c cccc
c
0!'
<T OC
\C
�C
C
OG
N
C
t-
N
M oo
[� N
N M
o�• r
ur'
ur
��
C'.. C•
r� N
�G
�C V
i
+
t^..
—_
+
t+
N
OG
C C
c—
C
r-
C
rl,
C
it!
C
a
C C
y
C
O
C
C C
C C
C C
C C
C
C
C
C C
C C
c
O C
C
C
O
IcN
oL
- 1
^ N
�N-!
C O
ry c
ti+ `-I
v
��
oc
r, r
r c
v)
oc oc
c
c
i)
+
-i'•C
+
N
nM
M
rtv
N
�.
c+
�
c C
C C
C
C
c
C
C
C
C'
C
C
C C
C
C
C
C C
Cl O
C
C G
O
C
C C
N C�
C
O O
C
C
+
_:
_
OC
i
+
v
c c
c c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c-cccc
c c
c
c
c
c
o c o
c c c
c c
c�
c
c o
c
c o
c
c
c c c
c
c
c
c
N
t` G'
r l
P�
ol-
00
c
.- •--
c
Or'
c c
C C�
c
K.
c c
.- "C'
c
O�
c
oc f-
c c c
N �C
c
C
c
C
c
c
T
{
o:, �`
LN
-I
C
t`
i
N
+- -I-
-I -f
N N
i'
N �
oc lc
�c
\C \C'
0
C
-I
_I
+
+
-!- -I-
1
+- +
N
r1
+
i
c C
C
Cl
C
C C
C
C
O
C C
C C
O C
C C
C
O C
C
C
CX+74
C
ram.
.—
.4
4r`loC
<D �C
\C'
\D
it+C
3
C
O G
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
'
O
O
C
C
O
c`
r
N
C C
+ !y
C
N
Vl
M
M
C
I
p
CC
C
C C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C C
C C
C
O
C
C
C
C
C C
O C
O C'
C C
C C
C O
C C
C
C
C
o0
r'1 M
t� rrl
U 7
C
D\ V
O C
.c:
C
G
C
C O
K 7
C C
C
C
C
C
C
O
1f1
N N
�' \D
.-, OG
00 n
Vl vl
.
Vl
c,
t
t
i-
N
OC •.
+
1
+
V
c c
c
c
c
c c
c
c
c
c c
c c
c c
---------------
c c
c c
c
c
c
c c
C
c,
C O
c�
\C
'V M
7 1`
Cl
`t
rf1
c c
c
c
c
c a
�n
h
i
.—
OC
r- "t
N
,
N
1lc
o
oc r
.0
N
,n
O
n
C�
0N1
V
rV N
O
C
n
DC
r
i
^
+
�
+C
1
t
+
-I
+ in
�M fr1
+t
N
—
-
h+i
NC
cN" U
-
G V
v,
V
E
ti U
c
F- U
v
Y
rz
v
_
ro
c
° ' c
G
C C.
G
O
o
o
2
G
ro
3
ro
_
�
W cl
v
C
C
E m
m G
t �S
c
�-
�L)
m~
oar
mU�ox��.wv,�v)>3
cJ cxC
r
C'
n cC^„
.blJ C
.>=
Q CC
M
j_
V1
C
o
�-
J U CJ
v, c
c
c c
c
C
c
o
o c
c c
o o
c o U
V
U
V
U
3
3
h r
rvUvUUUUU�
Ut
UUU
VUUC7C7C
U(�
J.Ca0.p
v,
Z
E
or)
'IJ cz
W)
c
ro u
C: C'
9.2.3.2 Water Supply and Demand during Drought Conditions
During drought conditions, the Gateway Region is expected to have sufficient Nvatcr supply
through 2030. In 2015 the Gateway Region is forecasted to have an available water supply
during drought conditions of 332.100 ac-ft/year. about 800 ac-11/year more than demanded.
This surplus is expected to increase through 2030 to about 7,900 ac-ft/ycar, an excess of
about 3 percent of demand.
The expected water supply for drought conditions for the year 2030 is about 20.700 ac-
11/year greater than the expected water supply for normal water years for the year 2030. The
increase in drought water supply can be attributed to the assumptions used in some suppliers'
2010 Urban Water Management Plan. The drought conditions assumptions from the UWMPs
include:
• The water service area is Fully built -out and water demands will increase only due to
redevelopment within current development limits.
• Conservation measures, including long-term programs and policies and short-term
actions will be fully implemented.
• Capital improvement projects involving water use efficiency and water supply will be
completed.
• Rccycicd water will gradually replace potable water for uses such as landscape irrigation.
• Current and future recycled water projects will be operating at 100 percent capacity.
• Currcnt groundwater supplies are stable enough for water suppliers to withdraw 100
percent of their water right during drought conditions.
• Central Basin Judgment allows for 20 percent carryover and 10 percent exceedence
provisions for groundwater.
• Wholesale providers will have enough supply during drought conditions for water
suppliers to provide. 100 percent contracted water.
From the UWMPs, long -teen conservation measures can include participating in
groundwater replenishment or banking, or increasing the use of recycled water. Short-term or
emergency conservations measures include restricting and prohibiting water use and water
rationing. Water use efficiency and water supply projects can include replacing aging
infrastructure, installing water meters, and developing water storage. The effect of short-term
conservation measures can be tested by comparing average year demand with supply during
drought conditions in 2030. If in 2030 drought conditions supply was available but with
average year demand, there would be a surplus of 4,400 ac-ft/year, which is about 1 percent
of average demand.
The assumption that all recycled water projects will be complete and operating at 100 percent
capacity by 2030 results in a recycled water supply of about 30,600 ac-ft/year in 2030 during
drought conditions in the Gateway Region. Taking recycled water completely out of the
balance fiOr drought year conditions would result in a water supply deficit in 2030 of 22,700
ac-ft/year. which is about 9 percent of demand during drought conditions.
Gateway Integrated 9-14 Final
Regional Water Management Plan June 2013
(il-0(Illd\\alCl. 110t HICIu11I1g cal-1-yover or eXcCCdCnCI' prov1slons. is l'xpe.ctcd to Mai . III)
,ih uli W percenl ol'tlic drought year supply h> 2.030. The groundwater supply could dccreas('
I)v pciccnt during drought year conditions bcforc heing in deficit in 2030. Assumi112 lhat all
v',eater SLlppliers use the 20 percent carryover during di-OLlid1l conditions for 2030. the expected
surplus vwould increase to about 50.000 ac-ft/year. or about 15 percent ol'demand during
drought conditions.
Table 9-7. Droucilit Conditions Supply and Demand Balance for the Gateway Region, ac-ftlyear
2015
2030
Water Supplier
Supply
Demand
Difference
Supply
_Demand
Difference
Bellflower -Somerset MWC
+5,400
+6,900
-1,500
+6,000
+7,400
-1,400
CWSC- East Los Aneeles District
417,500
4 J6,600
4900
419,100
119,600
-500
City of Bellflower
+700
+700
0
+700
+700
0
City of Cerritos
413,500
+9,600
_
+1,900
+14,300
+12,200
42,100
City of Compton
+8,900
+8,900
0
410,500
-410,500
0
_
City of Downey
117,000
417,000
0
418,800
-118,800
0
City of Huntington Park_
+4,900
+4,900
0
46,400
+6,400
0
City of La Habra Heights
-12,900
+2,800
+1.00
+2,900
+2,800
4100
-----------
City of Lakewood_
-
+9,600
+10,000
-400
411,800
+10,600
41,200
City of Lynwood
+5,600
+5,800
-200
+9,700
+7,600
42,100
City of Maywood
43,400
-12,300
41,100
+2,400
+2,400
0
City of Norwalk
+2,300
-12,300
0
+3,300
+3,300
0
City of Paramount
+7,100
+6,700
+400
+9,700
-18,200
+1,500
City of Santa Fe Springs
+6,700
+6,300
4400
+9,100
-17,500
11,600
City of Sip.nal Hill
+1,900
+1,900
0
42,200
12,200
0
City of South Gate
+8,400
+8,400
0
112,600
+12,800
_200
City of Vernon
48,900
+8,900
0
121,800
-113,800
+8,000
City of Whittier
17,400
+7,400
0
+8,200
+8,200
0
GSWC - Artesia
+5,600
+5,600
0
+7,000
+7,000
0
GSWC- Bell/Bell Gardens
45,300
+5,300
0
+6,400
+6,400
0
GSWC - Florence -Graham
+5,200
+5,200
0
+6,500
+6,500
0
GSWC-Norwalk
+5,000
+5,000
0
+6,800
+6,800
0
GSWC - Southwest
+29,900
129,900
0
+40,300
+40,300
0
Long Beach Water Department
+63,400
+63,400
0
+70,700
-170,700
0
Montebello Land and Water Company
+3,400
+3,400
0
+3,700
+3,700
0
Orchard Dale Water District
+2,200
+2,000
1200
+2,600
+2,300
+300
Park Water Company
-111,200
111,200
0
416,500
-116,600
-100
Pico River Water Authority
+5,000
+5,500
-500
+5,800
-16,300
-500
Pico Water District
+3,000
+3,300
-300
+3,800
+4,200
-400
Suburban Water Systems
-123,500
121,200
+2,300
+23,000
422,600
+400
OJ Totals
+292,800
+288,400
+4,400
+362,600
+348,400
+14,200
Notes:
1. Volumes were rounded to the nearest 100 ac-ft/year.
2. MWC: Mutual Water Company
3. CWSC: California Water Service Company
A. GSWC: Golden State Water Company
Gatewa'N, lnlegrated 9-15 Final
Regirnia) Water Management Plan June 2013
36` .000
36(?,000
355,000 Et
k
3 L,0,000
LL345,000
i
I,
LE 340,000
Q
�.
1
335,000
t
4�
> 030,000
t
W
325,000;
320,000
315,000
1
?
2015 2020
2025
2030
Average Supply
K Average Demand
Drought Supply
t.
Drought Demand
Figure 9-3. Summary of Expected Supply and Demand in the Gateway Region for Average and Drought
Conditions
As seen in Table 9-6, in an average year in 2030 nine water suppliers are expected to be in
surplus. 15 water suppliers are expected to break even, and six water suppliers are expected
to be in deficit. In an averagee year in 2030, those water suppliers in surplus are expected to
have a total surplus of about 31.500 acre-feet, while those water suppliers in deficit are
expected to have a total deficit ofabout 3,100 acre-feet. In a year with drought conditions in
2030, eight water suppliers arc expected to be in surplus, 13 water suppliers are expected to
break even. and nine water suppliers arc expected to be in deficit (Table 9-7). During drought
conditions in 2030, those water suppliers in surplus are expected to have a total surplus 01'
about 20,600 acre-feet, while those water suppliers in deficit are expected to have a total
deficit of4,800 acre-feet.
9.3 Imported Supply Reliability
The CBN1WD and WRD obtain imported water from MWD. MWD gets imported water
From the Sacramento -San Joaquin Delta (Delta) via the State Water Projects (SWP) and
Colorado River Water from the California River Aqueduct. The reliability of MWD supplies
from all available sources is described in detail in:
• 2010 Integrated Water Resources Plan (MWD IRP)
• 2010 Regional Urban Water Management Plan (RUWMP)
Gateway Integrated 9-16 final
Regional Water Management flan June 2013
• \eater ;,urplus And Drought Ninnagemcnt Plan. Report No. I l50
Other docrnncn(s that influence the evaluation of reliability include:
t Final `titatc W'Ilcr Project Delivery Reliability Report 201 1 (DVVR. 2012)
• Coloni(h) River Basin Water Supply & Dcmand Study Final Study Reports (USIA
2012).
NWAYs key concern is the continual deterioration ofwater supply reliability. The MWD 1RP
defines Metropolitan's long-term water plan and strategies to protect from future supply
shortages. with an emphasis on water -use efficiency through conservation and local supply
dcvelopment. MAN is actively, working to increase its available supplies and develop dry
year supplies. ']'he proposed measures in the ]III) and RUWMP will extend the available
SVVP and Colorado River supplies through a range ofproundwater banking and storage
agreements. and agreements with the Federal Government and others to store surface water
in Colorado River reservoirs (Lake Mead). and through other transfers and exchanges. The
IRP and the RUVVIMP document how MWD is using surface and groundwater storage to
increase reliability by storing water in wet periods for use in the dry periods when Delta and
Colorado Rivcr supplies could be reduced.
The M\VD R1JWM1) (MWD 2010) also identifies how M51) will support implementation of
Dcmand Management Measures (F)NIMs) and work with other wholesale and retail water
purveyors to meet the 20 x 2020 Conservation goals within the MVVD service area. This
includes wholesale agencies like the C13MWD and Gateway Region water purveyors. ']'he
IIIJ\V'MP shows that the MWD can provide reliable: water supplies under single driest year
and the multiple dry year conditions. The RI IVAIP provides justification for projected water
supplies from the SWP and Colorado River sources. and this will help retail water purveyors
to comply with Senate Bills 221 and 610 (See Appendix A.3) and doCulnent that sustainable
Nvater supplies are available. The 2010 RUWMP implementation approach depends on the
full use of the current State Water Contract provisions and IN use of the Colorado River
Aqueduct capacity.
The Watcr Surplus and Drought Management Plan identifies how MWD will respond to
surplus and shortage and allocate and more supplies under varying types of hydrologic
conditions.
9.3.1 State Water Project
MWD imports Sacramento and San Joaquin River water through the State Water Project
(SVV'P) under contract with DWR. The final State Water Proiect Delivery Reliability Report
2011 (DWII. 2012) and Technical Addendum updates estimates of the current (201 1) and
future (2031) SWP delivery reliability and incorporates regulatory requirements for SWI' and
Federal Central Valley Project (CVP) operations. 1.`,stimateS of future reliability also reflect
potential impacts ol'climatc change and sea level rise. The report shows that future SWP
deliveries will be impacted by two significant factors. The first is significant restrictions on
SVVP and CVf Delta pumping required by the biological opinions issued by the U.S. Fish
Gawmy ImepmWd 9-17 Final
Regional water AIanag.ement Plan We 201
and Wildlife Service (December 2008) and National Marine Fisheries Service (June 2009).
The second is climate change. which is altering the hydrologic conditions in the State. The
availability of the SWP water supplies mav he highly variable.
The conditions in the Delta and actions to improve through -Delta transport of Nvater are the
keys to the SWP's ability to deliver water to MWD, and subsequently the MWDs deliveries
to CBMNVD and to Gateway retail water agencies. The report indicates that the export of
water from the Delta, and hence thee reliability of the SWP supplies, may be reduced under
existing and future conditions as compared to historical operating conditions as a result of the
impacts to the Delta from the historic operations. This occurs in normal and drought periods.
Under- the. 2009 SWP Reliability Report. the delivery estimates for the SWP for current
(2009) conditions as percentage of maximum Table A amounts, are seven percent. equivalent
to 134 TAF. under a single dry -year (1977) condition and 60%, equivalent to 1.15 MAF.
under long-term average condition.
9.3.2 Colorado River
MWD obtains water from the Colorado River under a number of categories specified in its
supplemental water storage and delivery contract with the Secretary of the Interior: its basic
apportionment that is classified as Priority 4 water, unused and surplus water that is classified
as Priority 5 and Priority 6(a) water. and water resulting from a number of conservation
programs that is classified as Priority 3(a) water. The MWD Colorado River supplies could
also be impacted by climate change, drought conditions, water rights issues and/or changes to
operational decisions by the Federal Government.
The USBR recently completed the Colorado River Basin Water Supply & Demand Study
Final Study Reports (USBR, 2012) which document that the amount of water available and
changes in the demand throughout the Colorado River Basin over the next 50 years. It notes
that Colorado River water supplies are highly uncertain and dependent upon a number of
factors. The USBR used a scenario planning process to project future water supply and
demand. A range of critical uncertainties were defined and used to evaluate the potential
supply impacts, including stream flow variability and future climate changes. A set of
reliability metrics was established to compare scenarios. Based on the potential future
conditions, management options and strategies to respond to any supply and demand
imbalance were proposed and further evaluated. In general, without implementation of
additional water management options and strategies, water delivery reliability is likely to
decrease over time, resulting in increasing vulnerability. All water delivery indicator metrics
show increasing vulnerability across the time periods evaluated, although the magnitude
varies with each metric, and the frequency of shortages to the Lower Basin states, including
California, is likely to occur with a greater frequency over time (DWR 2012a). The
vulnerability is as much associated with increased demands as with potential variability in
the future supply from the Colorado River, and any opportunities to reduce current demands
or forestall future demand increases are advisable to ensure reliability.
Gateway Integrated 9-18 Final
Regional Watcr Management Plan June 2013
9.4 Rcconimendaiianr
()vcv:dlL thic Region vyill have c11ow.,11 water "'upplics to satisfy INcrarc :tnd drom III
conditinw, dcmmnds through 203SO. Because of thi��. it is recommended that projects and
program" Iol water supply not he given a higher priority for inclusion in the Gateway Rcgiun
1R\VNIP. The water supply may he ayailahlc hilt distribution systems to get the water to its
intended rlcstination may still need to he constructed to fully utilize the available WWI
supply. 'Phis i�, an important step and should nrn he o\'crlookcd. Some \yater Sul)plierS arc
expected to be in delicit, while the rest Will be in surplus or will break even. Thereiore. it is
also recommended that wirier suppliers use the Gateway Region 1RWMP as an opportunity to
further cooperation and coordination v\,fill each other and enhance or establish emergency
vrater supply interconnections. Table 9-8 shows the interconnection of cacti vrater supplier
listed in the 2010 t.1\\!N4Ps or other sources.
Table 9-8. Interconnections within the Gateway Region
Supply -Demand Difference
in 2030, ac-ft/year
Water Supplier
(Average/Drought)
Interconnected Agencies
Bellflower -Somerset MWC
-1,400 /-500
Park Water Company, Bellflower Home Garden Water
Company, Bellflower MWS
California Water Scivice Company
500 / 0
Montebello Land and Water Company, South Montebello
- East Los Anrlcs Dish ict
Irrigation District, City of Montebello
City of Bellflower
0 / 0
City of Cerritos
+2,100 / +1,100
City of Santa Fe Springs
City of Compton
0/-1,800
CBMWD, MWD
City of Downey
0 / 0
Bellflower -Somerset MWC, City of South Gatc, GSWC, City
of Bellflower. City of Santa Fe Springs, City of Paramount
City of Funtington Park
0 /-400
CBMWD
City of La Habra Heights
_
4 100 / -100
_
City of Lakewood
1,200 / -200
GSWC, City of Cerritos, Long Beach Water Department
_
City of I ynwood
12,100 / -r 100
City of Compton. City of South Gate
City of Maywood
0 / -100
City of Huntington Park, Southern California Water
Company
City of Norwalk
0 / -1,000
Park Water Company, City of Santa Fe Springs, City of
Cerritos, GSWC
_
City of Paramountt
11,500 / +400
Long Beach Water Department, City of Downey, GSWC
City of Santa Fe Spi inr_ ,
11,600 / -500
_
City of Cerritos
City of Signal Hill
0/0
City of South Gate
200 / 0
City of Downey, City of Lynwood, City of Huntington Par k,
Walnut Park Mutual Water Company, GSWC — Hollydak
City of Vernon
+8,000 / i 7,800
City of Pico Rivera, City of Santa Fe Springs, California
City of Whittier
0 / 0
Domestic Water Company, SGVWC, Suburban Water
Systems
GSWC - Artesia
0/0
City of Cerritos, City of Lakewood
GSWC - Bell/Bell Gardens
0/0
City of Huntington Park, Maywood Mutual Water Company
43
GSWC - F lorence-Graham
0/0
City of Huntington Park
Gatcway Inicgrated 9-19 Final
Regional \\niter Atanaecntent Plan .tune 2013
GSWC -Norwalk
0/0
Suburban Water Company, City of Norwalk, City of Santa Fe
_
Springs
GSWC - Southwest
0/0
_
City of Inglewood, Hawthorne, Park Water Company
Long Beach Water Department
0/0
Montebello Land and Water
p / i800
Company
Orchard Dale Water District
4300 / 4300
Suburban Water Company
Park Water Company
-100 / 0
Pico Rivera Water Authority
-500 / -4100
City of Whittier, SGVWC
Pico Water District
0 / -200
Suburban Water Systems
+400 / i 2,100
City of Whittier, SGVWC, La Habra Heights County Water
District
Notes:
1. CBMWD: Central Basin Municipal Water District
2. MWD: Metropolitan Water District
3. Bellflower -Somerset MWC: Bellflower -Somerset Mutual Water Company
A. GSWC: Golden State Water Company
5. SGVWC: San Gabriel Valley Water Company
Gateway Integrated 9-20 Final
Regional Water Management Plan June 2013
Itil
10 treater Management Strategies
After idcnIifying water related issues of the region. and then compiling goals for the IRWNJI) to
mitigate. treat or resolve those issues. the plan must next look for "solutirnls or approaches to
help meet those goals.
10.1 Formulation of Water Management Strategies
An important and necessary step in the IRWMP I)rocess is to formulate strategies that Nvill be
effective in addressing critical water needs and issues for the region. Typical strategies that are
generally considered for common water management issues should not be overlooked. However.
since each region and their set of issues are unique, the strategies and resulting prioritized actions
should be tailored to their particular needs.
GWMA and region stakeholders considered a broad range ofwater management strategies to
address planning goals to ensure that no good idea was overlooked. The IR\VMP planning,
process considered various approaches to solve identified prohlems" combined various actions.
and evaluated eflccliveness. The planning process was open and public. Brainstorming
additional solution paths Nvas important to shape alternatives, provide the broadest consideration,
and obtain stakeholder commitment to the process. Environmental forces. such as climate
change. were also considered when developing strategies. A central purpose ofthe process was
to integrate water management initiatives undertaken by each of the participants into a program
of integrated projects for the Gateway Region.
The IR WMP Guidelines suggest using a range of resou►-c.e management strategies (Table 10-1)
developed fir the 2009 California Water Plan as a starting point. The intent of considering
resource management strategies is to encourage diversification of water management approaches
as a wav to mitigate for uncertain future circumstances and comply with state law PRC
ti75026.(a) and CWC ti 10541(e)(l ). A Resource Management Strategy, as defined in the C\VI1
Update 2009. is a project, program, or policy that helps local agencies and governments manage:
their water, and related resources. An IRWMP must consider each strategy in the CWP Update
2009 listed below.
Other strategics may also be considered. In formulating earlier work for the region. including
the Planning Grant Application. Gateway's technical team identified at least IS strategies that
Gateway wants to consider among the general list of nrore than 27 strategies in their IR\\'MP
guidelines and the State Water Plan(htt.waterpIan.wale I-.ca. gov).
Gateway lotegrated 10-1 Final
Regional Water Nganapement Plan Junc 2013
Table 10-1. DWR Suggested Resource Management Strategies
CA Water Plan Update 2009 Resource Management Strategies
• Agricultural Water Use Efficiency
• Urban Water Use Efficiency
• Crop Idling for Water Transfers
• Irrigated Land Retirement
• Conveyance - Delta
• Conveyance - Regional/local
• System Reoperation
• Water Transfers
• Flood Risk Management
• Agricultural Lands Stewardship
• Economic Incentives (Loans, Grants and
Pricing)
• Ecosystem Restoration
• Forest Management
• Recharge Area Protection
• Conjunctive Management & Groundwater
Storage
• Desalination
• Precipitation Enhancement
• Recycled Municipal Water
• Surface Storage - CALFED
• Surface Storage - Regional/local
• Drinking Water Treatment and
Distribution
• Groundwater Remediation/Aquifer
Remediation
• Land Use Planning and Management
• Matching Quality to Use
• Pollution Prevention
• Salt and Salinity Management
• Urban Runoff Management
• Water -Dependent Recreation
• Watershed Management
Additionally, the GWMA wanted to concentrate and focus efforts on water conservation and
water use efficiency, environmental and habitat projection an improvement, integrated flood
management and protection and improvement of groundwater quality. Strategies that relate to
these items will be highlighted and encouraged in the process.
10.2 Gateway Strategies
During their April 2012 meeting, Gateway Stakeholder's suggested a suite of strategies to
address the adopted IRWMP goals that had been previously adopted. They considered possible
strategies from the Water Plan list during a group brainstorming exercise. This exercise looked
at each goal individually and stakeholders recommended all the strategies that would be useful in
meeting that goal. information on water supply and demand, water quality, and storni water was
used to determine strategies or combination of strategies that effectively address regional issues.
Of course not all strategies are applicable to the water issues in the region. For example, since
agriculture is very limited in the Gateway Region, Agricultural Water Use Efficiency or irrigated
land retirement is not applicable.
The brainstorming exercise produced a well-rounded and diverse list of strategies that are listed
in Table 10-2. The stakeholders were presented this table at a subsequent stakeholder meeting
and it was sent by e-mail all participants for comment to make sure all thoughts captured were
complete and accurate.
Several strategies (16) apply to the goal of optimizing and ensuring water supply reliability as
well as the goal of protecting and enhancing water qualit 9 . Each of the six goals has at least
Gateway Integrated 10-2 Final
Regional Water Management Plan June 2013
fi\c siratcgic 111,11 contribute to meeting the goal. Land use planning and watershed planning
apple U; nt w ofthe goals (`) and all sompics have io ,rppl� to at least one goal.
In all. considered a comprehensive set ofslrategics to help achieve the IRNVMI'
Goals. Asa group. they reviewed each stmtcgy and decided how applicable it was in meeting
the IRNVNIP poals. 'I We 143 presents the strategics and why they were considered.
Sonic of the strategics suggested in Table I Od wcrc not considered by the stakeholder group.
We I OA addresses the reasons why some Water Plan approaches were not included in the
KVITMP discussions.
10.3 Using Strategies
The purpose of looking at strategies was to help stakeholders identify actions and projects that
\vmdd apply to strategies to benefit the water management in the region and specifically help
meet the goals of We IRAWK A wide range of ideas can translate to a wide range of actions
that can bridyc and support several goals. or supply multipic benefits. One ofthe criteria applied
during project review and ranking was related to how well the project used the recommended
strategics. and whether the project incorporated multiple strategics. While it is important to set
the range of strategies to move the process forward. we want to he able to have some flexibility
to add or wnuwc strategies if better ideas appear later in the process.
Gateway Integrated 113 Final
Regional water Management Plan .lone 2013
spy \At, `p Hof
41
Vol
\, oj,✓ ✓FG C� SNP
G
.\GSA
GE,
�S Q%
�'C�G✓G N`Je�.
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x:
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
X
x
X
x
X
x
X
K:
X
x
I
Y"
x
x
X
x
x
-L-
x
E
LL
M
..
Oii
O
C
U
L
c
Ui
0
Z.
ro
E
n
0
c
0.
Tabu, 1C • Consideration of Strategies
\t4ratc r kanagement Strateg\l Whv considered?
ui.
Lcca' and rFt_ic,n�l #loodlnL� issues
Active wcuri If basin and a.vaiiable sur,ace lie_
-
i3OnF infrastruciur(- r Rerion; needs to irnprro.e
L�< c,,,
r rc> I t n I I to c cev.nter; possible -ra- K 1,i: V,r.t(t sc ..r(r<
I.Uv(:s C, Unit , Lu.- ,s PI I( 'IC1
ShOLJIG' JV,'av- bF cc�n� delec�
r c(Acd, Ir the most) urb; nand char nc lizcd RC-JOI
habitat p C)tection E. Irnr,
Needed in the mostly urban and chanr,ciized Re ;Ion
r=tensive F,r(i,ridV,'ater us,_ in the Rer,ior
r: r, ti v,-M
_
Iri,iported v,ater supplies a portion Of current use: rFrhart(
iLLr.c, u<, p:.r yin;,
mp; rt�.nt controlled byCitie<, irnG:Vv%111'A
0001
nten,Ives-,rounc;4;,ateruse in theRepu.-r
Need( d in the mostiy urban rcpon
Featc ± , r,r r ,uhL. ,,cc:s�
����r<,�
—
Grote.,! an fromcircuChtand needed t �irnprove rehahi it
Sf ; r t;,rc r.
Lc,ca; flooding °.ater oualllty needs TM[-)i
�d�r( n r, r,I„ r t ci. —
should r=IV,rav< lac Considered �—
-.._
1`1(r,f rTlf t'1(c .,iI
.tip If,,, '0VC hrc'e'rit sup[ Iy
sin M1 fO','(- rC Brit SU )Flv
.;,f
h�:uld b(' considered; nPCri(-d fcir 2N2"I)2.Ct rC(='S
C�r�C_Cribn iITII=�c\(ricrt
rtFfl ,artUnG4'NoterUSC-inthe Re{Ici
�.7,
i1Z L=tt Fv(iia�
rb,-� �,Icrh _ c,-al lchle: s )pplV and a<r
F'r01( I, 1) "Cr dreg:"l';t
d,at, !� I;, d i
inie3.,aled h ;..r
Table 10-4. Strategies Not Considered
Strategies Not Directly Considered by IRWMP Stakeholders
Water Management Strategy
I Why not considered?
Ihgliculturai Vti'atcr Use Efficiency
Region has little a>riculture -
Crot: °Vv'ater?ransfers
Re ion has little agriculture
iConv+ ;;.n( uelt
Ccrrsioered in Imported Water Stratepy
A(,rin t z:! La riC -s Stc ardship
has iittic agriculture
has nc forest lamas
Pr�ecll t<,�Icr Cnf an(cr°gent
�U�bi,rl area with no capture aru= i
S,arfa<c ``era z—Ci;LREC
—
�No, on the horizon —'
�Grourd.,;�tcr Rc ( i anon// ctuif+ I RC11wo 0ior
rA!!If r' ;c,
p(litlr rr i:,( ( r tior
1I ider(^d in7teatntent me,i10doinpies I
aler quF: i I y fl e x I uI I It`r not .i^bic f c, ! rF j_Icn .
lCori,:idcrcd as Watet Cuahty protection
r—
Sr;lt wain ! Monas,,r •mcnl
(or sider_d in freundv✓atcr ni+m,) (—Twnt
(,Hbal F_'rj(4t r:laiIrt (`mv—
t t
�r.,,i ' a Ktr r '"f
,.c _r�dzr�d ir!, _..Jr,t v,a,er Csptare and rv�arr�t,.c_n',(nt
Gatcwav Integrated 10-Final
Rcpi(ma1 \Voter Manaeemcnt Plan .1unc 201
11
11 Climate Change
phis chapter presents a discussion ofthc baseline climate conditions and the potential
quantitative cflect of climate change on the Gateway Region, including the effects to both
local Nvaicr supplies and demands and the imported water supply. Included are a qualitative
evaluation 01.111e Region's vulnerabilities and potential adaptation responses. The process
for considering GHG emissions and choosing between pro -ject alteruatives is also
summarized. The plan for further data gathering and analysis of the vulnerabilities is
integrated into the overall project perlormancc and monitoring strategy (Chapter 17).
11.1 Baseline Climatology
11.1.1 Local Climate
An initial assessment of historical local climate was performed to establish a baseline.
NOAA's National Climate Data Center (NCD(-') maintains an archive that includes 30-year
monthly averages (1981 to 2010) of climate variables for gauges from NOAA's Cooperative
Observer Program (COOP) network. the Weather Bureau Army Navy (WBAN) network and
the Climate Reference Network (CRN) of stations. The archive includes four precipitation
stations in the Gateway region located at Downey. Long Beach. Whittier and Montebello. It
also includes two temperature stations at Long Beach and Montebello. Data from these six
stations are averaged to establish historical baseline precipitation and temperatures for each
season.
Historical and f-uture periods of equal length are selected taking into account the IRWNIP
planning horizon and the availability of Global Climate Model (GCM) projections which are
only parameterized for climate expected by mid-century (circa 2050) and late century (circa
2099). Griddcd historical monthly wind, evapotranspiration and runoff (1981 to 2010) GCM
data as well as daily precipitation and temperature (1980 to 1999) GCM data are obtained
From online archives hosted by the Lawrence Livermore National Labs (LLNL). In each
GCM data layer, the Gateway IRWMP is covered by 16 grid cells, each 0.125 degrees of
latitude and longitude. Daily pro.icction data for characterizing mid-century climate are only
available from 2046 to 2065. A corresponding 20-year historical window was selected for
daily GCM simulations ofpast climate which are available through 1999. Monthly GCM
results were divided into the period before and after 2010 for historical and future analysis
respectively. The analysis window for monthly analysis was extended to 40-years to ensure
the inclusion of the 2050 for mid-century projections. Data extracted from the NCDC and
LLNL archive: were analyzed, and the results are presented in Table 1 1-1.
Gateway Integrated 11-1 final
Regional \Vater Management Plan .tune 2013
Table 11-1. Historical Baseline Values of Spacnnat crmnrn i,. n-4.....
Climate Variable
Winter
Spring
tin In Iner
Fall
SOtIYCC
nA1eti
Precipitation (11
72.8
28.2
1.1
16.3
NCDC 30-year Monthly
1981-2010
Means
Ma
`l'emperaturc
20.(i
23A
28.)
26.4
NCDC 30-year Monthly
(°C)
Means
1981-2010
Mil)
7'emperattire (`C)
8.3
12.0
17.4
14.2
NCDC 30-year Monthly
1981-2010
Means
Wind Speed (m/s)
3.1
4.1
3.7
3.0
LLNL Gridded Monthly
1981-2010
Gridded
lvapotranspiration
57.7
129.]
203.8
124.0
LLNL Gridded Monthly
(nvn/m)
Simulations
1981-2010
KunolL(nun/m)
69.2
48.1
10.7
9.2
LLNL Gridded Monthly
1981-2010
Simulations
Cooling. Degree Days
0
3
LLNL Gridded Daily
(Fahrenheit -days)
63
41
Observations
1980-1999
Heating Dcgree Days
654
2I0
7
123
LLNL Gridded Daily
(Fahrenheit -days)
Observations
1980-1999
Days with I inch or more
2.55
0.65
0
0.25
LLNL Gridded Daily
ol'prccipitation each year
Observations
1980-1999
The table shows seasonal averages computed for each climate variable as well as Heating
Degree Days (1-1DD), Cooling Degree Days (CDD) and the number of days with rainfall in
excess of one. inch. HDD is the cumulative sum (in Fahrenheit -days) of average daily
temperatures less than 65F while CDD is the cumulative sum (in Fahrenheit -days) of average
daily temperatures in excess of 75F. For most California homes, HDD is indicative of
domestic gas consumption while CDD is an indicator of electricity use and associated water
use. The number of rain days each year when the Gateway region receives f inch or more of
precipitation is used as an indicator of local flooding.
11.1.2 Climate in Water Source Regions
The Gateway region imports surface water from the State Water Project (SWP) and the
Colorado River Aqueduct (CRA). Two primary sources that document baseline conditions
and contain projections of climate impacts to source water areas are incorporated by
reference. This includes:
• The heal State Water Project Delivery Reliability Report 2011 (DWR. 2012)
• ('olorado River Basil? ll'ater° SuP1)ly a»d Demand Study (USBR, 2012).
Gateway Integrated 11-2 Final
Regional Water Management Plan June 2013
11.2. Climate Projections
11.2.1 Projections of Local Climate Change
LaNvrcncc I_ ivermore National Labs (1,1--N1.) liosts archives of long-range climate projections
from Couplcd Model later -comparison Project Phasc 3 (('N411'3) conducted by the World
Climate Rcscarch Programme (\WCRP) (Maurer et al.. 2007). The climate projections v\-erc
derived from Global Climate Model (GC'M) simulations by spatially downscaling and
correcting any quantitative biases in tlhc results. Simulation results from NOAA's
Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laborator>> (Ghlll) model are used in the Gateway climate
analysis. Challgc analysis for Gateway is performed for mid-century conditions using
nvailahle historical and future data for periods of equal length. Daily simulation results arc
analyzed over a 17istorical window from 1980 to 1999 and a mid-century projections Nvindow�
of 2046 to 2065. Daily projection data for characterizing mid-century climate are only
available from 2040 to 2065, and the corresponding historical GCM simulations are only
available through 1999. Daily analysis is consequently performed with 20-year time series.
Monthly analysis is performed with 40-year time series with historical data from 1971 to
2010 and amid -century projections windrny of 201 I to 20.50 which includes both the
1RWN1P planning horizon and mid-century.
Tile projections are analyzed for three GCM simulations corresponding to high (A 113).
medium (A2) and low (BI) future greenhouse gas emissions scenarios. The three emissions
scenarios arc associated with different levels offuture socio-economic. technological, and
energy use developments developed by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
(IPCC) and published in the Special Report on Emissions Scenarios (SR1 S. 2000). The A I B
scenario envisions globalized world with emphasis on rapid economic development and
spread of ideas and technologies but with a balance between use of fossil fuels and renewable
energy. The A2 scenario is that of a regionally fragmented world with less transfer of ideas
and technology; economically driven scenario with the highest pro,iected population among
all scenarios. ']'Ile 131 scenario assumes a globalized world with an emphasis on rapid
development of clean technologies and economies driven by investing in environment
friendly solutions. These three emission scenarios are used in this analysis because they are
the only scenarios for which downscaled climate model results are available in the LLNI_,
Climate data archive.
Changes between historical and future GCM simulation results are summarized for nine
climate variables including precipitation. maximum temperature. minimum tcmperaturc.
wind speed. evapotranspiration. runofT. cooling degree days. heating degree days. and days
with precipitation of 1 inch or more. Fable 11-2 summarizes the seasonal changes in climate
variables computed from monthly time series. The values represented projected changes. in
percentag,c, by mid-century (2050) using the NOAA GI -DI, model. In the table. cells with
green backgrounds indicate increases of 3 percent or more, red backgrounds indicate
decreases o1'3 percent or more and white backgrounds indicate no change.
Table I 1-3 shows proiccted changes in climate daily metrics by mid-century (2050) using the
NOAA GFDL model with increases shown in green while decreases are shown in red
backgrounds. Cells with white backgrounds indicate no change.
Gateway InteLratecl 1 1-3 Final
Regional water Management Plan .tune 2013
Table 11-2. Projected Chanaes in Mnnthty r1im.*o 4—
VariablcenarioSeasonal
voarwn U IYIIQ-\QniUr ZU5U'Innalc
ChangeWinter
Spring
Summer
Fall
B)
PrecipitationA2)
RLOM )
5%u
-27%
-36%
6%
16%
-26%
15%
26%
7%
-25%
0"o
40%
High (A1 B) 5% 4% 6%
Maximum
[cmperaturc Medium (A2) 30% 5% 5%
Low (131) 4% 5% 4%
6%
4%
5%
Minimum Temperature
High (AIB)
lo%
8°l0
lo%
12%
Medium (A2)
6%
lo%
8%
8%
LONV(B1)
11%°
8%
6%
6%
Wind Spec(]
High (AIB) 0"rb
1'/°
2
0%,
Medium (A2) 111/0
2%%
-104,
1°ro
Evapotranspiration
High (A I B)
1 %6
5%
6%
5%
Medium (A2)
2%„
3%
5%
3%,
Low (B 1)
-3%
4%
4%
3%
Runoff
Nigh (A113)
15%
-22%
-11%
-12%
Medium (A2)
25%
3%
-6%
28%
4%u
Low (B1)
27%
-9%
-2%
Gateway Integrated 11-4 Final
Regional Water Management Plan Junc 2013
Tobic
11-3. Projected Chanyes in Daily Climate Maries for Gateway by Mid -Century (2060
I ticati<rnat i Clunrc ( Irrrecul)
rlimate o�, rialric l,miasiun sccnurio
inicr slrrillp summer 1111
( hanvc in Cooling high 0.0 4.7 223.6 9:.- j
Ucgrcc Ua�s Medium (A2) 1
o 2. R ? " I.9 6s.o
LoNN(nlp (1(1 C 119.9 47,
--- - --- -
Ch m c in Ilcarinr Iligh (A] 13) _ -264.2 -163.9 4 i -73.8
I)cgire Dais Medium (A2)
-191.7 -146.1 ;.6 -60.3
(I atucnhcif da�s) _
Lo\c (Ll1) -146.7 j -124.8 2.9 51.9
----
CTanp c in Dacs with I Iirh (AI IH) 0.5 0.1 0.(1 (1.2
I'icul)iUllion — — -- -- — — — c—
�1ednnn (� 0 ) 2
�i�cding 1 inch -(1.1 � U.0 0 1
Ida�s) I,mr(1311 -0.6 0.1 0.11 0?
The two lablcs "'holy that:
• Prccipitatiorn is projected to increase in winter (5 percent to 16 percent) and All (6
percent to 40 percent) while decreasing in spring. (-25 percent to -27 percent). Projections
for surni ncr precipitation are mixed with both decreases and increases possible under
dift-crenl emission scenarios.
• Maximum daily tenlperaturc is projcctcd to increase by 3 percent to 6 percent in all
seasons while nnininnum daily tennperaturc is projcctcd to increase by, 6 percent to 12
percent.
• Minor changes in wind speed ranging from increases of' 2 percent to decreases of 3
percent are projcctcd.
f:vapotranspiration is projected to increase Q 3 percent to 6 percent in spring. summer
and All while decreasing slightly, or remaining unchanged in winter.
Runoff is projcctcd to increase in winter by 15 percent to 27 percent while decreasing by
2 pcment to I I percent in the summer. Results for the other two seasons arc varied with
less spring, runoff and more All runoff projected ill two of three future ernnission
scenarios.
0 Significantly higher cooling requirements are projected in sunnnncr and fall while
negligible changes arc projected in winter and spring.
Significantly lower heating requirements arc projcctcd in wintcr. spring. and fall.
NcghgHdc changes arc projected in summer.
E Only marginal changes amounting to less than one additional extreme r�-unfall event a
year arc: projected with small increases in All and no increases in sunnmer. Decreases in
winter and increases in spring are also projected in hvo of• three future emission
scenarios,
h should be noted that the precipitation analysis presented in this report does not take into
account potential changes in the frequency and magnitude of "pineapple. express- storms
associated with atmospheric river events. These events cannot be simulated using the current
Gatnwy huarawd 1 1-5 final
Regional \V1 jtcr (\1ana1,ement Plan .lone 2013
generation oCglobal climate models. The projections should be updated when projections of
climate induced changes in atmospheric river events become available.
11.2.2 Projections of Sea Level Rise
Sea level rise is an important consideration in the Gateway Region because of its proximity
to the Pacific Ocean. Global sea level rose about 210 min between 1900 and 2009 (Church
and White 2011). 'There is uncertainty about the rate of future sea level (Houston and Dean
2011) due primarily to uncertainty about future changes in global wind patterns and the rate
of polar ice melt. In this study, the range of projections of sea level rise found in the
scientificc literature is summarized in Table 11-4.
Global sea level change is a result of contribution of processes such as thermal expansion,
land ice changes, changes in permafrost, and ice sheet flow. Study of ice sheet dynamics is
still an evolving science, and its contribution to sea level rise is not fully modeled in existing
sea level rise projections (Rahmstorf 2007). The sea -level rises estimated in the Third
Assessment Report (TAR) were published by the 1PCC are for 2050 while sea level rise for
2090-2099 relative to 1980-1999 level were published in the Fourth Assessment Report
(AR4). Roth of these estimates exclude uncertainties associated with dynamical changes in
ice flow. These projections should be updated in future when projections with improved ice
sheet dynamics get included in models for global seal level rise.
Gateway Integrated 11-6 Final
Regional Water Management Plan June 2013
Table 11-4. ;urllnl£3ry Of See Level Ritn Prninrli---
Scat(
I miz•iMIS scenario
Projected Rime
Period
Chrimlc Modcl
D:;ra suurec
---- __-- Mid -Century --- ----- —
I,os
Anpelc�
l lislorical
0.022 - 0.044m
U50
Extrapolation ot
"l-rend
N0AA
Historical
Calil�rni,i
historical
0.15111
Mid-ccarhrr)
I'xlrapolationof'
'I
(�alilinnial�4�I.
Historical rend
Semi Fmpirical
Calilivnia
Multi -Scenario
0.24 - 0.31 m
Mid-century
(Rahmslorl's)
CaliGvniia DWR
Approach
Calili�ruiu
Mtill i-Sccnario
0.087 - 0.095m
2020 - 2049
PCN1
Journal
_
I'uhlication
('alil6rnin
N1ulli-Scenario
0.110 - 0.127m
2020 - 2049
11adC13
Journal
Publication
Calilimlia
Mulli-Scenario
0.04 -0.3m
2030
Multi -model
National
L ilsemblc
Acadcmv
Califurnia
Multi -Scenario
0.12 - (1.6m
2050
Multi -model
National
Ensemble
Acedcmv
Global
I Iigh (A113)
0.063 - 0.284 m
2050
Multi -model
WCC
---
—
Ensemble
Global
Medium (A2)
0.058 - 0.269 it,
2050
Muhi-model
II CC
—
1;IlSCmbIC
Global
I.ovv (1311
0.052 - 0.259 m
2050
Multi -model
11'CC
Ensemble
Late -Century
Multi -scenario:
Semi empirical
CaliforniaIN11cdilium
(A2) and
0.54 - 0.941n
End-Cenlury
(Rahmstori's)
Calilinnia 1)\4IR
.ovv (III)
Approach
Mtilt l-scenario:
California
Iligh (Al ti) and
0.192 - 0.288m
2070 - 2099
PCN I
Journal
I .ow (131)
Publication
Multi -Scenario:
CalII6THia
flip] (A 1 fi) and
0.208 - 0.409m
2070 - 2099
HadCTV43
.Journal
l'oNv (B1)
Publication
California
Multi -scenario
0.42 - 1.07m
2100
Multi -model
National
Ensemble
AeadeniN
Gk>hal
I ligh (A 1 L3)
0.21 - 0.45 m
2090 - 2099
multi -model
11 CC
—
Ensemble
Global
Medium (A2)
0.23 - 0.51 m
2090 - 2099
Multi -model
1l'C C
L'nscmhlc
Global
�1'mv�(131
�O.�0.38
2090 - 2(199
Multi -model
IPCC
Ensemble
Gateway Integrated 11-7 Final
Regional Water Management Plan .tune 2013
At the regional scale. semi -empirical and model based approaches have been used to
compute the sea level change in Statewide studies including the DWR and California Climate
Change Center (2009) study based on the Rahmstorf (2007) approach. In that study.
projections of mid-century rise were disaggregated into three components including
extrapolation of historical trend (0.15m). additional rise due to increasing air temperatures
(0.24m - 0.31m) and an uncertainty, range of 0.15m - 0.39m. Another study (Hayhoe et al.
2004) projected the change in sea level along California using simulations from two GCM.
namely, the Parallel Climate Model (PCM) and the Hadley Center's Coupled Model Version
3 (HadCM3). These projections were based on two SRES scenarios- high emission A 1 and
low emission BL A more recent report by the National Academy of Sciences (National
Academies Press, 2012) estimates sea level rise along the Californian coast. The study
reports that relative to the sea levels in the year 2000, sea level is estimated to rise 0.l2m -
0.61 m by 2050 and 0.42m -1.67m by 2100.
Historical data of long-term mean sea level are recorded at 128 gauges located in the ocean
by National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and made available through
the Center for Operational Oceanographic Products and Services (CO-OPS). Each ofthese
gauges has a minimum of 30 years of recorded data. The CO-OPS station located at Los
Angeles (9410660) is the nearest available station to the Gateway region, and it has monthly
records of mean sea levels from 1923 to 2000. The trend at the Los Angeles CO-OPS station
shows an increase of 0.83mm/year with a 95 percent confidence interval of+/- 0.27mm/year.
If this rate of increase is assumed to remain steady until mid-century, the extrapolated mean
sea level would rise by between 0.022m and 0.044m in 2050 over the 2010 mean sea level.
While this simple computation ignores other evidence of accelerating rates of air warming
and polar We melt. it does provide a baseline of minimum projected change.
11.2.3 Projections for Imported Water Sources and Imported Supply
Vulnerability
The reliability of the imported water supplies from the Colorado River and the Sacramento -
San Joaquin Delta were discussed in Section 8.3. The MWD 1RP and the Regional UWMP
contain detailed discussion of the potential vulnerabilities, and the impacts and strategies
being employed by MWD to ensure a secure and reliable supply of imported water. As part
of the 2010 update ofthe IRP, MWD conducted extensive modeling and a reliability analysis
addressing potential climate change impacts to imported water supplies from the SWP and
Colorado River, and used the results of their reliability study to evaluate and prioritize
several management programs for dry year supplies, water storage and other measures.
Snowmelt is a major source of water for both the SWP and the Colorado River Aqueduct.
Temperature increases could increase the portion of winter precipitation falling rainfall and
reduce the capacity of mountain snowpack to function as a natural winter storage reservoir.
Changes to thee timing of spring Snowmelt could impact reservoir operations and ultimately
reservoir water storage and deliveries. Analysis of SWP operations have shown that climate
change is likely to reduce the reliability of water deliveries by increasing the frequency of
recurring of extreme low flow years. By mid-century, water shortages worse than the 1977
drought are estimated to occur once every 6-8 years. Water exports from the San Joaquin
Delta are projected to fall by between 7 percent and 10 percent.
Gateway Integrated 11-8 Final
Regional Water Management Plan June 2013
'I,hc 1 15,I 1k rcJcascd the ('oh)I odo Rircr Mucci» II'c,lcr S7rpp/v onri Demand S7IOr (1JSBll.
2012 ). 'l he purposc of the Study was to define current and fUtUre imbalances in water suppl.
and dcnuu1d in the Colorado Rivcr Basin and Ill(., adjacent areas oftlhc Basin States that
rcccivc 1vcr water over the nc,\t . O years (through 2060). and to develop and
analyze adaptation and mitigation strategics to resolve those imbalances. The report includes
characlerizalion of future water supple and demand imbalances under varying supple and
demand conditions in the Basin, and presents an assessment of the risks to Basin resources
ll-OM potet71ia1 future impacts of climate change. It identilies potential strategics and options
to resolvc Basin -wide water supply and demand imbalances. The results of the 1 12 future
climate projections are doCLnllerlted in the report.
The too critical uncertainlics primarily affecting the future of water supply are ( I ) changes in
stream flow variability and tends and (2) changes in climate variability and trends. The
variability of demand scenarios under climate change conditions was evaluated. The results
ofthe 112 iuttn-e climate projections are presented in the report or climate results arc
presented in terms of annual precipitation. temperature and seasonal tends. For hydrologic
processes. results are presented for ET, snowpack. soil moisture, and runoff. The last section
of the results focuses on projected changes in steam 110w. both annually and seasonally. It is
anticipated that the information will be used by NIWD to subsequently update the IRP and
the CAR reliability report.
11.3 Water System Vulnerability and Responses in the Gateway
Region
fhc Gateway Region has prioritized vulnerabilities in critical areas.
11.3.1 Coastal Aquifer Vulnerability
For the Gateway Region. impact of sea Icvcl rise will be prominent along coastal aquifers.
The Ghybcn-Herzberp principle which governs saltwater -freshwater relationships in coastal
aquifers states that for each unit that freshwater level drops below sea level, the saltwater-
freshwatcr interlace will rise by 40 units. The Alan-titos Barrier. Dominguez Gap Seawater
Barrier and West Coast Basin Barrier projects currently inject water into coastal aquifers
through a scries of \vells to prevent sea -water from advancing into the groundwater basin.
Even the lowest projected sea -water level rise of 0.022m would require the saltwater-
li-eshwater barrier to be raised by 0.88m to maintain the current barrier. Significantly more
water must be injected into the wells to prevent saltwater intrusion. Other coastal effects of
sea level rise could include an increase in invasivc species in estuaries, bluff erosion, beach
retreat. and alteration of the ecosystem balance. In addition, increasing recharge through
integrated storm Nvater management and implementation of LoNv Impact Development (LID)
practices for new construction or urban renewal projects has the potential to increase
recharge to the groundwater basin and raise groundwater elevations. Projects that increase
recharge, raise or maintain water level (e.g.: water conservation) or make use of recycled
water as alternative supplies could also address this area of vulnerability.
Gateway Integrated 11-9 Final
Regional water Management Plan .tune 201.E
11.3.2 Water Supply Vulnerability
The IR\VM1' acknowledges the potential water supply risks and vulnerabilities and contains
goals and objectives that will help the area live within the boundaries of existing water
contracts, surface water and groundwater entitlements, and local resources. The Gateway
IR\►hivlP includes project concepts for conservation. recycling recharge of storm water. and
groundwater treatment, and use in order to help GWMA and the members sustainable
manage the available supply. The Gateway members are retail water purveyors of MWD and
C13MWD wholesale water supplies and as such, support and participate in the programs for
adaptive management. These programs and the adaptive management approach ensuree that
water supplies available from existing imported water sources are sustainable and reliable.
11.3.2.1 Local Supply Vulnerability
Natural inflow from local precipitation and mountain front recharge could be impacted as
runoff generating rainfall events occur earlier in each water year. Total volumes of rainfall
and runoff may be reduced. Improved management of recharge zones and integrated storm
water retention and recharge facilities may be required to ensure local runoff flows into the
aquifer rather than running off into local streams and then to the ocean. On the demand side.
increased temperatures could increase domestic water consumption, particular for outdoor -
uses which are subject to higher evapotranspiration as a result of higher temperature. This
could influence the ability to meet the 20 X 2020 water conservation goals.
11.3.2.2 Imported Supply Vulnerability
The SWP and CRA source areas supply reliability was discussed in Section 8.3. Climate
change could impact imported water supply availability. The Gateway Region is vulnerable
to the impacts of climate change on the State Water Project and Colorado River. Changes in
the snowmelt patterns could impact reservoir operations and net storage. Water deliveries
could be impacted during periods of drought and in warm winters when reservoirs discharge
water early to avoid flooding. Ecological water requirements could also change, particularly
in the Sacramento -San Joaquin Delta from which water is sourced.
MWD is the water wholesaler to the Gateway Region. MWD updated the IRP in 2010. The
1RP documents climate change vulnerability and uncertainty for Colorado River and SWP
supplies. The MWD program was one of the DWR case studies in the Climate Change
Handbook for Regional Water Planning (DWR, 2011). The impact analysis included
intensivc demand and supply gap modeling and probability analysis. The supply/demand
impacts of concern include:
• Demand — increased outdoor residential/agricultural use
• Supply — snowpack reductions
• Supply — sea level rise in the Delta, which could result in pumping cutbacks for SWP
• Water quality impairments
• hxtreme weather events such as drought
• Loss of hydroelectric power generation capacity
Gateway Integrated 11-10 Final
Regional Water Management Plan June 2013
N1\A O'�- ad��t�tivc r-nanap tit cnI approach supports the WHI;"I I\'eOion. NIi\ I-? cv,rluatcd
stratc rG �, to cyan n u the supple gap resuldnr Orn climate change and ranked supply
stratc��rc�,. S'Iratepics included in the plan Nvcrc cNalualed against criteria to creole a ��atcr
portfoho of three tiers: Core Resources. are I Incert,tinty Buffer, and Foundational Actions:,
C'orc Resources. comprise "baseline" manapement hro'grams and activitics to pro crit the
[inure L%qi hciv,een demands and availahle supplies. The f_Incertainiv Rund is composed W
projects that ►naY he implemented should the need arise in the future. Foundational Actions
arc la&r-inycsimcnL including longer term projects that can he sUned on an Ovsligativc
ICv cl vN ithout incnrrillp extensive costs.
The adaptive management strategy identified in the IRP is supported by the GWNIA (Fir urc
The NIM) 1RN will continue -to be updated as new iniormation, data. and tools arc
available. and as conditions and needs change. ')'he uncertainty bulfer and foundational
actions laid out in the water project portfolio rcquirc periodic reevaluation as part of ilhc
adaptive management strategy. Gateway members will continue to represem the region to
M WI) and support the cxchangc of inlo� •oration, continued research and development eft'orL�:.
and the dcvclopmc'nt and implementation of the strategics identified.
s
f
e
Figure IM. Adaptive Management Cycle Applied by MIND
11,3.3 Ecological Vulnerability
Changes in precipitation and temperature: patterns arc likely to increase the watcr°
requir nients of plants and animals in natural habitats inchrding uninhabited spaces. local
streams and wetlands such as the Rio I tondo and the FI Dorado Lakes, and waterways such
as the Los Arritos Channel, increased ecological water demand will encounter competing
demands from household water c►ses including landscaping and evaporative coolers prevalent
ill
hMIMMI 11-1 1 I final
Regional yar,'1 Alanagcment @Ian June F
in many older and lower incomes neighborhoods. ']'he Gateway 1RWMP Region also has
large outdoor water uses including community regional parks. nature centers. wildlife
sanctuaries. nurseries. recreational areas such as 'Whittier Narrows, golf courses and water
Sports centers. Coastal areas such as Long Beach also have major hotels and other facilities
that support tourism and coastal recreation. Ecological systems are likely to be most
vulnerable as municipal and industrial water demands are usually prioritized in the event of
water supply deficits.
Some increase ecological demand could be met with increased use of recycled water or
imported water when available. However. increased water use cores at the cost of increased
GHG emissions from energy use in the recycling process or in conveying imported water to
the region. Increased pumping of local aquifers could also have adverse impacts on
groundwater quality.
Higher temperatures could also lead to increased ozone productions, exacerbating
photochemical smog production and related health and environmental problems. It could also
alter biogeochemical cycles and shifts in ecological composition in existing habitats towards
drier climate vegetation. Such ecological shifts increase thee risk of wildfires and forest fires
which often originate in uninhabited spaces or recreational areas but can spread to population
centers (Pierce et al. [eds.] 2012). Wildfires lead to loss of vegetation cover, ash deposition.
large sediment and debris flows which damage water quality in streams and lakes. Other
water quality impacts could include changing declining dissolved oxygen content. increased
water temperature, and pH levels. These water quality changes can threaten aquatic habitats
for fish and other aquatic life in rivers, lakes and eventually coastal systems such as Alamito
Bay.
11.3.4 Flooding Vulnerability
Current climate model projections cannot be used directly to evaluate flood risk because the
distribution of individual rainfall events in climate models is not reliable. However. a number
of results from this study point towards increased flood risk in winter and fall including
increased precipitation in winter and fall, increased winter runoff, and increased number of
days each year with precipitation exceeding 1 inch. "These factors could lead to increased
storm water flooding in urban areas and increased risk of flooding along Rio Hondo, the San
Gabriel River and smaller tributary streams.
11.3.5 Other Vulnerabilities
The California Climate Adaptation Planning Guide (APG) has been finalized. The APG:
Understanding Regional Characteristics report assesses the impact of climate change across
the state. including the Gateway Region. The repot notes that communities should consider
evaluating the following areas where the region is vulnerable to climatee change impacts:
3 lit adaptation/local government/adartationJpolicy euide.html
Gatmay Integrated 11-12 Final
Regional Water Management Plan June 2013
Reduced tourism
• W1Id1i1c risk
I'uhlic health - licit and air quality
• Cow lal erosion
The responses to these vulnerabilities arc not specifically included in this version ol'thc
IRNVNIP but arc provided to make the conu»Lill ity more aware of the potential risks and
enconragc communities to integrate actions with the other local and regional plans (Chapter
13).
11.4 Water -Energy Intensity and GHG Emission
The Gateway Region is developing a broad portfolio of projects that contribute towards
improved climate adaptation in the Region. The Plan compares energy use and associated
greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions for the most common water operations including,
conyevance. pumping groundwater, drinking water treatment. wastewater treatment and
recycling to rank projects for energy use and emission. Projects containing operations with
low encrpy use: are ranked less favorably since higher energy use also implies increased GHG
eIII ISSIonS.
Emissions data arc collected and verified by the California Climate Action Registry (('('AR)
and distributed through its Climate Action Registry Reporting Online Tool (CARROT). The
emission, arc reported it1 units of carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e), which reflect the
combined g]ohal warming potential of key greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide (CO-_).
methane (C'1la). nitrous oxide (N20) and a range of hydro -fluorocarbons. In 2008. Los
Angeles County reported an emissions factor of 1052 lbs. CO2e/N1NVh of electricity it
generates. TIIis emissions factor is multiplied to the energy intensity of water operations to
estimate water -related emissions in pounds ofcarbon dioxide equivalent per acre-foot of
water. The results show that for the Gateway Region',, projects that optimize local water use
through recycling or improved water quality result in lower energy use and GHG emissions
than projects that increase imported water supply.
Estimates o1`cncrgy intensity for water operations including delivering water to the Region
from Last and West Branches of SNVP.. the CRA.. MWD, groundwater pumping. water
recycling. distribution and peak energy use reduction programs are presented in Table 1 1-5.
Energy intensities for MWD are applied for emissions analysis of all imported .water in this
study because they hest reflect the actual current practice of blending water supplies from all
available sources before distribution. For each pro ,jeet in the 1RWMP. estimates of
greenhouse gas emissions in pounds of carbon dioxide equivalent per acre-foot of water (lbs.
CO2c/Ah) are provided in Chapter 12. Section 12.3.4.
Gateway lntegratcd I 1-13 Final
Regional Water Management Plan June 2013
Table 11-5, Water Operations
Energy
Energy
water -related
Hank
WaIev Operation
Intensity
Intensity
Emissions
Source
(kwh/MG)
(IAVWA1')
(lbs. CO20AE)
Pumping water from East Branch
GE1 2010. I mbeddcd
1
of Stale Water Project to Devil
9558
3115
3277
Energy in Water
Canyon
Studies
Pumping walcr from West Branch
GE7 2010. Embedded
2
ol'State Water Project to Castaic
7804
2563
2696
Energy in Water
Studies
Blended Water Delivery by
GFJ 2010. ).imbedded
3
Metropolitan Water District
7588
2473
2602
Energy in W aler
Studies
Pumping water from Colorado
GEl 2010. Embedded
4
7462
2432
2558
Energy in Water
River Aqueduct to Lake Skinner
Studies
5
Wastewater Treatment
2500
815
857
CEC 2005
6
(iroundwater Pumping
1779
580
610
CEC 200E
7
Water Recycling
1228
400
421
CEC 2005
8
Drinking Water Treatment
100
32
34
CEC 2005
9
Peak L'nergy Reduction
460
CEC 2011
11.5 Summary of Climate Adaptation and Mitigation Analysis
The climate change analysis of the Gateway Region has evaluated projected changes in
seasonal precipitation, maximum and minimum temperature, wind speed, evapotranspiration.
runoff, cooling and heating degree days, and in days with precipitation exceeding l inch
under three climate scenarios. A summary of projections available in the scientific literature
for sea level rise along the Los Angeles coastal, the California, and global seas for mid-2I"
century have also been compiled and presented.
Based on the change analysis, four key water system vulnerabilities have prioritized for the
region including coastal aquifers, water supply, ecological functions and flooding. The broad
portfolio of projects developed in the region has been qualitatively evaluated to assess how
well each project contributes towards climate change adaptation, mitigating greenhouse gas
emissions and greater reliance on renewable energy. The greenhouse contributions of water -
related operations of each proposed project has also been quantitatively evaluated, and
projects with demonstrable GHG emissions -reduction impacts have been identified and
Gateway Integrated 11-14 Final
Regional Water Management Plan June 2013
r'llAcd (( 11,1 ltcr 12Y (owl projects Nvcrc ideMihcd as Whip possible emisdonvi-cduoki or
cmi�ioll� -increase impacts hilt the nct impart could not he corrihutcd hCCwsc the vv°.Itcr
say i17r, 1wvc no i peen quantified. Sonic projects havc no mcasurenhlc w,11cr "Ivillp, or in
C11a11"m Cl1w;"Io11S from V'Paler operation.".
Gatem! hmpm ed 1 1-15 Final
Regional Wato Management flan .lone 2015
12
12 Project Solicitation and Prioritization
The development of goaIS and objectives for the IRWMP provided-eneraI guidance for GNVNJA
to develop strategics to achieve those goals, By nature.. strategies dcvcloped to achieve those
goals \v'ould he Iollowed by or supported by actions to successfully carry out those stratcgic�..
Actions are considered to be projects or programs tIvIl help IRWMP stakeholders, and
participants meet those strategies identified.
To determine appropriate actions or pro -jects, the IRWMP development process looked to
stakeholders who know the issues and region to suggest appropriate projects. The proiect
submittal. review and ranking process was a dynamic process intended to capture project
information in a specific manner and review and rank that inloniiation efficiently and
transparcntl>in accordance with DWR Guidelines, It was also intended to provide an avenue for
proiccts to he integrated to better meet regional goals and objectives.
12.1 Project Solicitation and Submittal Process
The Project Solicitation and Submittal Process provide the steps taken to efficiently obtain
project information from project proponents or sponsors. Besides describing the proJects-
additional information provided general conditions. impacts, benefits. and other attributes 01-111e
projects. 'phis information was ultimately uscd to score and rank the projects in tends of meeting
,(goals- ieasihility criteria. and readiness to proceed. Stakeholders and project proponents that
were interested in having their projects included in the IRWMP were required to fill out the
Project Submittal form and submit it via email to the Consultant Team. From there the file was
added to a collective "response- file. which stored the information and placed it in "tabular"
foa-mat using the Adobe suite of products. Projects wc:a-e automatically downloaded into an
Access datahasc and output into tabular format as well as various formats for reports.
Figure 12-1. Project Database Tool and Overview of Submittal Process
Gateway Integrated 12-1 Final
Regional Water Alanagcment Plan June 201 11
12.1.1 Project Database Tool
Before soliciting project ideas from Stakeholders. a systematic way to track and store projects
and their attributes was needed. For the Gateway IRWMP process. a database tool was
developed integrating Adobe Acrobat, Microsoft Access_. and Microsoft Excel programs. The
tool has several components that feed information to the database and systematical]), and
efficiently retrieve that information. The project database tool is comprised of a Project
Submittal Form and the Project Database Suite. These items were used to collect. store, and
ultimately evaluate projects that were submitted to the Gateway IRWMP.
12.1.1.1 Project Submittal Form
The Project Submittal Form (Appendix Q was created to obtain specific project information
from project sponsors. It is an Adobe fill -able form containing project information that was
submitted via email. It provided those submitting projects with the opportunity to describe their
project and summarize its attributes, and provided an efficient way to view project infonnation in
different ways. Project infonnation requested on the form was intended to assist those later
reviewing the projects (Reviewers).
The form is a questionnaire with both multiple choice and essay questions allowing project
sponsors to provide as much detail as possible regarding the project. It is a fill -able PDF form
provided to stakeholders during the Project Solicitation period that project sponsors submit
digitally to the GatcNvay IRWMP email address (, atewa)Jr\vni11 geiconsultants com).
12.1.1.2 Project Database Suite
The Project Database pairs Excel and Access files containing all data from the Project Submittal
Form. It allows the extraction of data provided for a project, a variety of easy to use tabular
formats, and the output of all text that was provided into the Project Submittal Form.
The Project Submittal Form was easy to use and almost limitless in data input. However, it does
not allow end users to print out the form with all data available. To extract all data provided by
project submitters, the data needed to be extracted into a database (Access) and re -printed into
Adobe. This allowed for the production of a Project Workbook. The Project Workbook is simply
a collection of all the information provided on all Project Submittal Forms. It allows Reviewers
to read. and print if desired, all of the data provided by project submitters.
12.1.2 Project Solicitation
The project solicitation was intended to identify projects and concepts for projects to meet the
Gateway IRWMP goals. It was anticipated that there would be a wide variety of projects
submitted at different levels of readiness, cost and integration. The process sought to include
projects that were planned for development over the planning horizon, not only projects
considered ready for funding.
Projects were solicited through written and email announcements and letters of invitation were
sent via email and were posted on the Gateway IRWMP website. The email announcement was
Gateway Integrated 12-2 Final
Regional Water Management Plan .tune 2013
went out to i(JenlitN t-takcIIoldcrs on Jane 2-0, 2012, It deadline for proJec1 suhminal was
originCII"Cr 5. 2012, 1 o;Iid �,ponsor�, in plovidiI a cm apletc and I ican ill gfui ranee 01
projects the project sulhmiltal due date was cNIcndcd. Some additional pro_Iects were included W,
late ar, l)eeenher 201 2.
Nicol sponnms. including puhlic agencies and nonprofit corporations. were encouraged to
submit I-u'ojccct concepls that they believe would meet the Gatcvyay IRWN,11) goals and objectives.
They further urged to submit the projects regardless of vyhether the project was ready to
proceed or not. or if it would qualify for Proposition 84 Implementation Grant funding.
111.3 Consultant Suggested Projects
In addition to project sponsors. the Consultant Team was also asked to submit project concepts
that they considered important to the Region. For example, during the assessment of
groundvvatcr quality. the Team noted the location of several superfund cleanup areas that will
ullimatell',Icopardizc a portion of Be Region! groundwater supple. h was important to include
at least the concept of a feasibility study for cleanup of that area so that the Plan's actions
(projects) would at least recognize the Regions needs in that regard.
Several projects were added in this way to the Plan. Since water supply did not appear to be a
large issue for the Region as a whole. no regional water supply projects were added by the
Consultant Team.
13y offering the technical team an opportunity to suhmit projects, h took advantage of their
careful of groundwater, storm water. water supply and demand. and groundwater
monitoring to improve regional needs.
12.1.4 Past Project Suggestions
to capitalize on past work in the Region. stakeholders were provided with lists of projects and
their descriptions from earlier and neighboring IR\\IMP e1o11s.
Mane stakeholders had once participated in GLAC and their previous projects were included in
the (_JI_.AC IR\ N11) project lists compiled a few years ago. To make this information
manageable, only projects that were proposed within or near the Gateway Region were included.
Stakeholders were also provided with the project list for neighboring Santa Ana Watershed
Project Authority (SA\V))A). These too were only projects that were near the Gateway
boundary.
These project lists served to remind stakeholders of possible actions for their agency or city that
was suggested in the past. as well as providing a resource that would share solutions for similar
issues that stakeholders may have. They also were intended to give stakeholders general project
ideas they might alter for their own jurisdiction. Copies of the lists can be found at
�\ \\ ��_ �,ali �� a I i\, A\ NI I'.��r�,.
Gateway Integrawd 12-3 t inal
Regional Watci Management I'lan .tune 20l
12.2 Project Review Process
A multi -level reviewing process was used to review, rank, and define projects for inclusion in the
Gateway IR1\IMP. The initial review was the verification the project submittal form was
complete. Complete project submittal forms were then sent to a team of reviewers for technical
review. evaluation, and ranking.
Project ranking is required by the IRWMP Guidelines to be included in the plan. It helps to sort
projects on their relative benefits, and whether they help meet or support the IRWMP goals and
state water preferences. However, this ranking serves only as a general indicator of benefits and
not necessarily whether the Region should fund or implement the project. It helps determine
which projects might be ready for grant funding but does not serve as the final determination on
which projects should proceed.
This ranking is not directly for grants. Proposed grant projects must be ranked in the Plan, per
guidelines, but projects do not need to be on the top of the list. Grant opportunities will depend
more on the readiness of individual projects to proceed.
12.2.1 Review and Ranking Criteria
Projects must first address one or more of the goals and objectives set out for the Plan. If
projects do not support those goals, they should not be considered for inclusion in the Plan.
The state has indicated a number of'preferences and priorities for water -related needs in the state.
Projects that share those elements are more desirable from the states perspective and therefore,
would be more preferable and should rank higher than ones that do not.
Other factors. such as cost effectiveness, technical feasibility, timeliness, multiple or regional
benefits, were also reviewed to determine if projects are both ready and effective to address
water- issues.
Based on IRWMP standards in the DWR Guidelines, the Consulting Team drafted a scoring
sheet for use in the technical review and ranking ofproposed projects and presented that criteria
list to stakeholders on June 14, 2012.
The ranking criteria combine several parallel IRWMP development process steps described in
Chapter 2. As shown in Figure 12-2, project feasibility, environmental justice review, climate
change, DAC issue review, and integration were all considered, at least in part, in this project
scoring step. Table. 12-1 shows the final project scoring sheet for project ranking. Criteria
included goals. IRWMP factors, and IRWM requirements, the latter two from the IRWMP
Guidelines.
Gateway Integrated 12-4 Final
Regional Neater Management Plan June 2013
rM
«G
Figure 12-2. Project Rankine Process
Gateway I[it c-Lratcd l�'-S Final
Rcvional Watci 1v1anapcnic-nt flan Jun, 2013
Table 12-1. Score Sheet
Project Title
Reviewer
Project ID
How Well Does
Factor
Total
Criteria
the Project Meet
the Criteria?
Weight
Points
Reviewer Comments
45
1-3
Identify and address the water dependent natural resources needs of the Gateway
Region Watersheds.
0
Protect and enhance waterquality. Objectives: Attain required TMDL levels in
accordance with their individuolschedules; Effectively reduce majorsourcesof
0
pollutants and eri vironmental stressors in the region.
Optimize and ensure water supply reliability. Objectives; Continue and enhance water
c
use efficiency measures to meet 20X2020 per capita water use targets; Expand regional
water recycling facilities and recycled water distribution to help provide reliable water
0
c
sources; Systematically upgrade aging water infrastructure in the Region.
Coordinate and integrate water resource management.
0
Provide stewardship of the Region's water dependent natural resources through
enhancement of amenities and infrastructure. Objective; Create habitat, open space,
0
and water -based recreational opportunities in the Region.
Manage flood and storm waters to reduce flood risk and water quality impacts.
Objective: Install or optimize water monitoring to effectively manage storm water in
0
the Region. Obtain, manage, and assess water resources data and information.
Relation to Resource Management Strategies
(How well does the project contribute to the diversification of the water
2
0
mono ement portfolio?)
Benefits to DAC Water Issues
(How well does the project help address critical water related needs of VACS
2
0
within the iRWM reaion?)
Cost Effectiveness and Economic Feasibility
(Is the project cost effective? How economically feasible is the project?
http://www.water.ca.gov/economics/downloads/Guidebook lune_OB/EconGuide
2.5
0
bo(,k•Pdf)
Timeliness - Project Status
( Is the project ready to proceed?)
r
0 = No expected start dote provided.
0
t
] - Expected to start greater than 6 years from now
LL
1 = Expected to start 3-6 years from now
2.5
0
3 = Expected to start 1-3 years from now
4 = Expected to start within 1 yearfrom now
S = Already Started
Technical Feasibility of Project
(In examining the methods, materials, or equipment used in the project, arc there
3
0
sufficient data to indicate the project will result in o successful outcome?)
Permitting (Status of Penmitting)
2
0
Project Costs and Funding (Are project costs developed and reasonable? Is there o
funding plan?)
2.5
0
Provides multiple benefits
2
0
Inte ration with local land use planning
2
0
Provides regional benefits
2.5
0
Environmental Justice (How well does the project redress inequitable distribution
of environmental burdens (and access to environmental goods?)
2
0
State Program Preferences
(How well does the project meet State Program Preferences DWR Guidelines
2
p
D
a
Section F?)
Statewide Priorities
v
Def: How well does project meet statewide priorities (DWR Guidelines Table 1),
2.5
0
a
Climate Change Adaptation (How well does the project adapt to climate change?)
2
0
Greenhouse Gas Emissions Contribution- Project
(How
well does the project assist in reducing GHG emission?)
2
0
Greenhouse Gas Emissions -Support to Renewable Energy
How well does Project support renewable energy or reducing GHG emissions?l 1
1
2
0
TOTAL PROJECT SCORE
p
Can this project be Integrated with other projects? If so, which ro'ect(s)?
Gateway Integrated 12-6 Final
Regional Water Management Plan June 2013
12.2.2 Weighting Factors for Ranking Criteria
Not gill c!Ithe considered arc cquall. important. Proposed projects, must supporl 11-Ic
IRWNIP -o;ik and c'hicetives. So ducstions guantil', ill!-' whether a project supports one or rriorc
(10 lk s,Iwllld he hcavily rated in the ranking. Other factors 111av not he as important to proiccl
ranking. IfOvv wcil rI proicct aligns with state priorities may not be as important as suppM-11in1
.goals. for c""'Implc.
`,lakeholdcrs were asked to provide a relative weighting for the proposed rating sheet questions
in their mecting June 14, 2012. Each stakcholdcl, assigned a number (1. 2. 3) to cash question in
the raw score sheet (1 = low importance: 3 — hi(1h). Those values were averaged for each
cltics0011 on the Shea. Table 12-2 shows the distribution of'weigilt ijig factors iiom the exercise
and the final "average" weighting for each question. These factors were embedded into the final
score shed. 'Table 12-1.
12.2.3 Project Technical Review Team
The technical review and ranking., was done by a tcam ol-engineers. environniental planners. and
suhicct specialists. Most of the qucstions on the score sheet were answered by Matt Zidar ((iLl
Planner). Ciintcr Gitlin (GEI Environmental Scientist). Aaron McWilliams (GI I- Rcgistercd
Fnl.,inecr who also worked on the 20 x 2020 work for the region). and Bill Bennett (Civil and
(icotcchnical 1:11pinccr). For certain questions. specialists Were. hi -ought in to help. I ol-
example.
for the Disadvantaged Community Impacts question. I,orcna ospina. planner from GEL as well
as Gina Nila. stakeholder representative ti-om City ol'Commercc were asked to review based on
their experience dealing with DAC Impacts. Lorraine Whitc (Environmental Planner) provided
input on the 1;nyironmcntal Rlsticc question as did Matt 'Zidar, and Bill Bennett. based on
previous cxperiencc. The three climate change qucstions were only answered by Kwahcna
Asanic (CF. Phd.). a climate cxpel•t.
Table 12.3. Team Review Acminnmentc
Review Subleo Areat--��
-- - - -- Reviewer ---- - ---
Matt Aaron Bill Lorena Kwabena Ginger Gina Loraine
Zidar McWilliams Bennett Ospina Asan_te Gillan Nila White
Protect Feasibility
CI C] Cl .x
Integration
--------
❑
Ex I
Ell
[nvironmental Justice
---'
�
-
0—
r,
Climate Change:
- --
- --
CI
— -� ----
DAC Issues
-- ---
—
Ex
E
Land Usc �
- -- -- - —
�
-
-
---
All but
All but
-
All but
Questions to Answer j Climate
Climate,
All but
Climate
DAC
Climate
Climate,
DAC
Env.Justice
and
DAC, and
and DAC
Only
Only
DAC, and
Only
Only
DAC
Env.Justice
Env.Justice
Gatcwar tntcgratcd 12-7 Final
Kcgional V'Water Management Plan .tune 2013
Table 12-2. Weighting Factor Development
Identify and address the water dependent natural resources needs of the Gateway Region
u of votes
for weights
].3
Weight
Watersheds,
n/a
n/a
n/a
3
Protect and enhance water quality. Objectives: Attoin required TMDL levels in accordance with their
individual schedules; Effectively reduce majorsourCeS of pollutants and environmental stressors in the
n/a
n/a
IC n/a
3
region.
x
m
Optimize and ensure water supply reliability. Objectives: Continue and enhance water use efficiency
measures to meet 10X2010percapita water use targets; Expand regional water recycling facilities and
h
c
o
recycled water distribution to help provide reliable water sources;Systematically upgrade aging water
n/a
ni
n/a
3
cinfrastructure
in the Region.
Coordinate and integrate water resource management.ox
n/a
/a n/a
3
Provide stewardship of the Region's water dependent natural resources through enhancement of
amenities and infrastructure. Objective: Create habitat, open space, and water -based recreational
n/a 3
n/a n/a
3
opportunities in the Region.
as
Manage flood and storm waters to reduce flood risk and water quality impacts. Objective: Install or
b
optimize water monitoring to effectively manage storm water in the Region. Obtain, manage, and
Wa
n/a
n/a
3
assess water resources data and information.
Relation to Resource Management Strategies
(How well does the project contribute to the diversification of the water management
4
15
2
2
portfolio?)
Benefits to DAC Water Issues
(How well does the project help address critical water related needs of DACs within the IRWM
7
11
3
2
region?)
Cost Effectiveness and Economic Feasibility
(Is the project cost effective? How economically feasible is the project?
1
9
11
2.5
http://www.woter.ca.gov/economics/downloads/Guidebook June_ OS/EconGuidebook.pdf)
Timeliness - Project Status
(is the project ready to proceed?)
0 = No expected start dote provided.
e
1 = Expected to start _greater than 6 years from now
1 = Expected to start 3-6 years from now
2
9
10
2.5
"
3 = Expected to start 1-3 years from now
4 = Expected to start within 1 year from now
5 = Already Started
Technical Feasibility of Project
(In
examining the methods, materials, or equipment used in the project, are there sufficient
0
3
18
3
data to indicate the project will result in a successful outcome?
Permitting
(Status of Permitting)
6
11
4
Z
Project
Costs and Funding (Are project costs developed and reasonable? Is there a funding
plan?)
1
9
10
2.5
Provides
multiple benefits
4
11
6
2
Integration
with local land use planning
6
12
3
2
Provides
regional benefits
1
10
10
2.5
Environmental
Justice (How well does the project redress inequitable distribution of
environmental
burdens (and access to environmental goods?)
5
13
3
2
State
Program Preferences
(How
well does the project meet State Program Preferences DWR Guidelines Section F?)
1
12
8
2
V Statewide
Priorities
E Def.
How well does the project meet listed statewide priorities (DWR Guidelines Table I).
2
7
11
2.5
d
Climate
Change Adaption (How well does the project adapt to climate change?)
v
5
15
1
2
Mw Greenhouse
Gas Emissions Contribution- Project
(How
well does the project assist in reducting GHG emission?)
6
14
1
2
Greenhouse
Gas Emissions -Support to Renewable Energy
(How
well does the project support renewable energy for the purposes of reducing GHG
6
13
2
2
emsisions?)
Gateway Integrated 12-8 Final
Regional Water Management Plan June 2013
Technical keN icNN 7 vIm:
Rotc/Responsibilities:
Years of, Experience:
Project Manager/ Mr. Etennett managed.
coordinated deliverables, provided general
project review and led the GE team.
w
Firrn/Current/Proposed Location: GH ('onsuhants. hu./Sacramento
Role/Responsibilil ics:
Years of Experience:
Firm/Ctrr rcnl/Proposed Location:
Role/Responsibilities:
Years of Experience:
Firrn/Current/Proposed Locatiow
Role/Responsibilities:
Fears of, Expericr)ce:
Firrrr/Currcnl/l'i-ol)osed Location
IRWMP Advisor/ Mr.Lidar. advised
The team ou the overall IR WMP approach.
enviromnental justice and gen ral review.
28
GEI Consultants. Inc./Sacramento
Climate/ Dr. Asante led climate change
vulncrability and mitigation analyses.
IS
GEI Consultants. hu./Sacramento
Lead I'lamner & Urban Water Conservation
Consultant/ Ms. Ospina coordinated siakc-
holder involvement and reviewed DAC
project impacts.
16
GEI Consultants. Inc./Glendale
Gateway Integrarcd 12-4 final
Rcgional Water Plan hole 201?
Role/Responsibilities: CEQA Environmental Documents
Requirements, Fish Passage/ Ms. Gillin
advised the IRWM team of the need for
CEQA compliance for the IRWMP
development and for projects that are
integrated into the IRWMP.
Years of Experience: 29
Firm/Current/Proposed Location: GE1 Consultants, Inc./Portland
Role/Responsibilities: Project Reviewer/ Ms. White reviewed
Project submittals specifically for
Environmental Justice issues and advised
the team on Environmental ,Justice matters.
Years of Experience: 28
Firm/Current/Proposed Location: GEI Consultants. Inc./Sacramento
Name
Role
Experience
Location
Project Experience
Aaron
Water Conservation,
9
Glendale
Gateway Authority 20 x 2020,
McWilliams,
Water Supply, Associate
Imperial Irrigation District
P.E.
Engineer
IRWMP
Gina Nila
DAC Impact Review
--
City of
Environmental Services
Commerce
Manager for the City of
Commerce, a stakeholder
12.2.4 Project Review and Discussion
Reviewers were provided project information and a score sheet for each project to review and
score projects. Project score sheets also provided room for comments on particular questions
(Table 12-1).
Reviewers were also asked to consider the following issues:
1. is there it critical need for further clarification for the project, given its status and general
information??
Gateway Integrated 12-10 Final
Regional Water Management Plan .tune 2013
W11"ll arc tlrc rlexI steps for the project'?"! If it isn'l rc.adv to fund and build. what slops can he
funded r,r pl.rnncd now?
a. I)l'corinaiSsarlce Report
h. Fcasihility Study
c. funding Plan/commitment
d. Desitn
c. L�;nvir��nmcntal Documentation
1'. Consiruction
g. Implementation
3. Do partners know tile), are included?
4. 1nIep.ra11011:
a. Arc there other projects that can be bundled?
b. Arc there other locals/agencies that could join in this project?
c. Arc there similar projects in adjacent regions?
d. Is the project going to interfere with other proposed projects?
C. is the project going to use water from other projects oi- dedicated to other projects'?
f. Can the project be operated cooperatively with other projects for a better outcome?
12.3 Project Scoring and Ranking
Each criterion on the score sheet is scored on a scale of o (low) to 5 (high). The maximum points
possible wore 267.5 for the 73 projects submitted. Projects were then ranked by score.
Regardless ofrank. projects were reviewed for integration opportunities to further satisfy
regional goals and state requirements. Further discussion on project integration is provided in
Chapter 13.
12.3.1 Project Statistics
At present. 73 projects were submitted by stakeholders and project proponents in the Gateway
Region. Twenty-one projects did not provide total costs. Of those that did, the. largest total
estimated cost provided for a project is $25M. and the lowest total estimated cost provided for a
project is $70.000. 'The average cost provided was $3.47M. "hhe total estimated cost for all
projects is $180.461.227.
Many of the projects submitted for consideration in the 1RWMP were at the "concept" level.
That is, there was little information to define the project. limited environmental permitting and
documentation work, and not much cost information available. These concept projects generall��
require a ieasibility study oradditional engineering bcfi)rc they can reasonably be considered for
implementation.
Only a icvv projects were considered "ready for funding." This status requires full cost. design.
and feasibility information. along with a completed or nearly completed environmental permit.
Most projects slid not have a funding plan or local matching funding available.
Project types were generally well distributed. but the predominate project type was water quality.
This was not surprising since water quality has been identified as a major issue and its
Gateway Integrated 12-1 1 Final
Regional Water Management Plan Junc 2013
improvement and protection a major goal of the Plan. About 30 percent of the projects were
focused on water quality. Storm water and flood -related projects comprised about 18 percent of
the submitted project ideas.
Water conservation, new or refurbished groundwater wells. infrastructure. and recycling each
captured about 10 percent of the remaining projects. A few park and open space projects were
considered as well. However, there were many storm water projects that included a park and
open space component, which showed multiple benefits were being considered by many
stakeholders.
Table 12-4 summarizes the types of projects that were submitted and ranked by the Technical
Review Team.
Table 124. Project Breakdown by Type
Project Type
No. of Projects
Submitted
Infrastructure
6
Conservation
7
Water Quality
22
Recycling
6
Wells
9
Flood/Storm Drains
13
Interties
q
Parks
3
Storage
3
Fifteen of the 22 members of GWMA submitted project ideas for the IRWMP. Table 12-5
shows the distribution of projects by sponsor. Several cities submitted several project ideas. The
City of Long Beach provided 14 projects for the Plan and Paramount 9. Six cities only submitted
a single project. The projects generally span the geographical extent of the Gateway Region,
Figure 12-3.
Gateway Integrated 12-12 Final
Regional Water Management Plan June 2013
I) It 124. Ftoject! Submitted by Stakeholders
City/Agency No. of
� Prninrlc
Central Basin Municipal Water District
2
City of Bellflower
I City of Bellflower Municipal Water System
7
City of Downey
City of La Mirada
1
akewoodong
Beach
F
Zq
ynwood
f- —_
i City of Norwalk
Cily of Paramount _
1 City of Pico Rivera
1
7
g
3
City of Signal Hill
7
City of South Gate
g
City of Vernon
7
Long Beach Water Department
1
Consultant Team
5
Total:
73
GaleNNay Integrated 12-1-; Final
keponal Waler Management Plan IUne 2013
L..
1 Angeles
I.1. "o
` C C
an
C� p, C
Ii un Lrr 1F IJ n: Ih LaH ,,,
6J.u'Ji td lam f-; tl I ,1 ,:
C" C
� X
-
_ Anahenn tl1,
4C
ca Cfl .. San td
Ana
Hunhrinlul
Ir;inF
Yi
—.�.•
Figure 12-3. Project Locations Within the Gateway Region
Figure 12-4 graphically shows the final project ranking by the Technical Review Team by
plotting average scores for each project. There were about 10 projects that received an average
score of better than 120. These projects generally 7displayed multiple, regional benefits, and
were nearly ready to implement.
Gateway Integrated 12-14 Final
Regional Water Management Plan June 2013
— .....,
mow,_
,_...._...W-T
m,,,�ZZ. . r
Q,
am::
_
P
y
O
W
'C
Ch �
t
C;
�� �SjU1Q 310D4p='
12.3.2 Project Ranking
The projects were ranked based on their average reviewer score and were shared with
GWMA for discussion. Projects that had multiple benefits or were for regional or multiple
agencies. and were water- quality/storm water projects with multiple goals scored higher in
the technical ranking. Projects that did not score well were those that had a single purpose.
served or bencfittcd only one city, had no cost estimates or environmental work done. and
had little to no details provided.
Because a variety of individuals were tasked to focus on different aspects of a project and not
answer some questions altogether, project totals are the sum of individual average scores for
each question and not the average of the total scores from each reviewer. A reviewer who
was not tasked to score a certain question was not included in the average value for that
question. The ranked project list is in Appendix C.
12.3.3 Analysis Results for Project Factors and Requirements
Project ranking described in the previous section was based on aggregating the Technical
Review 'T'cam's scores for all the factors or questions considered in the score sheet (Table 2-
1). By looking at this combined score, Projects are ranked generally or in an overall
perspective for all the criteria. Of course the weighting factors developed by the stakeholders
and built into the scoring provide emphasis that some factors are more of a priority than
others in that total score.
The project database also allows a simple comparison or analysis of projects for each
individual scoring factor. A table was prepared that displays the combined Team Technical
Review scores for each factor. Table 12-6 presents a portion of that table, the full table is in
Appendix C. A color gradient has also been applied to the chart, which presents the relative
scoring in relation to maximum, average, and minimum score for that factor or criteria for
this set of projects. Green shades signal the project scores high in the category. Red shades
indicate the project scores low relative to the other projects. Yellow denotes average scores.
The table allows a quick relative analysis on which projects would best support certain
criteria. For example, if one were looking for projects that best benefit disadvantaged
communities (DACs), they should look for green indicators under the Economic Feasibility
column.
The table also verifies the overall project ranking. Project rows that are mostly green shades
show a high rank in their aggregate scores.
The "Analysis Results for Project Review Factors and Requirements" table (Appendix C)
allows more detailed comparison or analysis of attributes between projects incorporated in
the Plan. Besides those mentioned above, the table separates Technical Review Team scores
for Project timeliness, Technical feasibilities, permitting, costs and funding, State preferences
and priorities. and adaption to climate change; among others.
Gateway Integrated 12-16 Final
Regional Water Management Plan June 2013
12.3.4 Water -Energy Intensity and GHG Emission Ranking
The GatcNvay Region projects contribute towards improved climate adaptation in the Region.
In this section. we compare the energy use and associated greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions
for the submitted Gateway projects. They arc listed in order of decreasing energy intensity.
In subsequent climate Mitigation analysis. projects containing operations at the top of the list
are ranked less favorably since higher energy use also implies increased GHG emissions.
Emissions impacts of proposed projects were estimated based on current water use, the
source of current water use, and the change in water use and source proposed in each project.
15 ofthe 73 proposed projects in the Gateway IRWMP region are estimated to reduce water
use by approximately 24,380 acre-feet a year. An additional 6 projects are also projected to
reduce water use but the volume of reduction could not be estimated. Five projects are also
projected to increase water use.
Changes in emissions associated with each project are computed by aggregating energy
intensities and emissions resulting from water operations impacted by the project. For
example. a recycled water conversion project could include avoided emissions from
reduction in water imports and emissions from water recycling operations. The difference in
emissions rate for the two operations (in lbs. of CO2e/AF) is multiplied by the volume of
water converted (in acre-feet) to obtain the net emissions impact of the project. The 73
projects proposed in Gateway would result in a total emissions reduction of 54.6 million lbs.
of CO2e annually. The 15 projects with quantified water savings and documented emissions
reductions arc listed in Table 12-7.
Gateway Integrated 12-18 Final
Regional Water Management Plan June 2013
1:1)1( 12--1 GHC' Emissions Impact of Proposed Projects with 00antified Water S.nvinat
Unit
Subillittillf"
V�/a I e i
Emission
Nei
D 1"�l I I
Project Title
Saving
Emission!
Agencies
(Ai-)
s Source
(Ib�.
(lbs. CO2c)
CO2clAr)
West San Gabriel Rivet
32
1
Parkway Phase 3
City of
Lakewood
-
11000
- Import
-2602
28622000
Development
City of
-
-Import
po
49
2
Production Well 22
I
-1992
-21912000
Vernon
13000
Pumping
City of Long
El Dorado Regional
Beach, Dept.
07
3
Park Water Quality &
of Parks,
-667
Import
-2602
-1735534
Water Conservation
Recreation
and Marine
Advance Groundwater
Import
2
A
Wellhead Treatment
City of Signal
-300
4
-1992
-597600
Facility
Hill
Pumping
City of Signal Hill
City of Signal
- Import
K)
5
Recycled Water System
Hill
-183
4 Recycle
-2183
-39912�1
South Gate Park
53
6
Recycled Water
City of South
-170
- Import
-2183
-370770
Conversion project
Gate
Recycle
Hermosillo Park Well -
S
7
Well No. 9 and water
City of
-500
-610
-305000
Norwalk
Pumping
mains
Groundwater Well
A
F,
Supple Reliability
City of Signal
-300
-610
-183000
Project
Hill
Pumping
El Dorado Nature
City of Long
Center Lakes Water
Beach, Dept.
65
Quality and Water
of Parks,
-70
-Import
-2602
-182140
Conservation
Recreation
and Marine
City of Long
I I Dorado Nature
Beach, Dept.
68
10
Center Lake Dredging
of Parks,
-67
- Import
-2602
-174334
and Leak Repair
Recreation
and Marine
City of Long.
Citywide Parks
Beach, Dept.
64
11
Irrigation System
of Parks,
-25
- Import
-2602
-65050
Upgrades
Recreation
and Marine
Galc,wa� Inlerratc(I 12-19 Final
Regional Water Man"112cilicill Plan
.11111C 2013
Pilot Plant for
Long Beach
- Import
18
12
Treatment of Los
Water
-32
i
-1745
-55840
Angeles River Water
Department
Treatme
ni
Furman Park/Rio
Hondo Elementary
3
13
School Recycled Water
City of
-65
Pumping
-189
-12285
Main Extension and
Downey
+ Recycle
Irrigation System
Improvement Project
City of Long
Long Beach Graywater
Beach, Office
62
14
Program
of
-2 2
- Import
-2602
-5724.4
Sustainability
Disadvantaged
Central Basin
37
15
Communities Schools
Municipal
-2
- Import
-2602
-5204
Retrofit Program
Water District
An additional 1 1 projects required water operations changes but the amount ofwater
involved could not be quantified by the submitting agencies. 6 of the projects would result in
water savings while the remaining 5 would create new water demand. For such projects,
emissions impacts are presented in Table 12-8 as unit emissions per acre-foot of water, with
negative values indicating an emissions reduction and positive values indicating increased
emissions.
Gateway Integrated 12-20 Final
Regional Water Management Plan June 2013
1ablcUnit GHG Ernh Eicne. Impact! of Praposed Project!, with Unquantified Water 52vina! or Ne",
U.'c
T--- -�__
Unit
ID
Rank
Project Title
SubmittinF,
Water Impact
p
Emi Sion,
Enosion_,
Age ncies•
Source
�
nn{Ibs
?3
7
Splash Pad/Spray and
City of
Unquantified
Wading Pool Retrofit
Norwalk
Water Savings
Import
-2602 �
Coyote Creek Irrigation
36
7
Runoff Reduction
City of
Unquantified
Import
-2602
Program
Norwalk
Water Savings
City of Long
—
Long beach Urban
Beach, Public
69
7
Runoff Rec cling
y g
Work Storm
/
Unquantified
-Impart
-2607
Facility (LBURRF)
Water
Water Savings
Management
�
City of
----
--------- --
Bellflower Municipal
Bellflower
13
4
Water Distribution
Municipal
Unquantified
Distribution
-500
System Reconstruction
Water
Water Savings
System
Water SCADA Energy
S7
Savings Automation
City of Soutft
Unquantified
Peak
460
Project
Gate
Water Savings
Reduction
Well 28 Reservoir and
City of South
Unquantified
Peak
—Booster Pump Station
-_ Gate
Water Savings
Reduction
-460
Cesar Chavez Park
Citof South
y
Unquantified
51
7
Recycled Water
Gate
New Water
Recycle
q21
irrigation Project
Demand
52
Firestone Blvd. Median
City of South
Unquantified
Project
Gate
New Water
Recycle
421
Demand
Los Angeles River
7
Estuary Bacteria TMDL -
City of Signal
Unquantified
c
Southeast Area Low
Hill
New Water
Treatment
857
Flow Diversion
Demand
Los Angeles River
8
q
Estuary Bacteria TMDL -
City of Signal
Unquantified
Southwest Area Low
Hill
New Water
Treatment
857
_ Flow Diversion
Demand
Los Cerritos Channel
City of Signal
Unquantified
9
9
Metals TMDL - Low
Hill
New Water
Treatment
857
Flow Diversion
Demand
Gateway Inlchrated 12-1 i
Final
Regional Water Management Plan .tune 2OI
13
13 Project. Integration - Project Alternatives
This section drscrihes the approach used to integrate projects to best meet the adopted I10r1'MP
goals and objectives.
The Gateway IRWNIP projects have been individually reviewed and prioritized by the project
Technical Re\'le\\ lealll uSIng the evaluation criteria adopted by the GWMA stakeholders. The
ranked projects are all to be included in the IRWMP if the.' help to meet the IRWMP goals and
objectives. A specific project must be in the Gateway 1RWMP if it is to be eligible for State
funding grants or loans. To be competitive for grant funding, a project in the IRVN'MP should be
consistent vwith the states preferences and priorities. Those projects which provide regional and
nlu16111e benefits. include multiple partners or sponsors and arc ready- to -proceed will be more
colllpCtlllV'c.
13.1 Integration Strategy and Approach
The "integration" process includes closely reviewing proposed 1RWMP projects, their major
components. and their overlying resource strategies to coordinate them with other proposed
projects. existing water management strategies and infrastructure, and projects proposed by
neighboring regions. Integration should consider the technical merits and impacts of the project
and transcends institutional divisions and houndaries. This coordination is to slake sure that:
Projects do not adversely impact one another, or current water management systems.
Projects complement each other and improve the benefits beyond those developed from
individual projects.
Single henclit and similar projects are appropriately bundled into more comprehensive and
collective regional program alternatives to save eflort and cost in administration, permitting.
planning, and design -construction and generally make them ready for funding opportunities.
The plan considers merging or adding parts or components of projects that would further
increase additional benefits.
The integration step could result in modifying one or more projects so they are compatible.
eliminating projects that adversely impact other plans or projects. or having no change to the
proposed project. integration may go beyond combining projects by merging project
components into a new alternative prgject. These concepts are presented in Figure 13-1.
Gateway Integrated 13-1 Final
Regional Walcr Managcment Plan ,tune 2013
Program Alternative A
(01
Project 3 -- Program Alternative B
Figure 13-1. Bundling Projects into Gateway Program Alternatives
13.2 Integration Analysis
13.2.1 Project Bundles
The integration review was initially made during the formal review of projects for ranking.
Members of the 'Technical Review Tearn took special care to answer the last question on the
score sheet, which was, "Can this project be integrated with other projects? if so, which?''
Answers to that question for all projects were assembled into a table for an easy analysis. Table
13-1 presents a portion of that table; the full table is in Appendix D.
Primarily. reviewers looked for opportunities to bundle separate projects from various cities in
the Region into a regional effort that collected them into one larger comprehensive regional
project. In that way the bundled projects could share administrative and contracting costs and
services; thereby making them more economical.
Other cities or entities might also join in the "regional" project and further improve the project's
cost effectiveness or benefits.
To differentiate the new bundled projects from existing projects originally submitted for the
1RWMP, the bundled projects are considered, "Alternatives." Table 13-2 lists the alternative
projects or projeci bundles that the Technical Review team found appropriate or possible to
merge. Besides the program alternative name, the table describes the alternative and includes a
list of individual projects (by project ID number) that could be considered as part of the
alternative.
Gateway Integrated 13-2 Final
Regional Water Management Plan .tune 2013
U
U
u
c
u
C
L
to
N
C1
O
ro
J
ro
N
f0
v)
G. V
L
N
W
rt;
Qj
�.
t
L
4-
G
i� )
L
UZ
4-
O
E
S
a
Q
ro
C)
fG
U
-
ro+
.L
X
+
ro\
O
ro+
.0
X
°�
v
r>
a a
3`
C)r-ju
s
M
u
L-'
a
.0
-a
-
u
w
w
-C
s")
v
C
O
n
v
Q1
c
`�°
°
•o
°r
o
c
a
W
'ETro°
°�'
o
c
°u
c
`
c
3
O
w v°
4
u
a
ro
S
o
'-
E
3
v
E
m@
m
m
Q
a�
w
Cl
o
v
:f
a
M
o
3
m
L
>-
v
-C
t
p
o
w
C
a
a
C
w
'>
E
a�i
w 'm
° aci
a
n
o
0
IX
as
.>
u
o
a
v
u
I
p
c
c
n
E
C
a
0
v,
.D
E
L
oD
a
v°
ro
a
t R
3°;
p
c
=
w
}�
3
c
V
Q
a
C
°1
3
C
v
V
Q
Z
C
w
a,
a
a>
ro
a
v
a
a
o
3
a)
0
3
°
-O
'= v
` D>
Zi
L
v
-0
aEi
qD d
M
u
'0
OD
a..
._
n
a
W 'O
v _.
a
ro
aD
M
a
c
ro
oD
C
°
Q
C'
Q.
o
@ p
CU -0
C ro
w
CL
O
>�
ro>
)
ro
O
Q
V)
a..
O' C-
C ro
°u h0
V
a
C
a�
vOi
Czp
C
`1
GO
O
ro
i
v
u-C
O
ro
C
N
u
3
ro
al
_
O
C
E
(V
rn
°
a)
O
�0
O
�O
EciL7
C
0)O
0
-0
N
N
a
_
ro
V)
ro
�
c
+
u
v
-
a
`
°
p
ro
Ln
f
p
L
a'
-0
a)
'p
R
:�
°'
•Q
v�i
3
in
oD
O
!I
CAD
0
Q.
,a
,
Imo_
.0
oD
R
a�
�
C
+
a
's
a.
m
a
3
3
r;
a
c
p
a
3
m
a
ro
ro
C
@
a
Z
o
L
OOD
a).L
a�
_=
O
O
Cv,
V
u
W
v�
u
a1
L
ro
M
Y
i
h0
Y
c
V)'
V)
+@
O
O
D
Q
C
V'
c
a
0
u
a"'
u
3
I
Z -0
.o
r
ro C
L
-
.� ro
n_
m
a) p
X
>
a
Q
>
6..
0
W
C
C C
R
a
E
Ln
a,
oLD
s
=
a
E
c
E
W
ro
m 3
N
w
ro
o
L
a)
lD
ro
a
C
ro
>
-
V'
C
�.
C QI
ro u
+,
iJ
c
N
u
O
u
i
°u
>
:v
E
o%
a'
E
C
a
LL
U- oc
L
a'
E
m
Ln
Table 13-2, Program Alternatives and Projects
Program Alternatives and Projects
No_
Program Alternative
Description
Projects Included
Create partnerships that connect drinking water systems, provide
1, 10, 19, 38, 61
Al
Systems I nterties
operational flexibility, coordinate responses to catastrophic supply
interruption, drought preparedness, adaption to climate change and
r_
meet the water supply and quality needs of the DAC.
Well Rehabilitation and
Increase supply reliability, preserve and protect the groundwater
4, 5, 11, 12, 14,
A2
supply and optimize the available supply through conjunctive use,
Replacement
consistent with the groundwater management plan and
31, 49, 55
adjudication.
Reduce the need for imported water, Stretch the groundwater
3, 18, 24, 32, 51,
A3
Recycling
supplies, Reliably meet current and future non -potable water
demands Provide water to support habitat/open space and
53
A4
Outfall Monitoring
Includes program elements to manage water quality, flood, and
17,50
storm waters; help attain the required TMDL levels
A5
Installation of Catch Basin Screening
Modifying existing catch basin drains to capture trash to meet Trash
TMDL requirements for the region
6, 24, 33, 48
A6
Improve storm/flood infrastructure
Improves flood issue: Bundle 2 or more.
25, 26, 27 28, 29,
30, 45, 46, 47, 56
A7
Upgrade Aging Infrastructure
Upgrade aging urban infrastructure, including drinking water
distribution systems, wastewater collection and treatment, support
13, 15, 16, 20, 22,
DACs. Develop regional Program
40, 57, 58,
A8
Groundwater Treatment Projects
Projectstha pprotectandtreatgroundwatercontaminationandfielp
prevent the general spreading of the contaminated water; Bundle 2
40,41,42,43
or more.
A9
Collect and treat low flow urban
Projects that deal with runoff and TMDL requirements. Bundle 2 or
7 8 g 54, 60
drainage I
more.
(Stars indicate likely prgject)
13.2.2 Program Alternatives
Where GWMA stakeholders are all affected by a common problem with a ready solution, the
IRWMP can provide a shared regional project. Proposed projects could be further developed
as GWMA Projects and implemented through the GWMA to share costs and provide benefit
throughout the region.
Program alternatives were configured to meet the Gateway IRWMP goals, coordinate and
integrate state water resources management strategies, and provide a planning framework
that reflects GWMP priorities. Forming partnerships and bundling similar projects into
strategic program alternatives will help the Gateway Region focus on shared strategies and
supports stakeholder collaboration.
Table 13-2 lists the projects integrated into program alternatives to best meet multiple goals
and objectives, identify partnership opportunities, establish funding priorities; write grants
and share cost or other resources (e.g.; technical staff).
13.2.2.1 Systems Intertie Program
The purpose Systems Intertie program is to create partnerships that provide benefits to
multiple stakeholders, connect drinking water systems, provide operational flexibility, and
Gateway lnicgrated 13-4 Final
Regional Water Management Plan June 2013
coordinate the response to catastrophic s►►I,ply interruption. ']'he SVSlernnS InterllC program
ahcrnative supports the statewide priorities for drotliht preparedness. adaptiorn to clinnate
c•hangc and 1Or nneetirng the water supply and quality needs of the DAC. Thcrc were live (5)
stakeholder projects associated with integrating municipal systems under the goals to ensu►r
water supply reliability and to coordinate and integrate water resources management. 'phis
program alternative contributes to achieving the Gateway IRWN411 objective to
systenlaticallV upgrade aging water infrastructure.
13.2.2.2 Well Rehabilitation, Replacement, and Treatment Program
The purpose ofthc Well Rehabilitation and Replacement program alternative is to preserve
and protect the groundwater supply and optimize the available supply through conjunctive
use. consistent with the prevailing groundwater management plan and adjudication. The
benefits arc also to:
• Rehabilitate wells to maintain groundwatcr production and reduce current and future
reliance on imported water.
• Comply with drinking water standards and protect the groundwater supply through
wellhead or other treatment.
• Rehabilitate and "repurpose" indusU-ial or rcnnediation wells to meet municipal demands.
• Support critical water supply and quality needs of'DACs.
• Reduce power consumption through innprove pumping efficiencies.
The proposed program supports multiple statewide priorities for drought preparedness.
citicient groundwater management, increased supply reliability: climate change response.
both in terms of energy/greenhouse gas reduction and adaption to climate change:
conjunctive managenent, restoring groundwater quality. The program alteniative also
includes elenncnts that support the Systems Intertic program aher7native where the proposed
wells will be used through the interties.
There are eight (9) well replacement or rehabilitation oriented projects that are consistent
with the Gateway goal to ensure water supply reliability. and the related objective to
systematically upgrade aging water infrastructure. Three projects propose treating water to
potable standards. In the context ofthe IRWMP. the projects are related to overall
groundwater development. recharge and nnanagennent efforts in the region.
13.2.2.3 Recycling/20 X 2020 Conservation Program
The purpose and benefits of the Recycling/20 X 2020 Conservation program alternative are
to:
• Reduce tine need for imported water.
• Stretch the groundwater supplies.
• Reliably meet current and future non -potable water demands.
• Provide water to support habitat/open space and ecosystem needs.
Gateway Integrated 13-5 Final
Regional N4"ater Management Plan .lunc 2013
The program alternative also includes projects that were to improve irrigation efficiencies or
implement best management practices identified in the UWMPs of GWMA member cities.
The proposed program supports multiple statewide priorities for drought preparedness: using
and reusing water more efficiently, improving supply reliability, reducing the need for -
imported water, adapting to climate change and supporting DAC water supply and quality
needs.
Stakeholders submitted six (6) recycling projects that support the supply reliability goal and
the Gateway objectives to: l) enhance water use efficiency measures to meet 20 x 2020 per
capita water use targets and 2) expand recycling for the Gateway Region. Most proposed
projects expand regional distribution infrastructure and are consistent with the program
concepts identified in the Southern California Comprehensive Water Reclamation and Reuse
Study, and the successor effort in the Southern California Water Recycling Projects
Initiative.
13.2.2.4 Outfall Monitoring
To comply with basin -wide TMDL regulations, individual agency monitoring costs could be
reduced if a single program was developed through the GWMA and costs were shared. The
proposed Outfall Monitoring Projects (171, 50) is to meet the IRWMP goal for managing
flood and storm water- to reduce flood risk management and water quality impacts, and the
specific objective to install or optimize water monitoring.
13.2.2.5 Improve Catch Basins and/or Install Screening Devices
GWMA has worked to address the trash TMDL and successfully funded joint programs
using ARRA funds. Three proposed projects (Nos. 6, 33, and 48) are to continue efforts to
improve catch basins and/or install screening devices. Additional cities have joined this
alternative so that 13 cities are seeking funding from an implementation grant for catch basin
work.
13.2.2.6 Integrated Flood Management Program
The purpose of the Integrated Flood Management (IFM) Program is to:
• Protect and enhance water quality.
• Attain the required TMDL levels.
• Manage flood and storm waters to reduce flood risk and damage.
• Recycle and reuse storm water and urban drainage.
• Integrate other strategies for preserving or enhancing habitat, open space and protecting
natural resources where such integration would be cost effective and increase project
benefits.
The 1FM program alternative includes the GWMA Projects that improve flood management
and storm water issues. A number of parks and open space projects have been proposed,
some of which include storm water management features to reduce runoff and/or improve
water quality, and other habitat, open space or natural resource features (No.'s 23, 32. 34.
Gateway Integrated 13-6 Final
Regional Watcr Management Plan June 2013
1►)) llrese, 'il'k., included in the 1FM program since stakeholders sought to integrate storm
Nyater nuinagerrn'nt and Nvater quality benefits into the project concepts submitted.
13.2.2.7 Infrastructure Replacement, Repair, and Upgrade
A common need in the Gateway Rcgion is to uppradc wing urban water management
infrastructure. including drinking Nyater distribution systems. wastewater collection and
treatment. Stakeholders submitted eight (9) pro.jects to upgrade or replace aging
inli'astructure. These were single sponsor projects targeted to meeting a system needs. but
focused on a limited geography and rate base. Some are projects that would meet the Nvater
supple and quality needs of DACs. The need to upgrade aging infrastructure is almost
universal. although the ability and willingness to generate local funds varies greatly.
13.2.2.8 Groundwater Treatment Projects
A number of groundwater treatment concept proposals were submitted by the Consultant
Team for consideration. Treatment would be for a number of contaminates. These concepts
should he considered as a regional opportunity.
13.2.2.9 Collect and Treat Low Flow Urban Drainage
The II'M program concept includes projects to collect and treat low flow urban drainape
captured in the storm drains (Projects 7.. 8. 9. 60). or other projects to capture and clean up
storm water or first flush flows (Projects 24, .52. 54. and 59) using best management
practices. Stakeholders are also supportive ofall regional efforts to recycle and reuse storm
water to contribute to the water supplies (recharge, irrigation, etc.) and protect water quality
where feasible. cost effective and in the interest of the GWMA stakeholders. The projects
designed to treat low flow urban runoff to meet TMDL standards could contribute to reusing
storm water. reducing the demand for imported water, and meeting Gateway 20 x 2020
conservation goals.
13.2.3 Compatibility with Other Projects
,lust as important as combining like projects, reviewers looked for incompatibilities with one
project to anothF er. or example, did projects use the same water source or, supply the same
area without considering each other's effects? Or. would constructing one project save a
negative impact or a reduction in benefits of another?
Reviewers did not find any apparent incompatibilities between the projects that were
submitted. The City of Long Beach did have several projects that were located at the same
park complex. but it was apparent that their planning was very coordinated for the site.
Thel•c were no obvious 0ccu►7•cnecs of committing the same water supply. including recycled
water sources. treating or controlling the same flood water or storm water runoff.
As additional projects are considcred in the future. their compatibility should he checked to
existing proposed projects and interregional plans.
Gatewiiy lntegratcd 1 ;-7 Final
Regional Water Management Plan June 201
13.2.4 Compatibility with Projects in Other Regions
As with projects planned within the Region. projects proposed in immediately neighboring
regions should be compatible with the projects proposed in the Gateway IRWMP.
13.2.4.1 GLAC
Stakeholders in their November and December 2012 meetings presented with the top -ranked
projects from GLAC Region's Lower Los Angeles -Lower San Gabriel Subregion. These
projects were being advanced for implementation finding by the subregion through the
GLAC protocol and are generally located in or near the Gateway Region. A copy of the
project list is included in Appendix D. The projects include a wastewater treatment project,
three groundwater recharge basin improvement projects, and a gray water retrofit project.
The gray water project was later transferred to this IRWMP for ranking and advancement for
an implementation grant application for possible Proposition 84 funding.
A bricf technical review of the GLAC projects found no conflicts with the proposed Gateway
projects. The Gateway Region should be generally supportive of most of the projects, based
upon the criteria that were used to rank Gateway projects. The storm water greenway project
appears to be in line with some of the proposed Gateway projects and would integrate nicely
with the Gateway Plan. As pointed out above, the gray water retrofit project was later
transferred to Gateway and was supported for funding by the Gateway stakeholders.
Thus. no conflicts or incompatibilities were discovered between the GLAC top project list
and the Gateway project list.
13.2.4.2 Santa Ana Watershed Protection Authority (SAWPA)
Similar to GLAC, Technical Review team representatives reviewed the list of proposed
projects from SAWPA. The SAWPA region is presenting a number of projects (22) for
funding in the near term. As a representation of all of the SAWPA IRWMP projects, this list
did not appear to have projects that would be incompatible with the current Gateway
proposals. Most projects on the list are not near the Gateway Region, and being in a separate
watershed, would not have an effect on Gateway projects. The SAWPA list can be found in
Appendix D.
Additional information on SAWPA projects can be found on their website at
wNyvv.smypa.ore. A full list of SWWPA projects is available at that link.
Gateway, Integrated 13-8 final
Regional Water Management Plan June 2013
14
14 Other Planning Coordination
This chapter rcvicws the. 1RWMP's processes for coordinating activities, including planning
activities with local governments, agencies, neighboring regions and their planning entities.
Of particular concern are coordination with other water planning and local land use planning.
This chapter identifies:
The process to coordinate water marutgement projects, plans and activities in order to
avoid conflicts and take advantage ol'elficicncics.
0111CI. neighboring lRWM efforts and the way cooperation or coordination with these
other efforts will be accomplished.
Areas where a State agency or other agencies may be able to assist in communication.
cooperation, or implementation of IRWMP components, processes, and projects, or
where State or federal regulatory decisions are required before implementing the projects.
14.1 Coordination of Activities within the IRWM Region
The Gateway Region was formed to ensure fair distribution of state funding. Many of the
Gateway cities are DACs that fell underrepresented in other regional planning efforts. 'these
cities were instrumental in the formation ofthc GWMA. Members of GWMA come from
the local water and land use management entities, including those with more regional
responsibilities (See Chapter 5). Stakeholders from organized groups are invited to
participate and meetings are open to the public. The GWMA is working to:
• Coordinate with the other regional agencies.
• Comply with the SB X7-7 reporting requirements and meet 20 x 2020 water conservation
goals.
• Cost effectively meet RWQCB TMUL and MS4 permit requirements.
• Fligagc non -governmental organizations and non-prolits working on common water
resource issues.
• Provide a central point for sharing information.
• Identify sources of'state, local, and federal funding to implement Gateway IRWMI'
projects.
• Ensure land use and water supply agencies and authorities focus on common solutions.
GWMA coordinates interests within the common watershed. Members have a long history
and experience working together to solve problems: and have built trust, confidence and
working relationships over time. The GWMA provides the governance structure to organize
within the region and coordinate between the regions to ensure GWMA member interests are
acknowledged and represented (See Chapters 4 and 5).
Gateway Intcgrared 14-1 Final
Regional water Management Plan .tune 2013
14.2 Identification and Coordination with Neighboring IRWM
Regions
Figure 14-1 shows the other IRWM regions in the Los Angeles funding/hydrologic region.
The Santa Anna Watershed is located to the south in a difi'crent funding/hydrologic region.
GWMA seeks to be represented to the other areas where time and resources permit.
14.3 Integration with Surrounding Regions
GWMA plans to effectively integrate and cooperate with neighboring IRWMPs by actively
collaborating with other regions on projects and issues and by attending meetings, providing
agendas, reports, and minutes to other organizations. GWMA has already met with the Santa
Ana Watershed Project Authority (SAWPA), which borders its eastern boundary, to discuss
potential interregional projects. GWMA welcomes representatives of the Greater Los
Angeles County Region (GLAC), its northwestern neighbor, at its monthly meetings to
liaison and share information. In addition, GWMA keeps in touch with many other regions
through B(.isecamp, a project management and collaboration system in use by a majority of
the regions through the Roundtable of Regions.
GWMA will continue to work to also:
• Share plans in the Los Angeles Region and to the Santa Ana Watershed Projects
Authority region.
• Coordinate grant opportunities were it is in the mutual interest of the IRWMP regions.
• Review neighboring plans.
• Seek inter -regional cooperation to avoid conflicts.
14.4 Coordination with Agencies
GWMA will coordinate with the other regional, state and federal agencies to seek input,
project partnerships, and funding for Gateway IRWMP projects. The larger regional
agencies include the LACSD, Los Angeles County Flood Control, and M WD. From a state
and federal standpoint, the USACC, RWQCB, SWRCB, and DWR are all current
stakeholders of Gateway IRWMP. All of the agencies were all invited to participate, and/or
were involved to the degree time and resources would allow.
As discussed further below, even where the agencies were not able to be actively engaged in
all the llkWMP meetings, the available information, data and agency plans were consulted.
The U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (USBR) has provided significant amount of support to the
areas for a number of studies as described in the next section. The resource agencies like
DFG and USFWS were not able to be actively engaged. If any of the IRWMP projects
require federal permit, use federal money or involve federal lands, then the individual
projects will seek early consultation with the appropriate federal agency. This will ensure that
requirements, impacts and potential mitigations are identified during planning and allow
local interests to anticipate mitigation costs into projects designs. This will also help avoid
costly scheduling delays.
Gateway Integrated 14-2 Final
Regional Water Management Plan June 2013
II Dual:. 1 il V1.1 I f`ti,tptsl:i
IKW I tw(ji"ct>
Lt r;n (clt�s =. iI Fa:r;l��li I�uli�luli�Nrr.:r
Lcyrl,,1
(cl C „t,�.v.f�ryVoi
:,sAaweies County
'JVI
��.1/�, i
( 15) here L�..in[I
(1t,l kIt)�.,w
(29) SAI VV 1t, I:.hicU Project- �ulticisty
(30) 5U, bier, ( I , of iiyv;iUi
(4l) Upp i Cioi,l
VVat ["hurl, Ckxj1111c,1, vi VeIlluia County
of h'A Te f�..
s Y
Of. CA0
0 I 20mile-=
Figure 14.1. Los Angeles Suka-region Funding Area
14.5 Relation to Local Water Planning
Therc are a n Illhcr of ciisting plans and related planning process that overlay the Gateway
Kcgion and Milrtcnce GWMA projects and IRWMP implementation strategics. Some ofthc
CXisting, c It6n1s include 'intcgratcd' planning to meet multiple objectives, involve other
stakeholder groups and implement a mi'X ofUWR strategies. The current plans and policics
allcct water rruu7agelIient as well as the land use plans and policics of the cities and county.
Galmay Inlcl,.ralcd final
Kcgional \Vai, Nlmin wenunt Ilan .tune 201
']'he plans.. relation to the Gateway Ilk"/MP, and potential affects to the. IRWMP are
described below. The Gateway IRWMP is intended to compliment the other local water
planning efforts and integrate projects actions where appropriate and beneficial.
Stakeholders include representatives from the other larger regional agencies. This helped to
ensure that the IRWMP was consistent with the existing plans. The existing plans helped to
define limits and management tools or criteria that supported project formulations,
prioritization, and development of performance monitoring programs. For example, the
compliance with water quality standards in the Water Quality Control flan provide
established limits that provide performance measures that will be used to track the progress
in meeting IRWMP goals and objectives and other regulatory requirements.
14.5.1 Water Quality Control Plan
A primary issue for the Gateway IRWMP is the need for the Region to comply with Los
Angeles LARWQCB requirements and be consistent with the Water Quality Control Plan
(Basin Plan). LARWQCB approved municipal storm water runoff regulations to prevent
trash, metals, bacteria, chemicals and pesticides from being washed into storm drains and
into creeks, rivers and the ocean. The Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems (MS4)
Permit and TVIDI, Monitoring requirements,4 referred to here as the MS4 Permit/Order,
cover municipalities in Los Angeles County, except for Long Beach which has its own storm
water permit. The Gateway IRWMP provides an opportunity for the GWMA members to:
• Work cooperatively to design and implement cost-effective programs and projects to
comply with the MS4 Permit/Order.
• Develop plans and take corrective actions to reduce the pollutants in storm water and
non -store] water.
• Coordinate monitoring and reporting.
• Share work to reduce costs of compliance to individual GWMA members.
• Seek and obtain funding for joint projects and programs.
The IRWMP has identified program alternatives to meet IRWMP water quality objectives
and also nice( LARWQCB requirements. GWMA will continue to serve as the mechanism
to coordinate and develop integrated programs and projects that manage, treat, reuse and
recharge storm water and non -storm water and help the Gateway Region comply with the
Permit/Order.
14.5.2 Urban Water Management
GWMA Formed a regional alliance to prepare the Gateway Regional Water Conservation
Alliance Report (GEI 201 1) to define the 20 x 2020 conservation goals and meet the
requirements of SB7a-7. The retail water companies and municipal utilities, and the
a See Final Waste Discharge Requirements for Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) Discharges
within the Coastal Watersheds of Los Angeles County, Except Those Discharges Originating Erom the City of
Long Beach MS4. ORDER NO. R4-2012-0175, NPDFS No. CAS004001. (December 5, 2012).
Gateway Integrated 14-4 Final
Regional Water Management Plan June 2013
whoICsaIC watcr agencies identified in Chapter 3 have adopted 2010 Urban \\pater
Manavcmcnt flans. 'phis ineludcs the plans listed in Table 9-1, Chapter 9.
Programs and I>lans listed in the tJ\\AMP arc c,tndidalcs for Gateway IRWMP projects.
Coordination through the GWMA is an 'Important mechanism for integrating water
conservation strategics, dcriland manaVcment measures and recycling.
14.5.3 Regional Recycled Water Planning
A number of regional pkillning ellorts have been undertaken to dcline recycled water and
reuse projects. 'These include:
• C'enu"al basin M W D Recycling Project
• Plan for the Beneficial Reuse of Recycled Water, LACSD
• SoUthCr-n Water Recycling Projects Initiative
14.5.3.1 Central Basin MWD Recycling Project
In the Gateway Region, the C13M WD plans for use of recycled water obtained from the.
LACSD. Water is distributed for reuse to a number of GWMA members consistent with the
CI3MMID 2010 Water Use Efficiency Master Plan. The recycled water distribution system
was described in Chapter 3. 'file GWMA IRWMP identified project opportunities to extend
the recycled water distribution systems infrastRucturc within the Gateway Region to
appropriate points for use. The CBMWD is a GWMA member. This coordination will
support recycled water use and development ol'new user connections for large landscapes.
industrial water use and restoration ol'habitats.
14.5.3.2 Plan for the Beneficial Reuse of Recycled Water
The I.A('SI) developed the `Plan for the Beneficial Reuse o1'Recycled Water' in 1995 to
provide a clear vision to maximize the use of recycled water, and to promote and expand use
ol'rccycicd water. An updated version is under development that will examine the status 01'
the Districts' clllorts. GWMA interests are to be represented during the update of the LACSD
Plan to include Gateway Region potential water recycling opportunities, including examining
the various obstacles that stand in the way ol'increascd water recycling, del ining possible
solutions to these obstacles, identifying the potential for recycled water use in the LACSD
service area, including the Gateway Region.
14.5.3.3 Southern California Water Recycling Projects Initiative
Southern California Water Recycling Project Initiative is a multi -year BUIVIIu o1' Reclamation
planning program (USBIZ 2004). DWR is a participant. The Initiative is designed to
continue the work begun during the Southern Calilornia Comprehensive Water Reclamation
and Reuse Study (S(CWRRS) completed in 2002, and to assist local water and wastewater
,:Agencies in 1111,11 planning and environmental documentation leading to implementation of'
projccls identified in the SCCWRRS. GWMA, through the CBMWD, will continue to
participate and wort: to obtain federal matching monies to extend state bond monies and local
(atewa)' Inlegraled 14-5 Final
tlegional Water Management Plan .lunc 2013
revenue and build potential recycling proiccts in the Gateway IRWMI' and/or as part of the
CBM WD recycling plan.
14.5.4 Groundwater Management
"'lie Gateway Region overlies the Central Groundwater Basin, which is adiudicated by the
Courts. Groundwater is managed through the Central Basin Judgment. The West Coast
Basin, also adjudicated, lies mostly in the South Bay Subregion to the west, but a small
portion lies in the Lower San Gabriel and Los Angeles Rivers Subregion. The DWR is the
watermastcr in botli basins, wliile the WRD is responsible for ensuring an adequate supply of
replenishment water to offset groundwater production through monitoring, and various
groundwater reliability programs and projects.
GWMA members live within the boundaries established by the adjudications and need to
purchase replenishment water to recharge groundwater beyond their entitlements. This
influences the economics ofgroundwate►' development and recharge efforts, including those
related to treating contaminated water for use, and/or recharging of storm water or recycled
water. GWMA will continue to be the mechanism to coordinate and integrate projects for
groundwater treatment and reuse and/or for recharging recycled water and storm water.
14.5.5 Related Watershed Planning and Monitoring
There arc a number of pa►allel integrated planning efforts in the Gateway Region. GWMA
acknowledges these efforts and seeks to be consistent with current or proposed plans and
programs. This includes:
• Los Angeles Basin Water Augmentation Study (WAS)
• San Gabriel River Regional Monitoring Program (tiokkNw)
• Los A►tgeles River Watershed -wide Monitoring Program (1ARWM11)
• Southern California Storm water Monitoring Coalition (SMC) Regional Watershed
Monitoring Program
• Tlie Southern California Coastal Water Research Project (SCCWRP)
• Los Angeles County Sediment Management Plans
GWMA members are participants. Coordination and participation in these efforts will be
through the GWMA representatives which will share information and coordinate input to
these other cttorts.
14.5.5.1 Los Angeles Basin Water Augmentation Study (WAS)
The ten-year Los Angeles Basin Water Augmentation Study (WAS) was a three phase effort
initiated in 2000 (Watershed Council 2005, 2010). The WAS produced a regional analysis
and implementation strategy for decentralized storm water projects and practices to meet
multiple objectives for reducing storm water, improving water quality and recharging
groundwater.
Gateway Integra►ed 14-6 Final
Regional Water Management Plan June 2013
(1S13R forged a Partnership with the Los Angeles and San Oabricl Rivers \�'atcrshcd Council.
The Council cvolvcd into the l ,�uiirit for )A,IIc r,�lrrcl I Ic-IL '1-hc' Ground�aatcr
Augmentation 11�lodcl Was dcvclopcd b)the USBR to gr�lantify storm water runof[and the
potential 101- grourrdwatcr recharge (USBR 20(17). The tinal report analyzed the challenges
and opportunities to implement it systematic deccnU-alized storm water infiltration stra1egy.
and made recoil III c'ndations to implement proiccts. The recommendations note a need for
revised land use, zoning and development standards to support Low Impact Development
(L11)).
The results of this work and final report recommendations can be used by the GWMA to
1in-thcr identify ( iatcway 1RWMP projects. programs and monitoring to implement storm
water and non -storm water BMI's to comply with the LARWQCI3 MS4 Permit/Order.
14.5.5.2 Los Angeles River Watershed Monitoring Program (LARWMP)
lie I,os Angeles Rivcr Watershed Monitoring Program (LARWMP) was developed during
2007 by a group or stakeholders representing major permittces, regulatory and management
agencies. and conservation groups. The obicWkTs ofthe program are to increase awa►'encss
of the importance of issues at the watershed scale and to improve the coordination and
integration ofnurnitoring cllorts for both compliance and ambient conditions. The (jWMA
can continue to build on the coordinated monitoring effort (See (7hapter 18. Perlornumce and
Mon itoring.).
14.5.5.3 San Gabriel River Regional Monitoring Program (SGRRMP)
The San Gabriel River Regional Monitoring Program (SGRRMP) began dcvclopmcni in
2004 by multiple stakeholders representing major permiltecs, regulatory and management
agencies, and conservation groups. Development ofthe program was motivated by a permit
condition for the 1.AC'SD. The program seeks to increase awareness of issues at the
watershed scale and improve the coordination and integration of monitoring cllorts for both
compliance and ambient conditions. The GWMA can continue to build on the coordinated
monitoring clforl (See Chapter 18. Performance and Monitoring).
14.5.5.4 Southern California Storm Water Monitoring Coalition (SMC) Regional Watershed Monitoring
Program
The Southern California Storm Water Monitoring Coalition (SMC') Regional Watershed
Monitoring Program was initiated in 2008. This program is conducted in collaboration with
the State Water l3oard' s Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program, three Southern
California Regional Watcr Quality Control Boards (1_,os Angeles, Santa Ana, and San Diego)
and several county storm water agencies (Los Angcles, Ventura, Orange, Riverside, San
Bernardino and San Dicgo). The SMC monitoring program seeks to coordinate and leverage
existing monitoring efforls to produce regional estimates ofcondition, improve data
comparability and quality assurance, and maximize data availabilily, while conserving
monitoring. expenditures. ']'Ile primary goal orthis program is to implement an ongoing,
large-scale regional monitoring program for southern Calilornia's coastal streams and rivers.
Gateway Integrate°d 14-7
Regional Watcr N,lanagcment flan final
.lone 2M3