Corona City Council
June 3, 2026

Bedford-Coldwater GSP 6-13

TODD GROUNDWATER,
H&H Water Resources,
and Stantec

6.2.7.1. Discussion of Monitoring and Management Measures to be Implemented Data gaps and sources uncertainties have been identified in this section, including the lack of reliable and accessible information on active private well pumping and construction.

Management actions to maintain groundwater levels have been ongoing and effective for decades. These actions (consistent with the Sustainability Goal objective to support integrated and cooperative water resource management) have included acquiring imported water for direct use, providing recycled water for irrigation, and other conjunctive use operations. The BCGSA will also implement management actions to inventory existing active private wells. This will include identification of locations and construction information for active wells throughout the Basin to support refinement of the groundwater level MTs and MOs in the 5-year GSP update.

Monitoring improvements are discussed in Section 7, including results of the Dedicated Monitoring Well Program initiated in June 2020.

6.3. REDUCTION OF GROUNDWATER STORAGE
Groundwater storage is the volume of water in the Basin and provides a reserve for droughts orsurface watersupply shortages. The MT forreduction of groundwaterstorage isthe volume of groundwater that can be withdrawn from a Basin or MA without leading to undesirable results. Undesirable results would involve insufficient stored groundwater to sustain beneficial uses throughout drought or water supply shortage. The storage criteria are closely linked to groundwater levels. The sustainability indicator for groundwater storage addresses the ability of the groundwater Basin to support existing and planned beneficial uses of groundwater, even during drought and surface water supply shortage.

For the each of the two MAs of the Bedford-Coldwater Basin, the water budget has been calculated using the numerical model, as described in Water Budget Section 5. In brief, this has included analyses of the cumulative change in storage for each of the two MAs for the historical and current period, 1990 through 2018, and for simulated future conditions (see Figures 5-5 and 5-6). The water budget analyses have shown the dynamic effects of drought and changes in groundwater use and indicate that groundwater storage in the Basin has been sustainably managed relative to storage. The water budget inflow and outflows have been balanced over the long term. Furthermore, as indicated in Section 6.2, none of the water supply wells have been reported as going dry in the Basin during the historical period of record.

6.3.1. Description of Undesirable Results
Given that Bedford-Coldwater Basin has not experienced any impacts to wells related to groundwater storage, the undesirable result associated would be an insufficient supply to support beneficial uses during droughts. Storage is related to groundwater levels. Thus, undesirable results associated with storage would likely be accompanied by one or more

Bedford-Coldwater GSP 6-14

TODD GROUNDWATER,
H&H Water Resources,
and Stantec
undesirable results associated with groundwater levels, including reduced well yields, subsidence, and depletion of interconnected surface water.

6.3.2. Potential Causes of Undesirable Results
For groundwater storage in the Basin, the basic cause of undesirable results would be an imbalance of the water budget, such that outflows exceed inflows resulting in reduction of groundwater storage. This imbalance could be caused in turn by reduced surface water supplies and associated groundwater recharge. Such reduction could potentially include the following conditions: 1) increased pumping due to disruption of imported water, 2) reduced percolation from Temescal Wash, 3) reduced natural recharge due to increased impervious area (development), or 4) increased pumping due to reduced recycled/non potable discharge and use. Undesirable results also could occur because of changes in land use causing increased demand for groundwater; this would be most problematic in portions of the Basin without access to other water supplies.

6.3.3. Definition of Undesirable Results
Undesirable results are defined with the understanding that the objective of groundwater management is to provide reliable storage for water supply resilience during droughts and shortages. Accordingly, the definition of potential undesirable results for storage reduction includes consideration of how much storage has been used historically (i.e., operating storage) and how much stored groundwater reserve is needed to withstand droughts.

In considering conceptual operating storage or groundwater reserves, it is important to bear in mind that these are not the total amount of groundwater that could potentially be extracted from the Basin. Most wells are in the range of 75 to 700 feet deep.

The depth of the Basin ranges from less than 40 feet in some areas to more than 800 feet in others (see Figure 3-9). Groundwater wells used for water supply are generally located in the deeper portions of the Basin. Additional groundwater storage could be utilized, with the foremost assumption that withdrawals and reduction are followed by commensurate recharge and recovery. This could occur as part of enhanced conjunctive use programs.

6.3.4. Potential Effects on Beneficial Uses and Users
Groundwater is a source of water supply in the GSP Area and supplies wells for municipal, industrial, and other beneficial uses. Reduction of groundwater storage would reduce access to that supply with adverse effects on the community, economy, and environmental setting of the Temescal Valley. However, groundwater has been and is being used for the beneficial uses, even during drought.

6.3.5. Sustainable Management Criteria for Groundwater Storage The general approach to defining sustainability criteria for groundwater storage has involved review of historical cumulative change in storage and expected future storage declines during

Bedford-Coldwater GSP 6-15

TODD GROUNDWATER,
H&H Water Resources,
and Stantec
droughts. Review of historical change in storage is useful to estimate about how much storage has been used in each Management Area, effectively defining an operating storage. Similarly, the approach focuses on the beneficial uses of the Basin and acknowledges much of the pumping occurs in larger municipal wells with dynamic operations. Sustainability criteria for groundwater levels also take into account historical ranges and the management of dynamic operation of municipal wells.

6.3.5.1. Description of Historical Cumulative Change in Storage: 1990 through 2018 The cumulative change in storage by management area for historical and current conditions (1990 through 2018) as simulated by the numerical model is discussed and shown in tables and figures in Section 5. Observations about the historical operating storage for each of the Management Areas are as follows:

Bedford Management Area. The average annual change in groundwater storage was stable over the model period, 1990 through 2018, with an average increase in storage of 73 acrefeet per year (AFY). This increase in storage is due to decreased pumping from 2005 to the end 2019, when pumping in the MA averaged about 1,000 AFY. The change in storage during this same period increased on average about 400 AFY. For the early portion of the model (1990 through 2004), groundwater pumping was approximately 2,500 AFY, which resulted in a slight decline in groundwater storage. The average annual decrease in storage during this period was 22 AFY. This storage response indicates the Basin can support this range of operation, given appropriate natural recharge. Groundwater storage has increased a total of 2,215 acre-feet (AF) over the model period. The simulated increasing trend of groundwater storage in this MA provides an operational range that would support beneficial uses.

Coldwater Management Area. The average annual change in groundwater storage over the model period was an average annual decrease of about 2,000 AFY. Declines in storage in this MA were more pronounced early in the model period, averaging over 3,800 AFY between 1990 and 2004. Recent groundwater storage change has been relatively stable even with a significant drought period from 2014 to 2017. The local agencies pumping from the Coldwater MA have agreed to limit their pumping to a sustainable yield volume based on available recharge. Accordingly, groundwater pumping has declined from an average of over 6,500 AFY between 1990 and 2008 to approximately 3,000 AFY from 2009 through 2018. In the Coldwater MA, the simulated groundwater storage stabilized and largely recovered during the one to two years following droughts, but still showed a general decrease in groundwater storage due to increased groundwater production over the model period. Given the storage stability in the current period (2008 through 2018) and current groundwater management practices, groundwater storage will likely continue to increase on average and recover from short term droughts on the order of one to two years. These groundwater management practicesinclude the existing agreement between local agenciesto pump within a sustainable yield.

Ongoing aggregate mining in the Coldwater MA (and to a lesser extent Bedford MA) may impact both the inflows and outflows used to calculate the change in storage. Uncertainty exists about the role in storage changes of open pits used in quarry operations, specifically

Bedford-Coldwater GSP 6-16

TODD GROUNDWATER,
H&H Water Resources,
and Stantec
their contribution to additional recharge in wet years and/or additional outflow through evaporation or other processes. A potential management action to collect additional data related to quarry operations is discussed in Section 8.

6.3.6. Minimum Threshold
Undesirable results relative to groundwater storage have not occurred in the Basin and numerical modeling of future conditions indicate that groundwater storage can continue to be operated within historical limits. However, given the dynamic nature of the BedfordColdwater production wells, additionalstorage outside of the historical limits may be needed.

According to SGMA, the minimum threshold for storage is to be defined as the maximum groundwater volume that can be withdrawn without leading to undesirable results.

GSP Regulations allow the use of the groundwater level sustainability criteria (MTs and MOs) as a proxy for groundwater storage, provided that the GSP demonstrates a correlation between groundwater levels and storage. Groundwater levels and storage are directly related. This is demonstrated by comparison of groundwater level and storage trends, which reveal the same patterns of changes in pumping, response to drought, and recovery, as discussed in Section 5. The relationship of groundwater levels and storage is embodied in the calibrated numerical model.

The rationale for using groundwater levels as a proxy metric for groundwater storage is that the groundwater level MTs and MOs are sufficiently protective to prevent significant and unreasonable results relating to storage. Groundwater level MTs have been defined to protect supply wells (see Section 6.2.6) and are based on the following:
• A broad geographic distribution of Key Wells that are representative of production wells in the Basin;
• MTs that are based on operational parameters for existing water supply wells; • Analysis of existing municipal supply wells with construction information and setting of MTs to avoid operational failure in these wells; and • Groundwater level MTs that include two consecutive quarters in two years, providing early warning for storage changes, while also involving two-thirds or more of the Key Wells in each MA, thus involving a broad area, consistent with storage change.

As a practical matter, the availability of groundwater in storage will be constrained by MTs for water levels (including groundwater level proxies for depletion of interconnected surface water). The MTsfor groundwater levels will be sufficiently protective of groundwaterstorage.

To summarize for the Bedford-Coldwater Basin:

The Minimum Threshold for reduction of groundwater storage for all MAs is fulfilled by the minimum threshold for groundwater levels. The Minimum Threshold for defining undesirable results relative to chronic lowering of groundwater levels is

Bedford-Coldwater GSP 6-17

TODD GROUNDWATER,
H&H Water Resources,
and Stantec
defined at each Key Well (two consecutive quarters in two years, providing early warning for storage changes, in two-thirds or more of the Key Wells in each MA).

The Sustainability Goal for the Bedford-Coldwater Basin includes an objective to provide reliable storage for water supply resilience during droughts and shortages. Use of groundwater levels as a proxy also fulfills that objective. No additional MT definition is needed.

6.3.6.1. Relationship of Minimum Threshold to Other Sustainability Indicators • Water Levels. The minimum thresholds for groundwater levels are protective of the beneficial use of the Basin – municipal, industrial, and other water supply; therefore, these levels are protective of and serve as a proxy for groundwater storage and the provision of reliable storage for drought and shortage. • Seawater Intrusion. There is no possibility of seawater intrusion in BedfordColdwater Basin. Accordingly, there is no minimum threshold and no relationship with other minimum thresholds.
• Subsidence. Subsidence is linked to groundwater levels. Because the storage reduction minimum threshold would not cause water levels to drop below their minimum thresholds, it would not interfere with the subsidence minimum threshold.
• Water Quality. Maintenance of groundwater storage within historical and operational ranges would minimize any effects on water quality relative to water quality minimum thresholds. Groundwater quality issues in Bedford-Coldwater Basin are associated primarily with salt and nutrient loading and not likely to be affected by groundwater storage within historical and operational ranges. • Interconnected Surface Water. The minimum thresholds for depletion of surface water flow are linked to groundwater levels near stream reaches with shallow groundwater. Those water levels are generally equal to or higher than the minimum thresholds for water levels in those areas. Thus, it is likely that the interconnected surface water threshold would constrain storage utilization.

6.3.6.2. Effect of Minimum Threshold on Sustainability in Adjacent Areas The Bedford-Coldwater Basin is located downstream from the Elsinore Valley Subbasin along Temescal Wash. Groundwater flow directions are from the Elsinore Valley Subbasin to the Bedford-Coldwater Basin. The groundwater level MTs for the Bedford-Coldwater Basin would support maintenance of groundwater levels and storage within the operational range in the Bedford MA adjacent to the Elsinore Valley Subbasin. This in turn will support maintenance of operational groundwater storage in the neighboring Elsinore Valley Subbasin.

6.3.6.3. Effect of Minimum Threshold on Beneficial Uses and Users Beneficial uses and users of groundwater storage include maintenance of interconnected surface water and associated groundwater dependent ecosystems (GDEs) and municipal, industrial and other groundwater users. The MTs for groundwater levels are based generally on operational considerations for wells, which recognizes that groundwater has been and is

Bedford-Coldwater GSP 6-18

TODD GROUNDWATER,
H&H Water Resources,
and Stantec
being used reasonably for the range of beneficial uses even during droughts. The storage minimum threshold is consistent with the water level minimum threshold, which means that available storage will be adequate to supply beneficial uses as long as water levels remain above their minimum thresholds.

6.3.6.4. Relationship of Minimum Threshold to Regulatory Standards Other than SGMA, no federal, state or local standards exist for reduction of groundwater storage.

6.3.6.5. How Management Areas Can Operate without Causing Undesirable Results A storage change in one Management Area would be associated with a change in waterlevels.

That change could affect groundwater flow between that Management Area and an adjoining one. The boundary flow would only change if storage and water levels in the adjoining Management Area did not experience a similar change. Therefore, no incompatibility among Management Areas with respect to storage declines is anticipated.

6.3.6.6. How the Minimum Threshold will be Monitored
Monitoring for the groundwater levels MT, which is the proxy for groundwater storage, will be part of the BCGSA groundwater level monitoring program (as described in Section 7). Data and analytical results, including assessment of change in storage, are presented in GSP Annual Reports.

6.3.7. Measurable Objectives
Measurable Objectives is defined in GSP regulations as an operating range of groundwater storage, allowing changes in groundwater storage with varying hydrologic and surface water supply conditions and as with conjunctive management of surface water and groundwater.

The groundwater level MTs provide a protective level that corresponds to the minimum threshold for storage, which would keep groundwater storage within the historical operating range. The 5-Year GSP Update could include consideration of using more of thisstorage locally as part of ongoing conjunctive use while also protecting shallow wells.

The Measurable Objective for storage is fulfilled by the MO for groundwater levels, which maintains groundwater levels above the historical maximum groundwater depths in each Key Well (as quantified above in Table 6-1).

Groundwater conditions with respect to depletion of groundwater storage are already sustainable. Therefore, no interim milestones are needed to achieve sustainability by 2042.

6.3.7.1. Discussion of Monitoring and Management Measures to be Implemented Management actions to prevent chronic reduction of groundwater storage and to provide groundwater reserves for drought will be the same actions for maintenance of groundwater levels. No otherspecific management actions for storage have been identified and no specific implementation is warranted.

Bedford-Coldwater GSP 6-19

TODD GROUNDWATER,
H&H Water Resources,
and Stantec

6.4. SEAWATER INTRUSION
Seawater intrusion does not occur in the Bedford-Coldwater Basin because of its inland location. According to the GSP Regulations, the GSP is not required to establish criteria for such undesirable results that are not likely to occur. Accordingly, the remaining discussion in this section does not address seawater intrusion.

6.5. LAND SUBSIDENCE
Subsidence has not been a known issue in the Bedford-Coldwater Basin and undesirable results have not been reported. Nonetheless, the potential has been recognized that subsidence could occur as a result of groundwater pumping and groundwater level declines, typically in areas underlain by thick layers of fine-grained alluvial sediments.

As described in Section 4.3, available information on vertical land displacement (subsidence) includes estimates from InSAR satellite data systems. InSAR data provide mapping of ground surface elevations across the Basin, presented at regular (typically monthly) intervals.

InSAR data are made available by DWR from the TRE Altamira InSAR Dataset with vertical displacement data beginning in June 2015 and in monthly intervalsthereafter until September 2019. The accuracy of the InSAR ground surface elevation change estimates is reported to be ±16 millimeters (mm), or ±0.052 feet (ft) (Towill 2020). While these data do currently represent a relatively short period of record, the InSAR data do not show significant changes in ground surface elevation in the Basin, which is characterized by small changes within the margin of error. Given the short records of these datasets and small vertical displacements, these data have not been analyzed systematically to identify specific areas that might be subject to long-term subsidence. As datasets are updated, that may be warranted in the future.

There are no data relating potential subsidence to water levels or groundwater pumping in the Basin. SGMA allows groundwater level data to be used as a proxy for subsidence; however,relationships between pumping, groundwater levels, and subsidence have not been determined to support that. Subsidence information from DWR InSAR data will be reviewed as it becomes available.

6.5.1. Description of Undesirable Results
Land subsidence is the differential lowering of the ground surface, which can damage structures, roadways, and hinder surface water drainage. Subsidence remains a potential risk and inelastic subsidence is irreversible. Potential undesirable results associated with land subsidence due to groundwater withdrawals include the following:
• Potential damage to building structures and foundations, including water facilities, due to variations in vertical displacement causing potential cracking, compromised structural integrity, safety concerns and even collapse.

Bedford-Coldwater GSP 6-20

TODD GROUNDWATER,
H&H Water Resources,
and Stantec
• Potential differential subsidence affecting the gradient of surface drainage channels, locally reducing the capacity to convey floodwater and causing potential drainage problems and ponding.
• Potential differential subsidence affecting the grade or drainage of other infrastructure such as railroads, roads, and sewers.
• Potential subsidence around a production well, disrupting wellhead facilities or resulting in casing failure.
• Potential non-recoverable loss of groundwater storage as fine-grained layers collapse.

None of these undesirable results has been observed in the Basin. However, subsidence may be subtle and cumulative over time. Accordingly, the potential for future subsidence cannot be ruled out if regional groundwater levels were to decline below historical lows and minimum thresholds.

6.5.2. Potential Causes of Undesirable Results
As described in Section 4.3, changes in ground surface elevations may be caused by regional tectonism or by subsidence related to declines in groundwater elevations due to pumping.

Regarding the former, the InSAR data show a general rising trend in the western portion of the Basin suggesting regional tectonic rise. In contrast, inelastic subsidence associated with groundwater pumping and level declines would generally show a long-term downward trend, with greater subsidence occurring during times of groundwater level decline (e.g., drought) and a flattening trend with no recovery during times of rising groundwater levels and reduced pumping (e.g., wet years).

As groundwater levels decline in the subsurface, dewatering and compaction of predominantly fine-grained deposits (such as clay and silt) can cause the overlying ground surface to settle. Land subsidence due to groundwater withdrawals can be temporary (elastic) or permanent (inelastic). While elastic deformation is relatively minor, fully recoverable, and not an undesirable result, inelastic deformation involves a permanent compaction of clay layers that occurs when groundwater levels in a groundwater basin decline below historical lows. This causes not only subsidence of the ground surface, but also compaction of sediments and loss of storage capacity.

Given the above, the potential for problematic land subsidence is affected by the proportion, overall thickness, and configuration of fine-grained sediments (with greater proportions and thicknesses suggesting greater potential). Because of the variability of local sediments, subsidence also is likely to be geographically variable. Moreover, the potential forsubsidence is affected by the history of groundwater level fluctuations, such that areas with previous groundwater level declines may have already experienced some compaction and subsidence.

Subsidence is possible in Coldwater MA, due to the thickness of sediments and larger amount of pumping in this area. However, there is no evidence of thick, laterally continuous finegrained materials that would be susceptible to subsidence. No data indicate that permanent inelastic subsidence has occurred.

Bedford-Coldwater GSP 6-21

TODD GROUNDWATER,
H&H Water Resources,
and Stantec

6.5.3. Potential Effects on Beneficial Uses and Users
The lack of any reports of undesirable results is an indication of no noticeable effects.

Nonetheless, some subsidence could have occurred because of historical groundwater level declines without being noticed and could have contributed to drainage or flooding problems, which are also affected by multiple and sometimes more noticeable factors including variable weather, changes in streams and drainage systems, land use changes in the watershed, erosion and sedimentation. Accordingly, continued tracking of subsidence is warranted.

6.5.4. Minimum Threshold
According to the GSP Regulations Section 354.28(c)(5), the minimum threshold for land subsidence is defined as the rate and extent of subsidence that substantially interferes with surface land uses. This section first addresses the rate at which subsidence substantially interferes with surface land uses and then describes how available InSAR data can be used to measure rate and extent across the Basin.

The Minimum Threshold for subsidence is defined as a cumulative decline equal to or greater than one foot since 2015, which represents current conditions and the SGMA start date. This corresponds to a rate of decline equal to or greater than 0.2 feet in any five-year period.

The one-foot criterion is reasonable based on standards for flooding and drainage and on empirical data for well casing collapse:
• In the southwestern part of the Sacramento Valley, where documented cumulative subsidence has reached several feet, video surveys of 88 undamaged wells and 80 damaged wells showed that casing damage was uncommon in wells where subsidence was less than one foot (LSCE 2014).
• Ground floor elevations are recommended or required to be at least one foot above the Base Flood Elevation in some jurisdictions (see for example FEMA 2011 and City of Temecula 2020). Subsidence above one foot may cause some buildings to become flooded.
• The minimum freeboard along roadside ditches is often required to be one foot above the maximum anticipated water level (see for example San Diego County 2005). Greater subsidence may cause sewer and stormwater flows to flow in unintended directions.

Subsidence impacts can be relatively rapid and noticeable. However, in the Basin any subsidence in the future is likely to be gradually cumulative as would be its undesirable results. Accordingly, the 0.2 ft per 5-year rate of decline is an appropriate criterion, with the understanding that it will be re-evaluated in the 2027 GSP Update.

Based on available data and using the above criterion, significant and unreasonable subsidence has not occurred since 2015 in the Basin. Moreover, it is unlikely that the criterion

Bedford-Coldwater GSP 6-22

TODD GROUNDWATER,
H&H Water Resources,
and Stantec
will be exceeded in the future as groundwater pumping will be constrained with the MT set for groundwater levels and storage.

The extent of cumulative subsidence across the Basin will be monitored using the InSAR data provided on DWR’s SGMA Data Portal website. The data consist of a closely spaced grid of elevation points approximately 300 feet apart and are characterized by considerable “noise,” meaning that adjacent points often have very different readings at the scale of 1-2 inches.

These data will be smoothed to provide results at a spatial scale at which subsidence would plausibly occur. These values for cumulative elevation change will then be compared annually with the minimum threshold criterion.

6.5.4.1. Relationship of Minimum Threshold to Other Sustainability Indicators Subsidence related to groundwater is closely linked to groundwater levels. It is unlikely that significant inelastic subsidence would occur if groundwater levels remain above historical lows, which have been used to define groundwater level MOs. In addition, the operationally defined MT levels will prohibit significant pumping if water levels decline below historical lows. Accordingly, the minimum threshold for groundwater levels is consistent with and supportive of the objective to prevent subsidence undesirable results.

The subsidence MT would have little or no effect on other MTs. Specifically, subsidence MTs would not result in significant or unreasonable groundwater elevations, would not affect pumping and change in storage, would not affect groundwater quality, orresult in undesirable effects on connected surface water.

6.5.4.2. Effect of Minimum Threshold on Sustainability in Adjacent Areas The Bedford-Coldwater Basin is adjacent to the Temescal Basin and Elsinore Valley Subbasin.

Groundwater flow directions are from the Elsinore Valley Subbasin to the Bedford-Coldwater Basin and from the Bedford-Coldwater Basin to the Temescal Basin with some drainage into the Temescal Wash. The MTs for the Basin represent current conditions; establishment of MTs and maintenance of groundwater levels would not affect the ability of the either the Temescal Basin or Elsinore Valley Subbasin GSAs to achieve or maintain sustainability, as the flows between the basins are relatively minimal, and therefore groundwater levels and, thus, subsidence, in one basin would not affect the other.

6.5.4.3. Effect of Minimum Threshold on Beneficial Uses and Users Subsidence has not been reported in the Basin, but subsidence remains a potential undesirable result that may contribute incrementally to reduced drainage, increased flooding, or other undesirable results. The effects of establishing the numerical subsidence MT are beneficial because they support a greater chance of detecting subsidence, supporting management actions to maintain groundwater levels, and preventing significant subsidence.

6.5.4.4. Relationship of Minimum Threshold to Regulatory Standards There are no federal, state or local standards specifically addressing subsidence. There are standards for flood depth, floodplain encroachment, freeboard in ditches and canals and

Bedford-Coldwater GSP 6-23

TODD GROUNDWATER,
H&H Water Resources,
and Stantec
slopes of gravity-flow plumbing pipes. These vary somewhat from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, but they are generally similar and were used as the basis for selecting the MT.

6.5.4.5. How Management Areas Can Operate without Causing Undesirable Results The MTs are consistently conceived and applied across both MAs. Tracking and analysis of InSAR mapping over the next five years (until the 5-Year GSP update) may be revealing about the potential for subsidence in the Basin. Meanwhile, maintenance of groundwater levels at or above historical lows consistent with the water level MOs will tend to maintain current conditions between the successive MAs from upstream to downstream.

6.5.4.6. How the Minimum Threshold will be Monitored
The minimum threshold will be monitored using available InSAR areal data to identify any occurrence and areal extent of subsidence. Over the next few years, this evaluation will involve review of temporal InSAR data to discern seasonal elastic fluctuations and potential inelastic declines. In addition, any areal extent will be examined; this may involve smoothing of elevation changes over the InSAR grid to summarize the results to a spatial scale at which subsidence would plausibly occur. The cell values for cumulative elevation change will then be compared with the minimum threshold criterion.

6.5.5. Measurable Objectives
The Sustainability Goal includes the objective to prevent subsidence. Accordingly, the MO is zero subsidence. Undesirable subsidence results have not been reported, and accordingly, no interim milestones are defined.

6.5.5.1. Representative Monitoring
It is assumed that the InSAR subsidence monitoring programs will continue for the foreseeable future and InSAR data will be available from the DWR website. The GSP monitoring program for subsidence will involve annual download of InSAR data with analysis for signs of cumulative inelastic subsidence.

6.5.5.2. Discussion of Management Actions to be Implemented Management actions to prevent subsidence will be coordinated with actions relative to maintenance of groundwater levels. These actions involve maintaining groundwater levels above historical low water levels and will prevent significant inelastic subsidence. No other specific management actions for subsidence have been identified and no specific implementation is warranted.

6.6. DEGRADATION OF WATER QUALITY
Degraded water quality can impair water supply and affect human health and the environment. Impacts to drinking water supply wells can result in increased sampling and monitoring, increased treatment costs, use of bottled water, and loss of wells, which may be taken offline because of quality issues. As described in Groundwater Conditions Sections 4.6

Bedford-Coldwater GSP 6-24

TODD GROUNDWATER,
H&H Water Resources,
and Stantec
and 4.7, elevated concentrations in drinking water of some constituents, such as nitrate, can adversely affect human health.

Consideration of the causes and circumstances of water quality conditions is important in Bedford-Coldwater because general mineral quality is naturally poor, especially in the Bedford MA. Nonetheless, groundwater has been used for beneficial purposes including irrigation, municipal, and domestic purposes. Sustainable management is about use and management of groundwater without causing undesirable results but does not necessarily include reversing natural undesirable conditions. According to SGMA (§10727.2(b)(4)), a GSP may—but is not required to—address undesirable results that occurred before and have not been corrected by the SGMA benchmark date of January 1, 2015.

Salt and nitrate loading also are recognized as sources of groundwater quality deterioration.

The sustainability goal to protect groundwater quality is not to reverse undesirable water quality conditions by 2042 but rather to prevent circumstances wherein future management activities might make water quality worse, and insofar as possible to improve water quality in the long run. Implementation of management actions is recognized as needed now and, whether or not the results are perceptible in the short term, such actions will be helpful in the long term.

6.6.1. Potential Causes of Undesirable Results
The quality of groundwaterin Bedford-Coldwater Basin is characterized as mineralized, in part reflecting natural hydrogeologic processes (see Groundwater Conditions Section 4.4).

Groundwater also has been affected by human activities including historical agriculture and current urban, industrial, and other land uses. While contaminant sources of groundwater quality degradation exist, these are effectively regulated as described in Groundwater Conditions Section 4.6 and regularly tracked as part of other monitoring programs.

As described in the Groundwater Conditions section, TDS and nitrate are constituents of concern for the Basin. While there are elevated natural background TDS concentrations in groundwater, TDS also is an indicator of human impacts including infiltration of urban runoff, agricultural return flows, and treated wastewater discharge. Natural nitrate levels in groundwater are generally very low, and elevated concentrations are associated with agricultural activities, septic systems, confined animal facilities, landscape fertilization, and wastewater treatment facility discharges.

Other constituents considered to be contaminants have been documented (see Groundwater Conditions Section 4.6.1 and 4.7) but occurrences of these are either under regulation by the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) and State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) (e.g., perfluorooctanesulfonic acid [PFOS] and perchlorate) or are naturally occurring with no recent exceedances of MCLs and limited potential for mobilization due to management actions. In addition, mining activities are also regulated through the County Planning Department, the Surface Mining and Reclamation Act, and RWQCB discharge permits.

Bedford-Coldwater GSP 6-25

TODD GROUNDWATER,
H&H Water Resources,
and Stantec

6.6.2. Description of Undesirable Results
The processes and criteria relied on to define Undesirable Resultsincluded review of available data and information summarized in the Plan Area and Groundwater Conditions sections and discussions with Bedford-Coldwater stakeholders and local agency representatives.

Undesirable Results are defined in the GSP Regulations (§354.26) as occurring when significant and unreasonable effects for any of the sustainability indicators are caused by groundwater conditions occurring throughout the Basin. The GSA is not responsible for local problems or degradation caused by others. While the Bedford-Coldwater Basin includes regulated facilities with soil and groundwater contamination (see Groundwater Conditions Sections 4.4 and 4.6.1), these sites are under regulatory oversight by State and County agencies; the GSA does not have the mandate or authority to duplicate these programs. This GSP avoids management actions that would spread groundwater contamination through managed aquifer recharge, pumping, or other activities.

6.6.3. Potential Effects on Beneficial Uses and Users
Groundwater is a major source of supply in the Basin and supports a range of beneficial uses including municipal, recreational, industrial, and other uses. Beneficial uses of water and respective water quality objectives are defined by the RWQCB in the Santa Ana River Basin Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan).

6.6.4. Sustainable Management Criteria for Groundwater Quality The definition of an Undesirable Result due to degraded water quality—TDS and nitrate concentrations—was evaluated in the context of regulatory objectives in each MA.

The GSA has selected a minimum threshold based on average conditions in monitored supply wells and regulatory limits. The average concentrations are totaled from each well and then divided by the total number of supply wells, to achieve a single value representing average conditions over the entire Basin. While this is slightly different than the suggested methods to determine sustainability, the GSA desired a single quantitative value to guide management.

This is because the issues of concern in Bedford-Coldwater are focused on regional nitrate and salt loading, data are insufficient to define plumes or volumes of water, and the position of isocontours is not applicable.

6.6.4.1. Water Quality Monitoring Program
Currently 12 wells are regularly monitored for TDS and/or nitrate in the Basin by GSA member agencies,shown on Table 6-2. The wells generally are sampled semi-annually with lab analysis for general minerals and physical parameters. Accordingly, this data set can be used to detect a range of problems quickly, to track trends, allow geochemical investigation, and support focused management actions.

Bedford-Coldwater GSP 6-26

TODD GROUNDWATER,
H&H Water Resources,
and Stantec
Local Well Name Agency
Corona Well 21 Corona
Corona Well 3 Corona
EVMWD Flagler 2A Well EVMWD
EVMWD Flagler 3A Well EVMWD
EVMWD Station 71 EVMWD
EVMWD Mayhew Well 2 EVMWD
TVWD Well 1A TVWD
TVWD Well 4 TVWD
TVWD TP-1 TVWD
TVWD TP-2 TVWD
TVWD MW 2 - Driving Range TVWD
Glen Ivy Well 1 Glen Ivy

6.6.4.2. Additional Water Quality Programs
In addition to existing monitoring, the BCGSA will conduct the following ongoing water quality coordination activities:
• Periodic review of data submitted to the Department of Pesticide Regulation (DPR), SWRCB Division of Drinking Water (DDW), Department of Toxic Substances Control (EnviroStor), and GeoTracker as part of the Groundwater Ambient Monitoring and Assessment (GAMA) database.
• Continue to participate in Salt and Nutrient Management Plan (SNMP) activities that include the Bedford MA portion of the Basin.
• Coordinate with the RWQCB and Riverside County Division of Environmental Health to discuss constituent trends and concerns in the BCGSA in relation to groundwater pumping.

The purpose of these reviews will be to monitor and summarize the status of constituent concentrations throughout the Basin with respect to typical indicators such as applicable MCLs or secondary MCLs (SMCLs). The GSP Annual Report and 5-Year Update will include a summary of the coordination and associated analyses of conditions. The GSP 5-year updates may include evaluation of whether additional minimum thresholds are needed.

6.6.5. Minimum Thresholds
Minimum Thresholds have been developed for nitrate and TDS using the best available information. MTs for nitrate and TDS are based on current conditions represented by average water quality results from all monitored wells between 2014 and 2019. The average value for each constituent was calculated for each well using results from all samples collected between 2014 and 2019. For wells with one sample, the single value was used; for wells with two or more samples, the average value was used.

Table 6-2. Bedford-Coldwater Water Quality Monitoring Wells

Bedford-Coldwater GSP 6-27

TODD GROUNDWATER,
H&H Water Resources,
and Stantec
These individual well averages were then averaged together for all wells in each MA and all wells in the Basin, as shown in Table 6-3. The resulting MA and Basin-wide average concentrations provide a simple metric for evaluating TDS and nitrate concentrations in the Basin. For reference, the MCL for nitrate as N is 10 mg/L and the SMCL for TDS is 1,000 mg/L.

Table 6-3. Summary of Recent Average Total Dissolved Solids (TDS) and Nitrate Concentrations by Management Area
Bedford MA Average
Concentration,
2014 - 2019
Coldwater MA Average
Concentration,
2014 - 2019
Basin Wide Average
Concentration,
2014 - 2019
Nitrate as N 3 mg/L 2 mg/L 3 mg/L
TDS 788 mg/L 488 mg/L 713 mg/L
Number of
Wells 9 3 12
According to GSP regulations Section 354.28(c)(4) the minimum threshold shall be based on the number of supply wells, a volume of water, or a location of an isocontour that exceeds concentrations of constituents determined by the GSA to be of concern for the Basin. In setting minimum thresholds for degraded water quality, the GSA shall consider local, state, and federal water quality standards applicable to the basin. For the Bedford-Coldwater Basin, water quality MTs are based on the total number of wells (currently 12) and set for the entire Basin including both MAs.

The TDS water quality Minimum Threshold Basin-wide is defined as 5-year average concentrations not exceeding the 1,000 mg/L Secondary MCL for TDS.

The nitrate water quality Minimum Threshold Basin-wide is defined as 5-year average concentrations not exceeding the 10 mg/L drinking water MCL for Nitrate as Nitrogen.

These MTs are presented with full recognition of data gaps and uncertainties, and with commitment incorporated in this GSP to investigate increasing trends in nitrate and salt loading if they occur, and to coordinate appropriate management actions with regulatory agencies such as the RWQCB.

While the TDS and Nitrate MTs were selected based on the MCL (drinking water standards) to protect the beneficial uses of the Basin, it is recognized that there are other water quality objectives. The Upper Temescal Valley SNMP setsforth anti-degradation goalsforthe Bedford portion of the Basin, and the RWQCB Basin Plan has additional objectives for the Coldwater MA. As noted in Section 4.5.1, the SNMP objectives for the Bedford area are lower than the MCLs. However, the fundamental approach of this GSP is to protect beneficial uses as identified in the Sustainability Goal (Section 6.1). The BCGSA will work with other agencies to help achieve their objectivesfor water quality but will not define sustainability based on those objectives.

Bedford-Coldwater GSP 6-28

TODD GROUNDWATER,
H&H Water Resources,
and Stantec
Given historical and ongoing groundwater use, current water quality conditions are considered sustainable. As described in Section 6.6.6, Measurable Objectives, the approach is to implement management actions that will maintain or reduce TDS and nitrate concentrations in the future.

6.6.5.1. Relationship of Minimum Threshold to Other Sustainability Indicators Three of the other sustainability indicators (groundwater level declines, storage depletion, subsidence) are directly linked to groundwater levels, while the sustainability indicator for connected surface water-groundwater dependent ecosystems is related to a rate or volume of surface water depletion, also linked to groundwater levels. The MTs for water quality are not known to be directly related to specific groundwater levels or fluctuationsin groundwater levels. Nonetheless, general relationships are recognized, for example that contaminants may be mobilized by changing groundwater levels or flow patterns. Accordingly, the water quality MTs will help guide potential projects that alter groundwater levels or flow.

6.6.5.2. Effect of Minimum Threshold on Sustainability in Adjacent Areas The Bedford-Coldwater Basin is adjacent to the Elsinore Subbasin and Temescal Basin. Given the likelihood of continued flow between these basins remaining relatively similar current conditions, groundwater flow is likely to remain unchanged and groundwater quality in Bedford-Coldwater is unlikely to affect downstream Temescal Basin.

6.6.5.3. Effect of Minimum Threshold on Beneficial Uses and Users The establishment of the MTs reflects the available data regarding the current condition of the Basin relative to TDS and nitrate concentrations. Establishing the MTs represents no change and recognizes that groundwater has been and is being used reasonably for the range of beneficial uses. The MTs represent a quantified starting point for protection of groundwater quality and for projects and management actions to improve groundwater quality, consistent with a best management practices approach.

6.6.5.4. Relationship of Minimum Threshold to Regulatory Standards The MTs have been established with direct reference to regulatory standards, most notably the State-established MCLs. Other standards exist (including the Basin Plan Objectives set by the RWQCB and the Salt Nutrient Management Plan) that are lower (more strict) than the MTs. However, the Sustainability Goal and MTs are based on drinking water standards in order to protect local beneficial uses of groundwater.

6.6.5.5. How Management Areas Can Operate without Causing Undesirable Results For both MAs, the goal isto protect groundwater quality with reference to beneficial uses and all MTs are based on available information and current conditions. It is not known if the current conditions represent equilibrium conditions between the two MAs or if future changes may occur between them. Future implementation of management actions and projects will be guided by monitoring data and by the consistent goal to protect groundwater quality in both MAs.

Bedford-Coldwater GSP 6-29

TODD GROUNDWATER,
H&H Water Resources,
and Stantec

6.6.5.6. How the Minimum Threshold will be Monitored
The GSP is using the best available data from the BCGSA member agencies. The existing monitoring program will be improved and expanded to include dedicated monitoring wells.

These will be included within the regular sampling schedule of the BCGSA and will build on historical records with data on specific constituents and parameters. The data from these dedicated wells will be used to reassess this threshold at the next GSP 5-Year update.

6.6.6. Measurable Objectives
The sustainability goal is to protect groundwater quality with reference to beneficial uses, with general objectives of maintaining groundwater quality, preventing circumstances where future management activities might make water quality worse, and improving groundwater quality in the long term.

6.6.6.1. Description of Measurable Objectives
Measurable Objectives are defined in this GSP using the same metrics and monitoring data as used to define MTs and are established to maintain or improve groundwater quality. Given uncertainties presented by data limitations, a reasonable margin of safety includes the possibility of “negative” monitoring results while positive progress is being made.

The Measurable Objective for TDS is defined as maintaining or reducing 5-year average concentration in the Basin below the TDS Secondary MCL (1,000 mg/L) based on conditions documented in the Annual Reports.

The Measurable Objective for nitrate is defined as maintaining orreducing the 5-year average concentration in the Basin below the nitrate as nitrogen MCL (10 mg/L) based on conditions documented in the Annual Reports.

Measurable Objectives will be evaluated in increments of five years and the numeric values will be presented with comparison to current conditions. This comparison will be discussed in the context of actual progress in implementing measures to improve monitoring and management.

6.6.6.2. Discussion of Monitoring and Management Measures to be Implemented The strategy of this GSP is to identify and implement monitoring and management measures to reduce nitrate and TDS loading. Monitoring and management actions already undertaken are summarized in Plan Area Section 2.1.4. and would be continued. Additional monitoring measures are discussed in following sections.

6.7. DEPLETIONS OF INTERCONNECTED SURFACE WATER
This section builds and extends the discussion in Chapter 4 and the discussion of interconnection of surface water and groundwater. That section provided information on surface water-groundwater connections (both seasonally and with wet years and drought),

Bedford-Coldwater GSP 6-30

TODD GROUNDWATER,
H&H Water Resources,
and Stantec
identification of potential GDEs, distribution of riparian vegetation, and assessment of animal species that rely on groundwater-supported streamflow.

6.7.1. Description of Undesirable Results
If a stream is hydraulically connected to groundwater, pumping from nearby wells can reduce the amount of stream flow by intercepting groundwater that would have discharged into the stream or by inducing seepage from the stream. Undesirable results associated with stream flow depletion include reduced quality and quantity of aquatic and riparian habitats and reduced water supply to downstream users. Conceptually, adverse habitat impacts can result from decreased rainfall, decreased stream flow and/or lowered groundwater levels. These variables are highly correlated in time: droughts include rainfall reductions, decreased stream flows, and lowered groundwater levels at a time when habitat impacts are usually the most severe. Furthermore, droughts and wet periods are a natural feature of California’s climate and are associated with waxing and waning of habitat conditions.

6.7.2. Potential Causes of Undesirable Results
Depletion of interconnected surface water by groundwater pumping can impact a variety of beneficial uses of surface water. A systematic evaluation of each potential impact is warranted, including impacts on downstream water users, habitats around isolated springs and wetlands, and plants and animalsthat rely on flow orshallow watertable conditions along streams.

6.7.2.1. Surface Water Users
There are no known diverters of surface water from Temescal Wash. Lee Lake Dam and reservoir (just upstream of the Basin) were built in the late 19th century on the site of a small natural lake for the purpose of storing and supplying water to what is now the City of Corona (Ellerbee 1918). The lake no longer serves a water supply function, and in recent years it has been operated solely for recreational fishing under the name “Corona Lake”.

Although not exactly a diversion, EVMWD obtained a permit that is listed as a diversion to reduce its historical discharges of treated effluent from the Regional Wastewater Reclamation Facility (WRF) to Temescal Wash upstream of the Basin, instead discharging most of that water to Lake Elsinore. Up to 3.87 cubic feet per second (cfs) of wastewater discharges that had been going to the Wash have been diverted to Lake Elsinore since 2008, as part of a lake level management plan (Permit 21165 [Application30502]). On January 24, 2020, the SWRCB approved EVMWD’s request for a time extension to generate and divert the full amount of wastewater indicated in the permit. Downstream of the Basin there is no required minimum discharge from Temescal Wash into the Prado Wetlands at the downstream end of the Wash, near Corona. However, there are minimum required discharges of treated wastewater into the wetlands from several wastewater treatment plants in the Corona area north of the Bedford-Coldwater Basin.

Bedford-Coldwater GSP 6-31

TODD GROUNDWATER,
H&H Water Resources,
and Stantec

6.7.2.2. Isolated Springs and Wetlands
Small off-channel wetlands are included in the Natural Communities Commonly Associated with Groundwater (NCCAG) on-line vegetation geodatabase (DWR et al. 2020). Almost all areas mapped as wetlands are along Temescal Wash and covered by the evaluation ofriparian vegetation presented in detail below. A handful of polygons totaling 1.4 acres in the BedfordColdwater Basin are located along tributary streams or in low areas west of Temescal Wash.

The vegetation is described as “seasonally flooded”, and the depth to groundwater at those locations is over 100 feet. The mapped vegetation is thus supported by seasonal ponding of rainfall runoff, not groundwater.

6.7.2.3. Animals Dependent on Groundwater
Animals dependent on groundwater include fish that permanently reside in Temescal Wash or migrate up and down the Wash during the high flow season, amphibians, and birds that inhabit riparian vegetation. Temescal Wash historically supported a steelhead trout run, remnants of which persist as resident rainbow trout in Coldwater Canyon Creek (which enters the Bedford-Coldwater Basin from the Santa Ana Mountains). Currently, perennially ponded areas along the lower reaches of the creek support robust population of invasive and exotic predatory species including bass, bullhead, sunfish, carp, and some slider turtles (Russell 2020). Arroyo chub is another fish that was once present in the Santa Ana River watershed, but it has been extirpated in most streams due to these exotic predators. Riverside County Resource Conservation District (RCRCD) implemented the Temescal Creek Native Fish Restoration Project in the early 2000s, which focused on eliminating nonnative plant and animal species that prey upon or create unfavorable habitat conditions for native fish species (Western Riverside County Regional Conservation Authority 2020). However, flow conditions in Temescal Wash do not currently support native fish (Russell 2020).

Animals dependent on riparian vegetation can also be considered dependent on groundwater. The Western Riverside County Multi-Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) evaluates the presence and habitat needs of 146 species. The only ones mapped in the vicinity of the Basin are upland plants and burrowing owls, none of which are dependent on groundwater (Western Riverside County Regional Conservation Authority 2020). The federally threatened California coastal gnatcatcheris a bird species associated with sage scrub environments. The designated critical habitat areas are almost exclusively in upland areas outside the Basin. However, edges of a few mapped habitat areas border the Temescal Wash corridor (see Figure 4-20).

The Upper Santa Ana River Habitat Conservation Plan (SARHCP) also covers the Temescal Wash watershed and differsfrom the Western Riverside County MSHCP primarily in providing Endangered Species Act compliance for an additional set of activities related to water infrastructure construction and operation (USARSRA 2020). Although the SARHCP documents habitat suitability and historical observations of several listed species along Temescal Wash, its main focus is on habitat along the mainstem Santa Ana River. Species with fewer than five historical sightings and little suitable habitat include Arroyo chub, southwestern pond turtle, southwestern willow flycatcher, and yellow-breasted chat. There have been more than 25 historical sightings of Least Bells vireo, but no suitable habitat is mapped along Temescal

Bedford-Coldwater GSP 6-32

TODD GROUNDWATER,
H&H Water Resources,
and Stantec
Wash. The flow regime in Temescal Wash is characterized as ephemeral (correct in many locations) because flow is “heavily diverted for human use” (incorrect) and that local areas of persistent flows result from agricultural return flows (incorrect). No mention is made of wastewater discharges, which are a larger factor in the flow regime. The surface hydrologic model used to support the SARHCP analysis only extends about one mile up the lowermost channelized reach of Temescal Wash. A groundwater model used to support the SARHCP projected declining water levels in the Prado wetlands area, but the plan includes no mitigation measures related to groundwater.

In summary, Temescal Wash does not appear to be a significant habitat for any listed animal species that would potentially be impacted by groundwater pumping or water levels.

However, riparian shrubs and trees and non-listed animal species that use them could potentially be impacted during droughts if lowered groundwater levels cause vegetation dieback or mortality.

6.7.2.4. Riparian Vegetation
The beneficial use of interconnected surface water most likely to be impacted by groundwater pumping is riparian vegetation along Temescal Wash. The Wash traverses three groundwater basins along its 26-mile course from Lake Elsinore to the Prado Wetlands on the Santa Ana River. The entire length of the Wash was evaluated for this GSP to maximize the available information relating vegetation to groundwater and surface flow conditions. The assortment of vegetation types is roughly the same along the entire Wash and includes (in decreasing order of abundance) red willow, California sycamore, Gooddings willow, mulefat and Fremont cottonwood.

The extent and health of riparian vegetation along Temescal Wash was evaluated using three data sets: 1) Google Earth aerial imagery dating back to 1994 (Google Earth 2021), 2) NCCAG mapping of riparian vegetation representing a composite of numerous vegetation mapping efforts around the state (most dating from the early 2000s) (DWR et al. 2020), and 3) TNC’s GDE Pulse on-line mapping tool showing vegetation moisture status based on satellite data (TNC 2020).

Inspection of the aerial imagery revealed substantial mortality of riparian trees at many locations along the entire length of Temescal Wash from 2014 to 2016 and little recovery by 2018 (the most recent image). As an example, the evolution of vegetation along the reach that passes through Dos Lagos Golf Course (near Temescal Canyon Road and Cabot Drive) is illustrated by imagesfrom 1994, 2006, 2014, 2016, and 2018 in Figure 6-2. In 1994, which was just after a prior drought and before urban development, there was moderate coverage of riparian trees in the Temescal Wash channel. Canopy extent and density increased incrementally through 2006 and up to 2014. The 2014 through 2016 drought caused extensive tree mortality evident in the 2016 photo. Only a few trees had recovered by 2018, in spite of wet conditions in 2017.

The health and vigor of riparian vegetation cannot be reliably detected in aerial photographs.

However, spectral analysis of light reflected from the vegetation does provide that

Bedford-Coldwater GSP 6-33

TODD GROUNDWATER,
H&H Water Resources,
and Stantec
information. Two commonly used metrics of vegetation health and vigor are the normalized difference vegetation index (NDVI) and normalized difference moisture index (NDMI), both of which involve ratios of selected visible and infrared wavelengths. NDVI relates to the greenness of vegetation and NDMI relates to transpiration. These metrics detect sub-lethal vegetation stress not visible in normal aerial imagery. TNC compiled these two metrics from historical satellite imagery for riparian vegetation throughout California and incorporated it into the GDE Pulse on-line mapping tool (TNC 2020). The tool evaluates the metrics for every vegetation polygon in the NCCAG maps. For each polygon, the tool displays time series plots of annualsummertime NDVI and NDMI from 1985 through 2019. GDE Pulse data for NDVI and NDMI confirmed large declines in both of those metrics during 2013 through 2016 in most vegetation polygons along Temescal Wash. Some uncertainty in the methodology is apparent in occasional large differences in trends between adjoining polygons. Declines during 1984 through 1990 were of similar magnitude but not as abrupt in most locations.

A key question is whether vegetation die-back during the recent drought was due to lowered groundwater levels or reduced surface flow. There reportedly was year-round surface flow in the Wash derived from wastewater discharges prior to the drought, and a combination of reduced discharges and drought conditions killed up to 80 percent of the tree canopy in some locations along the Wash (Russell 2020). A careful comparison of the locations and timing of vegetation changes during the 1990 to 2018 period with the location and timing of changes in surface flow, groundwater pumping, and groundwater levels allows some tentative conclusions to be drawn about which factors contribute to vegetation die-back.

6.7.2.4.1. Groundwater Pumping and Shallow Groundwater Levels 1990 through 2018
Pumping from wellsin the Warm Springs and Lee Lake MAsin the Elsinore Valley Subbasin upstream from the Basin and the Bedford MA in the Bedford-Coldwater Basin along Temescal Wash was about three times greater during 1990 through 1993 than during the 2013 to 2016 drought, as shown in Figure 6-3. If water levels were only a function of pumping, they would have been lower in the early 1990s than during the recent drought, but that was not the case (except for 1990). Hydrographs of groundwater levels are available for about 22 wells at about 10 locations along the 15-mile length of Temescal Wash in the Elsinore and Bedford-Coldwater Basins. Many of the wells are in clusters at a single location. At five of the locations, water level records date back to the early 1990s.

Hydrographs of water levels at selected wells near Temescal Wash are shown in Figure 6-

4. Many wells with water-level data are production wells with significant, frequent pumping drawdown. Estimation of static water levels in those wells can be inaccurate in years when the well was operated frequently because it can take days for water levels a pumping to recover to background static levels, and pumping schedules do not always allow that much downtime.

Progressive water level declines during 2012 through 2015 were the largest in the period of record for most wells. However, at the two locations with records dating back to 1990 (Gregory and Barney Lee), water levels were as low or lower in 1990 as in the 2012 to 2015 period. 1990 was the final year of another major drought, which can be seen as the

Bedford-Coldwater GSP 6-34

TODD GROUNDWATER,
H&H Water Resources,
and Stantec
declining trend in the cumulative departure of rainfall during 1984 through 1990. This suggests that low groundwater levels during 1984 through 1990 might also have caused substantial die-back, after which vegetation slowly recovered.

6.7.2.4.2. Surface Flow 1990 through 2018
Surface flow in Temescal Wash is not strongly correlated with vegetation die-back when the full 1990 through 2018 period is considered. Natural flow in Temescal Wash is mostly ephemeral and sporadic, as indicated by flows at various stream gages in the region (see Figure 4-15). Large natural flow events occur only in response to storm events in winter.

In the absence of a shallow water table, intermittent winter flow events would not be sufficient to sustain riparian vegetation through the dry season.

In contrast, discharges from wastewater reclamation facilities are generally more sustained and have also contributed significant flow to Temescal Wash. Monthly average discharges from four wastewater reclamation facilities along Temescal Wash during 1990 through 2018 are shown in Figure 6-5 and are described below:
• Eastern Municipal Water District (EMWD). By far the largest discharges have been from EMWD near the upper end of Temescal Wash in the Elsinore Subbasin.

EMWD’s service area is located outside the Bedford-Coldwater Basin and beyond the jurisdiction of this and neighboring GSPs. The EMWD discharges since 2005 have typically been around 40 to 50 cfs, which is enough to produce flow down the entire length of Temescal Wash. This is confirmed by gaged flows at the outlet of Lee Lake (7 miles downstream of the discharge), which are also shown in the Figure 6-5. Peak flows at that location coincided with EMWD discharges and were about 20 cfs smaller, reflecting percolation losses between the discharge point and the lake. • Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District (EVMWD) Regional WRF. The Regional WRF is also located near the upstream end of Temescal Wash. Its discharges shifted primarily from the Wash to Lake Elsinore starting around 2008. A small (0.77 cfs) discharge has been required continuously since then, and larger discharges occasionally resume when lake levels are high. The change in discharge operations pre-dated the drought by about 6 years, and vegetation along the 5-mile reach immediately downstream of the discharge location remained relatively healthy throughout the drought. Therefore, the change in EVMWD discharges did not appear to be a significant contributor to vegetation mortality during 2014 through 2016.
• Temescal Valley Water District (TVWD) Lee Lake WRF. The Lee Lake WRF is located about halfway down the Bedford-Coldwater Basin reach of Temescal Wash. Its discharges decreased starting in 2013, which coincided with the start of the drought. The discharges had not been large (about 0.8 cfs) and had already decreased by about half since 2005 due to increased wastewater recycling. • City of Corona WRF-3. This WRF discharges a relatively small (about 0.2 cfs) flow to Temescal Wash upstream of Cajalco Road near the downstream end of the BedfordColdwater Basin. Those discharges would not influence vegetation patterns observed upstream.

Bedford-Coldwater GSP 6-35

TODD GROUNDWATER,
H&H Water Resources,
and Stantec
The hiatus in EMWD discharges between January 2013 and February 2017 coincided with the drought and with the observed vegetation mortality. Because groundwater levels also declined to exceptionally low levels during that time, the cause of vegetation die-back cannot be uniquely determined based solely on information for that time period.

Looking farther back in time, riparian vegetation was generally able to increase in extent during the 1990s and early 2000s, when EMWD discharges were rare and generally small. This indicates that the vegetation was not dependent on those flows to become established. By inference, the mortality during 2014 through 2016 was not caused solely by the interruption in the discharges.

6.7.2.5. Riparian Vegetation Summary
The relationship between groundwater pumping, groundwater levels, and vegetation dieback is not clear-cut. If there were a direct correlation between the variables, one would expect to have seen lower groundwater levels and more die-back during the 1990s than during the 2014 to 2016 period, which was not the case. At a more general level, however, riparian vegetation along Temescal Wash was continuously dense and healthy in the Warm Springs portion of the Elsinore Subbasin, where groundwater pumping was very small throughout 1990 to 2018, large wastewater discharges were immediately upstream, and groundwater levels remained consistently shallow. The greatest impacts were along the downstream end of the Bedford Management Area in the Bedford-Coldwater Basin, where groundwater pumping was relatively intense, local wastewater discharges were relatively small, and groundwater levels experienced large declines during 2012 to 2016 (no data for 1990).

6.7.3. Definition of Undesirable Results
The Sustainability Goal includes an objective to support beneficial uses in the Basin, and specifically those related to interconnected surface water. Consistent with that objective, undesirable results of excessive depletion of surface water are:

Riparian vegetation die-back or mortality during droughts of a magnitude that disrupts ecological functions or causessubstantial reductionsin populations of riparian-associated species.

6.7.4. Potential Effects on Beneficial Uses and Users
The analysis presented in this section demonstrates that groundwater conditions are currently sustainable with respect to inter-connected surface water and GDEs. There are no users of surface water in the Basin and there does not appear to be a correlation between groundwater levels and streamflow. Basin outflows appear sufficient to meet the needs of downstream water users. The distribution and health of riparian vegetation does appear to be correlated with groundwater levels, but those levels have recovered since the most recent drought and riparian vegetation is in the process of recovering as well.

Bedford-Coldwater GSP 6-36

TODD GROUNDWATER,
H&H Water Resources,
and Stantec

6.7.5. Sustainable Management Criteria for Interconnected Surface Water SGMA requires that the minimum threshold for depletions of interconnected surface water shall be the rate or volume of surface water depletions caused by groundwater use that has adverse impacts on beneficial uses of the surface water and may lead to undesirable results (§354.28(c)(6)). However, GSP Regulations allow GSAs to use groundwater elevation as a proxy metric for any of the sustainability indicators when setting minimum thresholds and measurable objectives (23 California Code of Regulations [CCR] § 354.28(d) and 23 CCR § 354.30(d)).

It would be difficult to define a minimum threshold in terms of flow depletion in this Basin because phreatophytic riparian vegetation appears to be more correlated with areas where depth to water is consistently shallow than with the magnitude or duration of surface flow.

Because there are undoubtedly gains and losses of surface flow along Temescal Wash, and the vegetation impacts are associated with a low watertable when surface flow is not present, it is reasonable to define the minimum threshold in terms of water levels instead of flow.

6.7.6. Minimum Threshold
Given the above, the minimum threshold is defined here by groundwater levels. As noted previously, wells in the groundwater levels monitoring program are production wells with relatively deep screens that have not been sited and designed for tracking surface watergroundwaterinteractions. The lack ofsuch shallow monitoring wellsis a data gap and a source of uncertainty. Hence, the minimum threshold described here is initial. Nonetheless, it is intended to be protective of GDEs until the monitoring program can be refined to better represent near-stream shallow conditions.

Therefore, in the Bedford-Coldwater Basin:

The Minimum Threshold for depletion of interconnected surface water is the amount of depletion that occurs when the depth to water in wells near areas supporting phreatophytic riparian trees is greater than 35 feet for a period exceeding one year.

This threshold corresponds approximately to the depth to water beneath the creek channel near water-level monitoring wells during 2014 through 2016 and is defined for static water levels in the wells listed in Section 6.7.6.5. Given the above uncertainty in the relationships between groundwater pumping, groundwater levels and the health of riparian vegetation, the minimum threshold for interconnected surface water presented here must be considered tentative and subject to revision in future GSP updates. The BCGSA is committed to monitoring vegetation and examining possible management actions to avoid undesirable results. However, given the uncertainty of the relationships between pumping, stream flow, water levels and riparian vegetation health, exceedance of the minimum threshold will first trigger additional study to assess how GSA pumping is affecting shallow water levels.

Undesirable results are considered to commence if water levels along more than half of the total length of reaches in the Basin with dense riparian trees exceed the minimum threshold.

Bedford-Coldwater GSP 6-37

TODD GROUNDWATER,
H&H Water Resources,
and Stantec
By this definition, undesirable results did occur in the Bedford-Coldwater Basin during the recent drought, because vegetation die-back occurred along about 3.9 miles of the channel, or about 57 percent of the total length of Temescal Wash in the Basin.

6.7.6.1. Relationship of Minimum Threshold to Other Sustainability Indicators • Groundwater Levels. All the wells used to evaluate the minimum threshold (see Section 6.7.6.5) are also representative wells used for compliance with the minimum threshold for groundwater levels. The groundwater level minimum threshold involves two consecutive quarterly water-level measurements rather than a period of one year. For the wells included in both sets of criteria, the interconnected surface water threshold water levels are generally higher than the water-level thresholds. That is, along the GDE stream reaches, the interconnected surface water criteria restrict water-level declines more than the water-level criteria do. This is the logical result of the different objectives of the two sets of criteria. • Groundwater Storage. The minimum threshold for interconnected surface water would similarly be more restrictive than the minimum threshold for groundwater storage near GDE reaches, because the latter is functionally the same as the minimum threshold for water levels.
• Seawater Intrusion. Seawater intrusion would not occur in the Basin due to its inland location. No minimum threshold was defined and there is no consistency issue.
• Land Subsidence. Significant land subsidence is only likely to occur with groundwater levels below historical minimum levels. The levels specified as minimum thresholds for interconnected surface water are within the historical range and thus unlikely to cause subsidence.
• Water Quality. Water quality issues in the Basin are primarily associated with dispersed loading of nitrate and salinity and long-term increases in ambient concentrations of those constituents. Those processes are generally independent of groundwater levels. Groundwater outflow is an important mechanism for salt removal that requires relatively high groundwater levels on a long-term average basis. High levels and groundwater discharge into streams also benefit riparian vegetation and aquatic habitat. Therefore, the minimum threshold for interconnected surface water is consistent with the minimum threshold for water quality.

6.7.6.2. Effect of Minimum Threshold on Sustainability of Adjacent Areas The areas of interconnected surface water in the Basin are those that are upstream of and adjoining the Temescal Basin. Groundwater and surface water flow is from the BedfordColdwater Basin toward the Temescal Basin, consistent with topography. If water levelsin the Bedford Management Area were lowered, outflow to the Temescal Basin would decrease.

The water levels used to define the minimum threshold for depletion of interconnected surface water are within the historical range of water levels and thus would not cause unreasonable impacts on groundwater availability in the Temescal Basin. By protecting

Bedford-Coldwater GSP 6-38

TODD GROUNDWATER,
H&H Water Resources,
and Stantec
vegetation along the Temescal Wash—which is a shared waterway between the basins—the minimum threshold will protect those resources for the benefit of both Basins.

6.7.6.3. Effect of Minimum Threshold on Beneficial Uses Surface diversions are not a source of supply in the Basin; all water uses are supported by imported water or groundwater. With respect to groundwater, this GSP does not propose increases in groundwater pumping above existing amounts, so groundwater levels are expected to remain within the historical range. In areas where the minimum-threshold water level for interconnected surface water is higher than the minimum-threshold for chronic lowering of groundwater levels, the interconnected surface water threshold improves groundwater availability.

The minimum threshold is expected to protect beneficial uses of surface water for riparian habitat maintenance.

6.7.6.4. Relationship of Minimum Threshold to Regulatory Standards Other than SGMA, there are no local, state, or federal regulations that specifically address stream flow depletion by groundwater pumping. The California and federal Endangered Species Acts protect species listed as threatened or endangered, including California coastal gnatcatcher. The minimum threshold for depletion of surface water is designed to prevent groundwater conditions from impacting those species beyond the level of impact that has historically occurred.

6.7.6.5. How the Minimum Threshold Will Be Monitored
Eight wells that are currently monitored for water levels are near stream reaches where interconnected surface water has been identified. These wells are listed below and shown on Figure 6-1.
• TVWD TP-1 and TP-2
• TVWD Well 1 (old well)
• TVWD Well 4
• EVMWD Flagler 2A and 3A
• Corona Non-Potable Wells 1 and 2
The wells listed above are all mostly water supply wells with relatively deep screens. They are useful for relating future conditions to historical ones, but they do not provide a reliable indication of the true water table elevation near the ground surface because shallow wells can have different water levels than deep wells.

Shallow monitoring wells are needed in riparian areas to provide accurate water table information and elucidate the relationship between deep water levels and vegetation conditions. One of the management actions in this GSP is to conduct surveys of Temescal Wash to evaluate the feasibility and need for installing shallow monitoring wells. Over time, minimum threshold groundwater elevations can be refined as a result of these surveys.

Bedford-Coldwater GSP 6-39

TODD GROUNDWATER,
H&H Water Resources,
and Stantec

6.7.7. Measurable Objective
The measurable objective for interconnected surface water is an amount of depletion that is less than the amount specified as the minimum threshold. Given the uncertainty in the correlation between groundwater levels and vegetation health, no specific rise in shallow groundwater levels or increase in stream flow is identified as providing a preferred set of GDE conditions.

Groundwater conditions with respect to interconnected surface water and most GDE parameters are currently sustainable. Therefore, no interim milestones are needed to achieve sustainability at this time.

6.7.8. Data Gaps
There are several data gaps that might be contributing to the lack of clear relationships between groundwater pumping, groundwater levels and vegetation die-back. These include:
• Wells with water-level data are clustered in a small number of locations. Water levels are unknown in many areas that experienced vegetation die-back. • Almost all wells with water-level data are also production wells. Water-level drawdown that results from pumping is greater and more persistent near a pumping well than in areas far from the well. Consequently, it is difficult to accurately estimate depth to the water table in areas where there is no nearby pumping. • The wells with data are not in the creek channel or within the areas with dense riparian vegetation, and the vertical distance between the wellhead and creek channel has not been surveyed at any well locations. The elevation difference can be estimated, but the lack of measured data produces uncertainty in estimating the depth to water at the channel.
• Vertical water-level gradients within the aquifer system are largely unknown.

Pumping commonly creates vertical water-level gradients within basin fill materials, such that the true water table near the land surface is higher than the water level in a deep production well at the same location. Some indication of vertical gradients can be gleaned from a study of flow and vegetation along Temescal Wash downstream of EVMWD’s Regional WRF in 2007 to 2008 (MWH 2008). Although the WRF is in the Elsinore Subbasin, vertical gradients caused by pumping would be similar in the Bedford MA. Shallow (seven-foot-deep) piezometers were installed in the channel at several locations along a four-mile reach extending downstream from the WRF. Water levels at piezometer TW7, CM2 and TW2 are included in the hydrographs for the Alberhill and Cemetery wells (see Figure 6-4). Unfortunately, most of the piezometers are not located near production wells. In terms of depth to water, the piezometer water levels appear generally shallower and more stable than are water levels in the nearest monitored production wells, which is consistent with the presence of vertical gradients caused by pumping at depth.

Bedford-Coldwater GSP 6-40

TODD GROUNDWATER,
H&H Water Resources,
and Stantec

6.7.8.1. Discussion of Monitoring and Management Measures to be Implemented Management actions to improve monitoring and management of interconnected surface water in the Basin will include tracking trends in groundwater levels near Temescal Wash, investigating groundwater/surface water interactions near Temescal Wash and taking action as necessary.

Path: T:\Projects\Bedford Coldwater GSP 80802\GIS\Maps\Figures\GSP Figures\Chapter 6 - Sustainability Criteria\Figure 6-1 Water Level Key Wells.mxd !
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!"a$
!"a$
Temescal Canyon Road
Cajalco Road
Temescal Canyon Road
Trilogy Parkway
Temescal Canyon Road
!"a$
EVMWD Mayhew Well 2
TVWD New Sump
Corona Well 21
Corona Well 3
EVMWD Station 71
TVWD Well 4
TVWD Well 1A
TVWD Well 1 (Old well)
Corona Non-Potable Well 2
Corona Non-Potable Well 1
EVMWD Flagler 3A Well
EVMWD Flagler 2A Well
Corona & EVMWD Trilogy
TVWD TP-1
TVWD TP-2
TVWD Foster Well
Corona Well 20
! Water Level Key Well
Bedford-Coldwater Basin
Figure 6-1
Water Level
Key Wells
(
"N
0 1,750 3,500
Scale in Feet
6-41

June 2006
October 2016
May 1994
April 2014
June 2018
Figure 6-2
Aerial Images of
Riparian Vegetation
1994-2018
6-42

1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 0 500
1,000
1,500
2,000
2,500
3,000
3,500
4,000
Annual Production (acre-feet)
Bedford MA
Groundwater Pumping Near Temescal Wash: Bedford MA
1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 0 500
1,000
1,500
2,000
2,500
3,000
3,500
4,000
Annual Production (acre-feet)
Warm Springs (Elsinore Subbasin) Lee Lake (Elsinore Subbasin) Groundwater Pumping Near Temescal Wash: Warm Springs and Lee Lake MAs Path: T:\Projects\Bedford Coldwater GSP 80802\GRAPHICS\Figure 6-3 Annual Groundwater Pumping near Temescal Wash, 1990-2018.gpj Figure 6-3
Annual Groundwater
Pumping Near Temescal
Wash, 1990-2018
Note:

The Warm Springs and Lee Lake areas in the upper chart
are outside the Bedford-Coldwater Basin. These
are portions of the Elsinore Subbain upstream of
the Bedford-Coldwater Basin.
6-43

0 80
-20
-10
10 20
30 40
50 60
70 Depth to Water (feet)
Jan-90Jan-92Jan-94Jan-96Jan-98Jan-00Jan-02Jan-04Jan-06Jan-08Jan-10Jan-12Jan-14Jan-16Jan-18 Cemetary
CM2
TW2
Warm Springs MA Wells near Temescal Wash
0 80
-20
-10
10 20
30 40
50 60
70 Depth to Water (feet)
Jan-90Jan-92Jan-94Jan-96Jan-98Jan-00Jan-02Jan-04Jan-06Jan-08Jan-10Jan-12Jan-14Jan-16Jan-18 Barney Lee 1
TW7
Alberhill 1
Alberhill 2
Lee Lake MA Wells near Temescal Wash 1 of 2
0 80
-20
-10
10 20
30 40
50 60
70 Depth to Water (feet)
Jan-90Jan-92Jan-94Jan-96Jan-98Jan-00Jan-02Jan-04Jan-06Jan-08Jan-10Jan-12Jan-14Jan-16Jan-18 Gregory 1
Lee Lake MA Wells near Temescal Wash 2 of 2
0 80
-20
-10
10 20
30 40
50 60
70 Depth to Water (feet)
Jan-90Jan-92Jan-94Jan-96Jan-98Jan-00Jan-02Jan-04Jan-06Jan-08Jan-10Jan-12Jan-14Jan-16Jan-18 LLWD #1 (Old well)
TVWD Well 1A
Bedford MA Wells near Temescal Wash 1 of 3
0 80
-20
-10
10 20
30 40
50 60
70 Depth to Water (feet)
Jan-90Jan-92Jan-94Jan-96Jan-98Jan-00Jan-02Jan-04Jan-06Jan-08Jan-10Jan-12Jan-14Jan-16Jan-18 Non-Potable 1
Bedford MA Wells near Temescal Wash 2 of 3
0 80
-20
-10
10 20
30 40
50 60
70 Depth to Water (feet)
Jan-90Jan-92Jan-94Jan-96Jan-98Jan-00Jan-02Jan-04Jan-06Jan-08Jan-10Jan-12Jan-14Jan-16Jan-18 Flagler 2
Flagler 2A
Bedford MA Wells near Temescal Wash 3 of 3
Path: T:\Projects\Bedford Coldwater GSP 80802\GRAPHICS\Figure 6-4 Water Levels in Wells Near Temescal Wash.gpj Figure 6-4
Water Levels in Wells
Near Temescal Wash
6-44

Oct-89 Oct-91 Oct-93 Oct-95 Oct-97 Oct-99 Oct-01 Oct-03 Oct-05 Oct-07 Oct-09 Oct-11 Oct-13 Oct-15 Oct-17 Oct-19 0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
Monthly Discharge (cfs)
Eastern MWD
EVMWD
Lee Lake WRF
Corona WRF3
Lee Lake Outflow
Monthly Wastewater Dicharges to Temescal Wash
Path: T:\Projects\Bedford Coldwater GSP 80802\GRAPHICS\Figure 6-5 Wastewater Discharges to Temescal Wash, 1990-2018.gpj Figure 6-5
Wastewater Discharges
to Temescal Wash
1989-2019
6-45

Bedford-Coldwater GSP 7-1

TODD GROUNDWATER,
H&H Water Resources,
and Stantec

7. MONITORING NETWORK
The overall objective of the monitoring network for this Groundwater Sustainability Plan (GSP) is to yield representative information about water conditions in the Bedford-Coldwater Subbasin (Basin) as necessary to guide and evaluate GSP implementation. Specifically, monitoring network objectives are to:
• Build on the existing monitoring network data to represent the entire Basin, • Reduce uncertainty and provide better data to guide management actions, document the water budget, and better understand how the surface water/groundwater system works,
• Monitor groundwater conditions relative to sustainability criteria, and • Identify and track potential impacts on groundwater users/uses and better communicate the state of the Basin.

With the intent to provide sufficient data for demonstrating short-term, seasonal, and longterm trends in groundwater and related surface conditions, this GSP builds on existing monitoring programs(summarized in Chapter 2, Plan Area) that provide historical information and a context for monitoring. Data gaps are addressed in terms of information needed for understanding the basin setting, evaluation of the efficacy of Plan implementation, and the ability to assess whether the Basin is being sustainably managed.

This GSP Section describes the monitoring network as enhanced to fulfill Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA) requirements and explains how it will be implemented. This includes description of the monitoring protocols for data collection, the development and maintenance of Bedford-Coldwater Groundwater Sustainability Agency (BCGSA) data management system (DMS), and the regular assessment and improvement of the monitoring program.

7.1. DESCRIPTION OF MONITORING NETWORK
The monitoring network for GSP implementation has been established to document groundwater and related surface conditions as relevant to the sustainability indicators:
groundwater levels, storage, land subsidence, water quality, and interconnected surface water7. The components of the monitoring network are presented in Table 7-1. 7 Seawater intrusion is noted, but no risk of seawater intrusion exists in this inland basin.

Table 7-1. Bedford Coldwater Monitoring Network Summary Monitored Variable Type of Measurement Locations Data Interval Data Collection Agency Database Storage Agency Notes Groundwater levels
Bedford-Coldwater Basin Depth to water, feet 17 monitored wells (see Table 6-1), plus two new
dedicated monitoring wells
Continuous to
Annual
City of Corona, Elsinore Valley
Water District (EVMWD), and
Temescal Valley Water Disrict
(TVWD)
Bedford-Coldwater
Groundwater Sustainability
Agency (BCGSA)
Data from all sources compiled into unified groundwater elevation database. Continuous data recorded with and on data logging transducers.

Groundwater storage
Rainfall Rain gauge, daily total, inches Lake Elsinore, Santiago Peak, and Riverside
Daily and
Monthly
NOAA, Orange County, and UC
Riverside CIMIS
BCGSA Download from web annually for annual water budget and model update Rainfall (Interpolated) Interoplated spatially from point data Basin-wide PRISM Climate Group BCGSA Rainfall gauges are not within the basin, and PRISM data helps interpolate in regions with climatic variation
Reference ET (ET0) Daily ETo, inches Lake Elsinore and Riverside Daily NOAA, UC Riverside CIMIS DWR Download from web Stream flow Daily average flow, cfs Three active USGS gages near Beford-Coldwater Basin
Daily USGS USGS Download from web
Wastewater pond water budgets WWTP effluent discharge,
evaporation, percolation, AF
Corona and TVWD Monthly Corona and TVWD BCGSA
Recycled water use Recycled water delivery, AF Basin-wide Monthly Corona and TVWD BCGSA Recycled water use is a relatively small but increasing supply Imported Water Volume imported water AF Imported to Bedford Colwater Monthly Corona, EVMWD, and TVWD BCGSA Land Use Maps Maps of Land Use Basin-wide DWR (2014, 2016, and future) and Riverside County (1993 and
2000)
DWR and Riverside County DWR data is statewide, remotely sensed, and includes agriculture by crop Municipal Water Use Metered water use by sector EVMWD, Corona, and TVWD Monthly Corona, EVMWD, and TVWD BCGSA Annual data reported in by BCGSA agencies and to Western Municipal Water District as Watermaster for the watershed, includes imported, groundwater, and recycled water use Groundwater pumping
Community Water Systems Estimated Basin-wide Annual Santa Ana Watermaster BCGSA Annual estimates provided in water budget updates of Annual Report Groundwater Production Annual Volume, AFY Basin-wide Annual Santa Ana Watermaster, Corona, EVMWD, and TVWD
Western Municipal Water
District as Watermaster and
BCGSA
Annual data for all pumpers reported to Santa Ana Watermaster, monthly production data for BCGSA agencies availble from those agencies.

Rural domestic, commercial,
industrial
Estimated Basin-wide Annual Santa Ana Watermaster,
Corona, EVMWD, and TVWD
BCGSA Annual estimates provided in water budget updates of Annual Report Subsidence
Subsidence InSAR satellite mapping of ground
displacement
Basin-wide Annual change DWR (InSAR) DWR SGMA Data Portal Download annually, smooth InSAR raster datasets, compare cumulative elevation change since 2015 against Minimum Threshold criterion.

Groundwater quality
Groundwater Quality Major and minor ions and
contaminants
14 monitored wells Quarterly/ SemiannualCorona, EVMWD, TVWD,

SWRCB GAMA , DDW, RWQCB
BCGSA Wells with water qualtiy data may be added or removed over time Interconnected Surface Water and GDEs
Groundwater Depth to Water Depth to water, feet 8 monitored wells Continuous to Annual
Corona, EVMWD, and TVWD BCGSA Measurements are sparse, but groundwater in some areas may be shallow enough to support riprarian vegetation
T:\Projects\Bedford Coldwater GSP 80802\Deliverables\GSP\7 Monitoring\Tables and Figures\Table 7-1 Bedford-Coldater Monitoring Program Summary.xlsx Todd Groundwater Des by: AR
Ckd by: CT
7-2

Bedford-Coldwater GSP 7-3

TODD GROUNDWATER,
H&H Water Resources,
and Stantec

7.1.1. Chronic Lowering of Groundwater Levels
As described in Plan Area Section 2, 19 wells in the Basin with elevation data are monitored by the BCGSA or its member agencies. Figure 7-1 shows the 19 wells that will be part of the groundwater level monitoring program. Of these 17 have been actively monitored within the past five years and 2 new wells (BCGSA MW-1 and MW-2) are being installed as part of GSP development. The new wells are currently being installed and are expected to be part of the network by 2022. Their planned locations are shown on Figure 7-1. The distribution of existing monitoring wells is uneven, with most monitoring wells clustered in the Coldwater Management Area (MA) and along the Temescal Wash in the Bedford MA. The new monitoring wells were designed to fill key data gaps in the northwestern portion of the Basin and to monitor water levels related to the potential effects of the Glen Ivy Fault. All the wells in the GSP monitoring network are listed in Table 7-2 and will continue to be monitored by the BCGSA or its member agencies. (Glen Ivy Well 1 also is listed as a planned water quality monitoring well).

Data for GSP implementation collected by the BCGSA and/or its member agencies will be compiled by the BCGSA into the DMS developed as part of the GSP. Benefits of these efforts will accrue over the next few years and will support review and update of the monitoring program in the 2027 Five-Year GSP Update. Additional groundwater elevation data from previous investigations may be used to supplement the current monitoring program.

7.1.1.1. Spatial and Vertical Coverage
Figure 7-1 shows locations of wells in the groundwater level monitoring program, while Table 7-2 provides a summary of relevant monitoring wells. All monitoring wells are owned by the City of Corona (Corona), Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District (EVMWD), and Temescal Valley Water District (TVWD).

Well density has been a consideration in identifying new dedicated monitoring well sites and adding existing wells to the monitoring program. California Department of Water Resources (DWR) guidance (DWR 2016d) generally recommends a monitoring well density of 4 wells per 100 square miles (mi2
), which would equate to 0.44 wells for the 11 mi2 Basin. The BCGSA monitoring program is consistent with this guidance. Many of the active wells are clustered in the Coldwater MA.

Data on vertical groundwater gradients generally are lacking, as discussed in the Hydrogeologic Conceptual Model, Section 3. Vertical gradients also have not been distinguished because most monitoring data are from public supply wells, which generally have long screen zones and have not been designed to assess or monitor vertical gradients in the Basin.

7.1.1.2. Monitoring Frequency
SGMA and the California Statewide Groundwater Elevation Monitoring (CASGEM) program require collection of static groundwater elevation measurements at least two times per year to represent seasonal low and seasonal high groundwater conditions. Currently, the 17 water

Bedford-Coldwater GSP 7-4

TODD GROUNDWATER,
H&H Water Resources,
and Stantec
level wells are monitored at least quarterly, and most are monitored either monthly or continuously. Data logging transducers have been installed for measuring groundwater elevation data in most of the groundwater monitoring wells. These transducers collect water level measurements at least monthly, and data are either transmitted to data collection and operation systems or downloaded quarterly.

7.1.2. Reduction of Groundwater in Storage
As described in GSP Section 6.3, groundwater level Minimum Thresholds (MTs) are used as a proxy metric for groundwater in storage. Accordingly, the monitoring of groundwater levels described above in Section 7.1.1 also pertains to tracking sustainability for groundwater in storage.

In addition, GSP regulations require annual evaluation and reporting of change in groundwater in storage.

For the GSP, the numerical groundwater model has been used to quantify the water budget and change in storage (see Water Budget, Chapter 5) using available information from the Monitoring Well Network. The numerical model (described in Appendix G) fulfills data and reporting standards described in Title 23 of the California Code of Regulations (CCR), Section 352.4.

As described in Plan Area Section 2.1.4.1 and summarized in Table 7-1, the BCGSA monitoring program providesinformation needed to update the water budget and assess annual change in groundwater storage. This program compiles and reviews information on climate (rainfall and evapotranspiration), stream flow, imported water deliveries, wastewater percolation and water recycling, and groundwater pumping (municipal, industrial, and other). Groundwater in storage will be assessed annually by estimating storage changes as the product of groundwater level change (feet), basin area (acres) and storativity values for each MA.

7.1.2.1. Spatial Coverage
Evaluation of change in groundwater in storage involves several of the monitored variables listed in Table 7-1; monitoring locations are described in the table. Table 7-1 identifies climate stations and stream gage locations. While the closest climate stations and stream gages are located outside the Basin, they are still sufficient to provide information about local conditions.

7.1.2.2. Surface Water Monitoring
There are three active stream flow monitoring gages near the Basin. These gages are monitored by the United States Geological Survey (USGS). Data from these gages will continue to be collected by the BCGSA.

Bedford-Coldwater GSP 7-5

TODD GROUNDWATER,
H&H Water Resources,
and Stantec

7.1.2.3. Monitoring Frequency
Table 7-1 describesthe data interval for the monitored variablesthat contribute to evaluation of groundwater in storage. Groundwater in storage will be assessed annually using the numerical model, which will be recalibrated during each five-year GSP update.

7.1.3. Seawater Intrusion
There is no monitoring for seawater intrusion and no gaging of tidal influence. The Basin is located over 20 miles inland from the Pacific Ocean, and its lowest elevations are around 1,000 feet above sea level. No risk of seawater intrusion exists in the Basin given its location and therefore no monitoring is needed.

7.1.4. Subsidence
The monitoring program will review Interferometric Synthetic Aperture Radar (InSAR) satellite-based data to identify and evaluate land subsidence in the Basin (see Table 7-1).

These data will be used to monitor the rate and extent of ground surface elevation change as applicable and with reference to the MT and Measurable Objective (MO), which are described in Sustainability Criteria Sections 6.4. These data represent measurements of ground surface displacement and thus are directly applicable to scientific assessment of potentialsubsidence.

7.1.4.1. Spatial Coverage
The InSAR data provide adequate coverage of the Bedford Coldwater Basin including both MAs, as described in Groundwater Conditions Section 4.3 and Sustainability Criteria Section

6.4. InSAR data are available for the entire Basin (and beyond), as shown with recent InSAR information from DWR on Figure 4-10. InSAR data will be cross-checked, and in conjunction with local groundwater level and pumping data will be used to assess relationships between groundwater levels, pumping, and subsidence data.

7.1.4.2. Monitoring Frequency
Assuming continued data availability, the monitoring program will involve annual download of InSAR data with analysis for any signs (rate and extent) of cumulative inelastic subsidence.

To date there have been no reports or other indications ofsubsidence in the Basin. While data will be reviewed annually, at this time detailed analysis relative to the Minimum Threshold and Measurable Objective is planned as part of the five-year GSP update. The reporting will be consistent with GSP Regulations.

7.1.5. Degraded Water Quality
In addition to the general monitoring objectives listed above, specific objectives for the GSP water quality monitoring program include the following:
• Collect groundwater quality data from the principal aquifer to identify and track trends of any water quality degradation,
• Map the movement of degraded water quality,

Bedford-Coldwater GSP 7-6

TODD GROUNDWATER,
H&H Water Resources,
and Stantec
• Define the three-dimensional extent of any existing degraded water quality impact, • Assess groundwater quality impacts to beneficial uses and users, and • Evaluate whether management activities are contributing to water quality degradation.

Figure 7-2 shows the location of the existing wells that are sampled for water quality. The existing water quality monitoring programs for the Basin are described in Plan Area Section

2.1.4, Groundwater Conditions Section 4, and Sustainability Criteria Section 6.6. To summarize, the BCGSA monitoring program relies on other agencies and their annual orsemiannual measurements, including Corona, EVMWD, TVWD, the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), and State Water Resources Control Board Division of Drinking Water (SWRCB-DDW). The BCGSA agencies currently monitor 12 wells periodically for general minerals, physical parameters, and selected constituents of concern. In addition, one private well (Glen Ivy Hot Springs) is sampled regularly, and water quality data are provided to the SWRCB-DDW. Two new dedicated monitoring wells will be added to the monitoring network as part of GSP development. These wells (BCGSA MW-1 and MW-2) are shown on Figure 7-2. As described in Groundwater Conditions Section 4 and discussed in depth in Section 6.6, a broad suite of inorganic constituents is sampled and analyzed and known regulated contamination sites are tracked. Total dissolved solids (TDS) and nitrate have been identified as the key constituents of concern for which sustainability criteria have been defined.

7.1.5.1. Spatial and Vertical Coverage
The current monitoring network in the Basin contains spatial and vertical gaps. Figure 7-2 shows the spatial distribution of wells currently monitored, including the new dedicated monitoring wells that will be sampled regularly.

As with the groundwater level monitoring program, existing wells in the BCGSA groundwater quality monitoring program will be evaluated relative to 23 CCR § 352.4 requirementsfor well information. The new dedicated monitoring wells are designed to meet requirements while addressing data gaps in the water quality monitoring program as well as the water level monitoring program.

Vertical coverage is discussed in Groundwater Conditions Section 4.9, which indicates that the water quality monitoring programs in the Basin do not reveal vertical differences in water quality. Otherwise, vertical differences in water quality are uncertain; this reflects the fact that most monitored wells are pumping wells with long screens.

As stated in Section 6.6, the BCGSA will continue to improve and expand the monitoring program if needed to address spatial and vertical coverage.

7.1.6. Depletion of Interconnected Surface Water
The minimum threshold for depletion of interconnected surface water is defined by groundwater levels monitored near dense riparian vegetation along the Temescal Wash. At

Bedford-Coldwater GSP 7-7

TODD GROUNDWATER,
H&H Water Resources,
and Stantec
this time, wells in the groundwater level monitoring program are production wells with relatively deep screens that have not been sited and designed for tracking surface watergroundwater interactions. The lack of shallow monitoring wells has been identified as a data gap.

7.1.6.1. Spatial and Vertical Coverage
Figure 7-1 is a map showing locations of key wells currently selected for groundwater levels and those located along selected stream reaches can be used to monitored groundwatersurface water interaction. The identification of key stream reaches is described in Sustainability Criteria Section 6.7 and has addressed all management areas. Table 7-2 provides a summary of the monitoring wells in the network.

The scientific rationale foridentification of wellsforinclusion in the shallow groundwaterlevel monitoring program has involved the following:
• Location adjacent to riparian vegetation along Temescal Wash. • Length, completeness, and reliability of historical groundwater level record with measurements.
• Regular access to the well for measurements.

The selected wells are all water supply wells with relatively deep screens and therefore do not provide the needed vertical (shallow) coverage. The BCGSA will investigate the connection between shallow groundwater, surface water, and riparian vegetation as indicated in Section 8, Projects and Management Actions. These investigations will focus on identifying the need for additional shallow groundwater monitoring near areas of interconnected surface water.

7.1.6.2. Temporal Coverage and Monitoring Frequency
The monitoring for groundwater levels adjacent to areas of riparian vegetation in Temescal Wash will be implemented as part of the overall groundwater level monitoring program as described in Section 7.1.1. Monitoring of existing wells in the program will be continued, serving as the Key Wells for monitoring relative to the Minimum Thresholds defined in GSP Sustainability Criteria Section 6. Once sited and installed, the periods of record for new dedicated shallow wells will be established. Groundwater level data will be reviewed annually (for each annual report) with reference to the Minimum Threshold. Detailed analyses of the relationships among deep and shallow groundwater level data, stream flow, and riparian conditions will be provided in the Five-Year Update (or sooner if extreme drought conditions and riparian mortality occur; see GSP Section 6.7).

7.2. PROTOCOLS FOR DATA COLLECTION AND MONITORING
This section focuses on groundwater level monitoring (including regional and surface wateroriented) and groundwater quality sampling by BCGSA. Other data (e.g., climate, streamflow, municipal pumping, subsidence) are compiled by other agencies.

Bedford-Coldwater GSP 7-8

TODD GROUNDWATER,
H&H Water Resources,
and Stantec
This section describes general procedures for documenting wells in the monitoring program and for collecting consistently high-quality groundwater elevation and groundwater quality data. In general, the methods for establishing location coordinates (and reference point elevations for elevation monitoring) follow the data and reporting standards described in the GSP Regulations (23 CCR § 352.4) and the guidelines presented in USGS Groundwater Technical Procedures (Cunningham and Schalk 2011 and USGS 2021). These procedures are summarized below.

7.2.1. Field Methods for Monitoring Well Data
Background data for each monitoring well is required for its inclusion in the monitoring program. These data are generally available for wells in the network described on Table 7-2 and shown on Figures 7-1. As part of GSP implementation, location and elevation data will be acquired where missing, revised if conditions at a monitored well change, and added when new wells are brought into the program. The methods for acquiring these data follow:
• Location coordinates will be surveyed with a survey grade global positioning system (GPS) device. The coordinates will be in Latitude/Longitude decimal degrees and reference the North American Datum of 1983 (NAD83) datum. • Reference point elevations will also be surveyed with a survey grade GPS device with elevation accuracy of approximately 0.5 feet.
o During surveying, the elevations of the reference point and ground surface near the well will be measured to the nearest 0.5 foot. o All elevation measurements will reference North American Vertical Datum of 1988 (NAVD88) vertical datum.

7.2.2. Field Methods for Groundwater Elevation Monitoring Reference points and ground surface elevations will be documented as described above prior to groundwater elevation monitoring in the field. Field methods for collection of depth-towater measurements are described below:

1. Measurements in all wells will be collected within a three-day window whenever possible.

2. Active production wells should be turned off prior to collecting a depth to water measurement.

3. The standard period of time that a well needs to be off before a static measurement is taken is at least 24 hours (48 hours recommended).

4. To verify that the wells are ready for measurement, BCGSA field staff will coordinate with well operators and/or owners as necessary.

5. Coordination with well operators/owners should occur approximately four days prior to the expected measurement date.

6. Depth to groundwater measurements collected by either electric sounding tape (Solinst or Powers type sounders), by steel tape methods, or data logging transducers. Depth-to-water measurement methods are described in DWR’s

Bedford-Coldwater GSP 7-9

TODD GROUNDWATER,
H&H Water Resources,
and Stantec
Groundwater Elevation Monitoring Guidelines (DWR 2010). Depth to groundwater will be measured and reported in feet to at least 0.1 foot.

7.2.3. Field Methods for Groundwater Quality Monitoring Groundwater sampling is conducted by trained professionals from the three agencies in the BCGSA or specialty contractors. Sampling follows standard monitoring well sampling guidelines such as those presented in the National Field Manual for the Collection of Water‐ Quality Data (USGS 2021).

Generally, the wells have been pumped prior to sample collection, or are purged. Purging is conducted until field instruments indicate that water quality parameters (pH, oxidationreduction potential (ORP), specific conductance, and temperature) have stabilized and turbidity measurements are below five Nephelometric Turbidity Unit (NTUs). The pumping or purging prior to sample collection demonstrates that the sample collected is representative of formation water and not stagnant water in the well casing or well filter pack. For groundwater, field temperature and conductivity are recorded while the well is being purged to ensure that physical parameters have stabilized before collecting a sample.

All groundwater samples are collected in laboratory‐supplied, pre‐labeled containers and include prescribed preservatives. The filled sample containers will then be placed in an icefilled cooler for storage and transported to the laboratory for analysis under chain of custody procedures.

All field measurements are recorded in a field logbook or worksheets and the sample containers are labeled correctly and recorded on the chain‐of‐custody form. The applicable chain‐of‐custody sections are completed and forwarded with the samples to the laboratory.

Upon receipt of the samples at the laboratory, laboratory personnel complete the chain‐ofcustody.

Quality assurance and quality control (QA/QC) assessment of field sampling includes use of field blanks. Field blanks identify sample contamination that is associated with the field environment and sample handling. These samples are prepared in the field by filling the appropriate sample containers with the distilled water used for cleaning and decontamination of all field equipment. One field blank per sampling event is collected.

Samples are sent to a State‐certified laboratory that has a documented analytical QA/QC program including procedures to reduce variability and errors, identify and correct measurement problems, and provide a statistical measure of data quality. The laboratory conducts all QA/QC procedures in accordance with its QA/QC program. All QA/QC data are reported in the laboratory analytical report, including: the method, equipment, and analytical detection limits, the recovery rates, an explanation for any recovery rate that is less than 80 percent, the results of equipment and method blanks, the results of spiked and surrogate samples, the frequency of quality control analysis, and the name of the person(s) performing the analyses. Sample results are reported unadjusted for blank results or spike recovery.

Bedford-Coldwater GSP 7-10

TODD GROUNDWATER,
H&H Water Resources,
and Stantec

7.3. REPRESENTATIVE MONITORING
To allow quantification and tracking of sustainability criteria, representative monitoring sites, or wells, have been identified for 1) regional groundwater level monitoring and 2) for monitoring shallow groundwater conditions where surface water-groundwater connection is likely and tied to groundwater dependent ecosystems (GDEs). These Key Wells are shown on Figure 7-1 and listed in Table 7-2. These have been designated by BCGSA asthe point at which sustainability indicators are monitored. Information on the quantitative values for MTs, MOs, and interim milestones is included in Sustainability Criteria Section 6.

As discussed in Sustainability Criteria Section 6.3, change in groundwater in storage is closely related to groundwater levels, which can serve as a proxy for monitoring change in storage.

Moreover, groundwater level MTs and MOs are sufficiently protective to ensure prevention ofsignificant and unreasonable results relating to storage. Accordingly, continued monitoring of wells for groundwater levels also serve to track sustainability for storage.

As discussed in Section 6.4, the definition of undesirable results and the quantification of the MT and MO for subsidence are based on InSAR information on vertical displacement of the ground surface; these spatial and temporal data are publicly available from DWR.

Section 6.5 discusses seawater intrusion, which is not possible in this inland basin.

Section 6.6 describes undesirable results and defines sustainability criteria for water quality.

MTs and MOs are quantified in terms of the percentage of wells with concentrations exceeding the local and state goals for nitrate and TDS based on current conditions. The BCGSA water quality monitoring wellsshown on Figure 7-2 and listed in Table 7-2 are sampled regularly to identify water quality problems and to track water quality trends.

Table 7-2. Wells in the Bedford-Coldwater Groundwater Sustainability Agency Monitoring Network Local Well Name State Well Number
CASGEM
Identification
Number Well Owner
Production
Well
Management
Area
X Coordinate (feet State
Plane CA Zone 6, NAD 83)
Y Coordinate (feet State
Plane CA Zone 6, NAD 83)
Ground Surface
Elevation (feet)
Reference Point
Elevation (feet) Completion Date
Total Well
Depth (feet)
Screen Interval
Depths (feet)
Water Level
Monitoring Well
(Yes/No)
Interconnected
Surface Water
Monitoring Well
(Yes/No)
Water Quality
Monitoring Well
(Yes/No)
Corona Well 20 005S006W11D001 Not Applicable City of Corona Yes Coldwater 6,187,462.780 2,220,777.903 1,147.58 1,149.48 10/2/1998 660 200 to 580 Yes No Yes Corona Well 21 005S006W03J005 Not Applicable City of Corona Yes Coldwater 6,185,101.479 2,224,408.672 1,128.00 1,128.49 5/22/1998 660 200 to 580 Yes No Yes Corona Well 3 005S006W03K001 Not Applicable City of Corona Yes Coldwater 6,184,790.810 2,222,918.852 1,137.70 1,143.57 1/26/1935 543 100 to 530 Yes No No Corona Non-Potable Well 1 004S006W16G004S 46729 City of Corona Yes Bedford 6,179,815.144 2,245,270.386 808.92 809.34 Unknown Unknown Unknown Yes Yes Yes Corona Non-Potable Well 2 004S006W16G005S 46730 City of Corona Yes Bedford 6,179,827.292 2,245,270.240 808.77 808.90 Unknown Unknown Unknown Yes Yes Yes Corona & EVMWD Trilogy 005S006W03H001S Not Applicable Corona & EVMWD Yes Coldwater 6,184,906.094 2,224,253.480 1,101.86 1,101.86 2/5/2016 579 250 to 360 and 390
to 450 Yes No No
EVMWD Flagler 2A Well 004S006W16C003S 46732 Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District Yes Bedford 6,179,006.482 2,247,223.539 791.71 796.96 3/30/2005 105 51 to 92 Yes Yes Yes EVMWD Flagler 3A Well 004S006W16C002S 46733 Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District Yes Bedford 6,179,002.084 2,246,859.661 794.16 795.72 3/18/2005 100 51 to 90 Yes Yes Yes EVMWD Station 71 005S006W11C001 Not Applicable Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District Yes Bedford 6,187,370.000 2,222,025.759 1,166.45 1,168.53 7/22/1971 600 239 to 588 Yes No Yes EVMWD Mayhew Well 2 005S006W11G001 Not Applicable Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District Yes Coldwater 6,187,322.670 2,222,291.946 1,241.00 1,242.33 10/27/1989 740 300 to 730 Yes No Yes TVWD Well 1 (Old well) 004S006W22P003S Not Applicable Temescal Valley Water District No Bedford 6,182,456.123 2,237,346.855 894.00 881.40 Unknown 100 40 to 80 Yes Yes No TVWD Well 1A Not Available Not Applicable Temescal Valley Water District Yes Bedford 6,182,464.822 2,237,273.854 895.00 882.68 Unknown 100 40 to 80 Yes No Yes TVWD Well 4 004S006W22P004S Not Applicable Temescal Valley Water District Yes Bedford 6,182,523.828 2,237,795.159 883.00 878.97 Unknown 100 40 to 80 Yes Yes Yes TVWD TP-1 Not Available Not Applicable Temescal Valley Water District Yes Bedford 6,183,364.598 2,235,315.457 901.46 902.29 6/18/2015 103 39 to 99 Yes Yes Yes TVWD TP-2 Not Available Not Applicable Temescal Valley Water District Yes Bedford 6,183,683.778 2,235,349.830 902.37 902.62 5/18/2017 90 30 to 85 Yes Yes Yes TVWD Foster Well 004S006W22N002 Not Applicable Temescal Valley Water District Yes Bedford 6,182,288.775 2,238,133.791 871.74 872.94 6/9/2015 93 38 to 88 Yes No Yes TVWD New Sump 004S006W35G002 47928 Temescal Valley Water District Yes Bedford 6,189,460.269 2,229,866.527 955.71 953.57 Unknown 74 Unknown Yes No Yes BCGSA MW-1 Not Available Yet Not Applicable Bedford-Coldwater GSA No Bedford 6,181,386.544 2,228,000.186 Not Available Yet Not Available Yet Construction
Planned Mid-2021 Not Available Yet Not Available Yet Yes No Yes BCGSA MW-2 Not Available Yet Not Applicable Bedford-Coldwater GSA No Coldwater 6,181,488.573 2,231,333.213 Not Available Yet Not Available Yet Construction
Planned Mid-2021 Not Available Yet Not Available Yet Yes No Yes Glen Ivy Well 1 Not Available Not Applicable Glen Ivy Hot Springs Yes Coldwater 6,183,187.330 2,221,453.024 Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown No No Yes T:\Projects\Bedford Coldwater GSP 80802\Deliverables\GSP\7 Monitoring\Table 7-2 Wells in the Bedford-Coldwater Monitoring Network.xlsx - Table 7-2 Todd Groundwater Des by: MR
Ckd by: CT
7-11

Bedford-Coldwater GSP 7-12

TODD GROUNDWATER,
H&H Water Resources,
and Stantec

7.4. DATA MANAGEMENT SYSTEM (DMS)
The BCGSA has been collecting and compiling groundwater data including water levels, water quality, and water use for the GSP. Before the creation of the GSA, the individual agencies of the BCGSA (Corona, EVMWD, and TVWD) monitored water levels and water quality independently. These data from other sources are compiled in relational databases, which consists of Access databases and ESRI geodatabases that have the capabilities for queries to quickly check and summarize data. As part of the GSP, the DMS has been modified to be practicable, usable, and intuitive for the purpose of GSP preparation and implementation.

Appendix K details the final DMS. The databases include easy to update tables and other datasets that assist in comparison of real time conditions and sustainability goals.

7.5. ASSESSMENT AND IMPROVEMENT OF MONITORING NETWORK
The BCGSA has actively engaged in assessment and improvement of its monitoring network.

This process has been intensified as part of the GSP, given the need to identify data gaps and to assess uncertainty in setting and tracking sustainability criteria. Monitoring improvements are a major part of GSP implementation and will be reviewed and updated for each five-year GSP update.

7.5.1. Identification and Description of Data Gaps
The limited data gaps that have been identified in this GSP are summarized in Table 7-3 according to major monitored variable and described in terms of insufficient number of monitoring sites and utilization of monitoring sites that are unreliable (including those that do not satisfy minimum standards). Data gaps also are described in terms of the location and reason for data gaps in the monitoring network, and local issues and circumstances that limit or prevent monitoring. Data gaps listed in Table 7-3 do not include gaps in understanding, which build on the monitoring network but also require investigation and analysis. These planned studies are described as Projects and Management Actions in GSP Chapter 8.

Bedford-Coldwater GSP 7-13

TODD GROUNDWATER,
H&H Water Resources,
and Stantec
Table 7-3. Identification and Description of Data Gaps
Monitored
Variable
Insufficient
Sites Local Issues
Regional
Groundwater
levels
No The water level network has historically relied on
production wells, but new dedicated wells have been
installed and the production wells are well suited to
monitoring conditions related to water supply for
municipal, industrial, and other beneficial uses.

Stream flow No
Groundwater
extraction
No Most pumping is reported; there may be unreported
pumping but it is assumed to be de minimis.

Groundwater
quality
No Water quality sampling in the Basin is typically tied to regulatory requirements. The BCGSA will perform
regular monitoring of the well network and collect water quality data from all available sources.

Shallow
groundwater
levels
Yes No shallow dedicated groundwater monitoring wells in Basin. Long well screens in monitoring wells limit vertical groundwater quality characterization.

7.5.2. Description of Steps to Fill Data Gaps
Monitoring data gaps have been identified for shallow groundwater level measurements.

Additional shallow groundwater level monitoring is required to better monitor interconnected surface water and GDEs in the Basin. The management actions the BCGSA will undertake towards filling this data gap are described in Section 8, Projects and Management Actions.

Path: T:\Projects\Bedford Coldwater GSP 80802\GIS\Maps\Figures\GSP Figures\Chapter 7 - Monitoring Plan\Figure 7-1 Water Level and Interconnected Surfac Water Monitored Wells.mxd !
!
!
!!
!!
!
!
!
!
!"a$
!"a$
Temescal Canyon Road
Cajalco Road
Temescal Canyon Road
Trilogy Parkway
Temescal Canyon Road
!"a$
EVMWD Mayhew Well 2
TVWD New Sump
Corona Well 21
Corona Well 3
EVMWD Station 71
TVWD Well 4
TVWD Well 1A
TVWD Well 1 (Old well)
Corona Non-Potable Well 2
Corona Non-Potable Well 1
EVMWD Flagler 3A Well
EVMWD Flagler 2A Well
Corona & EVMWD Trilogy
TVWD TP-1
TVWD TP-2
TVWD Foster Well
Corona Well 20
BCGSA MW-1
BCGSA MW-2
! Water Level Monitoring Well
Water Level and Interconnected
Surface Water Monitoring Well
Bedford-Coldwater Basin
Bedford Management Area
Coldwater Management Area
Figure 7-1
Water Level and
Interconnected Surface
Water Monitoring Wells
(
"N
0 1,750 3,500
Scale in Feet
7-14

Path: T:\Projects\Bedford Coldwater GSP 80802\GIS\Maps\Figures\GSP Figures\Chapter 7 - Monitoring Plan\Figure 7-2 Water Quality Monitoring Wells.mxd !
!
!!
!!
!
!!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!"a$
!"a$
Temescal Canyon Road
Cajalco Road
Temescal Canyon Road
Trilogy Parkway
Temescal Canyon Road
!"a$
Corona Well 20
TVWD New Sump
Corona Well 21 EVMWD Station 71
EVMWD Mayhew Well 2
TVWD Well 4
TVWD Well 1A
Corona Non-Potable Well 2
Corona Non-Potable Well 1
EVMWD Flagler 3A Well
EVMWD Flagler 2A Well
TVWD TP-1
TVWD TP-2
TVWD Foster Well
Glen Ivy Well 1
BCGSA MW-1
BCGSA MW-2
! Water Quality Monitoring Well
Bedford Management Area
Coldwater Management Area
Bedford-Coldwater Basin
Figure 7-2
Water Quality
Monitoring Wells ("N
0 1,750 3,500
Scale in Feet
7-15

Bedford-Coldwater GSP 8-1

TODD GROUNDWATER,
H&H Water Resources,
and Stantec

8. PROJECTS AND MANAGEMENT ACTIONS
During the preparation of the Groundwater Sustainability Plan (GSP) for the BedfordColdwater Subbasin (Basin), five (5) specific management actions (Actions) and three (3) projects (Projects) were identified to achieve the sustainability goal. The Actions are generally focused on data collection, storage and reporting of information necessary to monitor sustainability, and assessment of when Actions may be necessary (i.e., when minimum thresholds(MTs) are approached or exceeded). The projects are generally designed to reduce uncertainty in areas where data gaps have been identified during development of the GSP.

The Projects and Actions will be implemented by a combination of personnel resources from the three agencies within the plan area (Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District [EVMWD], City of Corona [Corona], and Temescal Water District [TVWD]) and contracted resources as described in Section 9. The Projects and Actions in the GSP are as follows:
• Action 1 – Provide for Collection, Compilation, and Storage of Information Required for Annual Reports and Submit Annual Reports;
• Action 2 – Routinely Record Groundwater Levels and Take Action if Necessary; • Action 3 – Monitor Selected Groundwater Quality Constituents and Coordinate with the Regional Water Quality Control Board as Appropriate; • Action 4 – Track Trends in Groundwater Levels near Temescal Wash and Take Action as Necessary;
• Action 5 – Review Interferometric Synthetic Aperture Radar (InSAR) Data on the California Department of Water Resources (DWR) DataViewer During 5-Year Updates;
• Project 1 – Investigate Groundwater/Surface Water Interaction at Temescal Wash and Install Monitoring Wells;
• Project 2 – Initiate a Survey of Active Private Wells; and • Project 3 – Evaluation of the Effects of Aggregate Pits on Groundwater Flow and Quality.

The Projects and Actions are described in the following sections. Further details regarding each project and management action are summarized in Table 8-1 through Table 8-8 at the end of this section. A periodic 5-year update of the GSP is described in Chapter 9.

8.1. ACTION 1 – PROVIDE FOR COLLECTION, COMPILATION, AND

STORAGE OF INFORMATION REQUIRED FOR ANNUAL REPORTS AND

SUBMIT ANNUAL REPORTS
The Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA) requires Groundwater Sustainability Agencies (GSAs) to submit annual reports to DWR each April 1st following adoption of a GSP.

The report providesinformation on groundwater conditions and the status of implementation of the GSP overthe prior water year. Action 1 will facilitate gathering the required information

Bedford-Coldwater GSP 8-2

TODD GROUNDWATER,
H&H Water Resources,
and Stantec
and producing the annual report (with the exception of collecting and compiling water levels, which is facilitated under Action 2).

As required by Title 23 of the California Code of Regulations (CCR), Section 356.2, the annual report produced by the Bedford-Coldwater GSA (BCGSA) will include the following components for the preceding water year:
(a) General information, including an executive summary and a location map depicting the Basin.
(b) A detailed description and graphical representation of the following conditions of the Basin:
(1) Groundwater elevation data from monitoring wells identified in the monitoring network and collected as part of Action – 2 will be analyzed and displayed as follows:
(A) Groundwater elevation contour maps for the principal aquifer in the Basin illustrating, at a minimum, the seasonal high and seasonal low groundwater conditions.
(B) Hydrographs of groundwater elevations and water year type using historical data to the greatest extent available, including from January 1, 2015, to current reporting year.
(2) Groundwater extraction for the preceding water year. Data shall be collected using the best available measurement methods and shall be presented in a table that summarizes groundwater extractions by water use sector and identifies the method of measurement (direct or estimate) and accuracy of measurements, and a map that illustrates the general location and volume of groundwater extractions.
(3) Surface water or imported water supply used or available for use, for groundwater recharge or in-lieu use shall be reported based on quantitative data that describes the annual volume and sources for the preceding water year.
(4) Total water use shall be collected using the best available measurement methods and shall be reported in a table that summarizes total water use by water use sector, water source type, and identifies the method of measurement (direct or estimate) and accuracy of measurements. Existing water use data collection methods will be evaluated and modified as necessary as part of this Action.
(5) Change in groundwater in storage shall include the following:
(A) Change in groundwater in storage maps for each principal aquifer in the basin.
(B) A graph depicting water year type, groundwater use, the annual change in groundwater in storage, and the cumulative change in groundwater in storage for the Basin based on historical data to the greatest extent available, including from January 1, 2015, to the current reporting year.

Bedford-Coldwater GSP 8-3

TODD GROUNDWATER,
H&H Water Resources,
and Stantec
(c) A description of progress towards implementing the Plan, including achieving interim milestones, and implementation of projects or management actions since the previous annual report.

Action 1 also provides for production and transmittal of the annual report described above.

8.2. ACTION 2 – ROUTINELY RECORD GROUNDWATER LEVELS AND

TAKE ACTION IF NECESSARY
Each agency will collect static groundwater elevation data at the wells they own and operate.

Depth to groundwater measurements will be collected at a minimum frequency of once per month, except in cases where a production well is active and shutting the well down to collect a static water level will cause operational problems due to interrupted supply. In these cases, quarterly measurements will be made. Several wells in the basin are monitored continuously via supervisory control and data acquisition (SCADA). In these cases, care will be taken to document the depth and elevation of the transducer, as well as the accuracy of the transducer, which can be expressed either as a percentage of full scale or in absolute terms.

Depth to groundwater measurements from a known elevation under static (non-pumping) conditions using an electric probe will be periodically compared to transducer readings to determine the elevation of the transducer such that groundwater elevation hydrographs can be produced from SCADA records. The BCGSA administrator will be responsible for facilitating collection of groundwater elevation data in the proper format. Field methods for collection of depth to groundwater information are specified in Section 7.

The BCGSA administrator and each agency will note trends in depth to groundwater information, and agencies will coordinate to reduce pumping rates or durations if a trend toward the MT is observed. Agencies will curtail pumping in the affected area if a MT is reached.

8.3. ACTION 3 – MONITOR SELECTED GROUNDWATER QUALITY

CONSTITUENTS AND COORDINATE WITH THE REGIONAL WATER

QUALITY CONTROL BOARD AS APPROPRIATE
Each agency will collect groundwater samples at the wells they own and operate and deliver to a common laboratory for analysis. Field methods for collection of groundwater samples are specified in Section 7. Groundwater sampling results will be delivered to the BCGSA administrator who will compile and report results.

The BCGSA administrator will note trends in groundwater quality, and the BCGSA will coordinate with the Regional Water Quality Control Board as appropriate if a trend toward the MT is observed. The BCGSA administrator will be responsible for compiling groundwater quality data and adding itto the GSA Data Management System (DMS) in standardized format.

Bedford-Coldwater GSP 8-4

TODD GROUNDWATER,
H&H Water Resources,
and Stantec

8.4. ACTION 4 – TRACK TRENDS IN GROUNDWATER LEVELS NEAR

TEMESCAL WASH AND TAKE ACTION AS NECESSARY
Each agency will collect groundwater elevations at the wells they own and operate in the vicinity of Temescal Wash as described in Sections 6 and 7. Depth to groundwater measurements will be collected at a minimum frequency of once per month, except in cases where a production well is active and shutting the well down to collect a static water level will cause operational problems due to interrupted supply. Several wells in the Basin are monitored continuously via SCADA. SCADA records will be corrected for groundwater elevation as described in Section 8.2. Field methods for collection of depth to groundwater information are specified in Section 7.

The BCGSA administrator and each agency will note trends in depth to groundwater information, and agencies will coordinate to reduce pumping rates or durations if a trend toward the MT regarding interconnected surface water at Temescal Wash is observed.

Agencies will curtail pumping in the affected area if an MT is reached.

8.5. ACTION 5 – REVIEW INSAR DATA ON THE DWR DATAVIEWER ANNUALLY AND COMPILE DURING 5-YEAR UPDATES
In other basins in California, extensive groundwater withdrawals from aquifer systems have caused land subsidence. Land subsidence can damage to structures such as wells, buildings, and highways. They also can create problems in the design and operation of facilities for drainage, flood protection, and water conveyance. Two factors generally needed for groundwater withdrawals to cause subsidence are 1) relatively large declines in groundwater levels combined with 2) relatively thick sequences of collapsible clays (such as ancestral lake deposits). Neither of these conditions exist in the Basin, and subsidence due to groundwater withdrawals has not been observed or expected. DWR has developed SGMA DataViewer to include updated subsidence information to help GSAs, water managers, and others to implement SGMA. The BCGSA will review the DataViewer information during the annual update and summarize the findings in the 5-year update.

8.6. PROJECT 1 – INVESTIGATE GROUNDWATER/SURFACE WATER

INTERACTION AT TEMESCAL WASH
As noted in Section 6.7.8, there are several data gaps related to depletions of interconnected surface water along Temescal Wash. Data gaps include lack of water level data in certain areas, lack of dedicated monitoring (vs. production) wells, lack of wells within or near the wash channel, and uncertainty regarding vertical gradients. The objective of Project 1 is to address these data gaps and improve protection of a potentially groundwater-dependent ecosystem (GDE) along Temescal Wash. Project 1 will be initiated in two phases: an initial feasibility study and permitting review, and a second phase of installation of monitoring facilities and on-going vegetation and shallow groundwater monitoring.

Bedford-Coldwater GSP 8-5

TODD GROUNDWATER,
H&H Water Resources,
and Stantec
The BCGSA will develop a request for proposals (RFP) from qualified firms to conduct the initialstudy to evaluate the interaction ofsurface water and groundwater and the relationship of groundwater elevation on the health of riparian vegetation in Temescal Wash. The purpose of this study is to reduce uncertainty regarding the riparian habitat and ultimately to improve the MT and protect groundwater-dependent ecosystems. The study may involve field biological surveys, review of historical surface flows, review of historical photographs and remote sensing data, and investigation and field studies regarding evapotranspiration and root depth ofriparian vegetation in and around Temescal Wash. An outcome of the first phase of the project is to identify appropriate locations and associated permitting requirements for monitoring wells along Temescal Wash. The work will result in recommendations for future riparian monitoring protocols and permitting requirements for installation of piezometers or drive points close to the wash itself.

Although the second phase of the project will be dependent on the results of the initial phase, the following work is anticipated:

1. Install four shallow monitoring wells along Temescal Wash, spread out along the wash, one or two near pumping wells to ascertain vertical gradients, others upstream near dense riparian vegetation.
a. During 5-year GSP updates, relate those water levels to production well water levels and stream flow, and refine MTs.

2. Conduct a survey for perennial pools along the entire length of the Temescal Wash in the Basin. Ideally, this would be done sometime during August to October in a normal year and again in a dry year.
a. If pools are found, a fisheries biologist should survey the fish species present in them.

3. The next time water levels start approaching the interconnected surface water MTs, conduct a vegetation survey along the Wash to look for drought stress. a. If stress correlates with increased depth to water, start reducing pumping (Management Action 4).

8.7. PROJECT 2 – INITIATE A SURVEY OF ACTIVE PRIVATE WELLS As noted in Section 6, there are very few known active private wells in the Basin. Because there are records (DWR and other sources) of many more wells than are known to exist and be active, it is believed that most have been abandoned, destroyed, or are no longer equipped or used, as residential users have been connected to municipal water supplies. Known active private wells are for non-potable uses and are of similar depths and construction to the monitored municipal supply wells. During the recent drought, the Basin was not marked by reports of significant water level decline impacts to shallow production wells.

Nevertheless, there still remains some uncertainty about the existence, use, and construction characteristics of local, active, private (non-municipal) wells. For this reason, the BCGSA will

Bedford-Coldwater GSP 8-6

TODD GROUNDWATER,
H&H Water Resources,
and Stantec
initiate a survey of active private wells in order to confirm that the MTs are protective of the use of private wells being put to beneficial use.

8.8. PROJECT 3 – EVALUATION OF THE EFFECTS OF AGGREGATE PITS

ON GROUNDWATER FLOW AND QUALITY
Significant aggregate (sand and gravel) resources mining occurs south of Corona within and along Temescal Wash and north of Lake Elsinore which has been active since the late 1940s (CDMG 1991). In 2007, the State of California reported that the active mines in local areas other than Temescal Valley are “nearly exhausted” and that the fast-growing county now relies on Temescal Valley for much of its aggregate needs. As a result, the Temescal Valley Production District has become the largest sand and gravel production district in the United States, having produced about 12 million tons of aggregate in 2005. Per a 2007 report issued by the California Geological Survey, the region’s 50-year aggregate demand is 1,122 million tons. As of 2007, a total of approximately 355 million tons were being supplied by permitted aggregate resources; 32 percent of the forecast demand. Data indicate that approximately 6,000 million tons of mineral resources are secured within the region (County of Riverside 2015).

Current surface mining permits (SMPs) include:
• SMP-133 (Coldwater Aggregates) which expires in 2040; • SMP-139 (Mayhew Aggregates and Mining Reclamation) does not have an expiration date as an inert landfill site;
• SMP-143R2 (Foster’s Sand and Gravel) which expires in 2065; and • SMP-202 (Chandlers Palos Verdes Sand and Gravel Company) which expires in 2036.

These permits note the ultimate use of the mining pits as stormwater recharge basins (KWC 2017), and therefore the mining pits will clearly have an impact on groundwater management (albeit at least 18 yearsinto the future). The surface aggregate mining involves deepening and widening open pits as the mining operation expands. In doing so, the pits encounter groundwater. As groundwater levels rise and fall, the bottoms of the pits are exposed.

Therefore, it is clear that there is communication between the surface water in the pits and the adjacent groundwater body which currently exists and will continue well into the future.

Groundwater modeling conducted as part of the GSP development (Section 5 and Appendix G) and groundwatersampling from wells nearthe pitssuggest that the pits may have an effect on the local water budget and on groundwater quality in ways that are not completely understood. For example, model calibration efforts suggest consumptive use near the pits is higher than recorded pumping of adjacent wells, and the Corona Well 21 was shut down due to a high heterotrophic plate count (a measure of bacteria in water), potentially as a result of groundwater under the influence of surface water from the aggregate pits.

Therefore, to improve further modeling involving aggregate mines or simulation of proposed stormwater capture in the mines, a project is proposed to evaluate and improve the

Bedford-Coldwater GSP 8-7

TODD GROUNDWATER,
H&H Water Resources,
and Stantec
hydrogeologic conceptual model in the vicinity of the mines. The BCGSA will initiate the investigations after adoption of the GSP by issuing an RFP to qualified firms. Although details of the study of aggregate mining’s effect on groundwater are yet to be determined, it is anticipated that the study may involve detailed review of the aggregate pit water budget (pumping, evapotranspiration, precipitation, and surface water flow infiltration), historical remote sensing images, historical hydrograph and streamflow information review, monitoring well construction, and/or interviews with local mine managers.

Table 8-1. Action 1 – Provide for Collection, Compilation, and Storage of Information Required for Annual Reports and Submit Annual Reports Description of the Project or Management Action - §354.44(a) Project/management action benefits - §354.44(b)(5) Routinely collect, compile, and store groundwater extractions by water use sector, groundwater extractions measurement methods and accuracy, surface water sources, and total water use and methods used to determine total water use. Prepare annual reports.

Description of the measurable objective(s) addressed - §354.44(b)(1) How the project/management action will be accomplished - §354.44(b)(6) Maintain groundwater elevations above the historical minimum elevation and maintain groundwater levels within the historical operating range.

Circumstances and criteria for implementation - §354.44(b)(1)(A) Legal authority - §354.44(b)(7) Information gathering will be implemented immediately upon GSP adoption.

Process to provide the public notice of implementation - §354.44(b)(1)(B) Estimated cost and funding source - §354.44(b)(8) Notice of implementation with be provided in the public review period of the GSP and adoption of the GSP. Implementation of the management action will be internal and not affect landowners or water users in the Basin. $126,000 Annual cost. Funding source to be contributions from BCGSA member agencies Quantification of methods to mitigate overdraft, if overdraft conditions are identified - §354.44(b)(2) Management of groundwater extractions and recharge - §354.44(b)(9) If overdraft is identified, the management action will be to curtail pumping as agreed upon by BCGSA staff.

Permitting and regulatory process - §354.44(b)(3) Supporting information and science - §354.44(c) No additional permitting or regulatory processes will be required.

Timeframe for expected project/management action start and completion, accrual of benefits - §354.44(b)(4) Level of uncertainty - §354.44(d) Information gathering will be implemented immediately upon GSP adoption and will continue until the next 5-year update.

Collection of this information is required for annual reporting, but it will also assist in evaluation of trends and relationship to the sustainability of the management areas.

Level of uncertainty will be identified during the process of evaluating measurement methods and accuracy.

The BCGSA will utilize BMPs and data formats specified by the DWR.

The BCGSA will manage reductions in pumping rates or duration if trends indicate historical maximum groundwater levels will be reached. Individual agencies will be responsible for monitoring their wells and informing the BCGSA if this trend becomes apparent.

CWC § 10725.4 (a)(1) provides GSAs the authority to determine the need for groundwater management and (2) to prepare and adopt a groundwater sustainability plan and implementing rules and regulations.

The information will be collected by BCGSA agency personnel for the facilities (including wells) that they own and manage. This information will be transmitted to the a contracted BCGSA administrator on a monthly basis who will compile and store the information and complete annual reports. Information from private well owners which exceed de minimis levels will be compiled by the administrator.

T:\Projects\Bedford Coldwater GSP 80802\Deliverables\GSP\0 Complete GSP\Tables\20211102 Projects and Managment Actions Detail.xlsx - MA1-Annual Report H+H Water Resources
and Stantec
Des by: VH
8-8

Table 8-2. Action 2 – Routinely Record Groundwater Levels and Take Action if Necessary Description of the Project or Management Action - §354.44(a) Project/management action benefits - §354.44(b)(5) Routinely measure and record water levels in selected wells identified in the monitoring plan. Monitor trends and reduce pumping if a trend toward a minimum threshold is observed. Curtail pumping in the event of reaching a minimum threshold.

Description of the measurable objective(s) addressed - §354.44(b)(1) How the project/management action will be accomplished - §354.44(b)(6) Maintain groundwater elevations above the historical minimum elevation and maintain groundwater levels within the historical operating range.

Circumstances and criteria for implementation - §354.44(b)(1)(A) Legal authority - §354.44(b)(7) Water level monitoring will be implemented once the GSP is adopted. The minimum threshold is defined at each key well by either the depth to groundwater equivalent to the current pump intake or 10 feet above the bottom of the deepest screen section, whichever is shallower. Undesirable results are indicated when exceedances occur in two consecutive quarters in each of two consecutive years in at least two thirds of key wells in each management area. If a trend toward the minimum threshold is observed, pumping rates or durations will be reduced in the affected areas.

Process to provide the public notice of implementation - §354.44(b)(1)(B) Estimated cost and funding source - §354.44(b)(8) Notice of implementation with be provided in the public review period of the GSP and adoption of the GSP. Implementation of the management action will be internal and not affect landowners or water users in the Basin. $110,000 Annual cost. Funding source to be contributions from BCGSA member agencies Quantification of methods to mitigate overdraft, if overdraft conditions are identified - §354.44(b)(2) Management of groundwater extractions and recharge - §354.44(b)(9) Pumping will be reduced if a trend toward a minimum threshold is identified.

Permitting and regulatory process - §354.44(b)(3) Supporting information and science - §354.44(c) No additional permitting or regulatory processes will be required.

Timeframe for expected project/management action start and completion, accrual of benefits - §354.44(b)(4) Level of uncertainty - §354.44(d) Water level monitoring will be ongoing, beginning with adoption of the GSP. The benefit of more consistent data and understanding of groundwater levels will increase with time and continued monitoring.

There is inconsistency of data in some areas of the Basin which regular standardized monitoring will mitigate.

Regular water level monitoring will benefit the maintenance of sustainability by decreasing the uncertainty regarding sustainable depths to groundwater in order to avoid undesirable results.

Static groundwater levels will be collected and compiled by BCGSA agency personnel for the wells they own and manage at a minimum frequency of monthly. Transducers will be utilized where practical. This information will be transmitted to the BCGSA administrator who will compile and store the information and complete annual reports. In cases where active production wells are monitored, frequency may be reduced to quarterly to minimize water supply interruption.

CWC § 10725.4 (a)(1) provides GSAs the authority to determine the need for groundwater management and (2) to prepare and adopt a groundwater sustainability plan and implementing rules and regulations.

The BCGSA will manage reductions in pumping rates or duration if trends indicate historical maximum groundwater levels will be reached. Individual agencies will be responsible for monitoring their wells and informing the BCGSA if this trend becomes apparent.

The BCGSA will use the water level monitoring to add to existing data of historical maximum depths to water.

T:\Projects\Bedford Coldwater GSP 80802\Deliverables\GSP\0 Complete GSP\Tables\20211102 Projects and Managment Actions Detail.xlsx - MA2-WLMonitoring H+H Water Resources
and Stantec
Des by: VH
8-9

Table 8-3. Action 3 – Monitor Selected Groundwater Quality Constituents and Coordinate with the Regional Water Quality Control Board as Appropriate Description of the Project or Management Action - §354.44(a) Project/management action benefits - §354.44(b)(5) Routinely monitor water quality throughout the Basin as described in the monitoring plan. If a significant upward concentration trend is observed in areas that contribute to potable supply, cooperate with the Regional Water Quality Control Board for appropriate action. If a minimum threshold is observed in areas that contribute to potable supply, cooperate with the Regional Water Quality Control Board for appropriate.

Description of the measurable objective(s) addressed - §354.44(b)(1) How the project/management action will be accomplished - §354.44(b)(6) Maintain or reduce the 5-year average concentrations of nitrate and total dissolved solids based on conditions assessed in each 5-year update.

Circumstances and criteria for implementation - §354.44(b)(1)(A) Legal authority - §354.44(b)(7) Water quality monitoring will be implemented once the GSP is adopted. The minimum threshold for nitrate is defined as 5- year average concentrations (Basin-wide) not exceeding the 10 mg/L drinking water MCL for Nitrate as Nitrogen. The minimum threshold for TDS is defined as 5-year average concentrations (Basin-wide) not exceeding the 1,000 mg/L Secondary MCL for TDS. If significant upward concentration trends toward the minimum thresholds are observed in areas that contribute to potable supply, the GSA will coordinate with the Regional Water Quality Control Board as appropriate..

Process to provide the public notice of implementation - §354.44(b)(1)(B) Estimated cost and funding source - §354.44(b)(8) Notice of implementation with be provided in the public review period of the GSP and adoption of the GSP. Implementation of the management action will be internal and not affect landowners or water users in the Basin. $24,000 Annual cost. Funding source to be contributions from BCGSA member agencies Quantification of methods to mitigate overdraft, if overdraft conditions are identified - §354.44(b)(2) Management of groundwater extractions and recharge - §354.44(b)(9) Overdraft will not be a factor in this management action.

Permitting and regulatory process - §354.44(b)(3) Supporting information and science - §354.44(c) No additional permitting or regulatory processes will be required.

Timeframe for expected project/management action start and completion, accrual of benefits - §354.44(b)(4) Level of uncertainty - §354.44(d) Water quality monitoring will be ongoing, beginning with adoption of the GSP. The benefit of more consistent data of groundwater quality will increase with time and continued monitoring.

Uncertainty when assessing potential water quality concerns may be communicated to the Regional Water Quality Control Board.

Regular water quality monitoring will benefit the Basin by serving as an early warning system to identify trends toward potential groundwater quality concerns in order to avoid undesirable results.

Groundwater samples will be collected BCGSA agency personnel for wells they own and operate. This information will be transmitted to the BCGSA administrator who will compile and store the information and complete annual reports.

CWC § 10725.4 (a)(1) provides GSAs the authority to determine the need for groundwater management and (2) to prepare and adopt a groundwater sustainability plan and implementing rules and regulations.

Groundwater extractions and recharge will not be a factor in this management action.

Analysis shall be conducted by a certified laboratory with the State of California through the California Water Boards Environmental Laboratory Accreditation Program (ELAP). The BCGSA will incorporate data from the RWQCB when assessing water quality concentration trends.

T:\Projects\Bedford Coldwater GSP 80802\Deliverables\GSP\0 Complete GSP\Tables\20211102 Projects and Managment Actions Detail.xlsx - MA3-WQMonitoring H+H Water Resources
and Stantec
Des by: VH
8-10

Table 8-4. Action 4 – Track Trends in Groundwater Levels near Temescal Wash and Take Action as Necessary Description of the Project or Management Action - §354.44(a) Project/management action benefits - §354.44(b)(5) Routinely track water levels in wells located near Temescal Wash and take action as specified.

Description of the measurable objective(s) addressed - §354.44(b)(1) How the project/management action will be accomplished - §354.44(b)(6) The measurable objective is the amount of surface water depletion that is less than the amount specified as the minimum threshold. Given the weak correlation between groundwater levels and vegetation health, no specific rise in shallow groundwater levels or increase in stream flow is identified as providing a preferred set of GDE conditions.

Circumstances and criteria for implementation - §354.44(b)(1)(A) Legal authority - §354.44(b)(7) The minimum threshold is defined as more than two-thirds of monitored wells near Temescal Wash with static water levels lower than 35 feet below the adjacent channel elevation for a period of more than one year. If a trend toward the minimum threshold is observed, pumping rates or durations will be reduced in affected areas. If the minimum threshold is met, pumping will be curtailed in the affected area until groundwater levels recover.

Process to provide the public notice of implementation - §354.44(b)(1)(B) Estimated cost and funding source - §354.44(b)(8) Notice of implementation with be provided in the public review period of the GSP and adoption of the GSP. Implementation of the management action will be internal and not affect landowners or water users in the Basin. $2,000 Annual cost. Funding source to be contributions from BCGSA member agencies. The majority of costs for this MA is covered under MA-2
Quantification of methods to mitigate overdraft, if overdraft conditions are identified - §354.44(b)(2) Management of groundwater extractions and recharge - §354.44(b)(9) Transducers installed in wells near Temescal Wash where practical and/or manual measurements will be performed on selected wells.

Permitting and regulatory process - §354.44(b)(3) Supporting information and science - §354.44(c) No additional permitting or regulatory processes will be required.

Timeframe for expected project/management action start and completion, accrual of benefits - §354.44(b)(4) Level of uncertainty - §354.44(d) Water level monitoring at Temescal Wash will be ongoing, beginning with adoption of the GSP. The benefit of more consistent data and understanding of the groundwater levels will increase with time and continued monitoring.

There is uncertainty regarding the relationship between water levels in production wells adjacent to Temescal Wash and the health of the riparian vegetation in the wash. For this reason, a specific project will be developed in an attempt to resolve this data gap and update the minimum threshold as required.

Regular water level monitoring at Temescal Wash will benefit the Basin by decreasing the uncertainty of sustainable groundwater depths relating to riparian vegetation health.

Static groundwater levels will be collected and compiled agency personnel who own and operate individual wells at a minimum frequency of monthly. Transducers will be utilized where practical. This information will be transmitted to the GSA administrator who will compile and evaluate trends toward the minimum threshold. If a trend toward the minimum threshold is observed, pumping rates or durations will be reduced in the affected area. Should a minimum threshold occur, pumping will be curtailed in the affected area.

CWC § 10725.4 (a)(1) provides GSAs the authority to determine the need for groundwater management and (2) to prepare and adopt a groundwater sustainability plan and implementing rules and regulations.

The BCGSA will manage reductions in pumping rates or duration if trends indicate historical maximum groundwater levels will be reached. Individual agencies will be responsible for monitoring their wells and informing the BCGSA if this trend becomes apparent.

The BCGSA will use the water level monitoring to add to existing data of historical maximum depths to water.

T:\Projects\Bedford Coldwater GSP 80802\Deliverables\GSP\0 Complete GSP\Tables\20211102 Projects and Managment Actions Detail.xlsx - MA4-SurfaceWater H+H Water Resources
and Stantec
Des by: VH
8-11

Table 8-5. Action 5 – Review InSAR Data on the SGMA Dataviewer During Updates Description of the Project or Management Action - §354.44(a) Project/management action benefits - §354.44(b)(5) Interferometric synthetic aperture radar (InSAR) data will be reviewed on the SGMA Dataviewer during 5-year updates. If a subsidence trend is observed, the GSA will initiate studies to evaluate the causes of subsidence and/or potential errors.

Description of the measurable objective(s) addressed - §354.44(b)(1) How the project/management action will be accomplished - §354.44(b)(6) The measurable objective for the land subsidence affecting land uses sustainability indicator is zero subsidence, acknowledging measurement error and other uncertainties.

Circumstances and criteria for implementation - §354.44(b)(1)(A) Legal authority - §354.44(b)(7) Subsidence monitoring will be implemented once the GSP is adopted. The minimum threshold is defined as a rate of decline equal to or greater than 0.2 feet in any 5-year period with 2015 as the baseline condition. If a subsidence trend is observed, studies will be initiated to evaluate the causes of subsidence.

Process to provide the public notice of implementation - §354.44(b)(1)(B) Estimated cost and funding source - §354.44(b)(8) Notice of implementation with be provided in the public review period of the GSP and adoption of the GSP. Implementation of the management action will be internal and not affect landowners or water users in the Basin. $4,000 Funding source to be contributions from BCGSA member agencies Quantification of methods to mitigate overdraft, if overdraft conditions are identified - §354.44(b)(2) Management of groundwater extractions and recharge - §354.44(b)(9) Overdraft will not be a factor in this management action.

Permitting and regulatory process - §354.44(b)(3) Supporting information and science - §354.44(c) No additional permitting or regulatory processes will be required.

Timeframe for expected project/management action start and completion, accrual of benefits - §354.44(b)(4) Level of uncertainty - §354.44(d) Subsidence monitoring will begin with adoption of the GSP and will be reported during 5-year updates. The benefit of more consistent data will increase with time and continued monitoring.

Many factors may contribute to subsidence, therefore if a trend is observed, studies will be initiated to evaluate the cause(s) before further action is considered.

Undesirable results relating to land subsidence have not been observed in the Basin, however subsidence may be subtle and cumulative over time. The benefit of regular monitoring of subsidence will be to potentially identify subsidence concerns early and initiate studies to evaluate the causes before undesirable results occur.

InSAR data will be monitored annually and compiled on a 5-year basis by the GSA during completion of 5- year updates.

CWC § 10725.4 (a)(1) provides GSAs the authority to determine the need for groundwater management and (2) to prepare and adopt a groundwater sustainability plan and implementing rules and regulations.

Groundwater extractions and recharge will not be a factor in this management action.

The BCGSA will use InSAR data available on the SGMA Dataviewer to monitor for future potential subsidence.

T:\Projects\Bedford Coldwater GSP 80802\Deliverables\GSP\0 Complete GSP\Tables\20211102 Projects and Managment Actions Detail.xlsx - MA5-Subsidence H+H Water Resources
and Stantec
Des by: VH
8-12

Table 8-6. Project 1 – Investigate Groundwater/Surface Water Interaction at Temescal Wash Description of the Project or Management Action - §354.44(a) Project/management action benefits - §354.44(b)(5) Phase 1 includes field studies and review of historical remote sensing and surface flow data in order to better understand the relationship between groundwater elevations and health of riparian habitat in Temescal Wash. Phase I will also include siting and identifying permitting requirements for new facilities to monitor shallow groundwater along Temescal Wash. Phase 2 will include installation of monitoring wells or drive points and on-going monitoring.

Description of the measurable objective(s) addressed - §354.44(b)(1) How the project/management action will be accomplished - §354.44(b)(6) The measurable objective is the amount of surface water depletion that is less than the amount specified as the minimum threshold. Given the weak correlation between groundwater levels and vegetation health, no specific rise in shallow groundwater levels or increase in stream flow is identified as providing a preferred set of GDE conditions.

Circumstances and criteria for implementation - §354.44(b)(1)(A) Legal authority - §354.44(b)(7) The minimum threshold is defined as more than two-thirds of monitored wells near Temescal Wash with static water levels lower than 35 feet below the adjacent channel elevation for a period of more than one year. If a trend toward the minimum threshold is observed, pumping rates or durations will be reduced in affected areas. If the minimum threshold is met, pumping will be curtailed in the affected area until groundwater levels recover.

Process to provide the public notice of implementation - §354.44(b)(1)(B) Estimated cost and funding source - §354.44(b)(8) Notice of implementation with be provided in the public review period of the GSP and adoption of the GSP. Implementation of the management action will be internal and not affect landowners or water users in the Basin. $514,000 One-occurrence cost. Funding source to be contributions from BCGSA member agencies Quantification of methods to mitigate overdraft, if overdraft conditions are identified - §354.44(b)(2) Management of groundwater extractions and recharge - §354.44(b)(9) Pumping will be reduced if a trend toward a minimum threshold is identified.

Permitting and regulatory process - §354.44(b)(3) Supporting information and science - §354.44(c) Permitting or regulatory processes will be evaluated in the initial study.

Timeframe for expected project/management action start and completion, accrual of benefits - §354.44(b)(4) Level of uncertainty - §354.44(d) The project will start within 6 months of adoption of the GSP with the development of a request for proposal. The project is expected to last approximately two years. Benefits of the project will be to improve monitoring and required action to protect groundwater-dependent ecosystems.

There is uncertainty regarding the relationship between water levels in production wells adjacent to Temescal Wash and the health of the riparian vegetation in the wash. The reason for this project is to reduce that uncertainty and improve minimum thresholds regarding GDEs, and ultimately, protection of GDEs
Technical studies and monitoring of shallow groundwater at Temescal Wash will benefit the Basin by decreasing the uncertainty of sustainable groundwater depths relating to riparian vegetation health and improving the minimum threshold for groundwater/surface water interaction.

The GSA will develop a request for proposal from qualified firms to conduct an initial study to evaluate the interaction of surface water and groundwater and the relationship of groundwater elevation on the health of riparian vegetation in Temescal Wash. The study may involve field biological surveys, review of historical surface flows, and/or review of historical photographs and remote sensing data. The work will result in recommendations for future monitoring and permitting requirements for installation of piezometers of drive points. A second phase will involve installation of monitoring facilities and on-going monitoring of groundwater and vegetation.

CWC § 10725.4 (a)(1) provides GSAs the authority to determine the need for groundwater management and (2) to prepare and adopt a groundwater sustainability plan and implementing rules and regulations.

The BCGSA will manage reductions in pumping rates or duration if trends indicate historical maximum groundwater levels will be reached. Individual agencies will be responsible for monitoring their wells and informing the BCGSA if this trend becomes apparent.

Review of historical remote sensing and biological surveys will be utilized.

T:\Projects\Bedford Coldwater GSP 80802\Deliverables\GSP\0 Complete GSP\Tables\20211102 Projects and Managment Actions Detail.xlsx - Project 1 Temescal Wash H+H Water Resources
and Stantec
Des by: VH
8-13

Table 8-7. Project 2 – Initiate a Survey of Private Wells Description of the Project or Management Action - §354.44(a) Project/management action benefits - §354.44(b)(5) Field studies and review of information in order to better understand the location and construction characteristics of local private wells
Description of the measurable objective(s) addressed - §354.44(b)(1) How the project/management action will be accomplished - §354.44(b)(6) Maintain groundwater elevations above the historical minimum elevation and maintain groundwater levels within the historical operating range [such that private wells are not adversely affected.

Circumstances and criteria for implementation - §354.44(b)(1)(A) Legal authority - §354.44(b)(7) The private well survey will be initiated after adoption of the GSP when resources are available.

Process to provide the public notice of implementation - §354.44(b)(1)(B) Estimated cost and funding source - §354.44(b)(8) Notice of implementation with be provided in the public review period of the GSP and adoption of the GSP. Implementation of the management action will be internal and not affect landowners or water users in the Basin. $60,000 One-occurrence cost. Funding source to be contributions from BCGSA member agencies Quantification of methods to mitigate overdraft, if overdraft conditions are identified - §354.44(b)(2) Management of groundwater extractions and recharge - §354.44(b)(9) Overdraft will be mitigated by reduction in pumping if identified.

Permitting and regulatory process - §354.44(b)(3) Supporting information and science - §354.44(c) Permitting or regulatory processes are not required for the survey of private wells Timeframe for expected project/management action start and completion, accrual of benefits - §354.44(b)(4) Level of uncertainty - §354.44(d) The project will start after adoption of the GSP and will be conducted by the GSA administrator. Benefits of the project will be to improve understanding and protection of local wells.

There is uncertainty regarding the exact location and design of local private wells. The reason for this project is to reduce that uncertainty and improve protection of private wells.

Further information regarding private wells in the subbasin will benefit achievement of the sustainability goal by decreasing the uncertainty related to the construction characteristics and location of the private wells.

The GSA will initiate a survey of private wells in order to confirm that the minimum thresholds are protective of the use of private wells for beneficial use.

CWC § 10725.4 (a)(1) provides GSAs the authority to determine the need for groundwater management and (2) to prepare and adopt a groundwater sustainability plan and implementing rules and regulations.

The BCGSA will manage reductions in pumping rates or duration if trends indicate historical maximum groundwater levels will be reached. Individual agencies will be responsible for monitoring their wells and informing the BCGSA if this trend becomes apparent.

Existing well construction reports, well logs, and knowledge of local personnel T:\Projects\Bedford Coldwater GSP 80802\Deliverables\GSP\0 Complete GSP\Tables\20211102 Projects and Managment Actions Detail.xlsx - Project 2 Private Wells H+H Water Resources
and Stantec
Des by: VH
8-14

Table 8-8. Project 3 – Evaluation of the Effects of Aggregate Pits on Groundwater Flow and Quality Description of the Project or Management Action - §354.44(a) Project/management action benefits - §354.44(b)(5) The GSA administrator will initiate the investigations after adoption of the GSP by issuing an RFP to qualified firms. Although the details of the study of aggregate mine’s effect on groundwater are yet to be determined, it is anticipated that the study may involve detailed review of the aggregate pit water budget (pumping, evapotranspiration, precipitation, and surface water flow infiltration), historical remote sensing images, historical hydrograph and streamflow information review, monitoring well construction, and/or interviews with local mine managers.

Description of the measurable objective(s) addressed - §354.44(b)(1) How the project/management action will be accomplished - §354.44(b)(6) The measurable objective is the amount of surface water depletion that is less than the amount specified as the minimum threshold.

Circumstances and criteria for implementation - §354.44(b)(1)(A) Legal authority - §354.44(b)(7) The project will be implemented prior to the first 5-year update after the GSP has been adopted.

Process to provide the public notice of implementation - §354.44(b)(1)(B) Estimated cost and funding source - §354.44(b)(8) Notice of implementation with be provided in the public review period of the GSP and adoption of the GSP. Implementation of the management action will be internal and not affect landowners or water users in the Basin. $165,000 One-occurrence cost. Funding source to be contributions from BCGSA member agencies Quantification of methods to mitigate overdraft, if overdraft conditions are identified - §354.44(b)(2) Management of groundwater extractions and recharge - §354.44(b)(9) Overdraft will not be a factor in this management action.

Permitting and regulatory process - §354.44(b)(3) Supporting information and science - §354.44(c) If piezometers or monitoring wells will be installed as part of the project, well permits will be acquired from the County of Riverside Department of Environmental Health.

Timeframe for expected project/management action start and completion, accrual of benefits - §354.44(b)(4) Level of uncertainty - §354.44(d) The project is expected to be completed before the first 5-year update after the GSP has been adopted. Benefits will increase over time with a greater understanding of the relationship between aggregate mining and the local groundwater system.

There is uncertainty about the water budget in the vicinity of the aggregate mines. The project will seek to fill these data gaps.

The benefits of investigating the interconnectivity of surface water within the open pit aggregate mines and adjacent groundwater will improve the hydrologic conceptual model and benefit the GSA in understanding methods to maintain sustainability in the vicinity of the mines.

The GSA Administrator will develop a request for proposals from qualified firms and manage progress of the contractor.

CWC § 10725.4 (a)(1) provides GSAs the authority to determine the need for groundwater management and (2) to prepare and adopt a groundwater sustainability plan and implementing rules and regulations.

The BCGSA will manage reductions in pumping rates near the aggregate mines if appropriate based on investigations
The BCGSA will use data gathered during the project and existing best practices to develop methods of avoiding undesirable results around the aggregate mines.

T:\Projects\Bedford Coldwater GSP 80802\Deliverables\GSP\0 Complete GSP\Tables\20211102 Projects and Managment Actions Detail.xlsx - Project 3 Mines H+H Water Resources
and Stantec
Des by: VH
8-15

Bedford-Coldwater GSP 9-1

TODD GROUNDWATER,
H&H Water Resources,
and Stantec

9. PLAN IMPLEMENTATION
The official adoption of the Groundwater Sustainability Plan (GSP) by the Bedford Coldwater Groundwater Sustainability Authority (BCGSA) will initiate Plan implementation. After submittal of the GSP to the California Department of Water Resources (DWR) and during the DWR review period, the BCGSA will continue to communicate with stakeholders via the BCGSA’s website and begin implementing the projects and management actions (Actions) described in Section 8. The Plan will be implemented to sustainably manage groundwater in the Bedford-Coldwater Subbasin (Basin) under the authority of the BCGSA and its member agencies.

9.1. PLAN IMPLEMENTATION RESOURCES AND RESPONSIBILITIES Resources to implement the GSP will be derived from three different sources: a contracted GSP Administrator, personnel from the three BCGSA agencies (City of Corona [Corona], Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District [EVMWD], Temescal Valley Water District [TVWD]), and contracted firms qualified to perform specialized services.

The GSP Administrator will be generally responsible for facilitating (though not necessarily performing) all aspects of GSP implementation through the first 5 years, including annual reporting and a 5-year update described in a following section. After 5 years, the BCGSA may elect to renew the term of the Administrator or issue a new RFP for GSP administration.

Personnel from the three BCGSA agencies will be responsible for collection of information from their respective facilities or within their area of influence in the Basin. This will include depth to groundwater measurements, collection of groundwater quality samples, groundwater extractions, use ofsurface water supplies, and total water use. This information will be reported to the GSP Administratorfor compilation, quality control and standardization, ultimately, storage in the BCGSA Data Management System (DMS).

For specialized studies such as biological surveys or other specialized work that cannot be accomplished by the Administrator, the Administrator will be responsible for coordinating with the BCGSA to develop RFPs and facilitating consultant selection by the BCGSA. After the consultant is selected by the BCGSA, the Administrator will be responsible for management of the specialty consultant, including monitoring/reviewing the work and providing recommendations regarding consultant progress payments. Table 9-1 provides examples of GSP implementation tasks and the anticipated responsible party.

Bedford-Coldwater GSP 9-2

TODD GROUNDWATER,
H&H Water Resources,
and Stantec
Table 9-1. Example GSP Implementation Responsibilities
GSP Task Responsible Party
Collect information on groundwater extractions by water use sector, surface water sources, and total water use and report this data to the Administrator
Agency Personnel
Collect and compile static water levels in wells and report this information to the Administrator Agency Personnel
Complete annual reports
GSP
Administrator/Specialty
Consultant
Coordinate appropriate action if measurement thresholds are exceeded GSP Administrator
Maintain Data Management System (DMS) GSP Administrator Monitor selected groundwater quality all active production wells.

Coordinate with RWQCB if action required GSP Administrator Review Interferometric Synthetic Aperture Radar (InSAR) data annually from the DWR DataViewer, and during 5-year updates GSP Administrator Complete 5-year updates including groundwater modeling updates GSP
Administrator/Specialty
Consultant
Develop RFPs and manage specialty contractors GSP Administrator Maintain BCGSA website with periodic stakeholder communication GSP Administrator Conduct private well survey GSP Administrator
Develop quarterly JPA board updates and cost estimates GSP Administrator Identify and apply for potential grant funding GSP Administrator Project No 2: Private Well Survey GSP Administrator
Project No 1: Investigation of Interconnected Surface Water Specialty Consultant Project No 3: Investigation of Aggregate Pits Specialty Consultant

9.2. PLAN IMPLEMENTATION COSTS
The costs associated with implementing the GSP can be considered either continually ongoing (operating) costs, or GSP implementation costs associated with specific management actions and projects. Estimated costs for both of these categories are provided below.

9.2.1. Operating Expenses
The cost of operating the BCGSA includes staff expenses, coordination between member agencies, maintenance of the BCGSA website and DMS site, legal expenses, auditing expenses, insurance, bank fees, and other administrative costs. These costs are estimated at approximately $60,000 annually (2021 dollars) based on experience since the BCGSA was formed.

Bedford-Coldwater GSP 9-3

TODD GROUNDWATER,
H&H Water Resources,
and Stantec

9.2.2. GSP Implementation Costs
Implementation costs include costs to implement management actions and projects. As detailed in Tables 8-1 through 8-8 and summarized in Table 9-2, total annual costs (2021 dollars) are estimated at approximately $266,000 per year, while estimated one-occurrence costs for recommended projects and the first 5-year periodic GSP update is approximately $990,000.

Table 9-2. GSP Implementation Cost Estimates
Management Action and Projects Estimated Annual Costs
Action 1 - Provide for Collection, Compilation, and Storage of Information Required For Annual Reports and Submit Annual Reports
$126,000
Action 2 - Routinely Record Groundwater Levels and Take Action if Necessary $110,000
Action 3 - Monitor Selected Groundwater Quality Constituents and Coordinate with the Regional Water Quality Control Board as Appropriate
$24,000
Action 4 - Track Trends in Groundwater Levels near Temescal Wash and Take Action as Necessary (field costs included in Action 2)
$2,000
Action 5 - Review InSAR Data on the DWR DataViewer During Annual and 5-Year Updates $4,000
Total Estimated Annual Implementation (Non-Operating) Costs $266,000 Project 1 – Investigate Groundwater/Surface Water Interaction at Temescal Wash and Install Monitoring Wells $514,000
Project 2 – Initiate a Survey of Active Private Wells $60,000 Project 3 – Evaluation of the Effects of Aggregate Pits on Groundwater Flow and Quality $165,000
First Periodic 5-year GSP Update $251,000
Total Estimated One-Occurrence Costs (First 5 years) $990,000

9.2.3. Funding Methods for Operating Expenses and GSP Implementation Costs The funding method for operating expenses and GSP implementation costsis by contributions by BCGSA member agencies (Corona, EVWMD, and TVWD). This is the same mechanism utilized to fund development of the GSP (with significant supplemental contribution though

Bedford-Coldwater GSP 9-4

TODD GROUNDWATER,
H&H Water Resources,
and Stantec
California Proposition 1 Grant funding). The estimated costs are well within budget projections for the next several years provided to the BCGSA Board of Directors.

9.3. ANNUAL REPORTING
The BCGSA is required to submit an annual report to DWR by April 1st of each year following adoption of the GSP. The first annual report will be due in April of 2022. The annual report will be facilitated by implementing Actions 1 and 2, which provide for collection of the required information and production of the annual report. The annual report will include the following components as described in GSP Regulations for the preceding water year:
• General information – Executive summary, location map. • Detailed description and graphical representation of the following components of the Basin:
o Groundwater elevation data from monitoring wells within the monitoring network;
o Groundwater extraction data for the preceding water year; o Surface water supply used or available for use;
o Total water use; and
o Change in groundwater storage.
• Description of progress towards implementing the Plan – implementation of projects or management actions since the previous annual report.

It is currently anticipated that the annual reports will be produced by the GSP Administrator or Specialty Consultant. The costs associated with producing these reports will be incorporated into the annual budget of the BCGSA.

9.4. NEW INFORMATION AND CHANGES
The GSP has been developed based on the best available information. However, it is recognized that during implementation of the GSP, new information on groundwater conditions, changes in land use or climate, and or changes in the regulatory environment can be expected. Changes in GSP administration may also be appropriate based on experience.

When these changes occur, the BCGSA will react with appropriate changes in GSP administration, data collection, and/or groundwater management methods. If the changes are significant, stakeholders and the BCGSA Board of Directors will be kept informed of these changes via Board minutes, the BCGSA website, and emails to stakeholders.

9.5. PERIODIC EVALUATIONS
BCGSA will evaluate the GSP at least every five years and provide an assessment to DWR as required by SGMA Regulations. The assessment will provide an update on the progress of achieving sustainability goals in the Basin and will include the following:

Bedford-Coldwater GSP 9-5

TODD GROUNDWATER,
H&H Water Resources,
and Stantec
• A description of current groundwater conditions for each sustainability indicator applicable to the Basin relative to measurable objectives and minimum thresholds. • A description of the implementation of any projects or management actions and their effect on groundwater conditions.
• Any revisions to the basin setting, management areas, or the identification of undesirable results and the setting of minimum thresholds and measurable objectives.
• An evaluation of the basin setting as a result of any significant changes, new information, or changes in water use.
• A description of the monitoring network within the Basin, including any data gaps and areas of the Basin that are represented by data that does not satisfy the requirements of SGMA requirements outlined in Title 23 of the California Code of Regulations (CCR) Sections 352.4 and 354.34(c).
• A description of significant new information that has been made available since GSP adoption, amendment, or last five-year assessment.
• A description of relevant actions taken by the BCGSA, including a summary of regulations or ordinances related to the GSP.
• Information describing any enforcement or legal actions taken by the BCGSA to continue the sustainability goals of the Subbasin.
• A description of completed or proposed GSP amendments.

As with the annual reports, the GSP Administrator/Specialty Consultant will be responsible for completion of the five-year assessment with assistance from BCGSA staff. Both annual reports and periodic updates will be available to the public via the BCGSA website as well as the DWR SGMA website.

The cost of the periodic updates is dependent on the complexity of changes occurring in the Basin since the adoption of the GSP but are estimated to be in the range of $250,000 per update (2021 dollars).

9.6. SCHEDULE FOR IMPLEMENTATION
The BCGSA has committed to implementing the GSP upon adoption and completing the projects and management actions necessary to monitor and maintain sustainability within the first 5 years of initiation of the GSP. A preliminary schedule for implementation is shown in Figure 9-1. The GSP Administrator will conduct the survey of private wells and develop RFPs for surface/groundwater and aggregate pit studies within the first year of GSP implementation.

Figure 9-1. Schedule for GSP Implementation
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Action 1 – Provide for Collection, Compilation, and Storage of Information Required For Annual Reports and Submit Annual Reports      Action 2 – Routinely Record Groundwater Levels and Take Action if Necessary
Action 3 – Monitor Selected Groundwater Quality Constituents and Coordinate with the Regional Water Quality Control Board Action 4 – Track Trends in Groundwater Levels near Temescal Wash and Take Action as Necessary
Action 5 – Review InSAR data on the SGMA Dataviewer During Annual and 5-year Updates     
Project 1 – Investigate Groundwater/Surface Water Interaction at Temescal Wash and Install Monitoring Wells
Project 2 – Initiate a Survey of Private Wells
Project 3 – Evaluation of the Effects of Aggregate Pits on Groundwater Flow and Quality
Prepare 5-Year Evaluation 
2022 2023 2024 2025 2026
Phase 1 Phase 2 Ongoing Monitoring
Bedford-Coldwater GSP
T:\Projects\Bedford Coldwater GSP 80802\Deliverables\GSP\0 Complete GSP\Tables\20211102 Projects and Managment Actions Detail.xlsx - Simple Sched 9-6

TODD GROUNDWATER,
H Water Resources,
and Stantec

Bedford-Coldwater GSP 10-7

TODD GROUNDWATER,
H&H Water Resources,
and Stantec

10. REFERENCES
Bedford-Coldwater Groundwater Sustainability Agency (BCGSA), 2017, Notice of Election to Become a Groundwater Sustainability Agency for the Bedford-Coldwater Subbasin (Basin No. 8-.004.002), March 29, available at: https://www.bedfordcoldwatergsa.com/wpcontent/uploads/2018/07/Resolution_Final.pdf Carollo Engineers and Todd Groundwater, 2021, Draft Elsinore Valley Subbasin Groundwater Sustainability Plan, May.

California Department of Mines and Geology (CDMG), 1991, Mineral Land Classification of the Temescal Valley Area, Riverside County, California, Special Report 165, available at:
https://www.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/Documents/Publications/Special-Reports/SR_165- MLC-Report.pdf
California Department of Water Resources (DWR), 2010, California Statewide Groundwater Elevation Monitoring (CASGEM) Program Procedures for Monitoring Entity Reporting, December 2010, available at: https://water.ca.gov/-/media/DWR-Website/WebPages/Programs/Groundwater-Management/CASGEM/Files/CASGEM-Procedures-forMonitoring-Entity-Reporting-Final-121610_ay_19.pdf California Department of Water Resources (DWR), 2016a, Groundwater Sustainability Plan (GSP) Annotated Outline, December 2016, available at: https://water.ca.gov/-/media/DWRWebsite/Web-Pages/Programs/Groundwater-Management/Sustainable-GroundwaterManagement/Groundwater-Sustainability-Plans/Files/GSP/GSP-Annotated-Outline.pdf California Department of Water Resources (DWR), 2016b, Bulletin 118, Interim Update 2016, California’s Groundwater, Working Toward Sustainability, December 22, available at:
https://data.cnra.ca.gov/dataset/75eb6072-6810-471d-ba73- d8eadec36564/resource/2b9cbe00-55f6-420e-9aa7-8e61cb5ee1fc/download/b118-interimupdate-2016_ay_19.pdf California Department of Water Resources (DWR), 2016c, Best Management Practices for the Sustainable Management of Groundwater, Water Budget, December 30, available at:
https://water.ca.gov/-/media/DWR-Website/Web-Pages/Programs/GroundwaterManagement/Sustainable-Groundwater-Management/Best-Management-Practices-andGuidance-Documents/Files/BMP-4-Water-Budget_ay_19.pdf California Department of Water Resources (DWR), 2016d, Best Management Practices for the Sustainable Management of Groundwater, Monitoring Networks and Identification of Data Gaps, December 30, available at: https://water.ca.gov/-/media/DWR-Website/WebPages/Programs/Groundwater-Management/Sustainable-Groundwater-Management/BestManagement-Practices-and-Guidance-Documents/Files/BMP-2-Monitoring-Networks-andIdentification-of-Data-Gaps_ay_19.pdf

Bedford-Coldwater GSP 10-8

TODD GROUNDWATER,
H&H Water Resources,
and Stantec
California Department of Water Resources (DWR), 2017, California DWR Land Use Viewer, available at: https://gis.water.ca.gov/app/CADWRLandUseViewer/, last accessed September 2019.

California Department of Water Resources (DWR), 2019a, SGMA 2019 Basin Prioritization, Spreadsheets and CNRA Open Data, available at:
https://water.ca.gov/Programs/Groundwater-Management/Basin-Prioritization, last accessed September 2019.

California Department of Water Resources (DWR), 2019b, California DWR Well Completion Report Map Application, available at:
https://dwr.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=181078580a214c0986e2d a28f8623b37, last accessed September 2019.

California Department of Water Resources (DWR), 2019c, SGMA Data Viewer Map Application, available at:
https://sgma.water.ca.gov/webgis/?appid=SGMADataViewer#landsub, last accessed September 2019.

California Department of Water Resources (DWR), 2020, DWR SGMA Data Viewer, Land Subsidence, TRE InSAR Dataset, available at
https://sgma.water.ca.gov/webgis/?appid=SGMADataViewer, last accessed January.

California Department of Water Resources (DWR), 2021, State of California Household Water Supply Shortage Reporting System, available at
https://mydrywatersupply.water.ca.gov/report/publicpage, last accessed March 2021.

California Department of Water Resources (DWR), California Department of Fish and Wildlife, and The Nature Conservancy, 2020, Natural communities commonly associated with groundwater (NCCAG), Statewide digital vegetation maps of vegetation and wetlands overlying groundwater basins, available at https://gis.water.ca.gov/app/NCDatasetViewer/, accessed July 2020.

City of Temecula, 2020, Municipal Code Title 15, May, available at:
http://qcode.us/codes/temecula/view.php?topic=15-15_10
Corona and Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District (EVMWD), 2008, Agreement Concerning Water Production from Coldwater, December.

County of Riverside, 2015, Environmental Impact Report No. 521 Public Review Draft Section 4.14, February, available at:
https://planning.rctlma.org/Portals/14/genplan/general_plan_2015/DEIR%20521/DEIR%20 No.%20521.pdf
Cunningham, W.L., and Schalk, C.W., comps., 2011, Groundwater technical procedures of the U.S. Geological Survey: U.S. Geological Survey Techniques and Methods, April, available at: https://pubs.usgs.gov/tm/1a1/.

Bedford-Coldwater GSP 10-9

TODD GROUNDWATER,
H&H Water Resources,
and Stantec
Drever, J.I., 1988, The Geochemistry of Natural Waters, 2nd Edition, Prentice-Hall, 1988, available at:
https://hwbdocuments.env.nm.gov/Los%20Alamos%20National%20Labs/TA%2000/7181.pd f
EIP Associates, 2020, City of Corona General Plan 2020-2040, Adopted March 17, available at:
https://www.coronaca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/17292/637396648435970000 Ellerbee, R.L., 1918, History of Temescal Valley, Publications of the Historical Society of Southern California, Volume 11, pp.18-19, available at
https://books.google.com/books?pg=RA2-PA3&lpg=RA2-
PA12&dq=History+of+Temescal+Valley&id=E8M1AAAAIAAJ&ots=0MqluE3mYR#v=onepage &q=History%20of%20Temescal%20Valley&f=false
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), 2011, NFIP Flood Insurance Manual, May 1, available at: https://www.fema.gov/sites/default/files/2020-09/fema_flood-insurancemanual-full-edition_april-oct2020.pdf Google Earth, 2021, Historical aerial imagery online maps and data, available at https://earth.google.com/web/, last accessed March 2021.

Kennedy/Jenks Consultants, 2008a, Updated Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Report, Western Municipal Water District, May, available at:
https://www.wmwd.com/DocumentView.aspx?DID=350
Kennedy/Jenks Consultants, 2008b, Water Use Efficiency Master Plan, Western Municipal Water District, November, available at:
https://www.wmwd.com/DocumentView.aspx?DID=351
KWC Engineers, 2016, City of Corona 2015 Urban Water Management Plan, July, available at: https://www.coronaca.gov/home/showdocument?id=4318
KWC Engineers, 2017, Strategic Planning Summary Report for the Coldwater & Mayhew Canyons, County of Riverside, California, Report for the City of Corona, January.

Lee Lake Water District (now Temescal Valley Water District, TVWD), 2007, Lee Lake Water District Recycled Water Master Plan.

Lee Lake Water District (now Temescal Valley Water District, TVWD), 2014, Lee Lake Water District Water System Master Plan Update.

Luhdorff and Scalmanini Consulting Engineers (LSCE), Borchers JW, Grabert VK, Carpenter M, Dalgish B, Cannon D, 2014, Land subsidence from groundwater use in California, report prepared by LSCE with support by the California Water Foundation, available at:
http://californiawaterfoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/PDF/1397858208- SUBSIDENCEFULLREPORT_FINAL.pdf.

Bedford-Coldwater GSP 10-10

TODD GROUNDWATER,
H&H Water Resources,
and Stantec
Morton, Douglas M., Weber, F. Harold, Jr., 2003, Preliminary Geologic Map of the Elsinore

7.5’ Quadrangle, Riverside County, California: U. S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 03- 281, available at: http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2003/0281.

MWH, 2004, Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District, Coldwater Basin Recharge Feasibility Study, March.

MWH, 2008, Temescal Wash hydrologic monitoring report, prepared for Elsinore Municipal Water District, Lake Elsinore, CA, June.

MWH, 2016, Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District Urban Water Management Plan, Final, June, available at: http://leapshydro.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/Urban-WaterManagement-Plan-2016.pdf National Conservation Easement Database (NCED), 2019, Database of location and information regarding conserved land and easements, available at:
https://www.conservationeasement.us/, last accessed September 2019.

Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), 2019, SSURGO soil survey online map database available at http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/WebSoilSurvey.aspx, last accessed September 2019.

Norris, Robert M. and Webb, Robert W., 1990, Geology of California, Second Edition, John Wiley & Sons.

PRISM Climate Group, 2018, Oregon State University, available at:
http://prism.oregonstate.edu, last accessed June 2018.

Raftelis Financial Consultants, Inc., 2016, Temescal Valley Water District Comprehensive Water, Recycled Water, and Wastewater Cost of Service Study Draft Report, December 7, available at: https://www.temescalvwd.com/images/userImages/TVWD_Rate_Report.pdf Riverside County Planning Department, 2015, County of Riverside General Plan, December 8, available at: https://planning.rctlma.org/General-Plan-Zoning/General-Plan Riverside County Planning Department, 2018, Temescal Canyon Plan, available at:
https://rctlma.org/Portals/14/genplan/2019/ap/TCAP_062618.pdf Riverside-Corona Resource Conservation District (RCRCD), 2020, Native Fish Studies and Propagation, available at https://www.rcrcd.org/native-fish-studies-and-propagation, last accessed November 2020.

RMC and Woodard & Curran, 2017, 2015 Urban Water Management Plan, Temescal Valley Water District, December, available at:
https://www.temescalvwd.com/pdf/TVWD_UWMP_Public%20Draft%20w%20Appendices.p df

Bedford-Coldwater GSP 10-11

TODD GROUNDWATER,
H&H Water Resources,
and Stantec
Russell, Kerwin, 2020, Natural Resources Manager, Riverside County Resource Conservation District, e-mails to Gus Yates, Senior Hydrologist, Todd Groundwater, dated August 1 and 3.

SAIC, 2007, Draft Coldwater Groundwater Basin Summary of the Hydrologic Inventory and Change in Groundwater Storage, October 23.

San Diego County, 2005, Drainage Design Manual, July, available at:
http://www.sandiegocounty.gov/dpw/floodcontrol/floodcontrolpdf/drainagedesignmanual05.pdf State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), 2019, Groundwater Ambient Monitoring and Assessment (GAMA) Program Groundwater Information System online map and database, available at:
https://gamagroundwater.waterboards.ca.gov/gama/gamamap/public/, last accessed September 2019.

State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), 2020, Response Levels Lowered for Water Systems Statewide as PFAS Investigation Continues, available at:
https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/press_room/press_releases/2020/pr02062020_pfoa_pfos _response_levels.pdf
The Nature Conservancy, 2020, GDE Pulse on-line vegetation mapping tool, available at https://groundwaterresourcehub.org/sgma-tools/gde-pulse/, last accessed May 2020.

Thomasson, H.G., Jr., F.H. Olmsted and E.F. LeRoux, 1960, Geology, water resources and usable ground-water storage capacity of part of Solano County, California. Water-Supply Paper 1464. U.S. Geological Survey, 1960, available at:
https://pubs.usgs.gov/wsp/1464/report.pdf
Todd Engineers and AKM Consulting Engineers (Todd and AKM), 2008, AB3030 Groundwater Management Plan, prepared for City of Corona, June.

Towill, Inc. 2020, InSAR Data Accuracy for California Groundwater Basins CGPS Data Comparative Analysis, January 2015 to September 2019, March 23, available at https://data.cnra.ca.gov/dataset/5e2d49e1-9ed0-425e-9f3e2cda4a213c26/resource/a1949b59-2435-4e5d-bb29-7a8d432454f5/download/insar-dataaccuracy-report-towill.pdf United States Geological Survey (USGS), 2004, Preliminary Digital Geologic Map of the Santa Ana 30’ x 60’ Quadrangle, Southern California, Version 2.0 compiled by D.M. Morton, OpenFile Report 99-172, available at: http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/1999/of99-172/ United States Geological Survey (USGS), 2006, Geologic Map of the San Bernardino and Santa Ana 30’ x 60’ Quadrangles, California, Version 1.0 compiled by Douglas M. Morton and Fred K. Miller, Open-File Report 2006-1217, available at:
http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2006/1217/

Bedford-Coldwater GSP 10-12

TODD GROUNDWATER,
H&H Water Resources,
and Stantec
United States Geologic Survey (USGS), 2018, National Water Information System Web Interface, Station: USGS 11070500 SAN JACINTO R NR ELSINORE CA, available at:
https://waterdata.usgs.gov/nwis/uv?site_no=11070500, Station: USGS 11071900 TEMESCAL C A CORONA LK NR CORONA CA, , available at:
https://waterdata.usgs.gov/ca/nwis/uv?site_no=11071900, Station: USGS 11072100 TEMESCAL C AB MAIN ST A CORONA CA, , available at:
https://waterdata.usgs.gov/ca/nwis/uv?site_no=11072100, groundwater elevation information for wells surrounding Bedford-Coldwater Basin, last accessed July 3, 2018.

United States Geologic Survey (USGS), 2019, National Elevation Dataset (NED) for Riverside County, available at: https://nationalmap.gov/elevation.html, last accessed November 2019.

United States Geological Survey (USGS), 2021, National Field Manual for the Collection of Water-Quality Data (NFM), available at: https://www.usgs.gov/mission-areas/waterresources/science/national-field-manual-collection-water-quality-data-nfm?qtscience_center_objects=0#qt-science_center_objects, last accessed February 2021.

Upper Santa Ana River Sustainable Resources Alliance (USARSRA), 2020, Upper Santa Ana River Habitat Conservation Plan, available at: http://www.uppersarhcp.com/Default.aspx, last accessed March 2021.

Western Riverside County Regional Conservation Authority, 2020, Western Riverside County multi-species habitat conservation plan, available at: https://www.wrc-rca.org/habitatconservation/, last accessed March 2021.

Wildermuth Environmental, Inc. (WEI), 2015a, Fifth Annual Report of the Coldwater Basin Operating Committee, July.

Wildermuth Environmental, Inc. (WEI), 2015b, Draft Feasibility Investigation (Phase I) to Develop a Potable Water-Supply from the Bedford Basin, prepared for the City of Corona, Elsinore Valley Water District, and Lee Lake Water District, August.

Wildermuth Environmental, Inc. (WEI), 2016, Fourth Annual Report of the Coldwater Basin Operating Committee, November.

Wildermuth Environmental, Inc. (WEI), 2017a, Salt and Nutrient Management Plan for the Upper Temescal Valley, Final September.

Wildermuth Environmental, Inc. (WEI), 2017b, Sixth and Seventh Annual Report of the Coldwater Basin Operating Committee, December.

Wildermuth Environmental, Inc. (WEI), 2019, Eighth Annual Report of the Coldwater Basin Operating Committee, December.

Bedford-Coldwater GSP

TODD GROUNDWATER,
H&H Water Resources,
and Stantec

APPENDIX A
Joint Powers Agreement forming the BedfordColdwater Groundwater Sustainability Agency

JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT
by and among

THE CITY OF CORONA,
a California general law city,

ELSINORE VALLEY MUNICIPAL

WATER DISTRICT,
a municipal water district
and

TEMESCAL VALLEY WATER DISTRICT,
a California water district
for the formation of a joint powers authority and management of

THE BEDFORD-COLDWATER SUB-BASIN

OF THE ELSINORE BASIN

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
-i1. RECITALS ....................................................................................................................... 2

2. DEFINITIONS .................................................................................................................. 2

3. CERTIFICATION ............................................................................................................ 3

4. CREATION OF SEPARATE AGENCY ......................................................................... 3

5. PURPOSES AND MEMBER RESPONSIBILITIES ....................................................... 4

6. POWERS .......................................................................................................................... 4

7. OBLIGATIONS OR LIABILITIES OF AUTHORITY ................................................... 6

8. DESIGNATION OF ADMINISTERING MEMBER/ADMINISTRATOR .................... 6

9. ORGANIZATION ............................................................................................................ 6

10. SPECIAL PROJECTS AND PROJECT COMMITTEES ................................................ 8

11. FISCAL AGENT, DEPOSITORY AND ACCOUNTING .............................................. 9

12. ACCOUNTABILITY, REPORTS AND AUDITS .......................................................... 9

13. OPERATING BUDGET AND EXPENDITURES .......................................................... 9

14. CONTRIBUTIONS/BUDGETS ....................................................................................... 9

15. ASSESSMENTS FOR EXTRAORDINARY COSTS ................................................... 12

16. STAFFING ..................................................................................................................... 13

17. DISPUTE RESOLUTION .............................................................................................. 13

18. WITHDRAWAL............................................................................................................. 14

19. TERM AND TERMINATION ....................................................................................... 15

20. INDEMNIFICATION/CONTRIBUTION ..................................................................... 15

21. INSURANCE .................................................................................................................. 16

22. CLAIMS ......................................................................................................................... 16

23. ENTIRE AGREEMENT REPRESENTED .................................................................... 16

24. HEADINGS .................................................................................................................... 16

Page
-ii25. NOTICES ........................................................................................................................ 16

26. CONSTRUCTION .......................................................................................................... 17

27. NO THIRD PARTY BENEFICIARIES INTENDED .................................................... 17

28. WAIVERS ...................................................................................................................... 17

29. CONFLICT WITH LAWS OR REGULATIONS/SEVERABILITY ............................ 17

30. FURTHER ASSURANCES AND OBLIGATION OF GOOD FAITH
DEALING ....................................................................................................................... 17

31. COUNTERPARTS ......................................................................................................... 18

32. AMENDMENT............................................................................................................... 18

33. CUA ASSIGNMENT ..................................................................................................... 18

-1-

JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT BY AND AMONG THE CITY OF CORONA,

ELSINORE VALLEY MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT, AND TEMESCAL VALLEY

WATER DISTRICT FOR THE FORMATION OF A JOINT POWERS AUTHORITY

AND MANAGEMENT OF THE BEDFORD-COLDWATER SUB-BASIN OF THE

ELSINORE BASIN
THIS JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT (“Agreement”) is entered into as of ___________________2017, by and between the CITY OF CORONA (“Corona”), a California General Law City organized and existing under the laws of the State of California, ELSINORE VALLEY MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT (“EVMWD”), a Municipal Water District organized under Water Code §§ 71000 et seq., and the TEMESCAL VALLEY WATER DISTRICT (“TVWD”), a California Water District organized under California Water Code §§ 34000 et seq., hereinafter collectively referred to as “Members”, with reference to the following:

A. WHEREAS, in September 2014, the Governor signed three bills (SB 1168, SB 1319, and AB 1739) into law creating the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act of 2014 (“SGMA”); and
B. WHEREAS, SGMA generally requires the formation of one or more Groundwater Sustainability Agencies (“GSA” or “GSAs”) responsible for implementing sustainable groundwater management and preventing “undesirable results” in groundwater basins and subbasins designated as a medium or high priority basin by the California Department of Water Resources (“DWR”) in its Bulletin 118 inventory of California groundwater basins; and C. WHEREAS, DWR has designated the Bedford-Coldwater Sub-Basin (the “SubBasin”), as a medium priority groundwater basin under Bulletin 118; and D. WHEREAS, each of the Members overlies a portion of the Sub-Basin and exercises water management, water supply or land use authority within a portion of the Sub-Basin; and E. WHEREAS, the Members are local agencies that can exercise powers related to groundwater management within their jurisdictional boundaries and qualify individually to serve as a GSA within portions of the Sub-Basin per Water Code Section 10723; and F. WHEREAS, under SGMA, a combination of local agencies may elect to form a joint powers authority (“JPA”) to serve as the GSA for all or portions of the Sub-Basin through a joint powers agreement; and
G. WHEREAS, the Members intend by this Agreement to create a JPA to implement SGMA in the entire Sub-Basin, and are authorized to enter into this Agreement pursuant to the Joint Exercise of Powers Act, Government Code §§ 6500 et seq., for the purpose of acting as a separate public agency that can carry out all obligations, and exercise all powers, of a GSA in all areas of the Sub-Basin; and
H. WHEREAS, under SGMA, a GSA, including a JPA composed of one or more SGMA-eligible local agencies, must file a notice of intent with DWR by June 30, 2017 indicating the GSA’s intent to undertake sustainable groundwater management within all or portions of a groundwater basin; and
February 28,

-2-
I. WHEREAS, the governing boards of each of the three Members have formally agreed to: (1) enter into this Agreement; (2) form a JPA that can jointly exercise the powers common to the Members and fulfill all legal obligations imposed by SGMA; and (3) authorize the JPA to promptly file all necessary documentation with DWR so as to permit the JPA to become the exclusive GSA for the entire Sub-Basin; and
J. WHEREAS, the Members further intend by this Agreement to provide for the management and funding commitments reasonably anticipated to be necessary for the above purposes and for the purpose of ensuring that the Sub-Basin is sustainably managed in accordance with the timelines established by SGMA; and
K. WHEREAS, the Members understand that Corona has entered into a Water Enterprise Management Agreement and a Wastewater Enterprise Management Agreement, both dated as of February 6, 2002, with the Corona Utility Authority (“CUA”) for the maintenance, management and operation of those utility systems (collectively “the CUA Management Agreements”). To the extent that this Agreement is deemed to be a “material contract” under either of the CUA Management Agreements, Corona enters into this Agreement on behalf of the CUA and subject to the terms of the applicable CUA Management Agreements.

ACCORDINGLY, IT IS AGREED BY ALL MEMBERS:

1. RECITALS: The foregoing recitals are incorporated as terms of this Agreement.

2. DEFINITIONS: Unless otherwise required by the context, the following terms shall have the following meanings:
a. “Administering Member” shall mean the Member designated by the Authority Board to provide administration, operation and staffing of the Authority so as to ensure the Authority complies with this Agreement and all legal requirements. The Board is not required to designate an Administering Member, and a Member so designated is not required to accept the designation.
b. “Administrator” shall mean the individual selected to act as the chief executive of the Authority, and the person responsible for its day to day operations. The Administrator may, but it is not required to be, an employee of one of the Members. c. “Authority” and “JPA” as used herein shall, unless otherwise noted, mean the “Bedford-Coldwater Groundwater Sustainability Authority,” the separate public agency created by this Agreement and Government Code Sections 6507 and 6508, and the entity charged by this Agreement with becoming the exclusive GSA for the Sub-Basin. d. “Board” or “Board of Directors,” shall, unless otherwise indicated, mean the Board of Directors of the Authority.
e. “DWR” shall mean the California Department of Water Resources. f. “Effective Date” shall mean the date on which all Members have signed this Agreement.

-3-
g. “Fiscal Year” shall run from July 1 through June 30. h. “Groundwater Sustainability Agency” or “GSA” shall mean a groundwater sustainability agency as defined in SGMA, Water Code § 10721. i. “Groundwater Sustainability Plan,” “Plan,” or “GSP” shall have the same meaning as provided in SGMA, Water Code § 10721.
j. “Member” shall mean any of the individual signatories to this Agreement, and “Members” shall collectively mean two or more of the signatories to this Agreement. k. “SGMA” shall mean the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act of 2014, as amended, and any regulations of DWR or the State Water Resources Control Board that implement SGMA.
l. “Special Projects” shall mean projects that are consistent with, and within the scope of activities, authorized by this Agreement, but which are undertaken by fewer than all the Members in the name of the Authority in accordance with the procedures outlined in Sections 10 and 14.
m. “Sub-Basin” shall mean the Bedford-Coldwater Sub-Basin of the Elsinore Groundwater Basin, Sub-Basin No. 8-004.2, as identified in the most recent modifications of Bulletin 118 by DWR.
n. “SWRCB” shall mean the California State Water Resources Control Board.

3. CERTIFICATION: Each Member, as a signatory to this Agreement, certifies and declares that it is a public agency, as defined by Government Code § 6500, that is authorized to enter into a joint powers agreement to contract with each other for the joint exercise of any common power under Article 1, Chapter 5, Division 7, Title 1 of the Government Code or any power otherwise granted to one or more of the Members by SGMA.

4. CREATION OF SEPARATE AGENCY: There is hereby created, per Government Code §§ 6507 and 6508, an agency separate from the parties to the Agreement, and which is responsible for the administration of this Agreement, to be known as the “BEDFORDCOLDWATER GROUNDWATER SUSTAINABILITY AUTHORITY.” Within thirty (30) days of the Effective Date of this Agreement, the Members, and/or the Authority shall: (a) cause a notice of this Agreement to be prepared and filed with the office of the California Secretary of State as required by Government Code § 6503.5; (b) file a copy of this Agreement with the State Controller per Government Code § 6503.6; and (c) file a copy of this Agreement with the Local Agency Formation Commission (“LAFCO”) for Riverside County per Government Code § 6503.6.

5. PURPOSES AND MEMBER RESPONSIBILITIES: The Authority is formed with the purpose and intent of jointly creating a separate legal entity to fulfill the role and legal obligations of a GSA required by SGMA, to include complying with SGMA and ensuring sustainable groundwater management throughout the Sub-Basin, so that the Members may collaboratively and cost effectively develop, adopt, and implement a GSP for the Sub-Basin in

-4-
accordance with pertinent regulatory timelines. The geographic boundaries of the GSA that will be formed by the Authority, which will encompass the entire Sub-Basin, are as depicted in the map attached hereto as Exhibit “A,” which is incorporated herein by reference. The Authority may also represent the Members, as appropriate, in discussions and transactions with other local agencies, to include (but not limited to) the development of inter-basin coordination agreements with other GSAs in Riverside County, and agreements with other local agencies or groundwater sustainability agencies as may be required to ensure compliance with SGMA for the Sub-Basin.

6. POWERS: The Members intend that the Authority provide for the joint exercise of powers common to the Members as such powers relate to the management of the Sub-Basin, and for the exercise of such additional powers as are conferred by law in order to meet the requirements of SGMA. The Members are each SGMA-eligible local agencies empowered by the laws of the State of California to exercise the powers specified in this Agreement, and such other powers as are granted to GSAs by SGMA. These common powers shall be exercised for the benefit of any one or more of the Members or otherwise in the manner set forth in this Agreement. Subject to the limitations set forth in this Agreement, the Authority shall have the powers to perform all acts necessary to accomplish its purposes as stated in this Agreement, as authorized by law, including but not limited to the following:
a. To make and/or assume contracts and to employ agents, employees, consultants and such other persons or firms as the Board may deem necessary, to the full extent of the Authority’s power, including, but not limited to, engineering, hydrogeological, and other consultants, and with attorneys and accountants and financial advisors, for the purpose of providing any service required by the Authority to accomplish its purposes, or to otherwise take such actions as are necessary to ensure the Sub-Basin is managed in accordance with the requirements of SGMA;
b. To conduct all necessary research and investigations, and to compile appropriate reports and collect data from all available sources to assist in preparation and implementation of a GSP, and to support the development of such other agreements as may be necessary to ensure the Sub-Basin can be sustainably managed; c. To cooperate, act in conjunction with, and contract with the United States, the State of California, or any agency thereof, the County of Riverside, or such other entities or persons as the Board may deem necessary to ensure that the Authority fulfills its obligations under SGMA;
d. To apply for, accept and receive licenses, permits, water rights, approvals, agreements, grants, loans, gifts, contributions, donations or other aid from any agency of the United States, the State of California or other public or private person or entity necessary for fulfilling the purposes of SGMA in the Sub-Basin;
e. To acquire by grant, purchase, lease, gift, devise, contract, construction, eminent domain or otherwise, and hold, use, enjoy, sell, let, and dispose of, real and personal property of every kind, including lands, water rights, structures, buildings, rights-of-way, easements, and privileges, and construct, maintain, alter, and operate any and all works or

-5-
improvements, within or outside the agency, necessary or proper to carry out any of the purposes of the Authority as specified in this Agreement and/or the requirements of SGMA; f. To enforce the requirements of SGMA within the Sub-Basin to the extent authorized by law including, but not limited to, the imposition and collection of civil penalties as authorized by SGMA;
g. To sue and be sued in its own name;
h. To provide for the prosecution of, defense of, or other participation in actions or proceedings at law or in public meetings in which the Members, pursuant to this Agreement or otherwise pertaining to management of the Sub-Basin, may have an interest, and to employ counsel or other expert assistance for that purpose; i. To adopt an initial operating budget and initial Member contributions within ninety (90) days of the execution of this Agreement, and an annual budget and Member contributions, by March 31 of each subsequent Fiscal Year; j. To incur debts, liabilities or obligations, subject to the limitations provided in this Agreement;
k. To impose fees authorized by SGMA (Water Code §§ 10730-10731), without any limitation on a Member’s separate ability to impose fees within its jurisdiction, to fund the cost of furthering the purposes of this Agreement, complying with SGMA, and sustainably managing groundwater within the Sub-Basin;
l. To adopt rules, regulations, policies and procedures for governing the operation of the GSA and adoption and implementation of the GSP consistent with the powers and purposes of the Authority and as authorized by SGMA;
m. To investigate legislation and proposed legislation affecting SGMA and the Sub-Basin and make appearances regarding such matters;
n. Subject to the limitations imposed by this Agreement, to take such actions as are deemed necessary by the Board to achieve the purposes stated above and to provide for the sustainable management of the Sub-Basin; and
o. To adopt and revise bylaws, rules, ordinances, and resolutions in a manner authorized by law and not inconsistent with the terms of this Agreement.

Any power necessary or incidental to the foregoing powers shall be exercised by the Authority in the manner provided for under the legal authority applicable to the City of Corona except as otherwise provided by law or in this Agreement.

7. OBLIGATIONS OR LIABILITIES OF AUTHORITY: No debt, liability or obligation of the Authority shall constitute a debt, liability or obligation of any of the Members, except as otherwise provided in this Agreement or unless otherwise required by law.

-6-

8. DESIGNATION OF ADMINISTERING MEMBER/ADMINISTRATOR:

The powers of the Authority provided in this Agreement shall be exercised in the manner provided by this Agreement. The Board may designate an Administering Member and/or an Administrator to provide all or a portion of the administrative (or other) services required by this Agreement, SGMA, or other legal authority. However, whether or not the Board decides to designate an Administering Member, each Member shall nevertheless be responsible, when requested by the Board, for designating staff from their agency to coordinate with the Board and other Members, and for otherwise ensuring the Authority has sufficient staffing and administrative support to comply with this Agreement and other legal obligations.

9. ORGANIZATION:
a. Additional Members: The Board may allow additional members to join the Authority. Additional Members must be local agencies capable of being designated as a GSA under SGMA. The Board may set whatever conditions it deems necessary as a precondition to addition of the new Member, to include requiring the additional Members to reimburse the other Members for a proportionate share of the costs already incurred by the existing Members. b. Bylaws: The Board shall adopt bylaws governing the management of the Authority within 180 days of the Effective Date. The bylaws shall require the Board to develop a conflict of interest code for the Authority compliant with California law, and to otherwise ensure that the Board operates in a manner that is fully compliant with the Brown Act, the Joint Exercise of Powers Act, Government Code §§ 6500 et seq., SGMA, and all other applicable legal requirements.
c. Committees: The Board may create committees as authorized by law. d. Governing Board: The Authority shall be governed by a Board of Directors which shall be composed of one (1) elected representative of each Member, appointed by each Member. The governing body of each Member shall determine in its sole discretion the person it will appoint to the Authority Board of Directors. The Board of Directors shall receive no compensation from the JPA for serving on the Board of the JPA. e. Meetings: Regular meetings of the Board may be held quarterly, or as the Board determines necessary, on such dates and times and at such locations as the Board shall fix by resolution. Special meetings of the Board shall be called in accordance with Government Code § 54956. All meetings of the Board shall comply with the provisions of the Ralph M. Brown Act (Government Code §§ 54950 et seq.).
f. Officers: The officers of the Authority shall be a Chairperson, and ViceChairperson, and such other officers as the Board shall designate. The election of officers will take place at the first meeting of the JPA Board, and subsequently in the first Board meeting of each new Fiscal Year unless the time of election is otherwise designated in the Authority bylaws.

The officers or persons who have charge of, handle or have access to any property of the Authority shall be designated in the bylaws, and such officers and persons shall comply with all applicable requirements of Government Code § 6505.1.

-7-
g. Quorum: Two-thirds (2/3) of the Board of Directors shall constitute a quorum in order to conduct business.
h. Rules: The Board may adopt such other rules, policies, and regulations as it deems proper consistent with all applicable laws, this Agreement, and the Authority’s bylaws. i. Term: The Authority Board Members shall serve without terms and at the pleasure of the legislative body which appointed them.
j. Treasurer: The Treasurer of the Board shall be formally designated by a resolution adopted by the Board of Directors stating the effective date of the appointment and the term of the appointment.
k. Voting: Each Director shall have one vote. A simple majority of the quorum shall be required for the adoption of a motion, resolution, contract authorization or other action of the Board, except that:
(1) A majority vote of less than a quorum may vote to adjourn; (2) Any of the following actions shall require a unanimous vote of the entire Board:
(a) Adoption, modification or alteration of the GSP, or of the GSA boundaries;
(b) Adoption of assessments, charges or fees;
(c) Adoption or modification of ramp-downs or curtailments; (d) Initiation/settlement of enforcement actions;
(e) Adoption of an initial budget;
(f) Adoption or modification of the annual budget, as further described in Section 14, below;
(g) Initiation/termination or settlement of any litigation or threatened litigation that involves the Authority;
(h) Admission of additional Members to the Authority;
(i) Appointment, employment, or dismissal of the Authority’s Administrator and/or Legal Counsel;
(j) Designating an Administrator or Administering Member; (k) Setting the amounts of any contributions or fees to be made or paid to the Authority by any Member, including extraordinary costs as defined in Section 15;

-8-
(l) Acquisition by grant, purchase, lease, gift, devise, contract, construction, or otherwise, and hold, use, enjoy, sell, let, and dispose of, real and personal property of every kind, including lands, water rights, structures, buildings, rights-of-way, easements, and privileges, and construct, maintain, alter, and operate any and all works or improvements, within or outside the agency, necessary or proper to carry out any of the purposes of the Authority; (m) Replacement of the annual special audit required by Government Code § 6505(f) with an audit covering a two year period; (n) Amendments or modifications of this Agreement;
(o) Adoption or modification of bylaws or other binding rules governing the operations of the JPA Board;
(p) Adoption of ordinances;
(q) Issuance of bonds or other indebtedness;
(r) Allocating funding received from grants, loans, or from other alternative sources, in a manner that does not result in equal sharing of alternative funding among the Members;
(s) To apply for, accept and receive licenses, permits, water rights, approvals, agreements, grants, loans, gifts, contributions, donations or other aid from any agency of the United States, the State of California or other public or private person or entity necessary for fulfilling the purposes of SGMA in the SubBasin.

10. SPECIAL PROJECTS AND PROJECT COMMITTEES:
a. With the prior approval of the entire Board, Members may undertake Special Projects in the name of the Authority, utilizing the legal powers granted to the Authority under SGMA, the Joint Exercise of Powers Act, or other applicable legal authorities. All Members shall be given the opportunity to participate in Special Projects, but shall not be required to participate.
b. A Member considering a new project, other than a groundwater extraction project, where the project is reasonably likely to affect groundwater management in the Sub-Basin shall consult with the other Members before individually undertaking the project to determine whether that individual project might otherwise be better accomplished as an Authority Special Project.
c. Members electing to participate in a Special Project shall enter into a Special Project Agreement in accordance with Section 14.a(4) of this Agreement. Such Special Project Agreement shall provide that: (a) no Special Project undertaken pursuant to such agreement shall conflict with the terms of this Agreement or the GSP; (b) the Members to the Special Project Agreement shall indemnify, defend and hold harmless the Authority, and Members

-9-
of the Authority who are not participating in the Special Project, against any costs liabilities, or expenses of any kind arising as a result of the Special Project; (c) all benefits and liabilities attributable to a Special Project shall solely be the benefits and liabilities of the Members that have entered into the Special Project Agreement, and non-participating Members shall have no rights, and incur no obligations or liabilities, in the Special Project.

11. FISCAL AGENT, DEPOSITORY AND ACCOUNTING: The “Treasurer” appointed by the Board is designated as the fiscal agent and depository for the Authority per Government Code §§ 6505.5 and 6505.6. The Treasurer of the Authority shall be the treasurer of one of the Authority’s Members, or a certified public accountant designated by the Board, or an officer or employee designated per Government Code § 6505.6. The Treasurer shall be the depositary and have custody of all money of the Authority, from whatever source, subject to the applicable provisions of any indenture or resolution providing for a trustee or other fiscal agent.

All funds of the Authority shall be held in the operating fund established by Section 14, or such other separate accounts as may be necessary, in the name of the Authority and not commingled with the funds of any Member or any other person or entity. Full books and accounts shall be maintained for the Authority in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles applicable to governmental entities per Government Code §§ 6505 et seq., and any other applicable laws of the State of California.

12. ACCOUNTABILITY, REPORTS AND AUDITS: There shall be strict accountability of all funds, and an auditor designated by the Board shall report any and all receipts and disbursements to the Board with such frequency as shall reasonably be required by the Board.

The Authority will utilize the services of an outside independent certified public accountant to make an annual audit of the accounts and records of the Authority as required by Government Code § 6505, unless the Members, elect to conduct the audit for a two (2) year period. In each case, the minimum requirements of the audit shall be those prescribed by the State Controller for special districts pursuant to Government Code § 26909, and shall conform to generally accepted accounting principles. The outside independent certified public accountant selected by the Authority as auditor shall be formally designated by a resolution adopted by the Board of Directors stating the effective date of the appointment and the term of the appointment.

13. OPERATING BUDGET AND EXPENDITURES: The Board shall adopt a budget as specified in the bylaws and as set forth in Section 14, below. Unless otherwise required by this Agreement or applicable law, the Authority’s Treasurer shall draw checks or warrants or make payments as specified in the bylaws of the Authority. The Authority may, consistent with the bylaws, invest any money in the treasury that is not needed for its immediate necessities.

14. CONTRIBUTIONS/BUDGETS: Unless otherwise provided in this Agreement, the Members shall equally share in the costs of the JPA. The Authority shall establish an operating fund. The fund shall be used to pay all administrative, operating and other expenses incurred by the Authority, and shall be funded by equal Member’s contributions for payment of costs of the Authority. The Board may direct that any surplus funds be returned to the Members, per Government Code § 6512, in proportion to the contributions made by each Member. a. Authority Budgets: Authority budgets shall be established as follows:

-10-
(1) General Operating Budget. No more than ninety (90) days following the first meeting of the Board, and annually thereafter in the month of March or other mutually agreed upon timeframe, a general operation budget (the “Operating Budget”) shall be adopted by the Board. The Operating Budget shall be prepared in sufficient detail to constitute an operating outline for the purpose of establishing rates and/or contributions to be billed to and paid by the Members. The operating rates and/or contributions to be billed to and paid by each Member shall be based upon an equal contribution by each Member. The Operating Budget shall outline anticipated revenues and planned expenditures to be made during the ensuing Budget year by functional category such as operations and maintenance, administration, projects, programs, planning, study and any applicable contributions to operate related reserves. For the purpose of the Operating Budget, operating shall mean any financial activity related to exchange transactions, as defined by applicable generally accepted accounting principles (“GAAP”) associated with the principal activity of the JPA. The Operating Budget shall be adopted by unanimous approval of the Board. The rates and contributions approved by the Board shall be paid by the Members pursuant to Section 14.c below. (2) Non-Operating Budget. No more than ninety (90) days following the first meeting of the Board, and annually thereafter in the month of March or other mutually agreed upon timeframe, a non-operating budget (the “Non-Operating Budget”) shall be adopted by the Board. The Non-Operating Budget shall be prepared in sufficient detail to constitute a non-operating outline for the purpose of establishing rates and/or contributions to be billed to and paid by the Members. These rates and/or contributions shall be based upon equal contributions by each Member. At a minimum, the NonOperating Budget shall outline anticipated revenues and planned expenditures for nonoperating financial activities for the ensuing Fiscal Year, inclusive of any amount necessary for servicing debt. For the purpose of the budget, Non-Operating shall mean any financial activity related to non-exchange transactions, as defined by applicable GAAP. Examples of non-exchange transactions include investment income, contributed capital from Members for capital debt service, interest expense, and return of capital to Members. The Non-Operating Budget shall be adopted by unanimous approval of the Board. The rates and contributions approved by the Board shall be paid by the Members pursuant to Section

14.c below.
(3) Capital Project Budget. No more than ninety (90) days following the first meeting of the Board, and annually thereafter in the month of March, or other mutually agreed upon timeframe, a capital project budget (the “Capital Project Budget”) shall, if applicable, be adopted by the Board. The Capital Project Budget, if applicable, shall be prepared in sufficient detail to constitute a capital project outline to assess contributions to be paid by the Members and expenditures to be paid by the Members during the ensuing year for capital projects needed for major repair, replacement, expansion and efficiency of any capital improvements constructed or installed by or on behalf of the Authority. These contributions shall be based upon equal contribution by each Member, subject to unequal contribution amounts for Special Projects, as addressed in Sections 10 and 14.a.(4). The Capital Project Budget shall be adopted by unanimous approval of the Board. The contributions approved by the Board shall be paid by the Members pursuant to Section 14.c below.

-11-
(4) Special Project Budgets. In addition to the Operating Budgets, the Non-Operating Budgets, and the Capital Project Budget, the Board may budget at any time for the study, implementation or construction of any Special Project, program or study proposed to be undertaken by the Authority for matters not deemed to be of general benefit to all Members. A Special Project budget and written Special Project Agreement of the Members who consented to participation in the Special Project shall be established for each Special Project, which budget and agreement shall determine the respective obligations, functions, and rights of the Members involved and of the Authority. The directors of the Board representing the Members who will be involved in financing and implementing the Special Project shall be and constitute a “Special Project Committee,” for purposes of administration and implementation of the Special Project. No Special Project shall be acquired or constructed by the Board without the consent of each of the governing boards of the participating Members. Ratification of the Special Project budget by each of the participating Members shall constitute consent for the acquisition and construction of the Special Project. Notwithstanding the foregoing, no debt shall be incurred by the Authority for a Special Project without the unanimous consent of the Board. Any rates and contributions approved by the Special Project Committee and approved by the participating Members shall be paid by the participating Members pursuant to Section 14.c below.

Where the Board has approved one or more Special Projects, annually thereafter in the month of March (or other mutually agreed upon timeframe), a Special Project budget shall be developed by each Special Project Committee if required by the applicable Special Project Agreement, Each Special Project budget shall include, without limitation, the following:
(i) Administrative expenses;
(ii) Studies and planning costs;
(iii) Engineering and construction costs;
(iv) The allocation of costs, including debt service costs, if any, among participating Members;
(v) Annual maintenance and operating expenses for the project; and
(vi) A formula for allocating annual maintenance and operating expenses, if any.

All actions by a Special Project Committee shall be deemed actions of the Authority and shall be taken in the name of the Authority, provided, only the participating Members shall have rights and obligations in the Special Project as herein provided.
b. Failure to Obtain Budget Approvals. In the event a budget acceptable to the Board is not approved prior to the start of a Fiscal Year the Authority shall continue to operate at the level of expenditure as authorized below:

-12-
(1) General Operating Budget. The Operating Budget shall be at the expenditure level authorized by the last approved Operating Budget increased by the Consumer Price Index (“CPI”) with a minimum increase of no less than two percent (2%).

The CPI shall mean the change in CPI for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers for the Los Angeles County, Orange County, and Riverside County areas for the all items category for the 12-month period ending the February prior to the beginning of the Fiscal Year budgeted as determined by the U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, or other mutually agreeable source if such a CPI is no longer available. This factor will be applied to the Operating Budget until such time as a new Operating Budget is approved by the Authority. Any shortfall in revenues will be made up from available reserves dedicated by the Board for such a purpose, and if insufficient to cover the shortfall, any available reserve funds not designated by the Board for other purposes or otherwise legally restricted for other purposes by external parties. Reserves shall mean any available cash or investments.
(2) Non-Operating Budget. The Non-Operating Budget shall automatically be established at the required level necessary to meet annual debt service requirements including any revenue coverage covenants. Each Member shall contribute to the Authority such amounts which will yield during each Fiscal Year net revenues payable to the Authority sufficient for the Authority to satisfy all covenants in any indentures, loan agreements or other documents entered into by the Authority and to enter into such other agreements as are necessary for the Authority to secure financing to pay the acquisition price for any facilities authorized by the Authority.
(3) Capital Project Budget. The Capital Project Budget shall automatically be established at the required level necessary to implement capital projects previously approved by the Authority.
c. Payments of Amounts Due. The payments owed for contributions from each Member to the Authority shall be due, payable, and delivered by the Members to the Authority within forty-five (45) days after receipt of a billing therefor from the Authority. To the extent permitted by state law, unpaid and past due contributions shall bear interest at ten percent (10%) per annum, calculated daily, from the date due to the date payment is received by the Authority.

15. ASSESSMENTS FOR EXTRAORDINARY COSTS: In the event the Authority should experience an unanticipated need to pay for extraordinary costs (e.g., those costs that are unanticipated and not otherwise funded through the budget), including, but not limited to the costs of litigation or indemnification as provided in this Agreement, and to the extent that such costs cannot otherwise be reasonably funded through use of reserves on hand or through the other revenue sources authorized by this Agreement, the Board may allocate the additional costs to the Members, whether such extraordinary costs are actually incurred or estimated to be necessary.

Unless otherwise specifically allocated to one or more Members by the unanimous vote of the Board, all allocations of extraordinary costs shall be shared equally by each Member. The Members agree that they will then contribute their proportionate share of the extraordinary costs within a reasonable period of time as determined by the Board, or as otherwise specified in the Bylaws.

-13-

16. STAFFING: The Board shall provide for staffing of the Authority in accordance with procedures established in the bylaws. Such staffing shall ensure the Authority is able to accomplish all requirements imposed by SGMA, this Agreement, and/or any other requirements imposed by law. Legal counsel shall be appointed by the Board and shall serve at the pleasure of the Board. Legal counsel may be an attorney that also performs work for one of the Members, provided appropriate waivers suitable to the Board, and counsel for all of the Members, are first obtained.

17. DISPUTE RESOLUTION: The Members desire to informally resolve all disputes related to this Agreement and/or SGMA, whenever possible, at the lowest possible level, and triggering of the dispute resolution procedures described herein shall only occur where the Members and/or the Board have reached impasse and are unable to resolve matters without invoking formal dispute resolution procedures. Should informal resolution of any dispute prove unsuccessful, the Parties agree to neutral facilitation/mediation of the dispute as a next step prior to filing a lawsuit or otherwise seeking judicial intervention. The appointed facilitator/mediator, who need not be a licensed attorney, shall be a person who is not a current or former employee or agent of any Member, and someone who has knowledge of the rules governing public agencies, and who has experience with the management of groundwater resources in Southern California.

The facilitator shall be compensated by the Authority.

The facilitator shall be a third party neutral assigned by the Center for Collaborative Policy (“CCP”) of Sacramento State University, or such other neutral as is unanimously decided upon by the Members involved in the dispute. In the event that the Members involved in the dispute are unable to agree upon the facilitator or mediator, then each Member involved in the dispute shall provide the name of one recommended facilitator or mediator to the Authority’s legal counsel.

The facilitator/mediator shall then be selected by the Authority’s legal counsel, based upon whichever recommended facilitator/mediator is the most qualified facilitator/mediator for the type of dispute involved. The selected facilitator/mediator shall diligently seek to achieve a consensus based solution to the dispute. Upon the request of one of the Members involved in the dispute, the facilitator shall render a recommended resolution of the dispute after five facilitated negotiation sessions between the Members involved in the dispute where an acceptable resolution has not yet been reached. The facilitator/mediator’s recommended resolution shall not be admissible in any judicial proceedings. Where facilitation/mediation as described herein is unable to successfully resolve the dispute, then a Member involved in the dispute, upon providing 60 days-notice to the other Members and the Authority, may initiate judicial proceedings in the Superior Court for Riverside County.

This Section shall not bar a Member or Member(s) from initiating legal action in another appropriate forum with jurisdiction over the matter as necessary to comply with an applicable statute of limitation, provided such legal action, where authorized, is stayed pending completion of the dispute resolution process described herein. Members involved in a dispute governed by this Section are encouraged to enter a tolling agreement, if legally authorized, in order to allow sufficient time for completion of the process required by this Section.

-14-

18. WITHDRAWAL:
a. Notice to Members: Any Member may withdraw from the Authority by delivery of written notice to withdraw to each of the Members at least two years prior to the date of withdrawal (“Withdrawal Notice Period”), unless the Members unanimously agree to allow the withdrawing Member to withdraw sooner than two years, in which case the date of withdrawal shall be the date unanimously agreed upon by the Board. The withdrawing Member shall continue to be a full Member during the pendency of the Withdrawal Notice Period and shall retain all rights and obligations during such period unless otherwise agreed to by unanimous vote of the Board. b. Effect of Withdrawal: Should a Member choose to withdraw from the Authority in accordance with the terms of this Agreement, that Member retains any legal right it has under SGMA to serve as the GSA for the groundwater basin underlying its jurisdictional boundaries, provided such withdrawal will not cause the Authority (or its remaining Members) to default on financial obligations or to otherwise fail to comply with the legal obligations imposed by SGMA. The Authority and the non-withdrawing Members shall retain whatever legal rights they have under SGMA, and the withdrawal of the Member shall have no effect on the continuance of this Agreement among the remaining Members. The withdrawing Member shall not take any action after withdrawal that would be reasonably anticipated to frustrate the ability of the Authority to comply with SGMA. After providing written notice of withdrawal, the withdrawing Member shall act at all times in good faith in the best interests of the Authority until such time as the withdrawal process is complete.
c. Continuing Fiscal Obligations: Any Member that withdraws as provided herein shall remain proportionately liable during the Withdrawal Notice Period for its proportionate share of the budget. If the Members elect to incur extraordinary costs in accordance with Section 15, the withdrawing Member shall be proportionately liable during the Withdrawal Notice Period for the obligations or debts approved and incurred by the Authority for those extraordinary costs, unless the Members agree otherwise. Any Member that withdraws shall remain proportionately liable for any unfunded capital expenditures or debt service obligations incurred or approved by the Board prior to the date of written notice of withdrawal of such Member until such time as the obligation is fully satisfied.
d. Continuing Claims Obligations: Members will remain obligated to contribute their proportionate share (based upon the membership roll as of the date of the claim), including without limitation legal defense costs, for any occurrences incurred during the Member’s membership, but not presented as a claim against the Authority until after the Member’s withdrawal.
e. Divisions of Property Assets: The real and/or personal property assets contributed by the withdrawing Member or the value of the real and/or personal property assets at the date of withdrawal will be returned to the withdrawing Member to the extent such assets are not required for the Authority to meet its continuing obligations as a GSA under SGMA. If such real and/or personal property assets are needed to meet the continuing obligations of the Authority to comply with SGMA, then the remaining Members of the Authority and the withdrawing Member shall negotiate a purchase or lease of such assets for a price not to exceed the fair market value of those assets.

-15-

19. TERM AND TERMINATION: This Agreement shall become effective, and the Authority shall come into existence, on the Effective Date. The Agreement, and the Authority, shall thereafter continue in full force and effect until the governing bodies of the Members unanimously elect to terminate the Agreement. Upon unanimous election to terminate this Agreement, the Board shall continue to act as a board to wind up and settle the affairs of the Authority. The Board shall adequately provide for the known debts, liabilities and obligations of the Authority, and shall then distribute the assets of the Authority among the Members, as follows:
a. The assets contributed by each Member, or the value thereof as of the date of termination, shall be distributed to that Member.
b. The remaining assets shall then be distributed to each Member in equal proportions.

The distribution of assets shall be made in-kind to the extent possible by returning to each Member those assets contributed by such parties to the Authority; however, no party shall be required to accept transfer of an asset in kind.

Notwithstanding any other provision by the Board for payment of all known debts, liabilities and obligations of the Authority, each Member shall remain liable for any and all such debts, liabilities, and obligations in equal proportions, or in the proportion specified by unanimous action of the Board if alternative proportions are so specified for particular actions or activities that give rise to such debts, liabilities, and obligations.

Termination of this Agreement shall not occur, and the Members shall continue to fund the operations of the Authority as a GSA for the Sub-Basin, until the Authority determines by a unanimous vote of the Board that: (a) a GSA is no longer required for the Sub-Basin; or (b) one or more of the individual Members will undertake the legal obligations of a GSA previously performed by the Authority, and such termination of the Authority will not result in the Sub-Basin being placed in a probationary status by the SWRCB.

20. INDEMNIFICATION/CONTRIBUTION: Members, directors, officers, agents and employees of the Authority shall use ordinary care and reasonable diligence in the exercise of their powers, and in the performance of their duties pursuant to this Agreement. The Authority shall hold harmless, defend and indemnify the Members, the Authority Board, and the Members’ directors, agents, officers and employees from and against any liability, claims, actions, costs, damages or losses of any kind, including death or injury to any person and/or damage to property (including property owned by any Member), arising out of the activities or omissions of the Authority, or its agents, officers and employees related to this Agreement or SGMA (“Claims”). a. To the extent authorized by California law, no Member shall be liable for the actions or omissions of any other Member or the Authority related to this Agreement. b. The indemnification obligations described herein shall continue beyond the term of this Agreement as to any acts or omissions occurring during this Agreement or any extension of this Agreement.

-16-
c. To the extent that the Authority is unable or unwilling (because of comparative fault of Member(s), or other good faith legal basis) to hold harmless, defend and/or indemnify any Member to this Agreement as provided in this Section, such Member shall be entitled to contribution from the other Members in equal proportion to the extent one Member pays more than its equal share of such obligation. Provided, however, that where one or more Members is determined by a court (or in a settlement approved by a court) to be responsible for a greater proportion for the Claims, each Member will only be responsible for contribution to the other Member (or Members) up to the extent of the contributing Member’s proportional responsibility.

21. INSURANCE: The Authority shall obtain insurance for the Board members and general liability insurance containing liability in such amounts as the Board shall determine will be necessary to adequately insure against the risks of liability (including compliance with the indemnification provisions in Section 20 above) that may be incurred by the Authority. The Members, their officers, directors and employees, shall be named as additional insureds.

22. CLAIMS: All claims against the Authority, including, but not limited to, claims by public officers and employees for fees, salaries, wages, mileage, or any other expenses, shall be filed within the time and in the manner specified in Chapter 2 (commencing with Section 910) of Part 3, Division 3.6 of Title I of the Government Code, which describes the appropriate content of a claim.

23. ENTIRE AGREEMENT REPRESENTED: This Agreement represents the entire agreement among the parties as to its subject matter and no prior oral or written understanding shall be of any force or effect. No part of this Agreement may be modified without the written consent of all of the parties.

24. HEADINGS: Section headings are provided for organizational purposes only and do not in any manner affect the scope, meaning or intent of the provisions under the headings.

25. NOTICES: Except as may be otherwise required by law, any notice to be given shall be written and shall be either personally delivered sent by facsimile transmission, emailed or sent by first class mail, postage prepaid and addressed as follows:

-17-
MEMBERS:

City of Corona
Attn: General Manager,
Department of Water and Power
Address: 755 Public Safety Way
Corona, CA 92880
Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District
Attn: General Manager
Address: 31315 Chaney Street
Lake Elsinore, CA 92530
Temescal Valley Water District
Attn: General Manager
Address: 22646 Temescal Canyon Rd
Corona, CA 92883
Notice delivered personally is deemed to be received upon delivery. Notice sent by first class mail shall be deemed received on the fourth day after the date of mailing. Any party may change the above address by giving written notice pursuant to this Section.

26. CONSTRUCTION: This Agreement reflects the contributions of all parties and accordingly the provisions of Civil Code § 1654 shall not apply to address and interpret any uncertainty.

27. NO THIRD PARTY BENEFICIARIES INTENDED: Unless specifically set forth, the parties to this Agreement do not intend to provide any other party with any benefit or enforceable legal or equitable right or remedy.

28. WAIVERS: The failure of any party to insist on strict compliance with any provision of this Agreement shall not be considered a waiver of any right to do so, whether for that breach or any subsequent breach.

29. CONFLICT WITH LAWS OR REGULATIONS/SEVERABILITY: This Agreement is subject to all applicable laws and regulations. If any provision of this Agreement is found by any court or other legal authority, or is agreed by the parties, to be in conflict with any code or regulation governing its subject, the conflicting provision shall be considered null and void. If the effect of nullifying any conflicting provision is such that a material benefit of the Agreement to any party is lost, the Agreement may be terminated at the option of the affected party. In all other cases the remainder of the Agreement shall continue in full force and effect.

30. FURTHER ASSURANCES AND OBLIGATION OF GOOD FAITH
DEALING: Each party agrees to execute any additional documents and to perform any further acts which may be reasonably required to affect the purposes of this Agreement. Moreover,

-18-
consent or approval, where reasonably requested in furtherance of the purposes of this Agreement or compliance with SGMA, shall not be unreasonably withheld by a Member.

31. COUNTERPARTS: This Agreement may be signed in one or more counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original, but all of which together shall constitute one and the same instrument.

32. AMENDMENT: This document may only be amended with a vote by all of its Members.

33. CUA ASSIGNMENT: To the extent that this Agreement is deemed to be a “material contract” under either of the CUA Management Agreements, the Members have no right to terminate this Agreement, either or without cause, based upon the existence or non-existence of either or both of the CUA Management Agreements. Therefore, if an applicable CUA Management Agreement expires or terminates for any reason, the Members shall remain fully obligated to perform under this Agreement contracting directly with the CUA or another third party contracted by the CUA for the maintenance, management and operation of the applicable utility systems.

Bedford-Coldwater GSP

TODD GROUNDWATER,
H&H Water Resources,
and Stantec

APPENDIX B
Bedford-Coldwater GSA Notice of Decision to
become a Groundwater Sustainability Agency

April 20, 2017
Mark Nordberg, GSA Project Manager
Senior Engineering Geologist
California Department of Water Resources
901 P Street, Room 213A
P.O. Box 942836
Sacramento, CA 94236
Re: Notice of Election to Become a Groundwater Sustainability Agency for the Bedford-Coldwater Subbasin (Basin No. 8-.004.02)
Pursuant to California Water Code section 10723.8 of the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA), the Bedford-Coldwater Joint Powers Authority (JPA) provides this notice of election to serve as the Groundwater Sustainability Agency (GSA) for the entire Bedford-Coldwater Subbasin (Basin No. 8-004.02) (the “Subbasin”). The JPA was formed by way of joint powers agreement among Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District, Temescal Valley Water District, and the City of Corona. The Board of Directors of the JPA approved a resolution forming the JPA on March 29, 2017.

Along with this letter and a copy of the joint powers agreement, we have also uploaded to the DWR SGMA Portal–GSA Formation Notification System a map and GIS shapefiles depicting the boundaries of the Subbasin from Bulletin 118 and the service area boundaries of the members of the JPA.

The GSA and its management area cover the entire 7,025-acre Subbasin. For planning purposes, minor portions of the Subbasin are located outside the service area boundaries of the member agencies of the JPA. The first of these areas comprises approximately 114 acres of steep, remote canyons within the Cleveland National Forest. To the JPA’s knowledge, no pumping is currently occurring in the portion of the Subbasin within these canyons and it is likely that no pumping has historically or will ever occur there due to their inaccessibility and relative lack of groundwater.

A second small area consisting of approximately 44 acres outside of the JPA’s boundaries is the eastern end of Dawson Canyon, which is located in the central, eastern side of the Subbasin. To the JPA’s knowledge, there are only two de minimis, domestic pumpers in this area. The remote canyon has little potential for significant groundwater extraction.

Notwithstanding, the GSA intends to ensure through the groundwater sustainability planning process that sustainability is reached within the SGMA statutory timeframe in the Dawson Canyon and all other areas of the Subbasin, including within the above-indicated U.S. Forest Service lands.

THIS SPACE RESERVED FOR CLERK / RECORDING STAMP

PROOF OF PUBLICATION
(2010, 2015.5 C.C.P.)

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE
I am a Citizen of the United States. I am over the age of eighteen years and not a party to or interested in the above entitled matter. I am an Authorized Representative of SENTINEL WEEKLY NEWS (formerly known as The Lake Mathews Sentinel), a Newspaper of General Circulation, printed and published weekly in the City of Corona, County of Riverside, and which Newspaper has been Adjudicated a Newspaper of General Circulation by the Superior Court of the County of Riverside, State of California, under the date of March 30, 1995, Case Number 262254; and under the date of December 7, 1999, Case Number 334071; and the Notice, of which the annexed is a printed copy, has been published in said Newspaper in accordance with the instructions of the Person(s) requesting publication, and not in any supplement thereof on the following dates to wit:
(1) March 22, 2017
(2)
(3)
(4)
I certify (or declare) under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.

/S/ ______________________________________
Authorized Representative
DATED: __ MARCH 22, 2017 __

P R O O F O F P U B L I C A T I O N
Sentinel Weekly News
Adjudicated for the City of Corona, California
1307-C West 6
th St., Suite 139
Corona, CA. 92882
Tel: (951) 737-9784 / Fax: (951) 737-9785
E-mail: [email protected]

CITY OF CORONA

NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING TO

CONSIDER THE ELECTION BY THE
BEDFORD-COLDWATER GROUNDWATER SUSTAINABILITY AUTHORITY TO

BECOME THE

GROUNDWATER SUSTAINABILITY

AGENCY FOR THE BEDFORD

COLDWATER SUBBASIN OF THE

ELSINORE BASIN
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN pursuant to
Section 10723(b) of the California Water
Code and Section 6066 of the California
Government Code that the Board of
Directors (“Board”) of the BedfordColdwater Groundwater Sustainability Authority will hold a public hearing to
consider the proposed decision by
Bedford-Coldwater Groundwater
Sustainability Authority to become the
Groundwater Sustainability Agency
(“GSA”) for the Bedford-Coldwater
Subbasin (#8-004.02) of the Elsinore
Basin (#8-004) on WEDNESDAY,
MARCH 29, 2017 AT 4 P.M., in the
Boardroom of Temescal Valley Water
District’s headquarters, located at
22646 Temescal Canyon Road, Temescal Valley, California 92883.

The purpose of the public hearing
will be to hear comments from the
public regarding the Bedford-Coldwater
Groundwater Sustainability Authority’s
proposed formation of a GSA within its
boundaries in the Bedford-Coldwater
Subbasin (#8-004.02).

At the end of the public hearing, the
Board may adopt, revise or modify a
Resolution of Intent to become the GSA
and to submit notification to the
California Department of Water Resources (“DWR”), which shall post the notice pursuant to Section 10723.8(b)
of the California Water Code. The
notification submitted to DWR will
include a description of the proposed
boundaries of the GSA and the Subbasin that the Bedford-Coldwater Groundwater Sustainability Authority
intends to manage pursuant to the
Sustainable Groundwater Management
Act (“SGMA”).

The draft Resolution of Intent is on
file and available for inspection during
regular business hours at the office of
the Temescal Valley Water District at
22646 Temescal Canyon Road, Temescal Valley, California 92883.

Published: March 15, 2017 and
March 22, 2017.

JOB CC17-025

SENTINEL WEEKLY NEWS
"Adjudicated for City of Corona,
Corona Judicial Dist., Riverside County, California"
SWN-2511 JOB CC17-025
MARCH 15, 22, 2017

Bedford-Coldwater GSP

TODD GROUNDWATER,
H&H Water Resources,
and Stantec

APPENDIX C
GSP Elements Guide

Article 5. Plan Contents for Bedford-Coldwater Basin
Page
Numbers
of Plan
Or Section
Numbers
Or Figure
Numbers
Or Table
Numbers Notes
§ 354. Introduction to Plan Contents
This Article describes the required contents of Plans submitted to the Department for evaluation, including administrative information, a description of the basin setting, sustainable management criteria, description of the monitoring network, and projects and management actions.

Note: Authority cited: Section 10733.2, Water Code.

Reference: Section 10733.2, Water Code.

SubArticle 1. Administrative Information
§ 354.2. Introduction to Administrative Information
This Subarticle describes information in the Plan relating to administrative and other general information about the Agency that has adopted the Plan and the area covered by the Plan.

Note: Authority cited: Section 10733.2, Water Code.

Reference: Section 10733.2, Water Code.
§ 354.4. General Information
Each Plan shall include the following general information:
(a) An executive summary written in plain language that provides an overview of the Plan and description of groundwater conditions in the basin. 17:25 ES (b)
A list of references and technical studies relied upon by the Agency in developing the Plan. Each Agency shall provide to the Department electronic copies of reports and other documents and materials cited as references that are not generally available to the public. 225:230 10
Note: Authority cited: Section 10733.2, Water Code.

Reference: Sections 10733.2 and 10733.4, Water Code.
§ 354.6. Agency Information
When submitting an adopted Plan to the Department, the Agency shall include a copy of the information provided pursuant to Water Code Section 10723.8, with any updates, if necessary, along with the following information:
(a) The name and mailing address of the Agency. 29:31 1.3 (b) The organization and management structure of the Agency, identifying persons with management authority for implementation of the Plan. 29:30 1.3.1 (c) The name and contact information, including the phone number, mailing address and electronic mail address, of the plan manager. 29:30 1.3.1 (d)
The legal authority of the Agency, with specific reference to citations setting forth the duties, powers, and responsibilities of the Agency, demonstrating that the Agency has the legal authority to implement the Plan. 30 1.3.2
(e) An estimate of the cost of implementing the Plan and a general description of how the Agency plans to meet those costs. 30:31 1.3.3
Note: Authority cited: Section 10733.2, Water Code.

Reference: Sections 10723.8, 10727.2, and 10733.2, Water Code.

GSP Document References

Article 5. Plan Contents for Bedford-Coldwater Basin
Page
Numbers
of Plan
Or Section
Numbers
Or Figure
Numbers
Or Table
Numbers Notes
GSP Document References
§ 354.8. Description of Plan Area
Each Plan shall include a description of the geographic areas covered, including the following information:
(a) One or more maps of the basin that depict the following, as applicable:
(1)
The area covered by the Plan, delineating areas managed by the Agency as an exclusive Agency and any areas for which the Agency is not an exclusive Agency, and the name and location of any adjacent basins. 27, 35:47 2.1 Figure 1-1
(2) Adjudicated areas, other Agencies within the basin, and areas covered by an Alternative. 35:36, 49 2.1.2 Figure 2-2 (3)
Jurisdictional boundaries of federal or state land (including the identity of the agency with jurisdiction over that land), tribal land, cities, counties, agencies with water management responsibilities, and areas covered by relevant general plans. 35:36, 48:49 2.1.2
Figure 2-1,
2-2
(4) Existing land use designations and the identification of water use sector and water source type. 36, 38 2.1.3, 2.1.5
Figure 2-8,
2-9
(5)
The density of wells per square mile, by dasymetric or similar mapping techniques, showing the general distribution of agricultural, industrial, and domestic water supply wells in the basin, including de minimis extractors, and the location and extent of communities dependent upon groundwater, utilizing data provided by the Department, as specified in Section 353.2, or the best available information. 36:37, 50:53 2.1.2
Figures 2-
3,2-4, 2-5, 2-
6 (b) A written description of the Plan area, including a summary of the jurisdictional areas and other features depicted on the map. 35:49 2.1
Figure 2-1,
2-2
(c)
Identification of existing water resource monitoring and management programs, and description of any such programs the Agency plans to incorporate in its monitoring network or in development of its Plan. The Agency may coordinate with existing water resource monitoring and management programs to incorporate and adopt that program as part of the Plan. 37:38 2.1.4
(d)
A description of how existing water resource monitoring or management programs may limit operational flexibility in the basin, and how the Plan has been developed to adapt to those limits. 37:38 2.1.4
(e) A description of conjunctive use programs in the basin. 37:38 2.1.4

Article 5. Plan Contents for Bedford-Coldwater Basin
Page
Numbers
of Plan
Or Section
Numbers
Or Figure
Numbers
Or Table
Numbers Notes
GSP Document References
(f) A plain language description of the land use elements or topic categories of applicable general plans that includes the following:
(1) A summary of general plans and other land use plans governing the basin. 38, 55:56 2.1.5 Figure 2-8,
2-9
(2)
A general description of how implementation of existing land use plans may change water demands within the basin or affect the ability of the Agency to achieve sustainable groundwater management over the planning and implementation horizon, and how the Plan addresses those potential effects 38 2.1.5
(3) A general description of how implementation of the Plan may affect the water supply assumptions of relevant land use plans over the planning and implementation horizon. 38 2.1.5 (4)
A summary of the process for permitting new or replacement wells in the basin, including adopted standards in local well ordinances, zoning codes, and policies contained in adopted land use plans. 38 2.1.5
(5)
To the extent known, the Agency may include information regarding the implementation of land use plans outside the basin that could affect the ability of the Agency to achieve sustainable groundwater management. 38 2.1.5
(g) A description of any of the additional Plan elements included in Water Code Section 10727.4 that the Agency determines to be appropriate. none determined to be appropriate Note: Authority cited: Section 10733.2, Water Code.

Reference: Sections 10720.3, 10727.2, 10727.4, 10733, and 10733.2, Water Code. § 354.10. Notice and Communication
Each Plan shall include a summary of information relating to notification and communication by the Agency with other agencies and interested parties including the following:
(a)
A description of the beneficial uses and users of groundwater in the basin, including the land uses and property interests potentially affected by the use of groundwater in the basin, the types of parties representing those interests, and the nature of consultation with those parties.
61:62, 157,
164:166,
168:169,
178,
288:300

3.10, 6.2.4,

6.3.4, 6.5.4,

6.6.4, 6.7.4,
Appendix D
(b) A list of public meetings at which the Plan was discussed or considered by the Agency. 301:354 Appendix E (c) Comments regarding the Plan received by the Agency and a summary of any responses by the Agency. 355:389 Appendix F

Article 5. Plan Contents for Bedford-Coldwater Basin
Page
Numbers
of Plan
Or Section
Numbers
Or Figure
Numbers
Or Table
Numbers Notes
GSP Document References
(d) A communication section of the Plan that includes the following:
(1) An explanation of the Agency’s decision-making process. 256:263 Appendix B (2) Identification of opportunities for public engagement and a discussion of how public input and response will be used. 288:300 Appendix D
(3) A description of how the Agency encourages the active involvement of diverse social, cultural, and economic elements of the population within the basin. 288:300 Appendix D (4) The method the Agency shall follow to inform the public about progress implementing the Plan, including the status of projects and actions. 288:300 Appendix D Note: Authority cited: Section 10733.2, Water Code.

Reference: Sections 10723.2, 10727.8, 10728.4, and 10733.2, Water Code SubArticle 2. Basin Setting
§ 354.12. Introduction to Basin Setting
This Subarticle describes the information about the physical setting and characteristics of the basin and current conditions of the basin that shall be part of each Plan, including the identification of data gaps and levels of uncertainty, which comprise the basin setting that serves as the basis for defining and assessing reasonable sustainable management criteria and projects and management actions. Information provided pursuant to this Subarticle shall be prepared by or under the direction of a professional geologist or professional engineer.

Note: Authority cited: Section 10733.2, Water Code.

Reference: Section 10733.2, Water Code.
§ 354.14. Hydrogeologic Conceptual Model
(a)
Each Plan shall include a descriptive hydrogeologic conceptual model of the basin based on technical studies and qualified maps that characterizes the physical components and interaction of the surface water and groundwater systems in the basin. 57:73 3 Figures 3-
1:3-10
(b) The hydrogeologic conceptual model shall be summarized in a written description that includes the following:
(1) The regional geologic and structural setting of the basin including the immediate surrounding area, as necessary for geologic consistency. 58:59,
64:68 3.4, 3.5
Figures 3-
1:3-5
(2) Lateral basin boundaries, including major geologic features that significantly affect groundwater flow. 68 3.5, 3.6, 3.9 Figure 3-5
(3) The definable bottom of the basin. 60:61, 69 3.7 Figure 3-6

Article 5. Plan Contents for Bedford-Coldwater Basin
Page
Numbers
of Plan
Or Section
Numbers
Or Figure
Numbers
Or Table
Numbers Notes
GSP Document References
(4) Principal aquifers and aquitards, including the following information:
(A) Formation names, if defined. 60, 68 3.6.1 Figure 3-5 (B)
Physical properties of aquifers and aquitards, including the vertical and lateral extent, hydraulic conductivity, and storativity, which may be based on existing technical studies or other best available information. 58:61, 68,
390:506

3.4, 3.5,

3.6, 3.7,

3.8, 3.9,
Appendix G Figure 3-5
(C)
Structural properties of the basin that restrict groundwater flow within the principal aquifers, including information regarding stratigraphic changes, truncation of units, or other features. 58:61, 68,
390:506

3.4, 3.5,

3.6, 3.7,

3.8, 3.9,
Appendix G Figure 3-5
(D) General water quality of the principal aquifers, which may be based on information derived from existing technical studies or regulatory programs. 79:80 4.4, 4.5 (E) Identification of the primary use or uses of each aquifer, such as domestic, irrigation, or municipal water supply. 62:63 3.11
(5) Identification of data gaps and uncertainty within the hydrogeologic conceptual model 63 3.12 (c)
The hydrogeologic conceptual model shall be represented graphically by at least two scaled cross-sections that display the information required by this section and are sufficient to depict major stratigraphic and structural features in the basin. 61, 70:72 3.8 Figure 3-7:3-
9 (d) Physical characteristics of the basin shall be represented on one or more maps that depict the following:
(1) Topographic information derived from the U.S. Geological Survey or another reliable source. 64 Figure 3-1
(2) Surficial geology derived from a qualified map including the locations of cross-sections required by this Section. 68 Figure 3-5
(3) Soil characteristics as described by the appropriate Natural Resources Conservation Service soil survey or other applicable studies. 67 Figure 3-4 (4)
Delineation of existing recharge areas that substantially contribute to the replenishment of the basin, potential recharge areas, and discharge areas, including significant active springs, seeps, and wetlands within or adjacent to the basin. 73 Figure 3-10 (5) Surface water bodies that are significant to the management of the basin. 65 Figure 3-2 (6) The source and point of delivery for imported water supplies. 35:36, 54 2.1.2.1 Figure 2-7 Note: Authority cited: Section 10733.2, Water Code.

Reference: Sections 10727.2, 10733, and 10733.2, Water Code.

Article 5. Plan Contents for Bedford-Coldwater Basin
Page
Numbers
of Plan
Or Section
Numbers
Or Figure
Numbers
Or Table
Numbers Notes
GSP Document References
§ 354.16. Groundwater Conditions
Each Plan shall provide a description of current and historical groundwater conditions in the basin, including data from January 1, 2015, to current conditions, based on the best available information that includes the following:
(a) Groundwater elevation data demonstrating flow directions, lateral and vertical gradients, and regional pumping patterns, including:
(1)
Groundwater elevation contour maps depicting the groundwater table or potentiometric surface associated with the current seasonal high and seasonal low for each principal aquifer within the basin. 96:97
Figure 4-7,
Figure 4-8
(2) Hydrographs depicting long-term groundwater elevations, historical highs and lows, and hydraulic gradients between principal aquifers. 91:95
Figure 4-2,
Figure 4-6
(b)
A graph depicting estimates of the change in groundwater in storage, based on data, demonstrating the annual and cumulative change in the volume of groundwater in storage between seasonal high groundwater conditions, including the annual groundwater use and water year type. 139 Figure 5-6
(c) Seawater intrusion conditions in the basin, including maps and cross-sections of the seawater intrusion front for each principal aquifer. 8.3 4.8 (d)
Groundwater quality issues that may affect the supply and beneficial uses of groundwater, including a description and map of the location of known groundwater contamination sites and plumes.
79:83,
100:102

4.4, 4.5,

4.6, 4.7
Figure 4-
11:4-13
(e)
The extent, cumulative total, and annual rate of land subsidence, including maps depicting total subsidence, utilizing data available from the Department, as specified in Section 353.2, or the best available information.
76:78,
98:99 4.3
Figure 4-9,
4-10
(f)
Identification of interconnected surface water systems within the basin and an estimate of the quantity and timing of depletions of those systems, utilizing data available from the Department, as specified in Section 353.2, or the best available information. 83:89, 103:108 4.9
Figures 4-
14:4-19
(g)
Identification of groundwater dependent ecosystems within the basin, utilizing data available from the Department, as specified in Section 353.2, or the best available information.
83:89,
109:111 4.9
Figures 4-
20:4-22
Note: Authority cited: Section 10733.2, Water Code.

Reference: Sections 10723.2, 10727.2, 10727.4, and 10733.2, Water Code.

Article 5. Plan Contents for Bedford-Coldwater Basin
Page
Numbers
of Plan
Or Section
Numbers
Or Figure
Numbers
Or Table
Numbers Notes
GSP Document References
§ 354.18. Water Budget
(a)
Each Plan shall include a water budget for the basin that provides an accounting and assessment of the total annual volume of groundwater and surface water entering and leaving the basin, including historical, current and projected water budget conditions, and the change in the volume of water stored. Water budget information shall be reported in tabular and graphical form.
112,
114:119,
138:139 5.1, 5.5
Figure 5-5,
5-6
(b) The water budget shall quantify the following, either through direct measurements or estimates based on data:
(1) Total surface water entering and leaving a basin by water source type. 121:122, 138 5.6 Figure 5-5 Table 5-3
(2)
Inflow to the groundwater system by water source type, including subsurface groundwater inflow and infiltration of precipitation, applied water, and surface water systems, such as lakes, streams, rivers, canals, springs and conveyance systems. 126:129, 139 5.7.1 Figure 5-6 Table 5-4
(3)
Outflows from the groundwater system by water use sector, including evapotranspiration, groundwater extraction, groundwater discharge to surface water sources, and subsurface groundwater outflow.
126,
129:130,
139 5.7.2 Figure 5-6 Table 5-4
(4) The change in the annual volume of groundwater in storage between seasonal high conditions.
126,
130:131,
139,
513:520

5.8,
Appendix J Figure 5-6 Table 5-4
(5)
If overdraft conditions occur, as defined in Bulletin 118, the water budget shall include a quantification of overdraft over a period of years during which water year and water supply conditions approximate average conditions. Not applicable (6) The water year type associated with the annual supply, demand, and change in groundwater stored.
112:113,
134 5.2 Figure 5-1
(7) An estimate of sustainable yield for the basin. 131:133 5.9 Table 5-5 (c) Each Plan shall quantify the current, historical, and projected water budget for the basin as follows:
(1)
Current water budget information shall quantify current inflows and outflows for the basin using the most recent hydrology, water supply, water demand, and land use information.
124:126,
139 5.7 Figure 5-6 Table 5-4

Article 5. Plan Contents for Bedford-Coldwater Basin
Page
Numbers
of Plan
Or Section
Numbers
Or Figure
Numbers
Or Table
Numbers Notes
GSP Document References
(2)
Historical water budget information shall be used to evaluate availability or reliability of past surface water supply deliveries and aquifer response to water supply and demand trends relative to water year type. The historical water budget shall include the following:
(A)
A quantitative evaluation of the availability or reliability of historical surface water supply deliveries as a function of the historical planned versus actual annual surface water deliveries, by surface water source and water year type, and based on the most recent ten years of surface water supply information.
124:126,
138,
390:506,
513:520

5.7,
Appendix
G,
Appendix J Figure 5-5 Table 5-4
(B)
A quantitative assessment of the historical water budget, starting with the most recently available information and extending back a minimum of 10 years, or as is sufficient to calibrate and reduce the uncertainty of the tools and methods used to estimate and project future water budget information and future aquifer response to proposed sustainable groundwater management practices over the planning and implementation horizon.
124:126,
138,
390:506,
513:520

5.7,
Appendix
G,
Appendix J Figure 5-6 Table 5-4
(C)
A description of how historical conditions concerning hydrology, water demand, and surface water supply availability or reliability have impacted the ability of the Agency to operate the basin within sustainable yield. Basin hydrology may be characterized and evaluated using water year type.
124:126,
131:134,
139 5.7, 5.9
Figure 5-6,
5-1 Table 5-4
(3)
Projected water budgets shall be used to estimate future baseline conditions of supply, demand, and aquifer response to Plan implementation, and to identify the uncertainties of these projected water budget components. The projected water budget shall utilize the following methodologies and assumptions to estimate future baseline conditions concerning hydrology, water demand and surface water supply availability or reliability over the planning and implementation horizon:
(A)
Projected hydrology shall utilize 50 years of historical precipitation, evapotranspiration, and streamflow information as the baseline condition for estimating future hydrology.

The projected hydrology information shall also be applied as the baseline condition used to evaluate future scenarios of hydrologic uncertainty associated with projections of climate change and sea level rise.
117:119,
121:125,
140:141,
143

5.5.3, 5.6,

5.7 Figures 5-7,
5-8, 5-10
(B)
Projected water demand shall utilize the most recent land use, evapotranspiration, and crop coefficient information as the baseline condition for estimating future water demand. The projected water demand information shall also be applied as the baseline condition used to evaluate future scenarios of water demand uncertainty associated with projected changes in local land use planning, population growth, and climate. 114:120,
124:125,
140:141,
143 5.5, 5.7
Figures 5-7,
5-8, 5-10 Table 5-2

Article 5. Plan Contents for Bedford-Coldwater Basin
Page
Numbers
of Plan
Or Section
Numbers
Or Figure
Numbers
Or Table
Numbers Notes
GSP Document References
(C)
Projected surface water supply shall utilize the most recent water supply information as the baseline condition for estimating future surface water supply. The projected surface water supply shall also be applied as the baseline condition used to evaluate future scenarios of surface water supply availability and reliability as a function of the historical surface water supply identified in Section 354.18(c)(2)(A), and the projected changes in local land use planning, population growth, and climate. 114:125,
140:141,
143,
390:506,
513:520

5.5, 5.6,

5.7,
Appendix
G,
Appendix J
Figures 5-7,
5-8, 5-10
(d)
The Agency shall utilize the following information provided, as available, by the Department pursuant to Section 353.2, or other data of comparable quality, to develop the water budget:
(1) Historical water budget information for mean annual temperature, mean annual precipitation, water year type, and land use.
112:113,
139,
390:506,
513:520

5.2,
Appendix
G,
Appendix J Figure 5-6
(2) Current water budget information for temperature, water year type, evapotranspiration, and land use.
112:114,
139,
390:506,
513:520

5.2,5.3,
Appendix
G,
Appendix J Figure 5-6
(3) Projected water budget information for population, population growth, climate change, and sea level rise.
117:119,
140:141,
390:506,
513:520

5.5.3,
Appendix
G,
Appendix J
Figure 5-7,
5-8
(e)
Each Plan shall rely on the best available information and best available science to quantify the water budget for the basin in order to provide an understanding of historical and projected hydrology, water demand, water supply, land use, population, climate change, sea level rise, groundwater and surface water interaction, and subsurface groundwater flow. If a numerical groundwater and surface water model is not used to quantify and evaluate the projected water budget conditions and the potential impacts to beneficial uses and users of groundwater, the Plan shall identify and describe an equally effective method, tool, or analytical model to evaluate projected water budget conditions.
114:131,
390:506

5.5, 5.6,

5.7, 5.8,
Appendix G
(f)
The Department shall provide the California Central Valley Groundwater-Surface Water Simulation Model (C2VSIM) and the Integrated Water Flow Model (IWFM) for use by Agencies in developing the water budget. Each Agency may choose to use a different groundwater and surface water model, pursuant to Section 352.4. 112,
390:506

5.1,
Appendix G
Note: Authority cited: Section 10733.2, Water Code.

Reference: Sections 10721, 10723.2, 10727.2, 10727.6, 10729, and 10733.2, Water Code.