2,500

1,800

1,100

Total drawdown, in feet

400

-1,000

-300

32,000 28,800 27,200 25,600

Total pumpage, in acre-feet

30,400 24,000

U.S. Department of the Interior

U.S. Geological Survey

Scientific Investigation Report 2018–5059

Santa Barbara and Foothill Groundwater Basins 

Geohydrology and Optimal Water Resources Management—

Developed using Density Dependent Solute Transport and 

Optimization Models

Prepared in cooperation with the city of Santa Barbara
A

B

C

D

Cover photographs:

Front cover: A, Distribution of flow barriers, general-head boundaries, drains, small-catchment recharge, and creek

 recharge in the Santa Barbara flow and transport model, Santa Barbara, California.

 B, Santa Barbara multi-object management model, Santa Barbara, California. 

 C, Hydrogeologic framework model results by fence diagram, Santa Barbara and Foothill groundwater basins, Santa 

 Barbara, California: A, geometric framework model showing subsurface extent of the five aquifer zones, and 

 B, texture model showing the distribution of coarse- and fine-grained material in each aquifer zone, with percent-

 coarse intervals for drillers’ well logs and geophysical e-logs (locations of all logs are also shown on the inset

 diagram). Fence diagrams shown with five times vertical exaggeration.

Back cover: D, Photograph showing mission reflection in pond (Photograph taken by Claudia C. Faunt, U.S. Geological Survey).
Santa Barbara and Foothill Groundwater 

Basins Geohydrology and Optimal Water 

Resources Management—Developed using 

Density Dependent Solute Transport and 

Optimization Models

Edited by Tracy Nishikawa

Chapter A

Introduction and Overview of Geology and Hydrogeology

By Scott R. Paulinski and Tracy Nishikawa

Chapter B

Overview of Hydrogeologic Framework Model

By Geoffrey Cromwell and Scott E. Boyce

Chapter C

Numerical Model of Groundwater Flow and Solute Transport

By Scott R. Paulinski

Chapter D

Multi-Objective Simulation-Optimization Model

By Zachary P. Stanko and Tracy Nishikawa

Scientific Investigations Report 2018–5059

U.S. Department of the Interior

U.S. Geological Survey

Prepared in cooperation with the city of Santa Barbara
U.S. Department of the Interior

RYAN K. ZINKE, Secretary

U.S. Geological Survey

James F. Reilly II, Director

U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia: 2018

For more information on the USGS—the Federal source for science about the Earth, its natural and living 

resources, natural hazards, and the environment—visit https://www.usgs.gov or call 1–888–ASK–USGS.

For an overview of USGS information products, including maps, imagery, and publications, 

visit https://store.usgs.gov.

Any use of trade, firm, or product names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the 

U.S. Government.

Although this information product, for the most part, is in the public domain, it also may contain copyrighted materials 

as noted in the text. Permission to reproduce copyrighted items must be secured from the copyright owner.

Suggested citation:

Nishikawa, T., ed., 2018, Santa Barbara and Foothill groundwater basins Geohydrology and optimal water resources 

management—Developed using density dependent solute transport and optimization models, U.S. Geological Survey, 

Scientific Investigations Report 2018-5059, 4 chap. (A–D), variously paged, https://doi.org/10.3133/sir20185059.

ISSN 2328-0328(online)
iii

Contents

Abstract...........................................................................................................................................................1

Chapter A: Introduction and Overview of Geology and Hydrogeology.................................................5

Introduction.......................................................................................................................................5

Purpose and Scope.................................................................................................................7

Previous Studies......................................................................................................................7

Study Area.........................................................................................................................................8

Climate.......................................................................................................................................8

Land Use ...................................................................................................................................8

Geology and Structure ..................................................................................................................11

Hydrogeology..................................................................................................................................13

Description of the Aquifer System .....................................................................................13

Faults and Groundwater Flow ....................................................................................13

Hydrogeologic Zones...................................................................................................13

Shallow Zone .......................................................................................................13

Upper Producing Zone .......................................................................................13

Middle Zone .........................................................................................................13

Lower Producing Zone .......................................................................................19

Deep Zone ............................................................................................................19

Pre-Development Recharge and Discharge.....................................................................19

Post-Development Effects on Groundwater System.......................................................20

Pre-Development Groundwater Movement .....................................................................20

Post-Development Groundwater Levels and Movement ...............................................23

Seawater Intrusion ...............................................................................................................26

References Cited............................................................................................................................29

Chapter B: Overview of Hydrogeologic Framework Model..................................................................31

Introduction.....................................................................................................................................31

Hydrogeology and Structure of the Santa Barbara Study Area.............................................31

Construction of the Hydrogeologic Framework Model............................................................34

Geometric Framework..........................................................................................................34

Input Data ......................................................................................................................34

Structures and Aquifer Zones ...................................................................................34

Fault Blocks..........................................................................................................34

Aquifer-Zone and Bedrock-Horizon Modeling ..............................................36

Geometric Framework Model Description...............................................................36

Textural Model .......................................................................................................................41

Textural Classification of Borehole Data..................................................................42

Textural Property Modeling........................................................................................43

Textural Model Description ........................................................................................43

Summary and Conclusions ...........................................................................................................46

References Cited............................................................................................................................46

Appendix B–1..................................................................................................................................47
iv

Chapter C: Numerical Model of Groundwater Flow and Solute Transport ......................................119

Introduction...................................................................................................................................119

Groundwater Model Development............................................................................................119

Spatial and Temporal Discretization ................................................................................119

Boundary Conditions ..........................................................................................................122

Simulated Groundwater Recharge...................................................................................122

Simulated Groundwater Discharge..................................................................................124

Aquifer Properties...............................................................................................................127

Model Parameterization............................................................................................127

Hydrogeologic Units ..................................................................................................127

Hydraulic and Transport Properties ........................................................................131

Hydraulic Conductivity .....................................................................................131

Conductance Properties ..................................................................................132

Creek Properties................................................................................................132

Storage Properties............................................................................................145

Solute-Transport Properties .....................................................................................145

Model Calibration Approach ......................................................................................................145

Measured Data....................................................................................................................146

Selection of Well Data...............................................................................................146

Water-Level Data........................................................................................................146

Chloride-Concentration Data ...................................................................................146

Model Parameters ..............................................................................................................146

Sensitivity Analysis .............................................................................................................149

Simulation Results........................................................................................................................153

Groundwater Budget ..........................................................................................................153

Simulated Groundwater Flow and Movement................................................................161

Simulated Hydrographs......................................................................................................170

West Foothill Subbasin..............................................................................................234

East Foothill Subbasin ...............................................................................................234

Storage Unit III............................................................................................................234

Storage Unit I ..............................................................................................................235

Water-Level Data Fit ..................................................................................................236

Simulated Chloride Concentrations and Model Data Fit ..............................................237

Model Limitations and Appropriate Use...................................................................................246

Summary and Conclusions .........................................................................................................247

References Cited..........................................................................................................................248

Chapter D: Multi-Objective Simulation-Optimization Model ..............................................................251

Introduction...................................................................................................................................251

Literature Review .........................................................................................................................251

Optimization Methods.........................................................................................................252

Groundwater-Management Models ................................................................................253

Solution Space Discretization....................................................................................................254

Contents—Continued
v

Problem Formulation....................................................................................................................254

Optimization Scenarios ...............................................................................................................255

Scenario 1.............................................................................................................................258

Scenario 2.............................................................................................................................258

Scenario 3.............................................................................................................................258

Scenario 4.............................................................................................................................258

Scenario 4A.................................................................................................................258

Scenario 4B.................................................................................................................258

Scenario 5.............................................................................................................................258

Simulation-Optimization Results ...............................................................................................260

Scenario 1.............................................................................................................................261

Scenario 2.............................................................................................................................271

Scenario 3.............................................................................................................................280

Scenario 4.............................................................................................................................288

Scenario 4A.................................................................................................................288

Scenario 4B.................................................................................................................296

Scenario 5.............................................................................................................................296

Limitations......................................................................................................................................319

Summary and Conclusions .........................................................................................................319

References Cited..........................................................................................................................321

Appendix D–1: Schedule 1D Pumpage, by Well, Santa Barbara Multi-Objective 

Management Model, Santa Barbara, California.....................................................................323

Appendix D–2: Schedule 2D Pumpage, by Well, Santa Barbara Multi-Objective 

Management Model, Santa Barbara, California.....................................................................335

Appendix D–3: Scenario 3 Pumpage, by Well, Santa Barbara Multi-Objective 

Management Model, Santa Barbara, California.....................................................................347

Appendix D–4: Scenario 4B Decision Rules, Santa Barbara Multi-Objective 

Management Model, Santa Barbara, California.....................................................................360

Contents—Continued

Figures

Chapter A

1. Map showing the location and general features of the Santa Barbara and 

Foothill groundwater basins, Santa Barbara, California........................................................6

2. Graphs showing precipitation measured at the Santa Barbara County building 

(1899–2013), by water year, Santa Barbara, California...........................................................9

3. Map showing the distribution of land-use patterns, North American Land Cover 

Dataset 1992, Santa Barbara, California.................................................................................10

4. Map showing surface geology and faults of the Santa Barbara area, California...........12

5. Map showing the Santa Barbara and Foothill groundwater subbasins, creeks, 

faults, production wells, and drains, Santa Barbara, California.........................................14

6. Maps showing the lateral extent of the upper, middle, and lower producing zones 

in the Santa Barbara and Foothill groundwater basins, Santa Barbara, California........15
vi

7. Cross section through Storage Unit I from the northwest to the southeast coast, 

showing resistivity logs for selected wells and aquifer-zone horizons defined by 

the hydrogeologic framework model, Santa Barbara groundwater basin, 

Santa Barbara, California..........................................................................................................18

8. Graph showing estimated and reported total annual pumpage in the 

Santa Barbara and Foothill groundwater basins, water years 1929–2013, 

Santa Barbara, California..........................................................................................................21

9. Map showing parcels with septic tanks, Santa Barbara, California .................................22

10. Maps showing groundwater-level contours of the lower producing zone in the 

Santa Barbara and Foothill groundwater basins, Santa Barbara, California...................24

11. Graph showing water-level elevations from selected wells in Storage Unit I, 

Storage Unit III, and Foothill groundwater basin, Santa Barbara, California...................26

12. Map showing locations of coastal monitoring wells with associated peak, 

measured chloride concentrations, Santa Barbara groundwater basin, 

Santa Barbara, California..........................................................................................................27

13. Graphs showing time-varying chloride concentrations from coastal wells, 

Santa Barbara groundwater basin, Santa Barbara, California...........................................28

Chapter B

1. Geologic map showing the hydrogeologic framework model domain, subbasins 

and storage units, and major faults, Santa Barbara and Foothill groundwater 

basins, Santa Barbara, California ............................................................................................32

2. Map showing aquifer-zone groupings organized by mapped geologic units, 

Santa Barbara and Foothill groundwater basins, California; cross-section lines 

show locations of previously published cross sections used in the hydrogeologic 

framework model........................................................................................................................33

3. Map showing aquifer-zone groupings with drillers’ well logs and geophysical 

e-logs used in the hydrogeologic framework model for Storage Unit I, Storage 

Unit III, and the Foothill subbasins, Santa Barbara and Foothill groundwater 

basins, California ........................................................................................................................35

4. Maps showing interpolated elevations of hydrogeologic framework model 

horizons with subsurface data points, Santa Barbara and Foothill groundwater 

basins, Santa Barbara, California ............................................................................................37

5. Images showing hydrogeologic framework model results by fence diagram, 

Santa Barbara and Foothill groundwater basins, Santa Barbara, California...................40

6. Example of logs from one borehole showing the textural variation and 

interpretation of borehole sediments with depth..................................................................43

7. Diagrams showing a cross section through the hydrogeologic framework model 

and geophysical resistivity e-logs shown for select boreholes and approximate 

extent of the middle producing zone, Santa Barbara and Foothill groundwater 

basins, Santa Barbara, California ............................................................................................45

Chapter C

1. Map showing distribution of flow barriers, general-head boundaries, drains, 

small-catchment recharge, and creek recharge in the Santa Barbara flow and 

transport model, Santa Barbara, California .........................................................................121

2. Map showing the rates of small-catchment recharge for the Santa Barbara 

flow and transport model, Santa Barbara, California.........................................................123

3. Maps showing areas of potential groundwater recharge for the Santa Barbara 

flow and transport model, Santa Barbara, California.........................................................125

Figures—Continued
vii

4. Map showing the five regions used in the Santa Barbara flow and transport 

model, Santa Barbara, California...........................................................................................128

5. Map showing the 14 subregions used in the Santa Barbara flow and transport 

model, Santa Barbara, California...........................................................................................129

6. Map showing the two areas used in the Santa Barbara flow and transport 

model, Santa Barbara, California...........................................................................................130

7. Diagram showing hydrogeologic units defined for the Santa Barbara flow and 

transport model, Santa Barbara, California .........................................................................131

8. Map showing calibrated horizontal-flow-barrier hydraulic-characteristic values 

(per day), Santa Barbara flow and transport model, Santa Barbara, California............144

9. Map showing monitoring wells with available water-level data and Mission 

Creek segments where infiltration rates were estimated by McFadden and 

others (1987), Santa Barbara and Foothill groundwater basins, Santa Barbara, 

California ....................................................................................................................................147

10. Map showing monitoring wells with chloride concentration data near the 

coast of the city of Santa Barbara, California......................................................................148

11. Graphs showing composite scaled sensitivity values for the Santa Barbara 

flow and transport model, Santa Barbara, California.........................................................150

12. Graph showing normalized composite scaled sensitivity values, grouped by 

parameter types for all simulated values, hydraulic head, drawdown, chloride 

concentration, and change in chloride concentration, Santa Barbara flow and 

transport model, Santa Barbara, California .........................................................................152

13. Histograms showing the distribution of hydraulic conductivity values used in 

the Santa Barbara flow and transport model, Santa Barbara, California.......................154

14. Graphs showing simulated annual hydrologic budget for two simulation periods, 

Santa Barbara flow and transport model, Santa Barbara, California..............................155

15. Graph showing simulated cumulative change in groundwater storage, 1929–2013, 

Santa Barbara flow and transport model, Santa Barbara, California..............................160

16. Maps showing contours of simulated initial-condition (average 1929) hydraulic 

head for producing zones of the Santa Barbara groundwater basin, California...........162

17. Maps showing contours of simulated July 1990 hydraulic head for the producing 

zones of the Santa Barbara groundwater basin, California..............................................165

18. Maps showing contours of simulated drawdown between average 1929 and 

July 1990 hydraulic heads for the producing zones of the Santa Barbara 

groundwater basin, California ................................................................................................168

19. Graphs showing simulated hydraulic heads and measured water levels for 

selected wells in the Santa Barbara groundwater basin, California, by subbasin .......171

20. Graph showing simulated hydraulic heads compared with measured water 

levels by subbasin and well type for the Santa Barbara flow and transport model, 

Santa Barbara, California........................................................................................................236

21. Maps showing simulated chloride concentration contours for different years 

and producing zones for the Santa Barbara groundwater basin, California..................238

22. Graphs showing simulated and measured chloride breakthrough curves for 

selected wells in Storage Unit I, Santa Barbara groundwater basin, California...........241

23. Graph showing simulated chloride concentrations compared with measured 

chloride concentrations for selected monitoring wells in Storage Unit I, 

Santa Barbara groundwater basin, California.....................................................................246

Figures—Continued
viii

Chapter D

1. Graph showing the concepts of Pareto-optimality are shown with two generic 

objectives, which are assumed to be minimization; no single point is optimal 

because a decrease in one objective causes an increase in the other, so any 

point on the curve is considered Pareto-optimal (Kollat and Reed, 2006). .....................252

2. Map showing the locations of selected production wells, monitoring wells, and 

chloride monitoring wells, Santa Barbara and Foothill groundwater basins, 

Santa Barbara, California........................................................................................................256

3. Hydrograph showing measured water levels for wells 4N/27W-15K1, 4N/27W-16R1, 

4N/27W-22G4, and 4N/27W-23E5 in Storage Unit I, Santa Barbara groundwater 

basin, Santa Barbara, California ............................................................................................259

4. Graph showing selected Pareto-optimal solutions for scenario 1, Santa Barbara 

multi-objective management model, Santa Barbara, California.......................................262

5. Graph showing scaled objective scores for schedules 1A through 1E, 

Santa Barbara multi-objective management model, Santa Barbara, California ...........263

6. Graphs showing quarterly pumpage for Storage Unit I and Foothill groundwater 

basin, Santa Barbara multi-objective management model, Santa Barbara, 

California ....................................................................................................................................264

7. Maps showing contours of simulated hydraulic head after 10 years for 

schedule 1D, Santa Barbara multi-objective management model, Santa Barbara, 

California ....................................................................................................................................266

8. Cross section and maps showing simulated year-10 chloride concentration 

distribution for Storage Unit I, schedule 1D, Santa Barbara multi-objective 

management model, Santa Barbara, California ..................................................................269

9. Graph showing simulated chloride breakthrough curves for selected 

monitoring wells for schedule 1D, Santa Barbara multi-objective management 

model, Santa Barbara, California...........................................................................................271

10. Graph showing selected Pareto-optimal solutions for scenario 2, Santa Barbara 

multi-objective management model, Santa Barbara, California.......................................272

11. Graph showing scaled objective scores for schedules 2A, 2B, 2Ct, 2Cm, 2D, and 2E, 

Santa Barbara multi-objective management model, Santa Barbara, California ...........273

12. Graphs showing scenario 2 quarterly pumpage for Storage Unit I and Foothill 

groundwater basin, Santa Barbara multi-objective management model, 

Santa Barbara, California........................................................................................................274

13. Maps showing contours of simulated hydraulic head after 10 years for scenario 2, 

schedule 2D, Santa Barbara multi-objective management model, Santa Barbara, 

California ....................................................................................................................................275

14. Cross section and maps showing simulated year-10 Storage Unit I chloride 

concentration distribution for schedule 2D, Santa Barbara multi-objective 

management model, Santa Barbara, California ..................................................................278

15. Graph showing simulated chloride breakthrough curves for selected monitoring 

wells for schedule 2D, Santa Barbara multi-objective management model, 

Santa Barbara, California........................................................................................................280

16. Graphs showing simulated drawdowns with respect to 1998 water levels for 

selected wells and total pumpage equaling 484 acre-feet per year, scenario 3, 

Santa Barbara multi-objective management model, Santa Barbara, California ...........281

Figures—Continued
ix

17. Maps showing cContours of simulated year-10 drawdowns with respect to 

1998 water levels, assuming typical conditions, scenario 3, Santa Barbara 

multi-objective management model, Santa Barbara, California.......................................283

18. Maps showing contours, assuming a typical climatic condition, scenario 3, 

Santa Barbara multi-objective management model, Santa Barbara, California ...........286

19. Maps showing contours of simulated year-10 drawdown with respect to 

1998 water levels, assuming dry climatic condition, scenario 3, Santa Barbara 

multi-objective management model, Santa Barbara, California.......................................289

20. Maps showing contours; assuming a dry climatic condition, scenario 3, 

Santa Barbara multi-objective management model, Santa Barbara, California, 

of simulated year-10 chloride concentrations.....................................................................292

21. Graphs showing subsets of Pareto-optimal solutions, Santa Barbara 

multi-objective management model, Santa Barbara, California.......................................293

22. Graphs showing example decision-rule curves for wells 4N/27W-23E3 and 

4N/27W-23E5 used to assess total pumpage from Storage Unit I on the basis of 

observed chloride concentrations in selected monitoring wells, Santa Barbara 

multi-objective management model, Santa Barbara, California.......................................295

23. Graphs showing the example decision-rule curves for the Los Robles well, 

Santa Barbara multi-objective management model, Santa Barbara, California ...........297

24. Graphs showing selected Pareto-optimal solutions relative to seawater intrusion, 

maximum drawdown, total pumpage, and total drawdown, Santa Barbara multiobjective management model, Santa Barbara, California.................................................299

25. Maps showing contours of simulated hydraulic heads for year two, Santa Barbara 

multi-objective management model, Santa Barbara, California, for pumping 

schedule 5AD .......................................................................................................................................................................................................................304

26. Maps showing contours of simulated hydraulic heads for year two, Santa Barbara 

multi-objective management model, Santa Barbara, California, for pumping 

schedule 5BD .......................................................................................................................................................................................................................307

27. Maps showing contours of simulated hydraulic heads for year two, Santa Barbara 

multi-objective management model, Santa Barbara, California, for pumping 

schedule 5CD........................................................................................................................................................................................................................310

28. Maps showing contours of simulated chloride concentrations for year two, 

Santa Barbara multi-objective management model, Santa Barbara, California ...........313

29. Graphs showing pumping schedules A and B (maximum pumpage and minimum 

seawater intrusion, respectively), Storage Unit I and Foothill groundwater basin, 

Santa Barbara multi-objective management model, Santa Barbara, California ...........316

30. Graphs showing scaled objective scores by scenario 5 pumping schedule 

used in the Santa Barbara multi-objective management model, Santa Barbara, 

California ....................................................................................................................................317

31. Graphs showing breakthrough curves of simulated chloride concentrations for 

selected monitoring wells, Santa Barbara multi-objective management model, 

Santa Barbara, California........................................................................................................318

D1–1. Graph showing optimal quarterly pumpage for the Alameda Park well, 

schedule 1D, Santa Barbara, California.................................................................................324

D1–2. Graph showing optimal quarterly pumpage for the City Hall well, schedule 1D, 

Santa Barbara, California........................................................................................................325

Figures—Continued
x

D1–3. Graph showing optimal quarterly pumpage for the Corporation Yard well, 

schedule 1D, Santa Barbara, California.................................................................................326

D1–4. Graph showing optimal quarterly pumpage for the Ortega Park well, schedule 1D, 

Santa Barbara, California........................................................................................................327

D1–5. Graph showing optimal quarterly pumpage for the Santa Barbara High School 

well, schedule 1D, Santa Barbara, California .......................................................................328

D1–6. Graph showing optimal quarterly pumpage for the Vera Cruz well, schedule 1D, 

Santa Barbara, California........................................................................................................329

D1–7. Graph showing optimal quarterly pumpage for the Hope Avenue well, 

schedule 1D, Santa Barbara, California.................................................................................330

D1–8. Graph showing optimal quarterly pumpage for the Lincolnwood 1 well, 

schedule 1D, Santa Barbara, California.................................................................................331

D1–9. Graph showing optimal quarterly pumpage for the Los Robles well, schedule 1D, 

Santa Barbara, California........................................................................................................332

D1–10. Graph showing optimal quarterly pumpage for the San Roque Park 2 well, 

schedule 1D, Santa Barbara, California.................................................................................333

D1–11. Graph showing optimal quarterly pumpage for the Val Verde well, schedule 1D, 

Santa Barbara, California........................................................................................................334

D2–1. Graph showing optimal quarterly pumpage for the Alameda Park well, 

schedule 2D, Santa Barbara, California.................................................................................336

D2–2. Graph showing optimal quarterly pumpage for the City Hall well, schedule 2D, 

Santa Barbara, California........................................................................................................337

D2–3. Graph showing optimal quarterly pumpage for the Corporation Yard well, 

schedule 2D, Santa Barbara, California.................................................................................338

D2–4. Graph showing optimal quarterly pumpage for the Ortega Park well, schedule 2D, 

Santa Barbara, California........................................................................................................339

D2–5. Graph showing optimal quarterly pumpage for the Santa Barbara High School 

well, schedule 2D, Santa Barbara, California .......................................................................340

D2–6. Graph showing optimal quarterly pumpage for the Vera Cruz well, schedule 2D, 

Santa Barbara, California........................................................................................................341

D2–7. Graph showing optimal quarterly pumpage for the Hope Avenue well, 

schedule 2D, Santa Barbara, California.................................................................................342

D2–8. Graph showing optimal quarterly pumpage for the Lincolnwood 1 well, 

schedule 2D, Santa Barbara, California.................................................................................343

D2–9. Graph showing optimal quarterly pumpage for the Los Robles well, 

schedule 2D, Santa Barbara, California.................................................................................344

D2–10. Graph showing optimal quarterly pumpage for the San Roque Park 2 well, 

schedule 2D, Santa Barbara, California.................................................................................345

D2–11. Graph showing optimal quarterly pumpage for the Val Verde well, 

schedule 2D, Santa Barbara, California.................................................................................346

D3–1. Graph showing quarterly pumpage for the Alameda Park well, scenario 3, 

typical conditions, Santa Barbara, California......................................................................348

D3–2. Graph showing quarterly pumpage for the City Hall well, scenario 3, 

typical conditions, Santa Barbara, California......................................................................349

D3–3. Graph showing quarterly pumpage for the Corporation Yard well, 

scenario 3, typical conditions, Santa Barbara, California .................................................350

Figures—Continued
xi

D3–4. Graph showing quarterly pumpage for the Ortega Park well, scenario 3, 

typical conditions, Santa Barbara, California......................................................................351

D3–5. Graph showing quarterly pumpage for the Santa Barbara High School well, 

scenario 3, typical conditions, Santa Barbara, California .................................................352

D3–6. Graph showing quarterly pumpage for the Vera Cruz well, scenario 3, 

typical conditions, Santa Barbara, California......................................................................353

D3–7. Graph showing quarterly pumpage for the Alameda Park well, scenario 3, 

drought conditions, Santa Barbara, California....................................................................354

D3–8. Graph showing quarterly pumpage for the City Hall well, scenario 3, 

drought conditions, Santa Barbara, California....................................................................355

D3–9. Graph showing quarterly pumpage for the Corporation Yard well, scenario 3, 

drought conditions, Santa Barbara, California....................................................................356

D3–10. Graph showing quarterly pumpage for the Ortega Park well, scenario 3, 

drought conditions, Santa Barbara, California....................................................................357

D3–11. Graph showing quarterly pumpage for the Santa Barbara High School well, 

scenario 3, drought conditions, Santa Barbara, California ...............................................358

D3–12. Graph showing quarterly pumpage for the Vera Cruz well, scenario 3, drought 

conditions, Santa Barbara, California ...................................................................................359

D4–1. Graphs showing decision rules for total Foothill groundwater basin pumpage as 

a function of maximum drawdown at the city of Santa Barbara production wells 

assuming scenario 1 (typical) precipitation, Santa Barbara groundwater basin, 

Santa Barbara, California........................................................................................................361

D4–2. Graphs showing decision rules for total Storage Unit I pumpage as a function of 

maximum drawdown at the city of Santa Barbara production wells assuming 

scenario 1 (typical) precipitation, Santa Barbara groundwater basin, Santa Barbara, 

California ....................................................................................................................................367

D4–3. Graphs showing decision rules for total Foothill groundwater basin pumpage as 

a function of maximum drawdown at the city of Santa Barbara production wells 

assuming scenario 2 (dry) precipitation, Santa Barbara groundwater basin, 

Santa Barbara, California........................................................................................................373

D4–4. Graphs showing decision rules for total Storage Unit I pumpage as a function of 

maximum drawdown at the city of Santa Barbara production wells assuming 

scenario 2 (dry) precipitation, Santa Barbara groundwater basin, Santa Barbara, 

California ....................................................................................................................................379

Figures—Continued

Tables

Chapter A

1. Velocity-profile testing results for the Corporation Yard well, Santa Barbara, 

California ......................................................................................................................................19

2. City of Santa Barbara production wells and state well identifiers, Santa Barbara, 

California ......................................................................................................................................26

Chapter B

1. Aquifer-zone groupings listed by mapped geologic unit and age, Santa Barbara 

and Foothill groundwater basins, California ..........................................................................34

2. Summary statistics of borehole depths by subbasin, Santa Barbara and Foothill 

groundwater basins, Santa Barbara, California....................................................................36
xii

3. Unique lithology descriptions and modifiers with associated binary coarse or fine 

classification as identified in drillers’ lithology logs, Santa Barbara and Foothill 

groundwater basins, Santa Barbara, California....................................................................42

B1–1. Calculated percent-coarse intervals for all drillers’ logs and e-logs used to define 

textural properties of the hydrogeologic framework model................................................47

Chapter C

1. SEAWAT Version 4 packages and processes used with the Santa Barbara flow 

and transport model, Santa Barbara, California..................................................................120

2. Coordinates of the Santa Barbara Flow and Transport Model grid, Santa Barbara, 

California ....................................................................................................................................122

3. Calibrated groundwater flow and solute transport model parameter values, 

Santa Barbara flow and transport model, Santa Barbara, California..............................133

4A. Simulated cumulative groundwater budget, 1929–71, Santa Barbara flow and 

transport model, Santa Barbara, California .........................................................................160

4B. Simulated cumulative groundwater budget, 1972–2013, Santa Barbara flow and 

transport model, Santa Barbara, California .........................................................................160

4C. Simulated water budget, July 1990, Santa Barbara flow and transport model, 

Santa Barbara, California........................................................................................................160

Chapter D

1. Maximum pumping capacities for city of Santa Barbara production wells, 

Santa Barbara, California........................................................................................................257

2. A summary of the optimization scenarios, Santa Barbara multi-objective 

management model, Santa Barbara, California ..................................................................257

3. Values for the four objectives for selected Pareto-optimal pumping schedules, 

scenario 1, Santa Barbara multi-objective management model, Santa Barbara, 

California ....................................................................................................................................262

4. Values for the four objectives for selected Pareto-optimal pumping schedules, 

scenario 2, Santa Barbara multi-objective management model, Santa Barbara, 

California ....................................................................................................................................272

5. Objective values for scenario 5A, Santa Barbara multi-objective management 

model, Santa Barbara, California...........................................................................................302

6. Objective values for scenario 5B, Santa Barbara multi-objective management 

model, Santa Barbara, California...........................................................................................302

7. Objective values for scenario 5C, Santa Barbara multi-objective management 

model, Santa Barbara, California...........................................................................................302

Tables—Continued
xiii

Conversion Factors

U.S. customary units to International System of Units

Multiply By To obtain

Length

inch (in.) 25.4 millimeter (mm)

inch (in.) 0.0254 meter (m)

foot (ft) 0.3048 meter (m)

mile (mi) 1.609 kilometer (km)

Area

acre 4,047 meter2 (m2)

square mile (mi2) 2.590 square kilometer (km2) 

Volume

acre-foot (acre-ft) 1,233 cubic meter (m3)

gallon per day (gal/d) 3.78541 liter per day (L/d)

Flow rate

acre-foot per day (acre-ft/d) 0.01427 cubic meter per second (m3/s)

acre-foot per year (acre-ft/yr) 1,233 cubic meter per year (m3/yr)

foot per day (ft/d) 0.3048 meter per day (m/d)

foot per year (ft/yr) 0.3048 meter per year (m/yr)

gallon per day (gal/d) 0.003785 cubic meter per day (m3/d)

Temperature in degrees Celsius (°C) may be converted to degrees Fahrenheit (°F) as follows:

°F = (1.8 × °C) + 32.

Temperature in degrees Fahrenheit (°F) may be converted to degrees Celsius (°C) as follows:

°C = (°F – 32) / 1.8.

Datum

Vertical coordinate information is referenced to the North American Vertical Datum of 1988 

(NAVD 88).

Horizontal coordinate information is referenced to the North American Datum of 1983 (NAD 83).

Elevation, as used in this report, refers to distance above the vertical datum.
xiv

Supplemental Information

Concentrations of chemical constituents in water are given in either milligrams per liter (mg/L) 

or micrograms per liter (μg/L).

Abbreviations

bls below land surface

bsl below sea level

CSS composite scaled sensitivity

GHB general-head boundary package

HFB horizontal-flow barrier package

HFM hydrogeologic-framework model

HK horizontal hydraulic conductivity

LCM La Cumbre Mutual Water Company

MUD multi-unit dwellings

P porosity

PRISM Parameter-elevation Regressions on Independent Slopes Model

RCH recharge package

RIV river package

SBFTM Santa Barbara Flow and Transport Model

SFR single-family residences

SGMA Sustainable Groundwater Management Act

SS specific storage

SY specific yield

USGS U.S. Geological Survey

VK vertical hydraulic conductivity

WEL well package
Abstract

Groundwater has been a part of the city of Santa 

Barbara’s water-supply portfolio since the 1800s; however, 

since the 1960s, the majority of the city’s water has come 

from local surface water, and the remainder has come from 

groundwater, State Water Project, recycled water, increased 

water conservation, and as needed, seawater desalination. 

Although groundwater from the Santa Barbara and Foothill 

groundwater basins only accounts for a small percentage of 

the long-term supply, it is an important source of supplemental 

water during times of surface-water shortages. During the late 

1980s and early 1990s, production wells extracted additional 

groundwater to compensate for drought related waterdelivery shortfalls from other sources; in response, water 

levels declined substantially in the Santa Barbara and Foothill 

groundwater basins (below sea level in the Santa Barbara 

groundwater basin).

In coastal basins that have groundwater extraction 

near shore, seawater intrusion is often a problem. Seawater 

intrusion in the Santa Barbara groundwater basin is thought 

to be more limited than in other coastal basins because of an 

offshore fault that acts as a partial barrier to groundwater flow. 

During the late 1980s and early 1990s, seawater intrusion was 

observed in the Santa Barbara groundwater basin, as indicated 

by increased chloride concentrations at several monitoring 

wells that ranged from 200 ft to 1,300 ft from the ocean 

and as close as 2,900 ft to the nearest pumping well. This 

demonstrated that seawater can intrude into the Santa Barbara 

groundwater basin when groundwater levels fall below sea 

level near the coast.

The city of Santa Barbara is interested in developing a 

better understanding of the sustainability of its groundwater 

supplies. In 2014, California adopted historic legislation 

to manage its groundwater: the Sustainable Groundwater 

Management Act (SGMA). The SGMA requires the 

development and implementation of “Groundwater 

Sustainability Plans” in 127 priority groundwater basins; 

although Santa Barbara was not a designated priority basin, 

the city is taking steps to achieve sustainability. Sustainability 

was defined in the SGMA in terms of avoiding undesirable 

results: significant and unreasonable groundwater-level 

declines, reduction in groundwater storage, seawater intrusion, 

water-quality degradation, land subsidence, and surface-water 

depletion.

In this project, a cooperative study between the 

U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) and the city of Santa Barbara, 

sustainable yield is defined as the volume of groundwater 

that can be pumped from storage without causing waterlevel drawdowns and the associated increases in seawater 

intrusion (as indicated by increases in measured chloride 

concentrations) at selected wells. In order to estimate the 

sustainability of Santa Barbara’s groundwater basins, a 

three-dimensional density-dependent groundwater-flow and 

solute-transport model (the Santa Barbara Flow and Transport 

Model, or SBFTM) was developed on the basis of an existing 

groundwater-flow model. To simulate seawater intrusion to 

the Santa Barbara Basin under various management strategies, 

the SBFTM uses the USGS code SEAWAT to simulate salinity 

transport and variable-density flow. The completed SBFTM 

was coupled with a management optimization tool, in this case 

a multi-objective evolutionary algorithm, to determine optimal 

pumping strategies that maximize the sustainable yield and 

at the same time satisfy user-defined drawdown and chlorideconcentration constraints.

As part of this study, a three-dimensional hydrogeologic 

framework model was developed to quantify the extent 

and hydrogeologic characteristics of the Santa Barbara 

and Foothill groundwater basins and to help define the 

discretization and hydraulic properties used in the SBFTM. 

The development of the hydrogeologic framework model 

required the collection and reconciliation of geologic and 

geophysical data from existing maps, reports, and databases, 

along with geologic and hydrologic data from recently drilled 

wells. These data were integrated into a three-dimensional 

hydrogeologic framework model that defines the stratigraphy 

and geometry of the aquifer zones and the major geologic 

structures in the basin. The hydrogeologic framework model 

also quantifies the variation in sediment grain size within each 

aquifer zone as the percentage of coarse-grained sediment. 

Previous studies indicated that there are two principal waterproducing zones in the Santa Barbara groundwater basin, 

the upper and lower producing zones; an additional thin, 

productive zone was identified as part of this study. This 

“middle producing zone” is not as areally extensive as the 

upper and lower producing zones and only exists in the coastal 

part of Storage Unit I. These producing zones are bounded at 

depth by less productive shallow, middle, and deep zones.

Santa Barbara and Foothill Groundwater Basins 

Geohydrology and Optimal Water Resources 

Management—Developed using Density Dependent 

Solute Transport and Optimization Models
2 Santa Barbara and Foothill Groundwater Basins Geohydrology and Optimal Water Resources Management

Two versions of the SBFTM were constructed: an 

initial-condition model and a modern transient model. The 

initial-condition model is a long-term transient model that 

simulates flow and solute-transport conditions during a 

period with limited anthropogenic influences preceeding 

the modern transient model. The simulation-transient model 

simulates flow and transport conditions from 1929 through 

2013; however, because of data availability, the focus of 

the model calibration was 1972–2013. The SBFTM was 

calibrated to measured groundwater levels and drawdown, 

as well as measured chloride concentrations and change in 

concentrations, using a combination of automated and trialand-error parameter-estimation techniques.

A sensitivity analysis indicated that, in general, the 

SBFTM was most sensitive to recharge- and pumpingdistribution parameters, specifically those controlling the 

amount of small-catchment recharge and the distribution 

of water extraction by hydrogeologic layer for production 

wells. The model was also sensitive to parameters controlling 

stream-recharge rates, horizontal and vertical hydraulic 

conductivity, and porosity.

From 1929 to 1971, most of the water entering the 

area represented by the SBFTM was from creek and smallcatchment recharge, and the majority of water leaving the 

SBFTM area was from pumping, discharge to creeks, and 

drains. In addition, about 37 percent of the total pumpage 

came from a net reduction in groundwater storage. From 

1972 to 2013, the amount of water entering and leaving the 

SBFTM was fairly similar as that from 1929 to 1971, except 

the reduction in pumpage added about 17,000 acre-ft of water 

to storage. During this later period, there were also times of 

storage loss. For example, during July 1990, a month when 

approximately 705 acre-ft of groundwater was pumped in the 

study area, the pumpage was much greater than all sources 

of recharge combined, and about 382 acre-ft of water was 

removed from groundwater storage.

Simulated hydraulic heads replicated the observed data 

to an acceptable matching of the measured water-level, flow 

direction, and vertical gradients. Simulated hydrographs for 

selected wells were in good agreement with the measured data, 

with an average residual of -2.7 ft and a standard deviation 

of 14.5 ft, indicating that the simulated heads, on average, 

underestimated the observed water levels. An examination 

of the model fit indicated that most of the discrepancies were 

lower simulated heads at wells proximal to production well 

sites.

The simulated chloride concentrations reasonably 

matched the rising limbs of the measured breakthrough curves 

in terms of timing and magnitude; however, the simulation 

overestimated the chloride concentrations on the falling 

limbs. The overestimation of low chloride concentrations 

was attributed to the model overestimating the advance of 

the chloride front during periods of heavy pumping and 

underestimating the retreat of the chloride front during periods 

of low pumping. These simulation errors would result in a 

conservative response by local water managers to seawater 

intrusion.

The SBFTM was used to develop a collection of 

predictive simulations optimized to produce pumping 

schedules that maximize yield, subject to a set of constraints 

and competing objectives. The simulations were grouped as 

scenarios that differed in their time horizon, initial conditions 

for groundwater levels and chloride concentrations, as well as 

precipitation, which was incorporated into the model through 

simulated recharge. Overall, five scenarios were developed in 

a multi-objective framework to obtain optimal pumping rates 

for all of the wells managed by the city, while minimizing 

excessive drawdown and seawater intrusion.

For the current study, complexities in the simulation 

model and the optimization formulation required additional 

considerations. Incorporating the solute-transport equations 

to simulate chloride transport added a highly nonlinear 

process that is solved iteratively in each time step of the 

groundwater-flow model. These nonlinearities, coupled with 

the highly refined grid in the current model, creates challenges 

for many traditional optimization methods. Therefore, an 

optimization method was needed that could address nonlinear 

relationships as well as a very large problem size. Lastly, the 

optimization problem was reformulated to include multiple 

objectives without requiring convergence to a single solution. 

This approach, guided by the city’s objectives, allowed 

the maximum extraction of information from the complex 

simulation.

Borg, a multi-objective evolutionary algorithm, was 

chosen as the optimization algorithm for this study for several 

reasons: (1) it is very computationally efficient; (2) it can run 

in parallel; (3) it requires little user input; and (4) it can solve 

for multiple competing objectives. The first three points allow 

the algorithm to proceed toward the optimal solutions at the 

fastest possible rate. The fourth point is advantageous for 

large, complex optimization problems because it is difficult 

to formulate the optimization problem in a way that produces 

only one optimal solution.

The problem formulation consisted of four competing 

objectives and a constraint set in accordance with the main 

concerns of the city. The objectives were maximizing total 

pumpage, minimizing seawater intrusion, minimizing total 

drawdown in production wells, and minimizing the maximum 

drawdown. The constraints were pump capacity, meeting 

drinking-water standards for chloride, maintaining a specified 

minimum flowrate to a groundwater treatment plant, and 

maintaining minimum water levels in pumping wells. The 

decision variables either were quarterly pumpage by well or 

total pumpage by basin.
Abstract 3

Five optimization scenarios were developed that allow 

the decision makers to evaluate a range of optimal solutions 

for a variety of water levels and chloride concentrations as 

well as potential future climatic conditions. Three scenarios (1, 

2, and 5) were multi-objective optimization formulations that 

allowed for variations in management preferences and climatic 

conditions. The other two scenarios (3 and 4) were designed to 

examine the optimization results to answer specific questions. 

Scenario 1 described the best-case sustainable yield assuming 

a “full” basin (that is, high initial water levels) and typical 

climate conditions for 10 years. Scenario 2 also started with 

a “full” basin; however, this was followed by a 10-year 

drought. Scenario 3 determined if an “empty” basin (that is, 

low initial water levels) would recover to full conditions (1998 

conditions) given climate assumptions and optimal pumping 

schedules from scenarios 1 and 2. Scenario 4 was designed to 

produce decision rules that can be used by water managers to 

help choose an optimal pumping schedule based on measured 

water-level or chloride data. Scenario 5 identified future 

pumping schedules based on short-term climate variations 

during a 2-year management horizon.

The results from scenarios 1 and 2 described the 

differences in maximum pumpage in the basin under typical 

and dry long-term climate projections, respectively. The 

scenario 1 results indicated the maximum 10-year pumpage 

of the basin was about 31,300 acre-ft under typical conditions 

and controlling simulated seawater intrusion and drawdowns. 

For scenario 2, less recharge over the 10-year dry climate 

produced a maximum pumpage estimate of 30,000 acre-ft 

to control seawater intrusion and drawdowns. The larger 

pumpage for scenario 1 resulted in more seawater intrusion, 

but less total drawdown, compared to that of scenario 2.

Results for scenarios 3 and 4 showed the basin’s response 

to management actions combined with climate projections. 

Both scenarios used the optimal pumping schedules and 

the 10-year climates from scenarios 1 and 2. The scenario 

3 results showed that under minimal pumping, the basin 

did not fully recover to 1998 water levels within 10 years 

under either climate scenario. The relatively larger recharge 

from the typical climate resulted in less drawdown at coastal 

monitoring wells after the 10-year recovery period than that 

from the dry climate. The location of the seawater intrusion 

front was not appreciably different between the scenarios, 

however. Scenario 4 used the optimal results from scenarios 

1 and 2 to produce decision-rule curves that illustrated 

the pumpage for each basin, given measured levels of 

chloride concentration or drawdown. This allowed the use 

of additional measurements at monitoring wells to assess 

future management decisions on the basis of the sensitivity of 

observations of drawdown and seawater intrusion to various 

pumping rates. 

Scenario 5 allowed managers to investigate the effects of 

short-term climate variations on optimal pumping schedules. 

Three specific 2-year simulations were optimized: typical-todry (scenario 5A), dry-to-typical (scenario 5B), and dry-to-dry 

(scenario 5C). The most noteable result from scenario 5 was 

the overall reduction in optimal pumpage for most schedules 

in scenario 5C, when the climate is simulated as dry-to-dry. 

There are also many optimal pumping schedules that produced 

an overall increase in waterlevels over the two-year simulation 

period, regardless of climatic condition. Similar to scenario 2, 

the scenario 5C results represents conservative yield estimates 

under a minimal-precipitation climatic condition.
4 Santa Barbara and Foothill Groundwater Basins Geohydrology and Optimal Water Resources Management
Chapter A: Introduction and Overview of Geology and 

Hydrogeology

By Scott R. Paulinski and Tracy Nishikawa

Introduction

Groundwater has been a part of the city of Santa 

Barbara’s water supply since the 1800s, when it was the city’s 

primary source of water. Surface water became the primary 

water source after the early 1910s. In 1991, the city completed 

construction of wastewater-treatment facilities that supply 

recycled water for irrigation purposes. The recycled-water 

project has the capacity to treat and deliver up to 1,400 acrefeet per year (acre-ft/yr) of recycled water. The city also 

completed construction of a desalination plant in 1992 (City of 

Santa Barbara, 2015), which was in long-term standby mode 

until the recent drought. The city reactivated the desalination 

plant and it became operational in spring 2017. In July 1997, 

the city gained access to California State Water Project water 

and is entitled to 3,300 acre-ft/yr, subject to availability (City 

of Santa Barbara, 2015). In a typical non-drought year, about 

82 percent of the city’s water supply comes from surface 

water; the remainder comes from groundwater, the State Water 

Project, and recycled water (City of Santa Barbara, 2015).

Despite the increased use of surface water, pumping in 

the Santa Barbara groundwater basin increased from less than 

1,000 acre-ft/yr in the late 1950s to about 3,000 acre-ft/yr in 

the 1960s. Although groundwater only accounts for a small 

percentage of the long-term demand, it is an important source 

of supplemental water during water shortages. For example, 

groundwater was an important addition to the water supply 

during the severe drought in the late 1980s to early 1990s 

(Freckleton and others, 1998). Production wells extracted 

more groundwater to compensate for water-delivery shortfalls 

from other sources, and water levels declined noticeably in the 

Santa Barbara and Foothill groundwater basins (fig. 1).

In coastal basins with groundwater extraction near shore, 

seawater can intrude into freshwater resources. Many of the 

city of Santa Barbara’s production wells are in the Santa 

Barbara groundwater basin between 3,500 and 5,000 feet (ft) 

from the ocean; these wells can be susceptible to seawater 

intrusion during times of intensive pumping, causing 

below-sea-level groundwater levels. Seawater intrusion into 

the Santa Barbara groundwater basin is thought to be limited 

by the presence of an assumed offshore fault, which acts as a 

partial barrier to groundwater flow. During the 1980s and early 

1990s, however, seawater intrusion was observed at several 

monitoring wells in the Santa Barbara groundwater basin 

between about 200 and 1,300 ft from the ocean and as close 

as 2,900 ft to the nearest pumping well (Martin, 1984). These 

observations demonstrated that seawater can intrude into the 

basin when water levels fall below sea level at the coastal 

boundary of the basin.

The city of Santa Barbara is interested in developing a 

better understanding of the sustainability of its groundwater 

supplies. In 2014, California adopted historic legislation 

to manage its groundwater: the Sustainable Groundwater 

Management Act (SGMA). The SGMA requires the 

development and implementation of “Groundwater 

Sustainability Plans” in 127 priority groundwater basins; 

although Santa Barbara was not a priority basin as of 2017, the 

city is taking steps to achieve sustainability. Sustainability is 

defined in the SGMA in terms of avoiding undesirable results: 

large and unreasonable groundwater-level declines, reduction 

in groundwater storage, seawater intrusion, water-quality 

degradation, land subsidence, and surface-water depletion 

(U.S. Geological Survey, 2018).

In order to estimate the sustainability of the Santa 

Barbara and Foothill groundwater basins, a three-dimensional, 

density-dependent solute-transport model was developed 

by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) in cooperation with 

city of Santa Barbara. For this work, sustainable yield is 

defined, with respect to seawater intrusion, as the volume of 

groundwater that can be pumped from storage without causing 

water-level drawdowns and associated increases in seawater 

intrusion (as indicated by increases in measured chloride 

concentrations) at selected wells. The groundwater-flow model 

developed by Freckleton and others (1998) provided the basis 

for solute-transport modeling.

Chapter A: Introduction and Overview of Geology and Hydrogeology
6 Santa Barbara and Foothill Groundwater Basins Geohydrology and Optimal Water Resources Management

Figure 1. Location and general features of the Santa Barbara and Foothill groundwater basins, Santa Barbara, California.

Barbara

Faults

Existence certain, location inferred

Existence questionable, location inferred

Existence certain, location concealed

Existence questionable, location concealed

Existence certain, location accurate

Existence certain, location approximate

City

Highway

Foothill groundwater basin

Santa Barbara groundwater basin

Subbasins

West Foothill

East Foothill

Storage Unit I

Storage Unit III

0 1 2 MILES

0 1 2 KILOMETERS

Base modified from U.S. Geological Survey and other 

Federal and State digital data, various scales; 

Transverse Mercator projection, zone 11N; 

North American Datum of 1983 (NAD 83)

EXPLANATION

Figure A1. Location and general features of the Santa Barbara and the Foothill groundwater basins, Santa Barbara, California.

Storage units from Muir, 1968; Freckleton and others, 1998;

faults from Muir, 1968; Minor and others, 2009

CALIFORNIA

Study

area

SANTA

BARBARA

COUNTY

PACIFIC 

OCEAN

101

101

Santa

Barbara

STORAGE UNIT I

EAST FOOTHIL L

WEST

FOOTHI LL

STORAGE UNIT III

FOOTHILL

FAULT

LAVIGIA

FAULT

LAGOON FAULT

EAST MORE RANCH FAULT

MODOC FAULT

MESA FAULT

NORTHEAST MORE

RANCH FAULT

UNNAMED

FAULT

ROC KY NOOK FAULT

Santa

Barbara

Basin

Foothill

Basin

119°46' 119°44' 119°42' 119°40'

34°28'

34°27'

34°26'

34°25'

34°24'

PACIFIC OCEAN

SANTA YNEZ MOUNTAINS

Hope Ranch

subbasin

Goleta

Basin

Montecito

Basin

Lauro

Canyon

Mission

Canyon

Sycamore

Canyon

T.

5

N.

T.

4

N.

R. 28 W. R. 27 W. R. 26 W.
Chapter A: Introduction and Overview of Geology and Hydrogeology 7

Purpose and Scope

This report describes the solute-transport model that 

was used in conjunction with a management optimization 

model, in this case a multi-objective evolutionary algorithm, 

to determine the optimal pumping strategies that maximize 

the sustainable yield yet satisfy user-defined drawdown 

and chloride-concentration constraints. In addition to 

developing the solute-transport and optimization models, new 

hydrogeologic framework and textural models of the Santa 

Barbara and Foothill groundwater basins were developed. 

These models were used in the construction of the solutetransport model.

The study is summarized in this four-chapter report 

describing the hydrogeology and the hydrogeologic 

framework, groundwater-flow, and solute-transport models 

of the Santa Barbara and Foothill groundwater basins. 

This chapter (chapter A) introduces the study, presenting a 

description of the study area, an overview of previous work, 

and an overview of the geology and hydrogeology of the study 

area. Chapter B presents a hydrogeologic framework model of 

the study area. This hydrogeologic framework model includes 

a three-dimensional interpretation of the geologic features 

associated with producing zones that supply most of the city of 

Santa Barbara’s groundwater. The textural component of the 

hydrogeologic framework model provides a three-dimensional 

gradational distribution of the coarse and fine sediments in 

the Santa Barbara and Foothill groundwater basins. Chapter C

presents the numerical groundwater-flow and solute-transport 

model of the Santa Barbara and Foothill groundwater basins 

(Santa Barbara Flow and Transport Model or SBFTM), which 

simulates groundwater flow and transport of chloride in the 

study area from 1929 through 2013. Chapter D presents a 

simulation-optimization model of the study area that enables 

use of the solute-transport model within a management 

optimization approach for water-management decision 

support.

Previous Studies

The Santa Barbara groundwater basin has been the 

subject of a number of USGS studies in the last 50 years. As 

groundwater levels declined throughout the 1960s, a study 

by the USGS, in cooperation with the Santa Barbara County 

Water Agency, developed the information needed to ensure 

sufficient water for the future needs of the county. A study 

of the geology, hydrogeology, water quality, and inflow/

outflow of the Santa Barbara and Montecito area (Muir, 

1968) concluded that groundwater pumping had removed 

6,000 acre-feet (acre-ft) of water from groundwater storage 

in the Santa Barbara area between 1959 and 1964. The study 

also concluded that seawater intrusion during this time was 

limited to near-shore shallow alluvial deposits and that there 

was no direct connection between the deeper water-bearing 

zones and the ocean. This lack of connection was attributed to 

an offshore fault.

In 1977, the USGS, in cooperation with the city of Santa 

Barbara, began to develop and implement a three-phase 

groundwater-monitoring program focused on “Storage Unit I” 

of the Santa Barbara groundwater basin (fig. 1 in Hutchinson, 

1979). The monitoring program’s main focus was to study the 

effects of pumping in Storage Unit I on groundwater levels 

and seawater intrusion. During phase 1 of the study, coastal 

monitoring wells were constructed and sampled to detect sea 

intrusion into the freshwater aquifer. The study concluded 

that observed elevated levels of chloride in coastal monitoring 

wells could either be due to connate water or to underflow 

across the offshore fault (Hutchinson, 1979). Phase 2 of the 

groundwater monitoring program focused on characterizing 

the geohydrology of the Santa Barbara groundwater basin 

(Martin, 1984). The number of monitoring wells in the Santa 

Barbara groundwater basin was increased from 17 to 30, and 

data from the monitoring wells were used to assess the effects 

of pumping on water levels and water quality. The study 

concluded that several methods, including decreased pumpage, 

artificial recharge, and relocation of the city well field, could 

be used to displace intruded ocean water in the basin and force 

it seaward (Martin, 1984). A three-dimensional groundwaterflow model for Storage Unit I was developed for phase 3 of 

the study (Martin and Berenbrock, 1986). Results from the 

groundwater-flow model indicated that increased municipal 

pumpage resulted in increased inflow across the offshore fault 

at a rate of about 580 acre-ft/yr.

The USGS, in cooperation with the city of Santa Barbara, 

extended the three-phase groundwater study to include the 

Foothill groundwater basin, where additional groundwater 

monitoring wells were installed, a geohydrologic assessment 

was performed, and a three-dimensional, finite-difference, 

two-layer model was developed to confirm estimates of basin 

recharge and natural discharge and to evaluate water-level 

response to groundwater pumping (Freckleton, 1989).

In July and September of 1987, streamflow gains and 

losses were measured along Mission Creek (McFadden and 

others, 1991). As part of the study, water was released from 

a reservoir to Mission Creek; streamflow was measured 

at 10 sites downstream; and seepage was calculated along 

10 segments of Mission Creek. The rate of streamflow gain 

or loss between stations varied greatly. Results along some 

segments were substantially different from a 1979 study by the 

USGS, when the water table was lower (Martin, 1984).
8 Santa Barbara and Foothill Groundwater Basins Geohydrology and Optimal Water Resources Management

In the 1990s, the USGS, in cooperation with the city 

of Santa Barbara, developed an area-wide groundwaterflow model of the Santa Barbara and Foothill groundwater 

basins, including the previously unmodeled Storage Unit III 

(Freckleton and others, 1998). During the simulation period, 

from 1978 to 1992, the model simulated water moving 

landward, across the offshore fault, to the Santa Barbara 

groundwater basin. Based on this groundwater-flow model, a 

two-dimensional simulation-optimization density-dependent 

groundwater-flow and transport model was developed to 

aid in making management decisions regarding the city of 

Santa Barbara’s water resources (Nishikawa and Martin, 

1998). Selected optimal pumping strategies were simulated 

to determine the effect on seawater intrusion during a 5-year 

management period.

Study Area

The study area is situated on a south-facing section of 

coastline in southeastern Santa Barbara County, in southern 

California about 85 miles (mi) west-northwest of Los Angeles. 

The study area includes the Santa Barbara and Foothill 

groundwater basins on the Santa Barbara coastal plain, a 

narrow strip of land about 2 mi wide between the Santa Ynez 

Mountains to the north and the Pacific Ocean to the south 

(fig. 1). The coastal plain extends beyond the study area to 

the Goleta groundwater basin to the west and the Montecito 

groundwater basin to the east.

The study area includes much of the city of Santa 

Barbara, which had an estimated population of 91,842 in 

2015 (United States Census Bureau, 2017). The city of Santa 

Barbara covers approximately 19 square miles and has a 

population density of approximately 4,800 people per square 

mile.

Climate

The study area has a Mediterranean-like climate, with 

warm summers and mild winters. Average temperatures 

range from highs around 65 degrees Fahrenheit (°F) and lows 

around 45 °F in the winter to highs around 75 °F and lows 

around 60 °F in the summer (National Weather Service, 2016). 

The study area has distinct wet and dry seasons; between 

1972 and 2013, about 83 percent of the rain fell between 

November and May. The average annual rainfall from 1899 

to 2013 measured at a rain gage at the Santa Barbara County 

building in downtown Santa Barbara was 18.55 inches (in.; 

County of Santa Barbara, 2014). The least and most recorded 

precipitation in the city of Santa Barbara fell in water year 

2007 (6.41 in.) and water year 1998 (46.97 in.), respectively 

(County of Santa Barbara, 2014; fig. 2A). From 1900 to 2013, 

the study area has experienced several sequences of wet and 

dry periods, as indicated by a cumulative-departure from the 

mean curve (fig. 2B).

Land Use

Land use during the study period (1929–2013) was 

relatively stable, and it was assumed that the 1992 land-use 

map was representative of the land-use conditions during 

the study period. In 1992, 70 percent of the land use was 

residential and commercial-industrial; 21 percent was shrubforest or grassland; 5 percent was planted or cultivated land or 

planted grasses; 2 percent was barren; and less than 1 percent 

was wetlands (fig. 3). Commercial-industrial land use was 

most prevalent in downtown Santa Barbara near the coast. 

Small parks and golf courses were scattered throughout the 

study area. Forests, shrubs, and grasslands characterized the 

parks, and planted grasses were used in the golf courses. Small 

ranches in the foothills of the northern region of the western 

study area accounted for much of the planted and cultivated 

land use. Wetlands were confined to areas along the coast in 

the eastern-most area of the study area.
Chapter A: Introduction and Overview of Geology and Hydrogeology 9

Figure 2. Precipitation measured at the Santa Barbara County building (1899–2013), by water year, Santa Barbara, California: A, total 

annual precipitation, and B, cumulative departure from mean.

sac16-062_IP-075076_figA2A.B

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

Yearly rainfall, in inches

189919021905

1908

19111914

191719201923

1926

19291932

193519381941

19441947

195019531956195919621965196819711974

1977

1980

1983

19861989

1992

1995

1998

2001

2004

2007

2010

2013

Water year

1899

1902

1905

1908

1911

1914

1917

1920

1923

19261929193219351938

1941

1944

1947

1950

1953

195619591962

1965

1968

19711974

1977

19801983

1986

1989

1992

1995

19982001

2004

2007

2010

2013

Water year

Dry period

A

–60

–50

–40

–30

–20

–10

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Cumulative departure from mean annual rainfall, in inches

Dry period

B
10 Santa Barbara and Foothill Groundwater Basins Geohydrology and Optimal Water Resources Management

Figure 3. Distribution of land-use patterns, North American Land Cover Dataset 1992, Santa Barbara, California.

Figure 3-Land Use Map

Barbara

Highway

0 1 2 MILES

0 1 2 KILOMETERS

Base modified from U.S. Geological Survey and other 

Federal and State digital data, various scales; 

Transverse Mercator projection, zone 11N; 

North American Datum of 1983 (NAD 83)

EXPLANATION

Storage units from Muir, 1968; Freckleton and

others, 1998; Land cover from U.S. Geological Survey

North American Land Cover dataset 1992

Study

area

PACIFIC 

OCEAN

CALIFORNIA

SANTA

BARBARA

COUNTY

101

101

Santa

Barbara

119°46' 119°44' 119°42' 119°40'

34°28'

34°27'

34°26'

34°25'

34°24'

PACIFIC OCEAN

SANTA YNEZ MOUNTAINS

Hope Ranch

subbasin

Goleta

Basin

Montecito

Basin

Lauro

Canyon

Mission

Canyon

Sycamore

Canyon

Land cover 

Open water

Low intensity residential

High intensity residential

Commercial/industrial

Barren

Shrub/forest/ grassland

Planted/cultivated

Planted grasses

Wetlands

T.

5

N.

T.

4

N.

R. 28 W. R. 27 W. R. 26 W.

M

Sycamore Creek

ission Creek

San Roque Creek

Arroyo Burro

Cie neguitas Creek

Atascadero Cre ek

Major creeks

Storage unit

City
Chapter A: Introduction and Overview of Geology and Hydrogeology 11

Geology and Structure

Previous studies have described the geology and structure 

of the Santa Barbara groundwater basin in great detail 

(summarized by Minor and others, 2009). A general overview 

of the geology is presented in this report; the reader is referred 

to Minor and others (2009) for additional information. 

The Santa Barbara groundwater basin is part of the 

coastal plain and is in the western Transverse Ranges 

physiographic province (Minor and others, 2009). The western 

Transverse Ranges consist mainly of variably deformed 

marine and nonmarine sedimentary rocks and deposits that 

range in age from Jurassic to the present. The coastal plain 

includes several mesas and hills that represent potentially 

active structures of the Santa Barbara fold and fault belt that 

transects the coastal plain. The study area is dominated by 

oblique-slip reverse and thrust faulting. Bounding the study 

area are the Rocky Nook and Lagoon faults to the north 

and the Lavigia and Modoc faults to the south (fig. 4). An 

unnamed fault, about 0.25 mi offshore extending from the 

Mesa fault eastward, truncates deeper deposits so they lie 

against consolidated deposits on the seaward side of the fault. 

Outcrops of sedimentary rock can be observed in the local 

Santa Ynez Mountains where oblique-slip reverse and thrust 

faulting has uplifted and overturned many of the formations 

(Minor and others, 2009).

The Santa Barbara groundwater basin consists of tertiary 

sedimentary rock overlain by unconsolidated to partially 

consolidated deposits. The sedimentary rock, mostly marine in 

origin, consists primarily of shale, mudstone, sandstone, and 

conglomerate.

Overlying the consolidated units are marine and nonmarine unconsolidated and partially consolidated deposits of 

the Santa Barbara Formation of late Pliocene and Pleistocene 

age and alluvium of Holocene age. A medium- to coarsegrained sand with fine gravel near the base of the Santa 

Barbara Formation extends inland several miles from the 

coast. Most of the surficial deposits in the study area are either 

Pleistocene moderately consolidated poorly sorted sands, 

gravels, and conglomerates deposited as alluvial fans from 

the Santa Ynez Mountains or Holocene and upper Pleistocene 

poorly consolidated silts, sands, and gravels deposited from 

modern drainages, alluvial fans, and floodplains (Minor and 

others, 2009). The study area also contains small areas of 

Holocene estuarine deposits of organically rich clay, silt, and 

sand along low-lying coastal areas (fig. 4).
12 Santa Barbara and Foothill Groundwater Basins Geohydrology and Optimal Water Resources Management

Figure 4. Surface geology and faults of the Santa Barbara area, California.

Figure A4. Surface geology and faults of the Santa Barbara area (Minor and others, 2009), Santa Barbara, California.

Storage units from Muir, 1968; Freckleton and others, 1998;

faults from Muir, 1968; Minor and others, 2009; geology

modified from Minor and others, 2009

Barbara

Faults

Existence certain, location inferred

Existence questionable, location inferred

Existence certain, location concealed

Existence questionable, location concealed

Existence certain, location accurate

Existence certain, location approximate

Highway

0 1 2 MILES

0 1 2 KILOMETERS

Base modified from U.S. Geological Survey and other 

Federal and State digital data, various scales; 

Transverse Mercator projection, zone 11N; 

North American Datum of 1983 (NAD 83)

EXPLANATION

City

Storage unit

Tcw - Coldwater Sandstone (upper? and middle Eocene)

Tml - Monterey Formation, lower calcareous unit (middle and lower Miocene)

Tmm - Monterey Formation, middle shale unit (upper and middle Miocene)

Tr - Rincon Shale (lower Miocene)

Tspm - Sespe Formation, middle conglomerate and sandstone unit (Oligocene)

Tmu - Monterey Formation, upper siliceous unit (upper Miocene)

Tv - Vaqueros Formation (upper Oligocene)

Tspu - Sespe Formation, upper sandstone and mudstone unit (upper Oligocene)

Tspl - Sespe Formation, lower conglomerate and sandstone unit (lower Oligocene? and upper Eocene)

Qa - Active channel alluvium (Holocene)

Qbx - Shale-clast sedimentary breccia (middle Pleistocene)

Qoa - Older alluvial deposits (upper and middle Pleistocene)

Qsb - Santa Barbara Formation (middle and lower Pleistocene)

af - Artificial fill (Holocene)

Qb - Beach deposits (Holocene)

Qe - Estuarine deposits (Holocene)

Qdf - Debris flow deposits (Holocene and upper Pleistocene?)

Qac - Alluvium and colluvium (Holocene and upper Pleistocene)

Qc - Colluvium (Holocene and upper Pleistocene)

Qls - Landslide deposits (Holocene and Pleistocene)

Qia - Intermediate alluvial deposits (upper Pleistocene)

Qmt - Marine-terrace deposits (upper Pleistocene)

Qca - Casitas Formation (upper and middle Pleistocene)

Tsq - Sisquoc Formation (lower Pliocene and upper Miocene)

Geology

CALIFORNIA

Study

area

SANTA

BARBARA

COUNTY

PACIFIC 

OCEAN

Qls Qls

Qa

af

Qac

Qc

Qls

Tsq Tv

Qc

Tmm

Qls

Qsb?

Qls

Unmapped

Tspu Qa

Tcw

Tspu

Qdf Tv Tspl

Tspm

Qoa Tspl

Tv

Tspu

Qia

Tr

Tr

Tspm

Tv

Tr

Qia Qls Qa Qc

Qac

Tspu

Qa

Qoa

Qia?

af

Tspl

Qoa Qia

Qa

Qa

Tspm af

Tml?

Qoa

Qls Tr

Tml Qia

Tml

Qsb

Tr

Qls?

Tv

Qa

Qac Tml?

Qdf Qls Tsq

Qls

af

Qoa

Tmu Tr

Qoa

af

Tml

af Qa

Qia?

Qoa

Qoa

Qsb

Tv

Qac

Tr

Tmm

Qa

Tspu Qc

Qbx

Qoa

Qac

Qoa

Qia?

Qc

Tmu

Qe

Qa

Qmt Qac

Qoa?

Tml

Qac

af

Qsb Qac Qmt

af Qe

Qac

Tml

Tmm af af

Tr Qb

Qls

Qmt

af

Qb

Qa Qca Tmu

Qb

Tr Tspu Qmt?

Qls

Qb

Qmt

af Qmt

Qsb Qmt?

Qb Tml QbTmm

Tml

101

101

Santa

Barbara

FOOTHILL

FAULT

LAVIGIA

FAULT

EAST MORE RANCH FAULT

MODOC FAULT

MESA FAULT

NORTHEAST MORE

RANCH FAULT

UNNAMED

FAULT

ROCKY NOOK FAULT

LAGOON FAULT

119°46' 119°44' 119°42' 119°40'

34°28'

34°27'

34°26'

34°25'

34°24'

PACIFIC OCEAN

T.

5

N.

T.

4

N.

R. 28 W. R. 27 W. R. 26 W.
Chapter A: Introduction and Overview of Geology and Hydrogeology 13

Hydrogeology

The hydrogeology of the Santa Barbara and Foothill 

groundwater basins was defined by summarizing previously 

published research (for example, Muir, 1968; Martin and 

Berenbrock, 1986; Freckleton and others, 1998). In addition, 

a new hydrogeologic zone is described.

Description of the Aquifer System

There are two main groundwater basins in the study area 

that are separated by faults: the Santa Barbara groundwater 

basin and the Foothill groundwater basin (fig. 5). The Santa 

Barbara groundwater basin contains two subbasins, “Storage 

Unit I” and “Storage Unit III” (Muir, 1968). The Foothill 

basin is divided by a fault into two subbasins; for the purposes 

of this report, these subbasins are named the East and West 

Foothill subbasins (fig. 5). Storage Unit I underlies the main 

part of the city of Santa Barbara and is the main focus of this 

report; less emphasis is placed on Storage Unit III and the two 

Foothill subbasins. Storage Unit I and the Foothill subbasins 

are the main sources of potable groundwater for the city of 

Santa Barbara.

Faults and Groundwater Flow

In the study area, many of the faults separate the 

subbasins and act as partial barriers to groundwater flow 

(Freckleton and others, 1998). The Rocky Nook and Lagoon 

faults to the north and the Lavigia and Modoc faults to the 

south (fig. 4) are assumed to restrict groundwater flow into the 

basin and, therefore, define parts of the basin boundary. The 

East More Ranch fault acts as a groundwater barrier separating 

the Foothill groundwater basin from the Santa Barbara 

groundwater basin. The Mesa fault divides Storage Unit I 

from Storage Unit III in the Santa Barbara groundwater basin. 

Additionally, the Northeast More Ranch fault divides the 

Foothill groundwater basin into two subbasins, East Foothill 

and West Foothill (Minor and others, 2009, fig. 4). The 

Foothill fault and an unnamed fault could act as groundwater 

barriers in the West Foothill subbasin. The unnamed fault 

about 0.25 mi offshore that extends from the Mesa fault 

eastward is thought to impede groundwater flow (Freckleton 

and others, 1998).

Hydrogeologic Zones

The Santa Barbara and Foothill groundwater basins 

consist primarily of unconsolidated silts, sands, and gravels 

deposited from drainages, alluvial fans, and floodplains. 

Based on electric and geologic logs, Martin and Berenbrock 

(1986) divided the unconsolidated deposits into five zones 

representing the hydraulic characteristics of the layers: the 

shallow, upper producing, middle, lower producing, and deep 

zones. Based on additional analyses, the middle zone contains 

a thin, not very extensive, but productive zone, referred to 

as the “middle producing zone.” The three main productive 

zones in the basins and their extents are shown on figure 6. A 

description of each of the zones and how the middle producing 

zone was defined is given below. Chapter B describes a 

hydrogeologic framework model defining the extent and 

characteristics of all the zones.

Shallow Zone

The shallow zone includes alluvium from land surface to 

the top of the upper producing zone. In general, it is composed 

of fine-grained deposits that confine or partly confine the 

upper producing zone.

Upper Producing Zone

The upper producing zone, one of the main water-bearing 

units in the study area, consists predominately of medium- to 

coarse-grained sand and fine gravel. It averages about 50 ft 

thick (fig. 7). The upper producing zone extends through 

much of the Santa Barbara and Foothill groundwater basins 

and pinches out to the north near the Santa Ynez foothills in 

Storage Unit I and East Foothill subbasin and to the east of 

Las Positas Creek in Storage Unit III (fig. 6A).

Middle Zone

As defined by Martin and Berenbrock (1986), the 

middle zone consists of fine-grained deposits interspersed 

with sporadic coarse-grained water-bearing deposits, which 

confine or partially confine the lower producing zone. The 

middle zone separates the upper and lower producing zones 

in most of the study area. The middle zone pinches out in the 

northwestern part of Storage Unit I, where the upper and lower 

producing zones are in contact with each other. A downholevelocity survey of the Corporation Yard well (4N/27W-15Q10, 

fig. 5) and resistivity logs from several wells perforated in 

the middle zone indicated a thin, not very extensive, but 

productive zone of coarse-grained deposits at a depth of about 

360–380 ft below NAVD 88 near the coast (Pueblo Water 

Resources, written commun., 2013). The results from the 

velocity survey indicated that 17 percent of total production 

from the Corporation Yard well was extracted from 410 to 

430 ft bls, 21 percent was from the upper producing zone, and 

36 percent was from the lower producing zone (table 1); the 

balance of production was extracted from other formations. 

The middle producing zone was not identified in previous 

studies, but was identified in this study.
14 Santa Barbara and Foothill Groundwater Basins Geohydrology and Optimal Water Resources Management

Figure 5. Santa Barbara and Foothill groundwater subbasins, creeks, faults, production wells, and drains, Santa Barbara, California.

Barbara

Faults

Existence certain, location inferred

Existence questionable, location inferred

Existence certain, location concealed

Existence questionable, location concealed

Existence certain, location accurate

Existence certain, location approximate

City

Foothill groundwater basin Highway

Santa Barbara groundwater basin

Subbasins

West Foothill

East Foothill

Storage Unit I

Storage Unit III

0 1 2 MILES

0 1 2 KILOMETERS

Base modified from U.S. Geological Survey and other 

Federal and State digital data, various scales; 

Transverse Mercator projection, zone 11N; 

North American Datum of 1983 (NAD 83)

EXPLANATION

Internal drain

Figure A5. Santa Barbara and Foothill Basin subbasins, streams, faults, production wells, and drains, Santa Barbara, California.

Storage units from Muir, 1968; Freckleton and others, 1998;

faults from Muir, 1968; Minor and others, 2009

Study

area

PACIFIC 

OCEAN

CALIFORNIA

SANTA

BARBARA

COUNTY

Mission Creek

San Roque Creek

Cieneguitas Creek

Atascadero Cre ek

Sycamore Creek

Arroyo Burro

101

101

Santa

Barbara

119°46' 119°44' 119°42' 119°40'

34°28'

34°27'

34°26'

34°25'

34°24'

12L6 12R3

12J2

18R1

18Q2 15Q9 15J2

15G1

14R1

8L3 7K6 8E1

7G7

7D1 7A5

6Q12

12H3

7K8 7K9

16E2

7Q5

22C1 15Q10

22B6

8L2

17M4

15E2

8E4 12K4

Production well and identifier 14R1

Santa Barbara city production well

and identifier

22C1

PACIFIC OCEAN

SANTA YNEZ MOUNTAINS

Hope Ranch

subbasin

Goleta

Basin

Montecito

Basin

Lauro

Canyon

Mission

Canyon

Sycamore

Canyon

T.

5

N.

T.

4

N.

R. 28 W. R. 27 W. R. 26 W.

FOOTHILL

FAULT

LAVIGIA

FAULT

MODOC FAULT

MESA FAULT

NORTHEAST MORE

RANCH FAULT

R OCKY NOOK FAULT

LAGOON FAULT

UNNAMED

FAULT

EAST MORE RANCH FAULT
Chapter A: Introduction and Overview of Geology and Hydrogeology 15

Figure 6. Lateral extent of the upper, middle, and lower producing zones in the Santa Barbara and Foothill groundwater basins, Santa 

Barbara, California: A, upper producing zone, B, middle producing zone, and C, lower producing zone.

Storage units from Muir, 1968;

Freckleton and others, 1998

Barbara

City

Highway

Foothill groundwater basin

Santa Barbara groundwater basin

Upper producing zone

0 1 2 MILES

0 1 2 KILOMETERS

Base modified from U.S. Geological Survey and other 

Federal and State digital data, various scales; 

Transverse Mercator projection, zone 11N; 

North American Datum of 1983 (NAD 83)

EXPLANATION

Figure A6. Lateral extent of the upper, middle, and lower producing zones in the Santa Barbara and Foothill basins: A) upper producing zone,

B) middle producing zone, and C) lower producing zone; Santa Barbara groundwater basin, Santa Barbara, California.

Study

area

PACIFIC 

OCEAN

CALIFORNIA

SANTA

BARBARA

COUNTY

Las

Positas Creek

Mission Creek

San

Roque Creek

Arroyo Burro

Cieneguitas Creek

Atascadero Cre ek

Sycamore Creek

101

101

Santa

Barbara

119°46' 119°44' 119°42' 119°40'

34°28'

34°27'

34°26'

34°25'

34°24'

PACIFIC OCEAN

SANTA YNEZ MOUNTAINS

Hope Ranch

subbasin

Goleta

Basin

Montecito

Basin

Lauro

Canyon

Mission

Canyon

Sycamore

Canyon

T.

5

N.

T.

4

N.

R. 28 W. R. 27 W. R. 26 W.

A
16 Santa Barbara and Foothill Groundwater Basins Geohydrology and Optimal Water Resources Management

Figure 6. —Continued

Barbara

0 1 2 MILES

0 1 2 KILOMETERS

Base modified from U.S. Geological Survey and other 

Federal and State digital data, various scales; 

Transverse Mercator projection, zone 11N; 

North American Datum of 1983 (NAD 83)

EXPLANATION

City

Highway

Foothill groundwater basin

Santa Barbara groundwater basin

Middle producing zone

EXPLANATION

Storage units from Muir, 1968;

Freckleton and others, 1998

Figure A6. Lateral extent of the upper, middle, and lower producing zones in the Santa Barbara and Foothill basins: A) upper producing zone,

B) middle producing zone, and C) lower producing zone; Santa Barbara groundwater basin, Santa Barbara, California.

B

Study

area

PACIFIC 

OCEAN

CALIFORNIA

SANTA

BARBARA

COUNTY

Mission Creek

San

Roque Creek

Arroyo Burro

Cieneguitas Creek

Atascadero Cre ek

Sycamore Creek

Las

Positas Creek

101

101

Santa

Barbara

119°46' 119°44' 119°42' 119°40'

34°28'

34°27'

34°26'

34°25'

34°24'

PACIFIC OCEAN

SANTA YNEZ MOUNTAINS

Hope Ranch

subbasin

Goleta

Basin

Montecito

Basin

Lauro

Canyon

Mission

Canyon

Sycamore

Canyon

T.

5

N.

T.

4

N.

R. 28 W. R. 27 W. R. 26 W.
Chapter A: Introduction and Overview of Geology and Hydrogeology 17

Figure 6. —Continued

Barbara

0 1 2 MILES

0 1 2 KILOMETERS

Base modified from U.S. Geological Survey and other 

Federal and State digital data, various scales; 

Transverse Mercator projection, zone 11N; 

North American Datum of 1983 (NAD 83)

EXPLANATION

City

Highway

Foothill groundwater basin

Santa Barbara groundwater basin

Lower producing zone

Storage units from Muir, 1968;

Freckleton and others, 1998

Figure A6. Lateral extent of the upper, middle, and lower producing zones in the Santa Barbara and Foothill basins: A) upper producing zone,

B) middle producing zone, and C) lower producing zone; Santa Barbara groundwater basin, Santa Barbara, California.

C

Study

area

PACIFIC 

OCEAN

CALIFORNIA

SANTA

BARBARA

COUNTY

EXPLANATION

Santa

Barbara

Mission Creek

San

Roque Creek

Arroyo Burro

Cieneguitas Creek

Atascadero Cre ek

Sycamore Creek

Las

Positas Creek

101

101

119°46' 119°44' 119°42' 119°40'

34°28'

34°27'

34°26'

34°25'

34°24'

PACIFIC OCEAN

SANTA YNEZ MOUNTAINS

Hope Ranch

subbasin

Goleta

Basin

Montecito

Basin

Lauro

Canyon

Mission

Canyon

Sycamore

Canyon

T.

5

N.

T.

4

N.

R. 28 W. R. 27 W. R. 26 W.
18 Santa Barbara and Foothill Groundwater Basins Geohydrology and Optimal Water Resources Management

Figure 7. Storage Unit I from the northwest to the southeast coast (from left to right), showing resistivity logs for selected wells 

and aquifer-zone horizons defined by the hydrogeologic framework model (see chapter B), Santa Barbara groundwater basin, Santa 

Barbara, California.

sac16-062_IP-075076_figA7

Source filename: A07_x-section_new.ai

4N/27W-22B2 4N/27W-23E5

4N/27W-22C1

?

?

–20 340

10 280

–20 340

1 150

16”

18”

–20 340

–20 340

4 400

16”

64”

COASTLINE

4N/27W-23F4/5

A A'

Santa

Barbara

0

200

–200

–400

–600

–800

–1,000

0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000

Distance along profile, in feet

Elevation, in feet above North American Vertical Datum of 1988

Resistivity logs, in ohm-meter

16” normal Single point

18” normal

64” normal

Laterolog

Borehole information

4N/27W-22B2 State well number

Borehole path

EXPLANATION

Aquifer zones

Shallow zone

Upper producing zone

Lower producing zone

Middle zone

Deep zone

Basement

Middle producing zone contact—

solid where interpreted from borehole

logs; dashed where inferred 

?

Figure A7. Cross section of Storage Unit I from the southeast coast to the northwest, Santa Barbara groundwater basin, Santa Barbara,

California.

Qls Qa

af

Qac

Qac

Qc

Qa

Qls

Tsq Tv

Qc

TmmQls

Qsb?

Qsb

Qls

Tspu Tspu

Qa

Qoa Tcw Tspu

Tv Qdf Tspm

Qoa

Tspl

Tv

Tspu

Tr Qia

Tr

Tspm

Tv

Qia Tr

Qa w Qls

w

Qc

Qac

Tspu

Qa Qoa

Qdf

Qia?

af

Tspl

Qoa Qia

Qa

Qa

af Tspm

af

Tml?

Qoa

Qls Tr

Qia Tml

Tml

Qsb

Tr

Qls?

Tv

Qa

Qac Tml?

Qdf Tsq Qls Qls

af

Qoa

Qoa

Tmu Tr

Qoa

Tml

Qa

Qia?

Qoa

Qoa

Qoa

Qbx

Qsb Tv

Qac

Tr

TmmQa

Qc Tspu

w

Qbx Qoa

Qac

Qoa

Qia?

Qc

Tmu

Qe

Qa

Qmt

Qac Qoa?

Tml

Qac

af

Qsb

Qac

Qac

Qmt

af Qe

Qac

Tml

Tml

Tmm af

Tr Qb

Qls

Qmt

w

w

Qca Qa TmuQb

Tr Qmt? Tspu Qls

Qb

Qmt af Qmt

Qmt? Qsb

Qb Tml Qb

Qb

Tmm

Tml

Unmapped

Qb

101

101

af

af

FOOTHILL

FAULT

LAVIGIA

FAULT

EAST MORE

RANCH FAULT

MODOC FAULT

MESA FAULT

NORTHEAST MORE

RANCH FAULT UNNAMED

FAULT

ROCKY NOOK FAULT

LAGOON FAULT

Santa Barbara

119°46' 119°44' 119°42' 119°40'

34°28'

34°27'

34°26'

34°25'

34°24'

T.

5

N.

T.

4

N.

R. 28 W. R. 27 W. R. 26 W.

STORAGE UNIT I

EAST

FOOTHIL L

WEST

FOOTHI LL

STORAGE 

UNIT III

A

A'

4N/27W-23F5

4N/27W-22B2

4N/27W-22C1 4N/27W-23E5

4N/27W-23F4
Chapter A: Introduction and Overview of Geology and Hydrogeology 19

Resistivity logs for wells 4N/27W-22C1, -22B2, -22A2, 

and 4N/27W-23E5 display high resistivity readings in the 

middle zone at the interval around 360 to 380 ft below 

NAVD 88 (fig. 7), indicating coarser sediments in this 

interval. Near the coastline, however, wells 4N/27W-23F4 and 

4N/27W-23F5 showed low-resistivity readings over the same 

interval (fig. 7), which could be due to increased salinity or 

the presence of fine-grained materials. Groundwater samples 

collected from these wells have higher salinity levels at this 

interval, indicating that the resistivity drop is likely due to 

higher salinity levels and not fine-grained material. The higher 

salinity levels are confined to this narrow interval of coarsegrained materials because there are finer grained materials 

above and below this interval.

The coarse-grained deposits in the middle zone of 

Storage Unit I around 360–380 ft below NAVD 88 are defined 

as the middle producing zone. This analysis is based on the 

Corporation Yard well velocity survey, resistivity logs, and 

examination of drillers’ logs throughout Storage Unit I, as 

described in chapter B. The middle producing zone extends 

from the coastline in Storage Unit I to about 1–2 mi inland 

(fig. 6B), where it pinches out. It appears to terminate at the 

offshore fault to the southeast and at the Mesa fault to the 

southwest. 

Lower Producing Zone

The lower producing zone, the third main water-bearing 

unit, consists of medium- to coarse-grained sand with fine 

gravel. The lower producing zone extends through much of 

the Santa Barbara and Foothill groundwater basins and thins 

or pinches out near the Santa Ynez foothills to the north and 

pinches out in southeastern Storage Unit III (fig. 6C). The 

lower producing zone thickens to about 200 ft from north to 

south in Storage Unit I (fig. 7).

Deep Zone

In most of the study area, there is a deep zone of finegrained deposits of variable thickness below the lower 

producing zone (fig. 7). In general, these deposits have 

relatively low hydraulic conductivity, are reported to have 

poor water quality (Martin and Berenbrock, 1986), and are 

assumed to not be an important source of water.

Pre-Development Recharge and Discharge

The main components of pre-development groundwater 

recharge and discharge for the Santa Barbara and Foothill 

groundwater basins are stream (creek) leakage, smallcatchment recharge, areal recharge, underflow, and 

evapotranspiration. Ephemeral creeks originating from the 

Santa Ynez Mountains pass through the study area and empty 

into the Pacific Ocean. Creeks in the study area include 

Mission, Sycamore, Arroyo Burro, San Roque, Cieneguitas, 

and Atascadero Creeks (fig. 3). Depending on location, 

creeks can be either a source of groundwater recharge or 

mechanism of discharge. Martin (1984) identified segments of 

groundwater recharge and discharge along Mission Creek and 

estimated net recharge from Mission Creek to be 

376 acre-ft/yr on the basis of seepage-loss measurements. 

Freckleton and others (1998) estimated the long-term, mean 

groundwater recharge from creeks was about 925 acre-ft/yr, 

and the steady-state groundwater discharge to creeks was as 

high as 1,700 acre-ft/yr, yielding a net loss of groundwater 

to creeks of about 775 acre-ft/yr. Note that Freckleton and 

others (1998) used MODFLOW’s Drain Package (Harbaugh 

and others, 2000) to simulate the groundwater discharge to 

creeks and the drain system beneath downtown Santa Barbara, 

but did not differentiate between these losses; therefore, 

the groundwater discharge to creeks was probably less than 

1,700 acre-ft/yr.

For this study, small-catchment recharge is defined as 

runoff and underflow from the Santa Ynez Mountains and 

foothills. Muir (1968) estimated an average of approximately 

300 acre-ft/yr of recharge to the Santa Barbara groundwater 

basin as underflow from the consolidated rocks that form 

the majority of the boundary between the Santa Barbara 

groundwater basin and the Santa Ynez foothills.

Table 1. Velocity-profile testing results for the Corporation Yard 

well, Santa Barbara, California.

[Pueblo Water Resources, written commun., 2013, table 3. Abbreviations: bls, below land surface; ft, feet; gpm, gallons per minute; —, not 

applicable]

Screen 

intervals

(ft bls)

Thickness

(ft)

Percentage of total production

Step 1

411 

gpm

Step 2

602 

gpm

Step 3

817 

gpm

Step 4

1,006 

gpm

Averages

Upper producing aquifer zone

190–205 15 3 9 2 12 6

225–270 45 15 14 15 14 14

Subtotal 60 17 23 16 25 21

Middle aquifer zone

350–395 45 10 9 20 7 12

410–430 20 16 16 18 17 17

450–460 10 3 6 5 6 5

490–510 20 14 11 4 13 10

Subtotal 95 42 42 47 44 44

Lower producing aquifer zone

580–605 25 15 14 15 16 15

615–655 40 26 21 22 15 21

Subtotal 65 41 35 36 31 36

Total 220 100 100 100 100 —
20 Santa Barbara and Foothill Groundwater Basins Geohydrology and Optimal Water Resources Management

Areal recharge is the amount of direct infiltration 

from precipitation in the study area. As stated earlier, the 

average annual precipitation for the study area is 18.55 in. 

Not all precipitation that falls in the study area recharges the 

groundwater basins. A large percentage of precipitation runs 

off directly to the ocean, predominantly in the urban areas 

of the city, where much of the area is paved, and water runs 

through the city’s drain system to the ocean. Some of the 

precipitation that infiltrates the vadose zone is evaporated or is 

transpired by plants before reaching the groundwater system. 

Freckleton and others (1998) simulated the total steadystate areal recharge to be about 1,100 acre-ft/yr for the Santa 

Barbara and Foothill groundwater basins.

Groundwater can leave the basins laterally as underflow 

across the offshore fault from the Santa Barbara groundwater 

basin, at Arroyo Burro Creek across the Lavigia fault in 

Storage Unit III, at Atascadero and Cieneguitas Creeks across 

the Modoc fault from the Foothill to the Goleta groundwater 

basin, or from Storage Unit I to the Montecito groundwater 

basin (fig. 5). Freckleton and others (1998) simulated predevelopment discharge across the offshore fault to be about 

290 acre-ft/yr and discharge across the Lavigia fault to be 

about 24 acre-ft/yr. Freckleton and others (1998) did not 

simulate the flux across the Modoc fault and treated the 

boundary between Storage Unit I and Montecito groundwater 

basin as a no-flow boundary; however, no known geologic 

feature prevents flow between the two basins.

An area of the city of Santa Barbara was originally part 

of the Santa Barbara Estero, a marshy lagoon (Martin and 

Berenbrock, 1986). Because artesian groundwater conditions 

existed before development in much of this part of the basin, 

groundwater most likely exited the Santa Barbara groundwater 

basin through evapotranspiration in the Santa Barbara Estero. 

Martin and Berenbrock (1986) estimated the steady-state 

groundwater loss to the Estero was about 400 acre-ft/yr.

Post-Development Effects on Groundwater 

System

Development in the study area has had several effects on 

groundwater recharge, flow, and discharge. The major effect 

has been from groundwater pumping; however, development 

has had other effects as well. Limited groundwater pumpage 

data were available prior to 1947; records are more 

complete from 1947 to present. The available data show 

that groundwater pumpage has varied greatly over the past 

85 years (fig. 8). From water year 1949 through water year 

1991, there was substantial groundwater pumping in the 

study area, with pumpage averaging over 1,700 acre-ft/yr 

for the Santa Barbara and Foothill groundwater basins. For 

comparison, Freckleton and others (1998) reported that the 

total simulated outflow from the basins under pre-development 

conditions was about 2,030 acre-ft/yr. Since water year 1992, 

groundwater pumping in Storage Unit I has been reduced, with 

pumpage averaging less than 200 acre-ft/yr. There were three 

main periods of heavier pumping in the Foothill groundwater 

basin, from water years 1964 to 1970, 1985 to 1991, and 2008 

to 2013 (fig. 8), with pumpage averaging 831, 1,005, and 

869 acre-ft/yr, respectively. During dry years, groundwater 

pumping accounts for a substantial part of the discharge in 

Santa Barbara and Foothill groundwater basins.

Septic tanks are used for wastewater treatment in the 

parcels shown in figure 9. These data were provided by the 

Santa Barbara County Clerk-Recorder-Assessor’s Mapping 

Division. There were 195 single-family residences (SFR), 

16 multi-unit dwellings (MUD) with 2–4 units, one rest 

home, one restaurant, and one retail store with septic systems. 

Eckenfelder (1980, in table 4.5) reported an average septiceffluent flow of 90 gallons per day (gal/d) for each person 

in “better subdivisions.” This average yields a total septic 

flowrate of about 65 acre-ft/yr, if one assumes 2.5 residents for 

each SFR (U.S. Census Bureau, 2017) and 10 people for each 

MUD, rest home, restaurant, and store (assuming 4 units in 

each MUD and 2.5 people in each unit).

The land use in the study area is predominantly 

residential and commercial (fig. 3). Below an elevation of 

100 ft, storm sewers, city streets, and buildings prevent much 

infiltration of rain (Muir, 1968). In addition, the concrete 

lining of the lower section of Mission Creek has reduced 

groundwater interaction with the creek. Likewise, a network 

of drains was installed near land surface to dewater the 

Santa Barbara Estero area prior to development (fig. 5). This 

network continues to drain runoff and groundwater to the 

ocean during storm events.

Pre-Development Groundwater Movement

Martin and Berenbrock (1986) reported that under 

unpumped conditions (presumably similar to pre-development 

conditions) groundwater movement in Storage Unit I was 

generally from the northwest and north toward the Pacific 

Ocean. Martin and Berenbrock (1986, fig. 3) also indicated 

that pre-development groundwater movement in the Foothill 

groundwater basin was to the west-southwest across the 

Modoc fault. Pre-development groundwater movement in 

Storage Unit III was easterly toward the Pacific Ocean (Martin 

and Berenbrock, 1986, fig. 3).
Chapter A: Introduction and Overview of Geology and Hydrogeology 21

Figure 8. Estimated and reported total annual pumpage in the Santa Barbara and Foothill groundwater basins, water years 1929–2013, 

Santa Barbara, California.

sac16-062_IP-075076_figA8

Source filename: FigureA8.xlsx

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

3,500

4,000

4,500

5,000

1929193119331935193719391941194319451947194919511953195519571959196119631965

1967196919711973197519771979198119831985198719891991

1993199519971999

2001200320052007200920112013

Pumpage, in acre-feet

Water year

Storage Unit III

East Foothill

West Foothill

Storage Unit I

Dry period

EXPLANATION

Figure A8. Estimated and reported total annual pumpage rates in the Santa Barbara and Foothill basins, water years 1929 – 2013, Santa

Barbara, California.
22 Santa Barbara and Foothill Groundwater Basins Geohydrology and Optimal Water Resources Management

Figure 9. Parcels with septic tanks, Santa Barbara, California (parcel data from Santa Barbara County, Mapping Division, 2011).

Barbara

0 1 2 MILES

0 1 2 KILOMETERS

Base modified from U.S. Geological Survey and other 

Federal and State digital data, various scales; 

Transverse Mercator projection, zone 11N; 

North American Datum of 1983 (NAD 83)

EXPLANATION

Highway

Major creeks

Storage unit

City

T.

5

N.

T.

4

N.

R. 28 W. R. 27 W. R. 26 W.

Parcel with septic tank

Storage units from Muir, 1968; Freckleton and

others, 1998; Land cover from U.S. Geological Survey

North American Land Cover dataset 1992

Figure A9. Figure showing parcels with septic tanks, Santa Barbara groundwater basin, California.

Study

area

PACIFIC 

OCEAN

CALIFORNIA

SANTA

BARBARA

COUNTY

101

101

Santa Barbara

119°46' 119°44' 119°42' 119°40'

34°28'

34°27'

34°26'

34°25'

34°24'

Mission Creek

San Roque

Creek

Cieneguitas Creek

Atascadero

Creek

Arroyo

Burro

S ycamore

Cre ek

PACIFIC OCEAN

SANTA YNEZ MOUNTAINS

Hope Ranch

subbasin

Goleta

Basin

Montecito

Basin

Lauro

Canyon

Mission

Canyon

Sycamore

Canyon
Chapter A: Introduction and Overview of Geology and Hydrogeology 23

Post-Development Groundwater Levels and 

Movement

The groundwater-level contours of the lower producing 

zone, based on measured water levels from the summer of 

1990, the end of an extended period of high pumping, and 

from the spring of 1997, after several years of low pumping, 

are shown in figures 10A and B, respectively. Water-level data 

from the lower producing zone were used because of limited 

data availability for the upper and middle producing zones; 

also, most groundwater was pumped from the lower producing 

zone.

The summer of 1990 was the end of a prolonged period 

of increased pumpage between 1985 and 1990 (fig. 8), when 

total annual pumping in the study area varied from 2,000 to 

4,300 acre-ft/yr. Pumping in the Foothill groundwater basin 

resulted in water levels as low as about 70 ft above NAVD 88 

(fig. 10A). Flow directions in Foothill groundwater basin were 

generally from northeast to southwest, except near production 

wells, where flow directions were radially inward toward 

the production well. Pumping in Storage Unit I resulted in 

water levels as low as 90 ft below NAVD 88 in the vicinity of 

production wells and in a large area of below sea level water 

levels in the southeastern part of Storage Unit I (fig. 10A). 

Flow in Storage Unit I was generally from northwest to 

southeast, except in the southeastern part, where flow 

directions were radially inward toward the production wells. 

The radial flow extended through much of the southeastern 

region of Storage Unit I between the Lagoon and Mesa faults.

In the spring of 1997, the flow direction in Foothill 

groundwater basin was from northeast to southwest; the 

highest heads were near the intersection of Mission Creek and 

Rocky Nook fault and were at least 170 ft above NAVD 88 

and could be much higher, and lowest heads were less than 

100 ft above NAVD 88 and were near the border of Foothill 

and Goleta groundwater basins (fig. 10B). Flow in Storage 

Unit I and Storage Unit III was from northwest to southeast; 

the highest heads were near the intersection of the East More 

Ranch and Mesa faults, and the lowest heads were near the 

coast.

Water levels in the Foothill groundwater basin decreased 

during the late 1980s through the early 1990s, which was 

followed by a recovery period with increasing water levels 

from the mid-1990s through 2004, and then by another 

period of decreasing water levels from 2005 through 2014. 

Monitoring well 4N/27W-08M6 (located adjacent to well 

8M5 in fig. 10) is perforated in the upper producing zone and 

is in the middle of the East Foothill subbasin about 0.25 mi 

southwest of the San Roque Park production wells (8E4; 

table 2) and about 0.4 mi west of the McKenzie production 

wells (8L2, 8L3; fig. 5). The hydrograph for this well (fig. 11) 

shows drawdown from the late 1980s through the early 1990s 

during a period of high pumping from the McKenzie #2 (8L3) 

well. Water levels dropped below 130 ft during this period. As 

pumping decreased in this well during the mid-1990s, water 

levels in 4N/27W-08M6 recovered through 2004, when they 

peaked close to 180 ft. Beginning in 2005, the San Roque Park 

#2 (8E4) well started pumping, leading to another period of 

drawdown through 2015, when water levels dropped below 

120 ft.

Monitoring well 4N/28W-12H04 is perforated in the 

lower producing zone and is in the West Foothill subbasin 

about 0.2 mi north of La Cumbre Mutual Water Company 

Well #16 production well (12J2) and about 0.25 mi southwest 

of the Los Robles production well (7D1). Groundwater levels 

from this well indicated a similar drawdown and recovery 

pattern as monitoring well 4N/27W-08M6 (fig. 11).

Water levels in Storage Unit I fluctuated during much 

of the 1980s, such that water levels declined substantially 

between the late 1980s and early 1990s in response to 

groundwater pumping. Water levels started increasing in 1991 

and continued to recover through 1999, when they leveled off 

and then slowly declined through 2014 in the lower part of 

the basin, compared to a more rapid decline in the upper part 

of the basin. Well 4N/27W-16C1 is perforated in the lower 

producing zone and is representative of the inland part of 

Storage Unit I, upgradient of most of the production wells in 

Storage Unit I. Water levels in 4N/27W-16C1 fluctuated with 

pumping between 90 and 105 ft from 1982 to 1988 (fig. 11). 

Water levels dropped abruptly in 1989 and were at 70 ft by 

late 1990. Water levels recovered during the 1990s, peaking 

at about 115 ft in 1999. From 1999 through 2015, water levels 

declined, and the annual fluctuations in water levels increased.

Well 4N/27W-22A4 is perforated in the lower producing 

zone between the main production wells in Storage Unit I and 

the coast. It is representative of the coastal part of Storage 

Unit I. In general, the water levels for this well were much 

lower than those measured in the inland part of Storage Unit 

I, Foothill groundwater basin, and Storage Unit III (fig. 11). 

During the late 1980s through 1990, water levels fluctuated 

greatly, varying from 20 ft in 1989 to –80 ft in 1990 (fig. 11). 

Water levels recovered starting in 1990, peaking at 52 ft in 

1996. From 1999 through 2009, water levels generally trended 

downward to about 25 ft by 2014. Water levels decreased to 

about –60 ft by late 2016 The below-sea-level water levels 

in the late 1980s to early 1990s, and again in the mid-2010s, 

indicate that seawater could have intruded the aquifer during 

these periods.

Water levels fluctuated more in the inland part of Storage 

Unit III than in the areas closer to the coast. Water levels at 

well 4N/27W-18Q4 in the inland part of Storage Unit III, near 

the Val Verde production well (18Q2), responded to nearby 

pumping, varying from a low of about 85 ft in 1991 to a high 

of 102 ft in 2005 (fig. 11). Water levels at well 4N/27W-21F1, 

downgradient from well 18Q4, were fairly steady between the 

early 1990s and 2010s, but water levels started to decline after 

2010 (fig. 11).
Figure 10. Groundwater-level contours of the lower producing zone in the Santa Barbara and Foothill groundwater basins, Santa Barbara, Californiaspring 1997.

101

EAST

MORE RANCH FAULT

MODOC FAULT

NORTHEAST MORE RANCH FAULT

ROCKY NOOK FAULT

FOOTHILL FAULT

LAGO ON FAULT LAVIGIA FAULT MESA FAULT

UNNAMED

FAULT

San

Roque Creek

Cien eguitas

C re

ek

Sy

ca

m

ore

Creek Mission Creek

Atas

c adero C reek

A

rro yo

Burro

SANTA YNEZ MOUNTAINS

PA C I F I C 

Goleta

Basin

100

110

110

130

90

80

70

0

–40

50

60 20 10

30 40

–50

–50

–20

–30

–30 –20

–60 –60 –70

–70

90 80 –10

–80

–80

–40

–90

80

Santa Barbara

LCMWDWell 9

El Sueno LCMWC

Well 16

Parks 1

Val Verde

De la Guerra Ortega Park

SB High School

Soledad

McKenzie 2

San Roque Park 1 San Roque Park 2 Calvary Cemetery

Sunset

Mutual

LosRobles Lincolnwood 1

PuebloProperties

San Vicente 2

SB Savings

Westpac Shelter

Padre

HopeAvenue

Corporation

City Hall Yard

Vera

Cruz

McKenzie 1

Las Positas Alameda Park

San Vicente 1

117

109 136

94

7

–57

–12

20

–2 –32

78

65

–49

82

87

114

78

78

90

–76

–72

7

–21

–24

–12

85

72

–91

7R3

8M5 8E1

8R2

13R1

14P1

14R1

15E1

15E2 15K1

16C1

16E2

16R1

17J1

17L2

18B5

111

18C2

18Q1

19A2

21E3

22A4

22B4 22G4

22Q1

23E5

23F4

23H1

12H4

12R3

119°46' 119°44' 119°42' 119°40'

34°27'34°26'34°25'

R. 28 W. R. 27 W.

Base modified from U.S. Geological Survey and other Federal and State digital data, various scales; Transverse Mercator projection, zone 11N; North American Datum of 1983 (NAD 83)

0 0.5 1 MILE

0 0.5 1 KILOMETER

A

Well and identifier—Top number is abbreviated 

state well number. Bottom number is elevationof water level, in feet above North American Vertical Datum 1988.

16C1

78

Water-table contour—Shows elevation of water

table. Location is approximate; dashes whereuncertain. Hachures indicate depression.Contour interval 10 feet.

20

Faults

Existence certain, location inferredExistence questionable, location inferredExistence certain, location concealedExistence questionable, location concealedExistence certain, location accurateExistence certain, location approximate

CityHighway

Padre Production 

Subbasin

West FoothillEast FoothillStorage Unit IStorage Unit III Internal dra

Foothill groundwater basinSanta Barbara groundwater basin

Santa Barb

and iden

Vera Cruz

EXPLANATION

Figure A10A. Groundwater level contours of the lower producing zone in the Santa Barbara and Foothill basins: A) summer 1990 and B) spring 1997; Santa Barb

Storage units from Muir, 1

faults from M

Study

area

PACIFIC OCEAN C
Figure 10. —Continued 

101

EAST

MORE RANCH FAULT

MODOC FAULT

NORTHEAST

MORE RANCH FAULT

ROCKY

NOOK FAULT

LAGO ON FAULT

LAVIGIA FAULT

MESA FAULT

UNNAMED

FAULT

San Roque Creek

Cien eguitas C reek

Sycamore Creek

Mission Creek

Atas c adero

C reek

Arro yo Burro

SANTA YNEZ MOUNTAINS

PA C I F I C 

Goleta

Basin

120

110

80

70

50

30

20

100

90

90

80

70

60

130

110

40

30

20

170

160

140

150

120

60

90

50

130

100

Santa Barbara

LCM

WD

Well 9

El Sueno

LCM

WC

Well 16

Val Verde Parks 1 De la Guerra

OrtegaPark

SB High School

Soledad

McKenzie 2

San Roque Park 1 San Roque Park 2 Calvary Cemetery

Sunset

Mutual

LosRobles Lincolnwood 1

PuebloProperties

San Vicente 2

SB Savings

Westpac Shelter

Padre

HopeAvenue

Corporation

City Hall Yard Vera Cruz

McKenzie 1

Las Positas Alameda

Park

San Vicente 1

 5P1

170

7H5

159

7R3

133

8E1

139

8L3167

8M5

136

8R2

119

13R

1

14P1

32

14R1

28

15E1

67

15E2

67

15K1

39

16C1

110

16E2

95

16R1

45

17J1

106

17L2

102

18B5

124 18C2

119

18Q1

98

19A2

84

21E3

98 21F2

76 21G2

56

22A4

41

22B9

39

22G4

38

22M1

46

22M2

46

22Q1

12

23E5

29

23F4

14

23H1

13

12C2

125 12H4

118

12R3

93

119°46' 119°44' 119°42' 119°40'

34°27'34°26'34°25'

R. 28 W. R. 27 W.

0 0.5 1 MILE

0 0.5 1 KILOMETER

B

EXPLANATION

Well and identifier

—Top number is abbreviated 

state well number. Bottom number is elevationof water level, in feet above NAVD 88.

16C1

110

Water-table contour

—Shows elevation of water

table. Location is approximate; dashes whereuncertain. Hachures indicate depression.Contour interval 10 feet.

20

Faults

Existence certain, location inferredExistence questionable, location inferredExistence certain, location concealedExistence questionable, location concealedExistence certain, location accurateExistence certain, location approximate

CityHighway

Padre Production 

Subbasin

West FoothillEast FoothillStorage Unit IStorage Unit III Internal dra

Foothill groundwater basinSanta Barbara groundwater basin

Santa Barb

and iden

Vera Cruz

Base modified from U.S. Geological Survey and other Federal and State digital data, various scales; Transverse Mercator projection, zone 11N; North American Datum of 1983 (NAD 83)Figure A10B. Groundwater level contours of the lower producing zone in the Santa Barbara and Foothill basins: A) summer 1990 and B) spring 1997; Santa Barb

Storage units from Muir, 1

faults from M

Study

area

PACIFIC OCEAN

C

FOOTHILL

FAULT
26 Santa Barbara and Foothill Groundwater Basins Geohydrology and Optimal Water Resources Management

Seawater Intrusion

Because of the Santa Barbara groundwater basin’s 

proximity to the Pacific Ocean and historical pumpage, 

seawater intrusion has been an important water-quality issue. 

Fortunately, the risk of seawater intrusion is mitigated by the 

(previously noted) unnamed offshore fault that truncates the 

water-bearing deposits of Storage Unit I, which are adjacent 

to consolidated rocks on the seaward side of the fault. 

The offshore fault acts as a partial barrier to groundwater 

movement; however, saltwater at depth in Storage Unit I 

indicates that saline groundwater can cross the offshore fault 

(Martin and Berenbrock, 1986).

Several of the city of Santa Barbara’s production wells 

are within a mile of the ocean, including Vera Cruz (22B6), 

City Hall (22C1), Corporation Yard (15Q10), and Ortega Park 

(15J2) wells. Between 1985 and 1991, increased pumping 

rates in these wells caused notable decreases in water levels 

in the lower producing zone, with heads as low as 90 ft bsl 

in the vicinity of these wells and more than 10 ft bsl at the 

coast (fig. 10A). Relatively high salinity levels were observed 

in wells perforated in the middle and lower producing zones 

along the coast, including wells 4N/27W-23F8, 4N/27W23F4, 4N/27W-23E5, and 4N/27W-23E1 (figs. 12, 13). 

Higher salinity levels were not observed at monitoring wells 

4N/27W-22G3, 4N/27W-22G4, 4N/27W-22A4 (fig. 13), 

which are perforated in the middle and lower producing zone 

and are about 0.5 mi from the coast and 0.25 mi from the 

production wells (figs. 10B, 11). Although elevated chloride 

concentrations up to 1,600 milligrams per liter (mg/L) were 

recorded in some of the deeper wells (for example, well 

4N/27W-22B8), the elevated chloride concentrations were 

most likely not from seawater intrusion. The presence of 

barium and boron in concentrations much greater than those 

in ocean water indicates that seawater intrusion was not the 

source of the elevated chloride concentrations in these deeper 

wells (Martin, 1984).

Table 2. City of Santa Barbara production wells and state well 

identifiers, Santa Barbara, California.

Common name State well number

Alameda Park 4N/27W-15E2

City Hall 4N/27W-22C1

Corporation Yard 4N/27W-15Q10

Hope Avenue 4N/27W-07Q5

Lincolnwood 1 4N/27W-07A5

Los Robles 4N/27W-07D1

Ortega Park 4N/27W-15J2

San Roque Park (2) 4N/27W-08E4

Santa Barbara High School 4N/27W-15G1

Val Verde 4N/27W-18Q2

Vera Cruz 4N/27W-22B6

sac16-062_IP-075076_figA11

Source filename: A11_hydros.pdf Water-level elevation, in feet North American Vertical Datum of 1988 200

175

150

125

100

75

50

25

–100

–75

–50

–25

0

1977 1982 1987 1992 1997 2002 2007 2012 2017

Year

Figure A11. Water-level elevations from selected wells in Storage Unit I, Storage 

California.

4N/27W-08M6

4N/27W-16C1

4N/27W-18Q4

4N/27W-21F1

4N/27W-22A4

4N/28W-12H4

EXPLANATION

Figure 11. Water-level elevations from selected wells in Storage 

Unit I, Storage Unit III, and Foothill groundwater basin, Santa 

Barbara, California.
Chapter A: Introduction and Overview of Geology and Hydrogeology 27

Figure 12. Locations of coastal monitoring wells with associated peak, measured chloride concentrations, Santa Barbara 

groundwater basin, Santa Barbara, California.

EXPLANATION

Monitoring well and identifier—

Number in parentheses is peak 

chloride concentration in 

milligrams per liter

21E2 (220)

Storage units

Storage Unit I

Storage Unit III

Highway

Faults

Existence certain, location inferred

Existence questionable, location inferred

Existence certain, location concealed

Existence certain, location accurate

Existence certain, location approximate

Figure A12. Map showing locations of coastal monitoring wells with associated peak measured chloride concentrations, Santa Barbara

groundwater basin, Santa Barbara, California.

S ycamo re Cree

M

k

ission Creek

MESA FAULT

LAGOON FAULT

101

101

0 0.5 1 MILE

0 0.5 1 KILOMETER

14K2

14P1 14R1

15J1 15J2

15K1

16R1 15Q10

21B1

21G2

22B6

22C1

22Q1

23D1

24B1

23E5 24D2

23E6

23F4

23F3

23F2

(150)

(34) (200)

(75) (70)

(87)

(63) (130)

(151)

21E2 (220)

21E3 (140)

(160)

(67)

(58)

22E1 (68)

22E2 (68)

(370)

(140)

(120)

(2,000)

22A5(140)

22A4(29)

22A3(22)

22A2(57)

22B5 (1,200)

22B4 (840)

22B3 (29)

22B2 (130)

22G4(27)

22G3(20)

22G2(76) 22B11(140)

22B10(31)

22B9(73)

22B8(1,600)

23E4 (170)

23E3 (100)

23E2 (5,400)

23E1 (9,700)

(3,900)

(34)

(14,000)

(830)

(190)

23H4(2,900)

23H3(4,900)

23H2(4,400)

23H1(2,700)

23F9 (730)

23F8 (18,100)

23F7 (180)

23F6 (660)

23F5 (17,000)

PA C I F I C O C E A N

STORAGE UNIT I

STORAGE UNIT III

119°43' 119°42' 119°41' 119°40'

34°26'

34°25'30"

34°25'

34°24'30"

T.

4

N.

R. 27 W.

PACIFIC OCEAN

Base modified from U.S. Geological Survey and other 

Federal and State digital data, various scales; 

Transverse Mercator projection, zone 11N; 

North American Datum of 1983 (NAD 83)

Storage units from Muir, 1968; Freckleton and others, 1998;

faults from Muir, 1968; Minor and others, 2009

Study area Map area

Santa Barbara

CALIFORNIA
28 Santa Barbara and Foothill Groundwater Basins Geohydrology and Optimal Water Resources Management

sac16-062_IP-075076_figA13

0

4,000

8,000

12,000

16,000

1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005

Year

20,000

G. 4N/27W-22A4

0

4,000

8,000

12,000

16,000

Chloride concentration, in milligram per liter20,000

F. 4N/27W-22G4

0

4,000

8,000

12,000

16,000

20,000

E. 4N/27W-22G3

0

4,000

8,000

12,000

16,000

20,000

D. 4N/27W-23E1

1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005

Year

0

4,000

8,000

12,000

16,000

20,000

C. 4N/27W-23E5

Chloride concentration, in milligram per liter

0

4,000

8,000

12,000

16,000

Chloride concentration, in milligram per liter

20,000

B. 4N/27W-23F4

1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015

Year

0

4,000

8,000

12,000

16,000

20,000

A. 4N/27W-23F8

Figure A13. Time-varying chloride concentrations from coastal wells: A) 4N/27W-23F8S, B) 4N/27W-23F4S, C) 4N/27W-23E5S, D) 4N/27WFigure 13. 23E1S, E) 4N/27W-22G3S, F) 4N/27W-22G4S, and G) 4N/27W-22A4S, Santa Barbara groundwater basin, Santa Barbara, California. Time-varying chloride concentrations from coastal wells, Santa Barbara groundwater basin, Santa Barbara, California: 

A, 4N/27W-23F8; B, 4N/27W-23F4; C, 4N/27W-23E5; D, 4N/27W-23E1; E, 4N/27W-22G3; F, 4N/27W-22G4; and G, 4N/27W-22A4.
Chapter A: Introduction and Overview of Geology and Hydrogeology 29

References Cited

City of Santa Barbara, 2015, Water sources: Santa Barbara, 

Calif., Public Works Department, accessed April 2015 at 

http://www.santabarbaraca.gov/gov/depts/pw/resources/

system/sources/default.asp.

County of Santa Barbara, 2014, Rainfall-daily XLS data: 

Santa Barbara, Calif., Public Works, Water Resources 

Division, accessed November 2014 at 

http://www.countyofsb.org/pwd/pwwater.aspx?id=30042.

Eckenfelder, W.W., Jr., 1980, Principles of water quality 

management: Boston, CBI Publishing Company, Inc., 

717 p.

Freckleton, J.R., 1989, Geohydrology of the Foothill groundwater basin near Santa Barbara, California: U.S. Geological 

Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report 89–4017, 

46 p., https://pubs.er.usgs.gov/publication/wri894017.

Freckleton, J.R., Martin, P., and Nishikawa, T., 1998, 

Geohydrology of Storage Unit III and a combined flow 

model of the Santa Barbara and Foothill ground-water 

basins, Santa Barbara County, California: U.S. Geological 

Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report 97–4121, 

80 p., http://pubs.er.usgs.gov/publication/wri974121.

Harbaugh, A.W., Banta, E.R., Hill, M.C., and 

McDonald, M.G., 2000, MODFLOW-2000, the 

U.S. Geological Survey modular ground-water model—

User guide to modularization concepts and the groundwater flow process: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File 

Report 2000–92, 121 p., 

https://pubs.er.usgs.gov/publication/ofr200092.

Hutchinson, C.B., 1979, Ground-water monitoring at Santa 

Barbara, California—Phase 1, Coastal monitor-well 

installation and initial measurements: U.S. Geological 

Survey Open-File Report 79–923, 36 p., 

https://pubs.er.usgs.gov/publication/ofr79923.

Martin, P., 1984, Ground-water monitoring at Santa Barbara, 

California; Phase 2—Effects of pumping on water levels 

and on water quality in the Santa Barbara ground-water 

basin: U.S. Geological Survey Water Supply Paper 2197, 

31 p., https://pubs.er.usgs.gov/publication/wsp2197.

Martin, P., and Berenbrock, C., 1986, Ground-water 

monitoring at Santa Barbara, California; Phase 3—

Development of a three-dimensional digital ground-water 

flow model for Storage Unit I of the Santa Barbara groundwater basin: U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources 

Investigations Report 86–4103, 58 p., 

https://pubs.er.usgs.gov/publication/wri864103.

McFadden, M.C., Polinoski, K.G., and Martin, P.M., 

1991, Measurement of streamflow gains and losses on 

Mission Creek at Santa Barbara, California; July and 

September 1987: U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources 

Investigations Report 91–4002, 15 p., 

https://pubs.er.usgs.gov/publication/wri914002.

Minor, S.A., Kellogg, K.S., Stanley, R.G., Gurrola, L.D., 

Keller, E.A., and Brandt, T.R., 2009, Geologic map of the 

Santa Barbara coastal plain area, Santa Barbara County, 

California: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations 

Map 3001, scale 1:25,000, 1 sheet, pamphlet, 38 p., 

https://pubs.er.usgs.gov/publication/sim3001.

Muir, K.S., 1968, Ground-water reconnaissance of the Santa 

Barbara-Montecito area, Santa Barbara County, California: 

U.S. Geological Survey Water Supply Paper 1859–A, 28 p., 

https://pubs.er.usgs.gov/publication/wsp1859A.

National Weather Service, 2016, Santa Barbara, California 

(047902) period of record monthly climate summary 

[1893–2016]: Western Regional Climate Center, 

accessed November 14, 2016, at 

http://www.wrcc.dri.edu/cgi-bin/cliMAIN.pl?ca7902.

Nishikawa, T., and Martin, P., 1998, Postaudit of optimal 

conjunctive use policies, in Loucks, E.D., ed., Water 

Resources in the Urban Environment, Chicago, June 7–10, 

1998, Proceedings: Reston, Va., American Society of Civil 

Engineers, p. 591–596.

U.S. Census Bureau, 2017, Santa Barbara (city), 

California, QuickFacts: U.S. Census Bureau, accessed 

May 2017 at https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/table/

PST045215/0669070.

U.S. Geological Survey, 2018, Sustainable groundwater 

management: U.S. Geological Survey, accessed March 2018 

at https://ca.water.usgs.gov/sustainable-groundwatermanagement/.

Chapter B: Overview of Hydrogeologic Framework Model

By Geoffrey Cromwell and Scott E. Boyce

Introduction

This chapter describes the compilation of measured data 

and the construction of a hydrogeologic-framework model 

(HFM) of the Santa Barbara and Foothill groundwater basins. 

The development of the HFM required the compilation and 

reconciliation of geologic and geophysical data from existing 

maps, reports, and databases, which were then integrated along 

with data from recently drilled wells. The goal in developing 

an HFM is to define the three-dimensional (3D) geometry 

of the major geologic structures and stratigraphy. This HFM 

also expresses the variation of properties in each stratigraphic 

unit in the form of the percentage of coarse-grained deposits 

(texture). The HFM was developed using EarthVision, a threedimensional geologic-modeling software package (Dynamic 

Graphics, Inc., 2015).

Hydrogeology and Structure of the 

Santa Barbara Study Area

The HFM domain is composed of two separate 

groundwater basins, Santa Barbara (Hutchinson, 1979) 

and Foothill (Freckleton, 1989) groundwater basins, which 

are separated by the East More Ranch fault (fig. 1). Each 

of the groundwater basins is further subdivided into what 

can be called subbasins or storage units. The Santa Barbara 

groundwater basin is subdivided into Storage Unit I and 

Storage Unit III by the Mesa fault (Muir, 1968), and the 

Foothill groundwater basin is subdivided into the East and 

West Foothill subbasins by the Northeast More Ranch fault 

(see chapter A).

As described in chapter A, the two groundwater basins 

are composed of stratified unconsolidated deposits. These 

deposits have been classified in five aquifer zones that 

represent the overall hydraulic characteristics and depositional 

history of the unconsolidated material (see fig. 2; table 1). 

The five aquifer zones are the shallow zone, upper producing 

zone, middle zone, lower producing zone, and deep zone. 

Consolidated sedimentary rocks of Tertiary age are beneath 

the deep zone and also compose parts of the surrounding hills 

(Martin and Berenbrock, 1986). These consolidated rocks, 

predominantly marine in origin, are relatively impermeable, 

except for some sandstone layers and in fractured areas. 

Because of their low permeability, these consolidated units are 

considered the basement, or bedrock, of the HFM and form 

the lower boundary of the groundwater basins.

Chapter B: Overview of Hydrogeologic Framework Model
32 Santa Barbara and Foothill Groundwater Basins Geohydrology and Optimal Water Resources Management

Figure 1. Hydrogeologic framework model domain, subbasins and storage units, and major faults, Santa Barbara and Foothill 

groundwater basins, Santa Barbara, California.

Faults

Existence certain, location inferred

Existence questionable, location inferred

Existence certain, location concealed

Existence questionable, location concealed

Existence certain, location accurate

Existence certain, location approximate

City

Highway

0 1 2 MILES

0 1 2 KILOMETERS

EXPLANATION

Base modified from U.S. Geological Survey and other 

Federal and State digital data, various scales; 

Transverse Mercator projection, zone 11N; 

North American Datum of 1983 (NAD 83)

Storage unit

Tcw - Coldwater Sandstone (upper? and middle Eocene)

Tml - Monterey Formation, lower calcareous unit (middle and lower Miocene)

Tmm - Monterey Formation, middle shale unit (upper and middle Miocene)

Tr - Rincon Shale (lower Miocene)

Tspm - Sespe Formation, middle conglomerate and sandstone unit (Oligocene)

Tmu - Monterey Formation, upper siliceous unit (upper Miocene)

Tv - Vaqueros Formation (upper Oligocene)

Tspu - Sespe Formation, upper sandstone and mudstone unit (upper Oligocene)

Tspl - Sespe Formation, lower conglomerate and sandstone unit (lower Oligocene? and upper Eocene)

Qa - Active channel alluvium (Holocene)

Qbx - Shale-clast sedimentary breccia (middle Pleistocene)

Qoa - Older alluvial deposits (upper and middle Pleistocene)

Qsb - Santa Barbara Formation (middle and lower Pleistocene)

af - Artificial fill (Holocene)

Qb - Beach deposits (Holocene)

Qe - Estuarine deposits (Holocene)

Qdf - Debris flow deposits (Holocene and upper Pleistocene?)

Qac - Alluvium and colluvium (Holocene and upper Pleistocene)

Qc - Colluvium (Holocene and upper Pleistocene)

Qls - Landslide deposits (Holocene and Pleistocene)

Qia - Intermediate alluvial deposits (upper Pleistocene)

Qmt - Marine-terrace deposits (upper Pleistocene)

Qca - Casitas Formation (upper and middle Pleistocene)

Tsq - Sisquoc Formation (lower Pliocene and upper Miocene)

Geology

Storage units from Muir, 1968; Freckleton and others, 1998;

faults from Muir, 1968; Minor and others, 2009; geology

modified from Minor and others, 2009

CALIFORNIA

Study

area

SANTA

BARBARA

COUNTY

PACIFIC 

OCEAN

Qls Qls

Qa

af

Qac

Qc

Qls

Tsq Tv

Qc

Tmm

Qls

Qsb?

Qls

Tspu Qa

Tcw

Tspu

Qdf Tv Tspl

Tspm

Qoa Tspl

Tv

Tspu

Qia

Tr

Tr

Tspm

Tv

Tr

Qia Qls Qa Qc

Qac

Tspu

Qa

Qoa

Qia?

af

Tspl

Qoa Qia

Qa

Qa

Tspm af

Tml?

Qoa

Qls Tr

Tml Qia

Tml

Qsb

Tr

Qls?

Tv

Qa

Qac Tml?

Qdf Qls Tsq

Qls

af

Qoa

Tmu Tr

Qoa

af

Tml

af Qa

Qia?

Qoa

Qoa

Qsb

Tv

Qac

Tr

Tmm

Qa

Tspu Qc

Qbx

Qoa

Qac

Qoa

Qia?

Qc

Tmu

Qe

Qa

Qmt Qac

Qoa?

Tml

Qac

af

Qsb Qac Qmt

af Qe

Qac

Tml

Tmm af af

Tr Qb

Qls

Qmt

Qb

Qa Qca Tmu

Qb

Tr Qm Tspu t?

Qls

Qb

Qmt

af Qmt

Qsb

Qmt?

Qb Tml QbTmm

Tml

101

101

af

af

Santa

Barbara

FOOTHILL

FAULT

LAVIGIA

FAULT

MODOC FAULT

MESA FAULT

NORTHEAST MORE

RANCH FAULT

UNNAMED

FAULT

ROCKY NOOK FAULT

LAGOON FAULT

E A S T M O R E R A N C H F A U L T

119°46' 119°44' 119°42' 119°40'

34°28'

34°27'

34°26'

34°25'

34°24'

T.

5

N.

T.

4

N.

R. 28 W. R. 27 W. R. 26 W.

PACIFIC OCEAN

STORAGE UNIT I

EAST FOOTHIL L

WEST

FOOTHI LL

STORAGE UNIT III
Chapter B: Overview of Hydrogeologic Framework Model 33

Figure 2. Aquifer-zone groupings organized by mapped geologic units, Santa Barbara and Foothill groundwater basins, California; 

cross-section lines show locations of previously published cross sections (Freckleton and others, 1998; Martin and Berenbrock, 1986) 

used in the hydrogeologic framework model.

Barbara

Faults

Existence certain, location inferred

Existence questionable, location inferred

Existence certain, location concealed

Existence questionable, location concealed

Existence certain, location accurate

Existence certain, location approximate

City

Highway

0 1 2 MILES

0 1 2 KILOMETERS

Base modified from U.S. Geological Survey and other 

Federal and State digital data, various scales; 

Transverse Mercator projection, zone 11N; 

North American Datum of 1983 (NAD 83)

EXPLANATION

Producing zones

Shallow zone

Shallow and upper producing zones

Shallow, upper, middle, and lower producing zones

Middle and lower producing zones

Middle, lower, and deep producing zones

Bedrock

Storage unit

Unmapped

Storage units from Muir, 1968; Freckleton and others, 1998;

faults from Muir, 1968; Minor and others, 2009; geology

modified from Minor and others, 2009

Qa - Active channel alluvium (Holocene)

Qbx - Shale-clast sedimentary breccia (middle Pleistocene)

Qoa - Older alluvial deposits (upper and middle Pleistocene)

af - Artificial fill (Holocene)

Qb - Beach deposits (Holocene)

Qe - Estuarine deposits (Holocene)

Qdf - Debris flow deposits (Holocene and upper Pleistocene?)

Qac - Alluvium and colluvium (Holocene and upper Pleistocene)

Qc - Colluvium (Holocene and upper Pleistocene)

Qls - Landslide deposits (Holocene and Pleistocene)

Qia - Intermediate alluvial deposits (upper Pleistocene)

Qmt - Marine-terrace deposits (upper Pleistocene)

Qca - Casitas Formation (upper and middle Pleistocene)

Tcw - Coldwater Sandstone (upper? and middle Eocene)

Tml - Monterey Formation, lower calcareous unit (middle and lower Miocene)

Tmm - Monterey Formation, middle shale unit (upper and middle Miocene)

Tr - Rincon Shale (lower Miocene)

Tspm - Sespe Formation, middle conglomerate and sandstone unit (Oligocene)

Tmu - Monterey Formation, upper siliceous unit (upper Miocene)

Tv - Vaqueros Formation (upper Oligocene)

Tspu - Sespe Formation, upper sandstone and mudstone unit (upper Oligocene)

Tspl - Sespe Formation, lower conglomerate and sandstone unit (lower Oligocene? and upper Eocene)

Qsb - Santa Barbara Formation (middle and lower Pleistocene)

Tsq - Sisquoc Formation (lower Pliocene and upper Miocene)

Geology

A A' Line of section CALIFORNIA

Study

area

SANTA

BARBARA

COUNTY

PACIFIC 

OCEAN

Qls

Qa

af

Qac

Qac

Qc

Qa

Qls

Tsq Tv

Qc

Tmm

Qls

Qsb?

Qsb

Qls

Tspu Tspu

Qa

Qoa Tcw Tspu

Tv Qdf Tspm

Qoa

Tspl

Tv

Tspu

Tr Qia

Tr

Tspm

Tv

Qia Tr

Qls Qa

w

Qc

Qac

Tspu

Qa

Qoa

Qdf

Qia?

af

Tspl

Qoa Qia

Qa

Qa

af Tspm

af

Tml?

Qoa

Qls Tr

Qia Tml

Tml

Qsb

Tr

Qls?

Tv

Qa

Qac Tml?

Qdf Tsq Qls

Qls

af

Qoa

Qoa

Tmu Tr

Qoa

Tml

Qa

Qia?

Qoa

Qoa

Qoa

Qbx

Qsb Tv

Qac

Tr

Tmm

Qa

Qc Tspu

Qbx

Qoa

Qac

Qoa

Qia?

Qc

Tmu

Qe

Qa

Qmt

Qac

Qoa?

Tml

Qac

af

Qsb

Qac

Qac

Qmt

af Qe

Qac

Tml

Tml

Tmm af

Tr Qb

Qls

Qmt

Qca Qa Tmu Qb

Tr Qmt? Tspu Qls

Qb

Qmt af Qmt

Qmt? Qsb

Qb Tml Qb

Qb

Tmm

Tml

Qb

101

101

af

af

Santa

Barbara

FOOTHILL

FAULT

LAVIGIA

FAULT

MODOC FAULT

MESA FAULT

NORTHEAST MORE

RANCH FAULT

UNNAMED

FAULT

ROCKY NOOK FAULT

LAGOON FAULT

119°46' 119°44' 119°42' 119°40'

34°28'

34°27'

34°26'

34°25'

34°24'

T.

5

N.

T.

4

N.

R. 28 W. R. 27 W. R. 26 W.

PACIFIC OCEAN

STORAGE UNIT I

WEST

FOOTHI LL

STORAGE 

UNIT III

EAST FOOTHIL L

B'

F'

C'

D'

G' E'

D

E

G

C

F

E A S T M O R E R A N C H F A U L T

A

A'

B
34 Santa Barbara and Foothill Groundwater Basins Geohydrology and Optimal Water Resources Management

Construction of the Hydrogeologic 

Framework Model

The HFM has two main parts: (1) a geometric framework 

model showing the stratigraphic relationships of the aquifer 

zones; (2) a textural model detailing physical properties of the 

aquifer zones within the geometric framework.

Geometric Framework

The geometric framework model quantifies the surficial 

and subsurface extent of the four subbasins or storage units 

as defined by major faults, the distribution of consolidated 

rocks, and the extent and thickness of the five aquifer zones. 

Subbasin geometry was constructed by compiling and 

digitizing existing geologic maps, cross sections, textural 

descriptions from drillers’ lithology logs, and geophysical 

logs. These data sets were interpolated to define the extent 

and geometry of the subbasins and the thickness of the aquifer 

zones within them.

Input Data

Previous studies have presented geologic maps and 

cross sections of the Santa Barbara region. The geologic 

map used for this study is of the Santa Barbara coastal plain 

area by Minor and others (2009; fig. 1). This map served as a 

reference to the location and dip of the major faults and to the 

surficial extent of the consolidated, Tertiary sedimentary rocks 

that define much of the HFM boundary. The subsurface extent 

of the aquifer zones was derived from previously published 

geologic cross sections and drillers’ lithology logs and from 

geophysical electricity resistivity logs (e-logs) compiled as 

part of this study. Two sets of previously published geologic 

cross sections were digitized from Freckleton and others 

(1998; fig. 2, sections A–A’ through E–E’) and Martin and 

Berenbrock (1986; fig. 2, sections F–F’ and G–G’). For a 

more detailed description of these sections, see Freckleton and 

others (1998) and Martin and Berenbrock (1986).

Drillers’ lithology logs and e-logs were compiled from 

the California Department of Water Resources. Drillers’ logs 

from a total of 159 boreholes in the study area (fig. 3) were 

obtained and entered in a new digital database containing 

well-construction information and subsurface-lithology 

characteristics (following the database design of Burow and 

others, 2004). Of those 159 boreholes, 40 had geophysical 

e-logs included with the drillers’ lithology log. The deepest 

boreholes in Storage Unit I, East Foothill, Storage Unit III, 

and West Foothill had depths of 840, 660, 340, and 490 feet 

(ft), respectively (table 2).

Structures and Aquifer Zones 

The HFM area was formed from a set of independent 

blocks defined by faults and, therefore, fault blocks that 

represent geologic materials. In this case, the geologic material 

consists of Tertiary consolidated rocks that form the bedrock 

and unconsolidated sedimentary deposits that are divided into 

five aquifer zones and are stacked chronologically to fill the 

volume of the HFM.

Fault Blocks

Each of the four subbasins are delineated by faults, 

some of which are estimated to have substantial vertical 

offset (Martin and Berenbrock, 1986; Freckleton and others, 

1998). To preserve the measured offset across these faults in 

the HFM, each subbasin was defined as an independent fault 

block. Using EarthVision software, the elevation of the top 

of bedrock and each aquifer zone in a particular fault block 

were calculated independently and then combined to form a 

single model. This method prevents any aquifer-zone horizon 

data from one subbasin affecting the horizon data in another 

subbasin and, thus, preserves the expected geologic offsets 

between subbasins.

Table 1. Aquifer-zone groupings listed by mapped geologic 

unit and age, Santa Barbara and Foothill groundwater basins, 

California.

[—, not applicable]

Aquifer zone Geologic unit Age

Shallow af, Qa, Qls, Qls? Holocene

Shallow and upper Qac, Qb, Qc, Qdf, 

Qe

Holocene and upper 

Pleistocene

Shallow, upper, 

middle, and lower

Qca, Qia, Qia?, Qoa Upper and middle 

Pleistocene

Middle and lower Qmt, Qmt? Upper Pleistocene

Middle, lower, and 

deep

Qsb Middle and lower 

Pleistocene

Bedrock Tsq, Tml, Tmm, 

Tmu, Tr, Tv, Tspu, 

Tspm, Tspl, Tcw

Miocene, Oligocene, 

and Eocene
Chapter B: Overview of Hydrogeologic Framework Model 35

Figure 3. Aquifer-zone groupings with drillers’ well logs and geophysical e-logs used in the hydrogeologic framework model for 

Storage Unit I, Storage Unit III, and the Foothill subbasins, Santa Barbara and Foothill groundwater basins, California.

Barbara

Faults

Existence certain, location inferred

Existence questionable, location inferred

Existence certain, location concealed

Existence questionable, location concealed

Existence certain, location accurate

Existence certain, location approximate

City

Highway

0 1 2 MILES

0 1 2 KILOMETERS

EXPLANATION

Producing zones

Shallow zone

Shallow and upper producing zones

Shallow, upper, middle, and lower producing zones

Middle and lower producing zones

Middle, lower, and deep producing zones

Bedrock

e-log

depth below surface, in feet

30 to 200

>200 to 400

>400 to 600

>600 to 800

>800 to 810

Drillers’ log 

depth below surface, in feet

0 to 200

>200 to 400

>400 to 600

>600 to 800

>800 to 840

Base modified from U.S. Geological Survey and other 

Federal and State digital data, various scales; 

Transverse Mercator projection, zone 11N; 

North American Datum of 1983 (NAD 83)

Storage unit

Unmapped

Storage units from Muir, 1968; Freckleton and others, 1998;

faults from Muir, 1968; Minor and others, 2009; geology

modified from Minor and others, 2009

CALIFORNIA

Study

area

SANTA

BARBARA

COUNTY

PACIFIC 

OCEAN

Qls

Qa

af

Qac

Qac

Qc

Qa

Qls

Tsq Tv

Qc

Tmm

Qls

Qsb?

Qsb

Qls

Tspu Tspu

Qa

Qoa Tcw Tspu

Tv Qdf Tspm

Qoa

Tspl

Tv

Tspu

Tr Qia

Tr

Tspm

Tv

Qia Tr

Qls Qa

w

Qc

Qac

Tspu

Qa

Qoa

Qdf

Qia?

af

Tspl

Qoa Qia

Qa

Qa

Tspm af

af

Tml?

Qoa

Qls Tr

Tml Qia

Tml

Qsb

Tr

Qls?

Tv

Qa

Qac Tml?

Qdf Tsq Qls

Qls

af

Qoa

Qoa

Tmu Tr

Qoa

Tml

Qa

Qia?

Qoa

Qoa

Qoa

Qbx

Qsb Tv

Qac

Tr

Tmm

Qa

Tspu Qc

Qbx

Qoa

Qac

Qoa

Qia?

Qc

Tmu

Qe

Qa

Qmt

Qac

Qoa?

Tml

Qac

af

Qsb

Qac

Qac

Qmt

af Qe

Qac

Tml

Tml

Tmm af

Tr Qb

Qls

Qmt

Qca Qa Tmu Qb

Tr Qmt? Tspu Qls

Qb

Qmt af Qmt

Qmt? Qsb

Qb Tml Qb

Qb

Tmm

Tml

Unmapped

Qb

101

101

af

af Santa Barbara

FOOTHILL

FAULT

LAVIGIA

FAULT

MODOC FAULT

MESA FAULT

NORTHEAST MORE

RANCH FAULT

ROCKY NOOK FAULT

LAGOON FAULT

UNNAMED

FAULT

E A S T M O R E R A N C H F A U L T

119°46' 119°44' 119°42' 119°40'

34°28'

34°27'

34°26'

34°25'

34°24'

T.

5

N.

T.

4

N.

R. 28 W. R. 27 W. R. 26 W.

PACIFIC OCEAN

STORAGE UNIT I

EAST

FOOTHIL L

WEST

FOOTHI LL

STORAGE 

UNIT III
36 Santa Barbara and Foothill Groundwater Basins Geohydrology and Optimal Water Resources Management

Aquifer-Zone and Bedrock-Horizon Modeling 

The horizons for the five aquifer zones and the bedrock 

unit were constructed by interpolating and extrapolating a 

two-dimensional surface in EarthVision from subsurface 

data points. EarthVision uses a biharmonic cubic-spline 

algorithm that uses a minimum-tension (minimum curvature) 

gridding technique (Dynamic Graphics, Inc., 2015). Grid 

spacing for bedrock and the aquifer zones is about 328 ft 

(100 meters) in the X and Y horizontal directions. Artificial 

control points were added in areas with limited subsurface 

data (that is, from drillers’ logs or geologic cross sections) 

to improve constraint of horizon interpolations. When input 

data are sparse, the EarthVision gridding algorithm may 

extrapolate unreasonably high or low values, and in areas 

where data show abrupt changes in elevations, the horizon 

grid interpolation could be unrealistic; the addition of artificial 

control points helps minimize these effects. Control points 

also are used in the HFM to force horizon grids to pinch out 

where a unit is no longer present at depth. EarthVision stacks 

the aquifer-zone horizon grids in stratigraphic order on top of 

the bedrock horizon. In this manner, the total thickness of each 

zone is defined as the difference between the zone horizon 

and the upper surface of the zone below. Aquifer-zone and 

bedrock horizons and subsurface data used for horizon-grid 

interpolation are shown in figure 4.

Recall, there are five aquifer zones: the shallow zone, 

upper producing zone, middle zone, lower producing zone, 

and deep zone (see table 1 for a list of the geologic units 

in each zone). The shallow zone is composed of younger 

and older alluvium; the upper producing zone is only older 

alluvium. The middle, lower producing, and deep zones are 

composed of the Santa Barbara Formation and some older 

alluvial units. For a detailed discussion about the geology 

of the five zones, see Martin and Berenbrock (1986) and 

Freckleton and others (1998). As described in chapter A, 

near the ocean boundary, there is a small section of relatively 

high permeability rocks in the middle zone, referred to as the 

middle producing zone. Although a distinct hydrologic zone, 

the middle producing zone was not modeled independently, 

but was included in the HFM as part of the middle zone.

The five aquifer zones were identified by analyzing 

geophysical e-logs, surficial geologic maps (fig. 1), and 

published geologic cross sections. The upper contact of 

each aquifer zone was identified and digitized from geologic 

cross sections published by Martin and Berenbock (1986) 

and Freckleton and others (1998). Similarly, geophysical 

e-logs were digitized and examined, and the upper contact 

of each zone was identified. The geologic map was used to 

identify where the aquifer zones outcrop at land surface. The 

interpolated aquifer-zone horizons and subsurface data points 

are shown in figure 4A–E.

In this study, bedrock is defined as the relatively lesspermeable consolidated Tertiary rocks of Miocene age and 

older. In general, the upper contact of the bedrock unit 

was identified by the presence of shale (as identified in 

previous reports or interpreted in drillers’ lithology logs 

and geophysical e-logs) or fine-grained lithologic layers 

of substantial thickness. Surficial and subsurface bedrock 

elevations were derived from drillers’ lithology logs, 

geophysical e-logs, surficial geologic maps (fig. 1), and 

geologic cross sections from previous reports (Martin and 

Berenbock, 1986; Freckleton and others, 1998). Where 

bedrock outcrops at land surface, the total aquifer thickness 

was assumed to be zero. The interpolated bedrock horizon and 

subsurface data points are shown in figure 4F.

Geometric Framework Model Description

A fence diagram of the geometric framework model is 

shown in figure 5A. The cross sections in the fence diagram 

are the same as those shown in figure 2 (with the exception 

of G–G’), and with the addition of one cross section (H–H’) 

cutting southwest–northeast through the Foothill groundwater 

basin and a second cross section (I–I’) running northwest–

southeast through the entire study area.

Total aquifer thickness, as defined by land surface 

and top of the bedrock unit, varies considerably across the 

study area. The thickest part of the aquifer is at the coast, 

in the southeastern-most part of Storage Unit I, where the 

total thickness of unconsolidated sediment is about 1,100 ft. 

Aquifer thickness gradually decreases from southeast to 

northwest in Storage Unit I to a minimum of about 200 ft 

along the boundary between the Storage Unit I and the 

Foothill groundwater basin. In Storage Unit III, the aquifer 

ranges in thickness from about 200 to 450 ft, except at the 

southeastern end, where the bedrock unit rises substantially, 

and only a thin veneer of shallow-zone sediments is present. 

Total aquifer thickness is relatively constant in the West 

Foothill and East Foothill subbasins, at about 330 ft and 

650 ft, respectively. In the northern section of both subbasins, 

bedrock rises rapidly in elevation toward land surface, and the 

thickness of unconsolidated sediments decreases in similar 

fashion.

Table 2. Summary statistics of borehole depths by subbasin, Santa Barbara and Foothill groundwater basins, Santa Barbara, 

California.

Groundwater 

subbasin

Depth statistic property, in feet Count

Minimum Maximum Median Mean Standard deviation

Storage Unit I 5 840 420 452.9 213.7 60

East Foothill 90 660 280 323.8 182.7 29

Storage Unit III 5 340 210 188.6 93.12 18

West Foothill 90 490 245 254.4 99.0 52
Chapter B: Overview of Hydrogeologic Framework Model 37

Barbara

City

Highway

Base modified from U.S. Geological Survey and other 

Federal and State digital data, various scales; 

Transverse Mercator projection, zone 11N; 

North American Datum of 1983 (NAD 83)

EXPLANATION

A – A'

B – B'

C – C'

D – D'

E – E'

F – F'

e-log

Control point

Horizon

elevation,

in feet

190

100

0

–200

–346

Storage unit

Storage units from Muir, 1968; Freckleton and others, 1998;

geology modified from Minor and others, 2009

101

101

Santa

Barbara

119°46' 119°44' 119°42' 119°40'

34°27'

34°26'

34°25'

34°24'

T.

4

N.

R. 28 W. R. 27 W. R. 26 W.

PACIFIC OCEAN

STORAGE UNIT I

EAST

FOOTHIL L

WEST

FOOTHI LL

STORAGE 

UNIT III

0 1 2 MILES

0 1 2 KILOMETERS

CALIFORNIA

Study

area

SANTA

BARBARA

COUNTY

PACIFIC 

OCEAN

Barbara

0 1 2 MILES

0 1 2 KILOMETERS

101

101

Santa

Barbara

119°46' 119°44' 119°42' 119°40'

34°27'

34°26'

34°25'

34°24'

T.

4

N.

PACIFIC OCEAN

STORAGE UNIT I

EAST

FOOTHIL L

WEST

FOOTHI LL

STORAGE 

UNIT III

0 1 2 MILES

0 1 2 KILOMETERS

CALIFORNIA

Study

area

SANTA

BARBARA

COUNTY

PACIFIC 

OCEAN

A

B

Figure 4. Interpolated elevations of hydrogeologic framework model horizons with subsurface data points, Santa Barbara and Foothill 

groundwater basins, Santa Barbara, California: A, shallow zone; B, upper producing zone; C, middle zone; D, lower producing zone; 

E, deep zone; and F, bedrock. Horizon elevation is feet above NAVD 88.
38 Santa Barbara and Foothill Groundwater Basins Geohydrology and Optimal Water Resources Management

Figure 4. —Continued

Barbara

101

101

Santa

Barbara

119°46' 119°44' 119°42' 119°40'

34°27'

34°26'

34°25'

34°24'

T.

4

N.

PACIFIC OCEAN

CALIFORNIA

Study

area

SANTA

BARBARA

COUNTY

PACIFIC 

OCEAN

0 1 2 MILES

0 1 2 KILOMETERS

Barbara

City

Highway

EXPLANATION

190

100

0

–200

–346

A – A'

B – B'

C – C'

D – D'

G – G'

e-log

Control point

F – F'

E – E'

Horizon

elevation,

in feet

Base modified from U.S. Geological Survey and other 

Federal and State digital data, various scales; 

Transverse Mercator projection, zone 11N; 

North American Datum of 1983 (NAD 83) Storage unit

Storage units from Muir, 1968; Freckleton and others, 1998;

geology modified from Minor and others, 2009

Santa

Barbara

101

101

119°46' 119°44' 119°42' 119°40'

34°27'

34°26'

34°25'

34°24'

T.

4

N.

R. 28 W. R. 27 W. R. 26 W.

STORAGE UNIT I

EAST

FOOTHIL L

WEST

FOOTHI LL

STORAGE 

UNIT III

STORAGE UNIT I

EAST

FOOTHIL L

WEST

FOOTHI LL

STORAGE 

UNIT III

B'

F'

C'

D'

G' E'

D

E

G

C

F

A

A'

B

PACIFIC OCEAN

0 1 2 MILES

0 1 2 KILOMETERS

CALIFORNIA

Study

area

SANTA

BARBARA

COUNTY

PACIFIC 

OCEAN

C

D
Chapter B: Overview of Hydrogeologic Framework Model 39

Figure 4. —Continued

Barbara

Santa

Barbara

101

101

119°46' 119°44' 119°42' 119°40'

34°27'

34°26'

34°25'

34°24'

T.

4

N.

STORAGE UNIT I

EAST

FOOTHIL L

WEST

FOOTHI LL

STORAGE 

UNIT III

B'

F'

C'

D'

G' E'

D

E

G

C

F

A

A'

B

CALIFORNIA

Study

area

SANTA

BARBARA

COUNTY

PACIFIC 

OCEAN

Barbara

City

Highway

EXPLANATION

A – A'

B – B'

C – C'

D – D'

E – E'

F – F'

e-log

Control point

190

100

0

–200

–346 Shale contact

0 1 2 MILES

0 1 2 KILOMETERS

Horizon

elevation,

in feet

Base modified from U.S. Geological Survey and other 

Federal and State digital data, various scales; 

Transverse Mercator projection, zone 11N; 

North American Datum of 1983 (NAD 83) Storage unit

Storage units from Muir, 1968; Freckleton and others, 1998;

geology modified from Minor and others, 2009

PACIFIC OCEAN

PACIFIC OCEAN

Santa

Barbara

101

101

119°46' 119°44' 119°42' 119°40'

34°27'

34°26'

34°25'

34°24'

T.

4

N.

R. 28 W. R. 27 W. R. 26 W.

STORAGE UNIT I

EAST

FOOTHIL L

WEST

FOOTHI LL

STORAGE 

UNIT III

B'

F'

C'

D'

G' E'

D

E

G

C

F

A

A'

B

0 1 2 MILES

0 1 2 KILOMETERS

CALIFORNIA

Study

area

SANTA

BARBARA

COUNTY

PACIFIC 

OCEAN

E

F
40 Santa Barbara and Foothill Groundwater Basins Geohydrology and Optimal Water Resources Management

N

A

Shallow zone

Upper producing zone

Middle zone

Lower producing zone

Deep zone

Basement

Aquifer zones

0 1 2 MILES

0 1 2 KILOMETERS

EXPLANATION

STORAGE UNIT I

EAST

FOOTHIL L

WEST

FOOTHI LL

STORAGE 

UNIT III

119°40'

119°42'

119°44' 119°46'

34°27'

34°26'

34°25'

STORAGE UNIT I EAST

FOOTHIL L

WEST

FOOTHI LL

STORAGE 

UNIT III

I'

H'

H

B'

F'

C'

D'

E'

D

E

C

F

I

A'

A

B Santa

Barbara

Figure 5. Hydrogeologic framework model results by fence diagram, Santa Barbara and Foothill groundwater basins, Santa 

Barbara, California: A, geometric framework model showing subsurface extent of the five aquifer zones, and B, texture model 

showing the distribution of coarse- and fine-grained material in each aquifer zone, with percent-coarse intervals for drillers’ well logs 

and geophysical e-logs (locations of all logs are also shown on the inset diagram). Fence diagrams shown with five times vertical 

exaggeration.

In general, all five aquifer zones are present across 

the study area, with the exception of (1) the middle zone in 

Storage Units I and III and (2) the upper producing zone and 

shallow zone in the southeastern section of Storage Unit III. 

In Storage Unit I, the middle zone pinches out approximately 

2–3 miles from the coast, and is absent further inland and in 

the northwestern part of Storage Unit III. In the southeastern 

part of Storage Unit III, the Santa Barbara Formation outcrops 

at land surface; therefore, the younger upper producing zone 

and shallow zone are absent.
Chapter B: Overview of Hydrogeologic Framework Model 41

Percent`coarse

0

20

40

60

80

100

Drillers’ log and e-log

percent coarse

N

0 1 2 MILES

0 1 2 KILOMETERS

EXPLANATION

STORAGE UNIT I

EAST

FOOTHIL L

WEST

FOOTHI LL

STORAGE 

UNIT III

I'

H'

H

I

119°40'

119°42'

119°44' 119°46'

34°27'

34°26'

34°25'

STORAGE UNIT I

EAST

FOOTHIL L

WEST

FOOTHI LL

STORAGE 

UNIT III

B'

F'

C'

D'

E'

D

E

C

F

A

A'

B

B

Santa

Barbara

Figure 5. —Continued

Textural Model

The textural model quantifies the lateral and vertical 

distribution of aquifer materials that affect the rate, and 

possibly direction, of groundwater flow through the aquifer 

system. Variability in sediment texture (lithology type 

and grain size), as identified in drillers’ lithology logs and 

geophysical e-logs, is ultimately a function of the depositional 

environment and geologic history of the area. An analysis 

of the spatial variability of lithology and grain size was 

done for the unconsolidated deposits that compose the five 

aquifer zones. The interpreted distribution of these textural 

properties can be used to define the distribution of hydrologic 

characteristics (such as horizontal and vertical hydraulic 

conductivity and groundwater storage), which can be used in a 

numerical groundwater-flow and solute-transport model.
42 Santa Barbara and Foothill Groundwater Basins Geohydrology and Optimal Water Resources Management

Textural Classification of Borehole Data

In order to describe the spatial variability in textural 

properties, the drillers’ lithologic descriptions and geophysical 

e-logs were evaluated and classified by texture. Texture is 

defined as the percentage of coarse-grained sediment present 

in a specified subsurface-depth interval (Hanson and others, 

1990; Laudon and Belitz, 1991; Faunt and others, 2009). 

Drillers’ log depth-interval entries were categorized into 

15 main lithology types and assigned one of 8 lithology 

modifiers (if applicable), resulting in a total of 62 unique 

lithology classes (table 3). Each of these unique lithology 

classes was further codified as either “coarse” or “fine” 

(representing sediment grain size) on the basis of the main 

lithology type and modifier. In this study, coarse-grained 

sediment was defined as that consisting principally of sand, 

gravel, boulders, or cobbles. Fine-grained sediment was 

defined as that consisting principally of clay, loam, mud, silt, 

or conglomerate. If either the lithology or its modifier was 

considered fine-grained, then the overall composition was 

considered to be fine-grained (for example, silty-sand and 

sandy-silt were considered fine-grained; table 3).

Geophysical e-logs measure the resistivity of rock and 

sediment adjacent to a borehole. Typically, greater resistance 

represents more permeable materials, such as sand; lower 

resistance indicates clays. However, if seawater is present or 

the sediments have a high salt concentration the resistance 

is substantially less, irrespective of the lithology. Combining 

resistivity values from e-log measurements with descriptions 

from drillers’ logs often provides a more detailed description 

of borehole lithology. Using the associated drillers’ log as a 

guide, a vertical line was subjectively fitted with the resistivity 

to the e-log, such that it delineated coarse- (right of the line) 

and fine- (left of the line) grained materials by depth. An 

example of this process is shown in figure 6, where a red line 

is fit across the black resistivity curve until the coarse (shaded) 

and fine (white) depth intervals generally correspond to the 

observations in the associated drillers’ log.

Modifier Lithology Texture

— Boulders Coarse

Clayey Boulders Fine

Sandy Boulders Coarse

Silty Boulders Fine

— Clay Fine

Cobbley Clay Fine

Gravelly Clay Fine

Pebbley Clay Fine

Sandy Clay Fine

Silty Clay Fine

Sticky Clay Fine

— Cobbles Coarse

Clayey Cobbles Fine

Gravelly Cobbles Coarse

Sandy Cobbles Coarse

— Conglomerate Fine

— Gravel Coarse

Clayey Gravel Fine

Cobbley Gravel Coarse

Pebbley Gravel Coarse

Sandy Gravel Coarse

Silty Gravel Fine

— Hard pan Fine

Sandy Hard pan Fine

Sandy Loam Fine

— Mud Fine

Sandy Mud Fine

Silty Mud Fine

Sticky Mud Fine

— Rock Fine

— Sand Coarse

Modifier Lithology Texture

Clayey Sand Fine

Cobbley Sand Coarse

Gravelly Sand Coarse

Muddy Sand Fine

Pebbley Sand Coarse

Silty Sand Fine

Sticky Sand Fine

— Sandstone Coarse

Clayey Sandstone Fine

Cobbley Sandstone Coarse

Gravelly Sandstone Coarse

Pebbley Sandstone Coarse

Sandy Sandstone Coarse

— Shale Fine

Clayey Shale Fine

Cobbley Shale Fine

Gravelly Shale Fine

Sandy Shale Fine

Silty Shale Fine

— Silt Fine

Clayey Silt Fine

Gravelly Silt Fine

Sandy Silt Fine

Sticky Silt Fine

— Siltstone Fine

Clayey Siltstone Fine

Sandy Siltstone Fine

— Top soil Coarse

Clayey Top soil Fine

Cobbley Top soil Coarse

Sandy Top soil Coarse

Table 3. Unique lithology descriptions and modifiers with associated binary coarse or fine classification as identified in drillers’ 

lithology logs, Santa Barbara and Foothill groundwater basins, Santa Barbara, California.

[Descriptions with no associated modifier are indicated by dashes (—) in the appropriate modifier cell.]
Chapter B: Overview of Hydrogeologic Framework Model 43

The percentage of coarse-grained deposits was calculated 

in 10-ft intervals both for the drillers’ lithology logs and for 

geophysical e-logs. When the drillers’ logs and geophysical 

e-logs were both available for a given borehole, the percentcoarse calculation from the e-log was preferentially used. 

The percent-coarse distribution for each borehole is shown in 

figure 5B (appendix B–1).

Textural Property Modeling

The three-dimensional distribution of aquifer properties 

was interpolated from the percent-coarse values for each 

borehole using the EarthVision software. As stated earlier, the 

property gridding module in EarthVision uses a biharmonic 

cubic-spline algorithm. This algorithm is an iterative process 

that adjusts tension surfaces so that they honor the input data 

with minimum curvature. The percent-coarse distribution was 

modeled for each aquifer zone as quantified in the geometric 

framework model: percent-coarse data from each borehole 

were partitioned according to the zone they were in, allowing 

the gridding software to interpolate only the data from within 

a specific zone. In addition, the faults separating the subbasins 

act as barriers to interpolation within zones, maintaining fault 

offsets and modeling textural discontinuities.

Textural Model Description

A fence diagram showing the three-dimensional 

distribution of aquifer texture is shown in figure 5B. The 

cross-section profile locations, orientation, and vertical 

exaggeration (5 times) are the same as in figure 5A. The 

spatial pattern of the percentage of coarse-grained texture 

is heterogeneous in each aquifer zone, although in general, 

the textures in the upper and lower producing zones yielded 

higher percent-coarse values than the shallow, middle, and 

deep zones. Regions with a predominance of very coarsegrained material (greater than 90-percent coarse) are locally 

important, as indicated by concentrations of high percent 

coarse for boreholes in the Storage Unit I, Storage Unit III, 

and East Foothill subbasins. Overall, however, there appeared 

to be an intermediate predominance of coarse-grained material 

(30–70-percent coarse) throughout the study area.

Dividing line between coarse and fine material

Resistance

Resistance indicates coarse material

EXPLANATION

Upper

producing

zone

Lower

producing

zone

Middle

zone

Deep

zone

0

10

200

30

400

0 20 40 50 60

600

1,000

800

 0 – 50 Fine sand

 50 – 140 Clay

140 – 148 Sand

148 – 164 Swelling clay

164 – 166 Gravel

166 – 214 Fine sand

214 – 244 Swelling clay

244 – 248 Rock

248 – 294 Swelling clay

294 – 316 Fine sand

316 – 366 Swelling clay

366 – 372 Brown rock

372 – 406 Swelling clay

406 – 408 Rock

408 – 430 Clay

430 – 440 Gravel (waterless)

440 – 510 Clay

510 – 518 Large gravel

518 – 532 Clay

532 – 614 Gravel (rock)

614 – 625 Clay

625 – 630 Gravel

WELL LOG

Total depth: 630 feet Depth of completed well: 630 feet

A B Resistance Depth, in feet

Figure 6. Example of logs from one borehole showing the textural variation and interpretation of borehole sediments with depth: 

A, drillers’ lithology log, and B, geophysical resistivity e-log.
44 Santa Barbara and Foothill Groundwater Basins Geohydrology and Optimal Water Resources Management

Figure 7 shows the relationship between the geometric 

framework (fig. 7A) and textural property (fig. 7B) model 

outputs along a single cross section that cuts through Storage 

Unit I. Select geophysical resistivity e-logs used to quantify 

the aquifer-zone horizons and percent-coarse textural values 

are displayed. These e-logs show the textural variation 

of each aquifer zone by depth and how the aquifer-zone 

horizon elevations change along the cross section. The upper 

and lower producing zones were defined by distinct, highamplitude increases in the resistivity curves, indicating more 

permeable, very coarse-grained sedimentary material. This 

observation is shown in the textural model by a concentration 

of warm colors in the upper and lower producing zones. 

Conversely, the shallow, middle, and deep zones were 

characterized by smaller, low-amplitude shifts in resistivity, 

indicating less-permeable sediments with a lower percentage 

of coarse-grained material. These aquifer zones are indicated 

by cooler colors in figure 7B.

The middle producing zone is a thin, areally limited layer 

of coarse-grained deposits at a depth of about 360–380 ft 

below NAVD 88 and extending 1–2 miles inland from 

the coast. Because of its limited areal extent, the middle 

producing zone was not modeled as an independent layer in 

the geometric framework model, but is shown in the cross 

section in figure 7. High-resistivity e-log readings in the 

middle zone indicate lenses of coarse-grained material, which 

were identified as the middle producing zone. The exception 

to this observation was from well 4N/27W-23F05, where a 

low-resistivity reading was interpreted to be seawater intrusion 

along the coarse-grained middle producing zone.
Chapter B: Overview of Hydrogeologic Framework Model 45

Figure 7. Cross section through the hydrogeologic framework model and geophysical resistivity e-logs shown for select boreholes and 

approximate extent of the middle producing zone, Santa Barbara and Foothill groundwater basins, Santa Barbara, California: A, aquiferzone horizons in the geometric framework model, and B, percent-coarse distributions in each aquifer zone in the textural model.

Qls Qa

af

Qac

Qac

Qc

Qa

Qls

Tsq Tv

Qc

TmmQls

Qsb?

Qsb

Qls

Tspu Tspu

Qa

Qoa Tcw Tspu

Tv Qdf Tspm

Qoa

Tspl

Tv

Tspu

Tr Qia

Tr

Tspm

Tv

Qia Tr

Qa Qls Qc

Qac

Tspu

Qa Qoa

Qdf

Qia?

af

Tspl

Qoa Qia

Qa

Qa

af Tspm

af

Tml?

Qoa

Qls Tr

Qia Tml

Tml

Qsb

Tr

Qls?

Tv

Qa

Qac Tml?

Qdf Tsq Qls Qls

af

Qoa

Qoa

Tmu Tr

Qoa

Tml

Qa

Qia?

Qoa

Qoa

Qoa

Qbx

Qsb Tv

Qac

Tr

TmmQa

Qc Tspu

Qbx Qoa

Qac

Qoa

Qia?

Qc

Tmu

Qe

Qa

Qmt

Qac Qoa?

Tml

Qac

af

Qsb

Qac

Qac

Qmt

af Qe

Qac

Tml

Tml

Tmm af

Tr Qb

Qls

Qmt

Qca Qa TmuQb

Tr Qmt? Tspu Qls

Qb

Qmt af Qmt

Qmt? Qsb

Qb Tml Qb

Qb

Tmm

Tml

Unmapped

Qb

101

101

af

af

FOOTHILL

FAULT

LAVIGIA

FAULT

EAST MORE

RANCH FAULT

MODOC FAULT

MESA FAULT

NORTHEAST MORE

RANCH FAULT UNNAMED

FAULT

ROCKY NOOK FAULT

LAGOON FAULT

Santa Barbara

119°46' 119°44' 119°42' 119°40'

34°28'

34°27'

34°26'

34°25'

34°24'

T.

5

N.

T.

4

N.

R. 28 W. R. 27 W. R. 26 W.

STORAGE UNIT I

EAST

FOOTHIL L

WEST

FOOTHI LL

STORAGE 

UNIT III

4N/27W-17J1

AA

AA’

4N/27W-22A2

4N/27W-23F5

4N/27W-22B2 4N/27W-16R1

4N/27W-22C1 4N/27W-23E5

COASTLINE

–950

–550

–350

–150

250

50

–750

–1,150

?

?

4N/27W-16R1 4N/27W-22C1 4N/27W-22B2

(projected)

4N/27W-23E5

(projected) 4N/27W-22A2 4N/27W-23F5

Santa

Barbara 101

–20 340

10 280

4N/27W-17J1

–20 340 4 400 2 260

Elevation, in feet above North American 

Vertical Datum of 1988

5X VERTICAL EXAGGERATION

A

? Middle producing zone contact—solid where interpreted

from borehole logs; dashed where inferred

Aquifer zones

Resistivity logs, in ohm-meter

16” normal Single point

18” normal

64” normal Laterolog

Borehole information

4N/27W-17J1 State well number

Borehole path

EXPLANATION

Shallow zone

Upper producing zone

Lower producing zone

Deep zone

Basement

Middle zone

AA AA'

–20 340 4 400 2 260

–20 340 1 150

5 150

–20 340 4 400

?

?

COASTLINE

Santa

Barbara 101

4N/27W-17J1

–20 340 4 400 2 260

–20 340 4 400 2 260

–20 340 1 150

5 150

–20 340 4 400

–20 340

10 280

4N/27W-16R1

4N/27W-22A2 4N/27W-23F5 4N/27W-22C1

4N/27W-22B2

(projected)

4N/27W-23E5

(projected)

Elevation, in feet above North American 

Vertical Datum of 1988

1,640 3,280 4,921 6,561 8,202 9,842 11,482 13,123 14,763 16,404 18,044 19,685

Distance along transect, in feet

B

–950

–550

–350

–150

250

50

–750

–1,150

? Middle producing zone contact—solid where interpreted

from borehole logs; dashed where inferred

Percentage

coarse

Resistivity logs, in ohm-meter

16” normal Single point 18” normal

64” normal Laterolog

Borehole information

4N/27W-17J1 State well number

Borehole path

0

20

40

60

80

100

EXPLANATION

AA AA'
46 Santa Barbara and Foothill Groundwater Basins Geohydrology and Optimal Water Resources Management

Summary and Conclusions

This chapter presents an integrated three-dimensional 

hydrogeologic framework model (HFM) of the Santa 

Barbara and Foothill groundwater basins. The HFM has two 

parts: (1) a geometric framework model that quantifies the 

subsurface extent of the five aquifer zones in the study area 

with respect to major geologic structures and stratigraphy 

and (2) a texture model that characterizes the distribution of 

sedimentary lithology type and grain size in each aquifer zone. 

The geometric framework model incorporates previously 

published geologic maps, interpretive geologic cross sections, 

drillers’ lithology descriptions, and geophysical resistivity 

e-log information in a three-dimensional digital representation 

of aquifer-zone horizons and major geologic structures. The 

texture model uses interpreted lithologic information from 

drillers’ lithology logs and e-logs to interpolate the distribution 

of coarse- and fine-grained material throughout the aquifer 

zones defined in the geometric framework model. 

The aquifer system in the Santa Barbara and Foothill 

groundwater basins was divided into five stratigraphic aquifer 

zones made up of unconsolidated sedimentary deposits of 

Pleistocene age and younger. The five aquifer zones are, 

from youngest to oldest, the shallow zone, upper producing 

zone, middle zone, lower producing zone, and deep zone. 

With few exceptions, the five aquifer zones are present 

throughout the study area, but vary in thickness between and 

within subbasins. The two main producing aquifer layers, 

the upper and lower producing zones, contain considerably 

more coarse-grained material than the other three zones. Thin 

lenses of coarse sediments are locally present in the shallow, 

middle, and deep zones and could be significant in terms of 

groundwater extraction, such as the middle producing zone in 

the middle zone.

References Cited

Burow, K.R., Shelton, J.L., Hevesi, J.A., and Weissmann, G.S., 

2004, Hydrogeologic characterization of the Modesto area, 

San Joaquin Valley, California: U.S. Geological Survey 

Scientific Investigations Report 2004–5232, 54 p., 

http://pubs.usgs.gov/sir/2004/5232/.

Dynamic Graphics, Inc., 2015, EarthVision, accessed 

November 24, 2015, at 

http://www.dgi.com/earthvision/evmain.html.

Faunt, C.C., Belitz, Kenneth, and Hanson, R.T., 2009, 

Development of a three-dimensional model of sedimentary 

texture in valley-fill deposits of Central Valley, CA, USA: 

Hydrogeology Journal, v. 18, p. 625–649, 

https://doi.org/0.1007/s10040-009-0539-7.

Freckleton, J.R., 1989, Geohydrology of the Foothill groundwater basin near Santa Barbara, California: U.S. Geological 

Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report 89–4017, 

46 p., https://pubs.er.usgs.gov/publication/wri894017.

Freckleton, J.R., Martin, P., Nishikawa, T., 1998, 

Geohydrology of Storage Unit III and a combined flow 

model of the Santa Barbara and foothill ground-water 

basins, Santa Barbara County, California: U.S. Geological 

Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report 97–4121, 

85 p., http://pubs.er.usgs.gov/publication/wri974121.

Hanson, R.T., Anderson, S.R., and Pool, D.R., 1990, 

Simulation of ground-water flow and potential land 

subsidence, Avra Valley, Arizona: U.S. Geological Survey 

Water-Resources Investigations Report 90–4178, 41 p., 

http://pubs.er.usgs.gov/usgspubs/wri/wri904178.

Hutchinson, C.B., 1979, Ground-water monitoring at Santa 

Barbara, California—Phase 1, Coastal monitor-well 

installation and initial measurements: U.S. Geological 

Survey Open-File Report 79–923, 24 p., 

https://pubs.er.usgs.gov/publication/ofr79923.

Laudon, J., and Belitz, K., 1991, Texture and depositional 

history of late Pleistocene-Holocene alluvium in the 

central part of the western San Joaquin Valley, California: 

Environmental and Engineering Geoscience, v. 28, no. 1, 

p. 73–88, https://doi.org/10.2113/ggeosci.xxviii.1.73.

Martin, P., and Berenbrock, C., 1986, Ground-water 

monitoring at Santa Barbara, California; Phase 3—

Development of a three-dimensional digital ground-water 

flow model for Storage Unit I of the Santa Barbara groundwater basin: U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources 

Investigations Report 86–4103, 58 p., 

https://pubs.er.usgs.gov/publication/wri864103.

Minor, S.A., Kellogg, K.S., Stanley, R.G., Gurrola, L.D., 

Keller, E.A., and Brandt, T.R., 2009, Geologic map of the 

Santa Barbara coastal plain area, Santa Barbara County, 

California: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations 

Map 3001, scale 1:25,000, 1 sheet, pamphlet, 38 p., 

https://pubs.er.usgs.gov/publication/sim3001.

Muir, K.S., 1968, Ground-water reconnaissance of the Santa 

Barbara-Montecito area, Santa Barbara County, California: 

Geological Survey Water-Supply Paper 1859–A, p. A1–

A28, https://pubs.er.usgs.gov/publication/wsp1859A.
State 

well 

number

Interval 

midpoint depth 

(feet)

PC Log 

type

4N/27W-6L1 5 18.2 D

4N/27W-6L1 15 0 D

4N/27W-6L1 25 0 D

4N/27W-6L1 35 0 D

4N/27W-6L1 45 0 D

4N/27W-6L1 55 60 D

4N/27W-6L1 65 80 D

4N/27W-6L1 75 80 D

4N/27W-6L1 85 100 D

4N/27W-6L1 95 100 D

4N/27W-6L1 105 100 D

4N/27W-6L1 115 100 D

4N/27W-6L1 125 100 D

4N/27W-6L1 135 100 D

4N/27W-6L1 145 100 D

4N/27W-6L1 155 100 D

4N/27W-6L1 165 100 D

4N/27W-6L1 175 100 D

4N/27W-6L1 185 100 D

4N/27W-6L1 195 100 D

4N/27W-6L1 205 88.9 D

4N/27W-6L1 215 0 D

4N/27W-6L1 225 0 D

4N/27W-6L1 235 0 D

4N/27W-6L1 245 0 D

4N/27W-6L1 255 0 D

4N/27W-6L1 265 0 D

4N/27W-6N1 5 0 D

4N/27W-6N1 15 0 D

4N/27W-6N1 25 0 D

4N/27W-6N1 35 0 D

4N/27W-6N1 45 0 D

4N/27W-6N1 55 0 D

4N/27W-6N1 65 0 D

State 

well 

number

Interval 

midpoint depth 

(feet)

PC Log 

type

4N/27W-6N1 75 0 D

4N/27W-6N1 85 60 D

4N/27W-6N1 95 100 D

4N/27W-6N1 105 60 D

4N/27W-6N1 115 0 D

4N/27W-6N1 125 0 D

4N/27W-6N1 135 0 D

4N/27W-6N1 145 0 D

4N/27W-6N1 155 0 D

4N/27W-6N1 165 0 D

4N/27W-6N2 5 0 D

4N/27W-6N2 15 0 D

4N/27W-6N2 25 0 D

4N/27W-6N2 35 80 D

4N/27W-6N2 45 100 D

4N/27W-6N2 55 100 D

4N/27W-6N2 65 100 D

4N/27W-6N2 75 100 D

4N/27W-6N2 85 100 D

4N/27W-6N2 95 100 D

4N/27W-6N2 105 100 D

4N/27W-6N2 115 20 D

4N/27W-6P1 5 18.2 D

4N/27W-6P1 15 0 D

4N/27W-6P1 25 0 D

4N/27W-6P1 35 0 D

4N/27W-6P1 45 0 D

4N/27W-6P1 55 0 D

4N/27W-6P1 65 0 D

4N/27W-6P1 75 0 D

4N/27W-6P1 85 0 D

4N/27W-6P1 95 60 D

4N/27W-6P1 105 100 D

4N/27W-6P1 115 100 D

Appendix B–1

Table B1–1. Calculated percent-coarse intervals for all drillers’ logs and e-logs used to define textural properties of the hydrogeologic 

framework model.

[Percent-coarse values are calculated for 10-foot intervals for the entire depth of each borehole. State well number is the state of California well identifier; 

interval midpoint depth is the midpoint of each 10-foot interval, in feet from top of borehole; PC is the percent-coarse value for each interval; log type defines 

whether the borehole is a drillers’ lithology log (D) or a geophysical e-log (E).]
48 Santa Barbara and Foothill Groundwater Basins Geohydrology and Optimal Water Resources Management

State 

well 

number

Interval 

midpoint depth 

(feet)

PC Log 

type

4N/27W-6P1 125 100 D

4N/27W-6P1 135 100 D

4N/27W-6P1 145 40 D

4N/27W-6P1 155 100 D

4N/27W-6P1 165 100 D

4N/27W-6P1 175 100 D

4N/27W-6P1 185 77.8 D

4N/27W-6P1 195 45.5 D

4N/27W-6P1 205 22.2 D

4N/27W-6P2 75 0 D

4N/27W-6P2 85 0 D

4N/27W-6P2 95 0 D

4N/27W-6P2 105 0 D

4N/27W-6P2 115 0 D

4N/27W-6P2 125 0 D

4N/27W-6P2 135 0 D

4N/27W-6P2 145 0 D

4N/27W-6P2 155 0 D

4N/27W-6P2 165 0 D

4N/27W-6P2 175 0 D

4N/27W-6P2 185 0 D

4N/27W-6P2 195 0 D

4N/27W-6P2 205 0 D

4N/27W-6P2 215 27.3 D

4N/27W-6P2 225 20 D

4N/27W-6P2 235 0 D

4N/27W-6P2 245 0 D

4N/27W-6Q2 5 81.8 D

4N/27W-6Q2 15 0 D

4N/27W-6Q2 25 0 D

4N/27W-6Q2 35 0 D

4N/27W-6Q2 45 60 D

4N/27W-6Q2 55 0 D

4N/27W-6Q2 65 0 D

4N/27W-6Q2 75 0 D

4N/27W-6Q2 85 0 D

4N/27W-6Q2 95 0 D

4N/27W-6Q2 105 0 D

4N/27W-6Q2 115 0 D

State 

well 

number

Interval 

midpoint depth 

(feet)

PC Log 

type

4N/27W-6Q2 125 90 D

4N/27W-6Q2 135 100 D

4N/27W-6Q2 145 50 D

4N/27W-6Q2 155 0 D

4N/27W-6Q2 165 0 D

4N/27W-6Q2 175 70 D

4N/27W-6Q2 185 100 D

4N/27W-6Q2 195 60 D

4N/27W-6Q2 205 88.9 D

4N/27W-6Q2 215 72.7 D

4N/27W-6Q2 225 100 D

4N/27W-6Q2 235 90 D

4N/27W-6Q2 245 90 D

4N/27W-6Q2 255 100 D

4N/27W-6Q11 5 72.7 D

4N/27W-6Q11 15 0 D

4N/27W-6Q11 25 50 D

4N/27W-6Q11 35 100 D

4N/27W-6Q11 45 100 D

4N/27W-6Q11 55 100 D

4N/27W-6Q11 65 100 D

4N/27W-6Q11 75 100 D

4N/27W-6Q11 85 100 D

4N/27W-6Q11 95 100 D

4N/27W-6Q11 105 100 D

4N/27W-6Q11 115 100 D

4N/27W-6Q11 125 90 D

4N/27W-6Q11 135 0 D

4N/27W-6Q11 145 0 D

4N/27W-6Q11 155 0 D

4N/27W-6Q11 165 0 D

4N/27W-6Q11 175 0 D

4N/27W-6Q11 185 0 D

4N/27W-6Q11 195 0 D

4N/27W-6Q11 205 0 D

4N/27W-6Q11 215 0 D

4N/27W-6Q11 225 0 D

4N/27W-6Q11 235 0 D

4N/27W-6Q11 245 0 D

Table B1–1. Calculated percent-coarse intervals for all drillers’ logs and e-logs used to define textural properties of the hydrogeologic 

framework model.—Continued

[Percent-coarse values are calculated for 10-foot intervals for the entire depth of each borehole. State well number is the state of California well identifier; 

interval midpoint depth is the midpoint of each 10-foot interval, in feet from top of borehole; PC is the percent-coarse value for each interval; log type defines 

whether the borehole is a drillers’ lithology log (D) or a geophysical e-log (E).]
Chapter B: Overview of Hydrogeologic Framework Model 49

State 

well 

number

Interval 

midpoint depth 

(feet)

PC Log 

type

4N/27W-6Q11 255 0 D

4N/27W-6Q11 265 0 D

4N/27W-6Q11 275 0 D

4N/27W-6Q11 285 0 D

4N/27W-6Q11 295 0 D

4N/27W-6Q11 305 0 D

4N/27W-6Q11 315 90 D

4N/27W-6Q11 325 100 D

4N/27W-6Q11 335 100 D

4N/27W-6Q11 345 100 D

4N/27W-6Q11 355 100 D

4N/27W-6Q11 365 100 D

4N/27W-6Q11 375 100 D

4N/27W-6Q11 385 100 D

4N/27W-6Q11 395 90 D

4N/27W-6R2 5 54.5 D

4N/27W-6R2 15 0 D

4N/27W-6R2 25 0 D

4N/27W-6R2 35 0 D

4N/27W-6R2 45 0 D

4N/27W-6R2 55 0 D

4N/27W-6R2 65 30 D

4N/27W-6R2 75 0 D

4N/27W-6R2 85 0 D

4N/27W-6R2 95 0 D

4N/27W-6R2 105 0 D

4N/27W-6R2 115 0 D

4N/27W-6R2 125 0 D

4N/27W-6R2 135 70 D

4N/27W-6R2 145 30 D

4N/27W-6R2 155 0 D

4N/27W-6R2 165 0 D

4N/27W-6R2 175 0 D

4N/27W-6R2 185 40 D

4N/27W-6R2 195 0 D

4N/27W-6R2 205 88.9 D

4N/27W-6R2 215 100 D

4N/27W-6R2 225 60 D

4N/27W-6R2 235 0 D

State 

well 

number

Interval 

midpoint depth 

(feet)

PC Log 

type

4N/27W-6R2 245 0 D

4N/27W-6R2 255 0 D

4N/27W-6R2 265 60 D

4N/27W-6R2 275 100 D

4N/27W-6R2 285 100 D

4N/27W-6R2 295 100 D

4N/27W-6R2 305 20 D

4N/27W-6R3 5 0 D

4N/27W-6R3 15 0 D

4N/27W-6R3 25 0 D

4N/27W-6R3 35 0 D

4N/27W-6R3 45 0 D

4N/27W-6R3 55 0 D

4N/27W-6R3 65 0 D

4N/27W-6R3 75 0 D

4N/27W-6R3 85 0 D

4N/27W-6R3 95 0 D

4N/27W-6R3 105 0 D

4N/27W-6R3 115 80 D

4N/27W-6R3 125 100 D

4N/27W-6R3 135 80 D

4N/27W-6R3 145 50 D

4N/27W-6R3 155 0 D

4N/27W-6R3 165 0 D

4N/27W-6R3 175 10 D

4N/27W-6R3 185 20 D

4N/27W-6R3 195 30 D

4N/27W-6R3 205 100 D

4N/27W-6R3 215 63.6 D

4N/27W-6R3 225 90 D

4N/27W-6R3 235 90 D

4N/27W-6R3 245 100 D

4N/27W-6R3 255 100 D

4N/27W-6R3 265 100 D

4N/27W-7A5 155 0 D

4N/27W-7A5 165 0 D

4N/27W-7A5 175 10 D

4N/27W-7A5 185 44.4 D

4N/27W-7A5 195 0 D

Table B1–1. Calculated percent-coarse intervals for all drillers’ logs and e-logs used to define textural properties of the hydrogeologic 

framework model.—Continued

[Percent-coarse values are calculated for 10-foot intervals for the entire depth of each borehole. State well number is the state of California well identifier; 

interval midpoint depth is the midpoint of each 10-foot interval, in feet from top of borehole; PC is the percent-coarse value for each interval; log type defines 

whether the borehole is a drillers’ lithology log (D) or a geophysical e-log (E).]
50 Santa Barbara and Foothill Groundwater Basins Geohydrology and Optimal Water Resources Management

State 

well 

number

Interval 

midpoint depth 

(feet)

PC Log 

type

4N/27W-7A5 205 0 D

4N/27W-7A5 215 0 D

4N/27W-7A5 225 30 D

4N/27W-7A5 235 80 D

4N/27W-7A5 245 22.2 D

4N/27W-7B2 5 9.1 D

4N/27W-7B2 15 0 D

4N/27W-7B2 25 0 D

4N/27W-7B2 35 0 D

4N/27W-7B2 45 0 D

4N/27W-7B2 55 0 D

4N/27W-7B2 65 0 D

4N/27W-7B2 75 0 D

4N/27W-7B2 85 0 D

4N/27W-7B2 95 0 D

4N/27W-7B2 105 0 D

4N/27W-7B2 115 0 D

4N/27W-7B2 125 20 D

4N/27W-7B2 135 40 D

4N/27W-7B2 145 100 D

4N/27W-7B2 155 10 D

4N/27W-7B2 165 0 D

4N/27W-7B2 175 50 D

4N/27W-7B2 185 100 D

4N/27W-7B4 5 9.1 D

4N/27W-7B4 15 0 D

4N/27W-7B4 25 0 D

4N/27W-7B4 35 0 D

4N/27W-7B4 45 30 D

4N/27W-7B4 55 50 D

4N/27W-7B4 65 0 D

4N/27W-7B4 75 0 D

4N/27W-7B4 85 0 D

4N/27W-7B4 95 0 D

4N/27W-7B4 105 0 D

4N/27W-7B4 115 0 D

4N/27W-7B4 125 0 D

4N/27W-7B4 135 70 D

4N/27W-7B4 145 0 D

State 

well 

number

Interval 

midpoint depth 

(feet)

PC Log 

type

4N/27W-7B4 155 0 D

4N/27W-7B6 5 18.2 D

4N/27W-7B6 15 0 D

4N/27W-7B6 25 0 D

4N/27W-7B6 35 0 D

4N/27W-7B6 45 0 D

4N/27W-7B6 55 0 D

4N/27W-7B6 65 0 D

4N/27W-7B6 75 0 D

4N/27W-7B6 85 0 D

4N/27W-7B6 95 0 D

4N/27W-7B6 105 10 D

4N/27W-7B6 115 0 D

4N/27W-7B6 125 0 D

4N/27W-7B6 135 0 D

4N/27W-7B6 145 0 D

4N/27W-7B6 155 0 D

4N/27W-7B6 165 0 D

4N/27W-7B6 175 0 D

4N/27W-7B6 185 11.1 D

4N/27W-7B6 195 18.2 D

4N/27W-7B6 205 0 D

4N/27W-7B6 215 0 D

4N/27W-7B6 225 0 D

4N/27W-7B7 5 9.1 D

4N/27W-7B7 15 40 D

4N/27W-7B7 25 0 D

4N/27W-7B7 35 0 D

4N/27W-7B7 45 0 D

4N/27W-7B7 55 0 D

4N/27W-7B7 65 0 D

4N/27W-7B7 75 0 D

4N/27W-7B7 85 0 D

4N/27W-7B7 95 0 D

4N/27W-7B7 105 0 D

4N/27W-7B7 115 0 D

4N/27W-7B7 125 0 D

4N/27W-7B7 135 0 D

4N/27W-7B7 145 0 D

Table B1–1. Calculated percent-coarse intervals for all drillers’ logs and e-logs used to define textural properties of the hydrogeologic 

framework model.—Continued

[Percent-coarse values are calculated for 10-foot intervals for the entire depth of each borehole. State well number is the state of California well identifier; 

interval midpoint depth is the midpoint of each 10-foot interval, in feet from top of borehole; PC is the percent-coarse value for each interval; log type defines 

whether the borehole is a drillers’ lithology log (D) or a geophysical e-log (E).]
Chapter B: Overview of Hydrogeologic Framework Model 51

State 

well 

number

Interval 

midpoint depth 

(feet)

PC Log 

type

4N/27W-7B7 155 0 D

4N/27W-7B7 165 0 D

4N/27W-7B7 175 0 D

4N/27W-7B7 185 0 D

4N/27W-7B7 195 0 D

4N/27W-7B7 205 0 D

4N/27W-7B7 215 0 D

4N/27W-7B7 225 40 D

4N/27W-7B7 235 40 D

4N/27W-7B7 245 44.4 D

4N/27W-7B10 5 72.7 D

4N/27W-7B10 15 0 D

4N/27W-7B10 25 0 D

4N/27W-7B10 35 0 D

4N/27W-7B10 45 0 D

4N/27W-7B10 55 0 D

4N/27W-7B10 65 0 D

4N/27W-7B10 75 0 D

4N/27W-7B10 85 0 D

4N/27W-7B10 95 0 D

4N/27W-7B10 105 0 D

4N/27W-7B10 115 0 D

4N/27W-7B10 125 0 D

4N/27W-7B10 135 0 D

4N/27W-7B10 145 90 D

4N/27W-7B10 155 0 D

4N/27W-7B10 165 20 D

4N/27W-7B10 175 0 D

4N/27W-7B10 185 0 D

4N/27W-7B10 195 0 D

4N/27W-7B10 205 0 D

4N/27W-7B10 215 0 D

4N/27W-7B10 225 0 D

4N/27W-7B10 235 0 D

4N/27W-7B10 245 0 D

4N/27W-7B10 255 0 D

4N/27W-7B10 265 0 D

4N/27W-7B10 275 60 D

4N/27W-7B10 285 20 D

State 

well 

number

Interval 

midpoint depth 

(feet)

PC Log 

type

4N/27W-7B10 295 81.8 D

4N/27W-7B11 5 100 D

4N/27W-7B11 15 100 D

4N/27W-7B11 25 100 D

4N/27W-7B11 35 100 D

4N/27W-7B11 45 100 D

4N/27W-7B11 55 90 D

4N/27W-7B11 65 0 D

4N/27W-7B11 75 0 D

4N/27W-7B11 85 0 D

4N/27W-7B11 95 0 D

4N/27W-7B11 105 0 D

4N/27W-7B11 115 0 D

4N/27W-7B11 125 0 D

4N/27W-7B11 135 0 D

4N/27W-7B11 145 0 D

4N/27W-7B11 155 0 D

4N/27W-7B11 165 0 D

4N/27W-7B11 175 0 D

4N/27W-7B11 185 0 D

4N/27W-7B11 195 0 D

4N/27W-7B11 205 0 D

4N/27W-7B11 215 0 D

4N/27W-7B11 225 0 D

4N/27W-7B11 235 0 D

4N/27W-7B11 245 0 D

4N/27W-7B11 255 0 D

4N/27W-7B11 265 0 D

4N/27W-7B11 275 0 D

4N/27W-7B11 285 0 D

4N/27W-7B11 295 0 D

4N/27W-7B11 305 0 D

4N/27W-7B11 315 0 D

4N/27W-7B11 325 0 D

4N/27W-7B11 335 0 D

4N/27W-7B11 345 0 D

4N/27W-7B11 355 0 D

4N/27W-7B11 365 0 D

4N/27W-7B11 375 0 D

Table B1–1. Calculated percent-coarse intervals for all drillers’ logs and e-logs used to define textural properties of the hydrogeologic 

framework model.—Continued

[Percent-coarse values are calculated for 10-foot intervals for the entire depth of each borehole. State well number is the state of California well identifier; 

interval midpoint depth is the midpoint of each 10-foot interval, in feet from top of borehole; PC is the percent-coarse value for each interval; log type defines 

whether the borehole is a drillers’ lithology log (D) or a geophysical e-log (E).]
52 Santa Barbara and Foothill Groundwater Basins Geohydrology and Optimal Water Resources Management

State 

well 

number

Interval 

midpoint depth 

(feet)

PC Log 

type

4N/27W-7B11 385 0 D

4N/27W-7B11 395 0 D

4N/27W-7B11 405 0 D

4N/27W-7B11 415 0 D

4N/27W-7B11 425 0 D

4N/27W-7B11 435 0 D

4N/27W-7B11 445 0 D

4N/27W-7B11 455 0 D

4N/27W-7B11 465 0 D

4N/27W-7B11 475 0 D

4N/27W-7B11 485 0 D

4N/27W-7C3 5 100 D

4N/27W-7C3 15 30 D

4N/27W-7C3 25 0 D

4N/27W-7C3 35 0 D

4N/27W-7C3 45 0 D

4N/27W-7C3 55 0 D

4N/27W-7C3 65 0 D

4N/27W-7C3 75 0 D

4N/27W-7C3 85 0 D

4N/27W-7C3 95 0 D

4N/27W-7C3 105 0 D

4N/27W-7C3 115 0 D

4N/27W-7C3 125 0 D

4N/27W-7C3 135 0 D

4N/27W-7C3 145 30 D

4N/27W-7C3 155 100 D

4N/27W-7C3 165 100 D

4N/27W-7C3 175 100 D

4N/27W-7C3 185 100 D

4N/27W-7C3 195 36.4 D

4N/27W-7C3 205 0 D

4N/27W-7C3 215 27.3 D

4N/27W-7C3 225 100 D

4N/27W-7C6 5 18.2 D

4N/27W-7C6 15 0 D

4N/27W-7C6 25 0 D

4N/27W-7C6 35 0 D

4N/27W-7C6 45 0 D

State 

well 

number

Interval 

midpoint depth 

(feet)

PC Log 

type

4N/27W-7C6 55 0 D

4N/27W-7C6 65 0 D

4N/27W-7C6 75 0 D

4N/27W-7C6 85 0 D

4N/27W-7C6 95 0 D

4N/27W-7C6 105 0 D

4N/27W-7C6 115 0 D

4N/27W-7C6 125 0 D

4N/27W-7C6 135 0 D

4N/27W-7C6 145 0 D

4N/27W-7C6 155 0 D

4N/27W-7C6 165 0 D

4N/27W-7C6 175 0 D

4N/27W-7C6 185 0 D

4N/27W-7C6 195 0 D

4N/27W-7C6 205 0 D

4N/27W-7C6 215 0 D

4N/27W-7C6 225 0 D

4N/27W-7C6 235 0 D

4N/27W-7C6 245 66.7 D

4N/27W-7D1 5 0 D

4N/27W-7D1 15 0 D

4N/27W-7D1 25 0 D

4N/27W-7D1 35 0 D

4N/27W-7D1 45 0 D

4N/27W-7D1 55 0 D

4N/27W-7D1 65 0 D

4N/27W-7D1 75 0 D

4N/27W-7D1 85 0 D

4N/27W-7D1 95 0 D

4N/27W-7D1 105 0 D

4N/27W-7D1 115 0 D

4N/27W-7D1 125 0 D

4N/27W-7D1 135 0 D

4N/27W-7D1 145 0 D

4N/27W-7D1 155 0 D

4N/27W-7D1 165 0 D

4N/27W-7D1 175 0 D

4N/27W-7D1 185 0 D

Table B1–1. Calculated percent-coarse intervals for all drillers’ logs and e-logs used to define textural properties of the hydrogeologic 

framework model.—Continued

[Percent-coarse values are calculated for 10-foot intervals for the entire depth of each borehole. State well number is the state of California well identifier; 

interval midpoint depth is the midpoint of each 10-foot interval, in feet from top of borehole; PC is the percent-coarse value for each interval; log type defines 

whether the borehole is a drillers’ lithology log (D) or a geophysical e-log (E).]
Chapter B: Overview of Hydrogeologic Framework Model 53

State 

well 

number

Interval 

midpoint depth 

(feet)

PC Log 

type

4N/27W-7D1 195 0 D

4N/27W-7D1 205 0 D

4N/27W-7D1 215 100 D

4N/27W-7D1 225 100 D

4N/27W-7D1 235 100 D

4N/27W-7D1 245 100 D

4N/27W-7D1 255 90 D

4N/27W-7D1 265 0 D

4N/27W-7D1 275 100 D

4N/27W-7D1 285 100 D

4N/27W-7D1 295 45.5 D

4N/27W-7D1 305 0 D

4N/27W-7D1 315 0 D

4N/27W-7D1 325 0 D

4N/27W-7D1 335 0 D

4N/27W-7D1 345 0 D

4N/27W-7D1 355 0 D

4N/27W-7D1 365 0 D

4N/27W-7D1 375 0 D

4N/27W-7D1 385 0 D

4N/27W-7D1 395 0 D

4N/27W-7D1 405 0 D

4N/27W-7D1 415 0 D

4N/27W-7D1 425 54.5 D

4N/27W-7D1 435 100 D

4N/27W-7D1 445 100 D

4N/27W-7D1 455 100 D

4N/27W-7D1 465 100 D

4N/27W-7D1 475 90 D

4N/27W-7F5 5 0 D

4N/27W-7F5 15 20 D

4N/27W-7F5 25 0 D

4N/27W-7F5 35 0 D

4N/27W-7F5 45 0 D

4N/27W-7F5 55 30 D

4N/27W-7F5 65 20 D

4N/27W-7F5 75 0 D

4N/27W-7F5 85 60 D

4N/27W-7F5 95 10 D

State 

well 

number

Interval 

midpoint depth 

(feet)

PC Log 

type

4N/27W-7F5 105 0 D

4N/27W-7F5 115 0 D

4N/27W-7F5 125 0 D

4N/27W-7F5 135 0 D

4N/27W-7F5 145 40 D

4N/27W-7F5 155 40 D

4N/27W-7F10 5 36.4 D

4N/27W-7F10 15 0 D

4N/27W-7F10 25 0 D

4N/27W-7F10 35 0 D

4N/27W-7F10 45 20 D

4N/27W-7F10 55 40 D

4N/27W-7F10 65 0 D

4N/27W-7F10 75 0 D

4N/27W-7F10 85 0 D

4N/27W-7F10 95 0 D

4N/27W-7F10 105 60 D

4N/27W-7F10 115 50 D

4N/27W-7F10 125 0 D

4N/27W-7F10 135 0 D

4N/27W-7F10 145 0 D

4N/27W-7F10 155 0 D

4N/27W-7F10 165 0 D

4N/27W-7F10 175 0 D

4N/27W-7F10 185 0 D

4N/27W-7F10 195 0 D

4N/27W-7F10 205 0 D

4N/27W-7F10 215 0 D

4N/27W-7F10 225 0 D

4N/27W-7F10 235 20 D

4N/27W-7F10 245 0 D

4N/27W-7F10 255 0 D

4N/27W-7F10 265 0 D

4N/27W-7F10 275 0 D

4N/27W-7F10 285 0 D

4N/27W-7F10 295 0 D

4N/27W-7F11 5 9.1 D

4N/27W-7F11 15 0 D

4N/27W-7F11 25 0 D

Table B1–1. Calculated percent-coarse intervals for all drillers’ logs and e-logs used to define textural properties of the hydrogeologic 

framework model.—Continued

[Percent-coarse values are calculated for 10-foot intervals for the entire depth of each borehole. State well number is the state of California well identifier; 

interval midpoint depth is the midpoint of each 10-foot interval, in feet from top of borehole; PC is the percent-coarse value for each interval; log type defines 

whether the borehole is a drillers’ lithology log (D) or a geophysical e-log (E).]
54 Santa Barbara and Foothill Groundwater Basins Geohydrology and Optimal Water Resources Management

State 

well 

number

Interval 

midpoint depth 

(feet)

PC Log 

type

4N/27W-7F11 35 0 D

4N/27W-7F11 45 0 D

4N/27W-7F11 55 0 D

4N/27W-7F11 65 0 D

4N/27W-7F11 75 0 D

4N/27W-7F11 85 0 D

4N/27W-7F11 95 0 D

4N/27W-7F11 105 20 D

4N/27W-7F11 115 40 D

4N/27W-7F11 125 10 D

4N/27W-7F11 135 0 D

4N/27W-7F11 145 0 D

4N/27W-7F11 155 0 D

4N/27W-7F11 165 0 D

4N/27W-7F11 175 0 D

4N/27W-7F11 185 0 D

4N/27W-7F11 195 0 D

4N/27W-7F11 205 0 D

4N/27W-7F11 215 0 D

4N/27W-7F11 225 30 D

4N/27W-7F11 235 100 D

4N/27W-7F11 245 100 D

4N/27W-7F11 255 100 D

4N/27W-7F11 265 0 D

4N/27W-7F11 275 80 D

4N/27W-7F11 285 100 D

4N/27W-7F12 5 0 D

4N/27W-7F12 15 0 D

4N/27W-7F12 25 0 D

4N/27W-7F12 35 0 D

4N/27W-7F12 45 0 D

4N/27W-7F12 55 0 D

4N/27W-7F12 65 0 D

4N/27W-7F12 75 0 D

4N/27W-7F12 85 0 D

4N/27W-7F12 95 0 D

4N/27W-7F12 105 0 D

4N/27W-7F12 115 0 D

4N/27W-7F12 125 0 D

State 

well 

number

Interval 

midpoint depth 

(feet)

PC Log 

type

4N/27W-7F12 135 0 D

4N/27W-7F12 145 0 D

4N/27W-7F12 155 0 D

4N/27W-7F12 165 0 D

4N/27W-7F12 175 0 D

4N/27W-7F12 185 0 D

4N/27W-7F12 195 0 D

4N/27W-7F12 205 0 D

4N/27W-7F12 215 0 D

4N/27W-7F12 225 0 D

4N/27W-7F12 235 0 D

4N/27W-7F12 245 0 D

4N/27W-7F12 255 0 D

4N/27W-7F12 265 0 D

4N/27W-7F12 275 0 D

4N/27W-7F12 285 0 D

4N/27W-7F12 295 0 D

4N/27W-7F12 305 0 D

4N/27W-7F12 315 0 D

4N/27W-7F12 325 0 D

4N/27W-7F12 335 0 D

4N/27W-7F12 345 0 D

4N/27W-7F12 355 0 D

4N/27W-7F12 365 0 D

4N/27W-7F12 375 0 D

4N/27W-7F12 385 0 D

4N/27W-7F12 395 0 D

4N/27W-7F12 405 0 D

4N/27W-7F12 415 0 D

4N/27W-7F12 425 100 D

4N/27W-7F12 435 100 D

4N/27W-7F12 445 100 D

4N/27W-7F12 455 100 D

4N/27W-7F12 465 100 D

4N/27W-7F12 475 100 D

4N/27W-7F12 485 100 D

4N/27W-7F12 495 40 D

4N/27W-7G1 5 27.3 D

4N/27W-7G1 15 0 D

Table B1–1. Calculated percent-coarse intervals for all drillers’ logs and e-logs used to define textural properties of the hydrogeologic 

framework model.—Continued

[Percent-coarse values are calculated for 10-foot intervals for the entire depth of each borehole. State well number is the state of California well identifier; 

interval midpoint depth is the midpoint of each 10-foot interval, in feet from top of borehole; PC is the percent-coarse value for each interval; log type defines 

whether the borehole is a drillers’ lithology log (D) or a geophysical e-log (E).]
Chapter B: Overview of Hydrogeologic Framework Model 55

State 

well 

number

Interval 

midpoint depth 

(feet)

PC Log 

type

4N/27W-7G1 25 0 D

4N/27W-7G1 35 0 D

4N/27W-7G1 45 0 D

4N/27W-7G1 55 0 D

4N/27W-7G1 65 0 D

4N/27W-7G1 75 0 D

4N/27W-7G1 85 0 D

4N/27W-7G1 95 20 D

4N/27W-7G1 105 0 D

4N/27W-7G1 115 20 D

4N/27W-7G1 125 0 D

4N/27W-7G1 135 70 D

4N/27W-7G1 145 60 D

4N/27W-7G1 155 100 D

4N/27W-7G1 165 50 D

4N/27W-7G1 175 60 D

4N/27W-7G1 185 100 D

4N/27W-7G1 195 0 D

4N/27W-7G2 5 81.8 D

4N/27W-7G2 15 0 D

4N/27W-7G2 25 0 D

4N/27W-7G2 35 0 D

4N/27W-7G2 45 10 D

4N/27W-7G2 55 90 D

4N/27W-7G2 65 0 D

4N/27W-7G2 75 0 D

4N/27W-7G2 85 0 D

4N/27W-7G2 95 0 D

4N/27W-7G2 105 0 D

4N/27W-7G2 115 0 D

4N/27W-7G2 125 0 D

4N/27W-7G2 135 0 D

4N/27W-7G2 145 30 D

4N/27W-7G3 5 0 D

4N/27W-7G3 15 0 D

4N/27W-7G3 25 0 D

4N/27W-7G3 35 0 D

4N/27W-7G3 45 0 D

4N/27W-7G3 55 0 D

State 

well 

number

Interval 

midpoint depth 

(feet)

PC Log 

type

4N/27W-7G3 65 0 D

4N/27W-7G3 75 0 D

4N/27W-7G3 85 0 D

4N/27W-7G3 95 0 D

4N/27W-7G3 105 0 D

4N/27W-7G3 115 0 D

4N/27W-7G3 125 30 D

4N/27W-7G3 135 40 D

4N/27W-7G3 145 0 D

4N/27W-7G3 155 0 D

4N/27W-7G3 165 10 D

4N/27W-7G3 175 0 D

4N/27W-7G3 185 20 D

4N/27W-7G3 195 0 D

4N/27W-7G3 205 0 D

4N/27W-7G3 215 0 D

4N/27W-7G3 225 0 D

4N/27W-7G3 235 0 D

4N/27W-7G3 245 0 D

4N/27W-7G3 255 0 D

4N/27W-7G3 265 40 D

4N/27W-7G3 275 0 D

4N/27W-7G3 285 0 D

4N/27W-7G3 295 0 D

4N/27W-7G3 305 0 D

4N/27W-7G3 315 0 D

4N/27W-7G3 325 0 D

4N/27W-7G3 335 30 D

4N/27W-7G3 345 30 D

4N/27W-7G3 355 55.6 D

4N/27W-7G6 5 0 D

4N/27W-7G6 15 0 D

4N/27W-7G6 25 0 D

4N/27W-7G6 35 0 D

4N/27W-7G6 45 0 D

4N/27W-7G6 55 0 D

4N/27W-7G6 65 0 D

4N/27W-7G6 75 0 D

4N/27W-7G6 85 0 D

Table B1–1. Calculated percent-coarse intervals for all drillers’ logs and e-logs used to define textural properties of the hydrogeologic 

framework model.—Continued

[Percent-coarse values are calculated for 10-foot intervals for the entire depth of each borehole. State well number is the state of California well identifier; 

interval midpoint depth is the midpoint of each 10-foot interval, in feet from top of borehole; PC is the percent-coarse value for each interval; log type defines 

whether the borehole is a drillers’ lithology log (D) or a geophysical e-log (E).]
56 Santa Barbara and Foothill Groundwater Basins Geohydrology and Optimal Water Resources Management

State 

well 

number

Interval 

midpoint depth 

(feet)

PC Log 

type

4N/27W-7G6 95 0 D

4N/27W-7G6 105 0 D

4N/27W-7G6 115 0 D

4N/27W-7G6 125 0 D

4N/27W-7G6 135 0 D

4N/27W-7G6 145 0 D

4N/27W-7G6 155 0 D

4N/27W-7G6 165 0 D

4N/27W-7G6 175 0 D

4N/27W-7G6 185 0 D

4N/27W-7G6 195 0 D

4N/27W-7G6 205 0 D

4N/27W-7G6 215 0 D

4N/27W-7G6 225 0 D

4N/27W-7G6 235 0 D

4N/27W-7G6 245 44.4 D

4N/27W-7G7 5 100 D

4N/27W-7G7 15 100 D

4N/27W-7G7 25 100 D

4N/27W-7G7 35 70 D

4N/27W-7G7 45 10 D

4N/27W-7G7 55 100 D

4N/27W-7G7 65 100 D

4N/27W-7G7 75 90 D

4N/27W-7G7 85 0 D

4N/27W-7G7 95 90 D

4N/27W-7G7 105 100 D

4N/27W-7G7 115 100 D

4N/27W-7G7 125 100 D

4N/27W-7G7 135 50 D

4N/27W-7G7 145 0 D

4N/27W-7G7 155 0 D

4N/27W-7G7 165 30 D

4N/27W-7G7 175 100 D

4N/27W-7G7 185 100 D

4N/27W-7G7 195 100 D

4N/27W-7G7 205 100 D

4N/27W-7G7 215 100 D

4N/27W-7G7 225 100 D

State 

well 

number

Interval 

midpoint depth 

(feet)

PC Log 

type

4N/27W-7G7 235 100 D

4N/27W-7G7 245 100 D

4N/27W-7G7 255 100 D

4N/27W-7G7 265 40 D

4N/27W-7G7 275 100 D

4N/27W-7G7 285 100 D

4N/27W-7G7 295 100 D

4N/27W-7G7 305 90 D

4N/27W-7G7 315 0 D

4N/27W-7G7 325 0 D

4N/27W-7G7 335 0 D

4N/27W-7G7 345 0 D

4N/27W-7G7 355 0 D

4N/27W-7G7 365 0 D

4N/27W-7G7 375 100 D

4N/27W-7G7 385 100 D

4N/27W-7G7 395 100 D

4N/27W-7G7 405 100 D

4N/27W-7G7 415 100 D

4N/27W-7G7 425 100 D

4N/27W-7G7 435 100 D

4N/27W-7H3 5 100 D

4N/27W-7H3 15 100 D

4N/27W-7H3 25 60 D

4N/27W-7H3 35 40 D

4N/27W-7H3 45 40 D

4N/27W-7H3 55 100 D

4N/27W-7H3 65 20 D

4N/27W-7H3 75 0 D

4N/27W-7H3 85 0 D

4N/27W-7H3 95 0 D

4N/27W-7H3 105 0 D

4N/27W-7H3 115 0 D

4N/27W-7H3 125 0 D

4N/27W-7H3 135 0 D

4N/27W-7H3 145 0 D

4N/27W-7H3 155 0 D

4N/27W-7H3 165 0 D

4N/27W-7H3 175 0 D

Table B1–1. Calculated percent-coarse intervals for all drillers’ logs and e-logs used to define textural properties of the hydrogeologic 

framework model.—Continued

[Percent-coarse values are calculated for 10-foot intervals for the entire depth of each borehole. State well number is the state of California well identifier; 

interval midpoint depth is the midpoint of each 10-foot interval, in feet from top of borehole; PC is the percent-coarse value for each interval; log type defines 

whether the borehole is a drillers’ lithology log (D) or a geophysical e-log (E).]
Chapter B: Overview of Hydrogeologic Framework Model 57

State 

well 

number

Interval 

midpoint depth 

(feet)

PC Log 

type

4N/27W-7H3 185 40 D

4N/27W-7H3 195 100 D

4N/27W-7H3 205 100 D

4N/27W-7H3 215 100 D

4N/27W-7H3 225 100 D

4N/27W-7H3 235 50 D

4N/27W-7H3 245 0 D

4N/27W-7H3 255 0 D

4N/27W-7H3 265 40 D

4N/27W-7H3 275 100 D

4N/27W-7H3 285 80 D

4N/27W-7H3 295 0 D

4N/27W-7H3 305 90 D

4N/27W-7H3 315 100 D

4N/27W-7H3 325 100 D

4N/27W-7H3 335 100 D

4N/27W-7H3 345 100 D

4N/27W-7H3 355 100 D

4N/27W-7H3 365 100 D

4N/27W-7H3 375 100 D

4N/27W-7H3 385 0 D

4N/27W-7H3 395 0 D

4N/27W-7H3 405 0 D

4N/27W-7H3 415 55.6 D

4N/27W-7H3 425 100 D

4N/27W-7H3 435 100 D

4N/27W-7H3 445 100 D

4N/27W-7H3 455 100 D

4N/27W-7H3 465 100 D

4N/27W-7H3 475 100 D

4N/27W-7H3 485 100 D

4N/27W-7H3 495 100 D

4N/27W-7H3 505 100 D

4N/27W-7H3 515 100 D

4N/27W-7H3 525 100 D

4N/27W-7H3 535 100 D

4N/27W-7H3 545 50 D

4N/27W-7J1 5 36.4 D

4N/27W-7J1 15 0 D

State 

well 

number

Interval 

midpoint depth 

(feet)

PC Log 

type

4N/27W-7J1 25 0 D

4N/27W-7J1 35 0 D

4N/27W-7J1 45 80 D

4N/27W-7J1 55 100 D

4N/27W-7J1 65 100 D

4N/27W-7J1 75 30 D

4N/27W-7J1 85 0 D

4N/27W-7J1 95 0 D

4N/27W-7J1 105 0 D

4N/27W-7J1 115 0 D

4N/27W-7J1 125 0 D

4N/27W-7J1 135 0 D

4N/27W-7J1 145 0 D

4N/27W-7J1 155 0 D

4N/27W-7J1 165 0 D

4N/27W-7J1 175 60 D

4N/27W-7J1 185 0 D

4N/27W-7J1 195 0 D

4N/27W-7J2 5 100 D

4N/27W-7J2 15 60 D

4N/27W-7J2 25 100 D

4N/27W-7J2 35 100 D

4N/27W-7J2 45 70 D

4N/27W-7J2 55 80 D

4N/27W-7J2 65 60 D

4N/27W-7J2 75 0 D

4N/27W-7J2 85 20 D

4N/27W-7J2 95 0 D

4N/27W-7J2 105 70 D

4N/27W-7J2 115 0 D

4N/27W-7J2 125 0 D

4N/27W-7J2 135 0 D

4N/27W-7J2 145 0 D

4N/27W-7J2 155 0 D

4N/27W-7J2 165 0 D

4N/27W-7J2 175 0 D

4N/27W-7J4 5 100 D

4N/27W-7J4 15 30 D

4N/27W-7J4 25 0 D

Table B1–1. Calculated percent-coarse intervals for all drillers’ logs and e-logs used to define textural properties of the hydrogeologic 

framework model.—Continued

[Percent-coarse values are calculated for 10-foot intervals for the entire depth of each borehole. State well number is the state of California well identifier; 

interval midpoint depth is the midpoint of each 10-foot interval, in feet from top of borehole; PC is the percent-coarse value for each interval; log type defines 

whether the borehole is a drillers’ lithology log (D) or a geophysical e-log (E).]
58 Santa Barbara and Foothill Groundwater Basins Geohydrology and Optimal Water Resources Management

State 

well 

number

Interval 

midpoint depth 

(feet)

PC Log 

type

4N/27W-7J4 35 80 D

4N/27W-7J4 45 50 D

4N/27W-7J4 55 0 D

4N/27W-7J4 65 0 D

4N/27W-7J4 75 0 D

4N/27W-7J4 85 0 D

4N/27W-7J4 95 0 D

4N/27W-7J4 105 0 D

4N/27W-7J4 115 40 D

4N/27W-7J4 125 100 D

4N/27W-7J4 135 10 D

4N/27W-7J4 145 10 D

4N/27W-7J4 155 60 D

4N/27W-7J4 165 0 D

4N/27W-7J4 175 90 D

4N/27W-7J4 185 40 D

4N/27W-7J4 195 0 D

4N/27W-7J4 205 0 D

4N/27W-7J4 215 0 D

4N/27W-7J4 225 0 D

4N/27W-7J4 235 0 D

4N/27W-7J4 245 100 D

4N/27W-7J4 255 60 D

4N/27W-7J4 265 0 D

4N/27W-7J4 275 0 D

4N/27W-7J4 285 0 D

4N/27W-7J4 295 0 D

4N/27W-7J4 305 0 D

4N/27W-7J4 315 30 D

4N/27W-7J4 325 30 D

4N/27W-7J4 335 0 D

4N/27W-7J4 345 50 D

4N/27W-7J4 355 33.3 D

4N/27W-7J4 365 0 D

4N/27W-7J4 375 40 D

4N/27W-7J4 385 36.4 D

4N/27W-7J4 395 100 D

4N/27W-7J4 405 100 D

4N/27W-7J4 415 100 D

State 

well 

number

Interval 

midpoint depth 

(feet)

PC Log 

type

4N/27W-7J5 5 18.2 D

4N/27W-7J5 15 0 D

4N/27W-7J5 25 0 D

4N/27W-7J5 35 0 D

4N/27W-7J5 45 0 D

4N/27W-7J5 55 0 D

4N/27W-7J5 65 0 D

4N/27W-7J5 75 0 D

4N/27W-7J5 85 0 D

4N/27W-7J5 95 0 D

4N/27W-7J5 105 0 D

4N/27W-7J5 115 0 D

4N/27W-7J5 125 0 D

4N/27W-7J5 135 10 D

4N/27W-7J5 145 40 D

4N/27W-7J5 155 0 D

4N/27W-7J5 165 100 D

4N/27W-7J5 175 50 D

4N/27W-7J5 185 40 D

4N/27W-7J5 195 81.8 D

4N/27W-7J5 205 55.6 D

4N/27W-7J5 215 0 D

4N/27W-7J5 225 0 D

4N/27W-7J5 235 0 D

4N/27W-7J5 245 77.8 D

4N/27W-7J5 255 100 D

4N/27W-7J5 265 100 D

4N/27W-7J5 275 100 D

4N/27W-7J5 285 100 D

4N/27W-7K2 5 36.4 D

4N/27W-7K2 15 0 D

4N/27W-7K2 25 0 D

4N/27W-7K2 35 60 D

4N/27W-7K2 45 0 D

4N/27W-7K2 55 0 D

4N/27W-7K2 65 0 D

4N/27W-7K2 75 0 D

4N/27W-7K2 85 0 D

4N/27W-7K2 95 0 D

Table B1–1. Calculated percent-coarse intervals for all drillers’ logs and e-logs used to define textural properties of the hydrogeologic 

framework model.—Continued

[Percent-coarse values are calculated for 10-foot intervals for the entire depth of each borehole. State well number is the state of California well identifier; 

interval midpoint depth is the midpoint of each 10-foot interval, in feet from top of borehole; PC is the percent-coarse value for each interval; log type defines 

whether the borehole is a drillers’ lithology log (D) or a geophysical e-log (E).]
Chapter B: Overview of Hydrogeologic Framework Model 59

State 

well 

number

Interval 

midpoint depth 

(feet)

PC Log 

type

4N/27W-7K2 105 0 D

4N/27W-7K2 115 90 D

4N/27W-7K2 125 0 D

4N/27W-7K2 135 0 D

4N/27W-7K2 145 0 D

4N/27W-7K2 155 10 D

4N/27W-7K2 165 88.9 D

4N/27W-7K2 175 0 D

4N/27W-7K4 5 0 D

4N/27W-7K4 15 0 D

4N/27W-7K4 25 40 D

4N/27W-7K4 35 40 D

4N/27W-7K4 45 10 D

4N/27W-7K4 55 100 D

4N/27W-7K4 65 90 D

4N/27W-7K4 75 10 D

4N/27W-7K4 85 100 D

4N/27W-7K4 95 100 D

4N/27W-7K4 105 60 D

4N/27W-7K4 115 80 D

4N/27W-7K4 125 0 D

4N/27W-7K4 135 0 D

4N/27W-7K4 145 0 D

4N/27W-7K4 155 0 D

4N/27W-7K4 165 0 D

4N/27W-7K4 175 0 D

4N/27W-7K4 185 0 D

4N/27W-7K4 195 0 D

4N/27W-7K4 205 0 D

4N/27W-7K4 215 0 D

4N/27W-7K4 225 0 D

4N/27W-7K4 235 0 D

4N/27W-7K4 245 0 D

4N/27W-7K4 255 0 D

4N/27W-7K4 265 0 D

4N/27W-7K4 275 0 D

4N/27W-7K4 285 0 D

4N/27W-7K6 5 90.9 D

4N/27W-7K6 15 0 D

State 

well 

number

Interval 

midpoint depth 

(feet)

PC Log 

type

4N/27W-7K6 25 0 D

4N/27W-7K6 35 0 D

4N/27W-7K6 45 0 D

4N/27W-7K6 55 0 D

4N/27W-7K6 65 0 D

4N/27W-7K6 75 0 D

4N/27W-7K6 85 0 D

4N/27W-7K6 95 0 D

4N/27W-7K6 105 0 D

4N/27W-7K6 115 0 D

4N/27W-7K6 125 0 D

4N/27W-7K6 135 0 D

4N/27W-7K6 145 0 D

4N/27W-7K6 155 0 D

4N/27W-7K6 165 0 D

4N/27W-7K6 175 0 D

4N/27W-7K6 185 0 D

4N/27W-7K6 195 0 D

4N/27W-7K6 205 0 D

4N/27W-7K6 215 0 D

4N/27W-7K6 225 0 D

4N/27W-7K6 235 0 D

4N/27W-7K6 245 0 D

4N/27W-7K6 255 0 D

4N/27W-7K6 265 0 D

4N/27W-7K6 275 0 D

4N/27W-7K6 285 0 D

4N/27W-7K6 295 0 D

4N/27W-7K6 305 0 D

4N/27W-7K6 315 0 D

4N/27W-7K6 325 0 D

4N/27W-7K6 335 0 D

4N/27W-7K6 345 0 D

4N/27W-7K6 355 0 D

4N/27W-7K6 365 0 D

4N/27W-7K6 375 0 D

4N/27W-7K6 385 0 D

4N/27W-7K6 395 60 D

4N/27W-7K6 405 100 D

Table B1–1. Calculated percent-coarse intervals for all drillers’ logs and e-logs used to define textural properties of the hydrogeologic 

framework model.—Continued

[Percent-coarse values are calculated for 10-foot intervals for the entire depth of each borehole. State well number is the state of California well identifier; 

interval midpoint depth is the midpoint of each 10-foot interval, in feet from top of borehole; PC is the percent-coarse value for each interval; log type defines 

whether the borehole is a drillers’ lithology log (D) or a geophysical e-log (E).]
60 Santa Barbara and Foothill Groundwater Basins Geohydrology and Optimal Water Resources Management

State 

well 

number

Interval 

midpoint depth 

(feet)

PC Log 

type

4N/27W-7K6 415 100 D

4N/27W-7K6 425 100 D

4N/27W-7K6 435 100 D

4N/27W-7K6 445 100 D

4N/27W-7K6 455 100 D

4N/27W-7K6 465 100 D

4N/27W-7K6 475 100 D

4N/27W-7K6 485 100 D

4N/27W-7K6 495 100 D

4N/27W-7K6 505 100 D

4N/27W-7K6 515 90 D

4N/27W-7K7 5 100 D

4N/27W-7K7 15 100 D

4N/27W-7K7 25 100 D

4N/27W-7K7 35 0 D

4N/27W-7K7 45 0 D

4N/27W-7K7 55 0 D

4N/27W-7K7 65 90 D

4N/27W-7K7 75 100 D

4N/27W-7K7 85 40 D

4N/27W-7K7 95 0 D

4N/27W-7K7 105 0 D

4N/27W-7K7 115 0 D

4N/27W-7K7 125 0 D

4N/27W-7K7 135 0 D

4N/27W-7K7 145 0 D

4N/27W-7K7 155 0 D

4N/27W-7K7 165 0 D

4N/27W-7K7 175 0 D

4N/27W-7K7 185 0 D

4N/27W-7K7 195 0 D

4N/27W-7K7 205 0 D

4N/27W-7K7 215 0 D

4N/27W-7K7 225 0 D

4N/27W-7K7 235 0 D

4N/27W-7K7 245 0 D

4N/27W-7K7 255 0 D

4N/27W-7K7 265 0 D

4N/27W-7K7 275 0 D

State 

well 

number

Interval 

midpoint depth 

(feet)

PC Log 

type

4N/27W-7K7 285 0 D

4N/27W-7K7 295 0 D

4N/27W-7K7 305 0 D

4N/27W-7K7 315 0 D

4N/27W-7K7 325 60 D

4N/27W-7K7 335 0 D

4N/27W-7K7 345 0 D

4N/27W-7K7 355 0 D

4N/27W-7K7 365 0 D

4N/27W-7K7 375 0 D

4N/27W-7K7 385 0 D

4N/27W-7K7 395 0 D

4N/27W-7K7 405 0 D

4N/27W-7K7 415 0 D

4N/27W-7K8 5 27.3 D

4N/27W-7K8 15 0 D

4N/27W-7K8 25 0 D

4N/27W-7K8 35 0 D

4N/27W-7K8 45 60 D

4N/27W-7K8 55 80 D

4N/27W-7K8 65 0 D

4N/27W-7K8 75 0 D

4N/27W-7K8 85 0 D

4N/27W-7K8 95 0 D

4N/27W-7K8 105 0 D

4N/27W-7K8 115 20 D

4N/27W-7K8 125 80 D

4N/27W-7K8 135 60 D

4N/27W-7K8 145 100 D

4N/27W-7K8 155 100 D

4N/27W-7K8 165 90 D

4N/27W-7K8 175 60 D

4N/27W-7K8 185 70 D

4N/27W-7K8 195 100 D

4N/27W-7K8 205 100 D

4N/27W-7K8 215 90.9 D

4N/27W-7K8 225 90 D

4N/27W-7K8 235 90 D

4N/27W-7K8 245 100 D

Table B1–1. Calculated percent-coarse intervals for all drillers’ logs and e-logs used to define textural properties of the hydrogeologic 

framework model.—Continued

[Percent-coarse values are calculated for 10-foot intervals for the entire depth of each borehole. State well number is the state of California well identifier; 

interval midpoint depth is the midpoint of each 10-foot interval, in feet from top of borehole; PC is the percent-coarse value for each interval; log type defines 

whether the borehole is a drillers’ lithology log (D) or a geophysical e-log (E).]
Chapter B: Overview of Hydrogeologic Framework Model 61

State 

well 

number

Interval 

midpoint depth 

(feet)

PC Log 

type

4N/27W-7K8 255 30 D

4N/27W-7K8 265 50 D

4N/27W-7K8 275 40 D

4N/27W-7K8 285 90 D

4N/27W-7K8 295 45.5 D

4N/27W-7K8 305 30 D

4N/27W-7L1 5 9.1 D

4N/27W-7L1 15 0 D

4N/27W-7L1 25 0 D

4N/27W-7L1 35 0 D

4N/27W-7L1 45 0 D

4N/27W-7L1 55 0 D

4N/27W-7L1 65 0 D

4N/27W-7L1 75 0 D

4N/27W-7L1 85 0 D

4N/27W-7L1 95 0 D

4N/27W-7L1 105 0 D

4N/27W-7L1 115 0 D

4N/27W-7L1 125 0 D

4N/27W-7L1 135 0 D

4N/27W-7L3 5 72.7 D

4N/27W-7L3 15 0 D

4N/27W-7L3 25 0 D

4N/27W-7L3 35 100 D

4N/27W-7L3 45 0 D

4N/27W-7L3 55 0 D

4N/27W-7L3 65 20 D

4N/27W-7L3 75 90 D

4N/27W-7L3 85 0 D

4N/27W-7L3 95 30 D

4N/27W-7L3 105 40 D

4N/27W-7L3 115 0 D

4N/27W-7L4 5 100 D

4N/27W-7L4 15 40 D

4N/27W-7L4 25 10 D

4N/27W-7L4 35 50 D

4N/27W-7L4 45 50 D

4N/27W-7L4 55 90 D

4N/27W-7L4 65 30 D

State 

well 

number

Interval 

midpoint depth 

(feet)

PC Log 

type

4N/27W-7L4 75 60 D

4N/27W-7L4 85 10 D

4N/27W-7L4 95 0 D

4N/27W-7L4 105 0 D

4N/27W-7L4 115 0 D

4N/27W-7L4 125 50 D

4N/27W-7L4 135 80 D

4N/27W-7L4 145 60 D

4N/27W-7L4 155 80 D

4N/27W-7L7 5 45.5 D

4N/27W-7L7 15 0 D

4N/27W-7L7 25 20 D

4N/27W-7L7 35 30 D

4N/27W-7L7 45 80 D

4N/27W-7L7 55 100 D

4N/27W-7L7 65 30 D

4N/27W-7L7 75 50 D

4N/27W-7L7 85 0 D

4N/27W-7L7 95 70 D

4N/27W-7L7 105 100 D

4N/27W-7L7 115 100 D

4N/27W-7L7 125 90 D

4N/27W-7L10 5 18.2 D

4N/27W-7L10 15 0 D

4N/27W-7L10 25 0 D

4N/27W-7L10 35 0 D

4N/27W-7L10 45 0 D

4N/27W-7L10 55 0 D

4N/27W-7L10 65 0 D

4N/27W-7L10 75 0 D

4N/27W-7L10 85 0 D

4N/27W-7L10 95 0 D

4N/27W-7L10 105 0 D

4N/27W-7L10 115 0 D

4N/27W-7L10 125 0 D

4N/27W-7L10 135 0 D

4N/27W-7L10 145 0 D

4N/27W-7L10 155 0 D

4N/27W-7L10 165 0 D

Table B1–1. Calculated percent-coarse intervals for all drillers’ logs and e-logs used to define textural properties of the hydrogeologic 

framework model.—Continued

[Percent-coarse values are calculated for 10-foot intervals for the entire depth of each borehole. State well number is the state of California well identifier; 

interval midpoint depth is the midpoint of each 10-foot interval, in feet from top of borehole; PC is the percent-coarse value for each interval; log type defines 

whether the borehole is a drillers’ lithology log (D) or a geophysical e-log (E).]
62 Santa Barbara and Foothill Groundwater Basins Geohydrology and Optimal Water Resources Management

State 

well 

number

Interval 

midpoint depth 

(feet)

PC Log 

type

4N/27W-7L10 175 0 D

4N/27W-7L10 185 0 D

4N/27W-7L10 195 9.1 D

4N/27W-7L10 205 66.7 D

4N/27W-7L10 215 0 D

4N/27W-7L10 225 0 D

4N/27W-7L10 235 0 D

4N/27W-7L10 245 0 D

4N/27W-7L10 255 0 D

4N/27W-7L10 265 0 D

4N/27W-7L10 275 0 D

4N/27W-7L10 285 0 D

4N/27W-7L10 295 100 D

4N/27W-7L10 305 100 D

4N/27W-7L10 315 100 D

4N/27W-7L10 325 100 D

4N/27W-7L10 335 100 D

4N/27W-7L10 345 30 D

4N/27W-7L10 355 0 D

4N/27W-7L10 365 0 D

4N/27W-7L10 375 0 D

4N/27W-7L10 385 100 D

4N/27W-7L10 395 100 D

4N/27W-7L10 405 100 D

4N/27W-7L10 415 100 D

4N/27W-7L10 425 100 D

4N/27W-7L10 435 100 D

4N/27W-7L10 445 100 D

4N/27W-7L10 455 100 D

4N/27W-7L10 465 100 D

4N/27W-7L10 475 100 D

4N/27W-7L10 485 100 D

4N/27W-7L10 495 100 D

4N/27W-7L10 505 100 D

4N/27W-7L10 515 100 D

4N/27W-7L10 525 40 D

4N/27W-7L10 535 0 D

4N/27W-7L10 545 0 D

4N/27W-7L10 555 0 D

State 

well 

number

Interval 

midpoint depth 

(feet)

PC Log 

type

4N/27W-7L10 565 0 D

4N/27W-7L10 575 0 D

4N/27W-7L10 585 0 D

4N/27W-7M1 5 0 D

4N/27W-7M1 15 0 D

4N/27W-7M1 25 0 D

4N/27W-7M1 35 0 D

4N/27W-7M1 45 0 D

4N/27W-7M1 55 0 D

4N/27W-7M1 65 0 D

4N/27W-7M1 75 40 D

4N/27W-7M1 85 0 D

4N/27W-7M1 95 0 D

4N/27W-7M1 105 0 D

4N/27W-7M1 115 0 D

4N/27W-7M1 125 0 D

4N/27W-7M1 135 0 D

4N/27W-7M1 145 0 D

4N/27W-7M1 155 0 D

4N/27W-7M1 165 50 D

4N/27W-7M1 175 20 D

4N/27W-7M1 185 0 D

4N/27W-7M1 195 0 D

4N/27W-7M1 205 0 D

4N/27W-7M1 215 0 D

4N/27W-7M1 225 0 D

4N/27W-7M1 235 0 D

4N/27W-7Q1 45 60 D

4N/27W-7Q1 55 10 D

4N/27W-7Q1 65 44.4 D

4N/27W-7Q1 75 0 D

4N/27W-7Q1 85 0 D

4N/27W-7Q1 95 60 D

4N/27W-7Q1 105 90 D

4N/27W-7Q1 115 0 D

4N/27W-7Q1 125 55.6 D

4N/27W-7Q1 135 50 D

4N/27W-7Q1 145 45.5 D

4N/27W-7Q1 155 10 D

Table B1–1. Calculated percent-coarse intervals for all drillers’ logs and e-logs used to define textural properties of the hydrogeologic 

framework model.—Continued

[Percent-coarse values are calculated for 10-foot intervals for the entire depth of each borehole. State well number is the state of California well identifier; 

interval midpoint depth is the midpoint of each 10-foot interval, in feet from top of borehole; PC is the percent-coarse value for each interval; log type defines 

whether the borehole is a drillers’ lithology log (D) or a geophysical e-log (E).]
Chapter B: Overview of Hydrogeologic Framework Model 63

State 

well 

number

Interval 

midpoint depth 

(feet)

PC Log 

type

4N/27W-7Q1 165 100 D

4N/27W-7Q1 175 100 D

4N/27W-7Q1 185 50 D

4N/27W-7Q1 195 0 D

4N/27W-7Q2 5 100 D

4N/27W-7Q2 15 100 D

4N/27W-7Q2 25 90 D

4N/27W-7Q2 35 90 D

4N/27W-7Q2 45 10 D

4N/27W-7Q2 55 50 D

4N/27W-7Q2 65 0 D

4N/27W-7Q2 75 54.5 D

4N/27W-7Q2 85 100 D

4N/27W-7Q2 95 100 D

4N/27W-7Q2 105 50 D

4N/27W-7Q2 115 100 D

4N/27W-7Q2 125 100 D

4N/27W-7Q2 135 100 D

4N/27W-7Q2 145 90.9 D

4N/27W-7Q2 155 0 D

4N/27W-7Q3 5 54.5 D

4N/27W-7Q3 15 90 D

4N/27W-7Q3 25 80 D

4N/27W-7Q3 35 0 D

4N/27W-7Q3 45 0 D

4N/27W-7Q3 55 10 D

4N/27W-7Q3 65 100 D

4N/27W-7Q3 75 100 D

4N/27W-7Q3 85 100 D

4N/27W-7Q3 95 100 D

4N/27W-7Q3 105 100 D

4N/27W-7Q3 115 20 D

4N/27W-7Q3 125 100 D

4N/27W-7Q3 135 100 D

4N/27W-7Q3 145 100 D

4N/27W-7Q3 155 100 D

4N/27W-7Q3 165 100 D

4N/27W-7Q3 175 100 D

4N/27W-7Q3 185 100 D

State 

well 

number

Interval 

midpoint depth 

(feet)

PC Log 

type

4N/27W-7Q3 195 72.7 D

4N/27W-7Q3 205 0 D

4N/27W-7Q3 215 54.5 D

4N/27W-7R3 45 0 D

4N/27W-7R3 55 0 D

4N/27W-7R3 65 0 D

4N/27W-7R3 75 9.1 D

4N/27W-7R3 85 100 D

4N/27W-7R3 95 100 D

4N/27W-7R3 105 90 D

4N/27W-7R3 115 0 D

4N/27W-7R3 125 0 D

4N/27W-7R3 135 100 D

4N/27W-7R3 145 100 D

4N/27W-7R3 155 90 D

4N/27W-7R3 165 0 D

4N/27W-7R3 175 100 D

4N/27W-7R3 185 100 D

4N/27W-7R3 195 90.9 D

4N/27W-7R3 205 0 D

4N/27W-7R3 215 0 D

4N/27W-7R3 225 0 D

4N/27W-8E4 5 100 D

4N/27W-8E4 15 100 D

4N/27W-8E4 25 100 D

4N/27W-8E4 35 100 D

4N/27W-8E4 45 100 D

4N/27W-8E4 55 100 D

4N/27W-8E4 65 100 D

4N/27W-8E4 75 100 D

4N/27W-8E4 85 100 D

4N/27W-8E4 95 100 D

4N/27W-8E4 105 100 D

4N/27W-8E4 115 90 D

4N/27W-8E4 125 0 D

4N/27W-8E4 135 0 D

4N/27W-8E4 145 0 D

4N/27W-8E4 155 10 D

4N/27W-8E4 165 100 D

Table B1–1. Calculated percent-coarse intervals for all drillers’ logs and e-logs used to define textural properties of the hydrogeologic 

framework model.—Continued

[Percent-coarse values are calculated for 10-foot intervals for the entire depth of each borehole. State well number is the state of California well identifier; 

interval midpoint depth is the midpoint of each 10-foot interval, in feet from top of borehole; PC is the percent-coarse value for each interval; log type defines 

whether the borehole is a drillers’ lithology log (D) or a geophysical e-log (E).]
64 Santa Barbara and Foothill Groundwater Basins Geohydrology and Optimal Water Resources Management

State 

well 

number

Interval 

midpoint depth 

(feet)

PC Log 

type

4N/27W-8E4 175 90 D

4N/27W-8E4 185 0 D

4N/27W-8E4 195 0 D

4N/27W-8E4 205 0 D

4N/27W-8E4 215 0 D

4N/27W-8E4 225 0 D

4N/27W-8E4 235 0 D

4N/27W-8E4 245 0 D

4N/27W-8E4 255 0 D

4N/27W-8E4 265 0 D

4N/27W-8E4 275 0 D

4N/27W-8E4 285 0 D

4N/27W-8E4 295 100 D

4N/27W-8E4 305 100 D

4N/27W-8E4 315 100 D

4N/27W-8E4 325 90 D

4N/27W-8E4 335 0 D

4N/27W-8E4 345 0 D

4N/27W-8E4 355 0 D

4N/27W-8E4 365 0 D

4N/27W-8E4 375 0 D

4N/27W-8E4 385 9.1 D

4N/27W-8E4 395 100 D

4N/27W-8E4 405 100 D

4N/27W-8E4 415 100 D

4N/27W-8E4 425 9.1 D

4N/27W-8E4 435 100 D

4N/27W-8E4 445 100 D

4N/27W-8E4 455 100 D

4N/27W-8E4 465 90 D

4N/27W-8E4 475 0 D

4N/27W-8E4 485 0 D

4N/27W-8E4 495 0 D

4N/27W-8E4 505 0 D

4N/27W-8E4 515 0 D

4N/27W-8E4 525 10 D

4N/27W-8E4 535 100 D

4N/27W-8E4 545 100 D

4N/27W-8E4 555 100 D

State 

well 

number

Interval 

midpoint depth 

(feet)

PC Log 

type

4N/27W-8E4 565 0 D

4N/27W-8E4 575 0 D

4N/27W-8E4 585 0 D

4N/27W-8E4 595 0 D

4N/27W-8J1 5 100 D

4N/27W-8J1 15 100 D

4N/27W-8J1 25 100 D

4N/27W-8J1 35 100 D

4N/27W-8J1 45 90 D

4N/27W-8J1 55 0 D

4N/27W-8J1 65 30 D

4N/27W-8J1 75 90 D

4N/27W-8J1 85 0 D

4N/27W-8J1 95 0 D

4N/27W-8J1 105 50 D

4N/27W-8J1 115 0 D

4N/27W-8J1 125 0 D

4N/27W-8J1 135 0 D

4N/27W-8J1 145 0 D

4N/27W-8J1 155 0 D

4N/27W-8J1 165 0 D

4N/27W-8J1 175 90 D

4N/27W-8J1 185 11.1 D

4N/27W-8J1 195 30 D

4N/27W-8J1 205 60 D

4N/27W-8J1 215 45.5 D

4N/27W-8J1 225 30 D

4N/27W-8J1 235 40 D

4N/27W-8J1 245 0 D

4N/27W-8J1 255 50 D

4N/27W-8J1 265 40 D

4N/27W-8J1 275 0 D

4N/27W-8J1 285 0 D

4N/27W-8J1 295 54.5 D

4N/27W-8J1 305 10 D

4N/27W-8J1 315 0 D

4N/27W-8J1 325 40 D

4N/27W-8J1 335 30 D

4N/27W-8J1 345 66.7 D

Table B1–1. Calculated percent-coarse intervals for all drillers’ logs and e-logs used to define textural properties of the hydrogeologic 

framework model.—Continued

[Percent-coarse values are calculated for 10-foot intervals for the entire depth of each borehole. State well number is the state of California well identifier; 

interval midpoint depth is the midpoint of each 10-foot interval, in feet from top of borehole; PC is the percent-coarse value for each interval; log type defines 

whether the borehole is a drillers’ lithology log (D) or a geophysical e-log (E).]
Chapter B: Overview of Hydrogeologic Framework Model 65

State 

well 

number

Interval 

midpoint depth 

(feet)

PC Log 

type

4N/27W-8J1 355 50 D

4N/27W-8J1 365 0 D

4N/27W-8J1 375 90 D

4N/27W-8J1 385 100 D

4N/27W-8J1 395 40 D

4N/27W-8J1 405 20 D

4N/27W-8J1 415 77.8 D

4N/27W-8J1 425 0 D

4N/27W-8J1 435 0 D

4N/27W-8J1 445 0 D

4N/27W-8J1 455 0 D

4N/27W-8J1 465 0 D

4N/27W-8J1 475 0 D

4N/27W-8J1 485 0 D

4N/27W-8J1 495 20 D

4N/27W-8J1 505 20 D

4N/27W-8J1 515 100 D

4N/27W-8J1 525 100 D

4N/27W-8J1 535 100 D

4N/27W-8J1 545 100 D

4N/27W-8J1 555 100 D

4N/27W-8J1 565 40 D

4N/27W-8J1 575 0 D

4N/27W-8J1 585 0 D

4N/27W-8J1 595 0 D

4N/27W-8J1 605 0 D

4N/27W-8J1 615 0 D

4N/27W-8J1 625 0 D

4N/27W-8J1 635 0 D

4N/27W-8J1 645 100 D

4N/27W-8J1 655 80 D

4N/27W-8J1 665 50 D

4N/27W-8L3 65 0 D

4N/27W-8L3 75 0 D

4N/27W-8L3 85 0 D

4N/27W-8L3 95 0 D

4N/27W-8L3 105 0 D

4N/27W-8L3 115 0 D

4N/27W-8L3 125 0 D

State 

well 

number

Interval 

midpoint depth 

(feet)

PC Log 

type

4N/27W-8L3 135 0 D

4N/27W-8L3 145 0 D

4N/27W-8L3 155 0 D

4N/27W-8L3 165 0 D

4N/27W-8L3 175 0 D

4N/27W-8L3 185 0 D

4N/27W-8L3 195 0 D

4N/27W-8L3 205 0 D

4N/27W-8L3 215 0 D

4N/27W-8L3 225 0 D

4N/27W-8L3 235 0 D

4N/27W-8L3 245 0 D

4N/27W-8L3 255 0 D

4N/27W-8L3 265 0 D

4N/27W-8L3 275 0 D

4N/27W-8L3 285 0 D

4N/27W-8L3 295 0 D

4N/27W-8L3 305 0 D

4N/27W-8L3 315 0 D

4N/27W-8L3 325 0 D

4N/27W-8L3 335 0 D

4N/27W-8L3 345 0 D

4N/27W-8L3 355 0 D

4N/27W-8L3 365 0 D

4N/27W-8L3 375 0 D

4N/27W-8L3 385 0 D

4N/27W-8L3 395 0 D

4N/27W-8L3 405 0 D

4N/27W-8L3 415 0 D

4N/27W-8L3 425 0 D

4N/27W-8L3 435 0 D

4N/27W-8L3 445 0 D

4N/27W-8L3 455 0 D

4N/27W-8L3 465 0 D

4N/27W-8L3 475 0 D

4N/27W-8L3 485 0 D

4N/27W-8L3 495 0 D

4N/27W-8L3 505 0 D

4N/27W-8L3 515 0 D

Table B1–1. Calculated percent-coarse intervals for all drillers’ logs and e-logs used to define textural properties of the hydrogeologic 

framework model.—Continued

[Percent-coarse values are calculated for 10-foot intervals for the entire depth of each borehole. State well number is the state of California well identifier; 

interval midpoint depth is the midpoint of each 10-foot interval, in feet from top of borehole; PC is the percent-coarse value for each interval; log type defines 

whether the borehole is a drillers’ lithology log (D) or a geophysical e-log (E).]
66 Santa Barbara and Foothill Groundwater Basins Geohydrology and Optimal Water Resources Management

State 

well 

number

Interval 

midpoint depth 

(feet)

PC Log 

type

4N/27W-8L3 525 0 D

4N/27W-8L3 535 0 D

4N/27W-8L3 545 50 D

4N/27W-8L3 555 100 D

4N/27W-8L3 565 100 D

4N/27W-8L3 575 0 D

4N/27W-8L3 585 0 D

4N/27W-8L3 595 0 D

4N/27W-8L3 605 0 D

4N/27W-8L3 615 0 D

4N/27W-8L3 625 0 D

4N/27W-8M1 5 100 D

4N/27W-8M1 15 10 D

4N/27W-8M1 25 0 D

4N/27W-8M1 35 0 D

4N/27W-8M1 45 0 D

4N/27W-8M1 55 0 D

4N/27W-8M1 65 0 D

4N/27W-8M1 75 0 D

4N/27W-8M1 85 0 D

4N/27W-8M1 95 0 D

4N/27W-8M1 105 0 D

4N/27W-8M1 115 0 D

4N/27W-8M1 125 0 D

4N/27W-8M1 135 0 D

4N/27W-8M3 5 9.1 D

4N/27W-8M3 15 0 D

4N/27W-8M3 25 0 D

4N/27W-8M3 35 0 D

4N/27W-8M3 45 0 D

4N/27W-8M3 55 0 D

4N/27W-8M3 65 0 D

4N/27W-8M3 75 0 D

4N/27W-8M3 85 0 D

4N/27W-8M3 95 0 D

4N/27W-8M3 105 0 D

4N/27W-8M3 115 0 D

4N/27W-8M3 125 0 D

4N/27W-8M3 135 0 D

State 

well 

number

Interval 

midpoint depth 

(feet)

PC Log 

type

4N/27W-8M3 145 0 D

4N/27W-8M3 155 0 D

4N/27W-8M3 165 0 D

4N/27W-8M3 175 0 D

4N/27W-8M3 185 80 D

4N/27W-8R1 5 100 D

4N/27W-8R1 15 100 D

4N/27W-8R1 25 50 D

4N/27W-8R1 35 0 D

4N/27W-8R1 45 30 D

4N/27W-8R1 55 100 D

4N/27W-8R1 65 70 D

4N/27W-8R1 75 100 D

4N/27W-8R1 85 50 D

4N/27W-8R1 95 0 D

4N/27W-8R1 105 0 D

4N/27W-8R1 115 0 D

4N/27W-8R1 125 0 D

4N/27W-8R1 135 0 D

4N/27W-8R1 145 0 D

4N/27W-8R1 155 0 D

4N/27W-8R1 165 0 D

4N/27W-8R1 175 0 D

4N/27W-8R1 185 100 D

4N/27W-8R1 195 100 D

4N/27W-8R1 205 100 D

4N/27W-8R1 215 100 D

4N/27W-8R1 225 90 D

4N/27W-8R1 235 0 D

4N/27W-8R1 245 0 D

4N/27W-8R1 255 0 D

4N/27W-9Q1 5 0 D

4N/27W-9Q1 15 0 D

4N/27W-9Q1 25 0 D

4N/27W-9Q1 35 60 D

4N/27W-9Q1 45 100 D

4N/27W-9Q1 55 10 D

4N/27W-9Q1 65 0 D

4N/27W-9Q1 75 0 D

Table B1–1. Calculated percent-coarse intervals for all drillers’ logs and e-logs used to define textural properties of the hydrogeologic 

framework model.—Continued

[Percent-coarse values are calculated for 10-foot intervals for the entire depth of each borehole. State well number is the state of California well identifier; 

interval midpoint depth is the midpoint of each 10-foot interval, in feet from top of borehole; PC is the percent-coarse value for each interval; log type defines 

whether the borehole is a drillers’ lithology log (D) or a geophysical e-log (E).]
Chapter B: Overview of Hydrogeologic Framework Model 67

State 

well 

number

Interval 

midpoint depth 

(feet)

PC Log 

type

4N/27W-9Q1 85 0 D

4N/27W-9Q1 95 0 D

4N/27W-9Q1 105 0 D

4N/27W-9Q1 115 0 D

4N/27W-9Q1 125 0 D

4N/27W-9Q1 135 0 D

4N/27W-9Q1 145 0 D

4N/27W-9Q1 155 0 D

4N/27W-9Q1 165 0 D

4N/27W-9Q1 175 0 D

4N/27W-9Q1 185 0 D

4N/27W-9Q1 195 0 D

4N/27W-9Q1 205 0 D

4N/27W-9Q1 215 0 D

4N/27W-9Q1 225 0 D

4N/27W-9Q1 235 0 D

4N/27W-9Q1 245 0 D

4N/27W-9Q1 255 0 D

4N/27W-14K1 5 45.5 D

4N/27W-14K1 15 0 D

4N/27W-14K1 25 0 D

4N/27W-14K1 35 0 D

4N/27W-14K1 45 0 D

4N/27W-14K1 55 0 D

4N/27W-14K1 65 0 D

4N/27W-14K1 75 0 D

4N/27W-14K1 85 0 D

4N/27W-14K1 95 0 D

4N/27W-14K1 105 0 D

4N/27W-14K1 115 0 D

4N/27W-14K1 125 0 D

4N/27W-14K1 135 0 D

4N/27W-14K1 145 0 D

4N/27W-14K1 155 0 D

4N/27W-14K1 165 0 D

4N/27W-14K1 175 0 D

4N/27W-14K1 185 0 D

4N/27W-14K1 195 0 D

4N/27W-14K1 205 0 D

State 

well 

number

Interval 

midpoint depth 

(feet)

PC Log 

type

4N/27W-14K1 215 0 D

4N/27W-14K1 225 0 D

4N/27W-14K1 235 0 D

4N/27W-14K1 245 10 D

4N/27W-14K1 255 100 D

4N/27W-14K1 265 100 D

4N/27W-14K1 275 100 D

4N/27W-14K1 285 100 D

4N/27W-14K1 295 100 D

4N/27W-14K1 305 100 D

4N/27W-14K1 315 100 D

4N/27W-14K1 325 100 D

4N/27W-14K1 335 100 D

4N/27W-14K1 345 100 D

4N/27W-14K1 355 100 D

4N/27W-14K1 365 100 D

4N/27W-14K1 375 100 D

4N/27W-14K1 385 100 D

4N/27W-14K1 395 100 D

4N/27W-14K1 405 100 D

4N/27W-14K1 415 100 D

4N/27W-14K1 425 100 D

4N/27W-14K1 435 100 D

4N/27W-14K1 445 100 D

4N/27W-14K1 455 100 D

4N/27W-14K1 465 100 D

4N/27W-14K1 475 100 D

4N/27W-14K1 485 100 D

4N/27W-14K1 495 100 D

4N/27W-14K1 505 100 D

4N/27W-14K1 515 100 D

4N/27W-14K1 525 100 D

4N/27W-14K1 535 100 D

4N/27W-14K1 545 100 D

4N/27W-14K1 555 100 D

4N/27W-14K1 565 0 D

4N/27W-14K1 575 0 D

4N/27W-14K1 585 0 D

4N/27W-14K1 595 0 D

Table B1–1. Calculated percent-coarse intervals for all drillers’ logs and e-logs used to define textural properties of the hydrogeologic 

framework model.—Continued

[Percent-coarse values are calculated for 10-foot intervals for the entire depth of each borehole. State well number is the state of California well identifier; 

interval midpoint depth is the midpoint of each 10-foot interval, in feet from top of borehole; PC is the percent-coarse value for each interval; log type defines 

whether the borehole is a drillers’ lithology log (D) or a geophysical e-log (E).]
68 Santa Barbara and Foothill Groundwater Basins Geohydrology and Optimal Water Resources Management

State 

well 

number

Interval 

midpoint depth 

(feet)

PC Log 

type

4N/27W-14K1 605 0 D

4N/27W-14K1 615 0 D

4N/27W-14K1 625 0 D

4N/27W-14K1 635 0 D

4N/27W-14K1 645 0 D

4N/27W-14N1 5 100 D

4N/27W-14N1 15 50 D

4N/27W-14N1 25 0 D

4N/27W-14N1 35 0 D

4N/27W-14N1 45 0 D

4N/27W-14N1 55 0 D

4N/27W-14N1 65 0 D

4N/27W-14N1 75 0 D

4N/27W-14N1 85 0 D

4N/27W-14N1 95 0 D

4N/27W-14N1 105 0 D

4N/27W-14N1 115 0 D

4N/27W-14N1 125 0 D

4N/27W-14N1 135 10 D

4N/27W-14N1 145 100 D

4N/27W-14N1 155 90 D

4N/27W-14N1 165 60 D

4N/27W-14N1 175 70 D

4N/27W-14N1 185 0 D

4N/27W-14N1 195 0 D

4N/27W-14N1 205 0 D

4N/27W-14N1 215 0 D

4N/27W-14N1 225 0 D

4N/27W-14N1 235 0 D

4N/27W-14N1 245 0 D

4N/27W-14N1 255 0 D

4N/27W-14N1 265 0 D

4N/27W-14N1 275 50 D

4N/27W-14N1 285 20 D

4N/27W-14N1 295 0 D

4N/27W-14N1 305 0 D

4N/27W-14N1 315 0 D

4N/27W-14N1 325 0 D

4N/27W-14N1 335 0 D

State 

well 

number

Interval 

midpoint depth 

(feet)

PC Log 

type

4N/27W-14N1 345 0 D

4N/27W-14N1 355 0 D

4N/27W-14N1 365 0 D

4N/27W-14N1 375 0 D

4N/27W-14N1 385 0 D

4N/27W-14N1 395 0 D

4N/27W-14N1 405 0 D

4N/27W-14N1 415 0 D

4N/27W-14N1 425 0 D

4N/27W-14N1 435 0 D

4N/27W-14N1 445 0 D

4N/27W-14N1 455 0 D

4N/27W-14N1 465 0 D

4N/27W-14N1 475 0 D

4N/27W-14N1 485 0 D

4N/27W-14P2 5 0 D

4N/27W-14P2 15 0 D

4N/27W-14P2 25 0 D

4N/27W-14P2 35 0 D

4N/27W-14P2 45 0 D

4N/27W-14P2 55 0 D

4N/27W-14P2 65 0 D

4N/27W-14P2 75 0 D

4N/27W-14P2 85 0 D

4N/27W-14P2 95 0 D

4N/27W-14P2 105 0 D

4N/27W-14P2 115 0 D

4N/27W-14P2 125 0 D

4N/27W-14P2 135 0 D

4N/27W-14P2 145 0 D

4N/27W-14P2 155 0 D

4N/27W-14P2 165 0 D

4N/27W-14P2 175 0 D

4N/27W-14P2 185 0 D

4N/27W-14P2 195 0 D

4N/27W-14P2 205 0 D

4N/27W-14P2 215 0 D

4N/27W-14P2 225 0 D

4N/27W-14P2 235 0 D

Table B1–1. Calculated percent-coarse intervals for all drillers’ logs and e-logs used to define textural properties of the hydrogeologic 

framework model.—Continued

[Percent-coarse values are calculated for 10-foot intervals for the entire depth of each borehole. State well number is the state of California well identifier; 

interval midpoint depth is the midpoint of each 10-foot interval, in feet from top of borehole; PC is the percent-coarse value for each interval; log type defines 

whether the borehole is a drillers’ lithology log (D) or a geophysical e-log (E).]
Chapter B: Overview of Hydrogeologic Framework Model 69

State 

well 

number

Interval 

midpoint depth 

(feet)

PC Log 

type

4N/27W-14P2 245 0 D

4N/27W-14P2 255 0 D

4N/27W-14P2 265 0 D

4N/27W-14P2 275 0 D

4N/27W-14P2 285 0 D

4N/27W-14P2 295 0 D

4N/27W-14P2 305 0 D

4N/27W-14Q1 5 100 D

4N/27W-14Q1 15 100 D

4N/27W-14Q1 25 100 D

4N/27W-14Q1 35 100 D

4N/27W-14Q1 45 100 D

4N/27W-14Q1 55 100 D

4N/27W-14Q1 65 100 D

4N/27W-14Q1 75 90.9 D

4N/27W-14Q1 85 0 D

4N/27W-14Q1 95 54.5 D

4N/27W-14Q1 105 100 D

4N/27W-14Q1 115 100 D

4N/27W-14Q1 125 100 D

4N/27W-14Q1 135 0 D

4N/27W-14Q1 145 0 D

4N/27W-14Q1 155 0 D

4N/27W-14Q1 165 0 D

4N/27W-14Q1 175 0 D

4N/27W-14Q1 185 0 D

4N/27W-14Q1 195 0 D

4N/27W-14Q1 205 0 D

4N/27W-14Q1 215 0 D

4N/27W-14Q1 225 0 D

4N/27W-14Q1 235 0 D

4N/27W-14Q1 245 0 D

4N/27W-14Q1 255 0 D

4N/27W-14Q1 265 0 D

4N/27W-14Q1 275 0 D

4N/27W-14Q1 285 100 D

4N/27W-14Q1 295 100 D

4N/27W-14Q1 305 100 D

4N/27W-14Q1 315 100 D

State 

well 

number

Interval 

midpoint depth 

(feet)

PC Log 

type

4N/27W-14Q1 325 100 D

4N/27W-14Q1 335 100 D

4N/27W-14Q1 345 100 D

4N/27W-14Q1 355 100 D

4N/27W-14Q1 365 100 D

4N/27W-14Q1 375 100 D

4N/27W-14Q1 385 100 D

4N/27W-14Q1 395 100 D

4N/27W-14Q1 405 100 D

4N/27W-14Q1 415 100 D

4N/27W-14Q1 425 100 D

4N/27W-14Q1 435 100 D

4N/27W-14Q1 445 100 D

4N/27W-14Q1 455 100 D

4N/27W-14Q1 465 100 D

4N/27W-14Q1 475 100 D

4N/27W-14Q1 485 100 D

4N/27W-14Q1 495 100 D

4N/27W-14Q1 505 100 D

4N/27W-14Q1 515 100 D

4N/27W-14Q1 525 100 D

4N/27W-14Q1 535 100 D

4N/27W-14Q1 545 90 D

4N/27W-14Q1 555 0 D

4N/27W-14Q1 565 60 D

4N/27W-14Q1 575 100 D

4N/27W-14Q1 585 100 D

4N/27W-14Q1 595 100 D

4N/27W-14Q1 605 100 D

4N/27W-14Q1 615 100 D

4N/27W-14Q1 625 100 D

4N/27W-14Q1 635 100 D

4N/27W-14Q1 645 100 D

4N/27W-14Q1 655 100 D

4N/27W-14Q1 665 100 D

4N/27W-14Q1 675 100 D

4N/27W-14Q1 685 100 D

4N/27W-15E2 5 0 D

4N/27W-15E2 15 0 D

Table B1–1. Calculated percent-coarse intervals for all drillers’ logs and e-logs used to define textural properties of the hydrogeologic 

framework model.—Continued

[Percent-coarse values are calculated for 10-foot intervals for the entire depth of each borehole. State well number is the state of California well identifier; 

interval midpoint depth is the midpoint of each 10-foot interval, in feet from top of borehole; PC is the percent-coarse value for each interval; log type defines 

whether the borehole is a drillers’ lithology log (D) or a geophysical e-log (E).]
70 Santa Barbara and Foothill Groundwater Basins Geohydrology and Optimal Water Resources Management

State 

well 

number

Interval 

midpoint depth 

(feet)

PC Log 

type

4N/27W-15E2 25 0 D

4N/27W-15E2 35 0 D

4N/27W-15E2 45 10 D

4N/27W-15E2 55 100 D

4N/27W-15E2 65 100 D

4N/27W-15E2 75 100 D

4N/27W-15E2 85 100 D

4N/27W-15E2 95 90.9 D

4N/27W-15E2 105 0 D

4N/27W-15E2 115 0 D

4N/27W-15E2 125 0 D

4N/27W-15E2 135 0 D

4N/27W-15E2 145 0 D

4N/27W-15E2 155 0 D

4N/27W-15E2 165 0 D

4N/27W-15E2 175 100 D

4N/27W-15E2 185 100 D

4N/27W-15E2 195 100 D

4N/27W-15E2 205 100 D

4N/27W-15E2 215 100 D

4N/27W-15E2 225 100 D

4N/27W-15E2 235 100 D

4N/27W-15E2 245 100 D

4N/27W-15E2 255 90 D

4N/27W-15E2 265 0 D

4N/27W-15E2 275 0 D

4N/27W-15E2 285 100 D

4N/27W-15E2 295 100 D

4N/27W-15E2 305 100 D

4N/27W-15E2 315 100 D

4N/27W-15E2 325 100 D

4N/27W-15E2 335 100 D

4N/27W-15E2 345 100 D

4N/27W-15E2 355 90 D

4N/27W-15E2 365 0 D

4N/27W-15E2 375 0 D

4N/27W-15E2 385 0 D

4N/27W-15E2 395 0 D

4N/27W-15E2 405 0 D

State 

well 

number

Interval 

midpoint depth 

(feet)

PC Log 

type

4N/27W-15E2 415 0 D

4N/27W-15E2 425 54.5 D

4N/27W-15E2 435 100 D

4N/27W-15E2 445 100 D

4N/27W-15E2 455 100 D

4N/27W-15E2 465 100 D

4N/27W-15E2 475 90 D

4N/27W-15E2 485 0 D

4N/27W-15E2 495 0 D

4N/27W-15E2 505 0 D

4N/27W-15E2 515 0 D

4N/27W-15E2 525 0 D

4N/27W-15G1 5 100 D

4N/27W-15G1 15 100 D

4N/27W-15G1 25 100 D

4N/27W-15G1 35 90 D

4N/27W-15G1 45 0 D

4N/27W-15G1 55 0 D

4N/27W-15G1 65 0 D

4N/27W-15G1 75 0 D

4N/27W-15G1 85 0 D

4N/27W-15G1 95 0 D

4N/27W-15G1 105 0 D

4N/27W-15G1 115 0 D

4N/27W-15G1 125 0 D

4N/27W-15G1 135 0 D

4N/27W-15G1 145 0 D

4N/27W-15G1 155 0 D

4N/27W-15G1 165 0 D

4N/27W-15G1 175 0 D

4N/27W-15G1 185 0 D

4N/27W-15G1 195 0 D

4N/27W-15G1 205 0 D

4N/27W-15G1 215 100 D

4N/27W-15G1 225 100 D

4N/27W-15G1 235 100 D

4N/27W-15G1 245 100 D

4N/27W-15G1 255 100 D

4N/27W-15G1 265 0 D

Table B1–1. Calculated percent-coarse intervals for all drillers’ logs and e-logs used to define textural properties of the hydrogeologic 

framework model.—Continued

[Percent-coarse values are calculated for 10-foot intervals for the entire depth of each borehole. State well number is the state of California well identifier; 

interval midpoint depth is the midpoint of each 10-foot interval, in feet from top of borehole; PC is the percent-coarse value for each interval; log type defines 

whether the borehole is a drillers’ lithology log (D) or a geophysical e-log (E).]
Chapter B: Overview of Hydrogeologic Framework Model 71

State 

well 

number

Interval 

midpoint depth 

(feet)

PC Log 

type

4N/27W-15G1 275 0 D

4N/27W-15G1 285 0 D

4N/27W-15G1 295 100 D

4N/27W-15G1 305 90 D

4N/27W-15J2 5 9.1 D

4N/27W-15J2 15 0 D

4N/27W-15J2 25 0 D

4N/27W-15J2 35 20 D

4N/27W-15J2 45 0 D

4N/27W-15J2 55 0 D

4N/27W-15J2 65 0 D

4N/27W-15J2 75 80 D

4N/27W-15J2 85 20 D

4N/27W-15J2 95 90 D

4N/27W-15J2 105 100 D

4N/27W-15J2 115 50 D

4N/27W-15J2 125 0 D

4N/27W-15J2 135 0 D

4N/27W-15J2 145 0 D

4N/27W-15J2 155 0 D

4N/27W-15J2 165 0 D

4N/27W-15J2 175 0 D

4N/27W-15J2 185 0 D

4N/27W-15J2 195 45.5 D

4N/27W-15J2 205 100 D

4N/27W-15J2 215 18.2 D

4N/27W-15J2 225 0 D

4N/27W-15J2 235 0 D

4N/27W-15J2 245 10 D

4N/27W-15J2 255 100 D

4N/27W-15J2 265 10 D

4N/27W-15J2 275 0 D

4N/27W-15J2 285 0 D

4N/27W-15J2 295 0 D

4N/27W-15J2 305 0 D

4N/27W-15J2 315 0 D

4N/27W-15J2 325 30 D

4N/27W-15J2 335 0 D

4N/27W-15J2 345 0 D

State 

well 

number

Interval 

midpoint depth 

(feet)

PC Log 

type

4N/27W-15J2 355 0 D

4N/27W-15J2 365 0 D

4N/27W-15J2 375 0 D

4N/27W-15J2 385 0 D

4N/27W-15J2 395 0 D

4N/27W-15J2 405 0 D

4N/27W-15J2 415 0 D

4N/27W-15J2 425 0 D

4N/27W-15J2 435 30 D

4N/27W-15J2 445 0 D

4N/27W-15J2 455 0 D

4N/27W-15J2 465 0 D

4N/27W-15J2 475 0 D

4N/27W-15J2 485 0 D

4N/27W-15J2 495 0 D

4N/27W-15J2 505 0 D

4N/27W-15J2 515 0 D

4N/27W-15J2 525 50 D

4N/27W-15J2 535 20 D

4N/27W-15J2 545 0 D

4N/27W-15J2 555 0 D

4N/27W-15J2 565 0 D

4N/27W-15J2 575 0 D

4N/27W-15J2 585 0 D

4N/27W-15J2 595 27.3 D

4N/27W-15J2 605 0 D

4N/27W-15J2 615 0 D

4N/27W-15J2 625 0 D

4N/27W-15Q1 5 0 D

4N/27W-15Q1 15 0 D

4N/27W-15Q1 25 0 D

4N/27W-15Q1 35 0 D

4N/27W-15Q1 45 0 D

4N/27W-15Q1 55 0 D

4N/27W-15Q1 65 0 D

4N/27W-15Q1 75 0 D

4N/27W-15Q1 85 40 D

4N/27W-15Q1 95 22.2 D

4N/27W-15Q1 105 63.6 D

Table B1–1. Calculated percent-coarse intervals for all drillers’ logs and e-logs used to define textural properties of the hydrogeologic 

framework model.—Continued

[Percent-coarse values are calculated for 10-foot intervals for the entire depth of each borehole. State well number is the state of California well identifier; 

interval midpoint depth is the midpoint of each 10-foot interval, in feet from top of borehole; PC is the percent-coarse value for each interval; log type defines 

whether the borehole is a drillers’ lithology log (D) or a geophysical e-log (E).]
72 Santa Barbara and Foothill Groundwater Basins Geohydrology and Optimal Water Resources Management

State 

well 

number

Interval 

midpoint depth 

(feet)

PC Log 

type

4N/27W-15Q1 115 100 D

4N/27W-15Q1 125 20 D

4N/27W-15Q1 135 0 D

4N/27W-15Q1 145 20 D

4N/27W-15Q1 155 90 D

4N/27W-15Q1 165 50 D

4N/27W-15Q1 175 80 D

4N/27W-15Q1 185 100 D

4N/27W-15Q1 195 27.3 D

4N/27W-15Q1 205 0 D

4N/27W-15Q1 215 36.4 D

4N/27W-15Q1 225 100 D

4N/27W-15Q1 235 100 D

4N/27W-15Q1 245 100 D

4N/27W-15Q1 255 40 D

4N/27W-15Q1 265 30 D

4N/27W-15Q1 275 30 D

4N/27W-15Q1 285 0 D

4N/27W-15Q1 295 0 D

4N/27W-15Q1 305 0 D

4N/27W-15Q1 315 0 D

4N/27W-15Q1 325 30 D

4N/27W-15Q1 335 0 D

4N/27W-15Q1 345 0 D

4N/27W-15Q1 355 0 D

4N/27W-15Q1 365 0 D

4N/27W-15Q1 375 10 D

4N/27W-15Q1 385 80 D

4N/27W-15Q1 395 30 D

4N/27W-15Q1 405 0 D

4N/27W-15Q1 415 11.1 D

4N/27W-15Q1 425 0 D

4N/27W-15Q7 5 0 D

4N/27W-15Q7 15 0 D

4N/27W-15Q7 25 0 D

4N/27W-15Q7 35 0 D

4N/27W-15Q7 45 0 D

4N/27W-15Q7 55 0 D

4N/27W-15Q7 65 0 D

State 

well 

number

Interval 

midpoint depth 

(feet)

PC Log 

type

4N/27W-15Q7 75 0 D

4N/27W-15Q7 85 0 D

4N/27W-15Q7 95 0 D

4N/27W-15Q7 105 0 D

4N/27W-15Q7 115 0 D

4N/27W-15Q7 125 0 D

4N/27W-15Q7 135 0 D

4N/27W-15Q7 145 0 D

4N/27W-15Q7 155 0 D

4N/27W-15Q7 165 0 D

4N/27W-15Q7 175 0 D

4N/27W-15Q7 185 0 D

4N/27W-15Q7 195 0 D

4N/27W-15Q7 205 0 D

4N/27W-15Q7 215 54.5 D

4N/27W-15Q7 225 0 D

4N/27W-15Q7 235 90 D

4N/27W-15Q7 245 100 D

4N/27W-15Q7 255 100 D

4N/27W-15Q7 265 100 D

4N/27W-15Q7 275 70 D

4N/27W-15Q7 285 0 D

4N/27W-15Q7 295 0 D

4N/27W-15Q7 305 0 D

4N/27W-15Q7 315 0 D

4N/27W-15Q7 325 0 D

4N/27W-15Q7 335 0 D

4N/27W-15Q7 345 0 D

4N/27W-15Q7 355 0 D

4N/27W-15Q7 365 0 D

4N/27W-15Q7 375 0 D

4N/27W-15Q7 385 0 D

4N/27W-15Q7 395 0 D

4N/27W-15Q7 405 0 D

4N/27W-15Q7 415 0 D

4N/27W-15Q7 425 0 D

4N/27W-15Q7 435 0 D

4N/27W-15Q7 445 0 D

4N/27W-15Q7 455 0 D

Table B1–1. Calculated percent-coarse intervals for all drillers’ logs and e-logs used to define textural properties of the hydrogeologic 

framework model.—Continued

[Percent-coarse values are calculated for 10-foot intervals for the entire depth of each borehole. State well number is the state of California well identifier; 

interval midpoint depth is the midpoint of each 10-foot interval, in feet from top of borehole; PC is the percent-coarse value for each interval; log type defines 

whether the borehole is a drillers’ lithology log (D) or a geophysical e-log (E).]
Chapter B: Overview of Hydrogeologic Framework Model 73

State 

well 

number

Interval 

midpoint depth 

(feet)

PC Log 

type

4N/27W-15Q7 465 0 D

4N/27W-15Q7 475 0 D

4N/27W-15Q7 485 0 D

4N/27W-15Q7 495 0 D

4N/27W-15Q7 505 0 D

4N/27W-15Q7 515 0 D

4N/27W-15Q7 525 0 D

4N/27W-15Q7 535 0 D

4N/27W-15Q7 545 0 D

4N/27W-15Q7 555 0 D

4N/27W-15Q7 565 0 D

4N/27W-15Q7 575 0 D

4N/27W-15Q7 585 0 D

4N/27W-15Q7 595 0 D

4N/27W-15Q7 605 0 D

4N/27W-15Q7 615 0 D

4N/27W-15Q7 625 10 D

4N/27W-15Q7 635 100 D

4N/27W-15Q7 645 60 D

4N/27W-15Q7 655 0 D

4N/27W-15Q7 665 0 D

4N/27W-15Q7 675 10 D

4N/27W-15Q7 685 100 D

4N/27W-15Q7 695 100 D

4N/27W-15Q7 705 100 D

4N/27W-15Q7 715 100 D

4N/27W-15Q7 725 100 D

4N/27W-15Q7 735 30 D

4N/27W-15Q7 745 70 D

4N/27W-15Q7 755 100 D

4N/27W-15Q7 765 100 D

4N/27W-15Q7 775 70 D

4N/27W-15Q10 5 0 D

4N/27W-15Q10 15 0 D

4N/27W-15Q10 25 0 D

4N/27W-15Q10 35 30 D

4N/27W-15Q10 45 0 D

4N/27W-15Q10 55 40 D

4N/27W-15Q10 65 0 D

State 

well 

number

Interval 

midpoint depth 

(feet)

PC Log 

type

4N/27W-15Q10 75 0 D

4N/27W-15Q10 85 0 D

4N/27W-15Q10 95 20 D

4N/27W-15Q10 105 100 D

4N/27W-15Q10 115 30 D

4N/27W-15Q10 125 0 D

4N/27W-15Q10 135 0 D

4N/27W-15Q10 145 0 D

4N/27W-15Q10 155 30 D

4N/27W-15Q10 165 0 D

4N/27W-15Q10 175 0 D

4N/27W-15Q10 185 0 D

4N/27W-15Q10 195 0 D

4N/27W-15Q10 205 0 D

4N/27W-15Q10 215 0 D

4N/27W-15Q10 225 0 D

4N/27W-15Q10 235 90 D

4N/27W-15Q10 245 100 D

4N/27W-15Q10 255 100 D

4N/27W-15Q10 265 100 D

4N/27W-15Q10 275 0 D

4N/27W-15Q10 285 0 D

4N/27W-15Q10 295 0 D

4N/27W-15Q10 305 0 D

4N/27W-15Q10 315 0 D

4N/27W-15Q10 325 0 D

4N/27W-15Q10 335 0 D

4N/27W-15Q10 345 10 D

4N/27W-15Q10 355 30 D

4N/27W-15Q10 365 0 D

4N/27W-15Q10 375 0 D

4N/27W-15Q10 385 10 D

4N/27W-15Q10 395 90 D

4N/27W-15Q10 405 0 D

4N/27W-15Q10 415 22.2 D

4N/27W-15Q10 425 63.6 D

4N/27W-15Q10 435 0 D

4N/27W-15Q10 445 0 D

4N/27W-15Q10 455 0 D

Table B1–1. Calculated percent-coarse intervals for all drillers’ logs and e-logs used to define textural properties of the hydrogeologic 

framework model.—Continued

[Percent-coarse values are calculated for 10-foot intervals for the entire depth of each borehole. State well number is the state of California well identifier; 

interval midpoint depth is the midpoint of each 10-foot interval, in feet from top of borehole; PC is the percent-coarse value for each interval; log type defines 

whether the borehole is a drillers’ lithology log (D) or a geophysical e-log (E).]
74 Santa Barbara and Foothill Groundwater Basins Geohydrology and Optimal Water Resources Management

State 

well 

number

Interval 

midpoint depth 

(feet)

PC Log 

type

4N/27W-15Q10 465 10 D

4N/27W-15Q10 475 40 D

4N/27W-15Q10 485 0 D

4N/27W-15Q10 495 0 D

4N/27W-15Q10 505 0 D

4N/27W-15Q10 515 0 D

4N/27W-15Q10 525 0 D

4N/27W-15Q10 535 0 D

4N/27W-15Q10 545 0 D

4N/27W-15Q10 555 0 D

4N/27W-15Q10 565 0 D

4N/27W-15Q10 575 0 D

4N/27W-15Q10 585 0 D

4N/27W-15Q10 595 0 D

4N/27W-15Q10 605 0 D

4N/27W-15Q10 615 30 D

4N/27W-15Q10 625 100 D

4N/27W-15Q10 635 60 D

4N/27W-15Q10 645 100 D

4N/27W-15Q10 655 40 D

4N/27W-15Q10 665 50 D

4N/27W-15Q10 675 0 D

4N/27W-15R1 5 100 D

4N/27W-15R1 15 100 D

4N/27W-15R1 25 100 D

4N/27W-15R1 35 100 D

4N/27W-15R1 45 100 D

4N/27W-15R1 55 100 D

4N/27W-15R1 65 100 D

4N/27W-15R1 75 100 D

4N/27W-15R1 85 100 D

4N/27W-15R1 95 100 D

4N/27W-15R1 105 100 D

4N/27W-15R1 115 100 D

4N/27W-15R1 125 100 D

4N/27W-15R1 135 100 D

4N/27W-15R1 145 100 D

4N/27W-15R1 155 100 D

4N/27W-15R1 165 100 D

State 

well 

number

Interval 

midpoint depth 

(feet)

PC Log 

type

4N/27W-15R1 175 100 D

4N/27W-15R1 185 100 D

4N/27W-15R1 195 100 D

4N/27W-15R1 205 100 D

4N/27W-15R1 215 100 D

4N/27W-15R1 225 100 D

4N/27W-15R1 235 100 D

4N/27W-15R1 245 100 D

4N/27W-15R1 255 100 D

4N/27W-15R1 265 100 D

4N/27W-15R1 275 100 D

4N/27W-15R1 285 100 D

4N/27W-15R1 295 100 D

4N/27W-15R1 305 100 D

4N/27W-15R1 315 100 D

4N/27W-15R1 325 100 D

4N/27W-15R1 335 100 D

4N/27W-15R1 345 100 D

4N/27W-15R1 355 100 D

4N/27W-15R1 365 10 D

4N/27W-15R1 375 0 D

4N/27W-15R1 385 0 D

4N/27W-15R1 395 0 D

4N/27W-15R1 405 0 D

4N/27W-15R1 415 88.9 D

4N/27W-15R1 425 100 D

4N/27W-15R1 435 100 D

4N/27W-15R1 445 100 D

4N/27W-15R1 455 100 D

4N/27W-15R1 465 100 D

4N/27W-15R1 475 100 D

4N/27W-15R1 485 100 D

4N/27W-15R1 495 100 D

4N/27W-15R1 505 100 D

4N/27W-15R1 515 100 D

4N/27W-15R1 525 100 D

4N/27W-15R1 535 100 D

4N/27W-15R1 545 100 D

4N/27W-15R1 555 100 D

Table B1–1. Calculated percent-coarse intervals for all drillers’ logs and e-logs used to define textural properties of the hydrogeologic 

framework model.—Continued

[Percent-coarse values are calculated for 10-foot intervals for the entire depth of each borehole. State well number is the state of California well identifier; 

interval midpoint depth is the midpoint of each 10-foot interval, in feet from top of borehole; PC is the percent-coarse value for each interval; log type defines 

whether the borehole is a drillers’ lithology log (D) or a geophysical e-log (E).]
Chapter B: Overview of Hydrogeologic Framework Model 75

State 

well 

number

Interval 

midpoint depth 

(feet)

PC Log 

type

4N/27W-15R1 565 100 D

4N/27W-15R1 575 100 D

4N/27W-15R1 585 100 D

4N/27W-15R1 595 100 D

4N/27W-15R1 605 100 D

4N/27W-15R1 615 100 D

4N/27W-15R1 625 100 D

4N/27W-15R1 635 100 D

4N/27W-15R1 645 100 D

4N/27W-15R1 655 100 D

4N/27W-15R1 665 100 D

4N/27W-15R1 675 100 D

4N/27W-15R1 685 100 D

4N/27W-15R1 695 100 D

4N/27W-16C1 5 0 D

4N/27W-16C1 15 0 D

4N/27W-16C1 25 0 D

4N/27W-16C1 35 10 D

4N/27W-16C1 45 100 D

4N/27W-16C1 55 100 D

4N/27W-16C1 65 90 D

4N/27W-16C1 75 0 D

4N/27W-16C1 85 0 D

4N/27W-16C1 95 0 D

4N/27W-16C1 105 0 D

4N/27W-16C1 115 0 D

4N/27W-16C1 125 0 D

4N/27W-16C1 135 0 D

4N/27W-16C1 145 0 D

4N/27W-16C1 155 0 D

4N/27W-16C1 165 0 D

4N/27W-16C1 175 0 D

4N/27W-16C1 185 0 D

4N/27W-16C1 195 0 D

4N/27W-16C1 205 0 D

4N/27W-16C1 215 9.1 D

4N/27W-16C1 225 90 D

4N/27W-16C1 235 0 D

4N/27W-16C1 245 0 D

State 

well 

number

Interval 

midpoint depth 

(feet)

PC Log 

type

4N/27W-16C1 255 0 D

4N/27W-16C1 265 50 D

4N/27W-16C1 275 50 D

4N/27W-16C1 285 0 D

4N/27W-16C1 295 9.1 D

4N/27W-16C1 305 100 D

4N/27W-16C1 315 90 D

4N/27W-16C1 325 0 D

4N/27W-16C1 335 0 D

4N/27W-16C1 345 0 D

4N/27W-16E2 5 100 D

4N/27W-16E2 15 100 D

4N/27W-16E2 25 90 D

4N/27W-16E2 35 0 D

4N/27W-16E2 45 10 D

4N/27W-16E2 55 100 D

4N/27W-16E2 65 100 D

4N/27W-16E2 75 100 D

4N/27W-16E2 85 100 D

4N/27W-16E2 95 90.9 D

4N/27W-16E2 105 0 D

4N/27W-16E2 115 0 D

4N/27W-16E2 125 0 D

4N/27W-16E2 135 100 D

4N/27W-16E2 145 0 D

4N/27W-16E2 155 0 D

4N/27W-16E2 165 0 D

4N/27W-16E2 175 0 D

4N/27W-16E2 185 0 D

4N/27W-16E2 195 9.1 D

4N/27W-16E2 205 100 D

4N/27W-16E2 215 90.9 D

4N/27W-16E2 225 0 D

4N/27W-16E2 235 0 D

4N/27W-16E2 245 0 D

4N/27W-16E2 255 0 D

4N/27W-16E2 265 0 D

4N/27W-16E2 275 0 D

4N/27W-16E2 285 100 D

Table B1–1. Calculated percent-coarse intervals for all drillers’ logs and e-logs used to define textural properties of the hydrogeologic 

framework model.—Continued

[Percent-coarse values are calculated for 10-foot intervals for the entire depth of each borehole. State well number is the state of California well identifier; 

interval midpoint depth is the midpoint of each 10-foot interval, in feet from top of borehole; PC is the percent-coarse value for each interval; log type defines 

whether the borehole is a drillers’ lithology log (D) or a geophysical e-log (E).]
76 Santa Barbara and Foothill Groundwater Basins Geohydrology and Optimal Water Resources Management

State 

well 

number

Interval 

midpoint depth 

(feet)

PC Log 

type

4N/27W-16E2 295 100 D

4N/27W-16E2 305 100 D

4N/27W-16E2 315 90 D

4N/27W-16E2 325 10 D

4N/27W-16E2 335 90 D

4N/27W-16E2 345 0 D

4N/27W-16E2 355 0 D

4N/27W-16E2 365 0 D

4N/27W-16E2 375 0 D

4N/27W-16E2 385 0 D

4N/27W-16E2 395 40 D

4N/27W-16E2 405 0 D

4N/27W-16E2 415 0 D

4N/27W-16E2 425 0 D

4N/27W-16M1 5 100 D

4N/27W-16M1 15 50 D

4N/27W-16M1 25 30 D

4N/27W-16M1 35 0 D

4N/27W-16M1 45 0 D

4N/27W-16M1 55 0 D

4N/27W-16M1 65 0 D

4N/27W-16M1 75 0 D

4N/27W-16M1 85 0 D

4N/27W-16M1 95 0 D

4N/27W-16M1 105 0 D

4N/27W-16M1 115 0 D

4N/27W-16M1 125 0 D

4N/27W-16M1 135 0 D

4N/27W-16M1 145 0 D

4N/27W-16M1 155 30 D

4N/27W-16M1 165 0 D

4N/27W-16M1 175 0 D

4N/27W-16M1 185 0 D

4N/27W-16M1 195 0 D

4N/27W-16M1 205 0 D

4N/27W-16M1 215 36.4 D

4N/27W-16M1 225 0 D

4N/27W-16M1 235 0 D

4N/27W-16M1 245 0 D

State 

well 

number

Interval 

midpoint depth 

(feet)

PC Log 

type

4N/27W-16M1 255 0 D

4N/27W-16M1 265 0 D

4N/27W-16M1 275 0 D

4N/27W-16M1 285 20 D

4N/27W-16M1 295 54.5 D

4N/27W-16M1 305 0 D

4N/27W-16M1 315 0 D

4N/27W-16M1 325 0 D

4N/27W-16M1 335 0 D

4N/27W-16M1 345 0 D

4N/27W-16M1 355 0 D

4N/27W-16P1 5 36.4 D

4N/27W-16P1 15 100 D

4N/27W-16P1 25 70 D

4N/27W-16P1 35 0 D

4N/27W-16P1 45 0 D

4N/27W-16P1 55 0 D

4N/27W-16P1 65 0 D

4N/27W-16P1 75 54.5 D

4N/27W-16P1 85 0 D

4N/27W-16P1 95 0 D

4N/27W-16P1 105 0 D

4N/27W-16P1 115 0 D

4N/27W-16P1 125 0 D

4N/27W-16P1 135 0 D

4N/27W-16P1 145 0 D

4N/27W-16P1 155 0 D

4N/27W-16P1 165 0 D

4N/27W-16P1 175 0 D

4N/27W-16P1 185 40 D

4N/27W-16P1 195 36.4 D

4N/27W-16P1 205 0 D

4N/27W-16P1 215 0 D

4N/27W-16P1 225 40 D

4N/27W-16P1 235 0 D

4N/27W-16P1 245 0 D

4N/27W-16P1 255 0 D

4N/27W-16P1 265 0 D

4N/27W-16P1 275 0 D

Table B1–1. Calculated percent-coarse intervals for all drillers’ logs and e-logs used to define textural properties of the hydrogeologic 

framework model.—Continued

[Percent-coarse values are calculated for 10-foot intervals for the entire depth of each borehole. State well number is the state of California well identifier; 

interval midpoint depth is the midpoint of each 10-foot interval, in feet from top of borehole; PC is the percent-coarse value for each interval; log type defines 

whether the borehole is a drillers’ lithology log (D) or a geophysical e-log (E).]
Chapter B: Overview of Hydrogeologic Framework Model 77

State 

well 

number

Interval 

midpoint depth 

(feet)

PC Log 

type

4N/27W-16P1 285 0 D

4N/27W-16P1 295 0 D

4N/27W-16P1 305 0 D

4N/27W-16P1 315 0 D

4N/27W-16P1 325 0 D

4N/27W-16P1 335 0 D

4N/27W-16P1 345 0 D

4N/27W-16P1 355 0 D

4N/27W-16P1 365 0 D

4N/27W-16P1 375 0 D

4N/27W-16P1 385 0 D

4N/27W-16P1 395 20 D

4N/27W-16P1 405 0 D

4N/27W-16P1 415 0 D

4N/27W-16P1 425 18.2 D

4N/27W-16P1 435 0 D

4N/27W-16P1 445 0 D

4N/27W-16P1 455 0 D

4N/27W-16P1 465 50 D

4N/27W-16P1 475 50 D

4N/27W-16P1 485 0 D

4N/27W-16P1 495 0 D

4N/27W-16P1 505 0 D

4N/27W-16P1 515 0 D

4N/27W-17E1 5 100 D

4N/27W-17E1 15 100 D

4N/27W-17E1 25 50 D

4N/27W-17E1 35 0 D

4N/27W-17E1 45 0 D

4N/27W-17E1 55 0 D

4N/27W-17E1 65 0 D

4N/27W-17E1 75 0 D

4N/27W-17E1 85 0 D

4N/27W-17E1 95 0 D

4N/27W-17E1 105 10 D

4N/27W-17E1 115 0 D

4N/27W-17E1 125 0 D

4N/27W-17E1 135 0 D

4N/27W-17E1 145 0 D

State 

well 

number

Interval 

midpoint depth 

(feet)

PC Log 

type

4N/27W-17E1 155 0 D

4N/27W-17E1 165 0 D

4N/27W-17E1 175 0 D

4N/27W-17E1 185 0 D

4N/27W-17E1 195 0 D

4N/27W-17E1 205 0 D

4N/27W-17E1 215 0 D

4N/27W-17E1 225 0 D

4N/27W-17E1 235 0 D

4N/27W-17E1 245 90 D

4N/27W-17E1 255 100 D

4N/27W-17E1 265 100 D

4N/27W-17E1 275 100 D

4N/27W-17E1 285 100 D

4N/27W-17L1 5 100 D

4N/27W-17L1 15 100 D

4N/27W-17L1 25 100 D

4N/27W-17L1 35 40 D

4N/27W-17L1 45 0 D

4N/27W-17L1 55 0 D

4N/27W-17L1 65 0 D

4N/27W-17L1 75 0 D

4N/27W-17L1 85 40 D

4N/27W-17L1 95 100 D

4N/27W-17L1 105 90 D

4N/27W-17L1 115 0 D

4N/27W-17L1 125 0 D

4N/27W-17L1 135 100 D

4N/27W-17L1 145 36.4 D

4N/27W-17L1 155 0 D

4N/27W-17L1 165 0 D

4N/27W-17L1 175 0 D

4N/27W-17L1 185 0 D

4N/27W-17L1 195 100 D

4N/27W-17L1 205 11.1 D

4N/27W-17L1 215 0 D

4N/27W-17L1 225 0 D

4N/27W-17L1 235 0 D

4N/27W-17L1 245 0 D

Table B1–1. Calculated percent-coarse intervals for all drillers’ logs and e-logs used to define textural properties of the hydrogeologic 

framework model.—Continued

[Percent-coarse values are calculated for 10-foot intervals for the entire depth of each borehole. State well number is the state of California well identifier; 

interval midpoint depth is the midpoint of each 10-foot interval, in feet from top of borehole; PC is the percent-coarse value for each interval; log type defines 

whether the borehole is a drillers’ lithology log (D) or a geophysical e-log (E).]
78 Santa Barbara and Foothill Groundwater Basins Geohydrology and Optimal Water Resources Management

State 

well 

number

Interval 

midpoint depth 

(feet)

PC Log 

type

4N/27W-17L1 255 70 D

4N/27W-17L1 265 100 D

4N/27W-17L1 275 100 D

4N/27W-17L2 25 0 D

4N/27W-17L2 25 0 D

4N/27W-17L2 35 0 D

4N/27W-17L2 35 0 D

4N/27W-17L2 45 50 D

4N/27W-17L2 45 50 D

4N/27W-17L2 55 100 D

4N/27W-17L2 55 100 D

4N/27W-17L2 65 30 D

4N/27W-17L2 65 30 D

4N/27W-17L2 75 0 D

4N/27W-17L2 75 0 D

4N/27W-17L2 85 0 D

4N/27W-17L2 85 0 D

4N/27W-17L2 95 0 D

4N/27W-17L2 95 0 D

4N/27W-17L2 105 0 D

4N/27W-17L2 105 0 D

4N/27W-17L2 115 0 D

4N/27W-17L2 115 0 D

4N/27W-17L2 125 0 D

4N/27W-17L2 125 0 D

4N/27W-17L2 135 0 D

4N/27W-17L2 135 0 D

4N/27W-17L2 145 0 D

4N/27W-17L2 145 0 D

4N/27W-17L2 155 0 D

4N/27W-17L2 155 0 D

4N/27W-17L2 165 45.5 D

4N/27W-17L2 165 45.5 D

4N/27W-17L2 175 50 D

4N/27W-17L2 175 50 D

4N/27W-17L2 185 50 D

4N/27W-17L2 185 50 D

4N/27W-17L2 195 50 D

4N/27W-17L2 195 50 D

State 

well 

number

Interval 

midpoint depth 

(feet)

PC Log 

type

4N/27W-17L2 205 50 D

4N/27W-17L2 205 50 D

4N/27W-17L2 215 52.4 D

4N/27W-17L2 215 52.4 D

4N/27W-17L2 225 21.1 D

4N/27W-17L2 225 21.1 D

4N/27W-17L2 235 0 D

4N/27W-17L2 235 0 D

4N/27W-17L2 245 5 D

4N/27W-17L2 245 5 D

4N/27W-17L2 255 20 D

4N/27W-17L2 255 20 D

4N/27W-17L2 265 30 D

4N/27W-17L2 265 30 D

4N/27W-17L2 275 45 D

4N/27W-17L2 275 45 D

4N/27W-17L2 285 0 D

4N/27W-17L2 285 0 D

4N/27W-17L2 295 47.6 D

4N/27W-17L2 295 47.6 D

4N/27W-17L2 305 21.1 D

4N/27W-17L2 305 21.1 D

4N/27W-17L2 315 0 D

4N/27W-17L2 315 0 D

4N/27W-17L2 325 35 D

4N/27W-17L2 325 35 D

4N/27W-17L2 335 25 D

4N/27W-17L2 335 25 D

4N/27W-17L2 345 42.9 D

4N/27W-17L2 345 42.9 D

4N/27W-17L2 355 5 D

4N/27W-17L2 355 5 D

4N/27W-17L2 365 0 D

4N/27W-17L2 365 0 D

4N/27W-17M4 5 36.4 D

4N/27W-17M4 15 0 D

4N/27W-17M4 25 0 D

4N/27W-17M4 35 0 D

4N/27W-17M4 45 0 D

Table B1–1. Calculated percent-coarse intervals for all drillers’ logs and e-logs used to define textural properties of the hydrogeologic 

framework model.—Continued

[Percent-coarse values are calculated for 10-foot intervals for the entire depth of each borehole. State well number is the state of California well identifier; 

interval midpoint depth is the midpoint of each 10-foot interval, in feet from top of borehole; PC is the percent-coarse value for each interval; log type defines 

whether the borehole is a drillers’ lithology log (D) or a geophysical e-log (E).]
Chapter B: Overview of Hydrogeologic Framework Model 79

State 

well 

number

Interval 

midpoint depth 

(feet)

PC Log 

type

4N/27W-17M4 55 0 D

4N/27W-17M4 65 0 D

4N/27W-17M4 75 0 D

4N/27W-17M4 85 0 D

4N/27W-17M4 95 0 D

4N/27W-17M4 105 0 D

4N/27W-17M4 115 30 D

4N/27W-17M4 125 100 D

4N/27W-17M4 135 100 D

4N/27W-17M4 145 100 D

4N/27W-17M4 155 100 D

4N/27W-17M4 165 100 D

4N/27W-17M4 175 100 D

4N/27W-17M4 185 50 D

4N/27W-17M4 195 0 D

4N/27W-17M4 205 0 D

4N/27W-17M4 215 0 D

4N/27W-17M4 225 0 D

4N/27W-17M4 235 0 D

4N/27W-17M4 245 0 D

4N/27W-17M4 255 0 D

4N/27W-17M4 265 0 D

4N/27W-17M4 275 0 D

4N/27W-18B1 5 72.7 D

4N/27W-18B1 15 10 D

4N/27W-18B1 25 100 D

4N/27W-18B1 35 90 D

4N/27W-18B1 45 0 D

4N/27W-18B1 55 0 D

4N/27W-18B1 65 0 D

4N/27W-18B1 75 0 D

4N/27W-18B1 85 0 D

4N/27W-18B1 95 0 D

4N/27W-18B1 105 0 D

4N/27W-18B1 115 0 D

4N/27W-18B1 125 0 D

4N/27W-18B1 135 0 D

4N/27W-18B1 145 9.1 D

4N/27W-18B1 155 100 D

State 

well 

number

Interval 

midpoint depth 

(feet)

PC Log 

type

4N/27W-18B1 165 100 D

4N/27W-18B1 175 100 D

4N/27W-18B1 185 80 D

4N/27W-18B1 195 100 D

4N/27W-18B1 205 22.2 D

4N/27W-18B1 215 100 D

4N/27W-18B1 225 80 D

4N/27W-18B1 235 100 D

4N/27W-18B1 245 100 D

4N/27W-18B3 5 45.5 D

4N/27W-18B3 15 100 D

4N/27W-18B3 25 90 D

4N/27W-18B3 35 0 D

4N/27W-18B3 45 0 D

4N/27W-18B3 55 0 D

4N/27W-18B3 65 0 D

4N/27W-18B3 75 0 D

4N/27W-18B3 85 0 D

4N/27W-18B3 95 0 D

4N/27W-18B3 105 0 D

4N/27W-18B3 115 0 D

4N/27W-18B3 125 0 D

4N/27W-18B3 135 0 D

4N/27W-18B3 145 0 D

4N/27W-18B3 155 60 D

4N/27W-18B3 165 100 D

4N/27W-18B3 175 100 D

4N/27W-18B3 185 100 D

4N/27W-18B3 195 100 D

4N/27W-18B3 205 100 D

4N/27W-18B3 215 100 D

4N/27W-18B3 225 100 D

4N/27W-18B3 235 100 D

4N/27W-18B3 245 90 D

4N/27W-18B4 5 100 D

4N/27W-18B4 15 90 D

4N/27W-18B4 25 0 D

4N/27W-18B4 35 0 D

4N/27W-18B4 45 0 D

Table B1–1. Calculated percent-coarse intervals for all drillers’ logs and e-logs used to define textural properties of the hydrogeologic 

framework model.—Continued

[Percent-coarse values are calculated for 10-foot intervals for the entire depth of each borehole. State well number is the state of California well identifier; 

interval midpoint depth is the midpoint of each 10-foot interval, in feet from top of borehole; PC is the percent-coarse value for each interval; log type defines 

whether the borehole is a drillers’ lithology log (D) or a geophysical e-log (E).]
80 Santa Barbara and Foothill Groundwater Basins Geohydrology and Optimal Water Resources Management

State 

well 

number

Interval 

midpoint depth 

(feet)

PC Log 

type

4N/27W-18B4 55 0 D

4N/27W-18B4 65 0 D

4N/27W-18B4 75 0 D

4N/27W-18B4 85 0 D

4N/27W-18B4 95 10 D

4N/27W-18B4 105 100 D

4N/27W-18B4 115 100 D

4N/27W-18B4 125 100 D

4N/27W-18B4 135 100 D

4N/27W-18B4 145 100 D

4N/27W-18B4 155 100 D

4N/27W-18B4 165 100 D

4N/27W-18B4 175 100 D

4N/27W-18B4 185 100 D

4N/27W-18B4 195 90.9 D

4N/27W-18B4 205 0 D

4N/27W-18B4 215 0 D

4N/27W-18B4 225 0 D

4N/27W-18B4 235 0 D

4N/27W-18B4 245 0 D

4N/27W-18C1 25 0 D

4N/27W-18C1 35 0 D

4N/27W-18C1 45 100 D

4N/27W-18C1 55 100 D

4N/27W-18C1 65 100 D

4N/27W-18C1 75 100 D

4N/27W-18C1 85 100 D

4N/27W-18C1 95 100 D

4N/27W-18C1 105 100 D

4N/27W-18C1 115 100 D

4N/27W-18C1 125 100 D

4N/27W-18C1 135 100 D

4N/27W-18C1 145 100 D

4N/27W-18C1 155 100 D

4N/27W-18G1 5 0 D

4N/27W-18G1 15 0 D

4N/27W-18G1 25 0 D

4N/27W-18G1 35 0 D

4N/27W-18G1 45 0 D

State 

well 

number

Interval 

midpoint depth 

(feet)

PC Log 

type

4N/27W-18G1 55 0 D

4N/27W-18G1 65 55.6 D

4N/27W-18G1 75 9.1 D

4N/27W-18G1 85 0 D

4N/27W-18G1 95 0 D

4N/27W-18G1 105 0 D

4N/27W-18G1 115 0 D

4N/27W-18G1 125 22.2 D

4N/27W-18G1 135 100 D

4N/27W-18G1 145 100 D

4N/27W-18G1 155 90 D

4N/27W-18H1 5 100 D

4N/27W-18H1 15 10 D

4N/27W-18H1 25 0 D

4N/27W-18H1 35 0 D

4N/27W-18H1 45 0 D

4N/27W-18H1 55 0 D

4N/27W-18H1 65 33.3 D

4N/27W-18H1 75 9.1 D

4N/27W-18H1 85 30 D

4N/27W-18H1 95 0 D

4N/27W-18H1 105 0 D

4N/27W-18H1 115 30 D

4N/27W-18H1 125 100 D

4N/27W-18H1 135 20 D

4N/27W-18H1 145 0 D

4N/27W-18H1 155 70 D

4N/27W-18H2 5 0 D

4N/27W-18H2 15 0 D

4N/27W-18H2 25 0 D

4N/27W-18H2 35 0 D

4N/27W-18H2 45 60 D

4N/27W-18H2 55 100 D

4N/27W-18H2 65 100 D

4N/27W-18H2 75 100 D

4N/27W-18H2 85 100 D

4N/27W-18H2 95 100 D

4N/27W-18H2 105 100 D

4N/27W-18H2 115 90 D

Table B1–1. Calculated percent-coarse intervals for all drillers’ logs and e-logs used to define textural properties of the hydrogeologic 

framework model.—Continued

[Percent-coarse values are calculated for 10-foot intervals for the entire depth of each borehole. State well number is the state of California well identifier; 

interval midpoint depth is the midpoint of each 10-foot interval, in feet from top of borehole; PC is the percent-coarse value for each interval; log type defines 

whether the borehole is a drillers’ lithology log (D) or a geophysical e-log (E).]
Chapter B: Overview of Hydrogeologic Framework Model 81

State 

well 

number

Interval 

midpoint depth 

(feet)

PC Log 

type

4N/27W-18H2 125 0 D

4N/27W-18H2 135 0 D

4N/27W-18H2 145 9.1 D

4N/27W-18H2 155 100 D

4N/27W-18H2 165 100 D

4N/27W-18J1 5 0 D

4N/27W-18J1 15 10 D

4N/27W-18J1 25 100 D

4N/27W-18J1 35 100 D

4N/27W-18J1 45 100 D

4N/27W-18J1 55 100 D

4N/27W-18J1 65 10 D

4N/27W-18J1 75 10 D

4N/27W-18J1 85 100 D

4N/27W-18J1 95 100 D

4N/27W-18J1 105 100 D

4N/27W-18J1 115 80 D

4N/27W-18J1 125 0 D

4N/27W-18J1 135 100 D

4N/27W-18J1 145 90 D

4N/27W-18J1 155 0 D

4N/27W-18J1 165 0 D

4N/27W-18J1 175 0 D

4N/27W-18J1 185 0 D

4N/27W-18J1 195 0 D

4N/27W-18J1 205 0 D

4N/27W-18J1 215 0 D

4N/27W-18J1 225 0 D

4N/27W-18J1 235 0 D

4N/27W-18J1 245 0 D

4N/27W-18J1 255 0 D

4N/27W-18J1 265 0 D

4N/27W-18J1 275 0 D

4N/27W-18J1 285 80 D

4N/27W-18L1 5 72.7 D

4N/27W-18L1 15 0 D

4N/27W-18L1 25 0 D

4N/27W-18L1 35 0 D

4N/27W-18L1 45 30 D

State 

well 

number

Interval 

midpoint depth 

(feet)

PC Log 

type

4N/27W-18L1 55 0 D

4N/27W-18L1 65 0 D

4N/27W-18L1 75 0 D

4N/27W-18L1 85 44.4 D

4N/27W-18L1 95 100 D

4N/27W-18L1 105 100 D

4N/27W-18L1 115 100 D

4N/27W-18L1 125 100 D

4N/27W-18L1 135 60 D

4N/27W-18L1 145 18.2 D

4N/27W-18L1 155 0 D

4N/27W-18L1 165 88.9 D

4N/27W-18L1 175 10 D

4N/27W-18L1 185 100 D

4N/27W-18L1 195 0 D

4N/27W-18L1 205 55.6 D

4N/27W-18L1 215 100 D

4N/27W-18L1 225 100 D

4N/27W-18L1 235 60 D

4N/27W-18P2 5 0 D

4N/27W-18P2 15 0 D

4N/27W-18P2 25 0 D

4N/27W-18P2 35 0 D

4N/27W-18P2 45 0 D

4N/27W-18P2 55 0 D

4N/27W-18P2 65 0 D

4N/27W-18P2 75 0 D

4N/27W-18P2 85 0 D

4N/27W-18P2 95 81.8 D

4N/27W-18P2 105 0 D

4N/27W-18P2 115 90 D

4N/27W-18P2 125 100 D

4N/27W-18P2 135 100 D

4N/27W-18P2 145 100 D

4N/27W-18P2 155 50 D

4N/27W-18P2 165 11.1 D

4N/27W-18P2 175 0 D

4N/27W-18P2 185 0 D

4N/27W-18Q2 5 100 D

Table B1–1. Calculated percent-coarse intervals for all drillers’ logs and e-logs used to define textural properties of the hydrogeologic 

framework model.—Continued

[Percent-coarse values are calculated for 10-foot intervals for the entire depth of each borehole. State well number is the state of California well identifier; 

interval midpoint depth is the midpoint of each 10-foot interval, in feet from top of borehole; PC is the percent-coarse value for each interval; log type defines 

whether the borehole is a drillers’ lithology log (D) or a geophysical e-log (E).]
82 Santa Barbara and Foothill Groundwater Basins Geohydrology and Optimal Water Resources Management

State 

well 

number

Interval 

midpoint depth 

(feet)

PC Log 

type

4N/27W-18Q2 15 100 D

4N/27W-18Q2 25 100 D

4N/27W-18Q2 35 90 D

4N/27W-18Q2 45 0 D

4N/27W-18Q2 55 60 D

4N/27W-18Q2 65 100 D

4N/27W-18Q2 75 100 D

4N/27W-18Q2 85 100 D

4N/27W-18Q2 95 100 D

4N/27W-18Q2 105 100 D

4N/27W-18Q2 115 100 D

4N/27W-18Q2 125 100 D

4N/27W-18Q2 135 100 D

4N/27W-18Q2 145 100 D

4N/27W-18Q2 155 100 D

4N/27W-18Q2 165 100 D

4N/27W-18Q2 175 100 D

4N/27W-18R1 5 100 D

4N/27W-18R1 15 100 D

4N/27W-18R1 25 100 D

4N/27W-18R1 35 100 D

4N/27W-18R1 45 100 D

4N/27W-18R1 55 100 D

4N/27W-18R1 65 100 D

4N/27W-18R1 75 100 D

4N/27W-18R1 85 100 D

4N/27W-18R1 95 100 D

4N/27W-18R1 105 100 D

4N/27W-18R1 115 100 D

4N/27W-18R1 125 100 D

4N/27W-18R1 135 100 D

4N/27W-18R1 145 100 D

4N/27W-18R1 155 40 D

4N/27W-18R1 165 0 D

4N/27W-18R1 175 0 D

4N/27W-18R1 185 0 D

4N/27W-18R1 195 0 D

4N/27W-18R1 205 0 D

4N/27W-18R1 215 0 D

State 

well 

number

Interval 

midpoint depth 

(feet)

PC Log 

type

4N/27W-18R1 225 0 D

4N/27W-18R1 235 0 D

4N/27W-19A1 5 100 D

4N/27W-19A1 15 100 D

4N/27W-19A1 25 100 D

4N/27W-19A1 35 100 D

4N/27W-19A1 45 100 D

4N/27W-19A1 55 100 D

4N/27W-19A1 65 100 D

4N/27W-19A1 75 100 D

4N/27W-19A1 85 55.6 D

4N/27W-19A1 95 54.5 D

4N/27W-19A1 105 0 D

4N/27W-19A1 115 0 D

4N/27W-19A1 125 0 D

4N/27W-19A1 135 0 D

4N/27W-19A1 145 0 D

4N/27W-19A1 155 10 D

4N/27W-19A1 165 0 D

4N/27W-19A1 175 0 D

4N/27W-19A1 185 0 D

4N/27W-19A1 195 0 D

4N/27W-19A1 205 0 D

4N/27W-19A1 215 0 D

4N/27W-19A1 225 0 D

4N/27W-19A1 235 0 D

4N/27W-19A1 245 0 D

4N/27W-19A1 255 0 D

4N/27W-19A1 265 0 D

4N/27W-19A1 275 0 D

4N/27W-19A1 285 0 D

4N/27W-19A1 295 0 D

4N/27W-19A1 305 0 D

4N/27W-19A1 315 0 D

4N/27W-19A1 325 0 D

4N/27W-19A1 335 0 D

4N/27W-19A1 345 0 D

4N/27W-21B1 5 100 D

4N/27W-21B1 15 100 D

Table B1–1. Calculated percent-coarse intervals for all drillers’ logs and e-logs used to define textural properties of the hydrogeologic 

framework model.—Continued

[Percent-coarse values are calculated for 10-foot intervals for the entire depth of each borehole. State well number is the state of California well identifier; 

interval midpoint depth is the midpoint of each 10-foot interval, in feet from top of borehole; PC is the percent-coarse value for each interval; log type defines 

whether the borehole is a drillers’ lithology log (D) or a geophysical e-log (E).]
Chapter B: Overview of Hydrogeologic Framework Model 83

State 

well 

number

Interval 

midpoint depth 

(feet)

PC Log 

type

4N/27W-21B1 25 0 D

4N/27W-21B1 35 0 D

4N/27W-21B1 45 0 D

4N/27W-21B1 55 0 D

4N/27W-21B1 65 77.8 D

4N/27W-21B1 75 0 D

4N/27W-21B1 85 0 D

4N/27W-21B1 95 0 D

4N/27W-21B1 105 70 D

4N/27W-21B1 115 100 D

4N/27W-21B1 125 100 D

4N/27W-21B1 135 10 D

4N/27W-21B1 145 0 D

4N/27W-21B1 155 0 D

4N/27W-21B1 165 0 D

4N/27W-21B1 175 30 D

4N/27W-21B1 185 0 D

4N/27W-21B1 195 0 D

4N/27W-21B1 205 0 D

4N/27W-21B1 215 100 D

4N/27W-21B1 225 20 D

4N/27W-21B1 235 0 D

4N/27W-21B1 245 0 D

4N/27W-21B1 255 30 D

4N/27W-21B1 265 90 D

4N/27W-21B1 275 22.2 D

4N/27W-21B1 285 20 D

4N/27W-21B1 295 0 D

4N/27W-21B1 305 50 D

4N/27W-21B1 315 100 D

4N/27W-21B1 325 100 D

4N/27W-21B1 335 100 D

4N/27W-21B1 345 100 D

4N/27W-21B1 355 100 D

4N/27W-21B1 365 100 D

4N/27W-21B1 375 100 D

4N/27W-21B1 385 100 D

4N/27W-21B1 395 100 D

4N/27W-21B1 405 100 D

State 

well 

number

Interval 

midpoint depth 

(feet)

PC Log 

type

4N/27W-21B1 415 100 D

4N/27W-21B1 425 100 D

4N/27W-21B1 435 100 D

4N/27W-21B1 445 100 D

4N/27W-21B2 5 0 D

4N/27W-21B2 15 0 D

4N/27W-21B2 25 0 D

4N/27W-21B2 35 0 D

4N/27W-21B2 45 0 D

4N/27W-21B2 55 0 D

4N/27W-21B2 65 0 D

4N/27W-21B2 75 0 D

4N/27W-21B2 85 0 D

4N/27W-21B2 95 0 D

4N/27W-21B2 105 0 D

4N/27W-21B2 115 0 D

4N/27W-21B2 125 0 D

4N/27W-21B2 135 0 D

4N/27W-21B2 145 0 D

4N/27W-21B2 155 0 D

4N/27W-21B2 165 44.4 D

4N/27W-21B2 175 0 D

4N/27W-21B2 185 0 D

4N/27W-21B2 195 45.5 D

4N/27W-21B2 205 44.4 D

4N/27W-21B2 215 9.1 D

4N/27W-21B2 225 0 D

4N/27W-21B2 235 0 D

4N/27W-21B2 245 0 D

4N/27W-21B2 255 0 D

4N/27W-21B2 265 40 D

4N/27W-21B2 275 0 D

4N/27W-21B2 285 0 D

4N/27W-21B2 295 0 D

4N/27W-21B2 305 0 D

4N/27W-21B2 315 0 D

4N/27W-21B2 325 0 D

4N/27W-21B2 335 0 D

4N/27W-21B2 345 0 D

Table B1–1. Calculated percent-coarse intervals for all drillers’ logs and e-logs used to define textural properties of the hydrogeologic 

framework model.—Continued

[Percent-coarse values are calculated for 10-foot intervals for the entire depth of each borehole. State well number is the state of California well identifier; 

interval midpoint depth is the midpoint of each 10-foot interval, in feet from top of borehole; PC is the percent-coarse value for each interval; log type defines 

whether the borehole is a drillers’ lithology log (D) or a geophysical e-log (E).]
84 Santa Barbara and Foothill Groundwater Basins Geohydrology and Optimal Water Resources Management

State 

well 

number

Interval 

midpoint depth 

(feet)

PC Log 

type

4N/27W-21B2 355 0 D

4N/27W-21B2 365 0 D

4N/27W-21B2 375 0 D

4N/27W-21B2 385 0 D

4N/27W-21B2 395 0 D

4N/27W-21B2 405 0 D

4N/27W-21B2 415 0 D

4N/27W-21B2 425 0 D

4N/27W-21B2 435 0 D

4N/27W-21B2 445 0 D

4N/27W-21B2 455 0 D

4N/27W-21B2 465 0 D

4N/27W-21B2 475 0 D

4N/27W-21B2 485 0 D

4N/27W-21B2 495 0 D

4N/27W-21B2 505 0 D

4N/27W-21B2 515 0 D

4N/27W-21B2 525 0 D

4N/27W-21B2 535 0 D

4N/27W-21B2 545 0 D

4N/27W-21B2 555 10 D

4N/27W-21B2 565 90 D

4N/27W-21B2 575 50 D

4N/27W-21B2 585 0 D

4N/27W-21B2 595 0 D

4N/27W-21G3 5 0 D

4N/27W-21G3 15 40 D

4N/27W-21H1 5 100 D

4N/27W-21H1 15 60 D

4N/27W-21H1 25 30 D

4N/27W-21H1 35 50 D

4N/27W-21H1 45 0 D

4N/27W-21H1 55 0 D

4N/27W-21H1 65 11.1 D

4N/27W-21H1 75 100 D

4N/27W-21H1 85 55.6 D

4N/27W-21H1 95 0 D

4N/27W-21H1 105 20 D

4N/27W-21H1 115 80 D

State 

well 

number

Interval 

midpoint depth 

(feet)

PC Log 

type

4N/27W-21H1 125 0 D

4N/27W-21H1 135 0 D

4N/27W-21H1 145 0 D

4N/27W-21H1 155 0 D

4N/27W-21H1 165 0 D

4N/27W-21H1 175 60 D

4N/27W-21H1 185 0 D

4N/27W-21H1 195 0 D

4N/27W-21H1 205 0 D

4N/27W-21H1 215 0 D

4N/27W-21H1 225 0 D

4N/27W-21H1 235 0 D

4N/27W-21H1 245 0 D

4N/27W-21H1 255 0 D

4N/27W-21H1 265 0 D

4N/27W-21H1 275 0 D

4N/27W-21H1 285 0 D

4N/27W-21H1 295 100 D

4N/27W-21H1 305 40 D

4N/27W-21H1 315 0 D

4N/27W-21H1 325 0 D

4N/27W-21H1 335 0 D

4N/27W-21H1 345 0 D

4N/27W-21H1 355 0 D

4N/27W-21H1 365 0 D

4N/27W-21H1 375 44.4 D

4N/27W-21H1 385 100 D

4N/27W-21H1 395 60 D

4N/27W-22B7 5 0 D

4N/27W-22B7 15 0 D

4N/27W-22B7 25 0 D

4N/27W-22B7 35 0 D

4N/27W-22B7 45 0 D

4N/27W-22B7 55 0 D

4N/27W-22B7 65 0 D

4N/27W-22B7 75 0 D

4N/27W-22B7 85 0 D

4N/27W-22B7 95 50 D

4N/27W-22B7 105 100 D

Table B1–1. Calculated percent-coarse intervals for all drillers’ logs and e-logs used to define textural properties of the hydrogeologic 

framework model.—Continued

[Percent-coarse values are calculated for 10-foot intervals for the entire depth of each borehole. State well number is the state of California well identifier; 

interval midpoint depth is the midpoint of each 10-foot interval, in feet from top of borehole; PC is the percent-coarse value for each interval; log type defines 

whether the borehole is a drillers’ lithology log (D) or a geophysical e-log (E).]
Chapter B: Overview of Hydrogeologic Framework Model 85

State 

well 

number

Interval 

midpoint depth 

(feet)

PC Log 

type

4N/27W-22B7 115 100 D

4N/27W-22B7 125 100 D

4N/27W-22B7 135 100 D

4N/27W-22B7 145 100 D

4N/27W-22B7 155 100 D

4N/27W-22B7 165 100 D

4N/27W-22B7 175 100 D

4N/27W-22B7 185 100 D

4N/27W-22B7 195 100 D

4N/27W-22B7 205 100 D

4N/27W-22B7 215 100 D

4N/27W-22B7 225 100 D

4N/27W-22B7 235 100 D

4N/27W-22B7 245 100 D

4N/27W-22B7 255 100 D

4N/27W-22B7 265 100 D

4N/27W-22B7 275 40 D

4N/27W-22B7 285 0 D

4N/27W-22B7 295 0 D

4N/27W-22B7 305 0 D

4N/27W-22B7 315 0 D

4N/27W-22B7 325 0 D

4N/27W-22B7 335 0 D

4N/27W-22B7 345 0 D

4N/27W-22B7 355 0 D

4N/27W-22B7 365 10 D

4N/27W-22B7 375 100 D

4N/27W-22B7 385 100 D

4N/27W-22B7 395 100 D

4N/27W-22B7 405 100 D

4N/27W-22B7 415 100 D

4N/27W-22B7 425 90.9 D

4N/27W-22B7 435 0 D

4N/27W-22B7 445 10 D

4N/27W-22B7 455 100 D

4N/27W-22B7 465 90 D

4N/27W-22B7 475 0 D

4N/27W-22B7 485 0 D

4N/27W-22B7 495 0 D

State 

well 

number

Interval 

midpoint depth 

(feet)

PC Log 

type

4N/27W-22B7 505 0 D

4N/27W-22B7 515 0 D

4N/27W-22B7 525 0 D

4N/27W-22B7 535 0 D

4N/27W-22B7 545 0 D

4N/27W-22B7 555 0 D

4N/27W-22B7 565 0 D

4N/27W-22B7 575 0 D

4N/27W-22B7 585 70 D

4N/27W-22B7 595 100 D

4N/27W-22B7 605 100 D

4N/27W-22B7 615 100 D

4N/27W-22B7 625 100 D

4N/27W-22B7 635 100 D

4N/27W-22B7 645 100 D

4N/27W-22B7 655 100 D

4N/27W-22B7 665 100 D

4N/27W-22B7 675 100 D

4N/27W-22B7 685 100 D

4N/27W-22B7 695 100 D

4N/27W-22B7 705 100 D

4N/27W-22B7 715 100 D

4N/27W-22B7 725 100 D

4N/27W-22B7 735 100 D

4N/27W-22B7 745 100 D

4N/27W-22B7 755 100 D

4N/27W-22B7 765 100 D

4N/27W-22B7 775 100 D

4N/27W-22B7 785 100 D

4N/27W-22B7 795 90 D

4N/27W-22B7 805 0 D

4N/27W-22B7 815 0 D

4N/27W-22B7 825 0 D

4N/27W-22B7 835 0 D

4N/27W-22B7 845 0 D

4N/27W-22G4 5 100 D

4N/27W-22G4 15 100 D

4N/27W-22G4 25 100 D

4N/27W-22G4 35 40 D

Table B1–1. Calculated percent-coarse intervals for all drillers’ logs and e-logs used to define textural properties of the hydrogeologic 

framework model.—Continued

[Percent-coarse values are calculated for 10-foot intervals for the entire depth of each borehole. State well number is the state of California well identifier; 

interval midpoint depth is the midpoint of each 10-foot interval, in feet from top of borehole; PC is the percent-coarse value for each interval; log type defines 

whether the borehole is a drillers’ lithology log (D) or a geophysical e-log (E).]
86 Santa Barbara and Foothill Groundwater Basins Geohydrology and Optimal Water Resources Management

State 

well 

number

Interval 

midpoint depth 

(feet)

PC Log 

type

4N/27W-22G4 45 0 D

4N/27W-22G4 55 0 D

4N/27W-22G4 65 0 D

4N/27W-22G4 75 63.6 D

4N/27W-22G4 85 0 D

4N/27W-22G4 95 0 D

4N/27W-22G4 105 0 D

4N/27W-22G4 115 0 D

4N/27W-22G4 125 90 D

4N/27W-22G4 135 50 D

4N/27W-22G4 145 100 D

4N/27W-22G4 155 100 D

4N/27W-22G4 165 100 D

4N/27W-22G4 175 100 D

4N/27W-22G4 185 100 D

4N/27W-22G4 195 81.8 D

4N/27W-22G4 205 100 D

4N/27W-22G4 215 54.5 D

4N/27W-22G4 225 10 D

4N/27W-22G4 235 40 D

4N/27W-22G4 245 0 D

4N/27W-22G4 255 0 D

4N/27W-22G4 265 0 D

4N/27W-22G4 275 0 D

4N/27W-22G4 285 0 D

4N/27W-22G4 295 0 D

4N/27W-22G4 305 0 D

4N/27W-22G4 315 0 D

4N/27W-22G4 325 0 D

4N/27W-22G4 335 0 D

4N/27W-22G4 345 0 D

4N/27W-22G4 355 0 D

4N/27W-22G4 365 0 D

4N/27W-22G4 375 0 D

4N/27W-22G4 385 0 D

4N/27W-22G4 395 0 D

4N/27W-22G4 405 0 D

4N/27W-22G4 415 0 D

4N/27W-22G4 425 0 D

State 

well 

number

Interval 

midpoint depth 

(feet)

PC Log 

type

4N/27W-22G4 435 0 D

4N/27W-22G4 445 0 D

4N/27W-22G4 455 0 D

4N/27W-22G4 465 0 D

4N/27W-22G4 475 0 D

4N/27W-22G4 485 0 D

4N/27W-22G4 495 60 D

4N/27W-22G4 505 100 D

4N/27W-22G4 515 100 D

4N/27W-22G4 525 100 D

4N/27W-22G4 535 90 D

4N/27W-22G4 545 0 D

4N/27W-22G4 555 10 D

4N/27W-22G4 565 100 D

4N/27W-22G4 575 100 D

4N/27W-22G4 585 0 D

4N/27W-22G4 595 0 D

4N/27W-22G4 605 0 D

4N/27W-22G4 615 0 D

4N/27W-22G4 625 0 D

4N/27W-22G4 635 0 D

4N/27W-22G4 645 0 D

4N/27W-22G4 655 10 D

4N/27W-22G4 665 100 D

4N/27W-22G4 675 100 D

4N/27W-22G4 685 100 D

4N/27W-22G4 695 100 D

4N/27W-22G4 705 100 D

4N/27W-22G4 715 100 D

4N/27W-22G4 725 100 D

4N/27W-22G4 735 100 D

4N/27W-22J1 5 0 D

4N/27W-23A1 5 90.9 D

4N/27W-23A1 15 0 D

4N/27W-23A1 25 0 D

4N/27W-23A1 35 0 D

4N/27W-23A1 45 0 D

4N/27W-23A1 55 0 D

4N/27W-23A1 65 0 D

Table B1–1. Calculated percent-coarse intervals for all drillers’ logs and e-logs used to define textural properties of the hydrogeologic 

framework model.—Continued

[Percent-coarse values are calculated for 10-foot intervals for the entire depth of each borehole. State well number is the state of California well identifier; 

interval midpoint depth is the midpoint of each 10-foot interval, in feet from top of borehole; PC is the percent-coarse value for each interval; log type defines 

whether the borehole is a drillers’ lithology log (D) or a geophysical e-log (E).]
Chapter B: Overview of Hydrogeologic Framework Model 87

State 

well 

number

Interval 

midpoint depth 

(feet)

PC Log 

type

4N/27W-23A1 75 0 D

4N/27W-23A1 85 0 D

4N/27W-23A1 95 0 D

4N/27W-23A1 105 0 D

4N/27W-23A1 115 0 D

4N/27W-23A1 125 0 D

4N/27W-23A1 135 0 D

4N/27W-23A1 145 0 D

4N/27W-23A1 155 0 D

4N/27W-23A1 165 0 D

4N/27W-23A1 175 0 D

4N/27W-23A1 185 0 D

4N/27W-23A1 195 0 D

4N/27W-23A1 205 0 D

4N/27W-23A1 215 0 D

4N/27W-23A1 225 0 D

4N/27W-23A1 235 0 D

4N/27W-23A1 245 0 D

4N/27W-23A1 255 80 D

4N/27W-23A1 265 100 D

4N/27W-23A1 275 100 D

4N/27W-23A1 285 100 D

4N/27W-23A1 295 45.5 D

4N/27W-23A1 305 0 D

4N/27W-23A1 315 0 D

4N/27W-23A2 5 0 D

4N/27W-23A2 15 0 D

4N/27W-23A2 25 0 D

4N/27W-23A2 35 0 D

4N/27W-23A2 45 0 D

4N/27W-23A2 55 0 D

4N/27W-23A2 65 0 D

4N/27W-23A2 75 0 D

4N/27W-23A2 85 0 D

4N/27W-23A2 95 0 D

4N/27W-23A2 105 90.9 D

4N/27W-23A2 115 100 D

4N/27W-23A2 125 30 D

4N/27W-23A2 135 0 D

State 

well 

number

Interval 

midpoint depth 

(feet)

PC Log 

type

4N/27W-23A2 145 0 D

4N/27W-23A2 155 0 D

4N/27W-23A2 165 0 D

4N/27W-23A2 175 0 D

4N/27W-23A2 185 11.1 D

4N/27W-23A2 195 100 D

4N/27W-23A2 205 100 D

4N/27W-23A2 215 100 D

4N/27W-23A2 225 100 D

4N/27W-23A2 235 20 D

4N/27W-23A2 245 60 D

4N/27W-23A2 255 100 D

4N/27W-23A2 265 40 D

4N/27W-23A2 275 30 D

4N/27W-23A2 285 100 D

4N/27W-23A2 295 100 D

4N/27W-23F4 5 0 D

4N/27W-23F4 15 0 D

4N/27W-23F4 25 0 D

4N/27W-23F4 35 0 D

4N/27W-23F4 45 0 D

4N/27W-23F4 55 10 D

4N/27W-23F4 65 100 D

4N/27W-23F4 75 100 D

4N/27W-23F4 85 100 D

4N/27W-23F4 95 100 D

4N/27W-23F4 105 90 D

4N/27W-23F4 115 0 D

4N/27W-23F4 125 0 D

4N/27W-23F4 135 0 D

4N/27W-23F4 145 10 D

4N/27W-23F4 155 100 D

4N/27W-23F4 165 100 D

4N/27W-23F4 175 100 D

4N/27W-23F4 185 40 D

4N/27W-23F4 195 0 D

4N/27W-23F4 205 0 D

4N/27W-23F4 215 0 D

4N/27W-23F4 225 0 D

Table B1–1. Calculated percent-coarse intervals for all drillers’ logs and e-logs used to define textural properties of the hydrogeologic 

framework model.—Continued

[Percent-coarse values are calculated for 10-foot intervals for the entire depth of each borehole. State well number is the state of California well identifier; 

interval midpoint depth is the midpoint of each 10-foot interval, in feet from top of borehole; PC is the percent-coarse value for each interval; log type defines 

whether the borehole is a drillers’ lithology log (D) or a geophysical e-log (E).]
88 Santa Barbara and Foothill Groundwater Basins Geohydrology and Optimal Water Resources Management

State 

well 

number

Interval 

midpoint depth 

(feet)

PC Log 

type

4N/27W-23F4 235 0 D

4N/27W-23F4 245 0 D

4N/27W-23F4 255 0 D

4N/27W-23F4 265 10 D

4N/27W-23F4 275 100 D

4N/27W-23F4 285 100 D

4N/27W-23F4 295 100 D

4N/27W-23F4 305 90 D

4N/27W-23F4 315 0 D

4N/27W-23F4 325 0 D

4N/27W-23F4 335 0 D

4N/27W-23F4 345 10 D

4N/27W-23F4 355 100 D

4N/27W-23F4 365 100 D

4N/27W-23F4 375 90 D

4N/27W-23F4 385 0 D

4N/27W-23F4 395 0 D

4N/27W-23F4 405 0 D

4N/27W-23F4 415 0 D

4N/27W-23F4 425 0 D

4N/27W-23F4 435 0 D

4N/27W-23F4 445 0 D

4N/27W-23F4 455 0 D

4N/27W-23F4 465 0 D

4N/27W-23F4 475 60 D

4N/27W-23F4 485 100 D

4N/27W-23F4 495 40 D

4N/27W-23F4 505 0 D

4N/27W-23F4 515 0 D

4N/27W-23F4 525 50 D

4N/27W-23F4 535 100 D

4N/27W-23F4 545 100 D

4N/27W-23F4 555 100 D

4N/27W-23F4 565 100 D

4N/27W-23F4 575 0 D

4N/27W-23F4 585 100 D

4N/27W-23F4 595 90.9 D

4N/27W-23F4 605 0 D

4N/27W-23F4 615 0 D

State 

well 

number

Interval 

midpoint depth 

(feet)

PC Log 

type

4N/27W-23F4 625 0 D

4N/27W-23F4 635 0 D

4N/27W-23F4 645 0 D

4N/27W-23F4 655 0 D

4N/27W-23F4 665 0 D

4N/27W-23F4 675 0 D

4N/27W-23F4 685 0 D

4N/27W-23F4 695 100 D

4N/27W-23F4 705 100 D

4N/27W-23F4 715 100 D

4N/27W-23F4 725 100 D

4N/27W-23F4 735 100 D

4N/27W-23F4 745 100 D

4N/27W-23F4 755 100 D

4N/27W-23F4 765 100 D

4N/27W-23F4 775 90 D

4N/27W-23F4 785 0 D

4N/27W-23M1 5 100 D

4N/28W-1L1 5 18.2 D

4N/28W-1L1 15 0 D

4N/28W-1L1 25 0 D

4N/28W-1L1 35 0 D

4N/28W-1L1 45 0 D

4N/28W-1L1 55 10 D

4N/28W-1L1 65 70 D

4N/28W-1L1 75 0 D

4N/28W-1L1 85 0 D

4N/28W-1L1 95 0 D

4N/28W-1L1 105 0 D

4N/28W-1L1 115 10 D

4N/28W-1L1 125 100 D

4N/28W-1L1 135 0 D

4N/28W-1L1 145 0 D

4N/28W-1L1 155 0 D

4N/28W-1L1 165 10 D

4N/28W-1L1 175 100 D

4N/28W-1L1 185 100 D

4N/28W-1L1 195 100 D

4N/28W-1L1 205 44.4 D

Table B1–1. Calculated percent-coarse intervals for all drillers’ logs and e-logs used to define textural properties of the hydrogeologic 

framework model.—Continued

[Percent-coarse values are calculated for 10-foot intervals for the entire depth of each borehole. State well number is the state of California well identifier; 

interval midpoint depth is the midpoint of each 10-foot interval, in feet from top of borehole; PC is the percent-coarse value for each interval; log type defines 

whether the borehole is a drillers’ lithology log (D) or a geophysical e-log (E).]
Chapter B: Overview of Hydrogeologic Framework Model 89

State 

well 

number

Interval 

midpoint depth 

(feet)

PC Log 

type

4N/28W-1L1 215 54.5 D

4N/28W-1L1 225 100 D

4N/28W-1L1 235 100 D

4N/28W-1L1 245 100 D

4N/28W-1L1 255 100 D

4N/28W-1L1 265 100 D

4N/28W-1L1 275 100 D

4N/28W-1L1 285 100 D

4N/28W-1L1 295 100 D

4N/28W-1L1 305 100 D

4N/28W-1L1 315 100 D

4N/28W-1L1 325 100 D

4N/28W-1L1 335 100 D

4N/28W-1L1 345 100 D

4N/28W-1L1 355 100 D

4N/28W-1L1 365 100 D

4N/28W-1L1 375 100 D

4N/28W-1L1 385 100 D

4N/28W-1L1 395 90 D

4N/28W-1L1 405 0 D

4N/28W-1L1 415 0 D

4N/28W-1L1 425 100 D

4N/28W-1L1 435 100 D

4N/28W-1L1 445 100 D

4N/28W-1L1 455 100 D

4N/28W-1L1 465 100 D

4N/28W-1N2 5 36.4 D

4N/28W-1N2 15 0 D

4N/28W-1N2 25 0 D

4N/28W-1N2 35 0 D

4N/28W-1N2 45 0 D

4N/28W-1N2 55 0 D

4N/28W-1N2 65 0 D

4N/28W-1N2 75 0 D

4N/28W-1N2 85 0 D

4N/28W-1N2 95 0 D

4N/28W-1N2 105 0 D

4N/28W-1N2 115 0 D

4N/28W-1N2 125 0 D

State 

well 

number

Interval 

midpoint depth 

(feet)

PC Log 

type

4N/28W-1N2 135 0 D

4N/28W-1N2 145 0 D

4N/28W-1N2 155 0 D

4N/28W-1N2 165 40 D

4N/28W-1N2 175 30 D

4N/28W-1N2 185 0 D

4N/28W-1R1 5 0 D

4N/28W-1R1 15 0 D

4N/28W-1R1 25 0 D

4N/28W-1R1 35 0 D

4N/28W-1R1 45 0 D

4N/28W-1R1 55 0 D

4N/28W-1R1 65 0 D

4N/28W-1R1 75 0 D

4N/28W-1R1 85 0 D

4N/28W-1R1 95 0 D

4N/28W-1R1 105 0 D

4N/28W-1R1 115 0 D

4N/28W-1R1 125 0 D

4N/28W-1R1 135 0 D

4N/28W-1R1 145 0 D

4N/28W-1R1 155 0 D

4N/28W-1R1 165 0 D

4N/28W-1R1 175 0 D

4N/28W-1R1 185 0 D

4N/28W-1R2 25 0 D

4N/28W-1R2 35 0 D

4N/28W-1R2 45 0 D

4N/28W-1R2 55 0 D

4N/28W-1R2 65 0 D

4N/28W-1R2 75 0 D

4N/28W-1R2 85 0 D

4N/28W-1R2 95 10 D

4N/28W-1R2 105 70 D

4N/28W-1R2 115 0 D

4N/28W-1R2 125 0 D

4N/28W-1R2 135 0 D

4N/28W-1R2 145 0 D

4N/28W-1R2 155 10 D

Table B1–1. Calculated percent-coarse intervals for all drillers’ logs and e-logs used to define textural properties of the hydrogeologic 

framework model.—Continued

[Percent-coarse values are calculated for 10-foot intervals for the entire depth of each borehole. State well number is the state of California well identifier; 

interval midpoint depth is the midpoint of each 10-foot interval, in feet from top of borehole; PC is the percent-coarse value for each interval; log type defines 

whether the borehole is a drillers’ lithology log (D) or a geophysical e-log (E).]
90 Santa Barbara and Foothill Groundwater Basins Geohydrology and Optimal Water Resources Management

State 

well 

number

Interval 

midpoint depth 

(feet)

PC Log 

type

4N/28W-1R2 165 22.2 D

4N/28W-1R2 175 0 D

4N/28W-1R2 185 0 D

4N/28W-1R2 195 0 D

4N/28W-1R2 205 0 D

4N/28W-1R2 215 0 D

4N/28W-1R2 225 0 D

4N/28W-1R2 235 0 D

4N/28W-1R2 245 0 D

4N/28W-1R2 255 0 D

4N/28W-1R2 265 0 D

4N/28W-1R2 275 0 D

4N/28W-1R2 285 0 D

4N/28W-12A1 5 72.7 D

4N/28W-12A1 15 0 D

4N/28W-12A1 25 0 D

4N/28W-12A1 35 0 D

4N/28W-12A1 45 0 D

4N/28W-12A1 55 0 D

4N/28W-12A1 65 0 D

4N/28W-12A1 75 0 D

4N/28W-12A1 85 0 D

4N/28W-12A1 95 0 D

4N/28W-12A1 105 0 D

4N/28W-12A1 115 0 D

4N/28W-12A1 125 0 D

4N/28W-12A1 135 0 D

4N/28W-12A1 145 0 D

4N/28W-12A1 155 0 D

4N/28W-12A1 165 0 D

4N/28W-12A1 175 0 D

4N/28W-12A1 185 0 D

4N/28W-12A1 195 0 D

4N/28W-12A1 205 0 D

4N/28W-12A1 215 0 D

4N/28W-12A1 225 40 D

4N/28W-12A1 235 0 D

4N/28W-12A1 245 0 D

4N/28W-12A1 255 0 D

State 

well 

number

Interval 

midpoint depth 

(feet)

PC Log 

type

4N/28W-12A1 265 0 D

4N/28W-12A1 275 0 D

4N/28W-12A1 285 0 D

4N/28W-12A1 295 0 D

4N/28W-12A1 305 0 D

4N/28W-12A1 315 10 D

4N/28W-12A1 325 80 D

4N/28W-12A1 335 0 D

4N/28W-12A1 345 0 D

4N/28W-12A1 355 70 D

4N/28W-12A1 365 0 D

4N/28W-12A1 375 40 D

4N/28W-12A1 385 0 D

4N/28W-12A1 395 0 D

4N/28W-12C4 5 36.4 D

4N/28W-12C4 15 100 D

4N/28W-12C4 25 100 D

4N/28W-12C4 35 100 D

4N/28W-12C4 45 100 D

4N/28W-12C4 55 100 D

4N/28W-12C4 65 20 D

4N/28W-12C4 75 0 D

4N/28W-12C4 85 0 D

4N/28W-12C4 95 0 D

4N/28W-12F1 5 0 D

4N/28W-12F1 15 0 D

4N/28W-12F1 25 80 D

4N/28W-12F1 35 0 D

4N/28W-12F1 45 0 D

4N/28W-12F1 55 0 D

4N/28W-12F1 65 0 D

4N/28W-12F1 75 0 D

4N/28W-12F1 85 0 D

4N/28W-12F1 95 0 D

4N/28W-12F1 105 0 D

4N/28W-12F2 5 0 D

4N/28W-12F2 15 0 D

4N/28W-12F2 25 0 D

4N/28W-12F2 35 0 D

Table B1–1. Calculated percent-coarse intervals for all drillers’ logs and e-logs used to define textural properties of the hydrogeologic 

framework model.—Continued

[Percent-coarse values are calculated for 10-foot intervals for the entire depth of each borehole. State well number is the state of California well identifier; 

interval midpoint depth is the midpoint of each 10-foot interval, in feet from top of borehole; PC is the percent-coarse value for each interval; log type defines 

whether the borehole is a drillers’ lithology log (D) or a geophysical e-log (E).]
Chapter B: Overview of Hydrogeologic Framework Model 91

State 

well 

number

Interval 

midpoint depth 

(feet)

PC Log 

type

4N/28W-12F2 45 0 D

4N/28W-12F2 55 40 D

4N/28W-12F2 65 22.2 D

4N/28W-12F2 75 0 D

4N/28W-12F2 85 0 D

4N/28W-12F2 95 0 D

4N/28W-12H1 5 0 D

4N/28W-12H1 15 0 D

4N/28W-12H1 25 0 D

4N/28W-12H1 35 0 D

4N/28W-12H1 45 0 D

4N/28W-12H1 55 0 D

4N/28W-12H1 65 0 D

4N/28W-12H1 75 0 D

4N/28W-12H1 85 0 D

4N/28W-12H1 95 0 D

4N/28W-12H1 105 0 D

4N/28W-12H1 115 0 D

4N/28W-12H1 125 0 D

4N/28W-12H1 135 40 D

4N/28W-12H1 145 72.7 D

4N/28W-12H1 155 30 D

4N/28W-12H1 165 100 D

4N/28W-12H1 175 100 D

4N/28W-12H1 185 40 D

4N/28W-12H1 195 100 D

4N/28W-12H1 205 22.2 D

4N/28W-12H1 215 0 D

4N/28W-12H1 225 0 D

4N/28W-12H1 235 0 D

4N/28W-12H1 245 0 D

4N/28W-12H4 5 0 D

4N/28W-12H4 15 0 D

4N/28W-12H4 25 0 D

4N/28W-12H4 35 0 D

4N/28W-12H4 45 10 D

4N/28W-12H4 55 100 D

4N/28W-12H4 65 100 D

4N/28W-12H4 75 9.1 D

State 

well 

number

Interval 

midpoint depth 

(feet)

PC Log 

type

4N/28W-12H4 85 0 D

4N/28W-12H4 95 0 D

4N/28W-12H4 105 0 D

4N/28W-12H4 115 0 D

4N/28W-12H4 125 0 D

4N/28W-12H4 135 0 D

4N/28W-12H4 145 0 D

4N/28W-12H4 155 10 D

4N/28W-12H4 165 100 D

4N/28W-12H4 175 30 D

4N/28W-12H4 185 0 D

4N/28W-12H4 195 9.1 D

4N/28W-12H4 205 100 D

4N/28W-12H4 215 100 D

4N/28W-12H4 225 100 D

4N/28W-12H4 235 100 D

4N/28W-12H4 245 100 D

4N/28W-12H4 255 100 D

4N/28W-12H4 265 100 D

4N/28W-12H4 275 100 D

4N/28W-12H4 285 30 D

4N/28W-12H4 295 0 D

4N/28W-12H4 305 0 D

4N/28W-12H4 315 0 D

4N/28W-12J2 5 100 D

4N/28W-12J2 15 100 D

4N/28W-12J2 25 100 D

4N/28W-12J2 35 100 D

4N/28W-12J2 45 100 D

4N/28W-12J2 55 100 D

4N/28W-12J2 65 100 D

4N/28W-12J2 75 100 D

4N/28W-12J2 85 70 D

4N/28W-12J2 95 0 D

4N/28W-12J2 105 0 D

4N/28W-12J2 115 0 D

4N/28W-12J2 125 0 D

4N/28W-12J2 135 0 D

4N/28W-12J2 145 0 D

Table B1–1. Calculated percent-coarse intervals for all drillers’ logs and e-logs used to define textural properties of the hydrogeologic 

framework model.—Continued

[Percent-coarse values are calculated for 10-foot intervals for the entire depth of each borehole. State well number is the state of California well identifier; 

interval midpoint depth is the midpoint of each 10-foot interval, in feet from top of borehole; PC is the percent-coarse value for each interval; log type defines 

whether the borehole is a drillers’ lithology log (D) or a geophysical e-log (E).]
92 Santa Barbara and Foothill Groundwater Basins Geohydrology and Optimal Water Resources Management

State 

well 

number

Interval 

midpoint depth 

(feet)

PC Log 

type

4N/28W-12J2 155 10 D

4N/28W-12J2 165 100 D

4N/28W-12J2 175 100 D

4N/28W-12J2 185 100 D

4N/28W-12J2 195 100 D

4N/28W-12J2 205 100 D

4N/28W-12J2 215 100 D

4N/28W-12J2 225 100 D

4N/28W-12J2 235 100 D

4N/28W-12J2 245 100 D

4N/28W-12J2 255 100 D

4N/28W-12J2 265 100 D

4N/28W-12J2 275 100 D

4N/28W-12J2 285 100 D

4N/28W-12J2 295 100 D

4N/28W-12K1 5 90.9 D

4N/28W-12K1 15 0 D

4N/28W-12K1 25 90 D

4N/28W-12K1 35 100 D

4N/28W-12K1 45 100 D

4N/28W-12K1 55 100 D

4N/28W-12K1 65 100 D

4N/28W-12K1 75 30 D

4N/28W-12K1 85 20 D

4N/28W-12K1 95 45.5 D

4N/28W-12K1 105 0 D

4N/28W-12K1 115 0 D

4N/28W-12K1 125 55.6 D

4N/28W-12K1 135 100 D

4N/28W-12K1 145 90.9 D

4N/28W-12K1 155 0 D

4N/28W-12K1 165 0 D

4N/28W-12K1 175 0 D

4N/28W-12K1 185 80 D

4N/28W-12K1 195 0 D

4N/28W-12K1 205 0 D

4N/28W-12K1 215 0 D

4N/28W-12K1 225 0 D

4N/28W-12K1 235 10 D

State 

well 

number

Interval 

midpoint depth 

(feet)

PC Log 

type

4N/28W-12K1 245 60 D

4N/28W-12K1 255 10 D

4N/28W-12K1 265 55.6 D

4N/28W-12K1 275 30 D

4N/28W-12K1 285 80 D

4N/28W-12K2 5 100 D

4N/28W-12K2 15 50 D

4N/28W-12K2 25 0 D

4N/28W-12K2 35 0 D

4N/28W-12K2 45 0 D

4N/28W-12K2 55 0 D

4N/28W-12K2 65 0 D

4N/28W-12K2 75 0 D

4N/28W-12K2 85 0 D

4N/28W-12K2 95 0 D

4N/28W-12K2 105 0 D

4N/28W-12K2 115 0 D

4N/28W-12K2 125 0 D

4N/28W-12K2 135 0 D

4N/28W-12K2 145 0 D

4N/28W-12K2 155 0 D

4N/28W-12K2 165 0 D

4N/28W-12K2 175 10 D

4N/28W-12K2 185 100 D

4N/28W-12K2 195 45.5 D

4N/28W-12K2 205 0 D

4N/28W-12K2 215 0 D

4N/28W-12K2 225 0 D

4N/28W-12K2 235 0 D

4N/28W-12K2 245 0 D

4N/28W-12K2 255 0 D

4N/28W-12K2 265 0 D

4N/28W-12K2 275 0 D

4N/28W-12K2 285 0 D

4N/28W-12K3 5 0 D

4N/28W-12K3 15 0 D

4N/28W-12K3 25 0 D

4N/28W-12K3 35 0 D

4N/28W-12K3 45 0 D

Table B1–1. Calculated percent-coarse intervals for all drillers’ logs and e-logs used to define textural properties of the hydrogeologic 

framework model.—Continued

[Percent-coarse values are calculated for 10-foot intervals for the entire depth of each borehole. State well number is the state of California well identifier; 

interval midpoint depth is the midpoint of each 10-foot interval, in feet from top of borehole; PC is the percent-coarse value for each interval; log type defines 

whether the borehole is a drillers’ lithology log (D) or a geophysical e-log (E).]
Chapter B: Overview of Hydrogeologic Framework Model 93

State 

well 

number

Interval 

midpoint depth 

(feet)

PC Log 

type

4N/28W-12K3 55 0 D

4N/28W-12K3 65 0 D

4N/28W-12K3 75 0 D

4N/28W-12K3 85 0 D

4N/28W-12K3 95 90 D

4N/28W-12K4 5 0 D

4N/28W-12K4 15 0 D

4N/28W-12K4 25 0 D

4N/28W-12K4 35 0 D

4N/28W-12K4 45 0 D

4N/28W-12K4 55 0 D

4N/28W-12K4 65 0 D

4N/28W-12K4 75 0 D

4N/28W-12K4 85 0 D

4N/28W-12K4 95 0 D

4N/28W-12K4 105 0 D

4N/28W-12K4 115 0 D

4N/28W-12K4 125 0 D

4N/28W-12K4 135 0 D

4N/28W-12K4 145 0 D

4N/28W-12K4 155 10 D

4N/28W-12K4 165 100 D

4N/28W-12K4 175 100 D

4N/28W-12K4 185 100 D

4N/28W-12K4 195 100 D

4N/28W-12K4 205 100 D

4N/28W-12K4 215 9.1 D

4N/28W-12K4 225 100 D

4N/28W-12K4 235 90 D

4N/28W-12K4 245 0 D

4N/28W-12K4 255 0 D

4N/28W-12K4 265 0 D

4N/28W-12K4 275 0 D

4N/28W-12L1 5 0 D

4N/28W-12L1 15 0 D

4N/28W-12L1 25 0 D

4N/28W-12L1 35 0 D

4N/28W-12L1 45 0 D

4N/28W-12L1 55 0 D

State 

well 

number

Interval 

midpoint depth 

(feet)

PC Log 

type

4N/28W-12L1 65 0 D

4N/28W-12L1 75 0 D

4N/28W-12L1 85 0 D

4N/28W-12L1 95 0 D

4N/28W-12L1 105 0 D

4N/28W-12L1 115 0 D

4N/28W-12L1 125 0 D

4N/28W-12L1 135 60 D

4N/28W-12L1 145 100 D

4N/28W-12L1 155 100 D

4N/28W-12L1 165 100 D

4N/28W-12L1 175 100 D

4N/28W-12L1 185 100 D

4N/28W-12L1 195 100 D

4N/28W-12L1 205 100 D

4N/28W-12L1 215 100 D

4N/28W-12L1 225 100 D

4N/28W-12L1 235 100 D

4N/28W-12L1 245 100 D

4N/28W-12L1 255 100 D

4N/28W-12L2 35 0 D

4N/28W-12L2 45 0 D

4N/28W-12L2 55 0 D

4N/28W-12L2 65 44.4 D

4N/28W-12L2 75 20 D

4N/28W-12L2 85 0 D

4N/28W-12L2 95 0 D

4N/28W-12L2 105 40 D

4N/28W-12L2 115 0 D

4N/28W-12L2 125 0 D

4N/28W-12L2 135 100 D

4N/28W-12L2 145 100 D

4N/28W-12L2 155 100 D

4N/28W-12L2 165 100 D

4N/28W-12L2 175 100 D

4N/28W-12L2 185 100 D

4N/28W-12L4 5 0 D

4N/28W-12L4 15 0 D

4N/28W-12L4 25 0 D

Table B1–1. Calculated percent-coarse intervals for all drillers’ logs and e-logs used to define textural properties of the hydrogeologic 

framework model.—Continued

[Percent-coarse values are calculated for 10-foot intervals for the entire depth of each borehole. State well number is the state of California well identifier; 

interval midpoint depth is the midpoint of each 10-foot interval, in feet from top of borehole; PC is the percent-coarse value for each interval; log type defines 

whether the borehole is a drillers’ lithology log (D) or a geophysical e-log (E).]
94 Santa Barbara and Foothill Groundwater Basins Geohydrology and Optimal Water Resources Management

State 

well 

number

Interval 

midpoint depth 

(feet)

PC Log 

type

4N/28W-12L4 35 0 D

4N/28W-12L4 45 0 D

4N/28W-12L4 55 0 D

4N/28W-12L4 65 0 D

4N/28W-12L4 75 0 D

4N/28W-12L4 85 0 D

4N/28W-12L4 95 0 D

4N/28W-12L4 105 0 D

4N/28W-12L4 115 0 D

4N/28W-12L4 125 0 D

4N/28W-12L4 135 0 D

4N/28W-12L4 145 0 D

4N/28W-12L4 155 0 D

4N/28W-12L4 165 0 D

4N/28W-12L4 175 0 D

4N/28W-12L4 185 0 D

4N/28W-12L4 195 0 D

4N/28W-12L4 205 0 D

4N/28W-12L4 215 9.1 D

4N/28W-12L4 225 10 D

4N/28W-12L4 235 0 D

4N/28W-12L4 245 0 D

4N/28W-12L4 255 0 D

4N/28W-12L4 265 0 D

4N/28W-12L4 275 11.1 D

4N/28W-12L4 285 40 D

4N/28W-12L4 295 0 D

4N/28W-12L4 305 0 D

4N/28W-12L4 315 0 D

4N/28W-12L4 325 0 D

4N/28W-12L4 335 90 D

4N/28W-12L4 345 40 D

4N/28W-12L4 355 0 D

4N/28W-12L4 365 80 D

4N/28W-12L4 375 66.7 D

4N/28W-12L4 385 0 D

4N/28W-12L4 395 0 D

4N/28W-12L5 5 72.7 D

4N/28W-12L5 15 0 D

State 

well 

number

Interval 

midpoint depth 

(feet)

PC Log 

type

4N/28W-12L5 25 0 D

4N/28W-12L5 35 0 D

4N/28W-12L5 45 0 D

4N/28W-12L5 55 0 D

4N/28W-12L5 65 0 D

4N/28W-12L5 75 0 D

4N/28W-12L5 85 0 D

4N/28W-12L5 95 0 D

4N/28W-12L5 105 0 D

4N/28W-12L5 115 0 D

4N/28W-12L5 125 0 D

4N/28W-12L5 135 30 D

4N/28W-12L5 145 100 D

4N/28W-12L5 155 100 D

4N/28W-12L5 165 100 D

4N/28W-12L5 175 100 D

4N/28W-12L5 185 100 D

4N/28W-12L5 195 100 D

4N/28W-12L5 205 100 D

4N/28W-12L5 215 100 D

4N/28W-12L5 225 90 D

4N/28W-12L5 235 0 D

4N/28W-12R1 5 27.3 D

4N/28W-12R1 15 0 D

4N/28W-12R1 25 0 D

4N/28W-12R1 35 0 D

4N/28W-12R1 45 0 D

4N/28W-12R1 55 40 D

4N/28W-12R1 65 0 D

4N/28W-12R1 75 0 D

4N/28W-12R1 85 0 D

4N/28W-12R1 95 0 D

4N/28W-12R1 105 80 D

4N/28W-12R1 115 60 D

4N/28W-12R1 125 0 D

4N/28W-12R1 135 0 D

4N/28W-12R1 145 0 D

4N/28W-12R1 155 0 D

4N/28W-12R1 165 0 D

Table B1–1. Calculated percent-coarse intervals for all drillers’ logs and e-logs used to define textural properties of the hydrogeologic 

framework model.—Continued

[Percent-coarse values are calculated for 10-foot intervals for the entire depth of each borehole. State well number is the state of California well identifier; 

interval midpoint depth is the midpoint of each 10-foot interval, in feet from top of borehole; PC is the percent-coarse value for each interval; log type defines 

whether the borehole is a drillers’ lithology log (D) or a geophysical e-log (E).]
Chapter B: Overview of Hydrogeologic Framework Model 95

State 

well 

number

Interval 

midpoint depth 

(feet)

PC Log 

type

4N/28W-12R1 175 0 D

4N/28W-12R1 185 0 D

4N/28W-12R1 195 0 D

4N/28W-12R1 205 55.6 D

4N/28W-12R1 215 100 D

4N/28W-12R1 225 40 D

4N/28W-12R1 235 0 D

4N/28W-12R1 245 100 D

4N/28W-12R1 255 100 D

4N/28W-12R1 265 100 D

4N/28W-12R1 275 0 D

4N/28W-12R1 285 0 D

4N/28W-12R1 295 63.6 D

4N/28W-12R1 305 0 D

4N/28W-12R1 315 0 D

4N/28W-12R1 325 0 D

4N/28W-12R1 335 0 D

4N/28W-12R1 345 0 D

4N/28W-12R1 355 0 D

4N/28W-12R2 5 100 D

4N/28W-12R2 15 100 D

4N/28W-12R2 25 40 D

4N/28W-12R2 35 0 D

4N/28W-12R2 45 0 D

4N/28W-12R2 55 0 D

4N/28W-12R2 65 0 D

4N/28W-12R2 75 0 D

4N/28W-12R2 85 50 D

4N/28W-12R2 95 100 D

4N/28W-12R2 105 40 D

4N/28W-12R2 115 0 D

4N/28W-12R2 125 0 D

4N/28W-12R2 135 0 D

4N/28W-12R2 145 0 D

4N/28W-12R2 155 0 D

4N/28W-12R2 165 0 D

4N/28W-12R2 175 0 D

4N/28W-12R2 185 0 D

4N/28W-12R2 195 0 D

State 

well 

number

Interval 

midpoint depth 

(feet)

PC Log 

type

4N/28W-12R2 205 55.6 D

4N/28W-12R2 215 100 D

4N/28W-12R2 225 100 D

4N/28W-12R2 235 100 D

4N/28W-12R2 245 100 D

4N/28W-12R2 255 100 D

4N/28W-12R2 265 100 D

4N/28W-12R2 275 0 D

4N/28W-12R2 285 90 D

4N/28W-12R2 295 100 D

4N/28W-12R2 305 100 D

4N/28W-12R2 315 60 D

4N/28W-12R2 325 100 D

4N/27W-8M6 45 0 E

4N/27W-8M6 55 0 E

4N/27W-8M6 65 0 E

4N/27W-8M6 75 0 E

4N/27W-8M6 85 0 E

4N/27W-8M6 95 0 E

4N/27W-8M6 105 0 E

4N/27W-8M6 115 0 E

4N/27W-8M6 125 0 E

4N/27W-8M6 135 0 E

4N/27W-8M6 145 90 E

4N/27W-8M6 155 0 E

4N/27W-8M6 165 0 E

4N/27W-8M6 175 0 E

4N/27W-8M6 185 0 E

4N/27W-8M6 195 0 E

4N/27W-8M6 205 0 E

4N/27W-8M6 215 0 E

4N/27W-8M6 225 0 E

4N/27W-8M6 235 0 E

4N/27W-8M6 245 20 E

4N/27W-8M6 255 0 E

4N/27W-8M6 265 70 E

4N/27W-8M6 275 90 E

4N/27W-8M6 285 0 E

4N/27W-8M6 295 0 E

Table B1–1. Calculated percent-coarse intervals for all drillers’ logs and e-logs used to define textural properties of the hydrogeologic 

framework model.—Continued

[Percent-coarse values are calculated for 10-foot intervals for the entire depth of each borehole. State well number is the state of California well identifier; 

interval midpoint depth is the midpoint of each 10-foot interval, in feet from top of borehole; PC is the percent-coarse value for each interval; log type defines 

whether the borehole is a drillers’ lithology log (D) or a geophysical e-log (E).]
96 Santa Barbara and Foothill Groundwater Basins Geohydrology and Optimal Water Resources Management

State 

well 

number

Interval 

midpoint depth 

(feet)

PC Log 

type

4N/27W-8M6 305 60 E

4N/27W-8M6 315 90 E

4N/27W-8M6 325 0 E

4N/27W-8M6 335 0 E

4N/27W-8M6 345 20 E

4N/27W-8M6 355 0 E

4N/27W-8M6 365 70 E

4N/27W-8M6 375 80 E

4N/27W-8M6 385 100 E

4N/27W-8M6 395 100 E

4N/27W-8M6 405 60 E

4N/27W-8M6 415 0 E

4N/27W-8M6 425 0 E

4N/27W-8M6 435 0 E

4N/27W-8M6 445 0 E

4N/27W-8M6 455 0 E

4N/27W-8M6 465 0 E

4N/27W-8M6 475 0 E

4N/27W-8M6 485 0 E

4N/27W-8M6 495 0 E

4N/27W-8M6 505 0 E

4N/27W-8M6 515 0 E

4N/27W-8M6 525 0 E

4N/27W-8M6 535 70 E

4N/27W-8M6 545 100 E

4N/27W-8M6 555 100 E

4N/27W-8M6 565 100 E

4N/27W-8M6 575 100 E

4N/27W-8M6 585 50 E

4N/27W-22A2 35 0 E

4N/27W-22A2 45 0 E

4N/27W-22A2 55 0 E

4N/27W-22A2 65 0 E

4N/27W-22A2 75 0 E

4N/27W-22A2 85 0 E

4N/27W-22A2 95 0 E

4N/27W-22A2 105 0 E

4N/27W-22A2 115 0 E

4N/27W-22A2 125 0 E

State 

well 

number

Interval 

midpoint depth 

(feet)

PC Log 

type

4N/27W-22A2 135 80 E

4N/27W-22A2 145 100 E

4N/27W-22A2 155 100 E

4N/27W-22A2 165 100 E

4N/27W-22A2 175 100 E

4N/27W-22A2 185 100 E

4N/27W-22A2 195 70 E

4N/27W-22A2 205 60 E

4N/27W-22A2 215 80 E

4N/27W-22A2 225 70 E

4N/27W-22A2 235 100 E

4N/27W-22A2 245 30 E

4N/27W-22A2 255 0 E

4N/27W-22A2 265 60 E

4N/27W-22A2 275 100 E

4N/27W-22A2 285 100 E

4N/27W-22A2 295 100 E

4N/27W-22A2 305 40 E

4N/27W-22A2 315 0 E

4N/27W-22A2 325 0 E

4N/27W-22A2 335 0 E

4N/27W-22A2 345 0 E

4N/27W-22A2 355 0 E

4N/27W-22A2 365 60 E

4N/27W-22A2 375 100 E

4N/27W-22A2 385 60 E

4N/27W-22A2 395 0 E

4N/27W-22A2 405 0 E

4N/27W-22A2 415 0 E

4N/27W-22A2 425 0 E

4N/27W-22A2 435 0 E

4N/27W-22A2 445 0 E

4N/27W-22A2 455 0 E

4N/27W-22A2 465 0 E

4N/27W-22A2 475 20 E

4N/27W-22A2 485 40 E

4N/27W-22A2 495 20 E

4N/27W-22A2 505 100 E

4N/27W-22A2 515 100 E

Table B1–1. Calculated percent-coarse intervals for all drillers’ logs and e-logs used to define textural properties of the hydrogeologic 

framework model.—Continued

[Percent-coarse values are calculated for 10-foot intervals for the entire depth of each borehole. State well number is the state of California well identifier; 

interval midpoint depth is the midpoint of each 10-foot interval, in feet from top of borehole; PC is the percent-coarse value for each interval; log type defines 

whether the borehole is a drillers’ lithology log (D) or a geophysical e-log (E).]
Chapter B: Overview of Hydrogeologic Framework Model 97

State 

well 

number

Interval 

midpoint depth 

(feet)

PC Log 

type

4N/27W-22A2 525 100 E

4N/27W-22A2 535 100 E

4N/27W-22A2 545 10 E

4N/27W-22A2 555 0 E

4N/27W-22A2 565 50 E

4N/27W-22A2 575 100 E

4N/27W-22A2 585 40 E

4N/27W-22A2 595 0 E

4N/27W-22A2 605 0 E

4N/27W-22A2 615 0 E

4N/27W-22A2 625 80 E

4N/27W-22A2 635 20 E

4N/27W-22A2 645 0 E

4N/27W-22A2 655 0 E

4N/27W-22A2 665 100 E

4N/27W-22A2 675 100 E

4N/27W-22A2 685 100 E

4N/27W-22A2 695 100 E

4N/27W-18Q4 25 0 E

4N/27W-18Q4 35 0 E

4N/27W-18Q4 45 0 E

4N/27W-18Q4 55 10 E

4N/27W-18Q4 65 100 E

4N/27W-18Q4 75 100 E

4N/27W-18Q4 85 100 E

4N/27W-18Q4 95 100 E

4N/27W-18Q4 105 100 E

4N/27W-18Q4 115 80 E

4N/27W-18Q4 125 0 E

4N/27W-18Q4 135 0 E

4N/27W-18Q4 145 0 E

4N/27W-18Q4 155 0 E

4N/27W-18Q4 165 0 E

4N/27W-18Q4 175 0 E

4N/27W-18Q4 185 0 E

4N/27W-18Q4 195 0 E

4N/27W-18Q4 205 0 E

4N/27W-18Q4 215 0 E

4N/27W-18Q4 225 0 E

State 

well 

number

Interval 

midpoint depth 

(feet)

PC Log 

type

4N/27W-18Q4 235 0 E

4N/28W-12L6 35 0 E

4N/28W-12L6 45 0 E

4N/28W-12L6 55 0 E

4N/28W-12L6 65 0 E

4N/28W-12L6 75 0 E

4N/28W-12L6 85 0 E

4N/28W-12L6 95 0 E

4N/28W-12L6 105 0 E

4N/28W-12L6 115 0 E

4N/28W-12L6 125 0 E

4N/28W-12L6 135 0 E

4N/28W-12L6 145 0 E

4N/28W-12L6 155 0 E

4N/28W-12L6 165 0 E

4N/28W-12L6 175 40 E

4N/28W-12L6 185 90 E

4N/28W-12L6 195 0 E

4N/28W-12L6 205 0 E

4N/28W-12L6 215 0 E

4N/28W-12L6 225 0 E

4N/28W-12L6 235 0 E

4N/28W-12L6 245 0 E

4N/28W-12L6 255 0 E

4N/28W-12L6 265 0 E

4N/28W-12L6 275 10 E

4N/28W-12L6 285 30 E

4N/28W-12L6 295 100 E

4N/28W-12L6 305 100 E

4N/28W-12L6 315 80 E

4N/28W-12L6 325 0 E

4N/28W-12L6 335 30 E

4N/28W-12L6 345 100 E

4N/28W-12L6 355 100 E

4N/28W-12L6 365 100 E

4N/28W-12L6 375 70 E

4N/28W-12L6 385 0 E

4N/27W-24D2 55 0 E

4N/27W-24D2 65 0 E

Table B1–1. Calculated percent-coarse intervals for all drillers’ logs and e-logs used to define textural properties of the hydrogeologic 

framework model.—Continued

[Percent-coarse values are calculated for 10-foot intervals for the entire depth of each borehole. State well number is the state of California well identifier; 

interval midpoint depth is the midpoint of each 10-foot interval, in feet from top of borehole; PC is the percent-coarse value for each interval; log type defines 

whether the borehole is a drillers’ lithology log (D) or a geophysical e-log (E).]
98 Santa Barbara and Foothill Groundwater Basins Geohydrology and Optimal Water Resources Management

State 

well 

number

Interval 

midpoint depth 

(feet)

PC Log 

type

4N/27W-24D2 75 0 E

4N/27W-24D2 85 0 E

4N/27W-24D2 95 0 E

4N/27W-24D2 105 0 E

4N/27W-24D2 115 0 E

4N/27W-24D2 125 0 E

4N/27W-24D2 135 0 E

4N/27W-24D2 145 0 E

4N/27W-24D2 155 40 E

4N/27W-24D2 165 0 E

4N/27W-24D2 175 0 E

4N/27W-24D2 185 0 E

4N/27W-24D2 195 0 E

4N/27W-24D2 205 40 E

4N/27W-24D2 215 100 E

4N/27W-24D2 225 100 E

4N/27W-24D2 235 70 E

4N/27W-24D2 245 0 E

4N/27W-24D2 255 20 E

4N/27W-24D2 265 50 E

4N/27W-24D2 275 90 E

4N/27W-24D2 285 30 E

4N/27W-24D2 295 0 E

4N/27W-24D2 305 40 E

4N/27W-24D2 315 20 E

4N/27W-24D2 325 0 E

4N/27W-24D2 335 60 E

4N/27W-24D2 345 100 E

4N/27W-24D2 355 0 E

4N/27W-24D2 365 50 E

4N/27W-24D2 375 0 E

4N/27W-24D2 385 0 E

4N/27W-24D2 395 0 E

4N/27W-24D2 405 0 E

4N/27W-24D2 415 90 E

4N/27W-24D2 425 100 E

4N/27W-24D2 435 100 E

4N/27W-24D2 445 70 E

4N/27W-24D2 455 100 E

State 

well 

number

Interval 

midpoint depth 

(feet)

PC Log 

type

4N/27W-24D2 465 90 E

4N/27W-24D2 475 0 E

4N/27W-24D2 485 0 E

4N/27W-24D2 495 0 E

4N/27W-24D2 505 0 E

4N/27W-23H1 115 0 E

4N/27W-23H1 125 30 E

4N/27W-23H1 135 100 E

4N/27W-23H1 145 70 E

4N/27W-23H1 155 0 E

4N/27W-23H1 165 0 E

4N/27W-23H1 175 0 E

4N/27W-23H1 185 0 E

4N/27W-23H1 195 0 E

4N/27W-23H1 205 0 E

4N/27W-23H1 215 0 E

4N/27W-23H1 225 0 E

4N/27W-23H1 235 0 E

4N/27W-23H1 245 0 E

4N/27W-23H1 255 0 E

4N/27W-23H1 265 30 E

4N/27W-23H1 275 90 E

4N/27W-23H1 285 60 E

4N/27W-23H1 295 0 E

4N/27W-23H1 305 80 E

4N/27W-23H1 315 30 E

4N/27W-23H1 325 0 E

4N/27W-23H1 335 0 E

4N/27W-23H1 345 0 E

4N/27W-23H1 355 0 E

4N/27W-23H1 365 0 E

4N/27W-23H1 375 0 E

4N/27W-23H1 385 80 E

4N/27W-23H1 395 30 E

4N/27W-23H1 405 20 E

4N/27W-23H1 415 80 E

4N/27W-23H1 425 50 E

4N/27W-23H1 435 0 E

4N/27W-23H1 445 20 E

Table B1–1. Calculated percent-coarse intervals for all drillers’ logs and e-logs used to define textural properties of the hydrogeologic 

framework model.—Continued

[Percent-coarse values are calculated for 10-foot intervals for the entire depth of each borehole. State well number is the state of California well identifier; 

interval midpoint depth is the midpoint of each 10-foot interval, in feet from top of borehole; PC is the percent-coarse value for each interval; log type defines 

whether the borehole is a drillers’ lithology log (D) or a geophysical e-log (E).]
Chapter B: Overview of Hydrogeologic Framework Model 99

State 

well 

number

Interval 

midpoint depth 

(feet)

PC Log 

type

4N/27W-23H1 455 30 E

4N/27W-23H1 465 20 E

4N/27W-23H1 475 0 E

4N/27W-23H1 485 20 E

4N/27W-23H1 495 50 E

4N/27W-23H1 505 100 E

4N/27W-23H1 515 20 E

4N/27W-23H1 525 0 E

4N/27W-23H1 535 100 E

4N/27W-23H1 545 100 E

4N/27W-23H1 555 100 E

4N/27W-23H1 565 100 E

4N/27W-23H1 575 100 E

4N/27W-23H1 585 100 E

4N/27W-23H1 595 30 E

4N/27W-23H1 605 0 E

4N/27W-23H1 615 50 E

4N/27W-23H1 625 40 E

4N/27W-23H1 635 100 E

4N/27W-23H1 645 40 E

4N/27W-23H1 655 90 E

4N/27W-23H1 665 30 E

4N/27W-23H1 675 50 E

4N/27W-23H1 685 100 E

4N/27W-23H1 695 100 E

4N/27W-23H1 705 100 E

4N/27W-23H1 715 100 E

4N/27W-23H1 725 100 E

4N/27W-23H1 735 100 E

4N/27W-23F5 5 100 E

4N/27W-23F5 15 50 E

4N/27W-23F5 25 0 E

4N/27W-23F5 35 0 E

4N/27W-23F5 45 0 E

4N/27W-23F5 55 0 E

4N/27W-23F5 65 0 E

4N/27W-23F5 75 0 E

4N/27W-23F5 85 0 E

4N/27W-23F5 95 0 E

State 

well 

number

Interval 

midpoint depth 

(feet)

PC Log 

type

4N/27W-23F5 105 0 E

4N/27W-23F5 115 0 E

4N/27W-23F5 125 0 E

4N/27W-23F5 135 0 E

4N/27W-23F5 145 0 E

4N/27W-23F5 155 0 E

4N/27W-23F5 165 40 E

4N/27W-23F5 175 90 E

4N/27W-23F5 185 100 E

4N/27W-23F5 195 100 E

4N/27W-23F5 205 30 E

4N/27W-23F5 215 70 E

4N/27W-23F5 225 40 E

4N/27W-23F5 235 0 E

4N/27W-23F5 245 100 E

4N/27W-23F5 255 10 E

4N/27W-23F5 265 0 E

4N/27W-23F5 275 0 E

4N/27W-23F5 285 100 E

4N/27W-23F5 295 100 E

4N/27W-23F5 305 100 E

4N/27W-23F5 315 80 E

4N/27W-23F5 325 50 E

4N/27W-23F5 335 100 E

4N/27W-23F5 345 90 E

4N/27W-23F5 355 0 E

4N/27W-23F5 365 100 E

4N/27W-23F5 375 100 E

4N/27W-23F5 385 100 E

4N/27W-23F5 395 70 E

4N/27W-23F5 405 0 E

4N/27W-23F5 415 0 E

4N/27W-23F5 425 0 E

4N/27W-23F5 435 0 E

4N/27W-23F5 445 0 E

4N/27W-23F5 455 0 E

4N/27W-23F5 465 0 E

4N/27W-23F5 475 50 E

4N/27W-23F5 485 80 E

Table B1–1. Calculated percent-coarse intervals for all drillers’ logs and e-logs used to define textural properties of the hydrogeologic 

framework model.—Continued

[Percent-coarse values are calculated for 10-foot intervals for the entire depth of each borehole. State well number is the state of California well identifier; 

interval midpoint depth is the midpoint of each 10-foot interval, in feet from top of borehole; PC is the percent-coarse value for each interval; log type defines 

whether the borehole is a drillers’ lithology log (D) or a geophysical e-log (E).]
100 Santa Barbara and Foothill Groundwater Basins Geohydrology and Optimal Water Resources Management

State 

well 

number

Interval 

midpoint depth 

(feet)

PC Log 

type

4N/27W-23F5 495 100 E

4N/27W-23F5 505 70 E

4N/27W-23F5 515 80 E

4N/27W-23F5 525 60 E

4N/27W-23F5 535 100 E

4N/27W-23F5 545 100 E

4N/27W-23F5 555 100 E

4N/27W-23F5 565 100 E

4N/27W-23F5 575 100 E

4N/27W-23F5 585 40 E

4N/27W-23F5 595 40 E

4N/27W-23F5 605 100 E

4N/27W-23F5 615 100 E

4N/27W-23F5 625 40 E

4N/27W-23F5 635 0 E

4N/27W-23F5 645 10 E

4N/27W-23F5 655 60 E

4N/27W-23F5 665 100 E

4N/27W-23F5 675 100 E

4N/27W-23F5 685 100 E

4N/27W-23F5 695 100 E

4N/27W-23F5 705 40 E

4N/27W-23F5 715 60 E

4N/27W-23F5 725 100 E

4N/27W-23F5 735 100 E

4N/27W-23F5 745 100 E

4N/27W-23F5 755 100 E

4N/27W-23F5 765 100 E

4N/27W-23F5 775 100 E

4N/27W-23F5 785 100 E

4N/27W-23E6 35 100 E

4N/27W-23E6 45 60 E

4N/27W-23E6 55 20 E

4N/27W-23E6 65 10 E

4N/27W-23E6 75 100 E

4N/27W-23E6 85 100 E

4N/27W-23E6 95 100 E

4N/27W-23E6 105 70 E

4N/27W-23E6 115 100 E

State 

well 

number

Interval 

midpoint depth 

(feet)

PC Log 

type

4N/27W-23E6 125 0 E

4N/27W-23E6 135 80 E

4N/27W-23E6 145 100 E

4N/27W-23E6 155 100 E

4N/27W-23E6 165 20 E

4N/27W-23E6 175 0 E

4N/27W-23E6 185 0 E

4N/27W-23E6 195 0 E

4N/27W-23E6 205 0 E

4N/27W-23E6 215 0 E

4N/27W-23E6 225 30 E

4N/27W-23E6 235 30 E

4N/27W-23E6 245 0 E

4N/27W-23E6 255 90 E

4N/27W-23E6 265 100 E

4N/27W-23E6 275 100 E

4N/27W-23E6 285 20 E

4N/27W-23E6 295 40 E

4N/27W-23E6 305 70 E

4N/27W-23E6 315 100 E

4N/27W-23E6 325 70 E

4N/27W-23E6 335 60 E

4N/27W-23E6 345 100 E

4N/27W-23E6 355 10 E

4N/27W-23E6 365 0 E

4N/27W-23E6 375 60 E

4N/27W-23E6 385 40 E

4N/27W-23E6 395 0 E

4N/27W-23E6 405 0 E

4N/27W-23E6 415 60 E

4N/27W-23E6 425 0 E

4N/27W-23E6 435 0 E

4N/27W-23E6 445 60 E

4N/27W-23E6 455 0 E

4N/27W-23E6 465 0 E

4N/27W-23E6 475 0 E

4N/27W-23E6 485 0 E

4N/27W-23E6 495 0 E

4N/27W-23E6 505 100 E

Table B1–1. Calculated percent-coarse intervals for all drillers’ logs and e-logs used to define textural properties of the hydrogeologic 

framework model.—Continued

[Percent-coarse values are calculated for 10-foot intervals for the entire depth of each borehole. State well number is the state of California well identifier; 

interval midpoint depth is the midpoint of each 10-foot interval, in feet from top of borehole; PC is the percent-coarse value for each interval; log type defines 

whether the borehole is a drillers’ lithology log (D) or a geophysical e-log (E).]
Chapter B: Overview of Hydrogeologic Framework Model 101

State 

well 

number

Interval 

midpoint depth 

(feet)

PC Log 

type

4N/27W-23E6 515 100 E

4N/27W-23E6 525 100 E

4N/27W-23E6 535 0 E

4N/27W-23E6 545 0 E

4N/27W-23E6 555 80 E

4N/27W-23E6 565 60 E

4N/27W-23E6 575 0 E

4N/27W-23E6 585 0 E

4N/27W-23E6 595 0 E

4N/27W-23E6 605 40 E

4N/27W-23E6 615 100 E

4N/27W-23E6 625 70 E

4N/27W-23E6 635 0 E

4N/27W-23E6 645 30 E

4N/27W-23E6 655 100 E

4N/27W-23E6 665 100 E

4N/27W-23E6 675 40 E

4N/27W-23E6 685 0 E

4N/27W-23E6 695 0 E

4N/27W-23E6 705 50 E

4N/27W-23E6 715 0 E

4N/27W-23E6 725 0 E

4N/27W-23E1 45 0 E

4N/27W-23E1 55 0 E

4N/27W-23E1 65 0 E

4N/27W-23E1 75 0 E

4N/27W-23E1 85 10 E

4N/27W-23E1 95 50 E

4N/27W-23E1 105 0 E

4N/27W-23E1 115 0 E

4N/27W-23E1 125 0 E

4N/27W-23E1 135 100 E

4N/27W-23E1 145 100 E

4N/27W-23E1 155 100 E

4N/27W-23E1 165 100 E

4N/27W-23E1 175 80 E

4N/27W-23E1 185 0 E

4N/27W-23E1 195 0 E

4N/27W-23E1 205 0 E

State 

well 

number

Interval 

midpoint depth 

(feet)

PC Log 

type

4N/27W-23E1 215 10 E

4N/27W-23E1 225 100 E

4N/27W-23E1 235 20 E

4N/27W-23E1 245 0 E

4N/27W-23E1 255 70 E

4N/27W-23E1 265 100 E

4N/27W-23E1 275 100 E

4N/27W-23E1 285 50 E

4N/27W-23E1 295 0 E

4N/27W-23E1 305 0 E

4N/27W-23E1 315 0 E

4N/27W-23E1 325 0 E

4N/27W-23E1 335 70 E

4N/27W-23E1 345 100 E

4N/27W-23E1 355 100 E

4N/27W-23E1 365 100 E

4N/27W-23E1 375 70 E

4N/27W-23E1 385 0 E

4N/27W-23E1 395 0 E

4N/27W-23E1 405 0 E

4N/27W-23E1 415 0 E

4N/27W-23E1 425 0 E

4N/27W-23E1 435 0 E

4N/27W-23E1 445 10 E

4N/27W-23E1 455 50 E

4N/27W-23E1 465 0 E

4N/27W-23E1 475 0 E

4N/27W-23E1 485 0 E

4N/27W-23E1 495 0 E

4N/27W-23E1 505 50 E

4N/27W-23E1 515 100 E

4N/27W-23E1 525 20 E

4N/27W-23E1 535 0 E

4N/27W-23E1 545 70 E

4N/27W-23E1 555 30 E

4N/27W-23E1 565 0 E

4N/27W-23E1 575 0 E

4N/27W-23E1 585 50 E

4N/27W-23E1 595 100 E

Table B1–1. Calculated percent-coarse intervals for all drillers’ logs and e-logs used to define textural properties of the hydrogeologic 

framework model.—Continued

[Percent-coarse values are calculated for 10-foot intervals for the entire depth of each borehole. State well number is the state of California well identifier; 

interval midpoint depth is the midpoint of each 10-foot interval, in feet from top of borehole; PC is the percent-coarse value for each interval; log type defines 

whether the borehole is a drillers’ lithology log (D) or a geophysical e-log (E).]
102 Santa Barbara and Foothill Groundwater Basins Geohydrology and Optimal Water Resources Management

State 

well 

number

Interval 

midpoint depth 

(feet)

PC Log 

type

4N/27W-23E1 605 30 E

4N/27W-23E1 615 0 E

4N/27W-23E1 625 20 E

4N/27W-23E1 635 100 E

4N/27W-23E1 645 50 E

4N/27W-23E1 655 0 E

4N/27W-23E1 665 0 E

4N/27W-23E1 675 0 E

4N/27W-23E1 685 0 E

4N/27W-23E1 695 0 E

4N/27W-23E1 705 0 E

4N/27W-23E1 715 0 E

4N/27W-23E1 725 0 E

4N/27W-23E1 735 0 E

4N/27W-23E1 745 0 E

4N/27W-23E1 755 0 E

4N/27W-23E1 765 0 E

4N/27W-23E1 775 100 E

4N/27W-23E1 785 80 E

4N/27W-23E1 795 0 E

4N/27W-23E1 805 10 E

4N/27W-23E1 815 100 E

4N/27W-23E1 825 10 E

4N/27W-23D1 15 0 E

4N/27W-23D1 25 0 E

4N/27W-23D1 35 0 E

4N/27W-23D1 45 0 E

4N/27W-23D1 55 0 E

4N/27W-23D1 65 0 E

4N/27W-23D1 75 0 E

4N/27W-23D1 85 0 E

4N/27W-23D1 95 80 E

4N/27W-23D1 105 50 E

4N/27W-23D1 115 20 E

4N/27W-23D1 125 100 E

4N/27W-23D1 135 100 E

4N/27W-23D1 145 90 E

4N/27W-23D1 155 0 E

4N/27W-23D1 165 0 E

State 

well 

number

Interval 

midpoint depth 

(feet)

PC Log 

type

4N/27W-23D1 175 30 E

4N/27W-23D1 185 80 E

4N/27W-23D1 195 0 E

4N/27W-23D1 205 0 E

4N/27W-23D1 215 0 E

4N/27W-23D1 225 60 E

4N/27W-23D1 235 0 E

4N/27W-23D1 245 40 E

4N/27W-23D1 255 100 E

4N/27W-23D1 265 100 E

4N/27W-23D1 275 30 E

4N/27W-23D1 285 60 E

4N/27W-23D1 295 60 E

4N/27W-23D1 305 0 E

4N/27W-23D1 315 0 E

4N/27W-23D1 325 100 E

4N/27W-23D1 335 100 E

4N/27W-23D1 345 100 E

4N/27W-23D1 355 100 E

4N/27W-23D1 365 50 E

4N/27W-23D1 375 0 E

4N/27W-23D1 385 0 E

4N/27W-22Q1 25 70 E

4N/27W-22Q1 35 100 E

4N/27W-22Q1 45 20 E

4N/27W-22Q1 55 20 E

4N/27W-22B2 35 0 E

4N/27W-22B2 45 0 E

4N/27W-22B2 55 0 E

4N/27W-22B2 65 0 E

4N/27W-22B2 75 0 E

4N/27W-22B2 85 0 E

4N/27W-22B2 95 40 E

4N/27W-22B2 105 30 E

4N/27W-22B2 115 30 E

4N/27W-22B2 125 30 E

4N/27W-22B2 135 40 E

4N/27W-22B2 145 0 E

4N/27W-22B2 155 0 E

Table B1–1. Calculated percent-coarse intervals for all drillers’ logs and e-logs used to define textural properties of the hydrogeologic 

framework model.—Continued

[Percent-coarse values are calculated for 10-foot intervals for the entire depth of each borehole. State well number is the state of California well identifier; 

interval midpoint depth is the midpoint of each 10-foot interval, in feet from top of borehole; PC is the percent-coarse value for each interval; log type defines 

whether the borehole is a drillers’ lithology log (D) or a geophysical e-log (E).]
Chapter B: Overview of Hydrogeologic Framework Model 103

State 

well 

number

Interval 

midpoint depth 

(feet)

PC Log 

type

4N/27W-22B2 165 0 E

4N/27W-22B2 175 20 E

4N/27W-22B2 185 0 E

4N/27W-22B2 195 40 E

4N/27W-22B2 205 30 E

4N/27W-22B2 215 100 E

4N/27W-22B2 225 100 E

4N/27W-22B2 235 100 E

4N/27W-22B2 245 100 E

4N/27W-22B2 255 30 E

4N/27W-22B2 265 0 E

4N/27W-22B2 275 0 E

4N/27W-22B2 285 0 E

4N/27W-22B2 295 0 E

4N/27W-22B2 305 0 E

4N/27W-22B2 315 50 E

4N/27W-22B2 325 0 E

4N/27W-22B2 335 60 E

4N/27W-22B2 345 0 E

4N/27W-22B2 355 50 E

4N/27W-22B2 365 60 E

4N/27W-22B2 375 0 E

4N/27W-22B2 385 0 E

4N/27W-22B2 395 0 E

4N/27W-22B2 405 0 E

4N/27W-22B2 415 0 E

4N/27W-22B2 425 100 E

4N/27W-22B2 435 100 E

4N/27W-22B2 445 30 E

4N/27W-22B2 455 0 E

4N/27W-22B2 465 50 E

4N/27W-22B2 475 100 E

4N/27W-22B2 485 30 E

4N/27W-22B2 495 50 E

4N/27W-22B2 505 0 E

4N/27W-22B2 515 0 E

4N/27W-22B2 525 40 E

4N/27W-22B2 535 0 E

4N/27W-22B2 545 0 E

State 

well 

number

Interval 

midpoint depth 

(feet)

PC Log 

type

4N/27W-22B2 555 0 E

4N/27W-22B2 565 50 E

4N/27W-22B2 575 100 E

4N/27W-22B2 585 100 E

4N/27W-22B2 595 100 E

4N/27W-22B2 605 100 E

4N/27W-22B2 615 100 E

4N/27W-22B2 625 100 E

4N/27W-22B2 635 100 E

4N/27W-22B2 645 100 E

4N/27W-22B2 655 100 E

4N/27W-22B2 665 100 E

4N/27W-22B2 675 100 E

4N/27W-22B2 685 90 E

4N/27W-22B2 695 0 E

4N/27W-22B2 705 80 E

4N/27W-22B2 715 100 E

4N/27W-22B2 725 80 E

4N/27W-22B2 735 0 E

4N/27W-22B2 745 0 E

4N/27W-22B2 755 0 E

4N/27W-22B2 765 0 E

4N/27W-22B2 775 0 E

4N/27W-22B2 785 0 E

4N/27W-22B2 795 0 E

4N/27W-22B2 805 0 E

4N/27W-22B2 815 0 E

4N/27W-22B2 825 0 E

4N/27W-22B2 835 0 E

4N/27W-22B2 845 0 E

4N/27W-21E1 25 30 E

4N/27W-21E1 35 100 E

4N/27W-21E1 45 100 E

4N/27W-21E1 55 100 E

4N/27W-21E1 65 100 E

4N/27W-21E1 75 100 E

4N/27W-21E1 85 80 E

4N/27W-21E1 95 100 E

4N/27W-21E1 105 100 E

Table B1–1. Calculated percent-coarse intervals for all drillers’ logs and e-logs used to define textural properties of the hydrogeologic 

framework model.—Continued

[Percent-coarse values are calculated for 10-foot intervals for the entire depth of each borehole. State well number is the state of California well identifier; 

interval midpoint depth is the midpoint of each 10-foot interval, in feet from top of borehole; PC is the percent-coarse value for each interval; log type defines 

whether the borehole is a drillers’ lithology log (D) or a geophysical e-log (E).]
104 Santa Barbara and Foothill Groundwater Basins Geohydrology and Optimal Water Resources Management

State 

well 

number

Interval 

midpoint depth 

(feet)

PC Log 

type

4N/27W-21E1 115 100 E

4N/27W-21E1 125 100 E

4N/27W-21E1 135 100 E

4N/27W-21E1 145 100 E

4N/27W-21E1 155 100 E

4N/27W-21E1 165 100 E

4N/27W-21E1 175 70 E

4N/27W-21E1 185 80 E

4N/27W-21E1 195 80 E

4N/27W-21E1 205 100 E

4N/27W-21E1 215 70 E

4N/27W-21E1 225 30 E

4N/27W-21E1 235 0 E

4N/27W2-E1 75 0 E

4N/27W2-E1 85 0 E

4N/27W2-E1 95 0 E

4N/27W2-E1 105 0 E

4N/27W2-E1 115 0 E

4N/27W2-E1 125 0 E

4N/27W2-E1 135 0 E

4N/27W2-E1 145 0 E

4N/27W2-E1 155 0 E

4N/27W2-E1 165 20 E

4N/27W2-E1 175 100 E

4N/27W2-E1 185 100 E

4N/27W2-E1 195 60 E

4N/27W2-E1 205 0 E

4N/27W2-E1 215 0 E

4N/27W2-E1 225 20 E

4N/27W2-E1 235 100 E

4N/27W2-E1 245 100 E

4N/27W2-E1 255 100 E

4N/27W2-E1 265 100 E

4N/27W2-E1 275 60 E

4N/27W2-E1 285 60 E

4N/27W2-E1 295 100 E

4N/27W2-E1 305 100 E

4N/27W2-E1 315 100 E

4N/27W2-E1 325 100 E

State 

well 

number

Interval 

midpoint depth 

(feet)

PC Log 

type

4N/27W2-E1 335 10 E

4N/27W2-E1 345 0 E

4N/27W-18B5 25 60 E

4N/27W-18B5 35 0 E

4N/27W-18B5 45 0 E

4N/27W-18B5 55 30 E

4N/27W-18B5 65 40 E

4N/27W-18B5 75 80 E

4N/27W-18B5 85 20 E

4N/27W-18B5 95 0 E

4N/27W-17M1 25 0 E

4N/27W-17M1 35 0 E

4N/27W-17M1 45 0 E

4N/27W-17M1 55 20 E

4N/27W-17M1 65 0 E

4N/27W-17M1 75 0 E

4N/27W-17M1 85 70 E

4N/27W-17M1 95 100 E

4N/27W-17M1 105 100 E

4N/27W-17M1 115 100 E

4N/27W-17M1 125 100 E

4N/27W-17M1 135 100 E

4N/27W-17M1 145 100 E

4N/27W-17M1 155 100 E

4N/27W-17M1 165 100 E

4N/27W-17M1 175 100 E

4N/27W-17M1 185 100 E

4N/27W-17M1 195 100 E

4N/27W-17M1 205 100 E

4N/27W-17M1 215 100 E

4N/27W-17M1 225 100 E

4N/27W-17M1 235 100 E

4N/27W-17M1 245 100 E

4N/27W-17M1 255 20 E

4N/27W-17M1 265 50 E

4N/27W-17M1 275 100 E

4N/27W-17J1 25 87.5 E

4N/27W-17J1 35 60 E

4N/27W-17J1 45 50 E

Table B1–1. Calculated percent-coarse intervals for all drillers’ logs and e-logs used to define textural properties of the hydrogeologic 

framework model.—Continued

[Percent-coarse values are calculated for 10-foot intervals for the entire depth of each borehole. State well number is the state of California well identifier; 

interval midpoint depth is the midpoint of each 10-foot interval, in feet from top of borehole; PC is the percent-coarse value for each interval; log type defines 

whether the borehole is a drillers’ lithology log (D) or a geophysical e-log (E).]
Chapter B: Overview of Hydrogeologic Framework Model 105

State 

well 

number

Interval 

midpoint depth 

(feet)

PC Log 

type

4N/27W-17J1 55 70 E

4N/27W-17J1 65 0 E

4N/27W-17J1 75 20 E

4N/27W-17J1 85 100 E

4N/27W-17J1 95 30 E

4N/27W-17J1 105 0 E

4N/27W-17J1 115 0 E

4N/27W-17J1 125 0 E

4N/27W-17J1 135 0 E

4N/27W-17J1 145 20 E

4N/27W-17J1 155 0 E

4N/27W-17J1 165 0 E

4N/27W-17J1 175 0 E

4N/27W-17J1 185 0 E

4N/27W-17J1 195 30 E

4N/27W-17J1 205 90 E

4N/27W-17J1 215 30 E

4N/27W-17J1 225 100 E

4N/27W-17J1 235 100 E

4N/27W-17J1 245 0 E

4N/27W-17J1 255 30 E

4N/27W-17J1 265 50 E

4N/27W-17J1 275 80 E

4N/27W-17J1 285 0 E

4N/27W-17J1 295 0 E

4N/27W-17J1 305 60 E

4N/27W-17J1 315 70 E

4N/27W-17J1 325 0 E

4N/27W-17J1 335 0 E

4N/27W-17J1 345 0 E

4N/27W-17J1 355 0 E

4N/27W-17J1 365 0 E

4N/27W-17H1 45 70 E

4N/27W-17H1 55 30 E

4N/27W-17H1 65 0 E

4N/27W-17H1 75 20 E

4N/27W-17H1 85 0 E

4N/27W-17H1 95 50 E

4N/27W-17H1 105 0 E

State 

well 

number

Interval 

midpoint depth 

(feet)

PC Log 

type

4N/27W-17H1 115 40 E

4N/27W-17H1 125 0 E

4N/27W-17H1 135 0 E

4N/27W-17H1 145 90 E

4N/27W-17H1 155 60 E

4N/27W-17H1 165 80 E

4N/27W-17H1 175 70 E

4N/27W-17H1 185 0 E

4N/27W-17H1 195 70 E

4N/27W-17H1 205 100 E

4N/27W-17H1 215 100 E

4N/27W-17H1 225 40 E

4N/27W-17H1 235 60 E

4N/27W-17H1 245 100 E

4N/27W-17H1 255 100 E

4N/27W-17H1 265 100 E

4N/27W-17H1 275 100 E

4N/27W-17H1 285 100 E

4N/27W-17H1 295 50 E

4N/27W-17H1 305 10 E

4N/27W-17H1 315 50 E

4N/27W-17H1 325 30 E

4N/27W-16R1 65 57.1 E

4N/27W-16R1 75 100 E

4N/27W-16R1 85 100 E

4N/27W-16R1 95 100 E

4N/27W-16R1 105 100 E

4N/27W-16R1 115 100 E

4N/27W-16R1 125 100 E

4N/27W-16R1 135 100 E

4N/27W-16R1 145 100 E

4N/27W-16R1 155 100 E

4N/27W-16R1 165 100 E

4N/27W-16R1 175 100 E

4N/27W-16R1 185 100 E

4N/27W-16R1 195 100 E

4N/27W-16R1 205 100 E

4N/27W-16R1 215 100 E

4N/27W-16R1 225 100 E

Table B1–1. Calculated percent-coarse intervals for all drillers’ logs and e-logs used to define textural properties of the hydrogeologic 

framework model.—Continued

[Percent-coarse values are calculated for 10-foot intervals for the entire depth of each borehole. State well number is the state of California well identifier; 

interval midpoint depth is the midpoint of each 10-foot interval, in feet from top of borehole; PC is the percent-coarse value for each interval; log type defines 

whether the borehole is a drillers’ lithology log (D) or a geophysical e-log (E).]
106 Santa Barbara and Foothill Groundwater Basins Geohydrology and Optimal Water Resources Management

State 

well 

number

Interval 

midpoint depth 

(feet)

PC Log 

type

4N/27W-16R1 235 30 E

4N/27W-16R1 245 100 E

4N/27W-16R1 255 100 E

4N/27W-16R1 265 100 E

4N/27W-16R1 275 100 E

4N/27W-16R1 285 80 E

4N/27W-16R1 295 0 E

4N/27W-16R1 305 0 E

4N/27W-16R1 315 0 E

4N/27W-16R1 325 80 E

4N/27W-16R1 335 100 E

4N/27W-16R1 345 90 E

4N/27W-16R1 355 0 E

4N/27W-16R1 365 20 E

4N/27W-16R1 375 100 E

4N/27W-16R1 385 100 E

4N/27W-16R1 395 0 E

4N/27W-16R1 405 0 E

4N/27W-16R1 415 0 E

4N/27W-16R1 425 0 E

4N/27W-16R1 435 0 E

4N/27W-16R1 445 0 E

4N/27W-16R1 455 0 E

4N/27W-16R1 465 0 E

4N/27W-16R1 475 0 E

4N/27W-16R1 485 0 E

4N/27W-16R1 495 0 E

4N/27W-16R1 505 0 E

4N/27W-16R1 515 0 E

4N/27W-16R1 525 0 E

4N/27W-16R1 535 0 E

4N/27W-16R1 545 0 E

4N/27W-16R1 555 50 E

4N/27W-16R1 565 100 E

4N/27W-16R1 575 100 E

4N/27W-16R1 585 70 E

4N/27W-16R1 595 0 E

4N/27W-16R1 605 10 E

4N/27W-16R1 615 0 E

State 

well 

number

Interval 

midpoint depth 

(feet)

PC Log 

type

4N/27W-16R1 625 0 E

4N/27W-16R1 635 0 E

4N/27W-16R1 645 0 E

4N/27W-16R1 655 0 E

4N/27W-16R1 665 0 E

4N/27W-16R1 675 0 E

4N/27W-16R1 685 0 E

4N/27W-16R1 695 0 E

4N/27W-16R1 705 0 E

4N/27W-16E1 35 100 E

4N/27W-16E1 45 50 E

4N/27W-16E1 55 70 E

4N/27W-16E1 65 100 E

4N/27W-16E1 75 70 E

4N/27W-16E1 85 100 E

4N/27W-16E1 95 30 E

4N/27W-16E1 105 20 E

4N/27W-16E1 115 70 E

4N/27W-16E1 125 0 E

4N/27W-16E1 135 80 E

4N/27W-16E1 145 0 E

4N/27W-16E1 155 30 E

4N/27W-16E1 165 0 E

4N/27W-16E1 175 0 E

4N/27W-16E1 185 0 E

4N/27W-16E1 195 0 E

4N/27W-16E1 205 70 E

4N/27W-16E1 215 100 E

4N/27W-16E1 225 100 E

4N/27W-16E1 235 60 E

4N/27W-16E1 245 30 E

4N/27W-16E1 255 20 E

4N/27W-16E1 265 80 E

4N/27W-16E1 275 10 E

4N/27W-16E1 285 0 E

4N/27W-16E1 295 60 E

4N/27W-16E1 305 50 E

4N/27W-16E1 315 0 E

4N/27W-16E1 325 0 E

Table B1–1. Calculated percent-coarse intervals for all drillers’ logs and e-logs used to define textural properties of the hydrogeologic 

framework model.—Continued

[Percent-coarse values are calculated for 10-foot intervals for the entire depth of each borehole. State well number is the state of California well identifier; 

interval midpoint depth is the midpoint of each 10-foot interval, in feet from top of borehole; PC is the percent-coarse value for each interval; log type defines 

whether the borehole is a drillers’ lithology log (D) or a geophysical e-log (E).]
Chapter B: Overview of Hydrogeologic Framework Model 107

State 

well 

number

Interval 

midpoint depth 

(feet)

PC Log 

type

4N/27W-16E1 335 80 E

4N/27W-16E1 345 100 E

4N/27W-16E1 355 100 E

4N/27W-16E1 365 100 E

4N/27W-16E1 375 100 E

4N/27W-16E1 385 100 E

4N/27W-16E1 395 100 E

4N/27W-16E1 405 100 E

4N/27W-16E1 415 100 E

4N/27W-16E1 425 100 E

4N/27W-16E1 435 20 E

4N/27W-15Q9 25 0 E

4N/27W-15Q9 35 0 E

4N/27W-15Q9 45 0 E

4N/27W-15Q9 55 0 E

4N/27W-15Q9 65 40 E

4N/27W-15Q9 75 0 E

4N/27W-15Q9 85 0 E

4N/27W-15Q9 95 0 E

4N/27W-15Q9 105 0 E

4N/27W-15Q9 115 0 E

4N/27W-15Q9 125 0 E

4N/27W-15Q9 135 10 E

4N/27W-15Q9 145 60 E

4N/27W-15Q9 155 40 E

4N/27W-15Q9 165 10 E

4N/27W-15Q9 175 0 E

4N/27W-15Q9 185 0 E

4N/27W-15Q9 195 70 E

4N/27W-15Q9 205 20 E

4N/27W-15Q9 215 40 E

4N/27W-15Q9 225 20 E

4N/27W-15Q9 235 100 E

4N/27W-15Q9 245 100 E

4N/27W-15Q9 255 100 E

4N/27W-15Q9 265 80 E

4N/27W-15Q9 275 0 E

4N/27W-15Q9 285 20 E

4N/27W-15Q9 295 0 E

State 

well 

number

Interval 

midpoint depth 

(feet)

PC Log 

type

4N/27W-15Q9 305 0 E

4N/27W-15Q9 315 0 E

4N/27W-15Q9 325 20 E

4N/27W-15Q9 335 0 E

4N/27W-15Q9 345 0 E

4N/27W-15Q9 355 0 E

4N/27W-15Q9 365 70 E

4N/27W-15Q9 375 80 E

4N/27W-15Q9 385 100 E

4N/27W-15Q9 395 80 E

4N/27W-15Q9 405 40 E

4N/27W-15Q9 415 100 E

4N/27W-15Q9 425 10 E

4N/27W-15Q9 435 0 E

4N/27W-15Q9 445 0 E

4N/27W-15Q9 455 0 E

4N/27W-15Q9 465 0 E

4N/27W-15Q9 475 0 E

4N/27W-15Q9 485 0 E

4N/27W-15Q9 495 100 E

4N/27W-15Q9 505 20 E

4N/27W-15Q9 515 0 E

4N/27W-15Q9 525 0 E

4N/27W-15Q9 535 0 E

4N/27W-15Q9 545 0 E

4N/27W-15Q9 555 0 E

4N/27W-15Q9 565 0 E

4N/27W-15Q9 575 0 E

4N/27W-15Q9 585 30 E

4N/27W-15Q9 595 100 E

4N/27W-15Q9 605 0 E

4N/27W-15Q9 615 0 E

4N/27W-15Q9 625 20 E

4N/27W-15Q9 635 0 E

4N/27W-15Q9 645 100 E

4N/27W-15Q9 655 100 E

4N/27W-15Q9 665 70 E

4N/27W-15Q9 675 0 E

4N/27W-15Q9 685 0 E

Table B1–1. Calculated percent-coarse intervals for all drillers’ logs and e-logs used to define textural properties of the hydrogeologic 

framework model.—Continued

[Percent-coarse values are calculated for 10-foot intervals for the entire depth of each borehole. State well number is the state of California well identifier; 

interval midpoint depth is the midpoint of each 10-foot interval, in feet from top of borehole; PC is the percent-coarse value for each interval; log type defines 

whether the borehole is a drillers’ lithology log (D) or a geophysical e-log (E).]
108 Santa Barbara and Foothill Groundwater Basins Geohydrology and Optimal Water Resources Management

State 

well 

number

Interval 

midpoint depth 

(feet)

PC Log 

type

4N/27W-15Q9 695 20 E

4N/27W-15Q9 705 60 E

4N/27W-15Q8 45 0 E

4N/27W-15Q8 55 0 E

4N/27W-15Q8 65 30 E

4N/27W-15Q8 75 100 E

4N/27W-15Q8 85 100 E

4N/27W-15Q8 95 0 E

4N/27W-15Q8 105 0 E

4N/27W-15Q8 115 0 E

4N/27W-15Q8 125 0 E

4N/27W-15Q8 135 0 E

4N/27W-15Q8 145 0 E

4N/27W-15Q8 155 10 E

4N/27W-15Q8 165 30 E

4N/27W-15Q8 175 0 E

4N/27W-15Q8 185 0 E

4N/27W-15Q8 195 0 E

4N/27W-15Q8 205 0 E

4N/27W-15Q8 215 90 E

4N/27W-15Q8 225 100 E

4N/27W-15Q8 235 100 E

4N/27W-15Q8 245 70 E

4N/27W-15K1 75 33.3 E

4N/27W-15K1 85 80 E

4N/27W-15K1 95 40 E

4N/27W-15K1 105 60 E

4N/27W-15K1 115 100 E

4N/27W-15K1 125 100 E

4N/27W-15K1 135 100 E

4N/27W-15K1 145 90 E

4N/27W-15K1 155 0 E

4N/27W-15K1 165 0 E

4N/27W-15K1 175 90 E

4N/27W-15K1 185 50 E

4N/27W-15K1 195 0 E

4N/27W-15K1 205 60 E

4N/27W-15K1 215 90 E

4N/27W-15K1 225 100 E

State 

well 

number

Interval 

midpoint depth 

(feet)

PC Log 

type

4N/27W-15K1 235 20 E

4N/27W-15K1 245 0 E

4N/27W-15K1 255 0 E

4N/27W-15K1 265 0 E

4N/27W-15K1 275 0 E

4N/27W-15K1 285 0 E

4N/27W-15K1 295 10 E

4N/27W-15K1 305 70 E

4N/27W-15K1 315 100 E

4N/27W-15K1 325 100 E

4N/27W-15K1 335 100 E

4N/27W-15K1 345 100 E

4N/27W-15K1 355 30 E

4N/27W-15K1 365 0 E

4N/27W-15K1 375 0 E

4N/27W-15K1 385 0 E

4N/27W-15K1 395 0 E

4N/27W-15K1 405 0 E

4N/27W-15K1 415 0 E

4N/27W-15K1 425 60 E

4N/27W-15K1 435 100 E

4N/27W-15K1 445 100 E

4N/27W-15K1 455 100 E

4N/27W-15K1 465 0 E

4N/27W-15K1 475 0 E

4N/27W-15J1 25 0 E

4N/27W-15J1 35 0 E

4N/27W-15J1 45 0 E

4N/27W-15J1 55 30 E

4N/27W-15J1 65 40 E

4N/27W-15J1 75 0 E

4N/27W-15J1 85 0 E

4N/27W-15J1 95 0 E

4N/27W-15J1 105 100 E

4N/27W-15J1 115 0 E

4N/27W-15J1 125 0 E

4N/27W-15J1 135 0 E

4N/27W-15J1 145 10 E

4N/27W-15J1 155 40 E

Table B1–1. Calculated percent-coarse intervals for all drillers’ logs and e-logs used to define textural properties of the hydrogeologic 

framework model.—Continued

[Percent-coarse values are calculated for 10-foot intervals for the entire depth of each borehole. State well number is the state of California well identifier; 

interval midpoint depth is the midpoint of each 10-foot interval, in feet from top of borehole; PC is the percent-coarse value for each interval; log type defines 

whether the borehole is a drillers’ lithology log (D) or a geophysical e-log (E).]
Chapter B: Overview of Hydrogeologic Framework Model 109

State 

well 

number

Interval 

midpoint depth 

(feet)

PC Log 

type

4N/27W-15J1 165 80 E

4N/27W-15J1 175 0 E

4N/27W-15J1 185 30 E

4N/27W-15J1 195 100 E

4N/27W-15J1 205 90 E

4N/27W-15J1 215 0 E

4N/27W-15J1 225 0 E

4N/27W-15J1 235 0 E

4N/27W-15J1 245 0 E

4N/27W-15J1 255 0 E

4N/27W-15J1 265 0 E

4N/27W-15J1 275 30 E

4N/27W-15J1 285 60 E

4N/27W-15J1 295 0 E

4N/27W-15J1 305 0 E

4N/27W-15J1 315 0 E

4N/27W-15J1 325 30 E

4N/27W-15J1 335 0 E

4N/27W-15J1 345 0 E

4N/27W-15J1 355 0 E

4N/27W-15J1 365 40 E

4N/27W-15J1 375 100 E

4N/27W-15J1 385 50 E

4N/27W-15J1 395 0 E

4N/27W-15J1 405 20 E

4N/27W-15J1 415 30 E

4N/27W-15J1 425 0 E

4N/27W-15J1 435 0 E

4N/27W-15J1 445 20 E

4N/27W-15J1 455 0 E

4N/27W-15J1 465 30 E

4N/27W-15J1 475 70 E

4N/27W-15J1 485 0 E

4N/27W-15J1 495 0 E

4N/27W-15J1 505 20 E

4N/27W-15J1 515 100 E

4N/27W-15J1 525 30 E

4N/27W-15J1 535 100 E

4N/27W-15J1 545 100 E

Table B1–1. Calculated percent-coarse intervals for all drillers’ logs and e-logs used to define textural properties of the hydrogeologic 

framework model.—Continued

[Percent-coarse values are calculated for 10-foot intervals for the entire depth of each borehole. State well number is the state of California well identifier; 

interval midpoint depth is the midpoint of each 10-foot interval, in feet from top of borehole; PC is the percent-coarse value for each interval; log type defines 

whether the borehole is a drillers’ lithology log (D) or a geophysical e-log (E).]

State 

well 

number

Interval 

midpoint depth 

(feet)

PC Log 

type

4N/27W-15J1 555 80 E

4N/27W-15J1 565 60 E

4N/27W-15J1 575 0 E

4N/27W-15J1 585 80 E

4N/27W-15J1 595 0 E

4N/27W-15J1 605 0 E

4N/27W-15J1 615 0 E

4N/27W-15J1 625 0 E

4N/27W-15E1 75 100 E

4N/27W-15E1 85 100 E

4N/27W-15E1 95 100 E

4N/27W-15E1 105 100 E

4N/27W-15E1 115 100 E

4N/27W-15E1 125 100 E

4N/27W-15E1 135 100 E

4N/27W-15E1 145 40 E

4N/27W-15E1 155 0 E

4N/27W-15E1 165 0 E

4N/27W-15E1 175 80 E

4N/27W-15E1 185 20 E

4N/27W-15E1 195 10 E

4N/27W-15E1 205 80 E

4N/27W-15E1 215 90 E

4N/27W-15E1 225 90 E

4N/27W-15E1 235 0 E

4N/27W-15E1 245 0 E

4N/27W-15E1 255 0 E

4N/27W-15E1 265 0 E

4N/27W-15E1 275 50 E

4N/27W-15E1 285 80 E

4N/27W-15E1 295 0 E

4N/27W-15E1 305 0 E

4N/27W-15E1 315 0 E

4N/27W-15E1 325 0 E

4N/27W-15E1 335 0 E

4N/27W-15E1 345 40 E

4N/27W-15E1 355 0 E

4N/27W-15E1 365 80 E

4N/27W-15E1 375 0 E
110 Santa Barbara and Foothill Groundwater Basins Geohydrology and Optimal Water Resources Management

State 

well 

number

Interval 

midpoint depth 

(feet)

PC Log 

type

4N/27W-15E1 385 10 E

4N/27W-15E1 395 30 E

4N/27W-15E1 405 0 E

4N/27W-15E1 415 30 E

4N/27W-15E1 425 10 E

4N/27W-15E1 435 100 E

4N/27W-15E1 445 30 E

4N/27W-15E1 455 100 E

4N/27W-15E1 465 100 E

4N/27W-15E1 475 100 E

4N/27W-15E1 485 70 E

4N/27W-15E1 495 0 E

4N/27W-15E1 505 0 E

4N/27W-15E1 515 0 E

4N/27W-14R1 25 0 E

4N/27W-14R1 35 40 E

4N/27W-14R1 45 0 E

4N/27W-14R1 55 0 E

4N/27W-14R1 65 0 E

4N/27W-14R1 75 0 E

4N/27W-14R1 85 40 E

4N/27W-14R1 95 80 E

4N/27W-14R1 105 50 E

4N/27W-14R1 115 20 E

4N/27W-14R1 125 0 E

4N/27W-14R1 135 0 E

4N/27W-14R1 145 0 E

4N/27W-14R1 155 0 E

4N/27W-14R1 165 0 E

4N/27W-14R1 175 0 E

4N/27W-14R1 185 0 E

4N/27W-14R1 195 0 E

4N/27W-14R1 205 0 E

4N/27W-14R1 215 0 E

4N/27W-14R1 225 0 E

4N/27W-14R1 235 0 E

4N/27W-14R1 245 0 E

4N/27W-14R1 255 60 E

4N/27W-14R1 265 0 E

State 

well 

number

Interval 

midpoint depth 

(feet)

PC Log 

type

4N/27W-14R1 275 0 E

4N/27W-14R1 285 20 E

4N/27W-14R1 295 50 E

4N/27W-14R1 305 20 E

4N/27W-14R1 315 40 E

4N/27W-14R1 325 30 E

4N/27W-14R1 335 60 E

4N/27W-14R1 345 100 E

4N/27W-14R1 355 20 E

4N/27W-14R1 365 0 E

4N/27W-14R1 375 0 E

4N/27W-14R1 385 20 E

4N/27W-14R1 395 0 E

4N/27W-14R1 405 0 E

4N/27W-14R1 415 0 E

4N/27W-14R1 425 0 E

4N/27W-14R1 435 100 E

4N/27W-14R1 445 10 E

4N/27W-14R1 455 20 E

4N/27W-14R1 465 0 E

4N/27W-14R1 475 20 E

4N/27W-14R1 485 100 E

4N/27W-14R1 495 100 E

4N/27W-14R1 505 20 E

4N/27W-14R1 515 30 E

4N/27W-14R1 525 30 E

4N/27W-14R1 535 0 E

4N/27W-14R1 545 10 E

4N/27W-14R1 555 70 E

4N/27W-14R1 565 100 E

4N/27W-14R1 575 60 E

4N/27W-14R1 585 50 E

4N/27W-14R1 595 100 E

4N/27W-14R1 605 100 E

4N/27W-14R1 615 100 E

4N/27W-14R1 625 90 E

4N/27W-14R1 635 70 E

4N/27W-14R1 645 100 E

4N/27W-14R1 655 100 E

Table B1–1. Calculated percent-coarse intervals for all drillers’ logs and e-logs used to define textural properties of the hydrogeologic 

framework model.—Continued

[Percent-coarse values are calculated for 10-foot intervals for the entire depth of each borehole. State well number is the state of California well identifier; 

interval midpoint depth is the midpoint of each 10-foot interval, in feet from top of borehole; PC is the percent-coarse value for each interval; log type defines 

whether the borehole is a drillers’ lithology log (D) or a geophysical e-log (E).]
Chapter B: Overview of Hydrogeologic Framework Model 111

State 

well 

number

Interval 

midpoint depth 

(feet)

PC Log 

type

4N/27W-7K9 35 0 E

4N/27W-7K9 45 0 E

4N/27W-7K9 55 0 E

4N/27W-7K9 65 0 E

4N/27W-7K9 75 30 E

4N/27W-7K9 85 90 E

4N/27W-7K9 95 30 E

4N/27W-7K9 105 100 E

4N/27W-7K9 115 90 E

4N/27W-7K9 125 30 E

4N/27W-7K9 135 90 E

4N/27W-7K9 145 40 E

4N/27W-7K9 155 0 E

4N/27W-7K9 165 0 E

4N/27W-7K9 175 0 E

4N/27W-7K9 185 0 E

4N/27W-7K9 195 0 E

4N/27W-7K9 205 0 E

4N/27W-7K9 215 0 E

4N/27W-7K9 225 0 E

4N/27W-7K9 235 0 E

4N/27W-7K9 245 0 E

4N/27W-7K9 255 0 E

4N/27W-7K9 265 0 E

4N/27W-7K9 275 0 E

4N/27W-7K9 285 0 E

4N/27W-7K9 295 30 E

4N/27W-7K9 305 0 E

4N/27W-7K9 315 0 E

4N/27W-7K9 325 10 E

4N/27W-7K9 335 70 E

4N/27W-7K9 345 90 E

4N/27W-14P1 135 0 E

4N/27W-14P1 145 0 E

4N/27W-14P1 155 0 E

4N/27W-14P1 165 0 E

4N/27W-14P1 175 0 E

4N/27W-14P1 185 0 E

4N/27W-14P1 195 20 E

State 

well 

number

Interval 

midpoint depth 

(feet)

PC Log 

type

4N/27W-14P1 205 60 E

4N/27W-14P1 215 90 E

4N/27W-14P1 225 10 E

4N/27W-14P1 235 60 E

4N/27W-14P1 245 0 E

4N/27W-14P1 255 0 E

4N/27W-14P1 265 40 E

4N/27W-14P1 275 100 E

4N/27W-14P1 285 100 E

4N/27W-14P1 295 60 E

4N/27W-14P1 305 0 E

4N/27W-14P1 315 0 E

4N/27W-14P1 325 0 E

4N/27W-14P1 335 70 E

4N/27W-14P1 345 40 E

4N/27W-14P1 355 100 E

4N/27W-14P1 365 70 E

4N/27W-14P1 375 20 E

4N/27W-14P1 385 0 E

4N/27W-14P1 395 0 E

4N/27W-14P1 405 0 E

4N/27W-14P1 415 0 E

4N/27W-14P1 425 30 E

4N/27W-14P1 435 10 E

4N/27W-14P1 445 0 E

4N/27W-14P1 455 0 E

4N/27W-14P1 465 20 E

4N/27W-14P1 475 70 E

4N/27W-14P1 485 0 E

4N/27W-14P1 495 50 E

4N/27W-14P1 505 40 E

4N/27W-14P1 515 0 E

4N/27W-14P1 525 30 E

4N/27W-14P1 535 20 E

4N/27W-14P1 545 0 E

4N/27W-14P1 555 20 E

4N/27W-14P1 565 0 E

4N/27W-14P1 575 50 E

4N/27W-14P1 585 0 E

Table B1–1. Calculated percent-coarse intervals for all drillers’ logs and e-logs used to define textural properties of the hydrogeologic 

framework model.—Continued

[Percent-coarse values are calculated for 10-foot intervals for the entire depth of each borehole. State well number is the state of California well identifier; 

interval midpoint depth is the midpoint of each 10-foot interval, in feet from top of borehole; PC is the percent-coarse value for each interval; log type defines 

whether the borehole is a drillers’ lithology log (D) or a geophysical e-log (E).]
112 Santa Barbara and Foothill Groundwater Basins Geohydrology and Optimal Water Resources Management

State 

well 

number

Interval 

midpoint depth 

(feet)

PC Log 

type

4N/27W-14P1 595 0 E

4N/27W-14P1 605 0 E

4N/27W-14P1 615 50 E

4N/27W-14P1 625 70 E

4N/27W-14P1 635 20 E

4N/27W-14P1 645 30 E

4N/27W-14P1 655 20 E

4N/27W-14P1 665 0 E

4N/27W-14P1 675 100 E

4N/27W-14P1 685 100 E

4N/27W-14P1 695 90 E

4N/27W-14P1 705 100 E

4N/27W-14P1 715 100 E

4N/27W-14P1 725 100 E

4N/27W-14P1 735 100 E

4N/27W-14P1 745 100 E

4N/27W-14P1 755 100 E

4N/27W-14P1 765 70 E

4N/27W-14P1 775 30 E

4N/27W-14K2 65 0 E

4N/27W-14K2 75 80 E

4N/27W-14K2 85 100 E

4N/27W-14K2 95 40 E

4N/27W-14K2 105 0 E

4N/27W-14K2 115 0 E

4N/27W-14K2 125 0 E

4N/27W-14K2 135 0 E

4N/27W-14K2 145 0 E

4N/27W-14K2 155 0 E

4N/27W-14K2 165 0 E

4N/27W-14K2 175 0 E

4N/27W-14K2 185 0 E

4N/27W-14K2 195 0 E

4N/27W-14K2 205 0 E

4N/27W-14K2 215 0 E

4N/27W-14K2 225 0 E

4N/27W-14K2 235 0 E

4N/27W-14K2 245 0 E

4N/27W-14K2 255 0 E

State 

well 

number

Interval 

midpoint depth 

(feet)

PC Log 

type

4N/27W-14K2 265 20 E

4N/27W-14K2 275 100 E

4N/27W-14K2 285 100 E

4N/27W-14K2 295 100 E

4N/27W-14K2 305 100 E

4N/27W-14K2 315 30 E

4N/27W-14K2 325 0 E

4N/27W-14K2 335 0 E

4N/27W-14K2 345 20 E

4N/27W-14K2 355 100 E

4N/27W-14K2 365 100 E

4N/27W-14K2 375 0 E

4N/27W-14K2 385 0 E

4N/27W-14K2 395 0 E

4N/27W-14K2 405 0 E

4N/27W-14K2 415 0 E

4N/27W-14K2 425 0 E

4N/27W-14K2 435 0 E

4N/27W-9M1 25 50 E

4N/27W-9M1 35 30 E

4N/27W-9M1 45 80 E

4N/27W-9M1 55 20 E

4N/27W-9M1 65 20 E

4N/27W-9M1 75 100 E

4N/27W-9M1 85 10 E

4N/27W-9M1 95 90 E

4N/27W-9M1 105 40 E

4N/27W-9M1 115 0 E

4N/27W-9M1 125 0 E

4N/27W-9M1 135 0 E

4N/27W-9M1 145 0 E

4N/27W-9M1 155 0 E

4N/27W-9M1 165 0 E

4N/27W-9M1 175 0 E

4N/27W-8R2 25 0 E

4N/27W-8R2 35 0 E

4N/27W-8R2 45 40 E

4N/27W-8R2 55 100 E

4N/27W-8R2 65 40 E

Table B1–1. Calculated percent-coarse intervals for all drillers’ logs and e-logs used to define textural properties of the hydrogeologic 

framework model.—Continued

[Percent-coarse values are calculated for 10-foot intervals for the entire depth of each borehole. State well number is the state of California well identifier; 

interval midpoint depth is the midpoint of each 10-foot interval, in feet from top of borehole; PC is the percent-coarse value for each interval; log type defines 

whether the borehole is a drillers’ lithology log (D) or a geophysical e-log (E).]
Chapter B: Overview of Hydrogeologic Framework Model 113

State 

well 

number

Interval 

midpoint depth 

(feet)

PC Log 

type

4N/27W-8R2 75 90 E

4N/27W-8R2 85 60 E

4N/27W-8R2 95 0 E

4N/27W-8R2 105 0 E

4N/27W-8R2 115 0 E

4N/27W-8R2 125 0 E

4N/27W-8R2 135 0 E

4N/27W-8R2 145 40 E

4N/27W-8R2 155 100 E

4N/27W-8R2 165 100 E

4N/27W-8R2 175 100 E

4N/27W-8R2 185 100 E

4N/27W-8R2 195 20 E

4N/27W-8R2 205 0 E

4N/27W-8R2 215 70 E

4N/27W-8R2 225 0 E

4N/27W-8R2 235 30 E

4N/27W-8R2 245 0 E

4N/27W-8E1 85 71.4 E

4N/27W-8E1 95 0 E

4N/27W-8E1 105 0 E

4N/27W-8E1 115 0 E

4N/27W-8E1 125 0 E

4N/27W-8E1 135 0 E

4N/27W-8E1 145 20 E

4N/27W-8E1 155 80 E

4N/27W-8E1 165 0 E

4N/27W-8E1 175 0 E

4N/27W-8E1 185 0 E

4N/27W-8E1 195 0 E

4N/27W-8E1 205 0 E

4N/27W-8E1 215 0 E

4N/27W-8E1 225 0 E

4N/27W-8E1 235 0 E

4N/27W-8E1 245 10 E

4N/27W-8E1 255 80 E

4N/27W-8E1 265 30 E

4N/27W-8E1 275 0 E

4N/27W-8E1 285 40 E

State 

well 

number

Interval 

midpoint depth 

(feet)

PC Log 

type

4N/27W-8E1 295 50 E

4N/27W-8E1 305 100 E

4N/27W-8E1 315 100 E

4N/27W-8E1 325 80 E

4N/27W-8E1 335 30 E

4N/27W-8E1 345 10 E

4N/27W-8E1 355 20 E

4N/27W-8E1 365 20 E

4N/27W-8E1 375 50 E

4N/27W-8E1 385 0 E

4N/27W-8E1 395 0 E

4N/27W-8E1 405 0 E

4N/27W-8E1 415 0 E

4N/27W-8E1 425 0 E

4N/27W-8E1 435 90 E

4N/27W-8E1 445 100 E

4N/27W-8E1 455 90 E

4N/27W-8E1 465 0 E

4N/27W-8E1 475 0 E

4N/27W-8E1 485 0 E

4N/27W-8E1 495 0 E

4N/27W-8E1 505 0 E

4N/27W-8E1 515 50 E

4N/27W-8E1 525 80 E

4N/27W-8E1 535 70 E

4N/27W-8E1 545 0 E

4N/27W-8E1 555 0 E

4N/27W-8E1 565 30 E

4N/27W-8E1 575 0 E

4N/27W-8E1 585 0 E

4N/27W-8E1 595 0 E

4N/27W-8E1 605 0 E

4N/27W-6Q12 75 42.9 E

4N/27W-6Q12 85 100 E

4N/27W-6Q12 95 60 E

4N/27W-6Q12 105 70 E

4N/27W-6Q12 115 100 E

4N/27W-6Q12 125 70 E

4N/27W-6Q12 135 0 E

Table B1–1. Calculated percent-coarse intervals for all drillers’ logs and e-logs used to define textural properties of the hydrogeologic 

framework model.—Continued

[Percent-coarse values are calculated for 10-foot intervals for the entire depth of each borehole. State well number is the state of California well identifier; 

interval midpoint depth is the midpoint of each 10-foot interval, in feet from top of borehole; PC is the percent-coarse value for each interval; log type defines 

whether the borehole is a drillers’ lithology log (D) or a geophysical e-log (E).]
114 Santa Barbara and Foothill Groundwater Basins Geohydrology and Optimal Water Resources Management

State 

well 

number

Interval 

midpoint depth 

(feet)

PC Log 

type

4N/27W-6Q12 145 0 E

4N/27W-6Q12 155 0 E

4N/27W-6Q12 165 0 E

4N/27W-6Q12 175 0 E

4N/27W-6Q12 185 0 E

4N/27W-6Q12 195 0 E

4N/27W-6Q12 205 0 E

4N/27W-6Q12 215 50 E

4N/27W-6Q12 225 100 E

4N/27W-6Q12 235 100 E

4N/27W-6Q12 245 100 E

4N/27W-6Q12 255 0 E

4N/27W-6Q12 265 0 E

4N/27W-6Q12 275 60 E

4N/27W-6Q12 285 100 E

4N/27W-6Q12 295 100 E

4N/27W-6Q12 305 0 E

4N/27W-6Q12 315 0 E

4N/27W-5P1 15 44.4 E

4N/27W-5P1 25 10 E

4N/27W-5P1 35 0 E

4N/27W-5P1 45 0 E

4N/27W-5P1 55 0 E

4N/27W-5P1 65 0 E

4N/27W-5P1 75 0 E

4N/27W-5P1 85 50 E

4N/27W-5P1 95 10 E

4N/27W-5P1 105 10 E

4N/27W-5P1 115 100 E

4N/27W-5P1 125 100 E

4N/27W-5P1 135 50 E

4N/27W-5P1 145 10 E

4N/27W-5P1 155 100 E

4N/27W-5P1 165 80 E

4N/27W-5P1 175 10 E

4N/28W-12H3 5 0 E

4N/28W-12H3 15 0 E

4N/28W-12H3 25 0 E

4N/28W-12H3 35 0 E

State 

well 

number

Interval 

midpoint depth 

(feet)

PC Log 

type

4N/28W-12H3 45 0 E

4N/28W-12H3 55 20 E

4N/28W-12H3 65 0 E

4N/28W-12H3 75 30 E

4N/28W-12H3 85 50 E

4N/28W-12H3 95 60 E

4N/28W-12H3 105 50 E

4N/28W-12H3 115 50 E

4N/28W-12H3 125 0 E

4N/28W-12H3 135 20 E

4N/28W-12H3 145 30 E

4N/28W-12H3 155 70 E

4N/28W-12H3 165 100 E

4N/28W-12H3 175 50 E

4N/28W-12H3 185 30 E

4N/28W-12H3 195 60 E

4N/28W-12H3 205 0 E

4N/28W-12H3 215 20 E

4N/28W-12H3 225 60 E

4N/28W-12H3 235 30 E

4N/28W-12H3 245 0 E

4N/27W-1R1 35 0 E

4N/27W-1R1 45 0 E

4N/27W-1R1 55 0 E

4N/27W-1R1 65 40 E

4N/27W-1R1 75 0 E

4N/27W-1R1 85 10 E

4N/27W-1R1 95 70 E

4N/27W-1R1 105 100 E

4N/27W-1R1 115 50 E

4N/27W-1R1 125 50 E

4N/27W-1R1 135 50 E

4N/27W-1R1 145 40 E

4N/27W-1R1 155 100 E

4N/27W-1R1 165 40 E

4N/27W-1R1 175 80 E

4N/27W-1R1 185 0 E

4N/27W-1R1 195 0 E

4N/27W-1R1 205 0 E

Table B1–1. Calculated percent-coarse intervals for all drillers’ logs and e-logs used to define textural properties of the hydrogeologic 

framework model.—Continued

[Percent-coarse values are calculated for 10-foot intervals for the entire depth of each borehole. State well number is the state of California well identifier; 

interval midpoint depth is the midpoint of each 10-foot interval, in feet from top of borehole; PC is the percent-coarse value for each interval; log type defines 

whether the borehole is a drillers’ lithology log (D) or a geophysical e-log (E).]
Chapter B: Overview of Hydrogeologic Framework Model 115

State 

well 

number

Interval 

midpoint depth 

(feet)

PC Log 

type

4N/27W-1R1 215 0 E

4N/27W-1R1 225 0 E

4N/27W-1R1 235 0 E

4N/27W-1R1 245 0 E

4N/27W-1R1 255 0 E

4N/27W-1R1 265 0 E

4N/27W-1R1 275 0 E

4N/27W-1R1 285 0 E

4N/27W-7Q5 25 0 E

4N/27W-7Q5 35 0 E

4N/27W-7Q5 45 0 E

4N/27W-7Q5 55 20 E

4N/27W-7Q5 65 60 E

4N/27W-7Q5 75 0 E

4N/27W-7Q5 85 20 E

4N/27W-7Q5 95 0 E

4N/27W-7Q5 105 0 E

4N/27W-7Q5 115 0 E

4N/27W-7Q5 125 0 E

4N/27W-7Q5 135 0 E

4N/27W-7Q5 145 0 E

4N/27W-7Q5 155 50 E

4N/27W-7Q5 165 100 E

4N/27W-7Q5 175 50 E

4N/27W-7Q5 185 10 E

4N/27W-7Q5 195 0 E

4N/27W-22C1 65 0 E

4N/27W-22C1 75 0 E

4N/27W-22C1 85 10 E

4N/27W-22C1 95 90 E

4N/27W-22C1 105 40 E

4N/27W-22C1 115 20 E

4N/27W-22C1 125 100 E

4N/27W-22C1 135 100 E

4N/27W-22C1 145 90 E

4N/27W-22C1 155 100 E

4N/27W-22C1 165 90 E

4N/27W-22C1 175 40 E

4N/27W-22C1 185 100 E

State 

well 

number

Interval 

midpoint depth 

(feet)

PC Log 

type

4N/27W-22C1 195 100 E

4N/27W-22C1 205 100 E

4N/27W-22C1 215 80 E

4N/27W-22C1 225 0 E

4N/27W-22C1 235 40 E

4N/27W-22C1 245 0 E

4N/27W-22C1 255 40 E

4N/27W-22C1 265 0 E

4N/27W-22C1 275 0 E

4N/27W-22C1 285 0 E

4N/27W-22C1 295 0 E

4N/27W-22C1 305 50 E

4N/27W-22C1 315 60 E

4N/27W-22C1 325 0 E

4N/27W-22C1 335 0 E

4N/27W-22C1 345 0 E

4N/27W-22C1 355 40 E

4N/27W-22C1 365 0 E

4N/27W-22C1 375 20 E

4N/27W-22C1 385 0 E

4N/27W-22C1 395 0 E

4N/27W-22C1 405 0 E

4N/27W-22C1 415 0 E

4N/27W-22C1 425 0 E

4N/27W-22C1 435 0 E

4N/27W-22C1 445 0 E

4N/27W-22C1 455 0 E

4N/27W-22C1 465 0 E

4N/27W-22C1 475 0 E

4N/27W-22C1 485 0 E

4N/27W-22C1 495 0 E

4N/27W-22C1 505 20 E

4N/27W-22C1 515 10 E

4N/27W-22C1 525 0 E

4N/27W-22C1 535 80 E

4N/27W-22C1 545 100 E

4N/27W-22C1 555 100 E

4N/27W-22C1 565 60 E

4N/27W-22C1 575 80 E

Table B1–1. Calculated percent-coarse intervals for all drillers’ logs and e-logs used to define textural properties of the hydrogeologic 

framework model.—Continued

[Percent-coarse values are calculated for 10-foot intervals for the entire depth of each borehole. State well number is the state of California well identifier; 

interval midpoint depth is the midpoint of each 10-foot interval, in feet from top of borehole; PC is the percent-coarse value for each interval; log type defines 

whether the borehole is a drillers’ lithology log (D) or a geophysical e-log (E).]
116 Santa Barbara and Foothill Groundwater Basins Geohydrology and Optimal Water Resources Management

State 

well 

number

Interval 

midpoint depth 

(feet)

PC Log 

type

4N/27W-22C1 585 100 E

4N/27W-22C1 595 100 E

4N/27W-22C1 605 100 E

4N/27W-22C1 615 90 E

4N/27W-22C1 625 0 E

4N/27W-22C1 635 100 E

4N/27W-22C1 645 100 E

4N/27W-22C1 655 100 E

4N/27W-22C1 665 60 E

4N/27W-22C1 675 100 E

4N/27W-22C1 685 100 E

4N/27W-22C1 695 0 E

4N/27W-22C1 705 0 E

4N/27W-22C1 715 0 E

4N/27W-22C1 725 0 E

4N/27W-22C1 735 0 E

4N/27W-22C1 745 0 E

4N/27W-22C1 755 0 E

4N/27W-22C1 765 0 E

4N/27W-22C1 775 0 E

4N/27W-22B6 55 0 E

4N/27W-22B6 65 0 E

4N/27W-22B6 75 0 E

4N/27W-22B6 85 0 E

4N/27W-22B6 95 0 E

4N/27W-22B6 105 0 E

4N/27W-22B6 115 0 E

4N/27W-22B6 125 0 E

4N/27W-22B6 135 0 E

4N/27W-22B6 145 0 E

4N/27W-22B6 155 0 E

4N/27W-22B6 165 0 E

4N/27W-22B6 175 20 E

4N/27W-22B6 185 0 E

4N/27W-22B6 195 0 E

4N/27W-22B6 205 40 E

4N/27W-22B6 215 100 E

4N/27W-22B6 225 100 E

4N/27W-22B6 235 100 E

State 

well 

number

Interval 

midpoint depth 

(feet)

PC Log 

type

4N/27W-22B6 245 50 E

4N/27W-22B6 255 0 E

4N/27W-22B6 265 0 E

4N/27W-22B6 275 0 E

4N/27W-22B6 285 0 E

4N/27W-22B6 295 0 E

4N/27W-22B6 305 0 E

4N/27W-22B6 315 0 E

4N/27W-22B6 325 0 E

4N/27W-22B6 335 0 E

4N/27W-22B6 345 0 E

4N/27W-22B6 355 0 E

4N/27W-22B6 365 0 E

4N/27W-22B6 375 0 E

4N/27W-22B6 385 0 E

4N/27W-22B6 395 0 E

4N/27W-22B6 405 0 E

4N/27W-22B6 415 90 E

4N/27W-22B6 425 100 E

4N/27W-22B6 435 40 E

4N/27W-22B6 445 0 E

4N/27W-22B6 455 0 E

4N/27W-22B6 465 50 E

4N/27W-22B6 475 50 E

4N/27W-22B6 485 0 E

4N/27W-22B6 495 0 E

4N/27W-22B6 505 0 E

4N/27W-22B6 515 40 E

4N/27W-22B6 525 0 E

4N/27W-22B6 535 0 E

4N/27W-22B6 545 0 E

4N/27W-22B6 555 30 E

4N/27W-22B6 565 100 E

4N/27W-22B6 575 100 E

4N/27W-22B6 585 50 E

4N/27W-22B6 595 40 E

4N/27W-22B6 605 100 E

4N/27W-22B6 615 100 E

4N/27W-22B6 625 80 E

Table B1–1. Calculated percent-coarse intervals for all drillers’ logs and e-logs used to define textural properties of the hydrogeologic 

framework model.—Continued

[Percent-coarse values are calculated for 10-foot intervals for the entire depth of each borehole. State well number is the state of California well identifier; 

interval midpoint depth is the midpoint of each 10-foot interval, in feet from top of borehole; PC is the percent-coarse value for each interval; log type defines 

whether the borehole is a drillers’ lithology log (D) or a geophysical e-log (E).]
Chapter B: Overview of Hydrogeologic Framework Model 117

State 

well 

number

Interval 

midpoint depth 

(feet)

PC Log 

type

4N/27W-22B6 635 70 E

4N/27W-22B6 645 100 E

4N/27W-22B6 655 100 E

4N/27W-22B6 665 100 E

4N/27W-22B6 675 100 E

4N/27W-22B6 685 30 E

4N/27W-8L2 85 100 E

4N/27W-8L2 95 100 E

4N/27W-8L2 105 100 E

4N/27W-8L2 115 80 E

4N/27W-8L2 125 100 E

4N/27W-8L2 135 20 E

4N/27W-8L2 145 60 E

4N/27W-8L2 155 100 E

4N/27W-8L2 165 100 E

4N/27W-8L2 175 100 E

4N/27W-8L2 185 100 E

4N/27W-8L2 195 100 E

4N/27W-8L2 205 100 E

4N/27W-8L2 215 40 E

4N/27W-8L2 225 0 E

4N/27W-8L2 235 0 E

4N/27W-8L2 245 0 E

4N/27W-8L2 255 0 E

4N/27W-8L2 265 50 E

4N/27W-8L2 275 100 E

4N/27W-8L2 285 100 E

4N/27W-8L2 295 100 E

4N/27W-8L2 305 100 E

4N/27W-8L2 315 100 E

4N/27W-8L2 325 100 E

Table B1–1. Calculated percent-coarse intervals for all drillers’ logs and e-logs used to define textural properties of the hydrogeologic 

framework model.—Continued

[Percent-coarse values are calculated for 10-foot intervals for the entire depth of each borehole. State well number is the state of California well identifier; 

interval midpoint depth is the midpoint of each 10-foot interval, in feet from top of borehole; PC is the percent-coarse value for each interval; log type defines 

whether the borehole is a drillers’ lithology log (D) or a geophysical e-log (E).]

State 

well 

number

Interval 

midpoint depth 

(feet)

PC Log 

type

4N/27W-8L2 335 100 E

4N/27W-8L2 345 10 E

4N/27W-8L2 355 0 E

4N/27W-8L2 365 0 E

4N/27W-8L2 375 0 E

4N/27W-8L2 385 0 E

4N/27W-8L2 395 0 E

4N/27W-8L2 405 70 E

4N/27W-8L2 415 100 E

4N/27W-8L2 425 40 E

4N/27W-8L2 435 0 E

4N/27W-8L2 445 0 E

4N/27W-8L2 455 0 E

4N/27W-8L2 465 10 E

4N/27W-8L2 475 100 E

4N/27W-8L2 485 100 E

4N/27W-8L2 495 100 E

4N/27W-8L2 505 80 E

4N/27W-8L2 515 0 E

4N/27W-8L2 525 60 E

4N/27W-8L2 535 100 E

4N/27W-8L2 545 100 E

4N/27W-8L2 555 60 E

4N/27W-8L2 565 100 E

4N/27W-8L2 575 100 E

4N/27W-8L2 585 100 E

4N/27W-8L2 595 100 E

4N/27W-8L2 605 100 E

4N/27W-8L2 615 100 E

4N/27W-8L2 625 70 E

4N/27W-8L2 635 0 E

Chapter C: Numerical Model of Groundwater Flow and 

Solute Transport

By Scott R. Paulinski

Introduction

The city of Santa Barbara is interested in simulating 

seawater intrusion under various water-management scenarios, 

estimating the sustainability of the groundwater basins, and 

determining optimal strategies to manage the groundwater 

basins. The existing U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Santa 

Barbara groundwater-flow model by Freckleton and others 

(1998) simulates flow in the Santa Barbara and Foothill 

groundwater basins from 1978 to 1992. To simulate seawater 

intrusion into the Santa Barbara groundwater basin and 

evaluate various management strategies for the Santa Barbara 

groundwater basin, updates to the existing model were 

necessary, including the simulation of salinity transport and of 

variable-density flow and an extension of the timeframe of the 

model. A new model was developed, the Santa Barbara Flow 

and Transport Model (SBFTM), to simulate variable-density 

flow and transport from 1929 through 2013. The SBFTM was 

then used to determine optimal solutions for various watermanagement scenarios and estimate the sustainability of the 

groundwater basins.

Groundwater Model Development

A three-dimensional groundwater-flow and solutetransport model of the Santa Barbara and Foothill groundwater 

basins was developed using SEAWAT (Langevin and others, 

2008). SEAWAT is a groundwater-flow and solute-transport 

simulation code that is based on MODFLOW-2000 (Harbaugh 

and others, 2000) and MT3DMS (Zheng and Wang, 1999; 

Zheng, 2006). Two versions of the SBFTM were constructed: 

an initial-condition model and a simulation-period transient 

model. The initial-condition model is a long-term transient 

model that simulates flow and solute-transport conditions 

during a period of lesser anthropogenic influences leading 

up to the start of the simulation-period transient model. A 

steady-state simulation would not suffice for determining these 

initial conditions, because the solute-transport computations 

require transience to determine concentration distribution. The 

simulation-period transient model simulates flow and transport 

conditions from 1929 through 2013. The flow and transport 

models use the SEAWAT packages listed in table 1.

The SBFTM was constructed in three steps. First, a 

hydrogeologic framework model (HFM) was constructed 

based on previous studies and available hydrologic, geologic, 

and geophysical data for the basin. As described in chapter B, 

the HFM has two parts: a geometric model that describes 

the extent and thickness of the hydrogeologic units and a 

textural model that defines the properties of these units. Next, 

this HFM was partitioned into the layers and cells of the 

groundwater-flow model. Finally, the available hydrologic 

observation and stress data were compiled and used to 

construct and calibrate the SBFTM.

Spatial and Temporal Discretization

The SBFTM is spatially discretized on a grid 

with 58 rows, 152 columns, and 56 layers (fig. 1) with 

113,072 active cells. The model grid was rotated by 25 degrees 

clockwise from true north to align with the dominant direction 

of flow in Storage Unit I. The horizontal discretization is 

250 by 250 feet (ft), and the vertical discretization is spatially 

variable; most model cells are approximately 20 ft thick. 

The coordinates of the four corners for the model grid are 

presented in table 2. The 56 model layers were necessary to 

replicate the horizontal variability in constituent transport 

reasonably and follow the contours of the land surface. They 

do not represent specific geologic layers, hydrogeologic 

units, or water-bearing units. Properties from the various 

hydrogeologic units and textural distribution in the HFM were 

used to populate the flow and transport model.

To simulate predevelopment conditions (no stresses), 

groundwater flow and solute transport were simulated for 

10,000 years with 10-year time steps to allow the flow and 

concentration fields to equilibrate to the specified initial and 

boundary conditions. No pumpage data were available prior 

to 1929, and it was assumed that pumping prior to 1929 had 

a minor effect on the study area hydrology; therefore, it was 

assumed that 1929 represented predevelopment conditions.

Chapter C: Numerical Model of Groundwater Flow and Solute Transport
120 Santa Barbara and Foothill Groundwater Basins Geohydrology and Optimal Water Resources Management

Table 1. SEAWAT Version 4 packages and processes used with the Santa Barbara flow and transport model, Santa Barbara, 

California.

Package, process, or program name Function Reference

Processes and solver

Global (GLO) and groundwater flow 

(GWF) processes of MODFLOW-2000

Setup and solve equations simulating a basic ground-water flow 

model.

McDonald and Harbaugh, 1988; 

Harbaugh and others, 2000; 

Hill and others, 2000

Preconditioned conjugate-gradient package 

(PCG)

Solves the groundwater flow equations. Hill, 1990; Harbaugh and 

others, 2000

Generalized conjugate-gradient solver 

package (GCG) of MT3DMS

Setup and solve equations simulating a basic ground-water 

transport model.

Zheng and Wang, 1999

Variable-density flow (VDF) process of 

SEAWAT

Setup and solve the variable-density ground-water flow equation. Langevin and others, 2008

Files

Name file (name) Controls the capabilities of SEAWAT (MODFLOW-2000 and 

MT3DMS) utilized during a simulation.

Harbaugh and others, 2000

Output control option (OC) Used to output head, drawdown, and budget information for 

specified time periods.

Harbaugh and others, 2000

Global file Output file for information that applied to the model simulation

as a whole.

Harbaugh and others, 2000

List file Output file for allocation information, values used by the GWF 

process, and calculated results such as head, drawdown, and 

the water budget.

Harbaugh and others, 2000

Discretization

Basic package (BAS6) Defines the initial conditions and some of the boundary 

conditions.

Harbaugh and others, 2000

Discretization package (DIS) Defines how the model is spatially and temporally broken up into

model cells, time steps, and stress periods.

Harbaugh and others, 2000

Basic transport package (BTN) Defines the initial conditions, some boundary conditions, and 

how the model is spatially and temporally broken up into 

model cells, time steps, and stress periods.

Zheng and Wang, 1999

Multiplier package (MULT) Defines multiplier arrays for calculation of model properties. Harbaugh and others, 2000

Zones (ZONE) Defines zones to distinguish different parts of the model. Harbaugh and others, 2000

Aquifer properties

Layer property flow package (LPF) Calculates the conductance between cell centers. Harbaugh and others, 2000

Hydrologic flow barriers (HFB6) Simulates a groundwater barrier using a hydraulic conductance 

between two adjacent cells.

Harbaugh and others, 2000

Solute transport

Advection package (ADV) Defines how advective flow is simulated. Zheng and Wang, 1999

Dispersion package (DSP) Defines how dispersion and molecular diffusion is simulated. Zheng and Wang, 1999

Sink and source mixing package (SSM) Defines the sources of solute and the solute concentration from 

each source.

Zheng and Wang, 1999

Boundary conditions

General head boundaries (GHB) Head-dependent boundary condition to allow groundwater to 

flow into or out of the model.

Harbaugh and others, 2000

Recharge and discharge

Well (WEL) Simulates a specified flux to individual cells. Harbaugh and others, 2000

River (RIV) Simulates a head-dependent flux boundary at specified cells. Harbaugh and others, 2000

Drain (DRN) Simulates a head dependent flux boundary at specified cells. The 

flux from the drain drops to zero when the head in the cell falls 

below a threshold.

Harbaugh and others, 2000

Recharge (RCH) Simulates a specified flux distributed over the top of the model. Harbaugh and others, 2000

Output, observations, and sensitivity

Head observations (HOB) Defines the head observation and weight by layer(s), row, 

column, and time.

Hill and others, 2000

Transport observation (TOB) Defines the solute concentration and weight by layer(s), row, 

column, and time.

Zheng, 2010
Chapter C: Numerical Model of Groundwater Flow and Solute Transport 121

Figure 1. Distribution of flow barriers, general-head boundaries, drains, small-catchment recharge, and creek recharge in the Santa 

Barbara flow and transport model, Santa Barbara, California.

Barbara

0 1 2 MILES

0 1 2 KILOMETERS

EXPLANATION

Figure 1.Distribution of flow barriers, boundary conditions, drains,

small catchment recharge, and stream recharge in the SBFTM

Model grid cell type

Small catchment

Small catchment

(canyon)

General head boundary 

(Montecito)

General head boundary 

(ocean fault)

General head boundary

(ocean shallow)

Creek

Highway

Model grid cell

Santa Barbara Estero

Well and abbreviated state 

13R1 well number

Internal drain

Padre Production well and identifier

Major creeks

Storage unit

City

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

Flow barrier

Santa Barbara city production 

well and identifier

Vera Cruz

Storage units from Muir, 1968;

Freckleton and others, 1998

Base modified from U.S. Geological Survey and other 

Federal and State digital data, various scales; 

Transverse Mercator projection, zone 11N; 

North American Datum of 1983 (NAD 83)

11119750

U.S. Geological Survey streamgage

and identifier

Study

area

PACIFIC 

OCEAN

CALIFORNIA

SANTA

BARBARA

COUNTY

101

101

Santa Barbara

119°46' 119°44' 119°42' 119°40'

34°28'

34°27'

34°26'

34°25'

34°24'

T.

5

N.

T.

4

N.

R. 28 W. R. 27 W. R. 26 W.

PACIFIC OCEAN

SANTA YNEZ MOUNTAINS

Hope Ranch

subbasin

Goleta

Basin

Montecito

Basin

Lauro

Canyon

Mission

Canyon

Sycamore

Canyon

 Sycamore

Creek

Mission Creek

San Roque

Creek

Cieneguitas Creek

Atascadero

Creek

Arroyo

Burro

11119745

11119750

13R1

LCMWD

Well 9

El Sueno LCMWC

Well 16

Parks 1

Val

Verde De la Guerra

Ortega Park

SB

High

School

Soledad

McKenzie 2

Calvary San Roque Park 1

Cemetery

Sunset

Mutual

Los

Robles Lincolnwood 1

Pueblo

Properties

San

Vicente 2

SB

Savings

Westpac

Shelter

Padre

Hope

Avenue

Corporation

Yard City

Hall

Vera

Cruz

McKenzie 1

Las

Positas

Alameda

Park

San Roque Park 2

San

Vicente 1
122 Santa Barbara and Foothill Groundwater Basins Geohydrology and Optimal Water Resources Management

The transient simulation represented 1929–2013 

conditions; however, the primary focus was 1972–2013 

because of superior data availability (in terms of reported 

stresses and measured data). The transient SBFTM was 

temporally discretized into 43 1-year stress periods from 1929 

to 1971 and an additional 504 1-month stress periods from 

1972 to 2013. One-year stress periods were used from 1929 

to 1971 because of limited pumpage data during these years. 

One-month stress periods were chosen from 1972 to 2013 

to simulate monthly and seasonal changes in pumpage and 

recharge.

Boundary Conditions

Model boundary conditions mathematically define the 

interaction of the SBFTM domain with hydrologic conditions 

outside of the SBFTM boundaries. For the groundwater-flow 

model, two types of boundary conditions were used: head 

dependent and specified flux.

Head-dependent boundaries include creeks, internal 

drains, and general-head boundaries (fig. 1). Creeks are 

discussed in the “Simulated Groundwater Recharge” section.

As described in chapter A, groundwater can leave Storage 

Unit III laterally as underflow at Arroyo Burro across the 

Lavigia fault or at Atascadero and Cieneguitas Creeks across 

the Modoc fault from Foothill to Goleta groundwater basin. 

Following Freckleton and others (1998), drain boundaries 

were used to simulate flow across the Lavigia and Modoc 

faults (figs. 1, B–1). Drains were also used to simulate 

groundwater flow into the Santa Barbara Estero.

The general-head boundary (GHB) package was used 

to simulate flow across the offshore fault along the coastal 

boundary (ocean-fault and shallow-ocean GHBs) and simulate 

flow between the Santa Ynez Mountains and Storage Unit 

I near the coast (Montecito GHB). The SBFTM extends 

laterally 500–900 ft to the offshore fault on the eastern 

edge of Storage Unit I. The ocean-fault and shallow-ocean 

GHBs simulate flow between the Pacific Ocean and the 

groundwater system. The ocean-fault GHB is on the vertical 

face of the southeastern boundary with the Pacific Ocean, 

and the shallow-ocean GHB is on the top model layer that 

extends throughout the offshore model area. The head at the 

ocean-fault GHB remains constant at sea level throughout 

the simulation. When using GHB in SEAWAT, the GHB 

seawater heads are set at the measured or assumed elevation 

and SEAWAT adjusts the head to address the greater density of 

seawater. The shallow-ocean GHB has a constant head at sea 

level, and a single conductance parameter is used.

The Montecito GHB simulates flow between the 

mountains and Storage Unit I and is on the southeastern part 

of the northeast boundary of the study area. It has varying 

head values based on observation data from well 4N/27W13R1 (fig. 1). 

Specified-flux boundaries also include no-flow 

boundaries. No-flow boundary conditions were used to 

simulate the lateral model boundary where not simulated by 

head-dependent boundaries or recharge. In addition, the base 

of the model, at the contact with a relatively low-permeability 

shale (see chapter B), was simulated as a no-flow boundary.

For the solute-transport model, chloride concentrations 

are associated with the flow boundaries. Appropriate 

chloride concentrations were specified at the general-head 

and specified-flux boundaries for any inflowing water (for 

example, a standard seawater value of 19,000 milligrams per 

liter at the ocean boundary).

Simulated Groundwater Recharge

Sources of inflow to the groundwater system include 

small-catchment recharge, leakage from creeks, underflow 

from neighboring basins, areal recharge, and septic-tank 

effluent. Small-catchment recharge was simulated on the 

north–northeast edge of the SBFTM (fig. 2) by injecting 

water into model layers 1 and 2 in the highlighted areas 

shown in figure 2. The fluxes were estimated as explained 

in the “Model Calibration Approach” section of this chapter. 

Small-catchment recharge segments were simulated along 

the north–northeast boundary of the SBFTM by using the 

well (WEL) package to inject water at a constant rate into the 

model cells bordering the foothills (fig. 2). Small-catchment 

recharge segments were aligned with the canyons to simulate 

the recharge rates from different canyons.

Creeks were simulated using the river (RIV) package 

(Harbaugh and others, 2000). The RIV package was used 

because the constituent-transport option in SEAWAT does 

not support other MODFLOW stream-routing packages 

(Langevin and others, 2008). Simulated creeks include 

Sycamore, Mission, San Roque, Arroyo Burro, Cieneguitas, 

and Atascadero creeks (fig. 1). Stage, creek-bed conductance, 

and creek-bed elevation are specified for the RIV package. 

The creek-bed elevations were based on a 10-m digitalelevation model of the study area. The RIV package allows 

fluxes to enter or leave the groundwater system as a function 

of creek stage and groundwater level. If the creek stage is 

higher than the groundwater level, then creek water recharges 

the groundwater system. If the creek stage is lower than the 

groundwater level, then groundwater discharges to the creek.

Table 2. Coordinates of the Santa Barbara Flow and Transport 

Model grid, Santa Barbara, California.

[NAD 1983, North American Datum of 1983; UTM, Universal Transverse 

Mercator]

Corner of 

model grid

Model 

coordinates 

X 

(column)

Model 

coordinates 

Y 

(row)

NAD 1983 

UTM zone 

11N X 

(meters)

NAD 1983 

UTM zone 

11N Y 

(meters)

Northeast 1 1 245,775 3,817,516

Northwest 1 58 243,907 3,813,510

Southeast 152 1 256,272 3,812,621

Southwest 152 58 254,405 3,808,615
Figure 2. Rates of small-catchment recharge for the Santa Barbara flow and transport model, Santa Barbara, California.

Cieneguitas

Cree

k

Sy

ca

m

ore

Creek Mission Creek

Atas

c adero C reek

A

rr oyo

Burro

San Roqu e

Creek

Las Po sitas

Creek

101

EAST

MORE RANCH FAULT

MODOC FAULT ROCKY NOOK FAULT

LAGO ON FAULT LAVIGIA FAULT MESA FAULT

UNNAMED

FAULT NORTHEAST MORE RANCH FAULT

FOOTHILL

FAULT

Santa Barbara

SANTA YNEZ MOUNTAINS

PA C I F I 

Goleta

Basin

119°46' 119°44' 119°42' 119°40'

34°27'34°26'34°25'

R. 28 W. R. 27 W.

0 0.5 1 MILE

0 0.5 1 KILOMETER

Figure C2. Small catchment

EXPLANATION

CityHighwayStorage units

Average small catchment recharge, 

in cubic feet per day

>200 to 500

>500 to 1,000

>0 to 100 >1,000 to 3,000>100 to 200 >3,000 to 5,653

Faults

Existence certain, location inferredExistence questionable, location inferredExistence certain, location concealedExistence questionable, location concealedExistence certain, location accurateExistence certain, location approximate

Production wellSanta Barbara city 

production well

0

Base modified from U.S. Geological Survey and other Federal and State digital data, various scales; Transverse Mercator projection, zone 11N; North American Datum of 1983 (NAD 83)

Storage units from Muir, 

faults from M

Stud

are

PACIFIC OCEAN 
124 Santa Barbara and Foothill Groundwater Basins Geohydrology and Optimal Water Resources Management

The creeks were defined by multiple segments. Creek 

stage and creek-bed conductance parameters were allowed 

to vary during model calibration among creek segments in 

the model area. Creek stage for all the creek segments was 

initially estimated using the average of the reported Mission 

Creek stage data (11119745, Mission Creek at Rocky Nook 

Park) from 1997 to 2013 (U.S. Geological Survey, 2013). 

Creek stage was assumed to be constant throughout the 

simulation period. Final values of creek-stage and creek-bed 

conductance for each creek segment were both determined by 

parameter estimation.

Areal recharge represents direct infiltration to the 

groundwater system throughout the active model domain and 

is simulated using the recharge (RCH) package (Harbaugh and 

others, 2000). Areal recharge was estimated on the basis of a 

percentage of monthly precipitation data from the Parameterelevation Regressions on Independent Slopes Model (PRISM; 

Daly and Bryant, 2013), soil permeability (U.S. Department 

of Agriculture, 2008), and parcel land-use data (California 

Department of Water Resources, 1996). PRISM uses climate 

stations and topography to estimate precipitation amounts on 

a 2.5 mi (4-kilometer) grid throughout the United States. A 

land-use map was used to define paved, partially paved, and 

unpaved areas. Soil maps were used to define areas of high, 

medium, and low permeability and impermeable soils. Based 

on these classifications of land use and soil, four infiltration 

zones were identified that range from low (infiltration zone 

1) to high infiltration (infiltration zone 4; fig. 3A). Infiltration 

zone 1 represents areas with low-permeability soils that are 

partially paved. Infiltration zone 2 represents areas with 

lower to moderate-permeability soils that are minimally to 

moderately paved. Infiltration zone 3 represents areas with 

moderate to high permeability soils that are minimally to 

moderately paved. Infiltration zone 4 represents areas with 

high-permeability soils that are unpaved. Paved areas and 

areas with impermeable soils were not included in infiltration 

zones 1–4, and no infiltration was assigned to these areas. 

Each infiltration zone was assigned a percentage of infiltration 

for precipitation, which was determined by parameter 

estimation. Each topmost active model cell in an infiltration 

zone was assigned a monthly precipitation rate, and the 

total recharge rate in a given model cell was determined by 

multiplying the monthly precipitation rate for that cell by the 

infiltration zone’s infiltration percentage.

Septic-tank recharge was simulated using the RCH 

package and addressed by defining a fifth infiltration zone 

(fig. 3B). Data for parcels with septic systems were provided 

by the Santa Barbara County Clerk-Recorder-Assessor’s 

Mapping Division. Septic recharge was applied to all top-most 

model cells containing parcels where there was septic-system 

usage.

The map of parcels with septic systems was overlaid 

onto the model grid, showing 255 acres in the model area 

with septic systems. Note that this value is greater than the 

area of the parcels that the septic systems occupy (about 

156 acres) because if a parcel overlaid part of a model cell, 

the entire model cell was included in the area. The parcel 

map also indicated there were 195 single-family residences 

(SFR), 16 multi-unit dwellings (MUD) with 2–4 units, one rest 

home, one restaurant, and one retail store with septic systems. 

As described in chapter A, assuming 2.5 residents per SFR 

(U.S. Census Bureau, 2017), 10 residents per MUD, and a 

septic-effluent rate of 90 gallons per day per person yields a 

total septic flow rate of about 65 acre-feet per year 

(acre-ft/yr). Further assuming the model-grid area of 

255 acres, yields a flux rate of 7.0E-04 feet per day (ft/d). 

The initial septic flux rate was assumed to equal 3.3E-03 ft/d, 

and the final septic flux rate was determined by parameter 

estimation.

Simulated Groundwater Discharge

Groundwater outflow is primarily from groundwater 

pumping, underflow, discharge to streams and drains, 

and evapotranspiration. With the exception of available 

measurements of pumpage for public supply, flow rates for 

these components of groundwater outflow were relatively 

unknown and were simulated as part of this study.

Groundwater pumpage was simulated using the WEL 

package (Harbaugh and others, 2000). A total of 29 production 

wells are simulated in the SBFTM (fig. 1). Well location, 

construction, and production data were obtained from the 

USGS National Water Information System (NWIS) database 

and the city’s records (Kelley Dyer, City of Santa Barbara, 

personal commun., 2013). Pumpage data from individual 

wells were used to estimate pumpage on an annual basis from 

1929 to 1971 and on a monthly basis from 1972 to 2013. Total 

groundwater production in the Santa Barbara and Foothill 

groundwater basins was highly variable between 1972 and 

2008 (fig. A–8). Total groundwater pumpage varied from 

less than 500 acre-ft/yr during typical years to more than 

3,000 acre-ft/yr during dry years. The percentage of pumpage 

for a single production well extracted from each model cell the 

well perforates was calculated using equation 1:
Figure 3. Areas of potential groundwater recharge for the Santa Barbara flow and transport model, Santa Barbara, California: A, infiltration zones aparcels.

Cieneguitas

Cre ek

Sy

ca

m

ore

Creek Mission Creek

Atas

c adero C reek

A

rr oyo

Burro

San

Roque Cree k

101

EAST

MORE RANCH FAULT

MODOC FAULT ROCKY NOOK FAULT

LAGO ON FAULT LAVIGIA FAULT MESA FAULT

UNNAMED

FAULT

FOOTHILL

FAULT NORTHEAST MORE RANCH FAULT

SANTA YNEZ MOUNTAINS

PA C I F I 

Goleta

Basin

LCMWDWell 9

El Sueno

LCMWCWell 16

Parks 1 Val Verde De la Guerra

Ortega

Park

SB High School

Soledad

McKenzie 2

San Roque Park 1 San Roque Park 2 Calvary Cemetery

Sunset

Mutual

LosRobles

Lincolnwood 1

PuebloProperties

San Vicente 2

SB Savings

Westpac Shelter

Padre

HopeAvenue

Corporation

City Hall Vera Yard Cruz

McKenzie 1

Las Positas

AlamedaPark

San

Vicente 1

119°46' 119°44' 119°42' 119°40'

34°27'34°26'34°25'

R. 28 W. R. 27 W.

0 0.5 1 MILE

0 0.5 1 KILOMETER

Figure C3A. Areal recharge

EXPLANATION

HighwayProduction well and identifier

Padre

1 Storage units234

Infiltration zone Faults

Existence certain, location inferredExistence questionable, location inferredExistence certain, location concealedExistence questionable, location concealedExistence certain, location accurateExistence certain, location approximate

Santa Barbara city production well

and identifier

Vera Cruz

Base modified from U.S. Geological Survey and other Federal and State digital data, various scales; Transverse Mercator projection, zone 11N; North American Datum of 1983 (NAD 83)

Storage units from Muir, 

faults from M

Stud

are

PACIFIC OCEAN 

A
Figure 3. —Continued

Cieneguitas

Cre ek

Sy

ca

m

ore

Creek Mission Creek

Atas

c adero C reek

A

rr oyo

Burro

San

Roque Cree k

101

EAST

MORE RANCH FAULT

MODOC FAULT ROCKY NOOK FAULT

LAGO ON FAULT LAVIGIA FAULT MESA FAULT

UNNAMED

FAULT

FOOTHILL

FAULT NORTHEAST MORE RANCH FAULT

SANTA YNEZ MOUNTAINS

PA C I F I 

Goleta

Basin

LCMWDWell 9

El Sueno

LCMWCWell 16

Parks 1 Val Verde De la Guerra

Ortega

Park

SB High School

Soledad

McKenzie 2

San Roque Park 1 San Roque Park 2 Calvary Cemetery Sunset Mutual

LosRobles

Lincolnwood 1

PuebloProperties

San

Vicente 2

SB Savings

Westpac Shelter

Padre

HopeAvenue

Corporation

City Hall Vera Yard Cruz

McKenzie 1

Las Positas

AlamedaPark

San

Vicente 1

119°46' 119°44' 119°42' 119°40'

34°27'34°26'34°25'

R. 28 W. R. 27 W.

B

0 0.5 1 MILE

0 0.5 1 KILOMETER

Figure C3B. Septic recharge

EXPLANATION

HighwaySeptic recharge zone

Faults

Existence certain, location inferredExistence questionable, location inferredExistence certain, location concealedExistence questionable, location concealedExistence certain, location accurateExistence certain, location approximate

Production well and identifier

Padre

Storage units

Santa Barbara city production well

and identifier

Vera Cruz

Base modified from U.S. Geological Survey and other Federal and State digital data, various scales; Transverse Mercator projection, zone 11N; North American Datum of 1983 (NAD 83)

Storage units from Muir, 

faults from M

Stud

are

PACIFIC OCEAN 
Chapter C: Numerical Model of Groundwater Flow and Solute Transport 127

Pct HGLF HK SL

HGLF HK SL

cell zone cell cell

i i i

    

 

/

     i

n

1

(1)

where

Pctcell is the percentage of pumpage extracted from a 

given model cell,

HGLFzone is a parameter assigned to each hydrogeologic 

zone (that is, the shallow zone, upper 

producing zone, and so on, as described in 

chapter A) that contains the model cell,

HKcell is the hydraulic conductivity at the well in a 

given model cell,

SLcell is the length of the perforated interval in a 

given model cell,

HGLFi is a multiplier for model cell i (allowed 

to range from 1E-5 to 10 in Storage 

Unit I and from 0.1 to 10 in Foothill and 

Storage Unit III) that allows fine tuning 

of the vertical pumping distribution (this 

estimate was updated iteratively during 

calibration as the hydraulic conductivity 

was estimated),

HKi is the hydraulic conductivity at the well for 

model cell i,

SLi is the length of the perforated interval for 

model cell i,

n is the total number of cells connected to the 

perforated interval of the well.

Basin outflows through creek channels and the city’s 

drain system are simulated using the drain (DRN) package 

(Harbaugh and others, 2000). Outflow from the Foothill to the 

Goleta groundwater basin across the Modoc fault was assumed 

to be mostly along the Atascadero and Cieneguitas Creek 

deposits, and outflow from Storage Unit III across the Lavigia 

fault was assumed to be mostly along the Arroyo Burro 

and Las Positas Creek deposits (fig. 1). Drain head values 

along these creeks were initially assigned based on nearby 

well observations; final drain head values were determined 

by parameter estimation. The manmade drains installed by 

the city in Storage Unit I to drain the Estero were simulated 

based on Freckleton and others (1998). Drain head values for 

manmade drains installed by the city were defined by the drain 

elevation. Drain conductance values for creeks and the city’s 

drain system were both determined by model calibration.

Aquifer Properties

Aquifer properties used in the simulation were 

horizontal and vertical hydraulic conductivity, specific 

storage, conductance across horizontal-flow barriers, and the 

constituent transport parameters porosity, dispersivity, and 

diffusion. Percentage of coarse-grained sediment from the 

texture model was used to define hydraulic conductivity and 

specific storage. The locations of the horizontal-flow barriers 

were determined by fault locations reported by Minor and 

others (2009). Porosity and dispersivity were estimated by 

parameter estimation and allowed to vary within reasonable 

limits.

Model Parameterization

To aid in the calibration of the hydraulic properties and 

boundary conditions in the model, the four groundwater 

subbasins were divided into regions, subregions, and areas 

(figs. 4–6). The subbasins were divided into five regions 

(fig. 4); each region was assigned different hydraulic 

conductivity ranges. The regions were divided into 

14 subregions (fig. 5), which were used to improve the 

representation of different depositional environments and 

were based on the geography and geology of the study area, 

including proximity to stream channels, mountains, and the 

coast. Each subregion was assigned different multipliers, 

which were estimated during model calibration. Finally, the 

model domain was divided into coastal and inland areas 

(fig. 6), where each area was assigned layer-wise multipliers, 

which were estimated during model calibration. The coastal 

area (fig. 6) was parameterized separately from the rest of 

Storage Unit I because some shallow, low-permeability areas 

are limited to the flatter areas of the coastal plain; therefore, 

the coastal and inland areas have different layer-wise 

multipliers. For example, assume a hydraulic conductivity 

value for region i, in subregion j, in the coastal area; therefore, 

the hydraulic conductivity (HK) value for layer k is as follows:

HKk i   HK m m j c  k (2)

where

mj is the multiplier for subregion j, and 

mck is the coastal multiplier for layer k.

Hydrogeologic Units

The Santa Barbara and Foothill groundwater basins 

contain two main high-permeability hydrogeologic units: 

the upper and lower producing zones (fig. 7). Near the coast, 

Storage Unit I markedly thickens and contains the additional 

middle producing zone that does not extend inland into the 

other subbasins, as discussed in chapters A and B (fig. A–6). 

As stated earlier, the SBFTM simulates the transport of 

chloride due to seawater intrusion in Storage Unit I, which 

requires a relatively high level of model detail; therefore, the 

hydrogeologic units were defined in greater detail for Storage 

Unit I than for Storage Unit III and the Foothill subbasins.
Figure 4. Five regions used in the Santa Barbara flow and transport model, Santa Barbara, California.

Cieneguitas

Cre ek

Sy

ca

m

ore

Creek Mission Creek

Atas

c adero C reek

A

rr oyo

Burro

San

Roque Cree k

101

MODOC FAULT ROCKY NOOK FAULT

LAGO ON FAULT LAVIGIA FAULT MESA FAULT

UNNAMED

FAULT

FOOTHILL

FAULT NORTHEAST MORE RANCH FAULT

E A S T M O R E R A N C H F A U L T

SANTA YNEZ MOUNTAINS

PA C I F I 

Goleta

Basin

EASTFOOTHILLBASIN

EAST STORAGE UNIT III

WEST STORAGE UNIT III

WESTFOOTHILLBASIN

STORAGE UNIT I

Santa Barbara city

production well

119°46' 119°44' 119°42' 119°40'

34°27'34°26'34°25'

R. 28 W. R. 27 W.

0 0.5 1 MILE

0 0.5 1 KILOMETER

Figure C4. Model Subregions

EXPLANATION

HighwayProduction well

Faults

Existence certain, location inferredExistence questionable, location inferredExistence certain, location concealedExistence questionable, location concealedExistence certain, location accurateExistence certain, location approximate

Model regions

West Foothill BasinEast Foothill BasinStorage Unit IWest Storage Unit IIIEast Storage Unit III

Base modified from U.S. Geological Survey and other Federal and State digital data, various scales; Transverse Mercator projection, zone 11N; North American Datum of 1983 (NAD 83)

Storage units from Muir, 

faults from M

Stud

are

PACIFIC OCEAN 
Chapter C: Numerical Model of Groundwater Flow and Solute Transport 129

Figure 5. The 14 subregions used in the Santa Barbara flow and transport model, Santa Barbara, California.

Figure C5. Model sub regions.

Barbara

City

Highway

Model subregions

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

13

14

11

12

Storage unit

0 1 2 MILES

0 1 2 KILOMETERS

EXPLANATION

Base modified from U.S. Geological Survey and other 

Federal and State digital data, various scales; 

Transverse Mercator projection, zone 11N; 

North American Datum of 1983 (NAD 83)

Storage units from Muir, 1968;

Freckleton and others, 1998

CALIFORNIA

Study

area

SANTA

BARBARA

COUNTY

PACIFIC 

OCEAN

1 1

2

3

4

5

6

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

101

101

Santa

Barbara

119°46' 119°44' 119°42' 119°40'

34°28'

34°27'

34°26'

34°25'

34°24'

PACIFIC OCEAN

SANTA YNEZ MOUNTAINS

Hope Ranch

Subbasin

Goleta

Basin

Montecito

Basin

Lauro

Canyon

Mission

Canyon

Sycamore

Canyon

T.

5

N.

T.

4

N.

R. 28 W. R. 27 W. R. 26 W.
130 Santa Barbara and Foothill Groundwater Basins Geohydrology and Optimal Water Resources Management

Figure 6. The two areas used in the Santa Barbara flow and transport model, Santa Barbara, California.

Figure C6. Coastal areas.

Barbara

City

Storage units Highway

Inland area boundary

0 1 2 MILES

0 1 2 KILOMETERS

EXPLANATION

Coastal area

Lower producing zone and middle aquitard

Upper producing zone

Base modified from U.S. Geological Survey and other 

Federal and State digital data, various scales; 

Transverse Mercator projection, zone 11N; 

North American Datum of 1983 (NAD 83)

Storage units from Muir, 1968;

Freckleton and others, 1998

CALIFORNIA

Study

area

SANTA

BARBARA

COUNTY

PACIFIC 

OCEAN

101

101

Santa

Barbara

119°46' 119°44' 119°42' 119°40'

34°28'

34°27'

34°26'

34°25'

34°24'

PACIFIC OCEAN

SANTA YNEZ MOUNTAINS

Hope Ranch

subbasin

Goleta

Basin

Montecito

Basin

Lauro

Canyon

Mission

Canyon

Sycamore

Canyon

T.

5

N.

T.

4

N.

R. 28 W. R. 27 W. R. 26 W.
Chapter C: Numerical Model of Groundwater Flow and Solute Transport 131

Hydraulic and Transport Properties

Hydraulic properties include hydraulic conductivity of 

the aquifer; conductance of faults, GHBs, and drains; creekbed conductance; and aquifer storage. Transport properties 

include porosity, dispersivity, and diffusion.

Hydraulic Conductivity

Hydraulic conductivity was estimated using the sediment 

texture defined in the HFM (chapter B) by regions, subregions, 

areas, and creek channels. The hydraulic conductivity for each 

groundwater-model cell was calculated using the percentage 

of coarse-grained material from the HFM (see chapter B). The 

calculation of hydraulic conductivity for the horizontal and 

vertical directions was done using the power mean. Using this 

mean, the hydraulic conductivity of the textural end members, 

representing the coarsest and finest materials, was used in 

conjunction with the percentage of coarse-grained material 

in each cell to calculate the overall hydraulic conductivity in 

each direction. Different lithologic end-member hydraulic 

conductivities were used for each region (table 3). Initial 

horizontal hydraulic conductivities were calculated 

using arithmetic averaging, and initial vertical hydraulic 

conductivities were calculated using a power approximating 

the geometric mean. These initial texture-based horizontal and 

vertical hydraulic-conductivity values were calculated using 

equations 3 and 4, respectively:

Inactive model cells

EXPLANATION

Soil horizon

Upper confining unit

Confining barrier

Upper producing zone

Upper part of middle unit

Confining barrier

Lower part of middle unit

Confining barrier

Lower producing zone

Lower confining unit

Confining barrier

Middle producing zone

Model grid cell

Row 21

Storage unit

City

Pacific Ocean

EXPLANATION

Model layer

Row 21 hydrogeologic units

Column number

0 20 40 60 80 100

0

10

20

30

60

40

50

120 140 152

sac16-062_IP-075076_figC7

Coastline

Santa Barbara

Figure 7. Hydrogeologic units defined for the Santa Barbara flow and transport model, Santa Barbara, California.
132 Santa Barbara and Foothill Groundwater Basins Geohydrology and Optimal Water Resources Management

HKtexture c   PC K P x f   F K x (3)

VKtexture c     K P k f C K  x PF   

1 1 1

(4)

where

Kcx is the coarse hydraulic-conductivity end 

member;

Kfx is the fine hydraulic-conductivity end 

member;

PC is the percentage of coarse sediment in a 

given model cell, expressed as a fraction; 

and

PF is the percentage of fine sediment in a given 

model cell, expressed as a fraction.

The texture-based hydraulic-conductivity values were adjusted 

during model calibration by multipliers defined for each 

subregion, area, and hydrogeologic unit. The horizontal and 

vertical hydraulic-conductivity values for specific subregion, 

area, and hydrogeologic unit combinations were defined by 

equations 5 and 6:

HKsrl   HKtexture HKSRM H KLM (5)

VKsrl   VKtexture VKSRM V KLM (6)

where

HKSRM and VKSRM are multipliers for the horizontal 

and vertical hydraulic conductivity, 

respectively, applied to each subregion, 

and

HKLM and VKLM are the horizontal and vertical hydraulic 

conductivity multipliers, respectively, 

applied to each hydrogeologic unit. Note 

that HKLM and VKLM are also functions 

of area (coastal or inland).

Relatively coarse creek beds are thought to exist in the 

upper Mission and Sycamore Creeks that were not captured in 

the textural model because of a lack of borehole data for the 

creek beds. To simulate the coarse-grained material in these 

creek beds, a scalar multiplier was applied to the HK and VK 

in all model layers in creek-infiltration zones. This implicitly 

assumes that the creek channel has not moved over time and 

that the coarse-grained material extends vertically beneath the 

creek bed to the water table. 

Conductance Properties

Conductance properties affect the flow across faults, 

GHBs, and drains. Flow across creek beds is affected by 

creek-bed conductance and stage; these are discussed in the 

following section.

On the basis of previous work and water-level offsets, the 

Mesa, East More Ranch, Northeast More Ranch, unnamed, 

and Foothill faults are thought to restrict groundwater flow 

(fig. 8). Accordingly, these faults are simulated using the 

horizontal-flow barrier (HFB) package (Hsieh and Freckleton, 

1993). An HFB is a low-permeability feature that is used 

to restrict flow across the simulated barrier with a specified 

hydraulic-characteristic term. The lower the hydraulic 

characteristic, the greater the effect of the barrier. The East 

More Ranch, Mesa, Northeast More Ranch, and Foothill 

faults were divided into segments, and a separate hydrauliccharacteristic parameter was estimated for each segment. 

The unnamed fault and the Foothill fault each have a single 

hydraulic-characteristic value for the entire length of the fault. 

In order to simulate increased flow across faults intersected 

by coarse fluvial deposits, separate hydraulic-characteristic 

parameters were assigned to the upper model cells at the 

intersection of faults and major creeks.

The ocean-fault GHB was simulated using seven 

conductance parameters defined by hydrogeologic zone: one 

for each of the three producing zones and four for the zones 

between, above, and below the producing zones. The shallowocean GHB was assigned a single conductance parameter. The 

Montecito GHB was assigned three conductance parameters, 

one for the middle producing zone, one for all model layers 

above it, and one for all model layers below it.

As was previously described, there are two general sets of 

drains: the Santa Barbara city drains and the creek-underflow 

drains for Arroyo Burro, Atascadero, and Cienguitas Creeks. 

One conductance parameter was used for the Santa Barbara 

city drain, and two conductance parameters were used for each 

creek underflow drain—one parameter for the upper layers and 

one for the lower layers.

Creek Properties

There are two properties that govern whether and how 

much a creek gains or loses water: creek-bed conductance 

and creek stage. Model cells of the stream type (fig. 1) were 

divided into segments along most creeks, and each segment 

was assigned a separate value for creek-bed conductance 

(table 3). In addition, each creek segment was assigned a 

parameter for the stage of the creek, which was fixed for the 

entire simulation.
Table 3. Calibrated groundwater flow and solute transport model parameter values, Santa Barbara flow and transport model, Santa Barbara, Califor[/day, per day; ft, foot; ft2, square foot; GHB, general-head boundary package; HK, horizontal hydraulic conductivity; Rd., road; St., street; VK, vertical hydraulic conductivity; 

Parameter 

name Group Subgroup Description Calibrated value Lower bound Up

bou

ab_t_t streamk Creek conductance adjustment 

parameter

Las Positas Creek 3.91E–04 1.08E–04 1.0

ab_w_t streamk Creek conductance adjustment 

parameter

Arroyo Burro Creek between Northridge and San 

Roque Creek junctions

4.57E–05 1.08E–05 1.0

ab_we_t streamk Creek conductance adjustment 

parameter

Northridge Creek 5.37E+01 1.08E–04 1.0

ab_ww_t streamk Creek conductance adjustment 

parameter

Upstream Arroyo Burro Creek upstream of 

Northridge Creek junction

4.73E+01 1.08E–04 1.0

abcynrchmt rch Small catchment recharge multiplier Small catchment recharge Arroyo Burro Creek area 2.20E+00 1.00E–05 2.50arroyo_br_t streamk Creek conductance adjustment 

parameter

Arroyo Burro Creek from San Roque Creek to about 

0.7 miles south of San Roque Creek junction

1.54E–03 1.08E–04 1.0

arroyobrs_t streamk Creek conductance adjustment 

parameter

Downstream portion of Arroy Burro Creak to edge 

of model

3.56E–01 1.08E–04 1.0

arryob_s rivers Creek stage adjustment parameter Upstream Arroyo Burro Creek upstream of 

Northridge Creek junction

4.64E–01 3.28E–06 3.2

arryoc_s rivers Creek stage adjustment parameter Arroyo Burro Creek between Northridge and San 

Roque Creek junctions

4.64E–01 3.28E–06 3.2

arryod_s rivers Creek stage adjustment parameter Arroyo Burro Creek from San Roque Creek to about 

0.7 miles south of San Roque Creek junction

4.64E–01 3.28E–06 3.2

arryol_s rivers Creek stage adjustment parameter Downstream portion of Arroy Burro Creak to edge 

of model

4.64E–01 3.28E–06 3.2

atas_e_t streamk Creek conductance adjustment 

parameter

Upstream Atascadero Creek upstream of Via 

Chaparral Creek junction

3.04E+01 1.08E–04 1.0

atas_t_t streamk Creek conductance adjustment 

parameter

La Paloma Creek 2.51E–05 1.08E–05 1.0

atas_w_t streamk Creek conductance adjustment 

parameter

Via Chaparral Creek 2.67E–05 1.08E–05 1.0

atasca_s rivers Creek stage adjustment parameter Upstream Atascadero Creek upstream of Via 

Chaparral Creek junction

4.61E–01 3.28E–06 4.92

atascadero_t streamk Creek conductance adjustment 

parameter

Atascadero Creek downstream of Via Chaparral 

Creek junction

8.11E+00 1.08E–04 1.0

atascb_s rivers Creek stage adjustment parameter Atascadero Creek downstream of Via Chaparral 

Creek junction

4.60E–01 3.28E–06 3.2

atasel streamk Creek conductance adjustment 

parameter

Where Atascadero and Via Chaparral Creek closely 

parallel one another up to junction

9.73E+00 1.08E–04 1.0
Parameter name Group Subgroup Description Calibrated value Lower bound Up

bou

cien_e_t streamk Creek conductance adjustment parameter Eastern fork of Cieneguitas Creek 6.06E+00 1.08E–04 1.0cien_w_t streamk Creek conductance adjustment parameter Western fork of Cieneguitas Creek 5.50E+01 1.08E–04 1.0cienee_s rivers Creek stage adjustment parameter Eastern fork of Cieneguitas Creek 4.82E–01 3.28E–06 3.2cieneguita_t streamk Creek conductance adjustment parameter Cieneguitas Creek downstream of fork 3.94E–05 1.08E–05 1.0cienel_s rivers Creek stage adjustment parameter Cieneguitas Creek downstream of fork 4.82E–01 3.28E–06 3.2cieneu_s rivers Creek stage adjustment parameter Western fork of Cieneguitas Creek 4.82E–01 3.28E–06 3.2disp dispersion Longitudinal dispersivity Shallow 6.56E+00 4.00E–02 2.50dispdp dispersion Longitudinal dispersivity Deep 4.92E+01 4.00E–02 2.50draincond otherk Drain conductance City drain conductance 3.70E+02 1.08E–02 1.0drainfha otherk Drain conductance Atascadero Creek drain conductance shallow 1.27E+00 1.08E–04 1.0drainfhadp otherk Drain conductance Atascadero Creek drain conductance deep 1.56E+01 1.08E–02 1.0drainfhc otherk Drain conductance Cieneguitas Creek drain conductance shallow 5.57E–01 1.08E–04 1.0drainfhcdp otherk Drain conductance Cieneguitas Creek drain conductance deep 5.84E+00 1.08E–02 1.0drainsu3 otherk Drain conductance Arroyo Burro Creek drain conductance 2.47E+01 1.08E–02 1.0e_more_1 faultk Fault conductance East More Ranch fault between western edge of model and 101 freeway 7.49E–08 1.00E–08 1.00e_more_2 faultk Fault conductance East More Ranch fault between 101 freeway and State Street 5.21E–08 1.00E–08 1.00e_more_3 faultk Fault conductance East More Ranch fault between State Street and Mission Creek 1.13E–08 1.00E–08 1.00e_more_4a faultk Fault conductance East More Ranch fault following Mission Creek northeast of the Mission 8.61E–05 1.00E–07 1.00e_more_4b faultk Fault conductance East More Ranch fault following Mission Creek west of the Mission 2.64E–06 1.00E–07 1.00e_more_wr faultk Fault conductance East More Ranch fault at Arroyo Burro Creek 1.00E+01 1.00E–07 1.00fhdrainhd other_hd Drain head Atascadero and Cieneguitas Creek drain head –1.32E–02 –6.55E+01 1.64foothillrd faultk Fault conductance Foothill fault 1.04E–04 1.00E–07 1.00htransd dispersion Horizontal transverse dispersivity Horizontal shallow 1.64E–02 1.64E–02 1.64htransddp dispersion Horizontal transverse dispersivity Horizontal deep 1.64E+00 1.64E–01 1.64

Table 3. Calibrated groundwater flow and solute transport model parameter values, Santa Barbara flow and transport model, Santa Barbara, Califor[/day, per day; ft, foot; ft2, square foot; GHB, general-head boundary package; HK, horizontal hydraulic conductivity; Rd., road; St., street; VK, vertical hydraulic conductivity; 
Parameter 

name Group Subgroup Description Calibrated value Lower bound Up

bou

ic_pmp_mac rch Early 20th century pumping 

multiplier

Early 20th century pumping multiplier 2.00E–01 1.00E–02 8.00

kc1 aquiferk HK/VK end member Coarse end member for Storage Unit I 8.58E+00 3.28E–02 3.2kc2 aquiferk HK/VK end member Coarse end member for East Foothill Subbasin 3.97E+00 3.28E–02 3.2kc3 aquiferk HK/VK end member Coarse end member for Storage Unit III West 3.44E+00 3.28E–02 3.2kc4 aquiferk HK/VK end member Coarse end member for West Foothill Subbasin 6.61E+00 3.28E–02 3.2kc5 aquiferk HK/VK end member Coarse end member for Storage Unit III East 2.62E–01 3.28E–02 3.2kf1 aquiferk HK/VK end member Fine end member for Storage Unit I 2.33E–02 3.28E–05 3.2kf2 aquiferk HK/VK end member Fine end member for East Foothill Subbasin 3.85E–03 3.28E–05 3.2kf3 aquiferk HK/VK end member Fine end member for Storage Unit III West 2.86E–03 3.28E–05 3.2kf4 aquiferk HK/VK end member Fine end member for West Foothill Subbasin 1.68E–02 3.28E–05 3.2kf5 aquiferk HK/VK end member Fine end member for Storage Unit III East 1.47E–03 3.28E–05 3.2lapalo_s rivers Creek stage adjustment parameter La Paloma Creek 4.72E–01 3.28E–06 3.2laspos_s rivers Creek stage adjustment parameter Las Positas Creek 4.60E–01 3.28E–06 3.2lauro_t streamk Creek conductance adjustment 

parameter

Lauro Canyon Creek 5.26E–04 1.08E–04 1.0

lauroc_s rivers Creek stage adjustment parameter Lauro Canyon Creek 4.85E–01 3.28E–06 3.2mc_1_4_t streamk Creek conductance adjustment 

parameter

Upstream segment of Mission Creek near northern 

boundary of model to just north of the Mission

2.44E+02 1.08E–02 1.0

mc_4_6_t streamk Creek conductance adjustment 

parameter

Mission Creek just north of the Mission to State St. 1.72E+02 1.08E–02 1.0

mc_6_7_t streamk Creek conductance adjustment 

parameter

Mission Creek from State St. to where it runs 

parallel to 101 freeway

6.43E+01 1.08E–02 1.0

mc_7_8_t streamk Creek conductance adjustment 

parameter

Mission Creek parallel to 101 freeway upstream of 

Micheltorena St.

1.98E+00 1.08E–05 1.0

mc_8_11_t streamk Creek conductance adjustment 

parameter

Mission Creek parallel to 101 freeway downstream 

of Micheltorena St.

2.15E+02 1.08E–02 1.0

mcynftrmlt rch Small catchment recharge multiplier Small catchment recharge Mission Canyon area 

Storage Unit I

6.51E+00 1.00E–05 4.00

mcynrchmlt rch Small catchment recharge multiplier Small catchment recharge Mission Canyon area 

Foothill subbasin

1.26E+01 1.00E–05 4.00

mesa faultk Fault conductance Mesa fault west of Anapamu St. 2.08E–05 1.00E–07 1.00mesa_ab faultk Fault conductance Mesa fault at Arroyo Burro Creek 2.25E+00 1.00E–07 5.00

Table 3. Calibrated groundwater flow and solute transport model parameter values, Santa Barbara flow and transport model, Santa Barbara, Califor[/day, per day; ft, foot; ft2, square foot; GHB, general-head boundary package; HK, horizontal hydraulic conductivity; Rd., road; St., street; VK, vertical hydraulic conductivity; 
Parameter name Group Subgroup Description Calibrated value Lower bound Up

bou

mesa_lp faultk Fault conductance Mesa fault at Las Positas Creek 3.05E–01 1.00E–07 5.00mesal faultk Fault conductance Mesa fault east of Anapamu St. 5.08E–04 1.00E–07 1.00missinit rivers Creek stage adjustment parameter Base Creek water level above ground surface for all creeks 4.93E–01 3.28E–01 6.56missnb_s rivers Creek stage adjustment parameter Upstream segment of Mission Creek near northern boundary of model to just north of the Mission 3.28E–05 3.28E–06 1.64missnc_s rivers Creek stage adjustment parameter Mission Creek just north of the Mission to State St. 2.53E–02 3.28E–06 1.64missnd_s rivers Creek stage adjustment parameter Mission Creek from State St. to where it runs parallel to 101 freeway 2.53E–02 3.28E–06 1.64missne_s rivers Creek stage adjustment parameter Mission Creek parallel to 101 freeway upstream of Micheltorena St. 2.53E–02 3.28E–06 1.64missnf_s rivers Creek stage adjustment parameter Mission Creek parallel to 101 freeway downstream of Micheltorena St. 2.53E–02 3.28E–06 1.64montecito otherk General head boundary conductance Montecito GHB conductance shallow 1.61E+01 1.08E–05 1.0montecitol otherk General head boundary conductance Montecito GHB conductance deep 1.61E+01 1.08E–05 1.0montecitom otherk General head boundary conductance Montecito GHB conductance middle producing zone 1.08E–02 1.08E–05 1.0mpc fact Mobile porosity end member Shallow coarse 1.00E–01 5.00E–02 3.50mpclower fact Mobile porosity end member Deep coarse 7.00E–02 5.00E–02 3.50mpcmid fact Mobile porosity end member Middle coarse 3.50E–01 5.00E–02 3.50mpf fact Mobile porosity end member Shallow fine 5.00E–02 1.00E–03 1.50mpflower fact Mobile porosity end member Deep fine 4.00E–02 1.00E–03 1.50mpfmid fact Mobile porosity end member Middle fine 2.00E–01 1.00E–03 1.50mtnrchmult rch Small catchment recharge multiplier Small catchment recharge multiplier 1.00E–05 1.00E–05 7.50n_more faultk Fault conductance North More Ranch fault 1.12E–05 1.00E–07 1.00ne_more faultk Fault conductance Northeast More Ranch fault north of Calle Real Rd. 7.59E–04 1.00E–07 1.00ne_mores faultk Fault conductance Northeast More Ranch fault south of Calle Real Rd. 2.16E–04 1.00E–07 1.00norrb_s rivers Creek stage adjustment parameter Northridge Creek 4.87E–01 3.28E–06 4.92oceancond1 otherk General head boundary conductance Ocean GHB conductance upper confining layer across offshore fault 2.34E–04 1.08E–05 1.0oceancond2 otherk General head boundary conductance Ocean GHB conductance upper producing zone 

across offshore fault

1.14E–02 1.08E–05 1.0

oceancond3 otherk General head boundary conductance Ocean GHB conductance middle confining layer 

below middle producing zone across offshore fault

1.63E–01 1.08E–05 1.0

Table 3. Calibrated groundwater flow and solute transport model parameter values, Santa Barbara flow and transport model, Santa Barbara, Califor[/day, per day; ft, foot; ft2, square foot; GHB, general-head boundary package; HK, horizontal hydraulic conductivity; Rd., road; St., street; VK, vertical hydraulic conductivity; 
Parameter 

name Group Subgroup Description Calibrated value Lower bound Up

bou

oceancond4 otherk General head boundary conductance Ocean GHB conductance lower producing zone 

across offshore fault

1.94E+00 1.08E–02 1.0

oceancond5 otherk General head boundary conductance Ocean GHB conductance lower confining layer 

across offshore fault

3.94E–05 1.08E–05 1.0

oceancond6 otherk General head boundary conductance Ocean GHB conductance middle producing zone 

across offshore fault

3.23E+02 1.08E–03 1.0

oceancond7 otherk General head boundary conductance Ocean GHB conductance shallow zone across 

offshore fault

1.08E–01 1.08E–03 1.0

oceanconds otherk General head boundary conductance Ocean GHB conductance offshore ocean to ground 1.55E+01 1.08E–03 1.0pcrivfac aquiferk HK/VK multiplier Multiplier for HK/VK at upper Mission Creek river 

bed

3.65E+01 1.00E–01 1.00

pow fact VK power function for end members Power function exponent –1.0 –1.0 –1.00rainrch1abs rch Areal recharge parameter Rain recharge for infiltration zone 1 7.22E–05 3.28E–05 3.2rainrch2add rch Areal recharge parameter Additional rain recharge for infiltration zone 2 3.28E–03 3.28E–03 3.2rainrch3add rch Areal recharge parameter Additional rain recharge for infiltration zone 3 3.30E–03 3.28E–03 3.2rainrch4add rch Areal recharge parameter Additional rain recharge for infiltration zone 4 1.03E–02 3.28E–03 3.2sanroque_t streamk Creek conductance adjustment 

parameter

San Roque Creek 1.01E–03 1.08E–04 1.0

sanrql_s rivers Creek stage adjustment parameter San Roque Creek 2.04E–01 3.28E–06 4.92scynrchmlt rch Small catchment recharge multiplier Small catchment recharge Sycamore Canyon area 1.41E+00 1.00E–05 2.00septicrchabs rch Septic recharge parameter Septic recharge 7.58E–04 3.28E–10 8.20sscstcs ss Specific storage end member Specific storage coarse end member coastal area 1.05E–05 10.00E–07 10.00sscstfn ss Specific storage end member Specific storage fine end member coastal area 2.40E–04 10.00E–07 10.00sszon10cs ss Specific storage end member Specific storage coarse end member subregion 10 1.91E–06 10.00E–07 10.00sszon10fn ss Specific storage end member Specific storage fine end member subregion 10 3.79E–05 10.00E–07 10.00sszon1acs ss Specific storage end member Specific storage coarse end member subregions 1, 8, 

and 11

7.38E–07 10.00E–07 10.00

sszon1afn ss Specific storage end member Specific storage fine end member subregions 1, 8, 

and 11

7.76E–06 10.00E–07 10.00

sszon1bcs ss Specific storage end member Specific storage coarse end member subregion 6 2.51E–06 10.00E–07 10.00sszon1bfn ss Specific storage end member Specific storage fine end member subregion 6 2.91E–05 10.00E–07 10.00sszon1ccs ss Specific storage end member Specific storage coarse end member subregion 7 3.05E–07 3.05E–07 10.00sszon1cfn ss Specific storage end member Specific storage fine end member subregion 7 10.00E–07 10.00E–07 10.00

Table 3. Calibrated groundwater flow and solute transport model parameter values, Santa Barbara flow and transport model, Santa Barbara, Califor[/day, per day; ft, foot; ft2, square foot; GHB, general-head boundary package; HK, horizontal hydraulic conductivity; Rd., road; St., street; VK, vertical hydraulic conductivity; 
Parameter name Group Subgroup Description Calibrated value Lower bound Up

bou

sszon2cs ss Specific storage end member Specific storage coarse end member subregions 2 and 9 4.19E–07 3.05E–07 10.00sszon2fn ss Specific storage end member Specific storage fine end member subregions 2 and 9 2.57E–05 10.00E–07 10.00sszon3cs ss Specific storage end member Specific storage coarse end member subregions 3 and 13 3.90E–07 3.90E–07 10.00sszon3fn ss Specific storage end member Specific storage fine end member subregions 3 and 13 1.01E–04 10.00E–07 10.00sszon4cs ss Specific storage end member Specific storage coarse end member subregions 4 and 14 2.35E–05 10.00E–07 10.00sszon4fn ss Specific storage end member Specific storage fine end member subregions 4 and 14 1.29E–04 10.00E–07 10.00sszon5cs ss Specific storage end member Specific storage coarse end member subregion 5 10.00E–07 10.00E–07 10.00sszon5fn ss Specific storage end member Specific storage fine end member subregion 5 2.52E–05 10.00E–07 10.00sszonpmpcs ss Specific storage end member Specific storage coarse end member subregion 12 1.60E–06 3.90E–07 10.00sszonpmpfn ss Specific storage end member Specific storage fine end member subregion 12 1.69E–05 10.00E–07 10.00strcondinit streamk Creek conductance adjustment parameter Base Creek conductance for all creeks 8.19E+00 1.08E–01 1.0sufrlhk aquiferk HK/VK regional multiplier Storage Unit Four lower HK 1 0.001 100 sufrlvk aquiferk HK/VK regional multiplier Storage Unit Four lower VK 0.001 0.001 100 sufrrchmlt rch Small catchment recharge multiplier Small catchment recharge multiplier West Foothill Subbasin 3.03E–01 1.00E–05 2.50suoneadt aquiferk HK/VK regional/layer multiplier Subregion 1 lower confining layer 1.00E+03 1.00E–03 1.00suoneahkm aquiferk HK/VK regional multiplier Subregion 1 HK 3.41E+00 1.00E–03 1.00suonealp aquiferk HK/VK regional/layer multiplier Subregion 1 lower producing zone 2.00E+00 1.00E–03 1.00suoneamp aquiferk HK/VK regional/layer multiplier Subregion 1 middle producing zone 1.00E+00 1.00E–03 1.00suoneaup aquiferk HK/VK regional/layer multiplier Subregion 1 upper producing zone 1.00E+00 1.00E–03 1.00suoneauth aquiferk HK/VK regional/layer multiplier Subregion 1 upper confining layer HK 1.00E–02 1.00E–03 1.00suoneautv aquiferk HK/VK regional/layer multiplier Subregion 1 upper confining layer VK 1.00E+00 1.00E–03 1.00suoneavkm aquiferk HK/VK regional multiplier Subregion 1 VK 9.91E–01 1.00E–03 1.00suonebdt aquiferk HK/VK regional/layer multiplier Subregion 6 lower confining layer 1.00E+03 1.00E–03 1.00suonebhkm aquiferk HK/VK regional multiplier Subregion 6 HK 9.52E–01 1.00E–03 1.00suoneblp aquiferk HK/VK regional/layer multiplier Subregion 6 lower producing zone 8.00E–01 1.00E–03 1.00suonebmp aquiferk HK/VK regional/layer multiplier Subregion 6 middle producing zone 1.00E+00 1.00E–03 1.00

Table 3. Calibrated groundwater flow and solute transport model parameter values, Santa Barbara flow and transport model, Santa Barbara, Califor[/day, per day; ft, foot; ft2, square foot; GHB, general-head boundary package; HK, horizontal hydraulic conductivity; Rd., road; St., street; VK, vertical hydraulic conductivity; 
Parameter 

name Group Subgroup Description Calibrated value Lower bound Up

bou

suonebup aquiferk HK/VK regional/layer multiplier Subregion 6 upper producing zone 3.00E–01 1.00E–03 1.00suonebuth aquiferk HK/VK regional/layer multiplier Subregion 6 upper confining layer HK 1.00E+00 1.00E–03 1.00suonebutv aquiferk HK/VK regional/layer multiplier Subregion 6 upper confining layer VK 1.00E+00 1.00E–03 1.00suonebvkm aquiferk HK/VK regional multiplier Subregion 6 VK 1.08E+00 1.00E–03 1.00suonecdt aquiferk HK/VK regional/layer multiplier Subregion 7 lower confining layer 1.00E+03 1.00E–03 1.00suonechkm aquiferk HK/VK regional multiplier Subregion 7 HK 1.29E+00 1.00E–03 1.00suoneclp aquiferk HK/VK regional/layer multiplier Subregion 7 lower producing zone 6.00E–02 1.00E–03 1.00suonecmp aquiferk HK/VK regional/layer multiplier Subregion 7 middle producing zone 1.20E–01 1.00E–03 1.00suonecup aquiferk HK/VK regional/layer multiplier Subregion 7 upper producing zone 1.60E+00 1.00E–03 1.00suonecuth aquiferk HK/VK regional/layer multiplier Subregion 7 upper confining layer HK 1.00E+00 1.00E–03 1.00suonecutv aquiferk HK/VK regional/layer multiplier Subregion 7 upper confining layer VK 1.00E+00 1.00E–03 1.00suonecvkm aquiferk HK/VK regional multiplier Subregion 7 VK 1.35E+00 1.00E–03 1.00suonemchk aquiferk HK/VK regional multiplier Subregion 8 HK 6.71E+00 1.00E–03 1.00suonemcvk aquiferk HK/VK regional multiplier Subregion 8 VK 6.07E+00 1.00E–03 1.00suonemtlp aquiferk HK/VK regional/layer multiplier Subregion 8 lower producing zone 1.00E+00 1.00E–03 1.00suonenehk aquiferk HK/VK regional multiplier Subregion 6 HK 1.11E+00 1.00E–03 1.00suonenevk aquiferk HK/VK regional multiplier Subregion 6 VK 9.16E+00 1.00E–03 1.00suonenwhk aquiferk HK/VK regional multiplier Subregion 10 HK 1.00E–01 1.00E–03 1.00suonenwvk aquiferk HK/VK regional multiplier Subregion 10 VK 1.00E–01 1.00E–03 1.00suonepdt aquiferk HK/VK regional/layer multiplier Subregion 12 lower confining layer 1.00E+03 1.00E–03 1.00suoneplp aquiferk HK/VK regional/layer multiplier Subregion 12 lower producing zone 1.40E+00 1.00E–03 1.00suonepmp aquiferk HK/VK regional/layer multiplier Subregion 12 middle producing zone 2.00E+00 1.00E–03 1.00suonepumphk aquiferk HK/VK regional multiplier Subregion 12 HK 8.99E+00 1.00E–03 1.00suonepumpvk aquiferk HK/VK regional multiplier Subregion 12 VK 1.08E+00 1.00E–03 1.00suonepup aquiferk HK/VK regional/layer multiplier Subregion 12 upper producing zone 1.00E+00 1.00E–03 1.00suoneputh aquiferk HK/VK regional/layer multiplier Subregion 12 upper confining layer HK 1.00E+00 1.00E–03 1.00suoneputv aquiferk HK/VK regional/layer multiplier Subregion 12 upper confining layer VK 1.00E+00 1.00E–03 1.00suonerchmlt rch Small catchment recharge multiplier Small catchment recharge multiplier Storage Unit I 9.03E–01 1.00E–05 2.50suonezegt rch Layer pumping adjustment factor Storage Unit I pumping adjustment factor middle 

confining layer below middle producing zone

1.00E–04 1.00E–04 1.00

suonezetn rch Layer pumping adjustment factor Storage Unit I pumping adjustment factor confining 

layer immediately above lower producing zone

1.00E–04 1.00E–04 1.00

Table 3. Calibrated groundwater flow and solute transport model parameter values, Santa Barbara flow and transport model, Santa Barbara, Califor[/day, per day; ft, foot; ft2, square foot; GHB, general-head boundary package; HK, horizontal hydraulic conductivity; Rd., road; St., street; VK, vertical hydraulic conductivity; 
Parameter name Group Subgroup Description Calibrated value Lower bound Up

bou

suonezfive rch Layer pumping adjustment factor Storage Unit I pumping adjustment factor lower confining layer 1.00E–04 1.00E–04 1.00suonezfour rch Layer pumping adjustment factor Storage Unit I pumping adjustment factor lower producing zone 3.99E+00 1.00E–04 1.00suonezhdrd rch Layer pumping adjustment factor Storage Unit I pumping adjustment factor confining layer immediately above upper producing zone 1.00E–04 1.00E–04 1.00suoneznine rch Layer pumping adjustment factor Storage Unit I pumping adjustment factor soil horizon confining layer 1.00E–04 1.00E–04 1.00suonezone rch Layer pumping adjustment factor Storage Unit I pumping adjustment factor upper confining layer 1.00E–05 1.00E–05 1.00suonezsix rch Layer pumping adjustment factor Storage Unit I pumping adjustment factor middle producing zone 4.13E+00 1.00E–02 1.00suonezsvn rch Layer pumping adjustment factor Storage Unit I pumping adjustment factor confining layer immediately below middle producing zone 1.00E–04 1.00E–04 1.00suonezthree rch Layer pumping adjustment factor Storage Unit I pumping adjustment factor middle confining layer above middle producing zone 1.00E–01 1.00E–04 1.00suoneztwo rch Layer pumping adjustment factor Storage Unit I pumping adjustment factor upper producing zone 3.25E+00 1.00E–02 1.00suthehk aquiferk HK/VK regional multiplier Subregion 13 HK 1.00E–01 1.00E–03 1.00suthevk aquiferk HK/VK regional multiplier Subregion 13 VK 1.00E–01 1.00E–03 1.00suttfzfive rch Layer pumping adjustment factor Storage Unit III and Foothill Basin pumping adjustment factor lower confining layer 1.00E+00 1.00E–01 1.00suttfzfour rch Layer pumping adjustment factor Storage Unit III and Foothill Basin pumping adjustment factor lower producing zone 1.10E+01 1.00E–01 1.00suttfzone rch Layer pumping adjustment factor Storage Unit III and Foothill Basin pumping adjustment factor upper confining layer 6.04E–01 1.00E–01 1.00suttfzthree rch Layer pumping adjustment factor Storage Unit III and Foothill Basin pumping adjustment factor middle confining layer 1.00E+00 1.00E–01 1.00suttfztwo rch Layer pumping adjustment factor Storage Unit III and Foothill Basin pumping adjustment factor upper producing zone 3.02E+00 1.00E–01 1.00sutwolp aquiferk HK/VK regional/layer multiplier Subregion 2 lower producing zone 1.00E+00 1.00E–03 1.00sutwomchk aquiferk HK/VK regional multiplier Subregion 9 HK 2.08E+01 1.00E–03 1.00sutwomcvk aquiferk HK/VK regional multiplier Subregion 9 VK 2.13E+00 1.00E–03 1.00sutwouth aquiferk HK/VK regional/layer multiplier Subregion 2 upper confining layer HK 1.00E–03 1.00E–03 1.00sutwoutv aquiferk HK/VK regional/layer multiplier Subregion 2 lower confining layer VK 2.00E+00 1.00E–03 1.00

Table 3. Calibrated groundwater flow and solute transport model parameter values, Santa Barbara flow and transport model, Santa Barbara, Califor[/day, per day; ft, foot; ft2, square foot; GHB, general-head boundary package; HK, horizontal hydraulic conductivity; Rd., road; St., street; VK, vertical hydraulic conductivity; 
Parameter 

name Group Subgroup Description Calibrated value Lower bound Up

bou

sycacl_s rivers Creek stage adjustment parameter Sycamore Canyon Creek 4.61E–01 3.28E–06 3.2sycamore_t streamk Creek conductance adjustment 

parameter

Sycamore Canyon Creek 1.07E+00 1.00E–05 1.00

sycoast ss Specific yield simulated value Specific yield coastal area 1.60E–01 5.00E–02 3.50syzon10 ss Specific yield simulated value Specific yield subregion 10 1.79E–01 5.00E–02 3.50syzon1a ss Specific yield simulated value Specific yield subregions 1, 8, and 11 4.18E–02 1.00E–02 3.50syzon1b ss Specific yield simulated value Specific yield subregion 6 and 12 5.69E–02 5.00E–02 3.50syzon1c ss Specific yield simulated value Specific yield subregion 7 8.12E–02 5.00E–02 3.50syzon2 ss Specific yield simulated value Specific yield subregions 2 and 9 1.07E–02 1.00E–02 3.50syzon3 ss Specific yield simulated value Specific yield subregions 3 and 13 1.10E–01 1.00E–02 3.50syzon4 ss Specific yield simulated value Specific yield subregions 4 and 14 2.71E–02 5.00E–03 3.50syzon5 ss Specific yield simulated value Specific yield subregion 5 1.43E–01 5.00E–02 3.50viacha_s rivers Creek stage adjustment parameter Via Chaparral Creek 4.75E–01 3.28E–06 3.2vtransd dispersion Vertical transverse dispersivity Vertical shallow 3.28E–04 1.64E–04 1.64vtransddp dispersion Vertical transverse dispersivity Vertical deep 1.64E–01 1.64E–04 1.64zoneegtym aquiferk HK/VK layer multiplier Storage Unit I coastal confining layer between 

middle and lower producing zone HK

4.83E–01 1.00E–01 1.00

zoneegtyvm aquiferk HK/VK layer multiplier Storage Unit I coastal confining layer between 

middle and lower producing zone VK

5.00E–02 1.00E–05 1.00

zoneeightm aquiferk HK/VK layer multiplier Storage Unit I non-coastal confining layer between 

middle and lower producing zone HK

5.05E–01 1.00E–05 1.00

zoneeightvm aquiferk HK/VK layer multiplier Storage Unit I non-coastal confining layer between 

middle and lower producing zone VK

4.98E–01 1.00E–05 1.00

zoneetnm aquiferk HK/VK layer multiplier Storage Unit I bottom of confining layer between 

middle and lower producing zone HK

7.82E–04 1.00E–06 1.00

zoneetnvm aquiferk HK/VK layer multiplier Storage Unit I bottom of confining layer between 

middle and lower producing zone VK

7.82E–04 1.00E–06 1.00

zonefiveam aquiferk HK/VK layer multiplier Foothill basin and Storage Unit III lower confining 

layer below lower producing zone HK

1.08E–01 1.00E–03 1.00

zonefivem aquiferk HK/VK layer multiplier Storage Unit I lower confining layer below lower 

producing zone HK

1.00E–05 1.00E–05 1.00

zonefivevm aquiferk HK/VK layer multiplier Storage Unit I lower confining layer below lower 

producing zone VK

1.00E–05 1.00E–05 1.00

Table 3. Calibrated groundwater flow and solute transport model parameter values, Santa Barbara flow and transport model, Santa Barbara, Califor[/day, per day; ft, foot; ft2, square foot; GHB, general-head boundary package; HK, horizontal hydraulic conductivity; Rd., road; St., street; VK, vertical hydraulic conductivity; 
Parameter name Group Subgroup Description Calibrated value Lower bound Up

bou

zonefouram aquiferk HK/VK layer multiplier Foothill basin and Storage Unit III lower producing zone HK 3.89E+00 1.00E+00 1.00zonefourm aquiferk HK/VK layer multiplier Storage Unit I non-coastal lower producing zone HK 1.00E+00 1.00E+00 1.00zonefrsu2 aquiferk HK/VK layer multiplier Foothill basin lower producing zone HK 8.00E–02 1.00E–05 1.00zonefrtym aquiferk HK/VK layer multiplier Storage Unit I coastal lower producing zone HK 1.70E–01 1.00E+00 1.00zonefrtyvm aquiferk HK/VK layer multiplier Storage Unit I coastal lower producing zone VK 3.08E–02 1.00E–02 1.00zoneninem aquiferk HK/VK layer multiplier Storage Unit I non-coastal upper confining layer soil surface HK 7.50E–02 1.00E–05 1.00zoneninevm aquiferk HK/VK layer multiplier Storage Unit I non-coastal upper confining layer soil surface VK 7.50E–02 1.00E–05 1.00zonenintym aquiferk HK/VK layer multiplier Storage Unit I coastal upper confining layer soil surface HK 7.50E–02 1.00E–05 1.00zonenintyvm aquiferk HK/VK layer multiplier Storage Unit I coastal upper confining layer soil surface VK 7.50E–02 1.00E–05 1.00zoneohdrm aquiferk HK/VK layer multiplier Storage Unit I bottom of upper confining layer HK 6.53E–04 1.00E–04 1.00zoneohdrom aquiferk HK/VK layer multiplier Upper confining layer at Mission Creek HK 1.00E+01 1.00E–04 1.00zoneoneam aquiferk HK/VK layer multiplier Foothill Basin and Storage Unit III upper confining layer HK 2.71E+00 1.00E–03 5.00zoneonem aquiferk HK/VK layer multiplier Storage Unit I upper confining layer HK 7.41E–01 1.00E–03 1.00zoneonevm aquiferk HK/VK layer multiplier Storage Unit I upper confining layer VK 7.02E–01 1.00E–05 1.00zoneothsm aquiferk HK/VK layer multiplier Storage Unit I coastal bottom of upper confining layer HK 9.76E–04 1.00E–04 1.00zonesevenm aquiferk HK/VK layer multiplier Storage Unit I non-coastal confining layer directly below middle producing zone HK 5.34E–05 1.00E–06 1.00zonesevenvm aquiferk HK/VK layer multiplier Storage Unit I non-coastal confining layer directly below middle producing zone VK 5.34E–05 1.00E–06 1.00zonesixm aquiferk HK/VK layer multiplier Storage Unit I non-coastal middle producing zone HK 8.17E–01 1.00E–01 1.00zonesixvm aquiferk HK/VK layer multiplier Storage Unit I non-coastal middle producing zone VK 8.17E–01 1.00E–01 1.00zonesvtym aquiferk HK/VK layer multiplier Storage Unit I coastal confining layer directly below 

middle producing zone HK

1.09E–01 1.00E–06 1.00

zonesvtyvm aquiferk HK/VK layer multiplier Storage Unit I coastal confining layer directly below 

middle producing zone VK

3.52E–04 1.00E–06 1.10

Table 3. Calibrated groundwater flow and solute transport model parameter values, Santa Barbara flow and transport model, Santa Barbara, Califor[/day, per day; ft, foot; ft2, square foot; GHB, general-head boundary package; HK, horizontal hydraulic conductivity; Rd., road; St., street; VK, vertical hydraulic conductivity; 
Parameter 

name Group Subgroup Description Calibrated value Lower bound Up

bou

zonesxhdm aquiferk HK/VK layer multiplier Storage Unit I coastal middle producing zone HK 1.00E+00 1.00E–02 1.00zonesxhdvm aquiferk HK/VK layer multiplier Storage Unit I coastal middle producing zone VK 1.00E–05 1.00E–06 1.00zonesxtym aquiferk HK/VK layer multiplier Storage Unit I western edge of middle producing 

zone HK

1.00E–02 1.00E–03 1.00

zonesxtyom aquiferk HK/VK layer multiplier Storage Unit I eastern edge of middle producing 

zone HK

1.00E–05 1.00E–06 1.00

zonesxtyvm aquiferk HK/VK layer multiplier Storage Unit I western edge of middle producing 

zone VK

1.00E–02 1.00E–03 1.00

zonetenm aquiferk HK/VK layer multiplier Storage Unit I coastal upper zone above upper 

producing zone HK

4.74E+00 1.00E–01 1.00

zonetenvm aquiferk HK/VK layer multiplier Storage Unit I coastal upper zone above upper 

producing zone VK

4.55E+00 1.00E–01 1.00

zonethd aquiferk HK/VK layer multiplier Storage Unit I non-coastal confining layer directly 

above middle producing zone VK

1.00E–01 1.00E–05 1.00

zonethreeam aquiferk HK/VK layer multiplier Foothill Basin and Storage Unit III middle confining 

layer HK

3.00E–01 1.00E–05 1.00

zonethreem aquiferk HK/VK layer multiplier Storage Unit I non-coastal middle zone above middle 

producing zone HK

3.01E–01 1.00E–03 1.00

zonethreevm aquiferk HK/VK layer multiplier Storage Unit I non-coastal middle zone above middle 

producing zone VK

3.01E–01 1.00E–03 1.00

zonethrsu2 aquiferk HK/VK layer multiplier Foothill Basin middle confining layer HK 6.33E–03 1.00E–05 1.00zonethtym aquiferk HK/VK layer multiplier Storage Unit I coastal middle zone above middle 

producing zone HK

5.74E–02 1.00E–06 1.00

zonethtyvm aquiferk HK/VK layer multiplier Storage Unit I coastal middle zone above middle 

producing zone VK

2.74E–02 1.00E–06 1.00

zonetwoam aquiferk HK/VK layer multiplier Foothill Basin and Storage Unit III upper producing 

zone HK

5.45E+00 1.00E+00 1.00

zonetwom aquiferk HK/VK layer multiplier Storage Unit I non-coastal upper producing zone HK 1.30E+00 8.50E–01 1.00zonetwosu2 aquiferk HK/VK layer multiplier Foothill Basin upper producing zone HK 5.00E+00 1.00E–05 1.00

Table 3. Calibrated groundwater flow and solute transport model parameter values, Santa Barbara flow and transport model, Santa Barbara, Califor[/day, per day; ft, foot; ft2, square foot; GHB, general-head boundary package; HK, horizontal hydraulic conductivity; Rd., road; St., street; VK, vertical hydraulic conductivity; 
Figure 8. Calibrated horizontal-flow-barrier hydraulic-characteristic values (per day), Santa Barbara flow and transport model, Santa Barbara, Calif

Cieneguitas

Cre ek

Sy

ca

m

ore

Creek

Miss

oi n

Cr e

ek Atas c adero C reek

A

rr oyo

Burro

San

Roque Cree k 1.0E–04

1.1E–05

2.1E–05 3.1E–01

2.1E–05

5.1E–05

1.1E–08 1.0E+01

2.6E–06 8.6E–05

2.3E+00

2.2E–04

7.6E–04

7.5E–08

5.2E–08

EAST

MORE RANCH FAULT

MODOC FAULT ROCKY NOOK FAULT

LAGO ON FAULT LAVIGIA FAULT

MESA FAULT

UNNAMED

FAULT

FOOTHILL

FAULT NORTHEAST MORE RANCH FAULT

SANTA YNEZ MOUNTAINS

PA C I F I 

Goleta

Basin

119°46' 119°44' 119°42' 119°40'

34°27'34°26'34°25'

R. 28 W. R. 27 W.

0 0.5 1 MILE

0 0.5 1 KILOMETER

Figure C8. Flow Barriers

EXPLANATION

Production well

12

345

6

78910

11121314

Flow barrier Storage units

Major streamsGrid cell

Santa Barbara city

production well

Faults

Existence certain, location inferredExistence questionable, location inferredExistence certain, location concealedExistence questionable, location concealedExistence certain, location accurateExistence certain, location approximate

Base modified from U.S. Geological Survey and other Federal and State digital data, various scales; Transverse Mercator projection, zone 11N; North American Datum of 1983 (NAD 83)

Storage units from Muir, 

faults from M

Stud

are

PACIFIC OCEAN 
Chapter C: Numerical Model of Groundwater Flow and Solute Transport 145

Storage Properties

Specific storage (SS) was estimated for each subregion 

and area using the textural model. The percentage of coarseand fine-grained material in each groundwater-model cell 

from the HFM (see chapter B) was used to define specificstorage values. Specific storage was calculated using weighted 

averaging, as shown in equation 7:

SS PC SS PF SS texture c   x f   x (7)

where

PC and PF are the percentage of coarse and fine sediment 

in a given model percentage, expressed 

as a fraction, of course and fine sediment, 

respectively, in a given model cell, and

SScx and SSfx are the coarse and fine specific-storage end 

members, respectively, by subregion.

To simulate unconfined conditions, the specific-storage 

values of the uppermost layer of the SBFTM were estimated 

separately. The specific-storage values for each cell in the 

topmost layer were defined by specific yield (SY) divided 

by the thickness of the model cell and were not based on the 

HFM. A separate specific-yield value was estimated for each 

subregion (see parameter group “ss” in table 3).

Solute-Transport Properties

Each source of recharge in the SBFTM was assigned 

a chloride concentration to represent the salinity. 

Precipitation, small-catchment recharge, stream recharge, 

septic recharge, and flow across the Montecito GHB were 

considered freshwater recharge and were assigned a chloride 

concentration of 100 milligrams per liter (mg/L), which is 

typical of fresh water (Goldman and Horne, 1983). Recharge 

across the ocean GHB was considered to be seawater and 

assigned a chloride concentration representative of seawater: 

19,000 mg/L (Langevin and others, 2008).

Three additional aquifer properties are needed to simulate 

solute transport: porosity, dispersivity, and diffusion. Porosity 

values (P) for each model cell were approximated using the 

percentage of coarse and fine sediments in that model cell. 

Different textural end-member porosity values (Pcx and Pfx) 

were used for the lower producing zone, the middle producing 

zone, and the rest of the SBFTM. Similar to storage values, 

porosity was calculated using weighted averages (equation 7).

The three components of dispersivity (longitudinal, 

horizontal transverse, and vertical transverse) were defined for 

two dispersivity zones: an upper dispersivity zone consisting 

of model layers 1–27 and a lower dispersivity zone consisting 

of model layers 28–56. The upper dispersivity zone includes 

the upper and middle producing zones, which, on the basis of 

numerical testing, had different transport properties than the 

lower producing zone. The lower dispersivity zone included 

the deeper part of the middle zone and the lower producing 

zone. The dispersivity values were estimated separately by 

trial-and-error for the upper and lower dispersivity zones. The 

final, calibrated dispersivity values are presented in table 3. 

Diffusion (representing molecular effects) was defined as a 

constant value, 9.30E-04 ft2/d, typical of alluvial sediments 

throughout the SBFTM area (Freeze and Cherry, 1979). 

Model Calibration Approach

The SBFTM was calibrated in two parts: predevelopment 

and transient. Model calibration of the predevelopment and 

transient models was done in sequence and simultaneously 

using measured data described in the next section. As 

mentioned previously, to simulate predevelopment conditions 

(no stresses), groundwater flow and solute transport 

were simulated for 10,000 years to allow the flow and 

concentration fields to equilibrate to specified initial and 

boundary conditions in 10-year time steps. Calibration of the 

predevelopment conditions was accomplished by varying 

small-catchment recharge, creek-bed conductance and stage, 

areal recharge, drain conductance, general-head boundary 

conductance, hydraulic conductivity, flow-barrier conductance, 

porosity, dispersivity, and diffusion. As mentioned earlier, 

the transient simulation represents the period from 1929 to 

2013; however, the focus of the transient calibration was the 

period from 1972 to 2013. In addition to the predevelopment 

parameters listed above, specific storage, specific yield, the 

vertical distribution of pumpage, and septic recharge were also 

varied.

Calibration of the SBFTM was accomplished using 

a combination of automated and trial-and-error methods. 

Initially, PEST (Doherty, 2010) was used for automated 

calibration of the flow and transport parameters. In addition, 

PEST was used to assess the sensitivities of parameters used 

in the parameter-estimation process. During the preliminary 

calibration process, it was found that PEST did not estimate 

the transport parameters well; this could be related to the 

highly nonlinear nature of the density-dependent groundwater 

flow and transport problem. Therefore, automated calibration 

was primarily used to calibrate the groundwater-flow 

component of the SBFTM and trial-and-error calibration 

was used to calibrate the solute-transport component of the 

SBFTM. Bounds on model parameters were set to keep 

parameters within a realistic range of values. 

Hydraulic properties were checked for unrealistic values 

during calibration. Groundwater budgets were regularly 

examined during the calibration process, and budget 

components were compared with previously published results 

(for example, Freckleton and others, 1998).
146 Santa Barbara and Foothill Groundwater Basins Geohydrology and Optimal Water Resources Management

Measured Data

Five types of observation data were used during model 

calibration: water levels, changes in water levels (drawdowns), 

chloride concentrations, changes in chloride concentrations 

(figs. 8, 9), and published infiltration rates along segments of 

Mission Creek. The SBFTM was calibrated to 24,884 waterlevel observations from 75 wells and to 1,064 chlorideconcentration observations from 52 wells. Water-level 

observations were used to compute changes in water levels 

for each stress period for each well. Similarly, chlorideconcentration observations were used to calculate the changes 

in chloride concentrations. Water-level observations, computed 

water-level changes, chloride-concentration observations, and 

computed chloride-concentration changes were compared with 

simulated results. Infiltration rates along segments of Mission 

Creek estimated by McFadden and others (1987) also were 

used in the calibration process (fig. 9).

Selection of Well Data

Water-level and chloride data were reviewed for 

consistency and accuracy before use as model-observation 

data. Data points that were inconsistent with other data points 

or trends and appeared to be in error were removed, as were 

data collected from wells at or very near a production well and 

recorded while the production well was active. In addition, 

water-level data from wells perforated in the shallow zone (a 

perched aquifer) were not included because the SBFTM was 

not designed to simulate a perched aquifer. Likewise, chloride 

data were reviewed with water-level data to determine if 

and when well casings had corroded to the point of failure. 

Chloride and water-level data that were thought to be 

influenced by failed well casings were excluded; for example, 

water levels from wells 4N/27W-09Q1 and 4N/27W-09M1 

(fig. 9) were not used.

Water-Level Data

For model calibration, water-level data were needed 

that were representative of the main aquifer conditions 

and distributed spatially and temporally throughout the 

simulated subbasins—vertically through the upper, middle, 

and lower producing zones and temporally during the key 

transient calibration period (1972–2013). Water-level data 

were distributed at 75 geographic locations throughout 

Storage Unit I, Storage Unit III, and East and West Foothill 

subbasins (fig. 9). Multiple-completion wells recording 

groundwater levels at multiple depths were present at 22 of 

the 75 geographic well locations. Water-level data from these 

wells included the entire main simulation period from 1972 to 

2013; however, water-level data prior to 1975 were available 

for only a few of these wells.

Chloride-Concentration Data

To calibrate the SBHTM for seawater intrusion, chlorideconcentration data measured in Storage Unit I were used. 

Specifically, data were available from between the coast and 

the City Hall, Vera Cruz, Corporation Yard, De la Guerra, and 

Ortega Park production wells in the upper, middle, and lower 

producing zones (fig. 10). Chloride data from eight key well 

clusters recorded chloride concentrations at various depths. 

Four of the clusters (4N/27W-23F02–04, 4N/27W-23F05–08, 

4N/27W-23E01–04, and 4N/27W-23E05–06) are near the 

coast; two of the clusters (4N/27W-22A02–05 and 4N/27W22G02–04) are between the production wells and the coast, 

about 0.5 miles (mi) from the coast and 0.25 mi from the 

production wells. The last two clusters (4N/27W-22B02–05 

and 4N/27W-22B08–11) are near the Vera Cruz production 

well (fig. 10).

The SBFTM was not designed to simulate the flow of 

chlorides from the underlying bedrock to the lower producing 

zone. As stated in chapter A, higher chloride concentrations 

in wells 4N/27W-22B04, 05, and 08 were likely due to 

pumping from the Vera Cruz production well drawing 

saline water from the underlying shale. The SBFTM was, 

therefore, not calibrated to these particular measured chloride 

concentrations.

Model Parameters

A total of 254 parameters were used in the SBFTM to 

define horizontal and vertical hydraulic conductivity; specific 

storage; specific yield; the pumping distribution of individual 

wells by layer; the conductance of horizontal-flow barriers, 

general-head boundaries, drains, and creeks; stream stage; 

drain elevation; areal and septic recharge infiltration rates; 

dispersivity; and porosity. In general, all 254 parameters were 

estimated; however, some were fixed during the course of 

calibration.

Table 3 contains the calibrated model-parameter values 

used in the SBFTM. Parameters in table 3 are grouped into 

eight types: hydraulic conductivity, storage, conductance, 

head or stage, pumpage distribution, recharge, porosity, and 

dispersivity.

Parameters affecting the hydraulic and transport 

properties and the vertical distribution of pumping were 

described earlier. In addition to these parameters, those 

affecting small-catchment recharge, areal recharge, and early 

pumpage were estimated.

As discussed in the “Simulated Groundwater Recharge” 

section, small-catchment recharge was divided into seven 

segments based on topography (fig. 2) and was estimated by 

scaling parameters for each small-catchment segment along 

the northern model border with the Santa Ynez Mountains 

(table 3). Recharge was determined by parameter estimation, 

and the initial recharge amounts were based on Freckleton 

and others (1998). The initial recharge amounts were modified 

using a segment multiplier, which was determined by 

parameter estimation.
Chapter C: Numerical Model of Groundwater Flow and Solute Transport 147

Figure 9. Monitoring wells with available water-level data and Mission Creek segments where infiltration rates were estimated by 

McFadden and others (1987), Santa Barbara and Foothill groundwater basins, Santa Barbara, California.

Barbara

0 1 2 MILES

0 1 2 KILOMETERS

EXPLANATION

Base modified from U.S. Geological Survey and other 

Federal and State digital data, various scales; 

Transverse Mercator projection, zone 11N; 

North American Datum of 1983 (NAD 83)

Storage units from Muir, 1968; Freckleton and others, 1998;

faults from Muir, 1968; Minor and others, 2009; geology

modified from Minor and others, 2009

Study

area

PACIFIC 

OCEAN

CALIFORNIA

SANTA

BARBARA

COUNTY

Mission Creek

San Roque Creek

Arroyo Burro

Ciene guitas Cr e ek

Atascadero Cre e k

Sycamore Creek

Mission

Creek

101

101

EAST MORE

RANCH FAULT

MODOC FAULT

ROCKY NOOK FAULT

LA GOON FAULT LAVIGIA FAULT

MESA FAULT

UNNAMED

FAULT

FOOTHILL

FAULT

NORTHEAST MORE RANCH FAULT

119°46' 119°44' 119°42' 119°40'

34°28'

34°27'

34°26'

34°25'

34°24'

Highway

Major creeks

Mission Creek

Subbasins

West Foothill

East Foothill

Storage Unit I

Storage Unit III

Monitoring well and identifier 16E2

Infiltration estimation site

Santa Barbara city production 

well and identifier

Vera Cruz

Faults

Existence certain, location inferred

Existence questionable, location inferred

Existence certain, location concealed

Existence questionable, location concealed

Existence certain, location accurate

Existence certain, location approximate

PACIFIC OCEAN

SANTA YNEZ MOUNTAINS

Hope Ranch

subbasin

Goleta

Basin

Montecito

Basin

Lauro

Canyon

Mission

Canyon

Sycamore

Canyon

T.

5

N.

T.

4

N.

R. 28 W. R. 27 W. R. 26 W.

5P1 6Q9

7D1 7G7

7H5

7M6

7Q5

7R3

8E1

8E4

8E2

8L2

8L3 8M5-6 8R2

9M1

9Q1

14K2

14P1

14R1

15E1

15E2

15G1

15J1 15J2

15K1

15Q10

16C1-2

16E2

16R1

17J1

17L2-4

17L5

18B5

18C2-3

18Q1

18Q4

19A1-3 21B1 21E1-3

21F1-2

21G1-2

22A2-5 22B2-5

22B6

22B7-11

22C1

22E1-2

22G2-4

22M1-2

22Q1

23D1

23E1-4 23E5-623F1

23F2-4

23F5-7

23F8-9

23H1-4 24B1

24D2

12B1

12C2

12H4 12L5-7

12R1-2

12R3

1R1-2 6Q12

7J5

7K8

7K9

22B1

7L10

23M1

23M2-3

18B3

22J4

22J3

22J1-2

17M1

21G3

21G5

17L1

21G4

Ortega Park

SB

High

School

Lincolnwood 1

Los

Robles

Hope Avenue

City Hall

Vera

Cruz

Alameda Park

San Roque Park 2

Corporation Yard

Figure C9.Monitoring wells with available water-level data and Mission

Creek segments where infiltration rates were estimated by McFadden

and other (1987), Santa Barbara, CA.
148 Santa Barbara and Foothill Groundwater Basins Geohydrology and Optimal Water Resources Management

Figure 10. Monitoring wells with chloride concentration data near the coast of the city of Santa Barbara, California.

EXPLANATION

Figure 10.Key monitoring wells with chloride concentration data near

the coast of the City of Santa Barbara, California

Monitoring well and identifier—

Number in parentheses is peak

chloride concentration in 

milligram per liter and purple 

number indicates year 

measurement was made

21E2(220)1989

Subbasins

Storage Unit I

Storage Unit III

Highway

Faults

Existence certain, location inferred

Existence questionable, location inferred

Existence certain, location concealed

Existence certain, location accurate

De la Guerra

Production well and identifier

Santa Barbara city production 

well and identifier

Vera Cruz

Base modified from U.S. Geological Survey and other 

Federal and State digital data, various scales; 

Transverse Mercator projection, zone 11N; 

North American Datum of 1983 (NAD 83)

Storage units from Muir, 1968; Freckleton and others, 1998;

faults from Muir, 1968; Minor and others, 2009

Missio n Creek

Syc a more Creek

MESA FAULT

LAGOON FAULT

101

101

0 0.5 1 MILE

0 0.5 1 KILOMETER

14K2

14P1

14R1

15J1

15J2

15K1

15Q10 16R1

21B1

21G2

22B6

22C1

22Q1

23D1

24B1

23E5 24D2

23E6

23F4

23F3

23F2

(150)

(34)

(200)

(75)

(70)

(87)

(63) (130)

(151)

21E2 (220)

21E3 (140)

(160)

(67)

(58)

22E1 (68)

22E2 (68)

(370)

(140)

(120)

(2,000) 22A5(140)

22A4(29)

22A3(22)

22A2(57)

22B5 (1,200)

22B4 (840)

22B3 (29)

22B2 (130)

22G4(27)

22G3(20)

22G2(76)

22B11(140)

22B10(31)

22B9(73)

22B8(1,600)

23E4 (170)

23E3 (100)

23E2 (5,400)

23E1 (9,700)

(3,900)

(34)

(14,000)

(830)

(190) 23H4(2,900)

23H3(4,900)

23H2(4,400)

23H1(2,700)

23F9 (730)

23F8 (18,100)

23F7 (180)

23F6 (660)

23F5 (17,000)

1940

1979 1964

1977

1979

1961

1981

1994

1989

1990

1984

1979

1995

2000

1982

1995

1987

1992

1987

1979

1981

1963

2000

1981

1990

1990

1988

1991

1987

1987

1987

1986

1987

1990

1992

1986

2000

1991

2000

1989

1990

1990

1992

1981

1990

1982

1981

1986

1986

2014

1991

1979

PA C I F I C O C E A N

STORAGE UNIT I

STORAGE UNIT III

119°43' 119°42' 119°41' 119°40'

34°26'

34°25'30"

34°25'

34°24'30"

T.

4

N.

R. 27 W.

PACIFIC OCEAN

Study Area Map Area

Santa Barbara

CALIFORNIA

De la Guerra Ortega

Park

Corporation

Yard

City

Hall

Vera

Cruz
Chapter C: Numerical Model of Groundwater Flow and Solute Transport 149

Areal recharge infiltration rates for four infiltration 

zones were simulated using four parameters that control the 

infiltration percentage of precipitation in each zone. The range 

for the calibrated areal recharge parameters was 7.22E-05–

1.69E-02 ft/d (table 3). Note that in table 3, the recharge flux 

rates for infiltration zones 2–4 are cumulative. For example, 

the recharge flux rate for infiltration zone 4 equals rainrch1abs

+rainrch2add+rainrch3add+rainrch4add.

Septic recharge was simulated using a single multiplier 

as a parameter. The calibrated septic recharge parameter was 

7.58E-04 ft/d (table 3), which equals a total flow rate of about 

71 acre-ft/yr. This flow rate is greater than the previously 

calculated septic recharge of 65 acre-ft/yr; however, this 

value did not include the unknown recharge from the rest 

home, restaurant, or retail store. Therefore, 71 acre-ft/yr was 

considered to be a reasonable estimate.

Before 1971, the pumpage data were incomplete. Total 

model-area pumpage was often known, but the amount of 

pumpage from each production well could not always be 

deduced. One of these cases was from 1964 to 1971, when 

only the McKenzie #1 and De La Guerra production wells 

were in operation. A single parameter was used to distribute 

pumpage between the McKenzie #1 and De La Guerra wells 

during these years. The parameter was constrained such that 

the total pumpage between these two wells equaled the known 

total pumpage.

Sensitivity Analysis

PEST calculates an objective function value based 

on the sum of squared differences between measured and 

simulated results (Doherty, 2010). The sensitivity process in 

PEST calculates the change of the objective function as each 

parameter is varied. The sensitivity of the simulated results 

to a parameter is determined by the amount the objective 

function changes when that parameter is varied incrementally; 

the more the objective function changes, the more sensitive 

the objective function is to that parameter. Composite scaled 

sensitivity (CSS) values were used to show relative sensitivity; 

the definition and derivation are described in Doherty (2010). 

Note that the solute-transport parameters resulting from trialand-error calibration were included in the sensitivity analysis.

The sensitivity analysis indicated that, in general, the 

SBFTM is sensitive to recharge-related parameters (fig. 11A). 

Specifically, the SBFTM is most sensitive to parameters 

controlling the amount of small-catchment recharge 

(parameter mtnrchmult) and areal recharge (parameter 

rainrch1abs; fig. 11A). The SBFTM is also sensitive to 

parameters controlling stream-recharge rates and pumping 

distribution.

The CSS values for simulated hydraulic head and 

drawdowns are presented in figures 11B and C, respectively. 

The hydraulic heads and drawdowns were sensitive to the 

same parameters (for example, small catchment, areal, and 

creeks); however, the drawdown CSS values were less than the 

hydraulic head CSS values. Because drawdown is a quantity 

expressing change (difference in initial and final head) and 

hydraulic head is an absolute quantity, it is not surprising that 

drawdown was less sensitive to the parameterization of the 

model.

The CSS values for simulated chloride concentrations 

and changes in simulated chloride concentrations are 

presented in figures 11D and E, respectively. The chloride 

concentrations and changes in concentrations were sensitive 

to the same parameters (for example, recharge-related and 

pumpage-distribution parameters), and the three most sensitive 

parameters for each had very similar CSS values. For the less 

sensitive parameters, however, the CSS values for the chloride 

concentrations were greater than those for the change in 

chloride concentrations, for the same reason as was explained 

in the previous paragraph for hydraulic head and drawdown.

Of the solute-transport parameters, simulated chloride 

concentrations and changes in chloride concentrations were 

most sensitive to porosity (figs. 11D, E). Specifically, the 

simulated values were more sensitive to the porosity of 

coarse-grained sediments (parameters mpclower and mpc 

in figs. 11D, E) than to that of fine sediment (parameter 

mpf) because pumping in the coarse-grained layers draws 

seawater landward. Dispersivity parameters were generally 

less sensitive than the porosity parameters; deep longitudinal 

dispersivity (parameter dispdp) was the most sensitive 

dispersivity parameter, with a CSS value of 1.39 (fig. 11D).

Figure 11F presents the CSS values for the simulated 

values overall and for four of the simulated variables or 

their derivatives: hydraulic head, change in hydraulic head, 

chloride concentration, and change in chloride concentration; 

sensitivity scores were grouped by parameter type (horizontal 

axis). It is misleading to compare the CSS values within a 

parameter group because the CSS values are functions of the 

simulated values. Simulated chloride concentrations were 

as high as 19,000 mg/L, whereas simulated hydraulic head 

values might be in the hundreds; therefore, the CSS values 

for chloride were greater than those for hydraulic head. For 

comparative purposes, the CSS values in a parameter group 

were divided by the greatest value in order to normalize the 

CSS values (fig. 12). The most sensitive parameter groups 

were fault conductance, creek stage, creek conductance, and 

specific storage related (fig. 12). The least sensitive parameter 

groups were transport related (dispersion and porosity; 

fig. 12).
150 Santa Barbara and Foothill Groundwater Basins Geohydrology and Optimal Water Resources Management

sac16-062_IP-075076_figC11A_sensitivity

Source filename: Figure11_12_Sensitivities_new.xlsx

0.01

0.1

1

10

Composite scaled sensitivity, unitless

Parameter

mtnrchmult

rainrch1abs

missinit

suonezone

strcondinit

rainrch2add

mc_4_6_t

norrb_s

kc1

sufrrchmlt

mc_1_4_t

mpclower

ic_pmp_mac

oceancond4

mpc

suonebhkm

suoneblp

zonetwom

zonefourm

suonechkm

suonezhdrd

suonezsvn

suoneznine

zonefrtym

suoneplp

kf1

suonepup

A

Figure 11. Composite scaled sensitivity values for the Santa Barbara flow and transport model, Santa Barbara, California: A, all 

simulated values; B, hydraulic head; C, drawdown; D, chloride concentration; E, change in chloride concentration; and F, grouped by 

parameter type.

0.01

0.1

1

10

mtnrchmult

rainrch1abs

missinit

strcondinit

rainrch2add

norrb_s

mc_4_6_t

sufrrchmlt

mc_1_4_t

kc1

suonezone

ic_pmp_mac

zonefourm

kc2

suonebhkm

atascb_s

arryob_s

drainfha

sufrrch_ic

cieneu_s

rainrch3add

suoneahkm

e_more_4a

suonealp

abcynrchmt

ne_mores

zoneonem

suoneblp

septicrchabs

zonetwosu2

Composite scaled sensitivity, unitless

Parameter

B

0.01

0.1

1

10

mtnrchmult

rainrch1abs

missinit

suonezone

kc1

strcondinit

rainrch2add

ic_pmp_mac

suonebhkm

mc_4_6_t

norrb_s

mc_1_4_t

suoneblp

kf1

zonefourm

sufrrchmlt

zonetwom

suoneplp

suonechkm

kc2

zonetwoam

sufrrch_ic

zonetwosu2

suonepup

zonesixm

sszonpmpfn

zonethreevm

suonecvkm

suonepmp

suonezhdrd

Composite scaled sensitivity, unitless

Parameter

C
Chapter C: Numerical Model of Groundwater Flow and Solute Transport 151

sac16-062_IP-075076_figC11D_Chloride observation sensitivity

Source filename: Figure11_12_Sensitivities_new.xlsx

1

10

100

1,000

mtnrchmult

rainrch1abs

suonezone

mpclower

oceancond4

mpc

missinit

suoneblp

zonetwom

strcondinit

suonechkm

zonefrtym

suonebhkm

kc1

mc_4_6_t

suonepup

suoneplp

zonefourm

mpcmid

ic_pmp_mac

zonesixm

suonecvkm

rainrch2add

kf1

zonesxhdvm

dispdp

suonepmp

vtransddp

mpf

suoneahkm

Composite scaled sensitivity, unitless

Parameter

D

0.1

1

10

100

1,000

mtnrchmult

rainrch1abs

suonezone

suonezhdrd

suonezsvn

suoneznine

rainrch2add

missinit

strcondinit

zonefourm

mpclower

mpc

oceancond4

mpcmid

kc1

zonetwom

mc_4_6_t

suonechkm

fhdrainhd

suonecvkm

suonebhkm

suoneblp

zonesxhdvm

ic_pmp_mac

zonefrtym

suoneplp

rainrch3add

mpf

zonesixm

suoneclp

Composite scaled sensitivity, unitless

Parameter

E

Figure 11. —Continued
152 Santa Barbara and Foothill Groundwater Basins Geohydrology and Optimal Water Resources Management

Figure 11. —Continued

Figure 12. Normalized composite scaled sensitivity values, grouped by parameter types for all simulated values, hydraulic head, 

drawdown, chloride concentration, and change in chloride concentration, Santa Barbara flow and transport model, Santa Barbara, 

California.

sac16-062_IP-075076_figC11F_Observation sensitivities to parameter groups

Source filename: Figure11_12_Sensitivities_new.xlsx

0.001

0.01

0.1

1

10

100

1,000

Recharge Pumping layer

distribution

River

conductance

Hydraulic

conductivity

Specific

storage

Stream

conductance

Fault

conductance

Dispersion Porosity

Senstivity

All Head Drawdown Chloride Change in chloride

EXPLANATION F

Parameter group

0.0001

0.001

0.01

0.1

1

Normalized senstivity

Recharge Pumping layer

distribution

Creek

stage

Specific

storage

Creek

conductance

Fault

conductance

Hydraulic Dispersion Porosity

conductivity

All Head Drawdown Chloride Change in chloride

EXPLANATION

Parameter group
Chapter C: Numerical Model of Groundwater Flow and Solute Transport 153

Simulation Results

Hydraulic-conductivity and storage values were not 

estimated directly through parameter estimation. Values for 

these flow parameters were calculated using the extent of the 

parameter range and multipliers. A brief discussion regarding 

these parameters follows.

The majority of calibrated hydraulic conductivities 

ranged from about 102 to about 10–5 ft/d (fig. 13). Horizontal 

hydraulic conductivities had a median value of 1.02 ft/d 

and were concentrated over a narrow range; more than 

74 percent were between 0.5 and 50.0 ft/d. Vertical hydraulic 

conductivities had a median value of 0.02 ft/d and were also 

concentrated over a narrow range; more than 56 percent were 

between 0.005 and 0.5 ft/d. The median anisotropy ratio of 

vertical to horizontal hydraulic conductivity was 0.03.

Land subsidence has not been detected in the Santa 

Barbara area. If the estimated storage values indicate land 

subsidence, therefore, the estimated storage values are not 

reasonable (Devin L. Galloway, U.S. Geological Survey, 

written commun., 2015). The SBFTM results were used to 

estimate land-surface subsidence due to compaction on the 

basis of water-level drawdowns and specific-storage values. 

Subsidence was calculated to verify that the model calibrated 

specific-storage values were realistic for the Santa Barbara 

groundwater basin, where no land-surface subsidence has been 

detected. Compaction (∆b) was calculated using equation 8 

(Devin L. Galloway, U.S. Geological Survey, written commun, 

2015):

  b S  sk b h   (8)

where

Ssk is skeletal specific storage,

b is layer thickness, and

∆h is drawdown in head.

Equation 8 was used to estimate compaction in areas 

of the SBFTM where drawdowns due to pumping were 

large. Maximum estimated compaction was approximately 

1 inch during the simulation period. Land-surface subsidence 

has not been detected in the study area; however, an inch 

of compaction might or might not be detected by geodetic 

surveys. Therefore, the subsidence estimates based on SBFTM 

parameter values and simulation results were consistent with 

no detected subsidence.

Groundwater Budget

Figure 14 shows the simulated annual hydrologic 

budgets for the entire model area and the subbasins for two 

different simulation periods. In general, the budgets for 1929 

to 1971 are based on annual stress periods and the budgets 

for 1972 to 2013 are based on monthly stress periods. The 

SBFTM hydrologic budget for the entire model area from 

1929 to 1971 is shown in figure 14A, and the budget for the 

entire model area from 1972 to 2013 is shown in figure 14B. 

Simulated recharge was mostly from small catchments and 

creeks; there was only a small amount of areal recharge, and 

recharge across the offshore fault was limited to times of 

heavy pumping (figs. 14A, B). Small-catchment recharge was 

the primary source of recharge during wetter periods, when 

there is little pumping; net creek recharge was relatively 

low because of higher groundwater levels, which resulted 

in discharge from the groundwater system to the creeks 

(figs. 14A, B). During times of relatively high pumping rates, 

usually during dry years, creek leakage was the primary source 

of recharge. Note that it was assumed that the creek stages 

(that is, the depth of the creek above the creek bed) were 

always greater than zero; therefore, the creeks are a constant 

source of water in the model.

Between 1929 and 1971 discharge due to pumping varied 

greatly (fig. 14A). Pumping rates generally were higher during 

drier periods and lower during wetter periods (fig. 14A). There 

was a net loss in storage from 1929 to 1946 because of a small 

amount of pumping (fig. 15). Pumpage in the Santa Barbara 

and Foothill basins increased after 1947, particularly during 

dry periods (fig. 14A). From 1949 to 1952, heavy pumpage 

resulted in a loss of about 9,200 acre-ft from storage (fig. 15). 

Pumpage decreased between 1953 and 1960, resulting in about 

2,900 acre-ft of storage being recovered. Higher pumpage 

resumed from 1961 to 1971, resulting in an additional loss of 

8,300 acre-ft from storage.

A general decrease in pumpage from 1972 to 1983 

in comparison with the previous eight years (figs. 14A, B) 

resulted in the recovery of about 6,200 acre-ft of storage, 

which was then lost because of heavy pumping between 

1984 and 1990 (figs. 14B, 15). From 1991 to 2006, pumpage 

was greatly reduced in general, leading to the recovery of 

over 10,800 acre-ft of storage. Pumping increased generally 

from 2007 to 2013, resulting in a loss of over 2,900 acre-ft of 

storage. Overall, groundwater pumping resulted in a net loss 

of about 11,400 acre-ft of groundwater storage between 1929 

and 2013 (fig. 15). 

From 1929 to 1971, the majority of water entering 

the SBFTM was from creek and small catchment recharge, 

and the majority of the water leaving the SBFTM was 

from pumping, discharge to creeks (baseflow), and drains 

(table 4A). In addition, about 37 percent of the total pumpage 

was loss from storage. From 1972 to 2013, the majority 

of water entering the SBFTM was from creek and small 

catchment recharge, and the majority of the water leaving the 

SBFTM was from pumping, discharge to creeks (baseflow), 

and drains (table 4B). In addition, the reduction in pumpage 

during this period resulted in about 7,800 acre-ft of water 

being added to storage. During July 1990, a month when 

approximately 705 acre-ft of groundwater was pumped in 

the study area, pumpage was much greater than all sources 

of recharge combined, and about 382 acre-ft of water was 

removed from storage; therefore, storage accounted for about 

54 percent of groundwater pumpage (table 4C).
154 Santa Barbara and Foothill Groundwater Basins Geohydrology and Optimal Water Resources Management

sac16-062_IP-075076_figC13A.B

Source filename: Figure25_SantaBarbaraHydProps.xlsx

0

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

12,000

14,000

16,000

18,000

20,000

Number of model grid cells

Vertical hydraulic conductivity, in feet per day

1.00E–075.00E–071.00E–065.00E–061.00E–055.00E–051.00E–045.00E–041.00E–035.00E–031.00E–025.00E–021.00E–015.00E–011.00E+005.00E+001.00E+015.00E+011.00E+025.00E+021.00E+035.00E+03

0

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

30,000

35,000

Number of model grid cells

Horizontal hydraulic conductivity, in feet per day

1.00E–075.00E–071.00E–065.00E–061.00E–055.00E–051.00E–045.00E–041.00E–035.00E–031.00E–025.00E–021.00E–015.00E–011.00E+005.00E+001.00E+015.00E+011.00E+025.00E+021.00E+035.00E+03

A

B

Figure 13. Distribution of hydraulic conductivity values used in the Santa Barbara flow and transport model, Santa Barbara, California:

A, horizontal, and B, vertical.
Chapter C: Numerical Model of Groundwater Flow and Solute Transport 155

Figure 14. Simulated annual hydrologic budget for two simulation periods, Santa Barbara flow and transport model, Santa Barbara, 

California: A, entire model area, 1929–71; B, entire model area, 1972–2013; C, Storage Unit I, 1929–71; D, Storage Unit I, 1972–2013; 

E, Storage Unit III, 1929–71; F, Storage Unit III, 1972–2013; G, East Foothill subbasin, 1929–71; H, East Foothill subbasin, 1972–2013; 

I, West Foothill subbasin, 1929–71; and J, West Foothill subbasin, 1972–2013.

sac16-062_IP-075076_figC14AB

Drains

Pumpage

General head boundary (net)

Creek (net)

Small catchment

Recharge

Storage (net)

Dry period

EXPLANATION

19721974

1976

19781980198219841986

1988

1990

1992

19941996

1998

2000200220042006

2008

2010

2012

Water year

−6,000

−4,000

−2,000

0

2,000

4,000

6,000

Acre-feet

B

−6,000

−6,000

−2,000

0

2,000

4,000

6,000

Acre-feet

A

192919311933193519371939194119431945

1947

1949195119531955195719591961

19631965

196719691971

Water year

Drains

Pumpage

General head boundary (net)

Creek (net)

Small catchment

Recharge

Storage (net)

Dry period

EXPLANATION
156 Santa Barbara and Foothill Groundwater Basins Geohydrology and Optimal Water Resources Management

Figure 14. —Continued

sac16-062_IP-075076_figC14CD

–4,000

–3,000

–2,000

–1,000

0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

Acre-feet –5,000

197219741976197819801982198419861988199019921994

199619982000

2002

200420062008

2010

2012

Water year

D

Drains

Pumpage

EXPLANATION

Creek (net)

Small catchment recharge

General head boundary 

ocean (net)

Storage (net)

Recharge

General head boundary

Montecito (net)

Dry period

Storage Unit III (net)

East Foothill subbasin (net)

–4,000

–3,000

–2,000

–1,000

0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

Acre-feet

1929193119331935193719391941194319451947194919511953

195519571959

19611963196519671969

1971

Water year

–5,000

C

Drains

Pumpage

EXPLANATION

Creek (net)

Small catchment recharge

General head boundary 

ocean (net)

Storage (net)

Recharge

General head boundary

Montecito (net)

Dry period

Storage Unit III (net)

East Foothill subbasin (net)
Chapter C: Numerical Model of Groundwater Flow and Solute Transport 157

Figure 14. —Continued

sac16-062_IP-075076_figC14EF

–500

–400

–300

–200

–100

0

100

200

300

400

500

Acre-feet

F

19721974197619781980198219841986

1988

199019921994

1996

19982000

20022004

20062008

2010

2012

Water year

Drains

Pumpage

EXPLANATION

Creek (net)

Small catchment recharge

General head boundary (net)

Storage (net)

Recharge

Dry period

Storage Unit I (net)

E

–500

–400

–300

–200

–100

0

100

200

300

400

500

Acre-feet

19291931193319351937193919411943194519471949195119531955

19571959

19611963196519671969

1971

Water year

Drains

Pumpage

EXPLANATION

Creek (net)

Small catchment recharge

General head boundary (net)

Storage (net)

Recharge

Dry period

Storage Unit I (net)
158 Santa Barbara and Foothill Groundwater Basins Geohydrology and Optimal Water Resources Management

Figure 14. —Continued

sac16-062_IP-075076_figC14GH

Drains

Pumpage

EXPLANATION

Creek (net)

Small catchment recharge

Areal recharge

Storage (net)

Dry period

Storage Unit I (net)

West Foothill subbasin (net)

–1,000

–800

–600

–400

–200

0

200

400

600

800

1,000

Acre-feet

H

19721974197619781980

1982

19841986

19881990

1992

19941996

1998

20002002

200420062008

2010

2012

Water year

–1,000

–800

–600

–400

–200

0

200

400

600

800

1,000

Acre-feet

19291931193319351937193919411943194519471949195119531955

19571959

19611963196519671969

1971

Water year

G

Drains

Pumpage

EXPLANATION

Creek (net)

Small catchment recharge

Areal recharge

Storage (net)

Dry period

Storage Unit I (net)

West Foothill subbasin (net)
Chapter C: Numerical Model of Groundwater Flow and Solute Transport 159

Figure 14. —Continued

sac16-062_IP-075076_figC14IJ

Cieneguitas drain

Pumpage

EXPLANATION

Creek (net)

Small catchment recharge

Areal recharge

Storage (net)

Dry period

Atascadero drain

East Foothill subbasin (net)

–1,000

–800

–600

–400

–200

0

200

400

600

800

1,000

Acre-feet

19721974197619781980198219841986

19881990

1992

199419961998

200020022004

2006

20082010

2012

Water year

J

–1,000

–800

–600

–400

–200

0

200

400

600

800

1,000

Acre-feet

19291931193319351937193919411943194519471949195119531955

19571959

19611963196519671969

1971

Water year

Cieneguitas drain

Pumpage

EXPLANATION

Creek (net)

Small catchment recharge

Areal recharge

Storage (net)

Dry period

Atascadero drain

East Foothill subbasin (net)

I
160 Santa Barbara and Foothill Groundwater Basins Geohydrology and Optimal Water Resources Management

Figure 15. Simulated cumulative change in groundwater storage, 1929–2013, Santa Barbara flow and transport model, Santa Barbara, 

California.

Table 4A. Simulated cumulative groundwater budget, 1929–71, Santa Barbara flow and transport model, Santa Barbara, California.

Total volume of water, in acre-feet, 1929–71

Storage Wells Drains Recharge General-head 

boundary Creek Small catchment

In 65,018 0 0 5,485 10,353 111,215 40,528

Out 22,527 131,311 31,357 0 8,230 39,363 0

Change 42,491 –131,311 –31,357 5,485 2,123 71,852 40,528

Mass balance 42,491–131,311–31,357+5,485+2,123+71,852+40,528 = –189

Table 4B. Simulated cumulative groundwater budget, 1972–2013, Santa Barbara flow and transport model, Santa Barbara, California.

Total volume of water, in acre-feet, 1972–2013

Storage Wells Drains Recharge General-head 

boundary Creek Small catchment

In 68,679 0 0 5,320 7,182 106,763 65,761

Out 85,537 106,307 26,833 0 4,615 30,456 0

Change –16,858 –106,307 –26,833 5,320 2,567 76,307 65,761

Mass balance –16,858–106,307–26,833+5,320+2,567+76,307+65,761 = –41

Table 4C. Simulated water budget, July 1990, Santa Barbara flow and transport model, Santa Barbara, California.

Total volume of water, in acre-feet, July 1990

Storage Wells Drains Recharge General-head 

boundary Creek Small catchment

In 399 0 0 10 32 278 47

Out 18 705 25 0 3 16 0

Change 382 –705 –25 10 29 262 47

Mass balance 382–705–25+10+29+262+47 = –1

sac16-062_IP-075076_figC15

–25,000

–20,000

–15,000

–10,000

–5,000

0

1929

1931

1933

19351937

1939

1941

1943

1945

1947

1949

1951

1953

1955

1957

1959

1961

1963

19651967

1969

1971

1973

1975

1977

1979

1981

1983

1985

1987

1989

1991

1993

1995

1997

1999

2001

2003

2005

2007

2009

2011

2013

Water year

Acre-feet
Chapter C: Numerical Model of Groundwater Flow and Solute Transport 161

The SBFTM hydrologic budget from 1929 to 1971 by 

subbasin is shown in figures 14C, E, G, and I. The SBFTM 

hydrologic budget from 1972 to 2013 by subbasin is shown in 

figures 14D, F, H, and J. The hydrologic budget for Storage 

Unit I is shown in figures 14C and D. The primary sources of 

recharge were small catchment recharge and net inflow from 

creeks, although during times of high pumping (for example, 

1950 in fig. 14C) water removed from groundwater storage 

was the primary source of water to the groundwater system. In 

addition to pumping, the primary groundwater discharges were 

drains and water added to storage.

The hydrologic budget for Storage Unit III is shown in 

figures 14E and F (note the much lower values than Storage 

Unit I). There were three sources of recharge to Storage Unit 

III: inflow from Storage Unit I, net inflow from groundwater 

storage, and surface recharge (precipitation), but during times 

of low inflow from Storage Unit I or outflow to Storage Unit 

I, water removed from groundwater storage was the primary 

source of water to the groundwater system (fig. 14E). The 

primary discharge sinks were net creek discharge and outflow 

from the subbasin (drains).

The hydrologic budget for East Foothill subbasin is 

shown in figures 14G and H. The primary sources of recharge 

were net creek inflow and small catchment recharge. The 

primary discharge sinks were pumpage (after 1964) and net 

discharge to Storage Unit I and West Foothill subbasin.

The hydrologic budget for West Foothill subbasin is 

shown in figures 14I and J. The primary sources of recharge 

were net inflow from East Foothill subbasin, inflow from 

groundwater storage, and small catchment recharge. The 

primary discharge sinks were pumpage, groundwater added to 

storage, and outflow from the subbasin (drains).

Simulated Groundwater Flow and Movement

In order to examine changes in hydraulic conditions 

related to pumpage, the simulated hydraulic heads for initial 

conditions (1929) and July 1990 were examined for each 

producing zone. July 1990 was the end of an extended period 

of high pumping in Storage Unit I and moderate pumping in 

the Foothill groundwater basin.

In the upper producing zone, the simulated initialcondition hydraulic heads indicated that groundwater in 

the Foothill groundwater basin generally flowed from the 

Mission and Lauro Canyons west and southwest toward the 

southwest corner of the basin and across the Modoc fault to 

the Goleta groundwater basin (fig. 16A). Groundwater also 

flowed to the Santa Barbara groundwater basin by moving 

across the East More Ranch fault at Arroyo Burro and, to 

a limited extent, across other parts of the fault as well. In 

Storage Unit I, groundwater generally flowed east from the 

East More Ranch fault toward the Pacific Ocean (fig. 16A). 

Note that the simulated hydraulic heads near the ocean in 

Storage Unit I were higher than sea level; therefore, with the 

exception of density effects, seawater would not intrude under 

these hydraulic conditions. In Storage Unit III, groundwater 

generally flowed to the southeast (fig. 16A).

The middle producing zone only exists in Storage Unit I. 

The contours of simulated initial-condition hydraulic head 

indicated that groundwater flowed east toward the Pacific 

Ocean (fig. 16B).

In the lower producing zone, the simulated initialcondition hydraulic heads indicate that groundwater in 

the Foothill groundwater basin generally flowed from the 

Mission and Lauro Canyons west and southwest toward the 

southwest corner of the basin (fig. 16C). Unlike the upper 

producing zone, the lower producing zone was not simulated 

as connecting hydraulically to the Goleta groundwater 

basin; therefore, groundwater did not cross into the Goleta 

groundwater basin, as it did in the upper producing zone. In 

Storage Unit I, groundwater generally flowed east from the 

East More Ranch fault toward the Pacific Ocean (fig. 16C). 

In Storage Unit III, groundwater generally flowed to the 

southeast, except where it deflects more southward along 

creek channels (fig. 16C).

Contours of simulated July 1990 hydraulic heads for 

the upper, middle, and lower producing zones are shown in 

figure 17. In general, the simulated July 1990 hydraulic heads 

were much lower than the initial conditions as a result of 

groundwater pumping. There was a simulated groundwater 

low in all three producing zones in Storage Unit I near the 

Ortega Park production well (fig. 17). In addition, there was 

a groundwater low in the lower producing zone only in the 

West Foothill subbasin near the Los Robles production well 

(fig. 17C). Simulated July 1990 hydraulic heads in all three 

producing zones were below sea level in the coastal area of 

Storage Unit I; therefore, seawater intrusion in the producing 

zones was possible.

In the upper producing zone, the simulated July 1990 

hydraulic heads indicated that groundwater in the Foothill 

groundwater basin generally flowed from the Mission and 

Lauro Canyons west and southwest toward the southwest 

corner of the basin and across the Modoc fault to the Goleta 

groundwater basin (fig. 17A). In Storage Unit I, the simulated 

July 1990 hydraulic heads indicated that groundwater flowed 

east toward the groundwater low near the Ortega Park 

production well (fig. 17A). In Storage Unit III, the simulated 

July 1990 hydraulic heads indicated that groundwater flowed 

south toward a groundwater low near the Val Verde production 

well (fig. 17A).

Again, the middle producing zone only exists in Storage 

Unit I. The simulated results indicated that groundwater 

flowed radially toward the groundwater low near the Ortega 

Park production well (fig. 17B).

In the lower producing zone, the simulated July 1990 

hydraulic heads indicated that groundwater in the West 

Foothill subbasin flowed radially toward the groundwater low 

near the Los Robles production well (fig. 17C). In the East 

Foothill subbasin, groundwater flowed west and southwest. 

In Storage Unit I, groundwater flowed east from the East 

More Ranch fault, then radially toward the groundwater 

low (fig. 17C). In Storage Unit III, groundwater generally 

flowed south toward a low near the Val Verde production well 

(fig. 17C).
162 Santa Barbara and Foothill Groundwater Basins Geohydrology and Optimal Water Resources Management

Figure 16. Contours of simulated initial-condition (average 1929) hydraulic head for producing zones of the Santa Barbara 

groundwater basin, California: A, upper; B, middle; and C, lower.

Barbara

0 1 2 MILES

0 1 2 KILOMETERS

Base modified from U.S. Geological Survey and other 

Federal and State digital data, various scales; 

Transverse Mercator projection, zone 11N; 

North American Datum of 1983 (NAD 83)

EXPLANATION

Figure C16A- Drawdown from 1929 upper producing zone

Storage units from Muir, 1968; Freckleton and

others, 1998; faults from Muir, 1968;

Minor and others, 2009

Study

area

PACIFIC 

OCEAN

CALIFORNIA

SANTA

BARBARA

COUNTY

Highway

Major creeks Subbasins

West Foothill

East Foothill

Storage Unit I

Storage Unit III

Santa Barbara city production 

well and identifier

Vera Cruz

Faults

Existence certain, location inferred

Existence questionable, location inferred

Existence certain, location concealed

Existence questionable, location concealed

Existence certain, location accurate

Existence certain, location approximate

Upper zone hydraulic head 

contour, in feet above North

American Vertical Datum of

1988

60

Upper producing

zone

Mission Creek

San Roque Creek

Arroyo Burro

Cieneguitas Creek

A tascadero Cre e k

Sycamore Creek

101

101

EAST MORE

RANCH FAULT

MODOC FAULT

ROCKY NOOK FAULT

LA GOON FAULT LAVIGIA FAULT

MESA FAULT

UNNAMED

FAULT

FOOTHILL

FAULT

NORTHEAST MORE RANCH FAULT

190

190

150

210

220

200

130

30

40

90

70

150

180

150

170

130

130

10

120

110

110

100

80

60 50

20

20

A. 1929

Ortega Park

Los

Robles

Hope

Avenue

City Hall

Val Verde

Vera

Cruz

Alameda Park

San Roque Park 2

SB

High

School

Lincolnwood 1

119°46' 119°44' 119°42' 119°40'

34°28'

34°27'

34°26'

34°25'

34°24'

Corporation

Yard

PACIFIC OCEAN

SANTA YNEZ MOUNTAINS

Hope Ranch

subbasin

Goleta

Basin

Montecito

Basin

Lauro

Canyon

Mission

Canyon

Sycamore

Canyon

T.

5

N.

T.

4

N.

R. 28 W. R. 27 W. R. 26 W.
Chapter C: Numerical Model of Groundwater Flow and Solute Transport 163

Figure 16. —Continued

Barbara

0 1 2 MILES

0 1 2 KILOMETERS

Figure 16B- Drawdown from 1929 by zone---Middle

EXPLANATION

Base modified from U.S. Geological Survey and other 

Federal and State digital data, various scales; 

Transverse Mercator projection, zone 11N; 

North American Datum of 1983 (NAD 83)

Highway

Major creeks Subbasins

West Foothill

East Foothill

Storage Unit I

Storage Unit III

Santa Barbara city production 

well and identifier

Vera Cruz

Faults

Existence certain, location inferred

Existence questionable, location inferred

Existence certain, location concealed

Existence questionable, location concealed

Existence certain, location accurate

Existence certain, location approximate

Middle zone hydraulic head 

contour, in feet above North

American Vertical Datum of

1988

30

Middle producing

zone

Storage units from Muir, 1968; Freckleton and

others, 1998; faults from Muir, 1968;

Minor and others, 2009

Study

area

PACIFIC 

OCEAN

CALIFORNIA

SANTA

BARBARA

COUNTY

San Roque Creek

Arroyo Burro

Cieneguitas Creek

Atascadero Cre ek

Sycamore Creek

Mission Creek

101

101

EAST MORE

RANCH FAULT

MODOC FAULT

ROCKY NOOK FAULT

LA GOON FAULT LAVIGIA FAULT

MESA FAULT

UNNAMED

FAULT

FOOTHILL

FAULT

NORTHEAST MORE RANCH FAULT

30

20

40

50

60

Ortega Park

Los

Robles

Hope

Avenue

City Hall

Vera

Cruz

Alameda Park

San Roque Park 2

SB

High

School

Lincolnwood 1

Val Verde

Corporation

Yard

119°46' 119°44' 119°42' 119°40'

34°28'

34°27'

34°26'

34°25'

34°24'

B. 1929

PACIFIC OCEAN

SANTA YNEZ MOUNTAINS

Hope Ranch

subbasin

Goleta

Basin

Montecito

Basin

Lauro

Canyon

Mission

Canyon

Sycamore

Canyon

T.

5

N.

T.

4

N.

R. 28 W. R. 27 W. R. 26 W.
164 Santa Barbara and Foothill Groundwater Basins Geohydrology and Optimal Water Resources Management

Figure 16. —Continued

Barbara

0 1 2 MILES

0 1 2 KILOMETERS

Figure 16C- Drawdown from 1929 by zone---Lower

EXPLANATION

Base modified from U.S. Geological Survey and other 

Federal and State digital data, various scales; 

Transverse Mercator projection, zone 11N; 

North American Datum of 1983 (NAD 83)

Highway

Major creeks Subbasins

West Foothill

East Foothill

Storage Unit I

Storage Unit III

Faults

Existence certain, location inferred

Existence questionable, location inferred

Existence certain, location concealed

Existence questionable, location concealed

Existence certain, location accurate

Existence certain, location approximate

Lower zone hydraulic head 

contour, in feet above North

American Vertical Datum of

1988

60

Lower producing

zone

Santa Barbara city production 

well and identifier

Vera Cruz

Storage units from Muir, 1968; Freckleton and

others, 1998; faults from Muir, 1968;

Minor and others, 2009

Study

area

PACIFIC 

OCEAN

CALIFORNIA

SANTA

BARBARA

COUNTY

San Roque Creek

Arroyo Burro

Cieneguitas Creek

Atascadero Cre ek

Sycamore Creek

Mission Creek

101

101

MODOC FAULT

ROCKY NOOK FAULT

LA GOON FAULT LAVIGIA FAULT

MESA FAULT

UNNAMED

FAULT

FOOTHILL

FAULT

NORTHEAST MORE RANCH FAULT

EAST MORE

RANCH FAULT

100

190

110

40

180

10

160

120

60

0

220

170

120

80

20

210

150

130

100

230

200

150

130

130

Ortega Park

Los

Robles

Hope

Avenue

City Hall

Vera

Cruz

Alameda

Park

San Roque Park 2

SB

High

School

Lincolnwood 1

Val Verde Corporation Yard

119°46' 119°44' 119°42' 119°40'

34°28'

34°27'

34°26'

34°25'

34°24'

C. 1929

PACIFIC OCEAN

SANTA YNEZ MOUNTAINS

Hope Ranch

subbasin

Goleta

Basin

Montecito

Basin

Lauro

Canyon

Mission

Canyon

Sycamore

Canyon

T.

5

N.

T.

4

N.

R. 28 W. R. 27 W. R. 26 W.
Chapter C: Numerical Model of Groundwater Flow and Solute Transport 165

Figure 17. Contours of simulated July 1990 hydraulic head for the producing zones of the Santa Barbara groundwater basin, California: 

A, upper; B, middle; and C, lower.

Barbara

0 1 2 MILES

0 1 2 KILOMETERS

EXPLANATION

Figure C17A- Drawdown from 1990 upper producing zone

Highway

Major creeks Subbasins

West Foothill

East Foothill

Storage Unit I

Storage Unit III

Faults

Existence certain, location inferred

Existence questionable, location inferred

Existence certain, location concealed

Existence questionable, location concealed

Existence certain, location accurate

Existence certain, location approximate

Upper zone hydraulic head 

contour, in feet above North

American Vertical Datum of

1988

70

Upper producing

zone

Santa Barbara city production 

well and identifier

Vera Cruz

Base modified from U.S. Geological Survey and other 

Federal and State digital data, various scales; 

Transverse Mercator projection, zone 11N; 

North American Datum of 1983 (NAD 83)

Storage units from Muir, 1968; Freckleton and

others, 1998; faults from Muir, 1968;

Minor and others, 2009

Study

area

PACIFIC 

OCEAN

CALIFORNIA

SANTA

BARBARA

COUNTY

Mission Creek

San Roque Creek

Arroyo Burro

Cieneguitas Creek

A tascadero Cre e k

Sycamore Creek

101

101

MODOC FAULT

ROCKY NOOK FAULT

LA GOON FAULT LAVIGIA FAULT

MESA FAULT

UNNAMED

FAULT

FOOTHILL

FAULT

NORTHEAST MORE RANCH FAULT

EAST MORE

RANCH FAULT

+

110

120

150

90

70

70

80

30

50

–10

–10

–20

140

100

10

0

0

–20

–

–40

210

100 110

100

130

100

90

120

–30

–30

Ortega Park

Los

Robles

Hope

Avenue

City Hall Vera

Cruz

Alameda

Park

San Roque Park 2

SB

High

School

Lincolnwood 1

Val Verde

Corporation

Yard

119°46' 119°44' 119°42' 119°40'

34°28'

34°27'

34°26'

34°25'

34°24'

PACIFIC OCEAN

SANTA YNEZ MOUNTAINS

Hope Ranch

subbasin

Goleta

Basin

Montecito

Basin

Lauro

Canyon

Mission

Canyon

Sycamore

Canyon

T.

5

N.

T.

4

N.

R. 28 W. R. 27 W. R. 26 W.

A. 1990
166 Santa Barbara and Foothill Groundwater Basins Geohydrology and Optimal Water Resources Management

Figure 17. —Continued

Barbara

0 1 2 MILES

0 1 2 KILOMETERS

Figure C17B- Drawdown from 1990 by zone---Middle

EXPLANATION

Base modified from U.S. Geological Survey and other 

Federal and State digital data, various scales; 

Transverse Mercator projection, zone 11N; 

North American Datum of 1983 (NAD 83)

Highway

Major creeks Subbasins

West Foothill

East Foothill

Storage Unit I

Storage Unit III

Faults

Existence certain, location inferred

Existence questionable, location inferred

Existence certain, location concealed

Existence questionable, location concealed

Existence certain, location accurate

Existence certain, location approximate

Middle zone hydraulic head 

contour, in feet above North

American Vertical Datum of

1988

20

Middle producing

zone

Santa Barbara city production 

well and identifier

Vera Cruz

Storage units from Muir, 1968; Freckleton and

others, 1998; faults from Muir, 1968;

Minor and others, 2009

Study

area

PACIFIC 

OCEAN

CALIFORNIA

SANTA

BARBARA

COUNTY

San Roque Creek

Arroyo Burro

Cieneguitas Creek

Atascadero Cre ek

Sycamore Creek

Mission Creek

101

101

MODOC FAULT

ROCKY NOOK FAULT

LA GOON FAULT LAVIGIA FAULT

MESA FAULT

UNNAMED

FAULT

FOOTHILL

FAULT

NORTHEAST MORE RANCH FAULT

EAST MORE

RANCH FAULT

+

0

–60

–80

–20

–40

–60

–100

–120

–240 –40

0

20

–20

–100

Los

Robles

Hope

Avenue

City Hall

Alameda

Park

San Roque Park 2

SB

High

School

Lincolnwood 1

Val Verde

Corporation

Yard

Ortega Park

Vera

Cruz

119°46' 119°44' 119°42' 119°40'

34°28'

34°27'

34°26'

34°25'

34°24'

B. 1990

PACIFIC OCEAN

SANTA YNEZ MOUNTAINS

Hope Ranch

subbasin

Goleta

Basin

Montecito

Basin

Lauro

Canyon

Mission

Canyon

Sycamore

Canyon

T.

5

N.

T.

4

N.

R. 28 W. R. 27 W. R. 26 W.
Chapter C: Numerical Model of Groundwater Flow and Solute Transport 167

Figure 17. —Continued

Barbara

0 1 2 MILES

0 1 2 KILOMETERS

Figure C17C- Drawdown from 1990 by zone---Lower

EXPLANATION

Base modified from U.S. Geological Survey and other 

Federal and State digital data, various scales; 

Transverse Mercator projection, zone 11N; 

North American Datum of 1983 (NAD 83)

Highway

Major creeks Subbasins

West Foothill

East Foothill

Storage Unit I

Storage Unit III

Faults

Existence certain, location inferred

Existence questionable, location inferred

Existence certain, location concealed

Existence questionable, location concealed

Existence certain, location accurate

Existence certain, location approximate

Lower zone hydraulic head 

contour, in feet above North

American Vertical Datum of

1988

60

Lower producing

zone

Santa Barbara city production 

well and identifier

Vera Cruz

Storage units from Muir, 1968; Freckleton and

others, 1998; faults from Muir, 1968;

Minor and others, 2009

Study

area

PACIFIC 

OCEAN

CALIFORNIA

SANTA

BARBARA

COUNTY

San Roque

Creek

Arroyo Burro

Cieneguitas Creek

Atascadero Cre ek

Sycamore Creek

Mission Creek

101

101

MODOC FAULT

ROCKY NOOK FAULT

LA GOON FAULT LAVIGIA FAULT

MESA FAULT

UNNAMED

FAULT

FOOTHILL

FAULT

NORTHEAST MORE RANCH FAULT

EAST MORE

RANCH FAULT

70

140

120

100

100

120 130

110

100

80

90

100

90

–20

–20

–40

–40 –60

–80

80

100

50

40

–60

–60

0

0

120

–40

–20

150

60

20

–100 –240 +

C. 1990

Los

Robles

Hope

Avenue

San Roque Park 2

Lincolnwood 1

Val Verde

Corporation

Yard

Ortega Park

Vera

Cruz

Alameda Park

City Hall

SB

High

School

119°46' 119°44' 119°42' 119°40'

34°28'

34°27'

34°26'

34°25'

34°24'

PACIFIC OCEAN

SANTA YNEZ MOUNTAINS

Hope Ranch

subbasin

Goleta

Basin

Montecito

Basin

Lauro

Canyon

Mission

Canyon

Sycamore

Canyon

T.

5

N.

T.

4

N.

R. 28 W. R. 27 W. R. 26 W.
168 Santa Barbara and Foothill Groundwater Basins Geohydrology and Optimal Water Resources Management

In order to examine changes in hydraulic conditions 

related to pumpage, the simulated hydraulic-head drawdown 

between initial conditions (1929) and July 1990 was plotted 

and is shown in figure 18. There were pumping depressions 

in all three producing zones. In the upper, middle, and lower 

producing zones, there was a pumping depression near the 

Ortega Park production well in Storage Unit I (figs. 18A–C). 

In the lower producing zone, there was an additional pumping 

depression in the West Foothill subbasin near the Los Robles 

production well (fig. 18C).

Figure 18. Contours of simulated drawdown between average 1929 and July 1990 hydraulic heads for the producing zones of the 

Santa Barbara groundwater basin, California: A, upper; B, middle; and C, lower.

Barbara

0 1 2 MILES

0 1 2 KILOMETERS

EXPLANATION

Base modified from U.S. Geological Survey and other 

Federal and State digital data, various scales; 

Transverse Mercator projection, zone 11N; 

North American Datum of 1983 (NAD 83)

Highway

Major creeks Subbasins

West Foothill

East Foothill

Storage Unit I

Storage Unit III

Faults

Existence certain, location inferred

Existence questionable, location inferred

Existence certain, location concealed

Existence questionable, location concealed

Existence certain, location accurate

Existence certain, location approximate

Upper zone drawdown 

contour, in feet

70

Upper producing

zone

Santa Barbara city production 

well and identifier

Vera Cruz

Storage units from Muir, 1968; Freckleton and

others, 1998; faults from Muir, 1968;

Minor and others, 2009

Study

area

PACIFIC 

OCEAN

CALIFORNIA

SANTA

BARBARA

COUNTY

Mis sion Creek

San Roque Creek

Arroyo Burro

Cieneguitas Creek

Sycamore Creek

Atascadero Cre e k

101

101

MODOC FAULT

ROCKY NOOK FAULT

LA GOON FAULT LAVIGIA FAULT

MESA FAULT

UNNAMED FAULT

FOOTHILL

FAULT

NORTHEAST MORE RANCH FAULT

EAST MORE

RANCH FAULT

80 240

70

60

100

50

40

10

80

30

40

30

50

40

30

20

80

60

50

0

90 90

80

40

40

10

+ Ortega Park

Los

Robles

Hope

Avenue

City Hall Vera

Cruz

Alameda

Park

San Roque Park 2

SB

High

School

Lincolnwood 1

Val Verde Corporation Yard

119°46' 119°44' 119°42' 119°40'

34°28'

34°27'

34°26'

34°25'

34°24'

PACIFIC OCEAN

SANTA YNEZ MOUNTAINS

Hope Ranch

subbasin

Goleta

Basin

Montecito

Basin

Lauro

Canyon

Mission

Canyon

Sycamore

Canyon

T.

5

N.

T.

4

N.

R. 28 W. R. 27 W. R. 26 W.

A. 1929 to 1990
Chapter C: Numerical Model of Groundwater Flow and Solute Transport 169

Figure 18. —Continued

Barbara

0 1 2 MILES

0 1 2 KILOMETERS

Figure C18B- Drawdown from 1929 to 1990 by zone---Middle

EXPLANATION

Base modified from U.S. Geological Survey and other 

Federal and State digital data, various scales; 

Transverse Mercator projection, zone 11N; 

North American Datum of 1983 (NAD 83)

Highway

Major creeks Subbasins

West Foothill

East Foothill

Storage Unit I

Storage Unit III

Faults

Existence certain, location inferred

Existence questionable, location inferred

Existence certain, location concealed

Existence questionable, location concealed

Existence certain, location accurate

Existence certain, location approximate

Middle zone drawdown 

contour, in feet

20

Middle producing

zone

Santa Barbara city production 

well and identifier

Vera Cruz

Storage units from Muir, 1968; Freckleton and

others, 1998; faults from Muir, 1968;

Minor and others, 2009

Study

area

PACIFIC 

OCEAN

CALIFORNIA

SANTA

BARBARA

COUNTY

San Roque Creek

Arroyo Burro

Cieneguitas Creek

Atascadero Cre ek

Sycamore Creek

Mission Creek

Val Verde

101

101

MODOC FAULT

ROCKY NOOK FAULT

LA GOON FAULT LAVIGIA FAULT

MESA FAULT

UNNAMED

FAULT

FOOTHILL

FAULT

NORTHEAST MORE RANCH FAULT

EAST MORE

RANCH FAULT

150

250

100120

140

50

20

110

80

40

30

60

50

130

60

80

10

40

+

Ortega Park

Los

Robles

Hope

Avenue

City Hall

Vera

Cruz

Alameda

Park

San Roque Park 2

SB

High

School

Lincolnwood 1

Corporation Yard

119°46' 119°44' 119°42' 119°40'

34°28'

34°27'

34°26'

34°25'

34°24'

B. 1929 to 1990

PACIFIC OCEAN

SANTA YNEZ MOUNTAINS

Hope Ranch

subbasin

Goleta

Basin

Montecito

Basin

Lauro

Canyon

Mission

Canyon

Sycamore

Canyon

T.

5

N.

T.

4

N.

R. 28 W. R. 27 W. R. 26 W.
170 Santa Barbara and Foothill Groundwater Basins Geohydrology and Optimal Water Resources Management

Simulated Hydrographs

Several wells were selected as representative of 

conditions, and changes in conditions, in the four subbasins. 

The simulated hydraulic heads and corresponding measured 

water levels at selected wells in West Foothill subbasin, 

East Foothill subbasin, Storage Unit III, and Storage Unit I 

are shown in figures 19A–D, respectively. To show vertical 

hydraulic gradients, where possible, water levels are shown 

in each of the producing zones. Each of the subbasins are 

discussed in following sections.

Figure 18. —Continued

Barbara

0 1 2 MILES

0 1 2 KILOMETERS

Figure C18C- Drawdown from 1929 to 1990 by zone---Lower

EXPLANATION

Base modified from U.S. Geological Survey and other 

Federal and State digital data, various scales; 

Transverse Mercator projection, zone 11N; 

North American Datum of 1983 (NAD 83)

Highway

Major creeks Subbasins

West Foothill

East Foothill

Storage Unit I

Storage Unit III

Faults

Existence certain, location inferred

Existence questionable, location inferred

Existence certain, location concealed

Existence questionable, location concealed

Existence certain, location accurate

Existence certain, location approximate

Lower zone drawdown 

contour, in feet

60

Lower producing

zone

Santa Barbara city production 

well and identifier

Vera Cruz

Storage units from Muir, 1968; Freckleton and

others, 1998; faults from Muir, 1968;

Minor and others, 2009

Study

area

PACIFIC 

OCEAN

CALIFORNIA

SANTA

BARBARA

COUNTY

San Roque Creek

Arroyo Burro

Cieneguitas Creek

Atascadero Cre ek

Sycamore Creek

Mission Creek

101

101

MODOC FAULT

ROCKY NOOK FAULT

LA GOON FAULT LAVIGIA FAULT

MESA FAULT

UNNAMED

FAULT

FOOTHILL

FAULT

NORTHEAST MORE RANCH FAULT

EAST MORE

RANCH FAULT

C. 1929 to 1990

290 150

140

120

50

50

40

140

100

90

20

10

120

40

110

110

80

100

120

80

70

70

30

100 80

60

90

50

30

50

40

0

10

+

Los

Robles

Hope

Avenue

City Hall

Vera

Cruz

Alameda

Park

San Roque Park 2

Corporation Yard

Ortega Park

SB

High

School

Lincolnwood 1

Val Verde

119°46' 119°44' 119°42' 119°40'

34°28'

34°27'

34°26'

34°25'

34°24'

PACIFIC OCEAN

SANTA YNEZ MOUNTAINS

Hope Ranch

subbasin

Goleta

Basin

Montecito

Basin

Lauro

Canyon

Mission

Canyon

Sycamore

Canyon

T.

5

N.

T.

4

N.

R. 28 W. R. 27 W. R. 26 W.
Figure 19. Simulated hydraulic heads and measured water levels for selected wells in the Santa Barbara groundwater basin, California, by subbasinB, East Foothill subbasin; C, Storage Unit III; and D, Storage Unit I.

250200150100

50

0

–50

–100–150

1972 1982 1992 2002 2012 

Year

A1. 4N/27W-07D1

Layer 1 Layer 14Layer 2 Layer 15Layer 3 Layer 16Layer 4 Layer 17Layer 5 Layer 18Layer 6 Layer 19Layer 8 Layer 21Layer 9 Layer 22Layer 10 Layer 23Layer 11 Layer 24Layer 12 ObservationLayer 13

EXPLANATION

Layer 7 Layer 20

Water level, in feet above North American Vertical Datum of 1988
Figure 19. —Continued

sac16-062_IP-075076_figC19_A2

250200150100

50

0

–50

–100–150

1972 1982 1992 2002 2012 

Year

Layer 1 Layer 14Layer 2 Layer 15Layer 3 Layer 16Layer 4 Layer 17Layer 5 Layer 18Layer 6 Layer 19Layer 8 Layer 21Layer 9 Layer 22Layer 10 Layer 23Layer 11 Layer 24Layer 12 ObservationLayer 13

EXPLANATION

Layer 7 Layer 20

Water level, in feet above North American Vertical Datum of 1988

A2. 4N/27W-07M6
Figure 19. —Continued sac16-062_IP-075076_figC19_A3

250200150100

50

0

–50

–100–150

1972 1982 1992 2002 2012 

Year

Layer 1 Layer 14Layer 2 Layer 15Layer 3 Layer 16Layer 4 Layer 17Layer 5 Layer 18Layer 6 Layer 19Layer 8 Layer 21Layer 9 Layer 22Layer 10 Layer 23Layer 11 Layer 24Layer 12 ObservationLayer 13

EXPLANATION

Layer 7 Layer 20

Water level, in feet above North American Vertical Datum of 1988

A3. 4N/28W-12H4
Figure 19. —Continued

sac16-062_IP-075076_figC19_A4

250200150100

50

0

–50

–100–150

1972 1982 1992 2002 2012 

Year

Layer 1 Layer 14Layer 2 Layer 15Layer 3 Layer 16Layer 4 Layer 17Layer 5 Layer 18Layer 6 Layer 19Layer 8 Layer 21Layer 9 Layer 22Layer 10 Layer 23Layer 11 Layer 24Layer 12 ObservationLayer 13

EXPLANATION

Layer 7 Layer 20

Water level, in feet above North American Vertical Datum of 1988

A4. 4N/28W-12R3
Figure 19. —Continued sac16-062_IP-075076_figC19_A5

250200150100

50

0

–50

–100–150

1972 1982 1992 2002 2012 

Year

Layer 1 Layer 14Layer 2 Layer 15Layer 3 Layer 16Layer 4 Layer 17Layer 5 Layer 18Layer 6 Layer 19Layer 8 Layer 21Layer 9 Layer 22Layer 10 Layer 23Layer 11 Layer 24Layer 12 ObservationLayer 13

EXPLANATION

Layer 7 Layer 20

Water level, in feet above North American Vertical Datum of 1988

A5. 4N/28W-12B1
Figure 19. —Continued

sac16-062_IP-075076_figC19_A6

250200150100

50

0

–50

–100–150

1972 1982 1992 2002 2012 

Year

A6. 4N/28W-12C2

Layer 1 Layer 14Layer 2 Layer 15Layer 3 Layer 16Layer 4 Layer 17Layer 5 Layer 18Layer 6 Layer 19Layer 8 Layer 21Layer 9 Layer 22Layer 10 Layer 23Layer 11 Layer 24Layer 12 ObservationLayer 13

EXPLANATION

Layer 7 Layer 20

Water level, in feet above North American Vertical Datum of 1988
Figure 19. —Continued sac16-062_IP-075076_figC19_A7

250200150100

50

0

–50

–100–150

1972 1982 1992 2002 2012 

Year

Layer 1 Layer 14Layer 2 Layer 15Layer 3 Layer 16Layer 4 Layer 17Layer 5 Layer 18Layer 6 Layer 19Layer 8 Layer 21Layer 9 Layer 22Layer 10 Layer 23Layer 11 Layer 24Layer 12 ObservationLayer 13

EXPLANATION

Layer 7 Layer 20

Water level, in feet above North American Vertical Datum of 1988

A7. 4N/28W-01R1
Figure 19. —Continued

sac16-062_IP-075076_figC19_A8

250200150100

50

0

–50

–100–150

1972 1982 1992 2002 2012 

Year

Layer 1 Layer 14Layer 2 Layer 15Layer 3 Layer 16Layer 4 Layer 17Layer 5 Layer 18Layer 6 Layer 19Layer 8 Layer 21Layer 9 Layer 22Layer 10 Layer 23Layer 11 Layer 24Layer 12 ObservationLayer 13

EXPLANATION

Layer 7 Layer 20

Water level, in feet above North American Vertical Datum of 1988

A8. 4N/28W-01R2
Figure 19. —Continued sac16-062_IP-075076_figC19_B1

250200150100

50

0

–50

–100–150

1972 1982 1992 2002 2012 

Year

Layer 1 Layer 14Layer 2 Layer 15Layer 3 Layer 16Layer 4 Layer 17Layer 5 Layer 18Layer 6 Layer 19Layer 8 Layer 21Layer 9 Layer 22Layer 10 Layer 23Layer 11 Layer 24Layer 12 ObservationLayer 13

EXPLANATION

Layer 7 Layer 20

Water level, in feet above North American Vertical Datum of 1988

B1. 4N/27W-05P1
Figure 19. —Continued

sac16-062_IP-075076_figC19_B2

250200150100

50

0

–50

–100–150

1972 1982 1992 2002 2012 

Year

Layer 1 Layer 14Layer 2 Layer 15Layer 3 Layer 16Layer 4 Layer 17Layer 5 Layer 18Layer 6 Layer 19Layer 8 Layer 21Layer 9 Layer 22Layer 10 Layer 23Layer 11 Layer 24Layer 12 ObservationLayer 13

EXPLANATION

Layer 7 Layer 20

Water level, in feet above North American Vertical Datum of 1988

B2. 4N/27W-08M5
Figure 19. —Continued sac16-062_IP-075076_figC19_B3

250200150100

50

0

–50

–100–150

1972 1982 1992 2002 2012 

Year

Layer 1 Layer 14Layer 2 Layer 15Layer 3 Layer 16Layer 4 Layer 17Layer 5 Layer 18Layer 6 Layer 19Layer 8 Layer 21Layer 9 Layer 22Layer 10 Layer 23Layer 11 Layer 24Layer 12 ObservationLayer 13

EXPLANATION

Layer 7 Layer 20

Water level, in feet above North American Vertical Datum of 1988

B3. 4N/27W-08M6
Figure 19. —Continued

sac16-062_IP-075076_figC19_C1

250200150100

50

0

–50

–100–150

1972 1982 1992 2002 2012 

Year

Layer 1 Layer 14Layer 2 Layer 15Layer 3 Layer 16Layer 4 Layer 17Layer 5 Layer 18Layer 6 Layer 19Layer 8 Layer 21Layer 9 Layer 22Layer 10 Layer 23Layer 11 Layer 24Layer 12 ObservationLayer 13

EXPLANATION

Layer 7 Layer 20

Water level, in feet above North American Vertical Datum of 1988

C1. 4N/27W-18C2
Figure 19. —Continued sac16-062_IP-075076_figC19_C2

250200150100

50

0

–50

–100–150

1972 1982 1992 2002 2012 

Year

C2. 4N/27W-18C3

Layer 1 Layer 14Layer 2 Layer 15Layer 3 Layer 16Layer 4 Layer 17Layer 5 Layer 18Layer 6 Layer 19Layer 8 Layer 21Layer 9 Layer 22Layer 10 Layer 23Layer 11 Layer 24Layer 12 ObservationLayer 13

EXPLANATION

Layer 7 Layer 20

Water level, in feet above North American Vertical Datum of 1988
Figure 19. —Continued

sac16-062_IP-075076_figC19_C3

250200150100

50

0

–50

–100–150

1972 1982 1992 2002 2012 

Year

Layer 1 Layer 14Layer 2 Layer 15Layer 3 Layer 16Layer 4 Layer 17Layer 5 Layer 18Layer 6 Layer 19Layer 8 Layer 21Layer 9 Layer 22Layer 10 Layer 23Layer 11 Layer 24Layer 12 ObservationLayer 13

EXPLANATION

Layer 7 Layer 20

Water level, in feet above North American Vertical Datum of 1988

C3. 4N/27W-18Q1
Figure 19. —Continued sac16-062_IP-075076_figC19_C4

250200150100

50

0

–50

–100–150

1972 1982 1992 2002 2012 

Year

C4. 4N/27W-18Q4

Layer 1 Layer 14Layer 2 Layer 15Layer 3 Layer 16Layer 4 Layer 17Layer 5 Layer 18Layer 6 Layer 19Layer 8 Layer 21Layer 9 Layer 22Layer 10 Layer 23Layer 11 Layer 24Layer 12 ObservationLayer 13

EXPLANATION

Layer 7 Layer 20

Water level, in feet above North American Vertical Datum of 1988
Figure 19. —Continued

sac16-062_IP-075076_figC19_C5

250200150100

50

0

–50

–100–150

1972 1982 1992 2002 2012 

Year

Layer 1 Layer 14Layer 2 Layer 15Layer 3 Layer 16Layer 4 Layer 17Layer 5 Layer 18Layer 6 Layer 19Layer 8 Layer 21Layer 9 Layer 22Layer 10 Layer 23Layer 11 Layer 24Layer 12 ObservationLayer 13

EXPLANATION

Layer 7 Layer 20

Water level, in feet above North American Vertical Datum of 1988

C5. 4N/27W-21F2
Figure 19. —Continued sac16-062_IP-075076_figC19_D1

250200150100

50

0

–50

–100–150

1972 1982 1992 2002 2012 

Year

Layer 1 Layer 14Layer 2 Layer 15Layer 3 Layer 16Layer 4 Layer 17Layer 5 Layer 18Layer 6 Layer 19Layer 8 Layer 21Layer 9 Layer 22Layer 10 Layer 23Layer 11 Layer 24Layer 12 ObservationLayer 13

EXPLANATION

Layer 7 Layer 20

Water level, in feet above North American Vertical Datum of 1988

D1. 4N/27W-07Q5
Figure 19. —Continued

sac16-062_IP-075076_figC19_D2

250200150100

50

0

–50

–100–150

1972 1982 1992 2002 2012 

Year

Layer 1 Layer 14Layer 2 Layer 15Layer 3 Layer 16Layer 4 Layer 17Layer 5 Layer 18Layer 6 Layer 19Layer 8 Layer 21Layer 9 Layer 22Layer 10 Layer 23Layer 11 Layer 24Layer 12 ObservationLayer 13

EXPLANATION

Layer 7 Layer 20

Water level, in feet above North American Vertical Datum of 1988

D2. 4N/27W-07R3
Figure 19. —Continued sac16-062_IP-075076_figC19_D3

250200150100

50

0

–50

–100–150

1972 1982 1992 2002 2012 

Year

Layer 1 Layer 14Layer 2 Layer 15Layer 3 Layer 16Layer 4 Layer 17Layer 5 Layer 18Layer 6 Layer 19Layer 8 Layer 21Layer 9 Layer 22Layer 10 Layer 23Layer 11 Layer 24Layer 12 ObservationLayer 13

EXPLANATION

Layer 7 Layer 20

Water level, in feet above North American Vertical Datum of 1988

D3. 4N/27W-16C1
Figure 19. —Continued

sac16-062_IP-075076_figC19_D4

250200150100

50

0

–50

–100–150

1972 1982 1992 2002 2012 

Year

Layer 1 Layer 14Layer 2 Layer 15Layer 3 Layer 16Layer 4 Layer 17Layer 5 Layer 18Layer 6 Layer 19Layer 8 Layer 21Layer 9 Layer 22Layer 10 Layer 23Layer 11 Layer 24Layer 12 ObservationLayer 13

EXPLANATION

Layer 7 Layer 20

Water level, in feet above North American Vertical Datum of 1988

D4. 4N/27W-16C2
Figure 19. —Continued sac16-062_IP-075076_figC19_D5

250200150100

50

0

–50

–100–150

1972 1982 1992 2002 2012 

Year

Layer 1 Layer 14Layer 2 Layer 15Layer 3 Layer 16Layer 4 Layer 17Layer 5 Layer 18Layer 6 Layer 19Layer 8 Layer 21Layer 9 Layer 22Layer 10 Layer 23Layer 11 Layer 24Layer 12 ObservationLayer 13

EXPLANATION

Layer 7 Layer 20

Water level, in feet above North American Vertical Datum of 1988

D5. 4N/27W-16E2
Figure 19. —Continued

sac16-062_IP-075076_figC19_D6

250200150100

50

0

–50

–100–150

1972 1982 1992 2002 2012 

Year

Layer 1 Layer 14Layer 2 Layer 15Layer 3 Layer 16Layer 4 Layer 17Layer 5 Layer 18Layer 6 Layer 19Layer 8 Layer 21Layer 9 Layer 22Layer 10 Layer 23Layer 11 Layer 24Layer 12 ObservationLayer 13

EXPLANATION

Layer 7 Layer 20

Water level, in feet above North American Vertical Datum of 1988

D6. 4N/27W-17J1
Figure 19. —Continued sac16-062_IP-075076_figC19_D7

250200150100

50

0

–50

–100–150

1972 1982 1992 2002 2012 

Year

Layer 1 Layer 14Layer 2 Layer 15Layer 3 Layer 16Layer 4 Layer 17Layer 5 Layer 18Layer 6 Layer 19Layer 8 Layer 21Layer 9 Layer 22Layer 10 Layer 23Layer 11 Layer 24Layer 12 ObservationLayer 13

EXPLANATION

Layer 7 Layer 20

Water level, in feet above North American Vertical Datum of 1988

D7. 4N/27W-08R2
Figure 19. —Continued

sac16-062_IP-075076_figC19_D8

250200150100

50

0

–50

–100–150

1972 1982 1992 2002 2012 

Year

Layer 1 Layer 14Layer 2 Layer 15Layer 3 Layer 16Layer 4 Layer 17Layer 5 Layer 18Layer 6 Layer 19Layer 8 Layer 21Layer 9 Layer 22Layer 10 Layer 23Layer 11 Layer 24Layer 12 ObservationLayer 13

EXPLANATION

Layer 7 Layer 20

Water level, in feet above North American Vertical Datum of 1988

D8. 4N/27W-17L2
Figure 19. —Continued sac16-062_IP-075076_figC19_D9

250200150100

50

0

–50

–100–150

1972 1982 1992 2002 2012 

Year

Layer 1 Layer 14Layer 2 Layer 15Layer 3 Layer 16Layer 4 Layer 17Layer 5 Layer 18Layer 6 Layer 19Layer 8 Layer 21Layer 9 Layer 22Layer 10 Layer 23Layer 11 Layer 24Layer 12 ObservationLayer 13

EXPLANATION

Layer 7 Layer 20

Water level, in feet above North American Vertical Datum of 1988

D9. 4N/27W-17L3
Figure 19. —Continued

sac16-062_IP-075076_figC19_D10

250200150100

50

0

–50

–100–150

1972 1982 1992 2002 2012 

Year

Layer 1 Layer 14Layer 2 Layer 15Layer 3 Layer 16Layer 4 Layer 17Layer 5 Layer 18Layer 6 Layer 19Layer 8 Layer 21Layer 9 Layer 22Layer 10 Layer 23Layer 11 Layer 24Layer 12 ObservationLayer 13

EXPLANATION

Layer 7 Layer 20

Water level, in feet above North American Vertical Datum of 1988

D10. 4N/27W-17L4
Figure 19. —Continued sac16-062_IP-075076_figC19_D11

250200150100

50

0

–50

–100–150

1972 1982 1992 2002 2012 

Year

Layer 1 Layer 14Layer 2 Layer 15Layer 3 Layer 16Layer 4 Layer 17Layer 5 Layer 18Layer 6 Layer 19Layer 8 Layer 21Layer 9 Layer 22Layer 10 Layer 23Layer 11 Layer 24Layer 12 ObservationLayer 13

EXPLANATION

Layer 7 Layer 20

Water level, in feet above North American Vertical Datum of 1988

D11. 4N/27W-14K2
Figure 19. —Continued

sac16-062_IP-075076_figC19_D12

250200150100

50

0

–50

–100–150

1972 1982 1992 2002 2012 

Year

Layer 1 Layer 14Layer 2 Layer 15Layer 3 Layer 16Layer 4 Layer 17Layer 5 Layer 18Layer 6 Layer 19Layer 8 Layer 21Layer 9 Layer 22Layer 10 Layer 23Layer 11 Layer 24Layer 12 ObservationLayer 13

EXPLANATION

Layer 7 Layer 20

Water level, in feet above North American Vertical Datum of 1988

D12. 4N/27W-15J2
Figure 19. —Continued sac16-062_IP-075076_figC19_D13

250200150100

50

0

–50

–100–150

1972 1982 1992 2002 2012 

Year

Layer 1 Layer 14Layer 2 Layer 15Layer 3 Layer 16Layer 4 Layer 17Layer 5 Layer 18Layer 6 Layer 19Layer 8 Layer 21Layer 9 Layer 22Layer 10 Layer 23Layer 11 Layer 24Layer 12 ObservationLayer 13

EXPLANATION

Layer 7 Layer 20

Water level, in feet above North American Vertical Datum of 1988

D13. 4N/27W-15K1
Figure 19. —Continued

sac16-062_IP-075076_figC19_D14

250200150100

50

0

–50

–100–150

1972 1982 1992 2002 2012 

Year

Layer 1 Layer 14Layer 2 Layer 15Layer 3 Layer 16Layer 4 Layer 17Layer 5 Layer 18Layer 6 Layer 19Layer 8 Layer 21Layer 9 Layer 22Layer 10 Layer 23Layer 11 Layer 24Layer 12 ObservationLayer 13

EXPLANATION

Layer 7 Layer 20

Water level, in feet above North American Vertical Datum of 1988

D14. 4N/27W-15E1
Figure 19. —Continued sac16-062_IP-075076_figC19_D15

250200150100

50

0

–50

–100–150

1972 1982 1992 2002 2012 

Year

Layer 1 Layer 14Layer 2 Layer 15Layer 3 Layer 16Layer 4 Layer 17Layer 5 Layer 18Layer 6 Layer 19Layer 8 Layer 21Layer 9 Layer 22Layer 10 Layer 23Layer 11 Layer 24Layer 12 ObservationLayer 13

EXPLANATION

Layer 7 Layer 20

Water level, in feet above North American Vertical Datum of 1988

D15. 4N/27W-15E2
Figure 19. —Continued

sac16-062_IP-075076_figC19_D16

250200150100

50

0

–50

–100–150

1972 1982 1992 2002 2012 

Year

Layer 1 Layer 14Layer 2 Layer 15Layer 3 Layer 16Layer 4 Layer 17Layer 5 Layer 18Layer 6 Layer 19Layer 8 Layer 21Layer 9 Layer 22Layer 10 Layer 23Layer 11 Layer 24Layer 12 ObservationLayer 13

EXPLANATION

Layer 7 Layer 20

Water level, in feet above North American Vertical Datum of 1988

D16. 4N/27W-16R1
Figure 19. —Continued sac16-062_IP-075076_figC19_D17

250200150100

50

0

–50

–100–150

1972 1982 1992 2002 2012 

Year

Layer 1 Layer 14Layer 2 Layer 15Layer 3 Layer 16Layer 4 Layer 17Layer 5 Layer 18Layer 6 Layer 19Layer 8 Layer 21Layer 9 Layer 22Layer 10 Layer 23Layer 11 Layer 24Layer 12 ObservationLayer 13

EXPLANATION

Layer 7 Layer 20

Water level, in feet above North American Vertical Datum of 1988

D17. 4N/27W-21B1
Figure 19. —Continued

sac16-062_IP-075076_figC19_D18

250200150100

50

0

–50

–100–150

1972 1982 1992 2002 2012 

Year

Layer 1 Layer 14Layer 2 Layer 15Layer 3 Layer 16Layer 4 Layer 17Layer 5 Layer 18Layer 6 Layer 19Layer 8 Layer 21Layer 9 Layer 22Layer 10 Layer 23Layer 11 Layer 24Layer 12 ObservationLayer 13

EXPLANATION

Layer 7 Layer 20

Water level, in feet above North American Vertical Datum of 1988

D18. 4N/27W-22E1
Figure 19. —Continued sac16-062_IP-075076_figC19_D19

250200150100

50

0

–50

–100–150

1972 1982 1992 2002 2012 

Year

Layer 1 Layer 14Layer 2 Layer 15Layer 3 Layer 16Layer 4 Layer 17Layer 5 Layer 18Layer 6 Layer 19Layer 8 Layer 21Layer 9 Layer 22Layer 10 Layer 23Layer 11 Layer 24Layer 12 ObservationLayer 13

EXPLANATION

Layer 7 Layer 20

Water level, in feet above North American Vertical Datum of 1988

D19. 4N/27W-22E2
Figure 19. —Continued

sac16-062_IP-075076_figC19_D20

250200150100

50

0

–50

–100–150

1972 1982 1992 2002 2012 

Year

Layer 1 Layer 14Layer 2 Layer 15Layer 3 Layer 16Layer 4 Layer 17Layer 5 Layer 18Layer 6 Layer 19Layer 8 Layer 21Layer 9 Layer 22Layer 10 Layer 23Layer 11 Layer 24Layer 12 ObservationLayer 13

EXPLANATION

Layer 7 Layer 20

Water level, in feet above North American Vertical Datum of 1988

D20. 4N/27W-22B2
Figure 19. —Continued sac16-062_IP-075076_figC19_D21

250200150100

50

0

–50

–100–150

1972 1982 1992 2002 2012 

Year

Layer 1 Layer 14Layer 2 Layer 15Layer 3 Layer 16Layer 4 Layer 17Layer 5 Layer 18Layer 6 Layer 19Layer 8 Layer 21Layer 9 Layer 22Layer 10 Layer 23Layer 11 Layer 24Layer 12 ObservationLayer 13

EXPLANATION

Layer 7 Layer 20

Water level, in feet above North American Vertical Datum of 1988

D21. 4N/27W-22B3
Figure 19. —Continued

sac16-062_IP-075076_figC19_D22

250200150100

50

0

–50

–100–150

1972 1982 1992 2002 2012 

Year

D22. 4N/27W-22B4

Layer 1 Layer 14Layer 2 Layer 15Layer 3 Layer 16Layer 4 Layer 17Layer 5 Layer 18Layer 6 Layer 19Layer 8 Layer 21Layer 9 Layer 22Layer 10 Layer 23Layer 11 Layer 24Layer 12 ObservationLayer 13

EXPLANATION

Layer 7 Layer 20

Water level, in feet above North American Vertical Datum of 1988
Figure 19. —Continued sac16-062_IP-075076_figC19_D23

250200150100

50

0

–50

–100–150

1972 1982 1992 2002 2012 

Year

Layer 1 Layer 14Layer 2 Layer 15Layer 3 Layer 16Layer 4 Layer 17Layer 5 Layer 18Layer 6 Layer 19Layer 8 Layer 21Layer 9 Layer 22Layer 10 Layer 23Layer 11 Layer 24Layer 12 ObservationLayer 13

EXPLANATION

Layer 7 Layer 20

Water level, in feet above North American Vertical Datum of 1988

D23. 4N/27W-22B5
Figure 19. —Continued

sac16-062_IP-075076_figC19_D24

250200150100

50

0

–50

–100–150

1972 1982 1992 2002 2012 

Year

Layer 1 Layer 14Layer 2 Layer 15Layer 3 Layer 16Layer 4 Layer 17Layer 5 Layer 18Layer 6 Layer 19Layer 8 Layer 21Layer 9 Layer 22Layer 10 Layer 23Layer 11 Layer 24Layer 12 ObservationLayer 13

EXPLANATION

Layer 7 Layer 20

Water level, in feet above North American Vertical Datum of 1988

D24. 4N/27W-22B6
Figure 19. —Continued sac16-062_IP-075076_figC19_D25

250200150100

50

0

–50

–100–150

1972 1982 1992 2002 2012 

Year

Layer 1 Layer 14Layer 2 Layer 15Layer 3 Layer 16Layer 4 Layer 17Layer 5 Layer 18Layer 6 Layer 19Layer 8 Layer 21Layer 9 Layer 22Layer 10 Layer 23Layer 11 Layer 24Layer 12 ObservationLayer 13

EXPLANATION

Layer 7 Layer 20

Water level, in feet above North American Vertical Datum of 1988

D25. 4N/27W-22B8
Figure 19. —Continued

sac16-062_IP-075076_figC19_D26

250200150100

50

0

–50

–100–150

1972 1982 1992 2002 2012 

Year

Layer 1 Layer 14Layer 2 Layer 15Layer 3 Layer 16Layer 4 Layer 17Layer 5 Layer 18Layer 6 Layer 19Layer 8 Layer 21Layer 9 Layer 22Layer 10 Layer 23Layer 11 Layer 24Layer 12 ObservationLayer 13

EXPLANATION

Layer 7 Layer 20

Water level, in feet above North American Vertical Datum of 1988

D26. 4N/27W-22B9
Figure 19. —Continued sac16-062_IP-075076_figC19_D27

250200150100

50

0

–50

–100–150

1972 1982 1992 2002 2012 

Year

Layer 1 Layer 14Layer 2 Layer 15Layer 3 Layer 16Layer 4 Layer 17Layer 5 Layer 18Layer 6 Layer 19Layer 8 Layer 21Layer 9 Layer 22Layer 10 Layer 23Layer 11 Layer 24Layer 12 ObservationLayer 13

EXPLANATION

Layer 7 Layer 20

Water level, in feet above North American Vertical Datum of 1988

D27. 4N/27W-22B10
Figure 19. —Continued

sac16-062_IP-075076_figC19_D28

250200150100

50

0

–50

–100–150

1972 1982 1992 2002 2012 

Year

Layer 1 Layer 14Layer 2 Layer 15Layer 3 Layer 16Layer 4 Layer 17Layer 5 Layer 18Layer 6 Layer 19Layer 8 Layer 21Layer 9 Layer 22Layer 10 Layer 23Layer 11 Layer 24Layer 12 ObservationLayer 13

EXPLANATION

Layer 7 Layer 20

Water level, in feet above North American Vertical Datum of 1988

D28. 4N/27W-22B11
Figure 19. —Continued sac16-062_IP-075076_figC19_D29

250200150100

50

0

–50

–100–150

1972 1982 1992 2002 2012 

Year

Layer 1 Layer 14Layer 2 Layer 15Layer 3 Layer 16Layer 4 Layer 17Layer 5 Layer 18Layer 6 Layer 19Layer 8 Layer 21Layer 9 Layer 22Layer 10 Layer 23Layer 11 Layer 24Layer 12 ObservationLayer 13

EXPLANATION

Layer 7 Layer 20

Water level, in feet above North American Vertical Datum of 1988

D29. 4N/27W-22A2
Figure 19. —Continued

sac16-062_IP-075076_figC19_D30

250200150100

50

0

–50

–100–150

1972 1982 1992 2002 2012 

Year

Layer 1 Layer 14Layer 2 Layer 15Layer 3 Layer 16Layer 4 Layer 17Layer 5 Layer 18Layer 6 Layer 19Layer 8 Layer 21Layer 9 Layer 22Layer 10 Layer 23Layer 11 Layer 24Layer 12 ObservationLayer 13

EXPLANATION

Layer 7 Layer 20

Water level, in feet above North American Vertical Datum of 1988

D30. 4N/27W-22A3
Figure 19. —Continued sac16-062_IP-075076_figC19_D31

250200150100

50

0

–50

–100–150

1972 1982 1992 2002 2012 

Year

Layer 1 Layer 14Layer 2 Layer 15Layer 3 Layer 16Layer 4 Layer 17Layer 5 Layer 18Layer 6 Layer 19Layer 8 Layer 21Layer 9 Layer 22Layer 10 Layer 23Layer 11 Layer 24Layer 12 ObservationLayer 13

EXPLANATION

Layer 7 Layer 20

Water level, in feet above North American Vertical Datum of 1988

D31. 4N/27W-22A4
Figure 19. —Continued

sac16-062_IP-075076_figC19_D32

250200150100

50

0

–50

–100–150

1972 1982 1992 2002 2012 

Year

Layer 1 Layer 14Layer 2 Layer 15Layer 3 Layer 16Layer 4 Layer 17Layer 5 Layer 18Layer 6 Layer 19Layer 8 Layer 21Layer 9 Layer 22Layer 10 Layer 23Layer 11 Layer 24Layer 12 ObservationLayer 13

EXPLANATION

Layer 7 Layer 20

Water level, in feet above North American Vertical Datum of 1988

D32. 4N/27W-22G2
Figure 19. —Continued sac16-062_IP-075076_figC19_D33

250200150100

50

0

–50

–100–150

1972 1982 1992 2002 2012 

Year

Layer 1 Layer 14Layer 2 Layer 15Layer 3 Layer 16Layer 4 Layer 17Layer 5 Layer 18Layer 6 Layer 19Layer 8 Layer 21Layer 9 Layer 22Layer 10 Layer 23Layer 11 Layer 24Layer 12 ObservationLayer 13

EXPLANATION

Layer 7 Layer 20

Water level, in feet above North American Vertical Datum of 1988

D33. 4N/27W-22G3
Figure 19. —Continued

sac16-062_IP-075076_figC19_D34

250200150100

50

0

–50

–100–150

1972 1982 1992 2002 2012 

Year

Layer 1 Layer 14Layer 2 Layer 15Layer 3 Layer 16Layer 4 Layer 17Layer 5 Layer 18Layer 6 Layer 19Layer 8 Layer 21Layer 9 Layer 22Layer 10 Layer 23Layer 11 Layer 24Layer 12 ObservationLayer 13

EXPLANATION

Layer 7 Layer 20

Water level, in feet above North American Vertical Datum of 1988

D34. 4N/27W-22G4
Figure 19. —Continued sac16-062_IP-075076_figC19_D35

250200150100

50

0

–50

–100–150

1972 1982 1992 2002 2012 

Year

Layer 1 Layer 14Layer 2 Layer 15Layer 3 Layer 16Layer 4 Layer 17Layer 5 Layer 18Layer 6 Layer 19Layer 8 Layer 21Layer 9 Layer 22Layer 10 Layer 23Layer 11 Layer 24Layer 12 ObservationLayer 13

EXPLANATION

Layer 7 Layer 20

Water level, in feet above North American Vertical Datum of 1988

D35. 4N/27W-23E1
Figure 19. —Continued

sac16-062_IP-075076_figC19_D36

250200150100

50

0

–50

–100–150

1972 1982 1992 2002 2012 

Year

Layer 1 Layer 14Layer 2 Layer 15Layer 3 Layer 16Layer 4 Layer 17Layer 5 Layer 18Layer 6 Layer 19Layer 8 Layer 21Layer 9 Layer 22Layer 10 Layer 23Layer 11 Layer 24Layer 12 ObservationLayer 13

EXPLANATION

Layer 7 Layer 20

Water level, in feet above North American Vertical Datum of 1988

D36. 4N/27W-23E2
Figure 19. —Continued sac16-062_IP-075076_figC19_D37

250200150100

50

0

–50

–100–150

1972 1982 1992 2002 2012 

Year

Layer 1 Layer 14Layer 2 Layer 15Layer 3 Layer 16Layer 4 Layer 17Layer 5 Layer 18Layer 6 Layer 19Layer 8 Layer 21Layer 9 Layer 22Layer 10 Layer 23Layer 11 Layer 24Layer 12 ObservationLayer 13

EXPLANATION

Layer 7 Layer 20

Water level, in feet above North American Vertical Datum of 1988

D37. 4N/27W-23E3
Figure 19. —Continued

sac16-062_IP-075076_figC19_D38

250200150100

50

0

–50

–100–150

1972 1982 1992 2002 2012 

Year

Layer 1 Layer 14Layer 2 Layer 15Layer 3 Layer 16Layer 4 Layer 17Layer 5 Layer 18Layer 6 Layer 19Layer 8 Layer 21Layer 9 Layer 22Layer 10 Layer 23Layer 11 Layer 24Layer 12 ObservationLayer 13

EXPLANATION

Layer 7 Layer 20

Water level, in feet above North American Vertical Datum of 1988

D38. 4N/27W-23E4
Figure 19. —Continued sac16-062_IP-075076_figC19_D39

250200150100

50

0

–50

–100–150

1972 1982 1992 2002 2012 

Year

Layer 1 Layer 14Layer 2 Layer 15Layer 3 Layer 16Layer 4 Layer 17Layer 5 Layer 18Layer 6 Layer 19Layer 8 Layer 21Layer 9 Layer 22Layer 10 Layer 23Layer 11 Layer 24Layer 12 ObservationLayer 13

EXPLANATION

Layer 7 Layer 20

Water level, in feet above North American Vertical Datum of 1988

D39. 4N/27W-23E5
Figure 19. —Continued

sac16-062_IP-075076_figC19_D40

250200150100

50

0

–50

–100–150

1972 1982 1992 2002 2012 

Year

Layer 1 Layer 14Layer 2 Layer 15Layer 3 Layer 16Layer 4 Layer 17Layer 5 Layer 18Layer 6 Layer 19Layer 8 Layer 21Layer 9 Layer 22Layer 10 Layer 23Layer 11 Layer 24Layer 12 ObservationLayer 13

EXPLANATION

Layer 7 Layer 20

Water level, in feet above North American Vertical Datum of 1988

D40. 4N/27W-23F2
Figure 19. —Continued sac16-062_IP-075076_figC19_D41

250200150100

50

0

–50

–100–150

1972 1982 1992 2002 2012 

Year

Layer 1 Layer 14Layer 2 Layer 15Layer 3 Layer 16Layer 4 Layer 17Layer 5 Layer 18Layer 6 Layer 19Layer 8 Layer 21Layer 9 Layer 22Layer 10 Layer 23Layer 11 Layer 24Layer 12 ObservationLayer 13

EXPLANATION

Layer 7 Layer 20

Water level, in feet above North American Vertical Datum of 1988

D41. 4N/27W-23F3
Figure 19. —Continued

sac16-062_IP-075076_figC19_D42

250200150100

50

0

–50

–100–150

1972 1982 1992 2002 2012 

Year

Layer 1 Layer 14Layer 2 Layer 15Layer 3 Layer 16Layer 4 Layer 17Layer 5 Layer 18Layer 6 Layer 19Layer 8 Layer 21Layer 9 Layer 22Layer 10 Layer 23Layer 11 Layer 24Layer 12 ObservationLayer 13

EXPLANATION

Layer 7 Layer 20

Water level, in feet above North American Vertical Datum of 1988

D42. 4N/27W-23F4
Figure 19. —Continued sac16-062_IP-075076_figC19_D43

250200150100

50

0

–50

–100–150

1972 1982 1992 2002 2012 

Year

Layer 1 Layer 14Layer 2 Layer 15Layer 3 Layer 16Layer 4 Layer 17Layer 5 Layer 18Layer 6 Layer 19Layer 8 Layer 21Layer 9 Layer 22Layer 10 Layer 23Layer 11 Layer 24Layer 12 ObservationLayer 13

EXPLANATION

Layer 7 Layer 20

Water level, in feet above North American Vertical Datum of 1988

D43. 4N/27W-23F5
Figure 19. —Continued

sac16-062_IP-075076_figC19_D44

250200150100

50

0

–50

–100–150

1972 1982 1992 2002 2012 

Year

Layer 1 Layer 14Layer 2 Layer 15Layer 3 Layer 16Layer 4 Layer 17Layer 5 Layer 18Layer 6 Layer 19Layer 8 Layer 21Layer 9 Layer 22Layer 10 Layer 23Layer 11 Layer 24Layer 12 ObservationLayer 13

EXPLANATION

Layer 7 Layer 20

Water level, in feet above North American Vertical Datum of 1988

D44. 4N/27W-23F6
Figure 19. —Continued sac16-062_IP-075076_figC19_D45

250200150100

50

0

–50

–100–150

1972 1982 1992 2002 2012 

Year

Layer 1 Layer 14Layer 2 Layer 15Layer 3 Layer 16Layer 4 Layer 17Layer 5 Layer 18Layer 6 Layer 19Layer 8 Layer 21Layer 9 Layer 22Layer 10 Layer 23Layer 11 Layer 24Layer 12 ObservationLayer 13

EXPLANATION

Layer 7 Layer 20

Water level, in feet above North American Vertical Datum of 1988

D45. 4N/27W-23F7
Figure 19. —Continued

sac16-062_IP-075076_figC19_D46

250200150100

50

0

–50

–100–150

1972 1982 1992 2002 2012 

Year

Layer 1 Layer 14Layer 2 Layer 15Layer 3 Layer 16Layer 4 Layer 17Layer 5 Layer 18Layer 6 Layer 19Layer 8 Layer 21Layer 9 Layer 22Layer 10 Layer 23Layer 11 Layer 24Layer 12 ObservationLayer 13

EXPLANATION

Layer 7 Layer 20

Water level, in feet above North American Vertical Datum of 1988

D46. 4N/27W-23F8
Figure 19. —Continued sac16-062_IP-075076_figC19_D47

250200150100

50

0

–50

–100–150

1972 1982 1992 2002 2012 

Year

Layer 1 Layer 14Layer 2 Layer 15Layer 3 Layer 16Layer 4 Layer 17Layer 5 Layer 18Layer 6 Layer 19Layer 8 Layer 21Layer 9 Layer 22Layer 10 Layer 23Layer 11 Layer 24Layer 12 ObservationLayer 13

EXPLANATION

Layer 7 Layer 20

Water level, in feet above North American Vertical Datum of 1988

D47. 4N/27W-23F9
234 Santa Barbara and Foothill Groundwater Basins Geohydrology and Optimal Water Resources Management

West Foothill Subbasin

West Foothill subbasin simulated hydrographs showed 

a reasonable fit to measured data, with most hydrographs 

matching water levels as well as changes in water levels 

through time (fig. 19A). As would be expected, water-level 

changes were strongly influenced by the production wells in 

this region. Wells 4N/27W-07D1, 4N/27W-07M6, 4N/28W12H4, and 4N/28W-12R3 are near the major production 

wells in West Foothill subbasin, including Los Robles and 

La Cumbre Mutual Water Company (LCM) wells #9 and 

#16 (figs. 9, 19A). Of the four wells, the fit of simulated to 

measured water levels was worst for well 4N/27W-07M6 

(fig. 19A). From 1975 to 1977, the simulated hydraulic heads 

in well 4N/27W-07M6 declined because of pumping from the 

LCM #9 production well; however, measured water levels did 

not decline during this time. Wells 4N/27W-07M6 and LCM 

#9 are both perforated in the upper and lower producing zones. 

Additionally, wells LCM #9 and 4N/27W-07M6 are both in 

a narrow zone between the Northeast More Ranch fault and 

the unnamed fault, less than a third of a mile from each other 

(fig. 9). With no known barrier separating well 4N/27W-07M6 

from LCM #9, this well proved difficult to calibrate. This 

indicated that groundwater flow is restricted between these 

two wells in some way that is not addressed by the conceptual 

model. 

Wells 4N/28W-12B1, 4N/28W-12C2, and 4N/28W01R1–2 are on the western side of the West Foothill subbasin 

(fig. 9). The nearest production well is Los Robles, which is 

slightly down gradient from these wells. In general, measured 

and simulated changes in head were very similar for these 

wells (fig. 19A). Simulated hydraulic heads and measured 

water levels were a reasonable match for wells 4N/28W01R1–2; however, water levels for wells 4N/28W-12B1 and 

4N/28W-12C2 were overestimated (fig. 19A). Matching water 

levels in wells 4N/28W-01R1–2 and 4N/28W-12C2 proved 

to be difficult because these wells are both perforated in the 

upper producing zone, are less than 0.5 mi apart, but had a 

water-level difference of approximately 20 ft, with lower 

water levels in well 4N/28W-12C2. No outflow exists on the 

west side of well 4N/28W-12C2 large enough to drive this 

water-level difference between the wells. In addition, even 

though it is closer to the nearest production well, water-levels 

fluctuated less in well 4N/28W-01R1 than in well 4N/28W12C2. This indicates that wells 4N/28W-01R1–2 have a weak 

hydraulic connection to the south. This could be explained 

by a local decrease in sediment coarseness or layer thickness 

around wells 4N/28W-01R1–2 not captured in the HFM.

East Foothill Subbasin

In general, the hydrographs from wells (4N/27W-05P1 

and 4N/27W-08M5–6), in the East Foothill subbasin, showed 

simulated trends in hydraulic head matching those measured 

(fig. 19B). One exception is well 4N/27W-05P1, in the 

northern part of the basin, because the seasonal variability 

in simulated hydraulic heads did not match the measured 

data; the simulated results were less variable than measured 

data. The lack of variability in the simulated results could be 

associated with unknown pumping near the well or be caused 

by the manner in which creeks were simulated. There could 

be unknown or unreported pumping that, if included, could 

affect the simulated results. Perhaps more importantly, San 

Roque Creek is less than 100 ft from well 4N/27W-05P1, and 

the creeks in the model area are simulated using constant-stage 

streams in the RIV package; therefore, seasonal variability 

of the stream stages, which likely affect water levels in these 

wells, were not addressed.

Monitoring wells 4N/27W-08M5–6 are in the middle of 

the East Foothill subbasin, approximately 1,400 ft southwest 

of the San Roque Park production wells and approximately 

2,100 ft northwest of the McKenzie Park production wells 

(fig. 9). Wells 4N/27W-08M5–6 are perforated in the lower 

and upper producing zones, respectively. The simulated 

hydraulic heads and measured water levels for well 4N/27W08M5 were very similar in terms of magnitude and trend 

(fig. 19B). Simulated hydraulic heads and measured water 

levels in well 4N/27W-08M6 followed a similar pattern, with 

simulated heads having slightly more drawdown and recovery 

than the measured data. The declines in simulated hydraulic 

heads and measured water levels in wells 4N/27W-08M5–6 

corresponded to increased pumping in the East Foothill 

subbasin from 1984 to 1991 and from 2007 to 2013, and the 

period of increasing water levels during the 1990s and early 

2000s corresponded to a time of relatively little pumping 

(fig. A–8). In addition to being consistent with the measured 

water levels at these wells, the simulated vertical gradient 

between these wells was consistent with the measured data.

Storage Unit III

In general, simulated hydraulic heads matched measured 

water levels well for the west side of Storage Unit III, but 

there were greater errors in simulated values on the east side 

(fig. 19C). Simulated hydraulic heads for wells in the west 

side of Storage Unit III, including wells 4N/27W-18C2–3 

and 4N/27W-18Q1 and 18Q4, matched measured water 

levels during periods of high pumping, such as 1988–93 

and 2010–13, fairly well. However, simulated heads were 

consistently higher than measured water levels during periods 

of low pumping, such as 1994–2008. Toward the east side of 

Storage Unit III, simulated hydraulic heads poorly matched 

measured water levels and seasonal changes in water levels 

(for example, well 4N/27W-21F2; fig. 19C). This is difficult 

to see given the hydrograph’s scale, but the simulated seasonal 

fluctuations were under simulated. The eastern side of Storage 

Unit III consists of a thin layer of alluvium with underlying 

shale, which is bounded by the Mesa fault to the north and a 

mesa to the south with elevations up to 450 ft. The thin layer 

of alluvium could have low transmissivity values, allowing 

runoff from the mesa to the south to seasonally influence 

water levels in this area. Because runoff from the mesa is not 

simulated in the SBFTM, this could explain discrepancies 

between measured and simulated heads in this area.
Chapter C: Numerical Model of Groundwater Flow and Solute Transport 235

Storage Unit I

Simulated hydrographs for selected wells in the 

western part of Storage Unit I (4N/27W-07Q5, 4N/27W07R3, 4N/27W-16C1–2, 4N/27W-16E2, 4N/27W-17J1, 

4N/27W-08R2, and 4N/27W-17L2–4; fig. 9) were generally 

in agreement with the measured data in terms of values 

and trends. Wells 4N/27W-07Q5 and 4N/27W-07R3 are in 

the westernmost corner of Storage Unit I (fig. 9), and the 

simulated hydraulic heads matched measured water levels 

fairly well in terms of value and trend (fig. 19D). To the east, 

simulated hydraulic heads and measured water levels near 

Mission Creek fit reasonably (for example, wells 4N/27W16C1–2, 4N/27W-16E2, and 4N/27W-17J1). Well 4N/27W08R2 is close to where Mission Creek runs along the East 

More Ranch fault (fig. 9). Measured water levels from this 

well showed influences from both Foothill subbasins and 

Storage Unit I. This indicated that well 4N/27W-08R2 could 

either pass through the East More Ranch fault at depth or is 

in the East More Ranch fault zone. Wells 4N/27W-17L2–4 

are close to the Mesa fault (fig. 9). Simulated hydraulic heads 

and measured water levels fit reasonably for the shallow 

well 4N/27W-17L4, which was perforated above the upper 

producing zone, but did not fit as well for the deeper wells 

4N/27W-17L2 and 4N/27W-17L3, which were perforated 

in the upper and lower producing zones, respectively 

(fig. 19D). Measured water levels in wells 4N/27W-17L2 and 

4N/27W-17L3 indicated an influence from Storage Unit III, 

where water levels were relatively low during the post-1991 

recovery. This indicated the well cluster could cross the Mesa 

fault at depth.

Simulated hydrographs for selected wells in the eastern 

part of Storage Unit I (4N/27W-14K2, 4N/27W-15J2, 

4N/27W-15K1, 4N/27W-15E1–2, 4N/27W-16R1, 4N/27W21B1, and 4N/27W-22E1–2), which are near the main Storage 

Unit I production wells (fig. 9), generally matched measured 

water levels. Wells 4N/27W-14K2 and 4N/27W-15J2 are east 

of the main production wells and are perforated in the upper 

producing zone and in the upper and middle producing zones, 

respectively. The simulated hydraulic heads and drawdown 

matched the measured data in both wells (fig. 19D). Well 

4N/27W-15K1 is just north of the main production wells and 

is perforated in the lower producing zone (fig. 9). Simulated 

hydraulic heads and measured water levels were similar, but 

simulated drawdowns were slightly greater than measured 

drawdowns (fig. 19D). Wells 4N/27W-15E1–2, northwest of 

the main production wells (fig. 9), are perforated in the upper 

and lower producing zones and in the lower producing zone, 

respectively. In general, for both of these wells, simulated 

hydraulic heads were less than measured water levels, but 

amounts of drawdown were similar (fig. 19D). The measured 

water levels from 15E2 were much more variable in the 

early 1990s and 2010s than the simulated hydraulic heads 

(fig. 19D), however. West of the main production wells, well 

4N/27W-16R1 is perforated in the lower producing zone, well 

4N/27W-21B1 is perforated in the upper producing zone, 

and wells 4N/27W-22E1–2 are both perforated in the upper 

aquitard. Simulated hydraulic heads and measured water levels 

matched fairly well, although simulated drawdown was greater 

than measured during the pumping events between 1980 and 

1990 for well 4N/27W-16R1, and it was less than measured in 

well 4N/27W-21B1 (fig. 19D). For wells 4N/27W-21B1 and 

4N/27W-22E2, simulated heads were less than measured water 

levels during the recovery period following 1991 (fig. 19D).

In addition to the wells in the eastern part of Storage 

Unit I, there are a number of monitoring-well clusters 

between the production wells and the coastline (for example, 

4N/27W-22B2–6, 4N/27W-22B8–11, 4N/27W-22A2–4, 

4N/27W-22G2–4, 4N/27W-23E1–4, 4N/27W-23E5, 

4N/27W-23F2–4, and 4N/27W-23F5–9; fig. 9). Monitoring 

wells 4N/27W-22B2–6 and 22B8–11 are within 300 ft of 

the Vera Cruz well, one of the main production wells in the 

Santa Barbara groundwater basin (fig. 9). Wells 22B2–6 are 

perforated in the upper producing zone, middle zone, lower 

producing zone, lower aquitard, and the three producing 

zones, respectively, and wells 22B8–11 are perforated in the 

lower aquitard, lower producing zone, middle producing 

zone, and upper producing zone, respectively. Water-level 

data were collected at wells 22B2–6 primarily during mid1970s to the early 1990s, whereas data were collected at wells 

22B8–11 primarily during the early 1990s to 2013 Overall, 

simulated hydraulic heads and measured water levels matched 

fairly well for these wells, except for wells 22B3 and 22B6 

(fig. 19D). Monitoring well 4N/27W-22B3 was assumed to be 

perforated in the middle zone, which, with the exception of the 

middle producing zone, is generally composed of fine-grained 

material; therefore, the simulated response of the hydraulic 

heads to pumping was less variable than that shown by the 

measured data. Monitoring well 4N/27W-22B6 is perforated 

throughout all three producing zones in an area where there 

was a large vertical gradient between these zones. The lower 

simulated hydraulic heads for this well could, therefore, be 

partially due to the manner in which SBFTM averages the 

heads in each layer to produce a representative head value for 

the monitoring well. The direction of the vertical gradient was 

simulated accurately in wells 4N/27W-22B9 and 22B11, with 

highest heads in the lower producing zone (22B9) and lowest 

heads in the upper producing zone (22B11). The simulated 

vertical gradient between the lower and middle producing 

zones was slightly exaggerated; simulated hydraulic heads in 

the lower producing zone were slightly higher than measured 

during the recovery period from 1991 to 2013 (fig. 19D).

Monitoring wells 4N/27W-22A2–4 and 4N/27W-22G2–4 

are about 0.25 mi southeast and south, respectively, from the 

Vera Cruz production well (fig. 9). Both sets of monitoring 

wells are between the main production wells and the coast and 

are about 0.5 mi from the coast. Monitoring wells 4N/27W22A2–4 are perforated in the upper producing zone, middle 

producing zone, and lower producing zone, respectively. 
236 Santa Barbara and Foothill Groundwater Basins Geohydrology and Optimal Water Resources Management

Monitoring wells 4N/27W-22G2–4 are perforated in the 

upper aquitard, middle producing and lower producing zones, 

respectively. Simulated hydraulic heads, drawdowns, and 

vertical gradients were all in agreement with the measured 

data for both sets of monitoring wells (fig. 19D). In both wells, 

simulated and measured drawdowns were greater at depth, 

and the vertical difference in simulated hydraulic head and 

measured water levels from the lower to the upper zones was 

about 15 ft during the post-1991 recovery years.

Monitoring wells 4N/27W-23E1–4, 4N/27W-23E5–6, 

4N/27W-23F2–4, and 4N/27W-23F5–9 are within 1.0 mi 

southeast of the Vera Cruz production well (fig. 9). Simulated 

hydraulic heads, drawdowns, and vertical differences in 

simulated hydraulic heads were similar to measured data 

for wells 4N/27W-23E1–5 and 4N/27W-23F2–9. Measured 

and simulated drawdowns for the upper, middle, and 

lower producing zones were all similar, with much smaller 

drawdowns in the upper aquitard layer (4N/27W-23E4).

Water-Level Data Fit

A simple method to assess overall model fit is to plot 

the simulated hydraulic heads against the measured waterlevel (fig. 20). For a perfect fit, all points should show a 

1:1 relation (fall on the 1:1 diagonal line). The root mean 

square error (RMSE) between measured water-level elevations 

and simulated hydraulic heads was 14.7 ft. Given the scale of 

the SBFTM, simulated hydraulic heads reasonably matched 

measured water-level elevations. The average residual was 

–2.7 ft and the standard deviation was 14.5 ft. The average 

residual indicates a slight bias towards underpredicting 

measured water-level elevations. The residuals ranged from 

–156.4 to 159.5 ft; these extremes possibly represent errors 

in the databases, measurements that represent pumping 

conditions, or seasonal variations beyond the ability of the 

model to simulate. More than 54 percent of the simulated 

hydraulic heads were within 8 ft of measured water-level 

elevations, more than 80 percent were within 16 ft, and more 

than 95 percent were within 30 ft.

1-to-1 line –160

–140

–120

–100

–80

–60

–40

–20

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

220

–160 –140 –120 –100 –80 –60 –40 –20 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220

Simulated hydraulic head, in feet above North American Vertical Datum of 1988

Measured water levels, in feet above North American Vertical Datum of 1988

Storage Unit I

Storage Unit I production

Storage Unit III

East Foothill 

East Foothill production

West Foothill 

West Foothill production

EXPLANATION

Figure 20. Simulated hydraulic heads compared with measured water levels by subbasin and well type for the Santa Barbara flow and 

transport model, Santa Barbara, California.
Chapter C: Numerical Model of Groundwater Flow and Solute Transport 237

Figure 20 indicates that, overall, the SBFTM matched 

water levels above sea level (NAVD88) fairly well; however, 

it did not match water levels below sea level as well, as 

indicated by the greater spread in the plot of negative 

(below sea level) water levels. Simulated hydraulic heads 

in the Foothill subbasins, Storage Unit III, and the upper 

part of Storage Unit I, which were consistently above sea 

level, matched measured water levels fairly well. Simulated 

hydraulic heads and measured water levels in Storage Unit I 

that were below sea level did not match well during heavy 

pumping events. There were two primary factors contributing 

to the water-level discrepancy at these times. First, much of 

the measured data were from production wells or monitoring 

wells very close to production wells, which could result in 

discrepancies between the measured and simulated results 

(fig. 20). Water levels have a large spatial variation near 

pumping wells, and the SBFTM’s cell dimensions are 

substantially greater than the well diameters; therefore, the 

accuracy of simulated water levels very near or in active 

production wells is limited. Second, recovery of water levels 

near the main production wells is rapid. Slight deviations 

between simulated and measured recovery rates lead to very 

large, short-term discrepancies in head. This overestimation of 

low water level elevations could result in underestimation of 

seawater intrusion should seawater reach the production wells.

Simulated Chloride Concentrations and 

Model Data Fit

Contours of simulated chloride concentrations for 

January 1972 and July 1990 are shown in figure 21. The 

chloride contours for January 1972 show conditions prior to 

seawater intruding during the 1980s and early 1990s, whereas 

the chloride contours for July 1990 show conditions near the 

peak of the historical groundwater pumpage and seawater 

intrusion. In general, the simulated chloride concentrations for 

January 1972 show limited seawater intrusion in the upper, 

middle, and lower producing zones; the greatest seawater 

intrusion occurred in the middle producing zone (figs. 21A, C, 

E). Simulated chloride concentrations in the upper producing 

zone were less than 2,000 mg/L in all onshore model cells 

(fig. 21A). Simulated chloride concentrations were greater than 

2,000 mg/L in the middle producing zone as far as 1,600 ft 

inland and about 2,300 ft from the Vera Cruz production well 

(fig. 21C). Simulated chloride concentrations were greater 

than 2,000 mg/L in the lower producing zone as far as 1,000 ft 

inland and about 2,640 ft from the Vera Cruz production well 

(fig. 21E).

Between January 1972 and July 1990, the simulated 

chloride plume moved toward the production wells in 

response to increased pumpage from the main production 

wells in Storage Unit I in all three producing zones. In the 

upper producing zone, the simulated 1,500 mg/L contour 

advanced about 790 ft toward the Vera Cruz production well 

and about 550 ft toward the Corporation Yard production well 

(figs. 21A, B). Simulated chloride concentrations were higher 

in July 1990 in the middle producing zone; the 1,500 mg/L 

contour moved beyond U.S. Route 101 in some areas to 

about 0.5 mi inland (figs. 21C, D). The 1,500 mg/L contour 

advanced toward the Vera Cruz and Corporation Yard wells, 

about 200 and 880 ft, respectively. In the lower producing 

zone, the 1,500 mg/L contour advanced toward the Vera Cruz 

and Corporation Yard wells about 540 and 610 ft, respectively 

(figs. 21E, F).

Figure 22 shows simulated and measured chloride 

breakthrough curves for selected wells in Storage Unit I 

where the coastal monitoring wells are on the seaward side 

of U.S. Route 101 and the inland monitoring wells are on the 

inland side U.S. Route 101. Coastal wells 4N/27W-23E1, 

4N/27W-23E5, and 4N/27W-23F4 are perforated in the lower 

producing zone. The trend of increasing measured chloride 

concentrations from the late 1970s to the early 1990s was 

reasonably well simulated in these wells (fig. 22A). The trend 

of decreasing measured chloride concentrations in these 

wells from the early 1990s through 2014 was steeper than 

that indicated by simulated chloride concentrations, although 

simulated chloride concentrations decreased during this 

period.

Well 4N/27W-23F8 is near the coast and is perforated 

in the middle producing zone. The simulated and measured 

chloride concentrations for this well generally were between 

15,000 and 18,000 mg/L. There were some notably lower 

measurements that are thought to be outliers or erroneous data. 

Simulated concentrations were close to measured, although 

measured concentrations appeared to decline slowly or not 

at all from 1990 to 2014, whereas simulated concentrations 

continuously declined during this period (fig. 22A).

Measured chloride concentrations in wells perforated 

in the upper producing zone (4N/27W-23E3, 4N/27W-23F2, 

4N/27W-23F7) increased only slightly during the 1980s; 

however, the simulated chloride concentrations increased 

more than measured, such that simulated concentrations in 

wells 24N/27W-23E3 and 4N/27W-23F2 increased to about 

1,500 mg/L by 1990, compared to a maximum measured 

concentrations of 20 and 30 mg/L, respectively (fig. 22A).

The simulated chloride concentrations were in agreement 

with the measured data for wells perforated in the upper 

aquitard (4N/27W-23E4 and 4N/27W-23F9) and middle 

zone (4N/27W-23E6 and 4N/27W-23F6), where the chloride 

concentrations increased minimally during the 1980s 

(fig. 22A).
238 Santa Barbara and Foothill Groundwater Basins Geohydrology and Optimal Water Resources Management

Figure 21. Simulated chloride concentration contours for different years and producing zones for the Santa Barbara groundwater 

basin, California: A, upper, January 1972; B, upper, July 1990; C, middle, January 1972; D, middle, July 1990; E, lower, January 1972; and 

F, lower, July 1990.

Figure 21.Simulated chloride contours for January 1972: A) the upper, C) middle, and E) lower producing zones and for July

1990: B) the upper, D) middle, and F) lower producing zones, Santa Barbara groundwater basin, California.

101

101

De la

Guerra

Ortega Park

Corporation Soledad

Yard

City Hall Vera

Cruz

3,000

1,500

3,000

1,500

1,500

14K2

14P1 14R1

15J1 15J2

15K1

15Q10

22A2-5

22B2-5

22B7 22B6

22B8-11

22C1

22G2-4

22Q1

23D1

23E1-4

23E5-6

23F1

23F2-4

23F5-7

23F8-9

23H1-4

24B1

24D2

22B1

23M1

23M2 23M3

22J4

22J3

22J1-2

PA C I F I C O C E A N

SANTA BARBARA COUNTY

R. 27 W. R. 26 W.

T.

4

N.

1972

A

Sycamore Creek

Mission Creek

1,500

1,500

1,500

3,000

4,500

3,000

3,000 4,500

6,000

101

101

De la

Guerra Ortega Park

Corporation Soledad

Yard

City Hall Vera

Cruz

14K2

14P1 14R1

15J1 15J2

15K1

15Q10

22A2-5

22B2-5

22B7 22B6

22B8-11

22C1

22G2-4

22Q1

23D1

23E1-4

23E5-6

23F1

23F2-4

23H1-4

24B1

24D2

22B1

23M1

23M2 23M3

22J4

22J3

22J1-2

23F5-7

23F8-9

PA C I F I C O C E A N

SANTA BARBARA COUNTY

1990

B

Sycamore Creek

Mission Creek

T.

4

N.

R. 27 W. R. 26 W.

R. 27 W. R. 26 W.

119°42' 119°41' 119°40' 119°39'

34°25'25"

34°25'

34°24'35"

119°42' 119°41' 119°40' 119°39'

34°25'25"

34°25'

34°24'35"

EXPLANATION

0 0.5 1 MILES

0 0.5 1 KILOMETERS

Highway

Simulated chloride concentration 

contour, in milligrams per liter

60

Storage unit

Upper producing zone Monitoring well and identifier

Faults

Existence certain, location inferred

Existence questionable, location inferred

Existence certain, location accurate

Existence certain, location approximate

Production well and identifier

Soledad

Santa Barbara city production

well and identifier

City

Hall

Base modified from U.S. Geological Survey and other 

Federal and State digital data, various scales; 

Transverse Mercator projection, zone 11N; 

North American Datum of 1983 (NAD 83)

23F1

Storage units from Muir, 1968;

Freckleton and others, 1998;

faults from Muir, 1968;

Minor and others, 2009

MESA FAULT

LAGOON FAULT

MESA FAULT

LAGOON FAULT

4,500

6,000
Chapter C: Numerical Model of Groundwater Flow and Solute Transport 239

Figure 21. —Continued

16,500

13,500 10,5007,500

4,500

1,500

101

101

De la

Guerra Ortega Park

Soledad Corporation

Yard

City Hall Vera

Cruz

14K2

14P1 14R1

15J1 15J2

15K1

15Q10

22A2-5

22B2-5

22B7 22B6

22B8-11

22C1

22G2-4

22Q1

23D1

23E1-4

23E5-6

23F1

23F2-4

23H1-4

24B1

24D2

22B1

23M1

23M2 23M3

22J4 22J3

22J1-2

23F5-7

23F8-9

PA C I F I C O C E A N

SANTA BARBARA COUNTY

Sycamore Creek

Mission Creek

16,500

13,500 10,500 7,500

4,500

1,500

101

101

De la

Guerra

Ortega Park

Corporation Soledad

Yard

City Hall Vera

Cruz

14K2

14P1 14R1

15J1 15J2

15K1

15Q10

22A2-5

22B2-5

22B7 22B6

22B8-11

22C1

22G2-4

22Q1

23D1

23E1-4

23E5-6

23F1

23F2-4

23H1-4

24B1

24D2

22B1

23M1

23M2 23M3

22J4 22J3

22J1-2

23F5-7

23F8-9

PA C I F I C O C E A N

SANTA BARBARA COUNTY

Sycamore Creek

Mission Creek

119°42' 119°41' 119°40' 119°39'

34°25'25"

34°25'

34°24'35"

119°42' 119°41' 119°40' 119°39'

34°25'25"

34°25'

34°24'35"

T.

4

N.

R. 27 W. R. 26 W.

R. 27 W. R. 26 W.

T.

4

N.

EXPLANATION

0 0.5 1 MILES

0 0.5 1 KILOMETERS

1990

D

1972

C

Figure 21.Simulated chloride contours for January 1972: A) the upper, C) middle, and E) lower producing zones and for July

1990: B) the upper, D) middle, and F) lower producing zones, Santa Barbara groundwater basin, California.

Highway

Simulated chloride concentration 

contour, in milligrams per liter

1,500

Storage unit

Middle producing zone Monitoring well and identifier

Faults

Existence certain, location inferred

Existence questionable, location inferred

Existence certain, location accurate

Existence certain, location approximate

Production well and identifier

Santa Barbara city production

well and identifier

Base modified from U.S. Geological Survey and other 

Federal and State digital data, various scales; 

Transverse Mercator projection, zone 11N; 

North American Datum of 1983 (NAD 83)

Soledad

City

Hall

23F1

Storage units from Muir, 1968;

Freckleton and others, 1998;

faults from Muir, 1968;

Minor and others, 2009

MESA FAULT

LAGOON FAULT

MESA FAULT

LAGOON FAULT
240 Santa Barbara and Foothill Groundwater Basins Geohydrology and Optimal Water Resources Management

Figure 21. —Continued

4,500

1,500

15,000

16,500

13,500

10,500

7,500

9,000

6,000

6,000

3,000

12,000

18,000

101

101

De la

Guerra Ortega Park

Soledad Corporation

Yard

City Hall Vera

Cruz

14K2

14P1 14R1

15J1 15J2

15K1

15Q10

22A2-5

22B2-5

22B7 22B6

22B8-11

22C1

22G2-4

22Q1

23D1

23E1-4

23E5-6

23F1

23F2-4

23H1-4

24B1

24D2

22B1

23M1

23M2 23M3

22J4 22J3

22J1-2

23F5-7

23F8-9

PA C I F I C O C E A N

SANTA BARBARA COUNTY

Sycamore Creek

Mission Creek

4,500 12,000

1,500

18,000

9,000

3,000

16,500

6,000

15,000 10,500

13,500

10,500

7,500

101

101

De la

Guerra

Ortega Park

Corporation Soledad

Yard

City Hall Vera

Cruz

14K2

14P1 14R1

15J1 15J2

15K1

15Q10

22A2-5

22B2-5

22B7 22B6

22B8-11

22C1

22G2-4

22Q1

23D1

23E1-4

23E5-6

23F1

23F2-4

23F5-7

23F8-9

23H1-4

24B1 24D2

22B1

23M1

23M2 23M3

22J4 22J3

22J1-2

PA C I F I C O C E A N

SANTA BARBARA COUNTY

Sycamore Creek

Mission Creek

119°42' 119°41' 119°40' 119°39'

34°25'25"

34°25'

34°24'35"

119°42' 119°41' 119°40' 119°39'

34°25'25"

34°25'

34°24'35"

T.

4

N.

R. 27 W. R. 26 W.

R. 27 W. R. 26 W.

T.

4

N.

EXPLANATION

0 0.5 1 MILES

0 0.5 1 KILOMETERS

1990

F

1972

E

Figure 21.Simulated chloride contours for January 1972: A) the upper, C) middle, and E) lower producing zones and for July

1990: B) the upper, D) middle, and F) lower producing zones, Santa Barbara groundwater basin, California.

Highway

Simulated chloride concentration 

contour, in milligrams per liter

1,500

Storage unit

Lower producing zone Monitoring well and identifier

Faults

Existence certain, location inferred

Existence questionable, location inferred

Existence certain, location accurate

Existence certain, location approximate

Production well and identifier

Santa Barbara city production

well and identifier

Soledad

City

Hall

23F1

Base modified from U.S. Geological Survey and other 

Federal and State digital data, various scales; 

Transverse Mercator projection, zone 11N; 

North American Datum of 1983 (NAD 83)

Storage units from Muir, 1968;

Freckleton and others, 1998;

faults from Muir, 1968;

Minor and others, 2009

MESA FAULT

LAGOON FAULT

MESA FAULT

LAGOON FAULT

18,000

18,000
Chapter C: Numerical Model of Groundwater Flow and Solute Transport 241

Figure 22. Simulated and measured chloride breakthrough curves for selected wells in Storage Unit I, Santa Barbara groundwater 

basin, California: A, coastal monitoring wells, and B, inland monitoring wells.

sac16-062_IP-075076_figC22A

0

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

12,000

14,000

16,000

18,000

20,000

4N/27W-23E1

Lower producing zone

0

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

12,000

14,000

16,000

18,000

20,000

Chloride concentration, in milligrams per liter

4N/27W-23E5

0

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

12,000

14,000

16,000

18,000

20,000

4N/27W-23F4

1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015

4N/27W-23E3

4N/27W-23F2

4N/27W-23F7

1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015

0

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

12,000

14,000

16,000

18,000

20,000

0

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

12,000

14,000

16,000

18,000

20,000

0

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

12,000

14,000

16,000

18,000

20,000

Measured

Simulated

EXPLANATION

Measured

Simulated

EXPLANATION

Measured

Simulated

EXPLANATION

Measured

Simulated

EXPLANATION

Measured

Simulated

EXPLANATION

Measured

Simulated

EXPLANATION

Year Year

Lower producing zone

Lower producing zone

Upper producing zone

Upper producing zone

Upper producing zone

A
242 Santa Barbara and Foothill Groundwater Basins Geohydrology and Optimal Water Resources Management

Figure 22. —Continued

sac16-062_IP-075076_figC22B

1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015

1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015

Year

Year

0

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

12,000

14,000

16,000

18,000

20,000

0

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

12,000

14,000

16,000

18,000

20,000

Chloride concentration, in milligrams per liter

4N/27W-23E6

4N/27W-23F6

Measured

Simulated

EXPLANATION

Measured

Simulated

EXPLANATION

Measured

Simulated

4N/27W-23F9 EXPLANATION

Upper aquitard Middle zone

Middle zone

0

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

12,000

14,000

16,000

18,000

20,000

0

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

12,000

14,000

16,000

18,000

20,000

4N/27W-23F8

4N/27W-23E4

0

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

12,000

14,000

16,000

18,000

20,000

Measured

Simulated

EXPLANATION

Measured

Simulated

EXPLANATION

Middle producing zone

Upper aquitard

A
Chapter C: Numerical Model of Groundwater Flow and Solute Transport 243

Figure 22. —Continued

sac16-062_IP-075076_figC22C

4N/27W-22G4

4N/27W-22B2

Chloride concentration, in milligrams per liter

Measured

Simulated

EXPLANATION

Measured

Simulated

EXPLANATION

Lower producing zone

Upper producing zone

0

2,000

200

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

1,400

1,600

1,800

0

2,000

200

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

1,400

1,600

1,800

1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015

Year Year

4N/27W-22B3

Measured

Simulated

EXPLANATION

Middle aquitard

0

2,000

200

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

1,400

1,600

1,800

0

2,000

200

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

1,400

1,600

1,800 4N/27W-22G3

Measured

Simulated

EXPLANATION

Middle producing zone

0

2,000

200

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

1,400

1,600

1,800

0

2,000

200

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

1,400

1,600

1,800

0

2,000

200

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

1,400

1,600

1,800

4N/27W-22A3

4N/27W-22A4

4N/27W-22G2

Measured

Simulated

EXPLANATION

Measured

Simulated

EXPLANATION

Measured

Simulated

EXPLANATION

Middle aquitard

Lower producing zone

Upper producing zone

0

2,000

200

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

1,400

1,600

1,800 4N/27W-22A2

Measured

Simulated

EXPLANATION

Upper producing zone

B
244 Santa Barbara and Foothill Groundwater Basins Geohydrology and Optimal Water Resources Management

Figure 22. —Continued

sac16-062_IP-075076_figC22D

Measured

Simulated

4N/27W-22B9 EXPLANATION

Measured

Simulated

4N/27W-22B10 EXPLANATION

Measured

Simulated

4N/27W-22B11 EXPLANATION

1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015

Year

1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015

Year

0

2,000

200

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

1,400

1,600

1,800

0

2,000

200

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

1,400

1,600

1,800

0

2,000

200

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

1,400

1,600

1,800

Lower producing zone

Middle producing zone

Upper producing zone

4N/27W-22B5

4N/27W-22B6

Measured

Simulated

EXPLANATION

Measured

Simulated

EXPLANATION

Lower aquitard

Upper, middle, and lower producing zone

0

2,000

200

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

1,400

1,600

1,800

0

2,000

200

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

1,400

1,600

1,800

Measured

Simulated

4N/27W-22B8 EXPLANATION

0

2,000

200

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

1,400

1,600

1,800

Lower aquitard

4N/27W-22B4

Measured

Simulated

EXPLANATION

Lower producing zone

0

2,000

200

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

1,400

1,600

1,800

Chloride concentration, in milligrams per liter

B
Chapter C: Numerical Model of Groundwater Flow and Solute Transport 245

For conditions farther inland, monitoring wells 

4N/27W22A2–4 and 4N/27W22G2–4 are about 0.25 mi 

from the Vera Cruz production well and 0.5 mi from the coast 

(fig. 10). Measured chloride concentrations in these wells 

were consistently low, ranging from 10 to 60 mg/L. Simulated 

concentrations in wells 4N/27W22A2–3 (perforated in the 

upper producing zone and middle aquitard, respectively) were 

also consistently low; however, the simulated concentrations 

for well 22A4 (perforated in the lower producing zone) were 

greater that measured (fig. 22B). Simulated concentrations 

in wells 4N/27W22G2–4 increased in the middle and lower 

producing zones (22G3 and 4, respectively) during and after 

the 1980s, peaking at about 1,000 mg/L. Simulated chloride 

concentrations in the upper producing zone (well 4N/27W22G2) were consistently low, at about 90 mg/L.

Monitoring wells 4N/27W-22B2–6 and 4N/27W22B8–11 are the farthest inland sites used for monitoring 

chloride; they are near the Vera Cruz production well 

(fig. 10). In general, the measured and simulated chloride 

concentrations were generally low for these wells. Measured 

and simulated concentrations were less than 100 mg/L for 

the wells perforated above the lower producing zone. Wells 

4N/27W22B4, 5, and 8, are perforated in the lower producing 

zone or the lower aquitard and have measured chloride 

concentrations as high as 1,600 mg/L; however, simulated 

chloride concentrations for these wells were substantially 

lower, at about 100 mg/L (fig. 22B). Recall that barium and 

boron concentrations in excess of the concentration of the two 

constituents in ocean water indicated that seawater intrusion 

was not the source of the elevated chloride concentrations 

in the deeper Vera Cruz wells (Martin, 1984). Because the 

SBFTM only simulates elevated chloride concentrations from 

seawater intrusion, it was not expected to match these chloride 

concentrations.

A simple method of assessing overall model fit is to plot 

the simulated chloride concentration against the measured 

chloride concentration (fig. 23). In a perfect fit, all points 

show a 1:1 relation (fall on the 1:1 diagonal line). The RMSE 

between measured and simulated chloride concentration was 

1,586.5 mg/L. Given the scale of the SBFTM, simulated 

chloride concentration reasonably matched measured chloride 

concentration. The average residual was –426.0 mg/L, 

and the standard deviation was 1,529.0 mg/L. The average 

residual indicated a bias toward underpredicting the measured 

chloride concentrations. The residuals ranged from –6,449.0 

to 4,889.4 mg/L; these extremes possibly represent errors 

in simulating the movement of the seawater intrusion front 

due to limitations of the model. More than 50 percent of the 

simulated chloride concentrations were within 600 mg/L of 

measured chloride concentration, more than 81 percent were 

within 1,900 mg/L, and more than 94 percent were within 

3,600 mg/L.

As stated previously, the underestimation of low water 

levels at the production wells could lead to an underestimation 

of seawater intrusion. However, there are a number of other 

assumptions and discrepancies in the model that could lead 

to an overestimation of seawater intrusion. A comparison of 

simulated and measured chloride concentrations indicated that 

the SBFTM matched them fairly well both at high and low 

concentrations, but tended to slightly overestimate chloride 

concentrations, especially at lower concentrations (fig. 23). 

The slight overestimation of low chloride concentrations was 

related to the SBFTM slightly overestimating the advance 

of the chloride front during periods of heavy pumping and 

underestimating the retreat of the chloride front during 

periods of low pumping. Some of the chloride data from wells 

4N/27W-23F4, and 23F8 were rounded to the nearest 1,000 

mg/L at chloride concentrations above 10,000 mg/L. As a 

result, discrete jumps in measured chloride values can be seen 

in figure 23 for many of the measured chloride concentrations 

above 10,000 mg/L.
246 Santa Barbara and Foothill Groundwater Basins Geohydrology and Optimal Water Resources Management

sac16-062_IP-075076_figC23

0

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

12,000

14,000

16,000

18,000

20,000

0 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 10,000 12,000 14,000 16,000 18,000 20,000

Simulated, in milligrams per liter

Measured, in milligrams per liter

1-to-1 line

Figure 23. Simulated chloride concentrations compared with measured chloride concentrations for selected monitoring wells in 

Storage Unit I, Santa Barbara groundwater basin, California.

Model Limitations and Appropriate Use

A groundwater-flow and solute-transport model is 

a valuable tool for testing the conceptualization of the 

groundwater-flow system and for predicting the response of 

the system to changes in aquifer stresses. However, a model is 

only an approximation of the actual aquifer system and is not 

expected to exactly mimic the system being simulated. The 

model relies on estimates of aquifer properties and stresses, 

which have some degree of uncertainty.

Water levels and chloride concentrations simulated by 

the model are average values for the volume represented 

by each model cell. Simulated heads can vary considerably 

from measured water levels because of well location, depth, 

and construction. For example, wells may be perforated 

over a depth represented by more than one model layer, 

whereas corresponding measured water levels could represent 

an unknown composite of the hydraulic head across this 

perforated interval. The size of the model cells and the length 

of the stress periods of the model used in this work were 

appropriate when considering the resolution of available data 

and the regional scale of the simulation, however. Because 

model uncertainty increases substantially as the size of 

the area of interest decreases, the model generally is not 

appropriate for addressing detailed, local-scale problems. 

However, the regional model presented in this work can be 

used in the development of boundary conditions for other 

refined, local-scale groundwater models.
Chapter C: Numerical Model of Groundwater Flow and Solute Transport 247

The SBFTM assumes constant stage for each creek in 

the model area. Streams in the model area are known to vary 

in stage. These seasonal fluctuations in stage, which could 

influence groundwater flow, are not simulated by the SBFTM. 

The SBFTM was constructed using a 56-layer model grid, 

with cell thickness for most of the model set to 20 ft. The 

model grid follows land surface, which sometimes differs 

from the path of groundwater flow in Storage Unit I, where 

the lower producing zone crosses multiple model layers as it 

increases in depth toward the coast. As the lower producing 

zone crosses model layers, the horizontal model connections 

between the lower producing zone and the surrounding 

confining layer can lead to additional flow between the 

producing zone and the aquitard. Layers in the SBFTM were 

all treated as confined; therefore, model layers could not go 

dry, and the SBFTM might overestimate groundwater flow 

near the water table during times when the water table is 

relatively low.

The bottom of the SBFTM was assumed to be a no-flow 

boundary, which does not allow flow or transport between 

the deep zone (bottom of the model) and the underlying 

bedrock. Previous studies have indicated that the underlying 

shale contains water with high chloride concentrations and 

that this water is a source of high chlorides in some wells 

perforated in the deep and lower producing zones. Therefore, 

it is a limitation in some parts of the model domain that the 

SBFTM does not simulate the transport of chlorides from the 

underlying shale to the deep zone and underestimates chloride 

concentrations in the deep zone and some areas of the lower 

producing zone.

The pumpage data available in the study area before 1971 

were incomplete. Overall, pumpage from the major production 

wells in the study area was often known, but the amount of 

pumpage from each production well could not always be 

determined. When the distribution of pumpage could not be 

determined from data, the simulated pumpage distribution 

was approximated by parameter estimation, and might not 

reflect the actual distribution of pumpage; therefore, the early 

time responses to pumping might not be accurate. In addition, 

agricultural pumpage was not estimated for the model.

The amount of underflow from adjacent uplands (smallcatchment recharge) was unknown and was determined 

by parameter estimation; therefore, the model might not 

accurately simulate the total underflow from adjacent uplands. 

Small-catchment recharge zones were aligned with the 

canyons to simulate separate recharge rates from different 

canyons. The model only simulates variations in smallcatchment recharge on a zone-by-zone basis, and the model 

does not simulate variations on a smaller scale. That is, the 

model averages variations in small-catchment recharge that 

might exist in each zone and applies recharge homogenously 

across the zone, which could affect model accuracy.

The middle zone consists of fine-grained deposits 

interspersed with occasional coarse-grained water-bearing 

deposits. The coarse-grained water-bearing deposits in the 

middle zone vary in thickness and some could be substantially 

less than 20 ft thick, the approximate thickness of SBFTM 

model cells. The transport of chlorides could take a circuitous 

path through thin connecting lenses of coarse-grained 

deposits. The 20-ft-thick cells of the SBFTM can only 

approximate transport along such a small, circuitous path. 

Transport of chlorides through thin connecting lenses can lead 

to concentrating chlorides primarily in the connecting lenses 

and not in the rest of the model cell. Circuitous paths across 

connected coarse-grained lenses can lead to longer transport 

times because the chlorides must travel a greater distance. 

Therefore, the model discretization of 20 ft-thick cells might 

limit the model’s ability to accurately predict transport time 

and concentrations of chlorides if interconnected coarsegrained lenses exist on a smaller scale.

Despite the uncertainty and these limitations, the SBFTM 

provides a conservative estimate of the amount of pumping 

permissible before seawater intrusion becomes an issue, 

because the SBFTM slightly overestimates the amount of 

seawater intrusion and slightly underestimates the dilution 

rate of seawater after the intrusion event. These simulation 

errors are conservative in terms of, for example, engineering 

solutions for seawater intrusion. That is, any engineering 

solution based on the simulated results would be designed for 

higher chloride concentrations than what might be found in 

reality, which would result in a conservative design.

In addition, the SBFTM can be used to estimate the 

effects of water-resource management strategies both on 

water levels and on seawater intrusion, assuming current and 

future climate scenarios. In addition, it can be coupled with an 

optimization algorithm to identify water-resource management 

strategies that optimize a given objective (or objectives) 

subject to a set of constraints. The SBFTM has been coupled 

with a multi-objective evolutionary algorithm, and the results 

are presented in chapter D.

Summary and Conclusions

In order to simulate seawater intrusion under various 

water-management scenarios, estimate the sustainability 

of the Santa Barbara and Foothill groundwater basins, and 

determine optimal strategies to manage the groundwater 

basins, a three-dimensional, density-dependent groundwaterflow and solute-transport model (SBFTM) of the groundwater 

basins was developed. The simulation time series used annual 

stress periods from 1929 to 1971 and monthly stress periods 

from 1972 to 2013. The SBFTM uses 250-by-250 ft cells 

and was divided into 56 layers to simulate flow in the upper, 

middle, and lower producing zones and the surrounding 

zones. The SBFTM was calibrated using 24,884 water-level 

observations, 1,064 chloride-concentration observations, 

and 254 parameters. The parameters represent hydraulic 

parameters (hydraulic conductivity, storage, and others), 

transport parameters (dispersivity, porosity, and others), 

conductance properties (fault, general-head boundary, and 

drains), creek properties (bed conductance and stage), and 

recharge or discharge parameters.
248 Santa Barbara and Foothill Groundwater Basins Geohydrology and Optimal Water Resources Management

Parameter sensitivities varied over about two orders of 

magnitude for the 30 most sensitive parameters. The 30 most 

sensitive parameters are of varying types, including those 

controlling small-catchment recharge, pumping, horizontal 

and vertical hydraulic conductivity, porosity, and flow between 

the SBFTM and the ocean. The SBFTM was most sensitive 

to parameters controlling recharge, pumping, and hydraulic 

conductivity. The sensitivity of recharge and pumping 

parameters was most likely amplified by faults limiting flow 

out of Storage Unit I, making recharge and pumping the main 

mechanisms of inflow and outflow in Storage Unit I.

Analyses of the simulated hydrologic budget indicated 

that the sources of simulated recharge were primarily small 

catchments and creeks. Small catchments were the primary 

source of recharge during wetter periods, when pumping was 

limited. Creek leakage was the primary source of recharge 

during dry years. It was assumed that the creek stages are 

always greater than zero; therefore, the creeks are a constant 

source of water to the model.

The primary groundwater sink was pumping. Between 

1929 and 2013, pumpage varied greatly; generally, pumping 

rates were higher during drier periods, and pumping rates were 

lower during wetter periods. Overall, groundwater pumping 

resulted in a net loss of about 11,400 acre-feet (acre-ft) of 

groundwater storage between 1929 and 2013.

Overall, the SBFTM replicated the natural groundwaterflow direction from the Sycamore, Mission, Lauro, and Aliso 

Canyons southwest through the Foothill groundwater basin 

and southeast through the Santa Barbara groundwater basin. 

In addition, the model replicated the change in direction of 

groundwater flow from northwest-to-southeast to a radial 

path toward the pumping center in the southeastern part of 

Storage Unit I caused by pumping during the late 1980s and 

early 1990s. The simulated radial-flow pattern extended to the 

offshore fault, which reversed the direction of flow across the 

fault, resulting in the simulation of seawater intrusion into the 

middle and lower producing zones.

Overall, the SBFTM simulated the areal distribution of 

seawater intrusion and the rising limb of chloride breakthrough 

curves well. The SBFTM simulated the areal distribution 

and response of chloride to pumpage. Seawater intrusion 

was overestimated during the 1990s, however. Regarding the 

chloride breakthrough curves, the SBFTM generally simulated 

the rising limbs of the measured breakthrough curves; 

however, the falling limbs were overestimated. This was 

caused by a combination of the SBFTM overestimating the 

advance of the chloride front during periods of heavy pumping 

and underestimating the retreat of the chloride front during 

periods of low pumping.

Overall, the SBFTM replicated the measured 

hydrographs. Measured values and trends were replicated as 

well as vertical gradients. The SBFTM simulates seawater 

intrusion but slightly overestimates the amount of seawater 

intrusion and slightly underestimates the dilution rate of 

seawater after the intrusion event.

References Cited

California Department of Water Resources, 1996, 1996 South 

central coast land use survey data: Sacramento, Calif., 

State of California, digital map accessed on July 12, 2011, 

at http://www.water.ca.gov/landwateruse/lusrvymain.cfm, 

currently available at https://www.water.ca.gov/Programs/

Water-Use-And-Efficiency/Land-And-Water-Use/LandUse-Surveys.

Daly, C., and Bryant, K., 2013, The PRISM climate and 

weather system—An introduction: Prism Climate Group, 

5 p., accessed January 21, 2015, at http://www.prism.

oregonstate.edu/documents/PRISM_history_jun2013.pdf.

Doherty, J.E., 2010, PEST—Model-independent parameter 

estimation, user manual (5th ed.), addendum to the PEST 

manual: Watermark Numerical Computing, 336 p.

Freckleton, J.R., Martin, P., and Nishikawa, T., 1998, 

Geohydrology of Storage Unit III and a combined flow 

model of the Santa Barbara and Foothill ground-water 

basins, Santa Barbara County, California: U.S. Geological 

Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report 97–4121, 

80 p., http://pubs.er.usgs.gov/publication/wri974121.

Freeze, R.A., and Cherry J.A., 1979, Groundwater: 

Englewood Cliffs, N.J., Prentice-Hall, 604 p., 

http://hydrogeologistswithoutborders.org/wordpress/1979-

toc/.

Goldman, C.R., and Horne, A.J., 1983, Limnology: New York, 

McGraw-Hill Book Co., 464 p.

Harbaugh, A.W., Banta, E.R., Hill, M.C., and 

McDonald, M.G., 2000, MODFLOW-2000, the 

U.S. Geological Survey modular ground-water model—

User guide to modularization concepts and the groundwater flow process: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File 

Report 2000–92, 121 p., 

https://pubs.er.usgs.gov/publication/ofr200092.

Hill, M.C., 1990, Preconditioned conjugate-gradient 2 

(PCG2), a computer program for solving ground-water 

flow equation: U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources 

Investigations Report 90–4048, 43 p., 

https://pubs.er.usgs.gov/publication/wri904048.

Hsieh, P.A., and Freckleton, J.R., 1993, Documentation of a 

computer program to simulate horizontal-flow barriers using 

the U.S. Geological Survey’s modular three-dimensional 

finite-difference ground-water flow model: U.S. Geological 

Survey Open-File Report 92–477, 32 p., 

https://pubs.er.usgs.gov/publication/ofr92477.
Chapter C: Numerical Model of Groundwater Flow and Solute Transport 249

Langevin, C.D., Thorne, D.T., Jr., Dausman, A.M., 

Sukop, M.C., and Guo, W., 2008, SEAWAT version 4: A 

computer program for simulation of multi-species solute 

and heat transport: U.S. Geological Survey Techniques and 

Methods book 6, chap. A22, 39 p., 

https://pubs.er.usgs.gov/publication/tm6A22.

Martin, P., 1984, Ground-water monitoring at Santa Barbara, 

California; Phase 2—Effects of pumping on water levels 

and on water quality in the Santa Barbara ground-water 

basin: U.S. Geological Survey Water Supply Paper 2197, 

31 p., https://pubs.er.usgs.gov/publication/wsp2197.

McDonald, M.G., and Harbaugh, A.W., 1988, A modular 

three-dimensional finite-difference ground-water flow 

model: U.S. Geological Survey Techniques of WaterResouces Investigations book 6, chap. A1, 586 p., 

https://pubs.er.usgs.gov/publication/twri06A1.

McFadden, M.C., Polinoski, K.G., and Martin, P.M., 

1991, Measurement of streamflow gains and losses on 

Mission Creek at Santa Barbara, California; July and 

September 1987: U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources 

Investigations Report 91–4002, 15 p., 

https://pubs.er.usgs.gov/publication/wri914002.

Minor, S.A., Kellogg, K.S., Stanley, R.G., Gurrola, L.D., 

Keller, E.A., and Brandt, T.R., 2009, Geologic map of the 

Santa Barbara coastal plain area, Santa Barbara County, 

California: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations 

Map 3001, scale 1:25,000, 1 sheet, pamphlet, 38 p., 

https://pubs.er.usgs.gov/publication/sim3001.

Muir, K.S., 1968, Ground-water reconnaissance of the Santa 

Barbara-Montecito area, Santa Barbara County, California: 

U.S. Geological Survey Water Supply Paper 1859–A, 28 p., 

https://pubs.er.usgs.gov/publication/wsp1859A.

U.S. Census Bureau, 2017, QuickFacts from the U.S. Census 

Bureau, Santa Barbara city, California, accessed 

September 2017 at https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/

table/santabarbaracitycalifornia/HSD310215.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, 2008, Natural Resources 

Conservation Service, Soil Survey Geographic (SSURGO) 

database for Santa Barbara County, California, south coastal 

part: National Resources Conservation Service, accessed on 

July 12, 2011, at https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/

surveylist/soils/survey/state/?stateId=CA.

U.S. Geological Survey, 2013, USGS 11119745 Mission C 

A Rocky Nook Park A Santa Barbara CA: U.S. Geological 

Survey National Water Information System database, 

accessed November 2013, at https://waterdata.usgs.gov/

nwis/uv?site_no=11119745.

Zheng, C., 2006, MT3DMS v5.2 supplemental user’s guide: 

Tuscaloosa, Ala., University of Alabama, Department of 

Geological Sciences, 41 p., 

http://inside.mines.edu/~epoeter/583/14/discussion/

mt3dms_v5_supplemental.pdf.

Zheng, C., 2010, MT3DMS v.5.3 supplemental user’s guide: 

Tuscaloosa, Ala., University of Alabama, Department of 

Geological Sciences, 51 p., https://hydro.geo.ua.edu/mt3d/

mt3dms_v5_supplemental.pdf.

Zheng, C., and Wang, P.P., 1999, MT3DMS—A modular 

three-dimensional multispecies transport model for 

simulation of advection, dispersion, and chemical reactions 

of contaminants in groundwater systems; Documentation 

and user’s guide: Tuscaloosa, Ala., University of Alabama, 

Contract Report SERDP-99-1, 221 p., 

https://hydro.geo.ua.edu/mt3d/mt3dmanual.pdf.

Chapter D: Multi-Objective Simulation-Optimization Model

By Zachary P. Stanko and Tracy Nishikawa

Introduction

The city of Santa Barbara is interested in identifying 

management strategies that maximize the available 

groundwater resources while limiting drawdown and any 

associated seawater intrusion. In order to identify the best 

strategies, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) and the city 

cooperatively developed a simulation-optimization model, 

which uses the Santa Barbara flow and solute-transport 

model (SBFTM), described in chapter C, to derive optimal 

management strategies and estimate maximum pumping rates 

for a range of potential future climatic conditions. The SBFTM 

was used to develop a collection of predictive simulations 

that can be used to produce optimal pumping schedules and 

optimal pumping rates for each climatic condition. These 

simulations have different management horizons (time periods 

over which pumpage is optimized), initial groundwater levels, 

chloride concentrations, and climatic conditions. Overall, 

five management-optimization scenarios were developed in 

a multi-objective framework to obtain optimal pumping rates 

for all of the city’s managed wells that maximize withdrawals, 

while minimizing drawdown and seawater intrusion.

This chapter describes the groundwater-management 

problem, reviews the multi-objective framework and 

optimization methods used to approximate optimal solutions 

for multiple competing objectives, defines the selected 

future-management scenarios, and presents the resulting 

solutions that optimizes pumping under the constraints and 

objectives of each of the scenarios. The simulated scenarios 

have management horizons ranging from 2 to 10 years; initial 

conditions from historically low to relatively high-water 

levels; and climatic conditions ranging from typical of the 

recent past to those of a 10-year drought. 

Following the availability of imported water from 

the California State Water Project (SWP) in 1997 and the 

construction of a desalination plant, Nishikawa (1998) used 

a groundwater-flow model of the Santa Barbara groundwater 

basin to optimize pumping rates. Using a flow-only 

simulation, that is, the transport of chloride and computation 

of its concentrations were not simulated, the optimization 

was formulated as a linear-programming (LP) problem with a 

single minimize-cost objective function. Mild nonlinearities 

in the groundwater model, due to simulation of drains, were 

resolved with a simple iterative method. A 5-year management 

horizon was used, which corresponded to the city’s design 

drought of calendar year 1947–51. The decision variables—or 

the choices involved in making management decisions, in this 

case associated with the water sources available for use—were 

the monthly pumpage from groundwater wells, imported 

water from the SWP, as well as water supply available from 

local surface water and desalination. Constraints included 

groundwater levels, pumping-well capacity, and water 

demand. Results of the 1998 study showed that a minimumcost solution could be met by maximizing the lowest cost 

water source (surface water, when available) and continuously 

pumping the inland wells. The 1998 study also showed that 

desalinated water (the highest cost water source) was not used 

during the design drought of 1947–51. Note that the 1998 

study was based on rules and regulations for surface water 

in effect at the time; since then, a Biological Opinion for 

the Cachuma Project (Cachuma Operation and Maintenance 

Board, 2017) has been issued and is under reconsultation by 

the Bureau of Reclamation and National Marine Fisheries 

Service.

Literature Review

Optimization methods have been widely used for waterresources management. A general overview of optimization 

methods will first be presented followed by a discussion of 

their applications to water-resources management.

Chapter D: Multi-Objective Simulation-Optimization Model
252 Santa Barbara and Foothill Groundwater Basins Geohydrology and Optimal Water Resources Management

Optimization Methods

A variety of techniques can be used to formulate and 

solve optimization problems. For the purposes of this study, 

there are two general techniques for solving large-scale 

(characterized by a large number of decision variables) 

optimization problems: mathematical programming and global 

search. Strict mathematical programming techniques can 

guarantee convergence to a local optimum but require that 

the underlying functions have certain inherent features (for 

example, continuity, differentiability, and convexity) to find 

a solution. Mathematical programming techniques require 

differentiability, because gradient information is required; 

this is computationally intensive. For additional information 

regarding mathematical programming techniques, see Nocedal 

and Wright (2006).

Global-search techniques can find or approximate a 

global optimum without gradient information; instead, a 

randomized search strategy is used. A global search is not 

associated with the features of the underlying mathematics. 

The functional relationships between inputs and outputs of an 

embedded or linked simulation model are not important for 

the global-search optimization techniques; therefore, problems 

that are highly nonlinear, discontinuous, or not differentiable 

are solvable. In addition, running simulations external to the 

optimization allows the use of parallel computing to conduct 

the global search in a computationally efficient manner 

(McKinney and Lin, 1994). For additional information 

regarding global-search techniques, see Coello and others 

(2007).

Frequently, an optimization problem has more than one 

objective. Different project goals can conflict with each other. 

These goals could make an optimization problem infeasible if 

incorporated as constraints, so alternatively, they can be posed 

as separate objectives. Given complex relationships among 

competing objectives, a multi-objective optimization problem 

can be formulated to find compromise solutions. Instead of 

a unique solution, a multi-objective optimization produces 

a set of solutions from which a decision maker can choose 

the solution that most aligns with the most important needs 

at the time. No single solution in the set can be better than 

other solutions in the set with respect to all objectives; this 

concept is called Pareto optimality (Coello and others, 2007). 

A Pareto-optimal solution is a feasible solution that cannot 

improve any of the objectives without worsening at least one 

other objective. To illustrate this concept of Pareto-optimality, 

figure 1 demonstrates a Pareto-optimal solution for a generic 

two-objective problem. For more detailed discussion of multiobjective optimization, see Coello and others (2007).

Evolutionary algorithms (EA) are a class of globalsearch techniques that can work with any problem formulation 

regardless of the nonlinearities and extent of complexity 

related to the embedded simulation model. These are a class 

of methods that treat the solutions of the optimization problem 

as individuals in a population that are manipulated by a set 

of operators (mutation, combination, and selection) to evolve 

toward an optimal solution. The objective function of an EA is 

viewed as a measure of fitness for each individual solution in 

the population, and each iteration of selecting solutions from 

a population, and operating on them, is termed a generation 

(Coello and others, 2007). A genetic algorithm (GA) is a 

type of EA that primarily utilizes mutation and crossover 

combination to operate on variables of individual solutions 

that are encoded as genes on a chromosome. The concept 

of ‘survival of the fittest’ is used in GAs to rank solutions; 

the objective criteria are evaluated as a measure of fitness. 

For additional information regarding GAs and their genetic 

operators, the reader is referred to Coello and others (2007).

Use of EAs has been successful in a wide range of 

problem types, especially multi-objective optimization. 

A major advantage when using an EA is the ability to 

randomly search a large solution space in an intelligent and 

efficient manner without being overly susceptible to stopping 

prematurely in a sub-optimal region (local optima). The major 

disadvantage is that an EA can be slow to produce nearly 

optimal solutions if the problem dimensions are too high. 

For multi-objective problems, multi-objective evolutionary 

algorithms (MOEAs) have been shown to efficiently search 

large-scale problems with up to six objectives (Kasprzyk and 

others, 2009).

sac16-0626_IP-075076_figD1

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16

Objective B

Objective A

εA

εB

EXPLANATION

Pareto optimal, non-dominated

Pareto optimal, dominated (discarded)

εA Desired precision assigned to objective A

εB Desired precision assigned to objective B

Figure 1. Concepts of Pareto-optimality are shown with two 

generic objectives, which are assumed to be minimization; no 

single point is optimal because a decrease in one objective 

causes an increase in the other, so any point on the curve is 

considered Pareto-optimal (Kollat and Reed, 2006).
Chapter D: Multi-Objective Simulation-Optimization Model 253

Groundwater-Management Models

Groundwater-flow and solute-transport models 

are often linked with optimization methods to solve 

groundwater-management problems. This linkage is 

the basis of a simulation-optimization model, which in 

the context of groundwater modeling, is also called a 

groundwater-management problem. When the simulation 

model is differentiable, or a gradient can be approximated, 

mathematical programming can be used. Examples of 

mathematical programming techniques that have been linked 

to groundwater models include linear programming (Molz 

and Bell, 1977; Lefkoff and Gorelick, 1986), nonlinear 

programming (Ahlfeld and others, 1988; Wang and Ahlfeld, 

1994; McKinney and Lin, 1995; Das and Datta, 2000), 

successive linear programming (Nishikawa, 1998; Ahlfeld 

and Baro-Montes, 2008), and dynamic programming (Willis, 

1979; Chang and others, 1992; Culver and Shoemaker, 1992, 

1997). Many additional simulation-optimization review papers 

summarize the applications of these methods (for example, 

Gorelick, 1983; Yeh, 1992; Wagner, 1995; Ahlfeld and 

Mulligan, 2000; Mayer and others, 2002).

For groundwater-management problems specifically 

addressing seawater-intrusion issues, the simple approach, 

which constrains freshwater hydraulic heads along the coast 

to be above sea level, only works if the aquifer is relatively 

thin (Abarca and others, 2006). Singh (2014) reviews a range 

of simulation-optimization techniques for seawater-intrusion 

problems, including applications of GAs and multi-objective 

formulations. When the underlying flow and transport 

simulation model is complex, GAs are often applied (Qahman 

and others, 2005). Studies often use some type of EA to find 

solutions to single-objective seawater-intrusion problems 

(Qahman and others, 2005; Abd-Elhamid and Javadi, 2011). 

Various multi-objective optimization techniques also have 

been applied to seawater-intrusion problems (Cieniawski 

and others, 1995; Gordon and others, 2001). Dhar and Datta 

(2009) present an application of a GA to a multi-objective 

optimization of a seawater-intrusion model, where the two 

conflicting objectives were to (1) maximize total pumpage 

from all production wells and (2) to minimize pumpage from 

barrier wells.

Because EAs are particularly well-suited for multiobjective optimizations, they have been applied to waterresource problems (Sreekanth and Datta, 2015). Nicklow 

and others (2010) reviewed some applications of MOEAs to 

water-resource problems and specifically addressed numerous 

studies that use MOEAs to overcome some of the inherent 

difficulties of optimizations involving groundwater models. 

In a recent comparison among MOEAs, 10 algorithms were 

tested on several water-resource applications (Reed and 

others, 2013). The proprietary MOEA algorithm developed 

by Hadka and Reed (2013), referred to as Borg, consistently 

outperformed the others on the basis of various metrics 

used to evaluate algorithm effectiveness (the quality of 

solutions attained) and efficiency (the time it takes to attain 

these solutions). A study that assessed the performance of 

several MOEAs on a management plan for a contaminated 

lake, considering robust decision-making criteria and 

environmental-pollution constraints, also found Borg to 

surpass other algorithms in nearly all metrics (Ward and 

others, 2015).

After consulting with city personnel, it was determined 

that a multi-objective optimization technique was appropriate 

to address the city’s water-resource management problem. 

Four objectives were identified as important goals of the 

study: maximize pumpage, minimize seawater intrusion, 

minimize total drawdown, and minimize the maximum 

drawdown. Given the complex nonlinear SEAWAT model 

and the number of decision variables, an MOEA was chosen 

instead of a mathematical-programming technique. The 

main advantages of using an MOEA for this study are that a 

gradient approximation is not required and that a high degree 

of parallelization is possible.

For this study, Borg was used to solve the multi-objective 

optimization using the SEAWAT groundwater-flow and 

solute-transport model. Borg was chosen as the optimization 

algorithm for this study for several reasons: (1) it is very 

efficient in automatically sorting, evolving, and retaining 

solutions; (2) it can be used in parallel to efficiently make 

use of multiple processors on multiple computers; (3) the 

algorithm is self-tuning, so there are no search or operation 

parameters to determine prior to using the algorithm; and 

(4) it is designed to effectively approximate Pareto-optimal 

solutions (Pareto curve) for multiple competing objectives. 

The first three reasons can be lumped together as features that 

allow the algorithm to proceed toward the optimal solution(s) 

at the fastest possible rate. The fourth reason (an approximate 

Pareto curve) can allow water managers to make the best 

possible decision in accordance with their preferences; for 

the purposes of this study the approximate Pareto-optimal 

solutions will be referred to as Pareto-optimal solutions. Once 

the Pareto curve is produced, a variety of decisions can be 

made with knowledge of the potential sacrifices or tradeoffs 

without any additional model runs. The alternative approach, 

to weigh each objective in advance, is very limiting and 

obscures possible solutions if those weights do not accurately 

represent future preferences. In Kasprzyk and others (2015), a 

comparison of the two approaches illustrates the benefits of a 

full multi-objective formulation.
254 Santa Barbara and Foothill Groundwater Basins Geohydrology and Optimal Water Resources Management

Solution Space Discretization

In a continuous solution space, there are an infinite 

number of Pareto-optimal solutions. In order to choose from 

among the infinite number of solutions, a precision is assigned 

to each objective, defined by an epsilon value (ε value) that 

represents its favorability. Setting this ε value imposes a 

grid on the solution space to prevent searching for too many 

solutions that have similar objective values (fig. 1). Lesser 

values of ε with respect to the objective values themselves 

places more emphasis on solutions closer to the absolute 

minimum of a single objective. Greater values of ε with 

respect to the objective values themselves indicate that fewer 

trade-off solutions are desired with respect to an objective and 

an overall minimization of this objective is less important. 

Lesser values of ε allow for more trade-off analysis in the 

optimal solutions, but can also retain many solutions that 

differ only slightly. For example, a large εA (for objective A) 

represents less preference for maximizing A. Additionally, 

a lesser εB accepts more solutions in the full range of the 

objective B values. Each ε can be thought of as the weight of 

the objective (relative to its magnitude) on the overall decision 

making. The rectangular domain defined by εA, εB is termed 

the ε neighborhood, in which there is only one solution that is 

non-dominated, or optimal in the Pareto sense. For example, 

in figure 1 only one solution in each grid block is retained as 

Pareto-optimal (solid points). By defining the grid with εA and 

εB , the solid points dominate the hollow points as determined 

by the point’s distance to the origin (Kollat and Reed, 2006). 

For additional information regarding ε dominance, the reader 

is referred to Hadka and Reed (2013).

For this report, additional ε values were chosen postoptimization to highlight optimization results; they were not 

chosen intentionally to reflect objective-function preference. 

If a water manager wishes to change the objective-function 

preference, a different set of ε values would be used and, 

potentially, the highlighted solutions would be different. This 

change in ε values would not require any additional model 

runs, however; all necessary information was generated in the 

original optimization runs.

Problem Formulation

As stated previously, the simulation-optimization 

problem was formulated as a multi-objective programming 

problem. In general, the objectives were to maximize 

pumpage and to minimize seawater intrusion and drawdown 

in production wells. The drawdown objective was formulated 

as two separate objective functions: minimize total drawdown 

to address an overall decline in water levels across all basins 

and minimize the maximum drawdown to address water-level 

declines around individual wells. In general, the constraints 

included pump-capacity limits, chloride drinking-water 

standards, and water-level limits. The decision variables 

were quarterly pumpage by well. The managed wells for all 

scenarios included the following city wells: Alameda Park, 

City Hall, Corporation Yard, Hope Avenue, Lincolnwood, Los 

Robles, Ortega Park, San Roque Park (2), Santa Barbara High 

School, Val Verde, and Vera Cruz (fig. 2). The Lincolnwood 

well, although not managed by the city at the time of this 

study, was included as a surrogate for a future city well that 

could be added in the Foothill groundwater basin. Note that 

background and unmanaged pumpage were not included 

because the focus of this study was the management of the 

city’s wells. In addition, during times when the city’s wells 

were pumped, most pumpage was from the city wells. The 

general formulation can be summarized as follows:

Objective A: Pumpage

minimize qij

j

npw

i

nqtr

 

1 1

(1)

Objective B: Seawater intrusion

minimize cik

k

ncw

i

nco

 

1 1

(2)

Objective Ct: Total drawdown

minimize h H ij j

j

npw

i

nyr

    

 ,0

1 1

(3)

Objective Cm: Maximum drawdown

minimize h H i nyr j npwma ij j x , 1

1

0  

 

   (4)

subject to:

Constraint 1

250 0 1 1 mg

L  S i ij nper j npw





 



     , ,   ; , , (5)

Constraint 2

  q Q ij  j,max  0 1 i   , ,   nqtr j ; 1, ,npw (6)

Constraint 3

q Q i nqtr ij

j

OTP



   



1,, (7)

Constraint 4

h H ij   j m, in 0 1  i n , ,   yr ; , j  1 , npw (8)
Chapter D: Multi-Objective Simulation-Optimization Model 255

where

qij is the pumpage rate (negative out of aquifer) 

for pumping well j at time i,

cik is the concentration for chloride monitoring 

well k at time i,

hij is the weighted average hydraulic head for 

pumping well j at time i,

Hj,0 is the initial hydraulic head for pumping 

well j,

Hj,min is the minimum acceptable hydraulic head for 

pumping well j,

Sij is the weighted average solute concentration 

for pumping well j at time i,

Qj,max is the maximum pumpage rate for pumping 

well j,

nqtr is the total number of quarters,

nco is the total number of concentration 

observations,

nyr is the total number of years,

npw is the total number of pumping wells,

ncw is the total number of chloride monitoring 

wells,

QOTP is the minimum flow to the Ortega treatment 

plant, and

	 Ω is the set of all wells that feed the Ortega 

plant (Alameda Park, City Hall, SBHS, 

Corporation Yard, Ortega Park, Vera Cruz).

Objective A maximizes the total pumpage for the 

management horizon (pumping out of the aquifer is 

negative in the model; therefore, the minimization used in 

the aforementioned formulation). Objective B minimizes 

the sum of chloride concentrations at 14 monitoring sites 

(wells 4N/27W-22A2, -22A4, -22B9, -22B10, -22B11, 

-22G3, -22G4, -23E3, -23E5, -23F2, -23F4, -23F5, -23F7 and 

-23F8; fig. 2) for all stress periods in the simulation. These 

monitoring sites represented existing monitoring locations 

near the leading edge of the observed seawater intrusion. For 

the purposes of this study, the sum of chloride concentrations 

is called “seawater intrusion”; therefore, objective B 

minimizes seawater intrusion. Objective Ct minimizes the sum 

of any drawdown below the initial hydraulic head in all city 

production wells during all stress periods (fig. 2). Although 

the intentions of objectives A and B are straightforward, the 

intent of objective Ct could be to control the loss of production 

and storage capacity and to control seawater intrusion. 

Objective Cm ensures that drawdowns are not too large in 

wells that might not directly affect seawater intrusion, such 

as those in the Foothill groundwater basin. For objectives Ct

and Cm, weighted average heads were calculated using the 

percentage of total pumping coming from each layer as the 

weights.

Four constraints were defined initially in this problem 

formulation. Constraint 1 was a water-quality constraint. The 

chloride concentrations in water pumped from city production 

wells must remain below the water-quality standards for 

chloride concentrations. In this case, the secondary drinkingwater standard for chloride of 250 milligrams per liter (mg/L), 

as defined by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

was used (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2017). 

Concentrations were calculated as a weighted average of 

concentrations in each model layer penetrated by the well 

screen using the same weights that were used to calculate the 

average heads; the constraint must be honored in all layers 

at all times. Constraint 2 was a well-capacity constraint; a 

well could not pump at a rate greater than the capacity of its 

pump (table 1). Constraint 3 maintained a minimum flow 

from the Alameda, City Hall, Santa Barbara High School 

(SBHS), Corporation Yard, Ortega, and Vera Cruz wells to 

the city-operated Ortega treatment plant (fig. 2). Constraint 

4 ensured that the water levels (weighted average heads) at 

each production well were maintained above a safe operating 

level (table 1).

Optimization Scenarios

To exploit the information that can be generated by 

the calibrated simulation model, five optimization scenarios 

were developed in consultation with city of Santa Barbara 

personnel. These scenarios allow water managers to evaluate 

a range of optimal solutions, given various states of the 

system (water levels and chloride concentrations) and 

potential climatic conditions. These scenarios are described 

in table 2. Three scenarios (1, 2, and 5) consisted of a multiobjective formulation to allow for variations in management 

preferences. The other two scenarios (3 and 4) were designed 

to examine the results of the optimizations with respect to 

sustainable groundwater yield and basin response to changes 

in pumping.

In general, initial conditions (water level or chloride 

concentration) can greatly affect the optimal solutions. The 

solutions are also affected by the amount of precipitation 

that recharges the basin, and this input is highly uncertain; 

therefore, a range of possible climatic conditions was 

evaluated. In this study, precipitation was used as a surrogate 

for climate; for example, the surrogate for a dry climatic 

condition was low precipitation. Additionally, because 

optimizing exact pumping rates for every well in every month 

for 10 years creates a problem so large it is nearly unsolvable 

in a realistic timeframe, aggregation techniques were used to 

reduce the number of management actions to be optimized 

(decision variables). For this study, monthly stress periods 

were grouped into 3-month quarters (January–March, April–

June, and so on) to simplify the problem.

The five optimization scenarios were characterized 

by their problem formulation (objectives, constraints, and 

decision variables), initial conditions, management horizon, 

and climatic conditions. The details of the five scenarios are 

summarized in table 2.
256 Santa Barbara and Foothill Groundwater Basins Geohydrology and Optimal Water Resources Management

Figure 2. Locations of selected production wells, monitoring wells, and chloride monitoring wells, Santa Barbara and Foothill 

groundwater basins, Santa Barbara, California.

Barbara

Faults

Existence certain, location inferred

Existence questionable, location inferred

Existence certain, location concealed

Existence questionable, location concealed

Existence certain, location accurate

Existence certain, location approximate

City

Highway

Foothill Basin

Santa Barbara Basin

Storage units

West Foothill

East Foothill

Storage Unit I

Storage Unit III

0 1 2 MILES

0 1 2 KILOMETERS

EXPLANATION

Base modified from U.S. Geological Survey and other 

Federal and State digital data, various scales; 

Transverse Mercator projection, zone 11N; 

North American Datum of 1983 (NAD 83)

Storage units from Muir, 1968; Freckleton and

others, 1998; faults from Muir, 1968;

Minor and others, 2009

CALIFORNIA

Study

area

SANTA

BARBARA

COUNTY

PACIFIC 

OCEAN

101

101

STORAGE UNIT I

FOOTHIL L EAST

FOOTHI LL

WEST

STORAGE UNIT III

FOOTHILL

FAULT

LAVIGIA

FAULT

LAGOON FAULT

EAST MORE RANCH FAULT

MODOC FAULT

MESA FAULT

NORTHEAST MORE

RANCH FAULT

UNNAMED

FAULT

ROC KY NOOK FAULT

Santa

Barbara

Basin

Foothill

Basin

119°46' 119°44' 119°42' 119°40'

34°28'

34°27'

34°26'

34°25'

34°24'

PACIFIC OCEAN

SANTA YNEZ MOUNTAINS

Hope Ranch

Subbasin

Goleta

Basin

Montecito

Basin

Lauro

Canyon

Mission

Canyon

Sycamore

Canyon

T.

5

N.

T.

4

N.

R. 28 W. R. 27 W. R. 26 W.

22A2

22B9-11 22A4

22G3

22G4 23E3

23E5 23F2

23F4

23F5

23F7

23F8

5P1

8M6

15K1

16R1

12H4

12R3

Val Verde Ortega Park

SB High School

Los Robles

Lincolnwood 1

Hope Avenue

Corporation Yard

City Hall

Vera Cruz

Alameda Park

San Roque Park 2

Chloride monitoring well and identifier 23F5

Monitoring well and identifier 16R1

Santa Barbara city production well and identifier

City

Hall

FIGURE D2
Chapter D: Multi-Objective Simulation-Optimization Model 257

Well name GPM CFD

Minimum 

head 

(m)

Minimum 

head 

(ft)

Alameda Park 9,507 1,830,225 –33.5 –110

City Hall 10,695 2,058,930 –73.2 –240

Corporation Yard 8,558 1,647,529 –39.3 –129

Hope Avenue 5,767 1,110,225 –0.9 –3

Lincolnwood 1 10,902 2,098,781 25.0 82

Los Robles 5,887 1,133,326 –9.1 –30

Table 2. A summary of the optimization scenarios, Santa Barbara multi-objective management model, Santa Barbara, California.

[The total number of decision variables is included as a gauge for problem size. Abbreviation: N/A, not applicable]

Optimization Description Management 

horizon

Climate pattern 

(precipitation simulated)

Initial water levels and 

concentrations

Decision variables 

(number of decision 

variables)

Scenario 1 Relatively high water levels 

followed by 10-years of 

typical past climate

10-year 

(40 quarters)

Typical past (1978–87) High water levels 

(1998 groundwater 

levels and chloride 

concentrations)

Quarterly pumpage 

by well (440)

Scenario 2 Relatively high water levels 

followed by a 10-year 

drought

10-year 

(40 quarters)

10-year drought (1972, 

1976, 1977, 1981, 

1984, 1985, 1987, 

1988, 1989, and 1990)

High water levels 

(1998 groundwater 

levels and chloride 

concentrations)

Quarterly pumpage 

by well (440)

Scenario 3 Time required for the lowest 

historical water levels 

(1990) to recover to highest 

historical water levels (1998)

N/A Typical past and 10-year 

drought

Low water levels 

(1990 groundwater 

levels and chloride 

concentrations)

N/A

Scenario 4A Pumpage decision rule as 

a function of measured 

chlorine concentration and 

allowable change in chlorine 

concentration

10-year 

(40 quarters)

Typical past and 10-year 

drought

2013 conditions 

(2013 groundwater 

levels and chloride 

concentrations)

Total pumpage by 

subbasin (30)

Scenario 4B Pumpage decision rule as 

a function of measured 

water level and allowable 

drawdown

10-year 

(40 quarters)

Typical past and 10-year 

drought

2013 conditions 

(2013 groundwater 

levels and chloride 

concentrations)

Total pumpage by 

subbasin (30)

Scenario 5A Short-term management 

assuming typical past to dry 

precipitation

2-year 

(8 quarters)

Typical past-to-dry 

(1998–99)

2013 conditions 

(2013 groundwater 

levels and chloride 

concentrations)

Quarterly pumpage 

by well (88)

Scenario 5B Short-term management 

assuming dry to typical past 

precipitation

2-year 

(8 quarters)

Dry-to-typical 

past(1977–78)

2013 conditions 

(2013 groundwater 

levels and chloride 

concentrations)

Quarterly pumpage 

by well (88)

Scenario 5C Short-term management 

assuming dry to dry 

precipitation

2-year 

(8 quarters)

Dry-to-dry (1989–90) 2013 conditions 

(2013 groundwater 

levels and chloride 

concentrations)

Quarterly pumpage 

by well (88)

Well name GPM CFD

Minimum 

head 

(m)

Minimum 

head 

(ft)

Ortega Park 11,175 2,151,337 –63.4 –208

San Roque Park (2) 16,762 3,226,909 –17.4 –57

Santa Barbara High School 9,152 1,761,882 –42.7 –140

Val Verde 10,902 2,098,781 –27.4 –90

Vera Cruz 15,214 2,928,898 –74.7 –245

Table 1. Maximum pumping capacities for city of Santa Barbara production wells, Santa Barbara, California.

[cfd, cubic feet per day; ft, feet; gpm, gallons per minute; m, meters]
258 Santa Barbara and Foothill Groundwater Basins Geohydrology and Optimal Water Resources Management

Scenario 1

Scenario 1 identifies Pareto-optimal pumping schedules 

based on the assumptions of relatively high initial groundwater 

levels, followed by 10 years of typical climatic conditions. 

To represent high initial groundwater levels, those from 1998 

(fig. 3), which corresponded to the end of a 6-year period 

of low pumpage (see fig. A–8), were chosen. Therefore, 

simulated hydraulic heads and chloride concentrations 

from 1998 in the calibrated model were used as initial 

conditions. The scenario used a 10-year management horizon 

characterized by typical precipitation (1978–87; fig. A–2). 

The optimization formulation was the same as the general 

formulation described previously.

Scenario 2

Scenario 2 identifies optimal pumping schedules based on 

the assumptions of relatively high initial groundwater levels, 

followed by a 10-year drought. As in scenario 1, relatively 

high water levels and associated chloride concentrations 

were used as initial conditions (1998 water levels and 

chloride concentrations). However, this 10-year management 

horizon was characterized by a very dry precipitation record. 

Figure A–2 shows the annual precipitation in Santa Barbara 

measured at the Santa Barbara County building and the 

cumulative departure from the mean. The dry precipitation 

record used for this scenario was an aggregate of 10 dry 

years from the calibration period (1972, 1976, 1977, 1981, 

1984, 1985, 1987, 1988, 1989, and 1990; fig. A–2) replicated 

chronologically to simulate an extreme drought during the 

10-year management horizon. For comparison, the average 

annual precipitation for the simulated drought was 11.4 in., 

and the average annual precipitation for the drought of 2012–

16 was 10.2 in. Like scenario 1, the objectives and constraints 

for this scenario were the same as the general formulation.

Scenario 3

In contrast to the other scenarios, scenario 3 simulated 

the time required for the lowest historical water levels (1990) 

to recover to the highest historical water levels (1998; fig. 3). 

Hence, the initial conditions were based on 1990 simulated 

hydraulic heads and chloride concentrations. Most of the 

groundwater from wells in the Storage Unit I subbasin is 

treated at the Ortega groundwater treatment plant prior to 

distribution. For modeling purposes, the minimum operational 

flowrate to the treatment plant was assumed to be 300 gallons 

per minute (gal/min), or 484 acre-feet per year (acre-ft/yr; 

Kelley Dyer, Water Resources Supervisor, Public Works 

Department, Santa Barbara, Calif., written commun., 2014). 

Typical and dry climatic conditions were used over 10 years 

to assess the sensitivity of basin recovery to precipitation, 

assuming the minimal pumping from Storage Unit I.

Scenario 4

Scenario 4 was designed to produce tools that can help 

water managers make decisions regarding groundwater 

pumpage in response to newly collected water-level or 

chloride field data. For this study, these tools will be called 

“decision rules,” which are defined as formulas or principles 

used to choose a course of action in response to any given 

input of data.

The resulting decision-rule curves show the optimal 

pumping rates for a chosen well for a range of water levels and 

chloride concentrations. The 10-year typical period in scenario 

1 and the 10-year drought period in scenario 2 were used for 

the 10-year management horizon. Two approaches were used 

to reflect how potential chloride concentration and drawdowns 

could affect the total optimal pumpage. Each approach can be 

used to identify a Pareto-optimal solution that reflects specific 

conditions (measured chloride concentrations or drawdown) 

and the resulting pumpage that satisfies management goals. 

Once a decision about total pumpage is made, the pumping 

schedule by well can be obtained from the optimization results 

from scenarios 1 or 2, depending on the climatic condition. 

Whenever new measurements are taken, optimal pumping 

schedules can be updated without re-running the simulationoptimization model.

Scenario 4A

In scenario 4A, the first step was to assume a measured 

chloride concentration at selected coastal monitoring wells. 

The next step was to search the Pareto-optimal solutions 

for simulated chloride concentrations equal to the assumed 

measured value at each selected well. An optimal total 

pumpage for Storage Unit I for the following year and 

associated change in chloride concentration were recorded 

and plotted for each simulated chloride concentration in 

the selected well. This rule-curve can be referenced to new 

chloride measurements to retrieve an optimal pumpage 

volume.

Scenario 4B

In scenario 4B, the first step was to store the maximum 

annual drawdown for each production well in the Foothill 

groundwater basin. The next step was to store the associated 

total pumpage for Storage Unit I and Foothill groundwater 

basin for those 10 years. The total optimal pumpage for 

Storage Unit I and Foothill groundwater basin was presented 

for each simulated maximum drawdown value. 

Scenario 5

In scenario 5, a suite of potential, future pumping 

estimates was evaluated relative to a short-term climatic 

condition defined by a 2-year precipitation record. The 

management horizon was reduced to 2 years, and the initial 

conditions replicated those from the end of the calibration 

period (2013 water levels and chloride concentrations).
Chapter D: Multi-Objective Simulation-Optimization Model 259

sac16-0626_IP-075076_figD3

50

25

0

–25

–50

–75

–100

Water-level elevation, in feet (North American Vertical Datum of 1988)

1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020

Year

EXPLANATION

4N/27W-15K1

4N/27W-16R1

4N/27W-22G4

4N/27W-23E5

Figure 3. Hydrograph showing measured water levels for wells 4N/27W-15K1, 4N/27W-16R1, 4N/27W-22G4, and 4N/27W-23E5 in 

Storage Unit I, Santa Barbara groundwater basin, Santa Barbara, California.
260 Santa Barbara and Foothill Groundwater Basins Geohydrology and Optimal Water Resources Management

Simulation-Optimization Results 

In order to determine the best possible approximation 

of the true Pareto-optimal solution set, each scenario 

was formulated and run until minimum improvement 

was observed. For more information regarding MOEA 

convergence criteria, the reader is referred to Ward 

and others (2015). The ε values for all scenarios were 

εA = 1,000, εB = 10, εCt = 10, and εCm = 1 for objectives A, 

B, Ct, and Cm, respectively. Scenarios 1 and 2 were run for 

90,000 function evaluations each (a function evaluation is 

defined as one forward run of the simulation model), after 

which, changes in the pumpage objective were less than 

1 percent of total pumpage. Scenario 5 optimizations were 

run for 80,000 function evaluations, or to the point where 

improvements to all objectives were nearly stagnant.

Results for each scenario are presented and discussed 

separately. The values of each objective are converted to units 

that allow for practical interpretation. Objective A, pumpage, 

is presented as the sum of all quarterly pumping volumes 

(acre-ft) divided by the simulation time for an average 

pumping rate in acre-feet per year (acre-ft/yr). Objective B, 

seawater intrusion, is presented as formulated, that is, the sum 

of concentrations (mg/L) in all the model cells that make up 

the chloride-monitoring well and over all observation times. 

Objective Ct is shown as total drawdown in feet; objective Cm

is the maximum drawdown in feet.

Because many Pareto-optimal solutions are generated, a 

few must be selected for further consideration and discussion 

purposes. Two strategies were employed to select optimal 

pumping solutions. First, the ε-dominance criterion was used 

to sort the solutions according to preference in each objective. 

This was done in the Borg MOEA with ε values, defined 

previously. Second, after filtering by ε dominance, Paretooptimal pumpage rates by well (schedules) were selected 

from the remaining Pareto set according to the following 

convention:

Schedule {x}A maximize objective A-pumpage

Schedule {x}B minimize objective B-seawater intrusion

Schedule {x}Ct minimize objective Ct-total drawdown

Schedule {x}Cm minimize objective Cm-maximum drawdown

Schedule {x}D best overall compromise among the four 

objectives

Schedule {x}E best compromise among objectives B, Ct, and 

Cm

where

{x} is the scenario number. 

For example, schedule 1A is the solution that minimized 

objective A (or maximized pumpage) for scenario 1. 

Schedule {x}E can be considered the best compromise among 

the environmental mitigation objectives (that is, seawater 

intrusion and both drawdown objectives).

Selection of the pumping schedules was intended to 

simplify the presentation of overall Pareto-optimal results. The 

complete Pareto-optimal solution set is given as hundreds of 

different pumping schedules for each scenario. Each of these 

schedules is optimal in the sense that no other solution can 

improve any of the objective values without worsening at least 

one other objective value. Selection of the pumping schedule 

from the solution set can be made according to the needs of 

the time. For example, given a projected water demand, the 

Pareto-optimal schedule that most closely matches the demand 

with pumpage might be chosen. It is important to point out 

that this schedule might not be one of the example schedules 

examined in this report. If minimizing seawater intrusion was 

paramount to all other objectives, however, then schedule {x}B

pumpage would be a good guide for the available basin yield.

Although identifying schedules {x}A, {x}B, and 

{x}C is straightforward—the best performing solution 

in each of the objectives—all possible pumping schedules 

need to be ranked to identify schedules {x}D and {x}E . 

Schedules {x}D and {x}E were identified by using scaled 

objective scores (SOS) for each Pareto-optimal solution. The 

use of SOS is a normalization that maps each objective value 

to the common interval [0, 1] to more easily compare the 

ranking of each schedule in each objective. It is calculated as 

follows:

SOS obj min

max min   







 



 1 (9)

where 

obj is the objective-function value of a given 

pumping schedule, 

min is the minimum value of the objective, 

max is the maximum value of the objective, and

| | is the absolute value.

Because all objectives were formulated as minimizations, a 

score of 1 is the best possible value obtained in the Paretooptimal set for that objective, and 0 is the worst possible 

value. Using the SOS, schedule {x}D is defined as the largest 

sum of scores for all four objectives, and schedule {x}E is the 

largest sum of scores for objectives B, Ct, and Cm.
Chapter D: Multi-Objective Simulation-Optimization Model 261

Scenario 1

With relatively high-water levels as the initial conditions 

and typical precipitation used during a 10-year management 

horizon, this optimization produced the best possible yield for 

the basin under favorable conditions. The city can choose a 

pumping schedule according to the tradeoffs among the four 

objectives that meet the needs at that time. Figure 4 shows the 

912 Pareto-optimal solutions for scenario 1, with pumping 

schedules 1A through 1E highlighted for clarity. Schedules 

with little seawater intrusion varied between about 26,000 

and 24,200 acre-ft of pumpage (fig. 4). The schedules with 

the least seawater intrusion around schedule 1B had more total 

drawdown and greater maximum drawdown than those that 

allowed a modest amount of seawater intrusion at a similar 

total pumpage. The scenario 1 results also indicated that about 

31,300 acre-ft was the maximum yield for the basin during a 

10-year period under typical conditions. All scenario 1 results 

assumed the simulated recharge pattern reasonably represented 

that of the precipitation record from 1978 to 1987.

The results indicated that the total chloride concentration 

(objective B) and total drawdown (objective Ct) were sensitive 

to total pumpage (objective A) in different ways (fig. 4). 

One might expect that chloride concentration and drawdown 

would simply increase with pumpage; however, because the 

spatial distribution of pumpage varies, this is not always the 

case. For example, the increased pumpage could be from 

the Foothill groundwater basin, where drawdown has little 

effect on seawater intrusion. Schedules 1B and 1Ct both had 

more pumpage than schedule 1Cm, but less seawater intrusion 

(fig. 4); at the same time, schedule 1B had moderate overall 

drawdown, yet schedules 1Ct, 1Cm, 1D, and 1E had an overall 

increase in water levels (negative drawdown). Tradeoffs were 

complex, and relationships among various objectives were 

not immediately apparent; however, overall, more pumpage 

resulted in more drawdown and more seawater intrusion. 

Schedules with similar total drawdown (for example, 300 ft, 

fig. 4) can result in a wide range of seawater intrusion. 

Conversely, schedules with similar pumpage have a relatively 

narrow range of seawater intrusion. 

Table 3 presents the selected Pareto-optimal results 

for the total pumpage, total chloride concentration, total 

drawdown, and maximum drawdown for schedules 1A–1E. 

Schedules 1A, 1B, 1Ct, and 1Cm resulted in the greatest objective 

values for objectives A, B, Ct, and Cm (31,300 acre-ft, 

2.74E7 mg/L, ˗790 ft, and 41 ft, respectively). Schedules 1B

through 1E resulted in similar total pumpage values—a range 

of 900 acre-ft after 10 years. The best overall compromise 

solution, schedule 1D, represented the largest SOS for the 

four objectives. In this case, schedule 1D resulted in less total 

pumpage than schedules 1A, 1B, 1Ct, or 1Cm, but more pumpage 

than schedule 1E. Schedule 1E was the best compromise among 

the environmental mitigation objectives and resulted in the 

least amount of pumpage (table 3).

Figure 5 presents the SOS for each schedule in table 3, 

illustrating the relative tradeoffs on a common scale. The 

extreme solutions (schedules 1A, 1B, 1Ct, and 1Cm) all exhibited 

poor performance in at least one objective, relative to the 

highest attainable value (a score of 1). Schedule 1B showed 

that a small decrease in overall seawater intrusion resulted in 

a large increase in total drawdown and maximum drawdown 

when compared to Schedules 1C through 1E. The compromise 

solutions (schedules 1D and 1E) showed a better balance among 

the environmental objectives (B and C) than the extreme 

solutions. Schedules 1Ct and 1D, appeared to be similar, but 

showed that for a small decrease in pumpage, better scores for 

objectives B and Cm were attained. Furthermore, schedule 1E

showed that high SOS (greater than 0.8) for all three 

environmental objectives was possible if pumpage could be 

reduced to about 25,000 acre-ft (table 3), but this would also 

result in lower water levels throughout the basin and a larger 

maximum drawdown compared to scenario 1D (slightly worse 

objective Ct and Cm scores; fig. 5).

The selected Pareto-optimal pumping schedules for the 

Storage Unit I and Foothill groundwater basin are shown 

in figure 6, and the pumpage values by individual well for 

Schedule 1D are presented in appendix D–1. These pumping 

schedules present a range of Pareto-optimal operations under 

typical rainfall. All schedules had relatively high pumpage 

during the first three quarters of year 10 because there is no 

year 11 as far as the optimization is concerned, implying 

that the state of the basin after year 10 is of no concern to 

the model beyond meeting the constraints. This is discussed 

in greater detail in the “Limitations” section of this chapter. 

Also, pumpage was usually large in the first quarter of each 

schedule, which indicates that the initial conditions were not 

violating any constraints and the system could be heavily 

pumped for one quarter, if less pumpage was imposed in 

the following quarters. It is also apparent from figure 6 that 

schedule 1A did not necessarily result in more pumpage in each 

quarter. In fact, in some quarters (8, 12, and 15, for example), 

schedule 1A (fig. 6A) had less pumpage from Storage Unit 1 

than schedule 1E (fig. 6F), and in some other quarters (21, 25, 

and 33, for example) schedule 1A had less pumpage from the 

Foothill groundwater basin than schedule 1D (fig. 6E). Among 

all the schedules, the general timing of the large pumpage and 

small pumpage quarters was highly variable.

In summary, the optimal annual pumping for 

schedule 1D ranged from 1,829 to 3,418 acre-ft and averaged 

2,558 acre-ft/yr for the 10-year period. Of this amount, the 

annual city pumpage in the Foothill basin ranged from 535 to 

862 acre-ft and averaged 746 acre-ft/yr; and the annual city 

pumpage in Storage Unit I ranged from 925 to 2,457 acre-ft 

and averaged 1,620 acre-ft/yr. Although not presented in 

figure 6, the annual city pumpage in Storage Unit III ranged 

from 128 to 239 acre-ft and averaged 191 acre-ft/yr.

Figure 7 shows the contours of simulated hydraulic 

head in the upper, middle, and lower producing zones after 

10 years of pumping, assuming schedule 1D pumpage. A cone 

of depression formed around the wells in the three producing 

zones of Storage Unit I (fig. 7). In addition, there was a 

depression in the lower producing zone around the Hope 

Avenue well (fig. 7C), which could reflect the proximity of 

the well to the East More Ranch fault. An additional cone 

of depression was evident in the lower producing zone 

of the Foothill groundwater basin around the Los Robles 

well (fig. 7C).
262 Santa Barbara and Foothill Groundwater Basins Geohydrology and Optimal Water Resources Management

Figure 4. Selected Pareto-optimal solutions for scenario 1, Santa Barbara multi-objective management model, Santa Barbara, 

California.

Table 3. Values for the four objectives for selected Pareto-optimal pumping schedules, scenario 1, Santa Barbara multi-objective 

management model, Santa Barbara, California.

[Objective A is also shown divided by storage unit. Abbreviations: acre-ft, acre-feet; ft, feet; mg/L, milligrams per liter]

Schedule

Objective A 

total pumpage

 (acre-ft)

Objective B 

seawater intrusion

(1,000 mg/L)

Objective Ct 

total drawdown

 (ft)

Objective Cm 

maximum drawdown

 (ft)

Storage Unit I 

pumpage 

(acre-ft)

Foothill 

pumpage 

(acre-ft)

Storage Unit III 

pumpage 

(acre-ft)

1A 31,300 28,900 1,040 74 20,100 9,200 2,000 

1B 25,900 27,400 230 67 15,100 8,800 2,100 

1Ct 25,800 27,900 -790 48 16,400 7,600 1,900 

1Cm 25,300 28,200 -390 41 16,300 7,300 1,600

1D 25,600 27,900 -770 46 16,200 7,500 1,900

1E 25,000 27,600 -670 49 15,500 7,600 1,900 

sac16-0626_IP-075076_figD4

1A

1B

1Cm

1E

1Ct 1D

2,500

1,800

1,100

400

–300

–1,000

32,000 30,400 28,800 27,200 25,600 24,000

Total pumpage, in acre-feet

Total drawdown, in feet

29,000

27,400

27,720

28,040

28,360

28,680

Total seawater intrusion, 1,000 milligrams per liter

Size: Max drawdown (ft)

Transparency

110

40

1 (opaque; shows selected schedules)

0 (translucent; shows all other schedules)

EXPLANATION
Chapter D: Multi-Objective Simulation-Optimization Model 263

Figure 8 shows a vertical section of simulated 

chloride concentration and contours of simulated chloride 

concentrations for the middle and lower producing zones, 

assuming schedule 1D pumpage. Some of the monitoring 

wells near the coast that were used to establish the seawaterintrusion objective are also shown in the vertical section. 

Wells 4N/27W-22A2 and 23F2 are perforated in the upper 

producing zone. Well 22A2 was near the leading edge of 

seawater intrusion in the upper producing zone, whereas well 

23F2 is perforated near the top of the middle producing zone 

(fig. 8A). The mean simulated chloride concentrations at wells 

22A2 and 23F2 at the end of the 10-year simulation were 

130 and 1,900 mg/L, respectively. The simulated results for 

well 22A2 indicated that pumping from the City Hall or Vera 

Cruz wells could induce an upward migration of seawater 

from the top of the middle producing zone (fig. 8A). Wells 

4N/27W-22A4 and 23F4 are perforated in the lower producing 

zone. Well 22A4 was near the leading edge of the seawater 

intrusion in the lower producing zone, whereas well 23F4 

was near the centroid of the lower seawater plume (fig. 8) and 

its simulated chloride concentration was about 70-percent 

seawater. At the end of the 10-year simulation, the mean 

simulated chloride concentrations at wells 22A4 and 23F4 

were 870 and 13,400 mg/L, respectively.

Simulated chloride breakthrough curves for the coastal 

monitoring wells, assuming schedule 1D pumpage, are 

shown in figure 9. Higher chloride concentrations in the 

lower producing zone (wells 23F4 and 23F5) and the middle 

producing zone (well 23F8) are apparent. Overall, the rate 

of change in chloride concentration was greater in the lower 

producing zone than in the other two zones. For example, 

the rate of increase in chloride concentrations in well 22G4, 

which is perforated in the lower producing zone, was higher 

than that of its companion well in the middle producing zone 

(well 22G3). The largest increase in chloride concentration 

was in well 23E5, which is perforated in the lower producing 

zone; the simulated chloride concentration increased from 

about 2,700 mg/L to about 4,200 mg/L (fig. 9). 

For Schedule 1D, the largest simulated chloride 

concentration at any production well was about 158 mg/L in 

the middle producing zone of the Corporation Yard well. This 

estimate of concentration is only for a single model layer in 

the entire perforated interval; therefore, the actual chloride 

concentration of extracted water would be likely be less 

because it would be mixed with less-saline water from other 

depths.

sac16-0626_IP-075076_figD5

Schedule

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

Scaled objective scores

1A 1B 1Ct 1Cm 1D 1E

Objective A (pumpage) Objective B (seawater intrusion) Objective Ct

 (total drawdown) Objective Cm (maximum drawdown)

EXPLANATION

Figure 5. Scaled objective scores for schedules 1A through 1E, Santa Barbara multi-objective management model, Santa Barbara, 

California.
264 Santa Barbara and Foothill Groundwater Basins Geohydrology and Optimal Water Resources Management

sac16-0626_IP-075076_figD6ABC

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40

Quarter

0

200

400

600

800

1,000

Pumpage, in acre-feet

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40

Quarter

0

200

400

600

800

1,000

Pumpage, in acre-feet

Schedule 1A Storage Unit I Schedule 1A Foothill

EXPLANATION

Schedule 1Ct Storage Unit I Schedule 1Ct Foothill

EXPLANATION C

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40

Quarter

0

200

400

600

800

1,000

Pumpage, in acre-feet

Schedule 1B Storage Unit I Schedule 1B Foothill

EXPLANATION B

A

Figure 6. Quarterly pumpage for Storage Unit I and Foothill groundwater basin, Santa Barbara multi-objective management model, 

Santa Barbara, California, for A, schedule 1A; B, schedule 1B; C, schedule 1Ct; D, schedule 1Cm; E, schedule 1D; and F, schedule 1E.
Chapter D: Multi-Objective Simulation-Optimization Model 265

sac16-0626_IP-075076_figD6DEF

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40

Quarter

0

200

400

600

800

1,000

Pumpage, in acre-feet

Schedule 1E Storage Unit I Schedule 1E Foothill

EXPLANATION F

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40

Quarter

0

200

400

600

800

1,000

Pumpage, in acre-feet

Schedule 1D Storage Unit I Schedule 1D Foothill

EXPLANATION E

D

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40

Quarter

0

200

400

600

800

1,000

Pumpage, in acre-feet

Schedule 1Cm Storage Unit I Schedule 1Cm Foothill

EXPLANATION

Figure 6. —Continued
Figure 7. Contours of simulated hydraulic head after 10 years for schedule 1D, Santa Barbara multi-objective management model, Santa Barbara, Cazone; B, middle producing zone; and C, lower producing zone.

0 0

20

40

60

80

80

100

100

130

120

120

101

EAST MORE

RANCH FAULT

MODOC FAULT ROCKY NOOK FAULT

LAGO ON FAULT LAVIGIA FAULT MESA FAULT

UNNAMED

FAULT

FOOTHILL

FAULT NORTHEAST MORE RANCH FAULT

SANTA YNEZ MOUNTAINS

PA C I F I 

Goleta

Basin

San Roque Park 2

Val Verde Ortega Park

SB High School

LosRobles

Lincolnwood 1

HopeAvenue

Corporation

City Hall Yard

VeraCruz

AlamedaPark

119°46' 119°44' 119°42' 119°40'

34°27'34°26'34°25'

R. 28 W. R. 27 W.

LauroCanyon

MissionCanyon

Sycamore

Canyon

0 0.5 1 MILE

0 0.5 1 KILOMETER

Figure D7A. Contours of upper zone simulated hydraulic head for Scenario 1, Schedule D in the Santa Barbara groundwater basin, California.

EXPLANATION

HighwaySimulated hydraulic head contours, in

feet above North American VerticalDatum of 1988 (NAVD 88)

80

Faults

Existence certain, location inferredExistence questionable, location inferredExistence certain, location concealedExistence questionable, location concealedExistence certain, location accurateExistence certain, location approximate

Santa Barbara city production

well and identifier

Vera Cruz

Storage units High

Low

250200150100

50

0

–50

–100–150

Simulated hydraulic head,

in feet above NAVD 88

Base modified from U.S. Geological Survey and other Federal and State digital data, various scales; Transverse Mercator projection, zone 11N; North American Datum of 1983 (NAD 83)

Storage units from Muir, 

faults from M

Stud

are

PACIFIC OCEAN 

A
Figure 7. —Continued

20

0

0

0

101

EAST MORE

RANCH FAULT

MODOC FAULT ROCKY NOOK FAULT

LAGO ON FAULT LAVIGIA FAULT MESA FAULT

UNNAMED

FAULT

FOOTHILL

FAULT NORTHEAST MORE RANCH FAULT

SANTA YNEZ MOUNTAINS

PA C I F I 

Goleta

Basin

San Roque Park 2

Val Verde

Ortega

Park

SB High School

LosRobles

Lincolnwood 1

HopeAvenue

Corporation

City Hall Yard

VeraCruz

AlamedaPark

119°46' 119°44' 119°42' 119°40'

34°27'34°26'34°25'

R. 28 W. R. 27 W.

LauroCanyon

MissionCanyon

Sycamore

Canyon

0 0.5 1 MILE

0 0.5 1 KILOMETER

Figure D7B. Contours of middle zone simulated hydraulic head for Scenario 1, Schedule D in the Santa Barbara groundwater basin, California. 

EXPLANATION

Base modified from U.S. Geological Survey and other Federal and State digital data, various scales; Transverse Mercator projection, zone 11N; North American Datum of 1983 (NAD 83)

HighwaySimulated hydraulic head contours, in

feet above North American VerticalDatum of 1988 (NAVD 88)

20

Faults

Existence certain, location inferredExistence questionable, location inferredExistence certain, location concealedExistence questionable, location concealedExistence certain, location accurateExistence certain, location approximate

Storage units High

Low

250200150100

50

0

–50

–100–150

Simulated hydraulic head,

in feet above NAVD 88

Santa Barbara city production

well and identifier

Vera Cruz

Storage units from Muir, 

faults from M

Stud

are

PACIFIC OCEAN 

B
Figure 7. —Continued

101

EAST MORE

RANCH FAULT

MODOC FAULT ROCKY NOOK FAULT

LAGO ON FAULT LAVIGIA FAULT MESA FAULT

UNNAMED

FAULT

FOOTHILL

FAULT NORTHEAST MORE RANCH FAULT

SANTA YNEZ MOUNTAINS

PA C I F I 

Goleta

Basin

San Roque Park 2

Val Verde

Ortega

Park

SB High School

LosRobles

Lincolnwood 1

HopeAvenue

Corporation

City Hall Yard

VeraCruz

AlamedaPark

119°46' 119°44' 119°42' 119°40'

34°27'34°26'34°25'

R. 28 W. R. 27 W.

LauroCanyon

MissionCanyon

Sycamore

Canyon

0 0.5 1 MILE

0 0.5 1 KILOMETER

Figure D7C. Contours of lower zone simulated hydraulic head for Scenario 1, Schedule D in the Santa Barbara groundwater basin, California.

EXPLANATION

Base modified from U.S. Geological Survey and other Federal and State digital data, various scales; Transverse Mercator projection, zone 11N; North American Datum of 1983 (NAD 83)

HighwaySimulated hydraulic head contours, in

feet above North American VerticalDatum of 1988 (NAVD 88)

20

Faults

Existence certain, location inferredExistence questionable, location inferredExistence certain, location concealedExistence questionable, location concealedExistence certain, location accurateExistence certain, location approximate

Storage units High

Low

250200150100

50

0

–50

–100–150

Simulated hydraulic head,

in feet above NAVD 88

Santa Barbara city production

well and identifier

Vera Cruz

Storage units from Muir, 

faults from M

Stud

are

PACIFIC OCEAN 

40 20 80

140

140

120

120

120

100

100

100

80

100

80

60

0

–20

0

0

60

C
Chapter D: Multi-Objective Simulation-Optimization Model 269

Figure 8. Simulated year-10 chloride concentration distribution for Storage Unit I, schedule 1D, Santa Barbara multi-objective 

management model, Santa Barbara, California: A, section along model row 30; B, plan view of the middle producing zone; and C, plan 

view of the lower producing zone.

sac16-0626_IP-075076_figD8A

0

–200

–400

–600

–800

–1,000

Elevation, in feet

26,000 28,000 30,000 32,000 34,000

Distance, in feet

18

16

14

12

10

8

6

4

2

0

Chlorine concentration, in thousands of milligrams per liter

4N/27W-22A2

4N/27W-22A4

4N/27W-23F2

4N/27W-23F4

A
270 Santa Barbara and Foothill Groundwater Basins Geohydrology and Optimal Water Resources Management

Figure 8. —Continued

sac16-0626_IP-075076_figD8BC

101

101

15K1

22A2-5 22B8-11

22G2-4

23E1-4

23E5-6

23F2-4

23F5-7

23F8-9

PA C I F I C O C E A N

SANTA BARBARA COUNTY

R. 27 W. R. 26 W.

T.

4

N.

B

Sycamore Creek

Mission Creek

Ortega Park

Corporation

Yard

City Hall Vera

Cruz

FigureD8BC- Simulated contours of chloride concentrations for the middle-producing zone and lowerproducing

zones; Scenario 1, Schedule D, Santa Barbara groundwater model, Santa Barbara, California.

1,500

15,000

15,000

15,000

1,500

101

101

PA C I F I C O C E A N

SANTA BARBARA COUNTY

C

Sycamore Creek

Mission Creek

T.

4

N.

R. 27 W. R. 26 W.

R. 27 W. R. 26 W.

Ortega Park

Corporation

Yard

City Hall Vera

Cruz

15K1

22A2-5 22B8-11

22G2-4

23E1-4

23E5-6

23F2-4

23F5-7

23F8-9

119°42' 119°41' 119°40' 119°39'

34°25'25"

34°25'

34°24'35"

119°42' 119°41' 119°40' 119°39'

34°25'25"

34°25'

34°24'35"

Base modified from U.S. Geological Survey and other 

Federal and State digital data, various scales; 

Transverse Mercator projection, zone 11N; 

North American Datum of 1983 (NAD 83)

EXPLANATION

0 0.5 1 MILES

0 0.5 1 KILOMETERS

Highway

Major stream

Simulated chloride concentration

contour, in milligrams per liter

60

Storage unit

Monitoring well and identifier 23F1

Faults

Existence certain, location inferred

Existence questionable, location inferred

Existence certain, location accurate

Existence certain, location approximate

Simulated chloride

concentration,

in milligrams per liter

High

Low

19,000

0

Santa Barbara city production

well and identifier

City

Hall

Storage units from Muir, 1968;

Freckleton and others, 1998;

faults from Muir, 1968;

Minor and others, 2009

MESA FAULT

LAGOON FAULT

MESA FAULT

LAGOON FAULT
Chapter D: Multi-Objective Simulation-Optimization Model 271

Scenario 2

Using relatively high-water levels for the initial 

conditions and dry climatic conditions during a 10-year 

management horizon, this optimization scenario produces the 

best possible yield of the basin under a simulated drought. 

The city can decide on a pumping schedule by choosing the 

tradeoff among the four objectives that meet their needs best 

at the time. Figure 10 shows the 629 Pareto-optimal solutions 

for scenario 2. A range of low seawater-intrusion values was 

only feasible for much larger drawdowns when compared to 

scenario 1 (fig. 4). Schedules 2A, 2B, 2Ct, and 2Cm represented 

the extreme solutions that achieved the lowest possible 

objective value (with respect to a minimization) for objectives 

A, B, Ct, and Cm, respectively (fig. 10). The scenario 2 

tradeoffs differed from those of scenario 1 by having a smaller 

range of feasible values for objectives A and B, yet a larger 

range for objectives Ct and Cm. For scenario 2, schedules 2Ct, 

2D, and 2E were equivalent. Also notable is that there were 

no Pareto-optimal solutions for scenario 2 that resulted in 

negative total drawdown, as was found for scenario 1. In 

general, total pumpage and seawater intrusion were similar for 

scenarios 1 and 2; however, total drawdowns were larger in 

all schedules of scenario 2. All scenario 2 results assumed the 

simulated recharge pattern reasonably represents that of the 

dry precipitation record for a simulated 10-year drought.

Selected Pareto-optimal results are presented in table 4, 

and the associated SOS are shown in figure 11. The total 

pumpage, total chloride concentration, total drawdown, 

and maximum drawdown are shown for schedules 2A–2E in 

table 4. For scenario 2, the best overall compromise solution 

(schedule 2D) and the best compromise between seawater 

intrusion and both drawdown objectives (schedule 2E) were 

identical to those for schedule 2Ct and are, therefore, not 

presented separately in table 4. Schedules 2A, 2B, 2Ct, and 2Cm

resulted in the greatest values for objectives A, B, Ct, and Cm

(30,000 acre-ft, 2.75E7 mg/L, 500 ft, and 54 ft, respectively, 

table 4). Achieving an SOS greater than 0.8 (fig. 11) for both 

drawdown objectives was possible for schedule 2Ct at a total 

pumpage of about 26,200 acre-ft (table 4). Pumpage was 

greater for schedule 2Ct than 2Cm, but total drawdown was less 

and maximum drawdown was greater.

The tradeoffs for scenario 2 also showed that the lowest 

values of seawater intrusion were not attainable without a 

substantial drop in the SOS for the other three objectives 

(schedule 2B compared to schedules 2Ct and 2Cm in fig. 11). 

Seawater intrusion increased for schedule 2Ct and 2Cm because 

minimizing either drawdown objective, much of which 

occurred in the Foothill groundwater basin, led to more 

pumpage in Storage Unit I. Similar to scenario 1, the SOS for 

objective B was very low for the schedule 2A solution (fig. 11), 

making it an unlikely candidate for a management plan, but 

still valuable for its maximal dry-climate yield. 

Figure 9. Simulated chloride breakthrough curves for selected monitoring wells for schedule 1D, Santa Barbara multi-objective 

management model, Santa Barbara, California.

sac16-0626_IP-075076_figD9

Chloride concentration, in milligrams per liter

15,000

10,000

11,000

12,000

13,000

14,000

Chloride concentration, in milligrams per liter

5,000

0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 3,500

Time, in days

0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 3,500

Time, in days

22A2 23E3

22A4 23E5

22B9 23F2

22B10 23F4

22B11 23F5

22G3 23F7

22G4 23F8

EXPLANATION

23F5

23F7

23F8

EXPLANATION
272 Santa Barbara and Foothill Groundwater Basins Geohydrology and Optimal Water Resources Management

Figure 10. Selected Pareto-optimal solutions for scenario 2, Santa Barbara multi-objective management model, Santa Barbara, 

California.

Table 4. Values for the four objectives for selected Pareto-optimal pumping schedules, scenario 2, Santa Barbara multi-objective 

management model, Santa Barbara, California.

[Schedules 2D and 2E results are identical to Schedule 2Ct. Objective A is also shown divided by storage unit. Abbreviations: acre-ft, acre-feet; ft, feet; 

mg/L, milligrams per liter]

Schedule

Objective A 

total pumpage

 (acre-ft)

Objective B 

seawater intrusion

(1,000 mg/L)

Objective Ct 

total drawdown

 (ft)

Objective Cm 

maximum drawdown

 (ft)

Storage Unit I 

pumpage 

(acre-ft)

Foothill 

pumpage 

(acre-ft)

Storage Unit III 

pumpage 

(acre-ft)

2A 30,000 28,600 2,180 71 18,900 9,100 2,000 

2B 25,300 27,500 1,330 60 14,900 8,500 1,900 

2Ct, D, E 26,200 27,800 500 56 16,100 8,100 2,000 

2Cm 25,700 27,800 910 54 15,600 8,100 2,000 

sac16-0626_IP-075076_figD10

2,500

1,800

1,100

400

–300

–1,000

32,000 30,400 28,800 27,200 25,600 24,000

Total pumpage, in acre-feet

Total drawdown, in feet

2A

2B

2Cm

2Ct/D/E

29,000

27,400

27,720

28,040

28,360

28,680

Total seawater intrusion, 1,000 milligrams per liter

Size: Max drawdown (ft)

Transparency

110

40

1 (opaque; shows selected schedules)

0 (translucent; shows all other schedules)

EXPLANATION
Chapter D: Multi-Objective Simulation-Optimization Model 273

The selected Pareto-optimal pumping schedules for 

the Storage Unit I subbasin and Foothill groundwater basin 

are shown in figure 12, and the pumpage by individual well 

for Schedule 2D is presented in appendix D–2. The bars in 

figure 12 are divided into values of total pumping in Storage 

Unit I and Foothill groundwater basin. The nuances of these 

pumping schedules were similar to those of scenario 1 in 

terms of large initial pumpage in the first quarter, followed 

by a period of low pumpage, and then increased pumpage in 

the latter quarters of the 10-year management horizon. With 

few exceptions, the pumpage for schedule 2A was generally 

larger in all quarters than for the other schedules. The temporal 

distribution of recharge was not considered, although it could 

also dictate which quarters receive more pumpage than others, 

depending on the assumed climatic conditions. An analysis 

of annual precipitation and the resulting pumpage, seawater 

intrusion, and drawdown was included as part of scenario 4.

In summary, the results for optimal annual pumping for 

schedule 2D ranged from 1,617 to 3,463 acre-ft and averaged 

2,623 acre-ft/yr for the 10-year period. Of this amount, the 

annual city pumpage from the Foothill groundwater basin 

ranged from 571 to 962 acre-ft and averaged 813 acre-ft/yr; 

the annual city pumpage from Storage Unit I ranged from 

700 to 2,441 acre-ft and averaged 1,609 acre-ft/yr. Although 

not presented in figure 12, the annual city pumpage from 

Storage Unit III ranged from 169 to 251 acre-ft and averaged 

201 acre-ft/yr. Figure 13 shows the contours of simulated 

hydraulic head for the upper, middle, and lower producing 

zones after 10 years of pumping for schedule 2D (compromise 

schedule). A cone of depression formed around the Storage 

Unit I wells in the three producing zones (fig. 13). In addition, 

a cone of depression developed in the lower producing zone 

around the Hope Avenue well along the East More Ranch 

fault (fig. 13C). Additional depressions formed around the 

Val Verde well in Storage Unit III for the upper (fig. 13A) and 

lower (fig. 13C) producing zones.

Figure 14 shows a vertical section of chloride 

concentration and simulated chloride concentrations for the 

middle and lower producing zones, assuming schedule 2D

pumpage. The mean simulated chloride concentrations at 

wells 22A2 and 23F2 were 137 and 1,938 mg/L, respectively, 

at the end of the 10-year simulation. For the lower producing 

zones, the mean simulated chloride concentrations at wells 

22A4 and 23F4 were 917 and 13,405 mg/L, respectively, at 

the end of the 10-year simulation. In the middle producing 

zone, the maximum simulated chloride concentration directly 

below well 22A2 was about 600 mg/L.

Simulated chloride breakthrough curves for the coastal 

monitoring wells, assuming schedule 2D pumpage, showed 

trends similar to those for scenario 1 (fig. 15). The chloride 

concentration increase was still greatest in well 23E5, but the 

reduced pumpage in this schedule, compared to schedule 1D, 

resulted in a higher final concentration (4,304 mg/L compared 

to 4,227 mg/L). Similarly, all other wells that showed 

seawater intrusion increased to a slightly higher concentration 

compared to schedule 1D.

The results of scenario 2 showed that optimization of 

well pumpage identifies management schedules that mitigate 

seawater intrusion in a drier climatic condition. With less 

rainfall, there is less available groundwater, and the yield, 

considering the chloride and drawdown tradeoffs, is lower. 

Less pumping generally results in less seawater intrusion. 

Because the complex dynamics among the four objectives 

depend strongly on climate, choosing an optimal schedule 

from the Pareto curve that produces the desired pumpage 

results in a clear tradeoff between drawdown and seawater 

intrusion. In other words, if demand can be reduced when 

anticipating a drier climatic condition, an effective pumping 

schedule is available to meet any feasible drawdown and 

chloride specification without needing to re-run the model.

Figure 11. Scaled objective scores for schedules 2A, 2B, 2Ct, 2Cm, 2D, and 2E, Santa Barbara multi-objective management model, Santa 

Barbara, California.

sac16-0626_IP-075076_figD11

Schedule

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

Scaled objective scores

2A 2B 2Ct 2Cm 2D 2E

EXPLANATION

Objective A (pumpage) Objective B (seawater intrusion) Objective Ct

 (total drawdown) Objective Cm (maximum drawdown)
274 Santa Barbara and Foothill Groundwater Basins Geohydrology and Optimal Water Resources Management

Figure 12. Scenario 2 quarterly pumpage for Storage Unit I and Foothill groundwater basin, Santa Barbara multi-objective 

management model, Santa Barbara, California, for A, schedule 2A; B, schedule 2B; C, schedules 2Ct, 2D, and 2E; and D, schedule 2Cm.

sac16-0626_IP-075076_figD12ABCD

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40

0

200

400

600

800

1,000

Pumpage, in acre-feet

A

Schedule 2A Storage Unit I Schedule 2A Foothill

EXPLANATION

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40

0

200

400

600

800

1,000

Pumpage, in acre-feet

B

Schedule 2B Storage Unit I Schedule 2B Foothill

EXPLANATION

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40

0

200

400

600

800

1,000

Pumpage, in acre-feet

C

Schedule 2Ct Storage Unit I Schedule 2Ct Foothill

EXPLANATION

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40

0

200

400

600

800

1,000

Pumpage, in acre-feet

Quarter

D

Schedule 2Cm Storage Unit I Schedule 2Cm Foothill

EXPLANATION
Figure 13. Contours of simulated hydraulic head after 10 years for scenario 2, schedule 2D, Santa Barbara multi-objective management model, Santa upper producing zone; B, middle producing zone; and C, lower producing zone.

40 20 60

60

100

100

100

80

80

0

0

101

EAST MORE

RANCH FAULT

MODOC FAULT ROCKY NOOK FAULT

LAGO ON FAULT LAVIGIA FAULT MESA FAULT

UNNAMED

FAULT

FOOTHILL FAULT

NORTHEAST MORE RANCH FAULT

SANTA YNEZ MOUNTAINS

PA C I F I 

Goleta

Basin

San Roque Park 2

Val Verde

Ortega

Park

SB High School

LosRobles

Lincolnwood 1

HopeAvenue

Corporation

City Hall Yard

VeraCruz

AlamedaPark

119°46' 119°44' 119°42' 119°40'

34°27'34°26'34°25'

R. 28 W. R. 27 W.

LauroCanyon

MissionCanyon

Sycamore

Canyon

0 0.5 1 MILE

0 0.5 1 KILOMETER

Figure D13a. Contours of upper zone simulated hydraulic head for Scenario 2, Schedule D in the Santa Barbara groundwater basin, California.

EXPLANATION

Base modified from U.S. Geological Survey and other Federal and State digital data, various scales; Transverse Mercator projection, zone 11N; North American Datum of 1983 (NAD 83)

HighwaySimulated hydraulic head contours, in

feet above North American VerticalDatum of 1988 (NAVD 88)

20

Faults

Existence certain, location inferredExistence questionable, location inferredExistence certain, location concealedExistence questionable, location concealedExistence certain, location accurateExistence certain, location approximate

Storage units High

Low

250200150100

50

0

–50

–100–150

Simulated hydraulic head,

in feet above NAVD 88

Santa Barbara city production

well and identifier

Vera Cruz

Storage units from Muir, 

faults from M

Stud

are

PACIFIC OCEAN 

A
Figure 13. —Continued

20 0

0

0

101

EAST MORE

RANCH FAULT

MODOC FAULT ROCKY NOOK FAULT

LAGO ON FAULT LAVIGIA FAULT MESA FAULT

UNNAMED

FAULT

FOOTHILL

FAULT NORTHEAST MORE RANCH FAULT

SANTA YNEZ MOUNTAINS

PA C I F I 

Goleta

Basin

San Roque Park 2

Val Verde

Ortega

Park

SB High School

LosRobles

Lincolnwood 1

Corporation

City Hall Yard

VeraCruz

AlamedaPark

HopeAvenue

119°46' 119°44' 119°42' 119°40'

34°27'34°26'34°25'

R. 28 W. R. 27 W.

LauroCanyon

MissionCanyon

Sycamore

Canyon

0 0.5 1 MILE

0 0.5 1 KILOMETER

Figure D13B. Contours of middle zone simulated hydraulic head for Scenario 2, Schedule D in the Santa Barbara groundwater basin, California. 

EXPLANATION

Base modified from U.S. Geological Survey and other Federal and State digital data, various scales; Transverse Mercator projection, zone 11N; North American Datum of 1983 (NAD 83)

HighwaySimulated hydraulic head contours, in

feet above North American VerticalDatum of 1988 (NAVD 88)

20

Faults

Existence certain, location inferredExistence questionable, location inferredExistence certain, location concealedExistence questionable, location concealedExistence certain, location accurateExistence certain, location approximate

Storage units High

Low

250200150100

50

0

–50

–100–150

Simulated hydraulic head,

in feet above NAVD 88

Santa Barbara city production

well and identifier

Vera Cruz

Storage units from Muir, 

faults from M

Stud

are

PACIFIC OCEAN 

B
Figure 13. —Continued

–20

20 40 60

80

80 60

100

100

100

80

80

40

0 60

60

80

100

120

0

0

0

101

EAST MORE

RANCH FAULT

MODOC FAULT ROCKY NOOK FAULT

LAGO ON FAULT LAVIGIA FAULT MESA FAULT

UNNAMED

FAULT

FOOTHILL

FAULT NORTHEAST MORE RANCH FAULT

SANTA YNEZ MOUNTAINS

PA C I F I 

Goleta

Basin

San Roque Park 2

Ortega

Park

SB High School

LosRobles

Lincolnwood 1

Corporation

City Hall Yard

VeraCruz

AlamedaPark Val Verde

HopeAvenue

119°46' 119°44' 119°42' 119°40'

34°27'34°26'34°25'

R. 28 W. R. 27 W.

LauroCanyon

MissionCanyon

Sycamore

Canyon

0 0.5 1 MILE

0 0.5 1 KILOMETER

Figure D13c. Contours of lower zone simulated hydraulic head for Scenario 2, Schedule D in the Santa Barbara groundwater basin, California.

EXPLANATION

Base modified from U.S. Geological Survey and other Federal and State digital data, various scales; Transverse Mercator projection, zone 11N; North American Datum of 1983 (NAD 83)

C

HighwaySimulated hydraulic head contours, in

feet above North American VerticalDatum of 1988 (NAVD 88)

20

Faults

Existence certain, location inferredExistence questionable, location inferredExistence certain, location concealedExistence questionable, location concealedExistence certain, location accurateExistence certain, location approximate

Storage units High

Low

250200150100

50

0

–50

–100–150

Simulated hydraulic head,

in feet above NAVD 88

Santa Barbara city production

well and identifier

Vera Cruz

Storage units from Muir, 

faults from M

Stud

are

PACIFIC OCEAN 
278 Santa Barbara and Foothill Groundwater Basins Geohydrology and Optimal Water Resources Management

Figure 14. Simulated year-10 Storage Unit I chloride concentration distribution for schedule 2D, Santa Barbara multi-objective 

management model, Santa Barbara, California: A, section along model row 30; B, plan view of middle producing zone; and C, plan view 

of the lower producing zone.

sac16-0626_IP-075076_figD14A

0

–200

–400

–600

–800

–1,000

Elevation, in feet

26,000 28,000 30,000 32,000 34,000

Distance, in feet

18

16

14

12

10

8

6

4

2

0

Chloride concentration, in thousands of milligrams per liter

4N/27W-22A2

4N/27W-22A4

4N/27W-23F2

4N/27W-23F4

A
Chapter D: Multi-Objective Simulation-Optimization Model 279

Figure 14. —Continued

sac16-0626_IP-075076_figD14BC

15,000

15,000

1,500

101

101

Ortega Park

Corporation

Yard

City Hall Vera

Cruz

PA C I F I C O C E A N

SANTA BARBARA COUNTY

Sycamore Creek

Mission Creek

T.

4

N.

R. 27 W. R. 26 W.

R. 27 W. R. 26 W.

15K1

22A2-5 22B8-11

22G2-4

23E1-4

23E5-6

23F2-4

23F5-7

23F8-9

15,000

1,500

101

101

Ortega Park

Corporation

Yard

City Hall Vera

Cruz

PA C I F I C O C E A N

SANTA BARBARA COUNTY

R. 27 W. R. 26 W.

T.

4

N.

B

C

Sycamore Creek

Mission Creek

FigureD14- Simulated contours of chloride concentrations for the middle-producing zone and lower producing zones; Scenario 2, 

Schedule D, Santa Barbara groundwater model, Santa Barbara, California.

15K1

22A2-5 22B8-11

22G2-4

23E1-4

23E5-6

23F2-4

23F5-7

23F8-9

119°42' 119°41' 119°40' 119°39'

34°25'25"

34°25'

34°24'35"

119°42' 119°41' 119°40' 119°39'

34°25'25"

34°25'

34°24'35"

EXPLANATION

0 0.5 1 MILES

0 0.5 1 KILOMETERS

Highway

Major stream

Simulated chloride concentration 

contour, in milligrams per liter

60

Storage unit

Monitoring well and identifier

Faults

Existence certain, location inferred

Existence questionable, location inferred

Existence certain, location accurate

Existence certain, location approximate

Simulated chloride

concentration,

in milligrams per liter

High

Low

19,000

0

Santa Barbara city production

well and identifier

Base modified from U.S. Geological Survey and other 

Federal and State digital data, various scales; 

Transverse Mercator projection, zone 11N; 

North American Datum of 1983 (NAD 83)

23F1

City

Hall

Storage units from Muir, 1968;

Freckleton and others, 1998;

faults from Muir, 1968;

Minor and others, 2009

MESA FAULT

LAGOON FAULT

MESA FAULT

LAGOON FAULT
280 Santa Barbara and Foothill Groundwater Basins Geohydrology and Optimal Water Resources Management

Scenario 3

Scenario 3 assumed 484 acre-ft/yr was pumped from 

the six production wells in Storage Unit I (based on assumed 

minimum flowrates for Ortega groundwater treatment-plant 

operations); there was no pumpage from Foothill groundwater 

basin or Storage Unit III. The pumpage was assigned to each 

well in Storage Unit I by scaling the quarterly pumpage for 

schedule 1D (typical) and schedule 2D (dry), such that the total 

annual pumpage was 484 acre-ft. See appendix D–3 for the 

quarterly pumpage by well. This scenario simulated minimal 

initial water levels (1990), the 10-year typical precipitation 

used in scenario 1, and the 10-year drought used in scenario 2.

Figure 16A–B shows drawdown hydrographs with 

respect to 1998 water levels for four monitoring wells in 

Storage Unit I (4N/27W-15K1, -16R1, -22G4, and -23E5), 

assuming typical and dry climatic conditions, respectively. 

Instead of using initial conditions to calculate drawdown, the 

1998 high water level for each well was used as the reference 

point; therefore, as drawdown approached zero, the simulated 

hydraulic heads approached 1998 water levels. For both 

climatic conditions, the simulated hydraulic heads recovered 

quickly in the first year, after which the hydraulic heads 

recovered more slowly. For the typical climatic condition, 

only well 16R1 recovered to 1998 levels after 10 years; for the 

dry climatic condition, none of the wells recovered to 1998 

conditions (as indicated by 0 ft of drawdown in fig. 16). These 

results indicated that Storage Unit I would not be able to 

completely recover to 1998 water levels within 10 years under 

a typical or dry climatic condition while constantly extracting 

484 acre-ft/yr from Storage Unit I; however, water levels 

appeared to stabilize as they approached about 0–5 ft below 

1998 levels for a typical climatic condition and about 3–8 ft 

below 1998 levels for a dry climatic condition.

Figure 16C–D shows drawdown hydrographs for four 

monitoring wells in the Foothill groundwater basin (4N/27W12R3, -12H4, -5P1, and -8M6), assuming typical and dry 

climatic conditions, respectively. As with the Storage Unit I 

drawdown hydrographs, zero drawdown equaled the simulated 

water levels from 1998. For the Foothill groundwater basin, 

initial water levels from 1990 were not as far below 1998 

levels as those for Storage Unit I. With no pumping simulated 

in the Foothill groundwater basin, there was a smooth 

recovery to water levels between about 30 and 70 ft above 

1998 levels for a typical climatic condition (fig 16C) and 

to between about 20 and 60 ft above 1998 levels for a dry 

climatic condition (fig 16D).

Figure 15. Simulated chloride breakthrough curves for selected monitoring wells for schedule 2D, Santa Barbara multi-objective 

management model, Santa Barbara, California.

sac16-0626_IP-075076_figD15

Chloride concentration, in milligrams per liter

15,000

10,000

11,000

12,000

13,000

14,000

Chloride concentration, in milligrams per liter

5,000

0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 3,500

Time, in days

0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 3,500

Time, in days

22A2 23E3

22A4 23E5

22B9 23F2

22B10 23F4

22B11 23F5

22G3 23F7

22G4 23F8

EXPLANATION

23F5

23F7

23F8

EXPLANATION
Chapter D: Multi-Objective Simulation-Optimization Model 281

sac16-0626_IP-075076_figD16AB

0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 3,500

Time, in days

0

20

40

60

80

100

Drawdown, in feet

A

0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 3,500

Time, in days

15K1

16R1

22G4

23E5

EXPLANATION EXPLANATION

15K1

16R1

22G4

23E5

B

Figure 16. Simulated drawdowns with respect to 1998 water levels for selected wells and total pumpage equaling 484 acre-feet per 

year (acre-ft/yr), scenario 3, Santa Barbara multi-objective management model, Santa Barbara, California, for A, Storage Unit I (SU1) 

with a 10-year typical climatic condition; B, Storage Unit I with a 10-year dry climatic condition; C, the Foothill groundwater basin with a 

10-year typical climatic condition; and D, the Foothill groundwater basin with a 10-year dry climatic condition.
282 Santa Barbara and Foothill Groundwater Basins Geohydrology and Optimal Water Resources Management

Figure 17 shows contours of simulated year-10 

drawdowns with respect to 1998 water levels for the upper, 

middle, and lower producing zones for scenario 3, assuming 

typical conditions. Note that the hydrographs in figure 16 are 

for a single model cell in the well’s perforated interval, and the 

contours in figure 17 are based on a depth-averaged, simulated 

hydraulic head in each producing zone. The hydrographs and 

contours, therefore, are not directly comparable. In the upper 

producing zone, drawdowns ranged from 0 to 10 ft throughout 

most of Storage Unit I and ranged from –20 to –60 ft in 

the Foothill groundwater basin (fig. 17A). In the middle 

producing zone, drawdowns ranged from 0 to 10 ft in Storage 

Unit I (fig. 17B). In the lower producing zone, the drawdown 

was more than 0 ft and less than 20 ft throughout most of 

Storage Unit I and ranged from –20 to –80 ft in the Foothill 

groundwater basin (fig. 17C). The recovery would likely have 

been greater in all the producing zones if not for the pumping 

to supply the Ortega treatment plant.

Figure 18 shows contours of the initial (1990) chloride 

distribution for the middle and lower producing zones 

(fig. 18A) and the simulated year-10 chloride concentrations 

for the middle and lower producing zones for scenario 3, 

assuming typical conditions (fig. 18B). The simulated results 

indicated the extent of seawater intrusion after 10 years of 

pumping 484 acre-ft/yr from Storage Unit I. The changes 

in the 15,000-mg/L contours show seawater intrusion was 

retreating near the coast both for the middle and lower 

producing zones (fig. 18B).

sac16-0626_IP-075076_figD16CD

0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 3,500

−80

−60

−40

−20

0

20

40

60

Drawdown, in feet

Time, in days

C

0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 3,500

Time, in days

12R3

12H4

5P1

8M6

EXPLANATION

12R3

12H4

5P1

8M6

EXPLANATION

D

Figure 16. —Continued
Figure 17. Contours of simulated year-10 drawdowns with respect to 1998 water levels, assuming typical conditions, scenario 3, Santa Barbara multmodel, Santa Barbara, California, for the A, upper producing zone; B, middle producing zone; and C, lower producing zone.

0

–10 –20

–30 –40

–50 –60

101

EAST MORE

RANCH FAULT

MODOC FAULT ROCKY NOOK FAULT

LAGO ON FAULT LAVIGIA FAULT MESA FAULT

UNNAMED

FAULT

FOOTHILL

FAULT NORTHEAST MORE RANCH FAULT

SANTA YNEZ MOUNTAINS

PA C I F I 

Goleta

Basin

San Roque Park 2

Val Verde

Ortega

Park

SB High School

LosRobles

Lincolnwood 1

Corporation

City Hall Yard

VeraCruz

AlamedaPark

HopeAvenue

119°46' 119°44' 119°42' 119°40'

34°27'34°26'34°25'

R. 28 W. R. 27 W.

A

LauroCanyon

MissionCanyon

Sycamore

Canyon

0 0.5 1 MILE

0 0.5 1 KILOMETER

Figure D17A. Contours of upper zone simulated hydraulic head difference from 1998 conditions for Scenario 3, Schedule D in the Santa Barbara gro

EXPLANATION

Base modified from U.S. Geological Survey and other Federal and State digital data, various scales; Transverse Mercator projection, zone 11N; North American Datum of 1983 (NAD 83)

HighwaySimulated head difference, in feet

above North American VerticalDatum of 1988 (NAVD 88)

20

Faults

Existence certain, location inferredExistence questionable, location inferredExistence certain, location concealedExistence questionable, location concealedExistence certain, location accurateExistence certain, location approximate

Storage units

Simulated head difference,

in feet above NAVD 88

High

Low

100500–50–100120

Santa Barbara city production

well and identifier

Vera Cruz

Storage units from Muir, 

faults from M

Stud

are

PACIFIC OCEAN 
Figure 17. —Continued

B

101

EAST MORE

RANCH FAULT

MODOC FAULT ROCKY NOOK FAULT

LAGO ON FAULT LAVIGIA FAULT MESA FAULT

UNNAMED

FAULT

FOOTHILL

FAULT NORTHEAST MORE RANCH FAULT

SANTA YNEZ MOUNTAINS

PA C I F I 

Goleta

Basin

San Roque Park 2

Val Verde

Ortega

Park

SB High School

LosRobles

Lincolnwood 1

Corporation

City Hall Yard

VeraCruz

AlamedaPark

HopeAvenue

119°46' 119°44' 119°42' 119°40'

34°27'34°26'34°25'

R. 28 W. R. 27 W.

LauroCanyon

MissionCanyon

Sycamore

Canyon

0 0.5 1 MILE

0 0.5 1 KILOMETER

Figure D17B. Contours of middle zone simulated hydraulic head difference from 1998 conditions for Scenario 3, Schedule D in the Santa Barbara gr

EXPLANATION

Base modified from U.S. Geological Survey and other Federal and State digital data, various scales; Transverse Mercator projection, zone 11N; North American Datum of 1983 (NAD 83)

Faults

Existence certain, location inferredExistence questionable, location inferredExistence certain, location concealedExistence questionable, location concealedExistence certain, location accurateExistence certain, location approximate

Storage units

Simulated head difference,

in feet above NAVD 88

High

Low

100500–50–100120

HighwaySanta Barbara city production

well and identifier

Vera Cruz

Storage units from Muir, 

faults from M

Stud

are

PACIFIC OCEAN 
Figure 17. —Continued

–10 0

–10 –20

–20 –30

–40

–30

–50

–60

0

0

10

20

101

EAST MORE

RANCH FAULT

MODOC FAULT ROCKY NOOK FAULT

LAGO ON FAULT LAVIGIA FAULT

MESA FAULT

UNNAMED

FAULT

FOOTHILL

FAULT NORTHEAST MORE RANCH FAULT

SANTA YNEZ MOUNTAINS

PA C I F I 

Goleta

Basin

C

San Roque Park 2

Val Verde

Ortega

Park

SB High School

LosRobles

Lincolnwood 1

Corporation

City Hall Yard

VeraCruz

AlamedaPark

HopeAvenue

119°46' 119°44' 119°42' 119°40'

34°27'34°26'34°25'

R. 28 W. R. 27 W.

LauroCanyon

MissionCanyon

Sycamore

Canyon

0 0.5 1 MILE

0 0.5 1 KILOMETER

Figure D17C. Contours of Lower zone simulated hydraulic head difference from 1998 conditions for Scenario 3, Schedule D in the Santa Barbara gro

EXPLANATION

Base modified from U.S. Geological Survey and other Federal and State digital data, various scales; Transverse Mercator projection, zone 11N; North American Datum of 1983 (NAD 83)

HighwaySimulated head difference, in feet

above North American VerticalDatum of 1988 (NAVD 88)

20

Faults

Existence certain, location inferredExistence questionable, location inferredExistence certain, location concealedExistence questionable, location concealedExistence certain, location accurateExistence certain, location approximate

Storage units

Simulated head difference,

in feet above NAVD 88

High

Low

100500–50–100120

Santa Barbara city production

well and identifier

Vera Cruz

Storage units from Muir, 

faults from M

Stud

are

PACIFIC OCEAN 
286 Santa Barbara and Foothill Groundwater Basins Geohydrology and Optimal Water Resources Management

Figure 18. Contours, assuming a typical climatic condition, scenario 3, Santa Barbara multi-objective management model, Santa 

Barbara, California, of A, initial (1990) chloride concentrations in the middle producing zone; B, initial (1990) chloride concentrations in 

the lower producing zone; C, simulated year-10 chloride concentrations in the middle producing zone; and D, simulated year-10 chloride 

concentrations in the lower producing zone.

sac16-0626_IP-075076_figD18A

15,000

1,500

101

101

PA C I F I C O C E A N

SANTA BARBARA COUNTY

R. 27 W. R. 26 W.

T.

4

N.

A

Sycamore Creek

Mission Creek

FigureD18- Contours of: A) initial chloride concentrations (1990) and B) simulated year-10 chloride concentrations for the middle and 

lower producing zones; assuming typical conditions, Scenario 3, Santa Barbara, California.

Ortega Park

Corporation

Yard

City Hall Vera

Cruz

15K1

22A2-5 22B8-11

22G2-4

23E1-4

23E5-6

23F2-4

23F5-7

23F8-9

15,000

15,000

1,500

101

101

PA C I F I C O C E A N

SANTA BARBARA COUNTY

Sycamore Creek

Mission Creek

T.

4

N.

R. 27 W. R. 26 W.

R. 27 W. R. 26 W.

Middle

Lower

Ortega Park

Corporation

Yard

City Hall Vera

Cruz

15K1

22A2-5 22B8-11

22G2-4

23E1-4

23E5-6

23F2-4

23F5-7

23F8-9

119°42' 119°41' 119°40' 119°39'

34°25'25"

34°25'

34°24'35"

119°42' 119°41' 119°40' 119°39'

34°25'25"

34°25'

34°24'35"

EXPLANATION

0 0.5 1 MILES

0 0.5 1 KILOMETERS

Base modified from U.S. Geological Survey and other 

Federal and State digital data, various scales; 

Transverse Mercator projection, zone 11N; 

North American Datum of 1983 (NAD 83)

B

Highway

Major stream

Simulated chloride concentratin 

contour, in milligrams per liter

60

Storage unit

Monitoring well and identifier

Faults

Existence certain, location inferred

Existence questionable, location inferred

Existence certain, location accurate

Existence certain, location approximate

Simulated chloride

concentration,

in milligrams per liter

High

Low

19,000

0

Santa Barbara city production

well and identifier

23F1

City

Hall

Storage units from Muir, 1968;

Freckleton and others, 1998;

faults from Muir, 1968;

Minor and others, 2009

MESA FAULT

LAGOON FAULT

MESA FAULT

LAGOON FAULT
Chapter D: Multi-Objective Simulation-Optimization Model 287

Figure 18. —Continued

sac16-0626_IP-075076_figD18B

15,000

1,500

101

101

PA C I F I C O C E A N

SANTA BARBARA COUNTY

R. 27 W. R. 26 W.

T.

4

N.

C

Sycamore Creek

Mission Creek

FigureD18- Contours of: A) initial chloride concentrations (1990) and B) simulated year-10 chloride concentrations for the middle and 

lower producing zones; assuming typical conditions, Scenario 3, Santa Barbara, California.

Ortega Park

Corporation

Yard

City Hall Vera

Cruz

15K1

22A2-5 22B8-11

22G2-4

23E1-4

23E5-6

23F2-4

23F5-7

23F8-9

15,000

15,000

1,500

101

101

PA C I F I C O C E A N

SANTA BARBARA COUNTY

Sycamore Creek

Mission Creek

T.

4

N.

R. 27 W. R. 26 W.

R. 27 W. R. 26 W.

Middle

Lower

D

Ortega Park

Corporation

Yard

City Hall Vera

Cruz

15K1

22A2-5 22B8-11

22G2-4

23E1-4

23E5-6

23F2-4

23F5-7

23F8-9

119°42' 119°41' 119°40' 119°39'

34°25'25"

34°25'

34°24'35"

119°42' 119°41' 119°40' 119°39'

34°25'25"

34°25'

34°24'35"

EXPLANATION

0 0.5 1 MILES

0 0.5 1 KILOMETERS

Base modified from U.S. Geological Survey and other 

Federal and State digital data, various scales; 

Transverse Mercator projection, zone 11N; 

North American Datum of 1983 (NAD 83)

Highway

Major stream

Simulated chloride concentration 

contour, in milligrams per liter

60

Storage unit

Monitoring well and identifier

Faults

Existence certain, location inferred

Existence questionable, location inferred

Existence certain, location accurate

Existence certain, location approximate

Simulated chloride

concentration,

in milligrams per liter

High

Low

19,000

0

Santa Barbara city production

well and identifier

23F1

City

Hall

Storage units from Muir, 1968;

Freckleton and others, 1998;

faults from Muir, 1968;

Minor and others, 2009

MESA FAULT

LAGOON FAULT

MESA FAULT

LAGOON FAULT
288 Santa Barbara and Foothill Groundwater Basins Geohydrology and Optimal Water Resources Management

Figure 19 shows contours of simulated year-10 

drawdown with respect to 1998 water levels for the upper, 

middle, and lower producing zones for scenario 3, assuming 

dry conditions. In the upper producing zone, drawdowns 

ranged from 0 to 10 ft throughout most of Storage Unit I 

and ranged from –20 to –60 ft in the Foothill groundwater 

basin (fig. 19A), yet were slightly greater than the simulated 

drawdowns for a typical climatic condition (fig. 17A). In the 

middle producing zone, drawdowns ranged from 0 to 10 ft 

in Storage Unit I (fig. 19B) and were similar to those of a 

typical climatic condition (fig. 17B). In the lower producing 

zone, drawdowns ranged from more than 0 ft to less than 70 ft 

throughout most of Storage Unit I and ranged from 0 to –70 ft 

in the Foothill groundwater basin (fig. 19C). The simulated 

drawdown in the northern part of Storage Unit I (fig. 19C) 

could be the result of less natural recharge associated with the 

dry climatic condition. In general, the water-level recovery 

for the upper zone, assuming dry conditions, was similar to 

that for the typical climatic condition, yet water-level contours 

were slightly farther inland, indicative of less recharge; for the 

lower zone under dry conditions, water-level recovery was less 

than that for the typical climate throughout both subbasins.

Figure 20 shows contours of simulated year-10 chloride 

concentrations for the middle and lower producing zones 

for scenario 3, assuming dry conditions. The changes in 

the 15,000- mg/L contours show seawater intrusion was 

retreating near the coast, particularly in the middle producing 

zone (fig. 20). In general, there was little difference in the 

chloride contours between dry and typical climatic conditions, 

indicating that climate did not substantially affect seawater 

intrusion under the same pumpage schedule.

Scenario 4

The two cases in scenario 4 were designed to produce 

decision rules to support management decisions based on 

the optimal results. The initial conditions for scenario 4 were 

designed to emulate recent conditions; therefore, simulated 

2013 hydraulic heads and chloride concentrations are used 

as initial conditions. The goal of scenario 4A was to provide 

a decision rule for groundwater pumpage as a function of 

allowable change in measured chloride concentration in 

selected coastal monitoring wells. For example, a water 

manager would choose an allowable maximum increase in 

chloride concentration for the year according to the measured 

concentration in a given well; the result of the decision rule 

would be the optimal total pumpage for Storage Unit I for 

the allowable maximum chloride increase in the following 

year. The goal of scenario 4B was to provide a decision rule 

for groundwater pumpage as a function of desired maximum 

drawdown in selected wells in the Foothill groundwater basin. 

For example, a water manager would choose an allowable 

maximum drawdown in a given well for 10 years of pumping. 

The result of the decision rule would be the optimal total 

10-year pumpage for Storage Unit I and Foothill groundwater 

basin.

In this scenario, 10-year simulations were made using the 

Pareto-optimal pumping schedules for the typical (scenario 1) 

and dry (scenario 2) climatic conditions. Recall that scenario 

1 had 912 Pareto-optimal solutions (fig. 4), and scenario 2 had 

629 Pareto-optimal solutions (fig. 10). The epsilon values were 

adjusted such that a reasonably large number of Pareto-optimal 

pumping schedules were identified—in this case, about 100 

such pumping schedules were identified for each scenario—

and such that the schedules represented the full range of 

objective values. Scenario 1 had 127 Pareto-optimal pumping 

schedules using ɛA, ɛB, ɛCt, and ɛCm values of 500, 20, 200, and 

5, respectively (fig. 21A). Scenario 2 had 97 Pareto-optimal 

pumping schedules using ɛA, ɛB, ɛCt, and ɛCm values of 500, 20, 

50, and 5, respectively (fig. 21B). Figures 21A and B represent 

subsets of the entire Pareto-optimal solutions as defined by 

these ɛ values. The decision-rule curves for scenarios 4A and 

4B were produced from the subsets of Pareto-optimal results 

for scenarios 1 and 2 by running a 10-year simulation for 

each solution in the subsets and searching for specific levels 

of chloride concentration or maximum drawdown in selected 

monitoring or production wells.

Scenario 4A

For this scenario, the decision-rule curves were generated 

from the 10-year simulation results using the following steps:

1. Assume measured chloride concentrations at selected 

monitoring sites.

2. Search the scenario 1 and 2 Pareto-optimal pumping 

schedules for simulated chloride concentrations that 

equal the assumed measured chloride concentration at 

each monitoring site.

3. If the simulated value equals the assumed measured 

concentration, then the total pumpage in Storage Unit I 

for the following year and the associated change in 

chloride concentration are saved.

Figure 22 shows example decision-rule curves for 

two monitoring wells (4N/27W-23E3 and 23E5) assuming 

typical and dry climatic conditions. Assume that 800 mg/L 

and 2,000 mg/L chloride concentrations were measured in 

wells 23E3 and 23E5, respectively. For well 23E3, assuming 

typical climatic conditions and an allowable increase in 

measured chloride concentration of 76 mg/L, the Paretooptimal results indicated that during the year following the 

time when 800 mg/L was measured, about 1,937 acre-ft of 

water was pumped from Storage Unit I. This results in one 

point on the rule curve. Each red circle in figure 22 represents 

a similar analysis for every point on the Pareto front, assuming 

a concentration of 800 mg/L was reached at well 23E3. A 

threshold of 2,000 mg/L was applied to well 23E5, and similar 

analyses were performed (fig. 22).
Figure 19. Contours of simulated year-10 drawdown with respect to 1998 water levels, assuming dry climatic condition, scenario 3, Santa Barbara mmodel, Santa Barbara, California, for the A, upper producing zone, B, middle producing zone, and C, lower producing zone.

–40 –50

–30

–20

–10 0

–10

–10

101

EAST MORE

RANCH FAULT

MODOC FAULT ROCKY NOOK FAULT

LAGO ON FAULT LAVIGIA FAULT MESA FAULT

UNNAMED

FAULT

FOOTHILL

FAULT NORTHEAST MORE RANCH FAULT

SANTA YNEZ MOUNTAINS

PA C I F I 

Goleta

Basin

San Roque Park 2

Val Verde

Ortega

Park

SB High School

LosRobles

Lincolnwood 1

Corporation

City Hall Yard

VeraCruz

AlamedaPark

HopeAvenue

119°46' 119°44' 119°42' 119°40'

34°27'34°26'34°25'

R. 28 W. R. 27 W.

LauroCanyon

MissionCanyon

Sycamore

Canyon

0 0.5 1 MILE

0 0.5 1 KILOMETER

Figure D19A. Contours of Upper zone simulated hydraulic head difference from 1998 conditions for Scenario 3, Schedule 2D in the Santa Barbara gr

EXPLANATION

Base modified from U.S. Geological Survey and other Federal and State digital data, various scales; Transverse Mercator projection, zone 11N; North American Datum of 1983 (NAD 83)

HighwaySimulated head difference, in feet

above North American VerticalDatum of 1988 (NAVD 88)

20

Faults

Existence certain, location inferredExistence questionable, location inferredExistence certain, location concealedExistence questionable, location concealedExistence certain, location accurateExistence certain, location approximate

Storage units

Simulated head difference,

in feet above NAVD 88

High

Low

100500–50–100120

Santa Barbara city production

well and identifier

Vera Cruz

A

Storage units from Muir, 

faults from M

Stud

are

PACIFIC OCEAN 
Figure 19. —Continued

101

EAST MORE

RANCH FAULT

MODOC FAULT ROCKY NOOK FAULT

LAGO ON FAULT LAVIGIA FAULT MESA FAULT

UNNAMED

FAULT

FOOTHILL

FAULT NORTHEAST MORE RANCH FAULT

SANTA YNEZ MOUNTAINS

PA C I F I 

Goleta

Basin

San Roque Park 2

Val Verde

Ortega

Park

SB High School

LosRobles

Lincolnwood 1

Corporation

City Hall Yard

VeraCruz

AlamedaPark

HopeAvenue

119°46' 119°44' 119°42' 119°40'

34°27'34°26'34°25'

R. 28 W. R. 27 W.

LauroCanyon

MissionCanyon

Sycamore

Canyon

0 0.5 1 MILE

0 0.5 1 KILOMETER

Figure D19B. Contours of Middle zone simulated hydraulic head difference from 1998 conditions for Scenario 3, Schedule 2D in the Santa Barbara g

EXPLANATION

Base modified from U.S. Geological Survey and other Federal and State digital data, various scales; Transverse Mercator projection, zone 11N; North American Datum of 1983 (NAD 83)

Faults

Existence certain, location inferredExistence questionable, location inferredExistence certain, location concealedExistence questionable, location concealedExistence certain, location accurateExistence certain, location approximate

Storage units

Simulated head difference,

in feet above North American

Vertical Datum of 1988

High

Low

100500–50–100120

HighwaySanta Barbara city production

well and identifier

Vera Cruz

Storage units from Muir, 

faults from M

Stud

are

PACIFIC OCEAN 

B
Figure 19. —Continued

–10

–10 –20

–20 –20

–40–30

–10

–10

10

0

0

0

2040

0

60

–50 –60

101

EAST MORE

RANCH FAULT

MODOC FAULT ROCKY NOOK FAULT

LAGO ON FAULT LAVIGIA FAULT MESA FAULT

UNNAMED

FAULT

FOOTHILL

FAULT NORTHEAST MORE RANCH FAULT

SANTA YNEZ MOUNTAINS

PA C I F I 

Goleta

Basin

C

San Roque Park 2

Val Verde

Ortega

Park

SB High School

LosRobles

Lincolnwood 1

Corporation

City Hall Yard

VeraCruz

AlamedaPark

HopeAvenue

119°46' 119°44' 119°42' 119°40'

34°27'34°26'34°25'

R. 28 W. R. 27 W.

LauroCanyon

MissionCanyon

Sycamore

Canyon

0 0.5 1 MILE

0 0.5 1 KILOMETER

Figure D19C. Contours of Lower zone simulated hydraulic head difference from 1998 conditions for Scenario 3, Schedule 2D in the Santa Barbara gr

Base modified from U.S. Geological Survey and other Federal and State digital data, various scales; Transverse Mercator projection, zone 11N; North American Datum of 1983 (NAD 83)

HighwaySimulated head difference, in feet

above North American VerticalDatum of 1988 (NAVD 88)

20

Faults

Existence certain, location inferredExistence questionable, location inferredExistence certain, location concealedExistence questionable, location concealedExistence certain, location accurateExistence certain, location approximate

Storage units

Simulated head difference,

in feet above NAVD 88

High

Low

100500–50–100120

Santa Barbara city production

well and identifier

Vera Cruz

EXPLANATION

Storage units from Muir, 

faults from M

Stud

are

PACIFIC OCEAN 
292 Santa Barbara and Foothill Groundwater Basins Geohydrology and Optimal Water Resources Management

Figure 20. Contours; assuming a dry climatic condition, scenario 3, Santa Barbara multi-objective management model, Santa Barbara, 

California, of simulated year-10 chloride concentrations for A, the middle producing zone, and B, the lower producing zone.

sac16-0626_IP-075076_figD20

15,000

1,500

101

101

PA C I F I C O C E A N

SANTA BARBARA COUNTY

R. 27 W. R. 26 W.

T.

4

N.

C

Sycamore Creek

Mission Creek

FigureD20- Contours of: A) initial chloride concentrations (1990) and B) simulated year-10 chloride concentrations for the middle and 

lower producing zones; assuming dry conditions, Scenario 3, Santa Barbara, California.

Ortega Park

Corporation

Yard

City Hall Vera

Cruz

15K1

22A2-5 22B8-11

22G2-4

23E1-4

23E5-6

23F2-4

23F5-7

23F8-9

15,000

15,000

1,500

101

101

PA C I F I C O C E A N

SANTA BARBARA COUNTY

Sycamore Creek

Mission Creek

T.

4

N.

R. 27 W. R. 26 W.

R. 27 W. R. 26 W.

Middle

Lower

Ortega Park

Corporation

Yard

City Hall Vera

Cruz

15K1

22A2-5 22B8-11

22G2-4

23E1-4

23E5-6

23F2-4

23F5-7

23F8-9

A

B

119°42' 119°41' 119°40' 119°39'

34°25'25"

34°25'

34°24'35"

119°42' 119°41' 119°40' 119°39'

34°25'25"

34°25'

34°24'35"

EXPLANATION

0 0.5 1 MILES

0 0.5 1 KILOMETERS

Base modified from U.S. Geological Survey and other 

Federal and State digital data, various scales; 

Transverse Mercator projection, zone 11N; 

North American Datum of 1983 (NAD 83)

Highway

Major stream

Simulated chloride concentration 

contour, in milligrams per liter

60

Storage unit

Monitoring well and identifier

Faults

Existence certain, location inferred

Existence questionable, location inferred

Existence certain, location accurate

Existence certain, location approximate

Simulated chloride

concentration,

in milligrams per liter

High

Low

19,000

0

Santa Barbara city production

well and identifier

23F1

City

Hall

Storage units from Muir, 1968;

Freckleton and others, 1998;

faults from Muir, 1968;

Minor and others, 2009

MESA FAULT

LAGOON FAULT

MESA FAULT

LAGOON FAULT
Chapter D: Multi-Objective Simulation-Optimization Model 293

Figure 21. Subsets of Pareto-optimal solutions, Santa Barbara multi-objective management model, Santa Barbara, California, for 

A, scenario 4A, and B, scenario 4B.

sac16-0626_IP-075076_figD21A

2,500

1,800

1,100

400

–300

–1,000

32,000 30,400 28,800 27,200 25,600 24,000

Total pumpage, in acre-feet

Total drawdown, in feet

Size: Max drawdown (ft)

110

40

EXPLANATION

A

29,000

27,400

27,720

28,040

28,360

28,680

Total seawater intrusion, 1,000 milligrams per liter
294 Santa Barbara and Foothill Groundwater Basins Geohydrology and Optimal Water Resources Management

Figure 21. —Continued

sac16-0626_IP-075076_figD21B

2,500

1,800

1,100

400

–300

–1,000

32,000 30,400 28,800 27,200 25,600 24,000

Total pumpage, in acre-feet

Total drawdown, in feet

B

Size: Max drawdown (ft)

110

40

EXPLANATION

29,000

27,400

27,720

28,040

28,360

28,680

Total seawater intrusion, 1,000 milligrams per liter
Chapter D: Multi-Objective Simulation-Optimization Model 295

Figure 22. Example decision-rule curves for wells 4N/27W-23E3 and 4N/27W-23E5 used to assess total pumpage from Storage Unit I on 

the basis of observed chloride concentrations in selected monitoring wells, Santa Barbara multi-objective management model, Santa 

Barbara, California. The pumpage and change in chloride concentration are for the year following the measured level. A, scenario 1 

(typical climatic condition), and B, scenario 2 (dry climatic condition). The highlighted dot and square represent schedules 1D and 2D

pumpage for scenarios 1 and 2, respectively.

sac16-0626_IP-075076_figD22AB

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

Storage Unit 1 pumpage, in acre-feet

0 50 100 150 200 250 300

Change in chloride concentration, in milligrams per liter

A

(76, 1,937) (147, 1,739)

800 mg/l in well 23E3

2,000 mg/l in well 23E5

EXPLANATION

0 50 100 150 200 250 300

Change in chloride concentration, in milligrams per liter

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

Storage Unit 1 pumpage, in acre-feet

(114, 2,299) (203, 2,041)

B

800 mg/l in well 23E3

2,000 mg/l in well 23E5

EXPLANATION
296 Santa Barbara and Foothill Groundwater Basins Geohydrology and Optimal Water Resources Management

As an example of interpreting the decision rules, consider 

the decision rule for well 23E3, assuming a dry climatic 

condition (fig. 22B) and that a chloride concentration of 

800 mg/L was measured in the well. Further assume that an 

increase of about 114 mg/L was deemed allowable for this 

well during the year following when the measurement was 

taken, then the total Pareto-optimal pumpage from Storage 

Unit I would be about 2,299 acre-ft. Note that the decision rule 

was only valid for points shown in figure 22; it would not be 

appropriate to interpolate between points for a given well. 

An alternative approach to interpreting the decision rules 

is to identify a desired total pumpage and then determine 

the resulting change in chloride concentration. For example, 

again consider well 23E3, assuming a dry climatic condition 

(fig. 22B) and that a chloride concentration of 800 mg/L was 

measured in the well. Further assume that the city desired 

to pump a total of about 2,300 acre-ft in a year. Pumping 

2,300 acre-ft increased chloride concentrations by about 

100 mg/L to 114 mg/L (fig. 22B). The differences in chloride 

concentrations resulted from differing pumping patterns. The 

city could choose the pumping pattern with the least change in 

chloride concentration or by other criteria. For points clustered 

near each other, the specific pumping schedules associated 

with each point near the desired pumpage value would have to 

be inspected and compared in order to make a decision about 

which schedule to choose.

Scenario 4B

For this scenario, decision-rule curves were created 

to assess the effect of allowable drawdown in Foothill 

groundwater basin wells on potential management decisions. 

Note that decision-rule curves are not presented for Storage 

Unit I wells, because it was determined that seawater 

intrusion was a higher priority in this basin than drawdown. 

The decision-rule curves were generated from the 10-year 

simulation results using the following steps:

1. The maximum annual drawdown for each production 

well in Foothill groundwater basin for 10 years of 

pumping was stored.

2. The associated total pumpage for Storage Unit I and 

Foothill groundwater basin for those 10 years was stored 

separately.

The Los Robles well decision rules for Foothill 

groundwater basin pumpage under typical and dry climatic 

conditions are shown in figures 23A and 23B, respectively. 

The Los Robles well decision rules for pumpage in Storage 

Unit I, under typical and dry climatic conditions, are shown 

in figures 23C and 23D, respectively. The decision rules 

for all production wells in Storage Unit I and the Foothill 

groundwater basin are presented in appendix D–4.

As an example of interpreting the decision rules, consider 

the decision rule for the Los Robles well, assuming a typical 

climatic condition (fig. 23A). Further assume that a maximum 

drawdown of 22 ft was desired for a 10-year management 

horizon. The decision rule indicated that the total pumpage 

from the city wells in Foothill groundwater basin was about 

7,461 acre-ft for the 10-year period.

Consider the total pumpage for Storage Unit I, assuming 

a typical climatic condition, as indicated by the decision rule 

for the Los Robles well (fig. 23C). Further assume that a 

maximum drawdown of 22 ft was desired during a 10-year 

management horizon. The decision rule indicates that the 

total pumpage from the city wells in Storage Unit I was about 

16,203 acre-ft for the 10-year period.

Many of the decision rules for pumpage in Storage Unit I 

as a function of maximum, annual drawdown at wells in the 

Foothill groundwater basin either were very disperse (for 

example, the Hope Avenue, Lincolnwood 1, and San Roque 

Park (2) wells in appendix D–4) or were slightly nonlinear 

(for example, the Los Robles well). This could indicate that 

drawdown in the Foothill groundwater basin is not a strong 

function of the total pumpage for Storage Unit I, probably 

because Storage Unit I and Foothill groundwater basin are 

hydraulically disconnected by the East More Ranch fault.

Scenario 5

Scenario 5 investigated the short-term (2-year) effects 

of extreme climatic conditions on the optimal pumping 

schedules. Specifically, three cases were investigated: typicalto-dry (scenario 5A, 1998–99), dry-to-typical (scenario 5B, 

1977–78), and dry-to-dry (scenario 5C, 1989–90) periods. 

The Pareto-optimal solutions and pumping schedules for the 

three scenario-5 cases are shown in figure 24 and presented 

in tables 5–7. Overall, the Pareto curves were similar for 

scenarios 5A and 5B, but shifted toward less drawdown and 

toward less pumpage for scenario 5C. In general, all the 

pumping schedules resulted in water-level recovery for all 

the scenarios, except for schedules 5AA, 5BA, and 5BB, which 

resulted in water-level declines. In addition, schedule 5AB

resulted in a water-level recovery, whereas for the other 

two climatic conditions, schedule B resulted in a waterlevel decline (scenario 5BB) or no change in water level 

(scenario 5CB).

The results for all three scenario-5 cases indicated that 

schedule A pumpage resulted in similar seawater intrusion, 

but large differences in drawdown; schedules B and C 

pumpage varied in their yield more than the other schedules 

for all the scenarios; and the schedule D pumpage for all the 

scenarios results in similarly large increases in water levels. 

With no regard for future availability beyond the 2-year 

horizon, the total pumpage for schedules A and D were 

similar for scenarios 5A and 5B (tables 5 and 6); however, 

the total schedule 5ACm pumpage (about 6,800 acre-ft, 

table 5) was nearly 1,000 acre-ft greater than the pumpage 

of Schedule 5BCm (about 5,800 acre-ft, table 6), indicating 

that pumpage was sensitive to the climate in year two when 

minimizing the maximum drawdown. Conversely, pumpage 

with respect to total drawdowns appeared more sensitive to the 

climate in year one, because the yield for schedules 5BCt and 

5CCt (year one was dry) were similar and that of schedule 5ACt 

was larger. When minimizing seawater intrusion, pumpage 

was largest in scenario 5CB (5,900 acre-ft; table 7) and 

smallest in scenario 5AB (5,000 acre-ft; table 5).
Chapter D: Multi-Objective Simulation-Optimization Model 297

Figure 23. Example decision-rule curves for the Los Robles well, Santa Barbara multi-objective management model, Santa Barbara, 

California, for A, total 10-year pumpage Foothill groundwater basin scenario 1; B, total 10-year pumpage Foothill groundwater basin 

scenario 2; C, for total 10-year pumpage Storage Unit I scenario 1; and D, for total 10-year pumpage, Storage Unit I scenario 2.

sac16-0626_IP-075076_figD23AB

Well: Los Robles

EXPLANATION

10,000

9,500

9,000

8,500

8,000

7,500

7,000

Pumpage, in acre-feet

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

Drawdown, in feet

(22, 7,461)

A

B

(41, 8,129)

10,000

9,500

9,000

8,500

8,000

7,500

7,000

Pumpage, in acre-feet

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

Drawdown, in feet

Well: Los Robles

EXPLANATION
298 Santa Barbara and Foothill Groundwater Basins Geohydrology and Optimal Water Resources Management

Figure 23. —Continued

sac16-0626_IP-075076_figD23CD

C

21,000

20,000

19,000

18,000

17,000

16,000

15,000

14,000

Well: Los Robles

EXPLANATION

Pumpage, in acre-feet

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

Drawdown, in feet

(22, 16,203)

D

Pumpage, in acre-feet

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

Drawdown, in feet

Well: Los Robles

EXPLANATION

21,000

20,000

19,000

18,000

17,000

16,000

15,000

14,000

(41, 16,090)
Chapter D: Multi-Objective Simulation-Optimization Model 299

Figure 24. Selected Pareto-optimal solutions relative to seawater intrusion, maximum drawdown, total pumpage, and total drawdown, 

Santa Barbara multi-objective management model, Santa Barbara, California, for A, scenario 5A (typical-dry); B, scenario 5B (drytypical); and C, scenario 5C (dry-dry).

sac16-0626_IP-075076_figD24A

A

A

B

E

D

Ct/Cm

500

280

60

–160

–380

–600

10,000 8,800 7,600 6,400 5,200 4,000

Pumpage total, in acre-feet

Total drawdown, in feet

4,400

4,200

4,240

4,280

4,320

4,360

Total seawater intrusion, 1,000 milligrams per liter

Size: Max drawdown (ft)

Transparency

90

0

1 (opaque; shows selected schedules)

0 (translucent; shows all other schedules)

EXPLANATION
300 Santa Barbara and Foothill Groundwater Basins Geohydrology and Optimal Water Resources Management

Figure 24. —Continued

sac16-0626_IP-075076_figD24B

A

B

D

Cm

Ct

E

500

280

60

–160

–380

–600

10,000 8,800 7,600 6,400 5,200 4,000

Pumpage total, in acre-feet

Total drawdown, in feet

B

4,400

4,200

4,240

4,280

4,320

4,360

Total seawater intrusion, 1,000 milligrams per liter

Size: Max drawdown (ft)

Transparency

90

0

1 (opaque; shows selected schedules)

0 (translucent; shows all other schedules)

EXPLANATION
Chapter D: Multi-Objective Simulation-Optimization Model 301

Figure 24. —Continued

sac16-0626_IP-075076_figD24C

500

280

60

–160

–380

–600

10,000 8,800 7,600 6,400 5,200 4,000

Pumpage total, in acre-feet

Total drawdown, in feet

A

B

Cm

Ct

E

D

C

4,400

4,200

4,240

4,280

4,320

4,360

Total seawater intrusion, 1,000 milligrams per liter

Size: Max drawdown (ft)

Transparency

90

0

1 (opaque; shows selected schedules)

0 (translucent; shows all other schedules)

EXPLANATION
302 Santa Barbara and Foothill Groundwater Basins Geohydrology and Optimal Water Resources Management

Table 5. Objective values for scenario 5A, Santa Barbara multi-objective management model, Santa Barbara, California.

[acre-ft, acre-feet; ft, feet; mg/L, milligrams per liter]

Schedule

Objective A 

total pumpage

 (acre-ft)

Objective B 

seawater intrusion

(1,000 mg/L)

Objective Ct 

total drawdown

 (ft)

Objective Cm 

maximum drawdown

 (ft)

5AA 9,000 4,357 30 47

5AB 5,000 4,205 –70 19

5ACt 6,800 4,299 –500 10

5ACm 6,800 4,299 –500 10

5AD 6,600 4,266 –460 12

5AE 5,400 4,216 –340 14

Table 6. Objective values for scenario 5B, Santa Barbara multi-objective management model, Santa Barbara, California.

[acre-ft, acre-feet; ft, feet; mg/L, milligrams per liter]

Schedule

Objective A 

total pumpage

 (acre-ft)

Objective B 

seawater intrusion

(1,000 mg/L)

Objective Ct 

total drawdown

 (ft)

Objective Cm 

maximum drawdown

 (ft)

5BA 9,000 4,355 220 62

5BB 5,300 4,214 60 22

5BCt 5,900 4,263 –520 9

5BCm 5,800 4,254 –460 7

5BD 6,700 4,279 –490 10

5BE 5,700 4,260 –490 7

Table 7. Objective values for scenario 5C, Santa Barbara multi-objective management model, Santa Barbara, California.

[acre-ft, acre-feet; ft, feet; mg/L, milligrams per liter]

Schedule

Objective A 

total pumpage

 (acre-ft)

Objective B 

seawater intrusion

(1,000 mg/L)

Objective Ct 

total drawdown

 (ft)

Objective Cm 

maximum drawdown

 (ft)

5CA 8,700 4,358 –50 38

5CB 5,900 4,215 0 41

5CCt 6,100 4,275 –560 9

5CCm 6,700 4,289 –420 6

5CD 6,200 4,273 –490 6

5CE 5,500 4,246 –510 11
Chapter D: Multi-Objective Simulation-Optimization Model 303

For comparison among the three scenario-5 cases, 

schedule D, the best compromise among all four objectives, 

was selected from each case. The contours of simulated 

hydraulic heads for year two for the three cases are shown 

in figures 25–27 for the upper, middle, and lower producing 

zones, respectively (figure parts A–C). In general, the 

simulated contours for each producing zone were similar 

in form for scenarios 5A–C, with the lowest water levels 

for all producing zones in Storage Unit I (figs. 25–27). The 

simulated hydraulic heads in Storage Unit I, however, were 

slightly lower for scenario 5B than for scenarios 5A and 5C. 

The differences were most obvious in the upper producing 

zone (figs. 25A, 26A, and 27A) of Storage Unit I and the lower 

producing zone of the Foothill groundwater basin.

The contours of simulated chloride concentrations at the 

end of year two for the three cases are shown in figure 28 for 

the middle and lower aquifers. The distribution of chloride 

was similar among the scenarios; however, the seawater 

intruded slightly farther inland for scenario 5B than for 

scenarios 5A and 5C.

The total quarterly pumpage by storage unit for 

schedules A (maximize pumping) and B (minimize seawater 

intrusion) of scenario 5 is presented in figure 29. In general, 

when maximizing the pumpage, a greater percentage of the 

total pumpage was extracted from Storage Unit I. However, 

when minimizing seawater intrusion, a greater percentage 

of the total pumpage was sometimes from the Foothill 

groundwater basin in quarters 2, 3, and 4 (see, for example, 

quarter 3 and 4 in fig. 29A).

For scenario 5, the SOS illustrated different tradeoff 

dynamics depending on the climatic condition. Figure 30

shows the SOS for the six pumping schedules of scenarios 

5A–C. The tradeoff dynamics for schedule D were similar for 

all three climatic conditions (5AD, 5BD, and 5CD). Schedule E 

shows the relative tradeoff in pumpage for each climatic 

condition when prioritizing the three environmental objectives 

compared to an equal preference for minimizing all objectives 

in schedule D.

For scenario 5A (typical-to-dry), the extreme solutions 

for maximizing pumpage and minimizing seawater intrusion 

showed substantial tradeoffs: the best score for objective A 

(5AA) resulted in the worst score for objective B, and the best 

score for objective B (5AB) resulted in the worst score for 

objective A, indicating that maximizing pumpage resulted in 

maximum seawater intrusion, and minimal seawater intrusion 

resulted in minimal pumpage (fig. 30A). The solution for 

minimizing total drawdown, schedule 5ACt was the same as 

5ACm for this climatic condition, indicating that the solution 

that resulted in the minimal total drawdown also resulted 

in the minimal maximum drawdown (fig. 30A). Comparing 

the compromise solutions (5AD and 5AE) showed that the 

objective B score for schedule 5AE increased as its objective 

A, Ct, and Cm scores decreased, indicating that to improve the 

seawater-intrusion results from schedule D, one must accept 

slightly worse drawdown results.

In scenario 5B (dry-to-typical), the maximum pumpage 

solution (schedule 5BA) had scores below 0.3 for all other 

objectives; however, none were zero, indicating that there 

were worse solutions for each objective that also resulted in 

less pumpage (fig. 30B). Similarly, the minimal seawaterintrusion solution (schedule 5BB) did not result in the least 

pumpage, although the score was less than 0.1. Both solutions 

for the drawdown objectives (5BCt and 5BCm, fig. 30B) 

showed a larger tradeoff for objective A (scores below 0.2) 

than objective B (scores between 0.6 and 0.8). To achieve the 

minimal total drawdown (schedule 5BCt), there was a slightly 

larger tradeoff in objective B and a slightly smaller tradeoff in 

objective A compared to the minimum maximum drawdown 

(schedule 5BCm), indicating that the solution that minimized 

the maximum drawdown resulted in less seawater intrusion 

and less pumpage than schedule 5BCt. The compromise 

solutions (schedules 5BD and 5BE) resulted in scores greater 

than 0.9 for the drawdown objectives with scores less than 

0.7 for objective B and less than 0.4 for objective A. Between 

schedules 5BD and 5BE, a small tradeoff in maximum 

drawdown resulted in more pumpage, but more seawater 

intrusion as well.

For the extreme solutions in the dry-to-dry climate 

of scenario 5C, schedule 5CA had a score near zero for 

objective B, yet the minimum seawater-intrusion solution 

(schedule 5CB) had a score greater than 0.2 for objective A 

(fig. 30C). These scores indicated that there were few solutions 

that maximized pumpage that resulted in more seawater 

intrusion (schedule 5CA), whereas there were relatively more 

solutions that increased seawater intrusion, but had less 

pumpage (schedule 5CB). For the drawdown objectives, the 

results indicated that Schedule 5CCm allowed more pumpage 

than schedule 5CCt, but with more seawater intrusion and total 

drawdown. For the compromise solutions (schedules 5CD

and 5CE), the results indicated that schedule 5CE allowed less 

seawater intrusion than schedule 5CD with less pumpage, 

slightly less total drawdown, and a slightly greater maximum 

drawdown.

The simulated breakthrough curves for scenarios 5A–C, 

assuming schedule-D pumpage, are shown in figure 31. Much 

like the results presented in tables 5–7, the flat breakthrough 

curves indicated that the chloride concentrations were fairly 

insensitive to pumping schedule, except for well 23E5, 

which had the largest increase in concentration (fig. 31). The 

increase in simulated chloride concentrations in well 23E5 for 

schedule 5BD (fig. 31B) reflected the greater total pumpage 

for that scenario than for schedules 5AD and 5CD (tables 5–7). 

The chloride breakthroughs for scenario 5B (fig. 31B) were 

noticeably different than the other two climatic conditions in 

the second year, where typical precipitation was simulated.
Figure 25. Contours of simulated hydraulic heads for year two, Santa Barbara multi-objective management model, Santa Barbara, California, for pumA, upper producing zone; B, middle producing zone; and C, lower producing zone.

60

20

10

10

40 80

80

100

100

120 120

100

110

110 110

130

90

100

101

EAST MORE

RANCH FAULT

MODOC FAULT ROCKY NOOK FAULT

LAGO ON FAULT LAVIGIA FAULT MESA FAULT

UNNAMED

FAULT

FOOTHILL

FAULT

NORTHEAST MORE RANCH FAULT

SANTA YNEZ MOUNTAINS

PA C I F I 

Goleta

Basin

San Roque Park 2

Val Verde

Ortega

Park

SB High School

LosRobles

Lincolnwood 1

Corporation

City Hall Yard

VeraCruz

AlamedaPark

HopeAvenue

119°46' 119°44' 119°42' 119°40'

34°27'34°26'34°25'

R. 28 W. R. 27 W.

A

LauroCanyon

MissionCanyon

Sycamore

Canyon

0 0.5 1 MILE

0 0.5 1 KILOMETER

Figure D25A. Contours of upper zone simulated hydraulic head for Scenario 5, Schedule D in the Santa Barbara groundwater basin, California.

EXPLANATION

Base modified from U.S. Geological Survey and other Federal and State digital data, various scales; Transverse Mercator projection, zone 11N; North American Datum of 1983 (NAD 83)

HighwaySimulated hydraulic head contours, in

feet above North American VerticalDatum of 1988 (NAVD 88)

20

Faults

Existence certain, location inferredExistence questionable, location inferredExistence certain, location concealedExistence questionable, location concealedExistence certain, location accurateExistence certain, location approximate

Storage units High

Low

248200150100

50

0

Simulated hydraulic head,

in feet above NAVD 88

Santa Barbara city production

well and identifier

Vera Cruz

Storage units from Muir, 

faults from M

Stud

are

PACIFIC OCEAN 
Figure 25. —Continued

101

30 20

20

10

10

EAST MORE

RANCH FAULT

MODOC FAULT ROCKY NOOK FAULT

LAGO ON FAULT LAVIGIA FAULT MESA FAULT

UNNAMED

FAULT

B

NORTHEAST MORE RANCH FAULT FOOTHILL FAULT

SANTA YNEZ MOUNTAINS

PA C I F I 

Goleta

Basin

San Roque Park 2

Val Verde Ortega

Park

SB High School

LosRobles

Lincolnwood 1

Corporation City Hall Yard

VeraCruz

AlamedaPark

HopeAvenue

119°46' 119°44' 119°42' 119°40'

34°27'34°26'34°25'

R. 28 W. R. 27 W.

LauroCanyon

MissionCanyon

Sycamore

Canyon

0 0.5 1 MILE

0 0.5 1 KILOMETER

Figure D25B. Contours of middle zone simulated hydraulic head for Scenario 5, Schedule D in the Santa Barbara groundwater basin, California. 

EXPLANATION

Base modified from U.S. Geological Survey and other Federal and State digital data, various scales; Transverse Mercator projection, zone 11N; North American Datum of 1983 (NAD 83)

HighwaySimulated hydraulic head contours, in

feet above North American VerticalDatum of 1988 (NAVD 88)

20

Faults

Existence certain, location inferredExistence questionable, location inferredExistence certain, location concealedExistence questionable, location concealedExistence certain, location accurateExistence certain, location approximate

Santa Barbara city production

well and identifier

Vera Cruz

Storage units High

Low

248200150100

50

0

Simulated hydraulic head,

in feet above NAVD 88

Storage units from Muir, 

faults from M

Stud

are

PACIFIC OCEAN 
Figure 25. —Continued

101

0

20

40

60 80

90

90

100

40 40

30

60

60

80

90 80

120 100

100

100

10

120

120 140

140

140

100

100

EAST MORE

RANCH FAULT

MODOC FAULT ROCKY NOOK FAULT

LAGO ON FAULT LAVIGIA FAULT MESA FAULT

UNNAMED

FAULT

FOOTHILL

FAULT NORTHEAST MORE RANCH FAULT

SANTA YNEZ MOUNTAINS

PA C I F I 

Goleta

Basin

San Roque Park 2

Val Verde Ortega

Park

SB High School

LosRobles

Lincolnwood 1

Corporation

Yard City Hall

VeraCruz

AlamedaPark

HopeAvenue

C

119°46' 119°44' 119°42' 119°40'

34°27'34°26'34°25'

R. 28 W. R. 27 W.

LauroCanyon

MissionCanyon

Sycamore

Canyon

0 0.5 1 MILE

0 0.5 1 KILOMETER

Figure D25C. Contours of lower zone simulated hydraulic head for Scenario 5, Schedule D in the Santa Barbara groundwater basin, California.

EXPLANATION

Base modified from U.S. Geological Survey and other Federal and State digital data, various scales; Transverse Mercator projection, zone 11N; North American Datum of 1983 (NAD 83)

HighwaySimulated hydraulic head contours, in

feet above North American VerticalDatum of 1988 (NAVD 88)

20

Faults

Existence certain, location inferredExistence questionable, location inferredExistence certain, location concealedExistence questionable, location concealedExistence certain, location accurateExistence certain, location approximate

Santa Barbara city production

well and identifier

Vera Cruz

Storage units High

Low

248200150100

50

0

Simulated hydraulic head,

in feet above NAVD 88

Storage units from Muir, 

faults from M

Stud

are

PACIFIC OCEAN 
Figure 26. Contours of simulated hydraulic heads for year two, Santa Barbara multi-objective management model, Santa Barbara, California, for pumA, upper producing zone; B, middle producing zone; and C, lower producing zone.

101

10 20

40

50

10

80 60 100 100

100

90

120130

110 110

120

EAST MORE

RANCH FAULT

MODOC FAULT ROCKY NOOK FAULT

LAGO ON FAULT LAVIGIA FAULT MESA FAULT

UNNAMED

FAULT

NORTHEAST MORE RANCH FAULT

SANTA YNEZ MOUNTAINS

PA C I F I 

Goleta

Basin

San Roque Park 2

Val Verde

Ortega

Park

SB High School

LosRobles

Lincolnwood 1

Corporation

City Hall Yard

VeraCruz

AlamedaPark

HopeAvenue

FOOTHILL FAULT

119°46' 119°44' 119°42' 119°40'

34°27'34°26'34°25'

R. 28 W. R. 27 W.

LauroCanyon

MissionCanyon

Sycamore

Canyon

0 0.5 1 MILE

0 0.5 1 KILOMETER

Figure D26A. Contours of upper zone simulated hydraulic head for Scenario 5b, Schedule D in the Santa Barbara groundwater basin, California. 

EXPLANATION

Base modified from U.S. Geological Survey and other Federal and State digital data, various scales; Transverse Mercator projection, zone 11N; North American Datum of 1983 (NAD 83)

HighwaySimulated hydraulic head contours, in

feet above North American VerticalDatum of 1988 (NAVD 88)

20

Faults

Existence certain, location inferredExistence questionable, location inferredExistence certain, location concealedExistence questionable, location concealedExistence certain, location accurateExistence certain, location approximate

Storage units High

Low

248200150100

50

0

Simulated hydraulic head,

in feet above NAVD 88

Santa Barbara city production

well and identifier

Vera Cruz

Storage units from Muir, 

faults from M

Stud

are

PACIFIC OCEAN 

A
Figure 26. —Continued

101

EAST MORE

RANCH FAULT

MODOC FAULT ROCKY NOOK FAULT

LAGO ON FAULT LAVIGIA FAULT MESA FAULT

UNNAMED

FAULT

NORTHEAST MORE RANCH FAULT FOOTHILL FAULT

3020

20

10

10

SANTA YNEZ MOUNTAINS

PA C I F I 

Goleta

Basin

San Roque Park 2

Val Verde

Ortega

Park

SB High School

LosRobles

Lincolnwood 1

Corporation City Hall Yard

VeraCruz

AlamedaPark

HopeAvenue

119°46' 119°44' 119°42' 119°40'

34°27'34°26'34°25'

R. 28 W. R. 27 W.

LauroCanyon

MissionCanyon

Sycamore

Canyon

0 0.5 1 MILE

0 0.5 1 KILOMETER

Figure D26B. Contours of middle zone simulated hydraulic head for Scenario 5b, Schedule D in the Santa Barbara groundwater basin, California. 

EXPLANATION

Base modified from U.S. Geological Survey and other Federal and State digital data, various scales; Transverse Mercator projection, zone 11N; North American Datum of 1983 (NAD 83)

HighwaySimulated hydraulic head contours, in

feet above North American VerticalDatum of 1988 (NAVD 88)

20

Faults

Existence certain, location inferredExistence questionable, location inferredExistence certain, location concealedExistence questionable, location concealedExistence certain, location accurateExistence certain, location approximate

Storage units High

Low

248200150100

50

0

Simulated hydraulic head,

in feet above NAVD 88

Santa Barbara city production

well and identifier

Vera Cruz

Storage units from Muir, 

faults from M

Stud

are

PACIFIC OCEAN 

B
Figure 26. —Continued

101

EAST MORE

RANCH FAULT

MODOC FAULT ROCKY NOOK FAULT

LAGO ON FAULT LAVIGIA FAULT MESA FAULT

UNNAMED

FAULT

FOOTHILL FAULT

NORTHEAST MORE RANCH FAULT

20

20

10

40

40

60

60

80

100

100

10

90

100

100

140

140

130

150

100

100

90

90

0

130

130

120

120 120

120

80

SANTA YNEZ MOUNTAINS

PA C I F I 

Goleta

Basin San Roque Park 2

Val Verde

Ortega

Park

SB High School

LosRobles

Lincolnwood 1

Corporation

Yard

City Hall

VeraCruz

AlamedaPark

HopeAvenue

119°46' 119°44' 119°42' 119°40'

34°27'34°26'34°25'

R. 28 W. R. 27 W.

LauroCanyon

MissionCanyon

Sycamore

Canyon

0 0.5 1 MILE

0 0.5 1 KILOMETER

Figure D26C. Contours of lower zone simulated hydraulic head for Scenario 5b, Schedule D in the Santa Barbara groundwater basin, California. 

EXPLANATION

Base modified from U.S. Geological Survey and other Federal and State digital data, various scales; Transverse Mercator projection, zone 11N; North American Datum of 1983 (NAD 83)

HighwaySimulated hydraulic head contours, in

feet above North American VerticalDatum of 1988 (NAVD 88)

20

Faults

Existence certain, location inferredExistence questionable, location inferredExistence certain, location concealedExistence questionable, location concealedExistence certain, location accurateExistence certain, location approximate

Storage units High

Low

248200150100

50

0

Simulated hydraulic head,

in feet above NAVD 88

Santa Barbara city production

well and identifier

Vera Cruz

Storage units from Muir, 

faults from M

Stud

are

PACIFIC OCEAN 

C
Figure 27. Contours of simulated hydraulic heads for year two, Santa Barbara multi-objective management model, Santa Barbara, California, for pumA, upper producing zone; B, middle producing zone; and C, lower producing zone.

101

EAST MORE

RANCH FAULT

MODOC FAULT ROCKY NOOK FAULT

LAGO ON FAULT LAVIGIA FAULT MESA FAULT

UNNAMED

FAULT

FOOTHILL

FAULT NORTHEAST MORE RANCH FAULT

10

20

40 20 60 80

10

100 100

100 110

110

90

100

130

SANTA YNEZ MOUNTAINS

PA C I F I 

Goleta

Basin

San Roque Park 2

Val Verde

Ortega

Park

SB High School

LosRobles

Lincolnwood 1

Corporation

City Hall Yard

VeraCruz

AlamedaPark

HopeAvenue

119°46' 119°44' 119°42' 119°40'

34°27'34°26'34°25'

R. 28 W. R. 27 W.

LauroCanyon

MissionCanyon

Sycamore

Canyon

0 0.5 1 MILE

0 0.5 1 KILOMETER

Figure D27A. Contours of upper zone simulated hydraulic head for Scenario 5c, Schedule D in the Santa Barbara groundwater basin, California. 

EXPLANATION

Base modified from U.S. Geological Survey and other Federal and State digital data, various scales; Transverse Mercator projection, zone 11N; North American Datum of 1983 (NAD 83)

HighwaySimulated hydraulic head contours, in

feet above North American VerticalDatum of 1988 (NAVD 88)

20

Faults

Existence certain, location inferredExistence questionable, location inferredExistence certain, location concealedExistence questionable, location concealedExistence certain, location accurateExistence certain, location approximate

Storage units High

Low

248200150100

50

0

Simulated hydraulic head,

in feet above NAVD 88

Santa Barbara city production

well and identifier

Vera Cruz

Storage units from Muir, 

faults from M

Stud

are

PACIFIC OCEAN 

A
Figure 27. —Continued

101

EAST MORE

RANCH FAULT

MODOC FAULT ROCKY NOOK FAULT

LAGO ON FAULT LAVIGIA FAULT MESA FAULT

UNNAMED

FAULT

NORTHEAST MORE RANCH FAULT FOOTHILL FAULT

20

10

201030

SANTA YNEZ MOUNTAINS

PA C I F I 

Goleta

Basin

San Roque Park 2

Val Verde

Ortega

Park

SB High School

LosRobles

Lincolnwood 1

Corporation City Hall Yard

VeraCruz

AlamedaPark

HopeAvenue

119°46' 119°44' 119°42' 119°40'

34°27'34°26'34°25'

R. 28 W. R. 27 W.

LauroCanyon

MissionCanyon

Sycamore

Canyon

0 0.5 1 MILE

0 0.5 1 KILOMETER

Figure D27B. Contours of middle zone simulated hydraulic head for Scenario 5c, Schedule D in the Santa Barbara groundwater basin, California. 

EXPLANATION

Base modified from U.S. Geological Survey and other Federal and State digital data, various scales; Transverse Mercator projection, zone 11N; North American Datum of 1983 (NAD 83)

HighwaySimulated hydraulic head contours, in

feet above North American VerticalDatum of 1988 (NAVD 88)

20

Faults

Existence certain, location inferredExistence questionable, location inferredExistence certain, location concealedExistence questionable, location concealedExistence certain, location accurateExistence certain, location approximate

Storage units High

Low

248200150100

50

0

Simulated hydraulic head,

in feet above NAVD 88

Santa Barbara city production

well and identifier

Vera Cruz

Storage units from Muir, 

faults from M

Stud

are

PACIFIC OCEAN 

B
Figure 27. —Continued

101

EAST MORE

RANCH FAULT

MODOC FAULT ROCKY NOOK FAULT

LAGO ON FAULT LAVIGIA FAULT MESA FAULT

UNNAMED

FAULT

FOOTHILL FAULT

NORTHEAST MORE RANCH FAULT

0

20

40 80 60

100

100

10

120

120

120 120

100 90

90 80

60

60

8040 100

SANTA YNEZ MOUNTAINS

PA C I F I 

Goleta

Basin

C

San Roque Park 2

Val Verde

Ortega

Park

SB High School

LosRobles

Lincolnwood 1

Corporation

Yard

City Hall

VeraCruz

Alameda

Park

HopeAvenue

119°46' 119°44' 119°42' 119°40'

34°27'34°26'34°25'

R. 28 W. R. 27 W.

LauroCanyon

MissionCanyon

Sycamore

Canyon

0 0.5 1 MILE

0 0.5 1 KILOMETER

Figure D27C. Contours of lower zone simulated hydraulic head for Scenario 5c, Schedule D in the Santa Barbara groundwater basin, California. 

EXPLANATION

Base modified from U.S. Geological Survey and other Federal and State digital data, various scales; Transverse Mercator projection, zone 11N; North American Datum of 1983 (NAD 83)

HighwaySimulated hydraulic head contours, in

feet above North American VerticalDatum of 1988 (NAVD 88)

20

Faults

Existence certain, location inferredExistence questionable, location inferredExistence certain, location concealedExistence questionable, location concealedExistence certain, location accurateExistence certain, location approximate

Storage units High

Low

248200150100

50

0

Simulated hydraulic head,

in feet above NAVD 88

Santa Barbara city production

well and identifier

Vera Cruz

Storage units from Muir, 

faults from M

Stud

are

PACIFIC OCEAN 
Chapter D: Multi-Objective Simulation-Optimization Model 313

Figure 28. Contours of simulated chloride concentrations for year two, Santa Barbara multi-objective management model, Santa 

Barbara, California for pumping schedule: A, 5AD in the middle producing zone; B, 5AD in the lower producing zone; C, 5BD in the middle 

producing zone; D, 5BD in the lower producing zone; E, 5CD in the middle producing zone; and F, 5CD in the lower producing zone.

sac16-0626_IP-075076_figD28A

15,000

1,500

101

101

PA C I F I C O C E A N

SANTA BARBARA COUNTY

R. 27 W. R. 26 W.

T.

4

N.

A

Sycamore Creek

Mission Creek

FigureD28A- Simulated contours of chloride concentrations for the middle-producing zone and lower producing zones; Scenario 5a,

Schedule D, Santa Barbara groundwater model, Santa Barbara, California.

Ortega Park

Corporation

Yard

City Hall Vera

Cruz

15K1

22A2-5 22B8-11

22G2-4

23E1-4

23E5-6

23F2-4

23F5-7

23F8-9

15,000

15,000

1,500

101

101

PA C I F I C O C E A N

SANTA BARBARA COUNTY

Sycamore Creek

Mission Creek

T.

4

N.

R. 27 W. R. 26 W.

R. 27 W. R. 26 W.

Ortega Park

Corporation

Yard

City Hall Vera

Cruz

15K1

22A2-5 22B8-11

22G2-4

23E1-4

23E5-6

23F2-4

23F5-7

23F8-9

B

119°42' 119°41' 119°40' 119°39'

34°25'25"

34°25'

34°24'35"

119°42' 119°41' 119°40' 119°39'

34°25'25"

34°25'

34°24'35"

EXPLANATION

0 0.5 1 MILES

0 0.5 1 KILOMETERS

Base modified from U.S. Geological Survey and other 

Federal and State digital data, various scales; 

Transverse Mercator projection, zone 11N; 

North American Datum of 1983 (NAD 83)

Highway

Major stream

Simulated chloride concentration 

contour, in milligrams per liter

60

Storage unit

Monitoring well and identifier

Faults

Existence certain, location inferred

Existence questionable, location inferred

Existence certain, location accurate

Existence certain, location approximate

Simulated chloride

concentration,

in milligrams per liter

High

Low

19,000

0

Santa Barbara city production

well and identifier

23F1

City

Hall

Storage units from Muir, 1968;

Freckleton and others, 1998;

faults from Muir, 1968;

Minor and others, 2009

MESA FAULT

LAGOON FAULT

MESA FAULT

LAGOON FAULT
314 Santa Barbara and Foothill Groundwater Basins Geohydrology and Optimal Water Resources Management

Figure 28. —Continued

sac16-0626_IP-075076_figD28B

15,000

1,500

101

101

PA C I F I C O C E A N

SANTA BARBARA COUNTY

R. 27 W. R. 26 W.

T.

4

N.

C

Sycamore Creek

Mission Creek

FigureD28B- Simulated contours of chloride concentrations for the middle-producing zone and lower producing zones; Scenario 5a,

Schedule D, Santa Barbara groundwater model, Santa Barbara, California.

Ortega Park

Corporation

Yard

City Hall Vera

Cruz

15K1

22A2-5 22B8-11

22G2-4

23E1-4

23E5-6

23F2-4

23F5-7

23F8-9

15,000

15,000

1,500

101

101

PA C I F I C O C E A N

SANTA BARBARA COUNTY

Sycamore Creek

Mission Creek

T.

4

N.

R. 27 W. R. 26 W.

R. 27 W. R. 26 W.

Ortega Park

Corporation

Yard

City Hall Vera

Cruz

15K1

22A2-5 22B8-11

22G2-4

23E1-4

23E5-6

23F2-4

23F5-7

23F8-9

D

119°42' 119°41' 119°40' 119°39'

34°25'25"

34°25'

34°24'35"

119°42' 119°41' 119°40' 119°39'

34°25'25"

34°25'

34°24'35"

EXPLANATION

0 0.5 1 MILES

0 0.5 1 KILOMETERS

Base modified from U.S. Geological Survey and other 

Federal and State digital data, various scales; 

Transverse Mercator projection, zone 11N; 

North American Datum of 1983 (NAD 83)

Highway

Major stream

Simulated chloride concentration 

contour, in milligrams per liter

60

Storage unit

Monitoring well and identifier

Faults

Existence certain, location inferred

Existence questionable, location inferred

Existence certain, location accurate

Existence certain, location approximate

Simulated chloride

concentration,

in milligrams per liter

High

Low

19,000

0

Santa Barbara city production

well and identifier

23F1

City

Hall

Storage units from Muir, 1968;

Freckleton and others, 1998;

faults from Muir, 1968;

Minor and others, 2009

MESA FAULT

LAGOON FAULT

MESA FAULT

LAGOON FAULT
Chapter D: Multi-Objective Simulation-Optimization Model 315

Figure 28. —Continued

sac16-0626_IP-075076_figD28C

15,000

1,500

101

101

PA C I F I C O C E A N

SANTA BARBARA COUNTY

R. 27 W. R. 26 W.

T.

4

N.

E

Sycamore Creek

Mission Creek

FigureD28C- Simulated contours of chloride concentrations for the middle-producing zone and lower-producing zones; Scenario 5c, 

Schedule D, Santa Barbara groundwater model, Santa Barbara, California.

Ortega Park

Corporation

Yard

City Hall Vera

Cruz

15K1

22A2-5 22B8-11

22G2-4

23E1-4

23E5-6

23F2-4

23F5-7

23F8-9

15,000

15,000

1,500

101

101

PA C I F I C O C E A N

SANTA BARBARA COUNTY

Sycamore Creek

Mission Creek

T.

4

N.

R. 27 W. R. 26 W.

R. 27 W. R. 26 W.

Ortega Park

Corporation

Yard

City Hall Vera

Cruz

15K1

22A2-5 22B8-11

22G2-4

23E1-4

23E5-6

23F2-4

23F5-7

23F8-9

F

119°42' 119°41' 119°40' 119°39'

34°25'25"

34°25'

34°24'35"

119°42' 119°41' 119°40' 119°39'

34°25'25"

34°25'

34°24'35"

EXPLANATION

0 0.5 1 MILES

0 0.5 1 KILOMETERS

Base modified from U.S. Geological Survey and other 

Federal and State digital data, various scales; 

Transverse Mercator projection, zone 11N; 

North American Datum of 1983 (NAD 83)

Highway

Major stream

Simulated chloride concentration 

contour, in milligrams per liter

60

Storage unit

Monitoring well and identifier

Faults

Existence certain, location inferred

Existence questionable, location inferred

Existence certain, location accurate

Existence certain, location approximate

Simulated chloride

concentration,

in milligrams per liter

High

Low

19,000

0

Santa Barbara city production

well and identifier

23F1

City

Hall

Storage units from Muir, 1968;

Freckleton and others, 1998;

faults from Muir, 1968;

Minor and others, 2009

MESA FAULT

LAGOON FAULT

MESA FAULT

LAGOON FAULT
316 Santa Barbara and Foothill Groundwater Basins Geohydrology and Optimal Water Resources Management

Figure 29. Pumping schedules A and B (maximum pumpage and minimum seawater intrusion, respectively), Storage Unit I and Foothill 

groundwater basin, Santa Barbara multi-objective management model, Santa Barbara, California, for scenarios A, 5A; B, 5B; and C, 5C.

sac16-0626_IP-075076_figD29ABC

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Quarter

0

200

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

Pumpage, in acre-feet

5AA 5A Storage Unit I A Foothill 5AB 5A Storage Unit I B Foothill

EXPLANATION

5AA 5A Storage Unit I A Foothill 5AB 5A Storage Unit I B Foothill

EXPLANATION

5AA 5A Storage Unit I A Foothill 5AB 5A Storage Unit I B Foothill

EXPLANATION

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Quarter

0

200

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

Pumpage, in acre-feet

B

C

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Quarter

0

200

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

Pumpage, in acre-feet

A
Chapter D: Multi-Objective Simulation-Optimization Model 317

Figure 30. Scaled objective scores by scenario 5 pumping schedule used in the Santa Barbara multi-objective management model, 

Santa Barbara, California: A, 5A; B, 5B; and C, 5C.

sac16-0626_IP-075076_figD30ABC

Schedule

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

Scaled objective scores

5AA 5AB 5ACt 5ACm 5AD 5AE

A

EXPLANATION

Objective A (pumpage)

Objective B (seawater intrusion)

Objective Ct (total drawdown)

Objective Cm (maximum drawdown)

EXPLANATION

Objective A (pumpage)

Objective B (seawater intrusion)

Objective Ct (total drawdown)

Objective Cm (maximum drawdown)

EXPLANATION

Objective A (pumpage)

Objective B (seawater intrusion)

Objective Ct (total drawdown)

Objective Cm (maximum drawdown)

Schedule

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

Scaled objective scores

5BA 5BB 5BCt 5BCm 5BD 5BE

B

Schedule

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

Scaled objective scores

5CA 5CB 5CCt 5CCm 5CD 5CE

C
318 Santa Barbara and Foothill Groundwater Basins Geohydrology and Optimal Water Resources Management

Figure 31. Breakthrough curves of simulated chloride concentrations for selected monitoring wells, Santa Barbara multi-objective 

management model, Santa Barbara, California, for A, schedule 5AD; B, schedule 5BD; and C, schedule 5CD.

sac16-0626_IP-075076_figD31A1 to C2 Chloride concentration, in milligrams per liter

2,000

1,000

0

500

1,500

Chloride concentration, in milligrams per liter

11,000

10,500

9,500

9,000

10,000

Chloride concentration, in milligrams per liter

2,000

1,000

0

500

1,500

Chloride concentration, in milligrams per liter

11,000

10,500

9,500

9,000

10,000

Chloride concentration, in milligrams per liter

2,000

1,000

0

500

1,500

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700

Time, in days

Chloride concentration, in milligrams per liter

11,000

10,500

9,500

9,000

10,000

22A2

22A4

22B9

22B10

22B11

22G3

22G4

23E3

23E5

23F2

23F4

23F5

23F7

23F8

EXPLANATION

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700

Time, in days

A

B

C
Chapter D: Multi-Objective Simulation-Optimization Model 319

Limitations

The simulation-optimization model described in this 

chapter has limitations because the underlying SEAWAT 

model is an approximation of reality, future precipitation is 

uncertain, and the optimization technique cannot guarantee 

a global optimum. The limitations of the simulation model 

are discussed in chapter C and include uncertainties in the 

stresses, hydraulic parameters, and measured data and various 

simplifying assumptions made during the modeling process. 

The implications of these simulation-model limitations for 

the optimization results were not examined and were beyond 

the scope of the study. The assumed climatic conditions 

were intended to span a large range of precipitation, which 

accounts for some uncertainty in rainfall data, but the 

optimization necessarily assumes the simulation is an adequate 

representation of the natural system. Given the inherent 

limitations of the simulation and the necessary simplifications 

in the problem formulation—for example, aggregation of 

monthly pumping into quarterly pumping—the optimization 

problem is one for which a global solution can only be 

approximated.

Undoubtedly, future precipitation could vary and not 

match the values used in any of the scenarios; therefore, the 

Pareto-optimal results only represent an empirical range 

of pumpage given specific climatic patterns. Although the 

Pareto-optimal pumping schedules can be adjusted (by 

scaling all values by a constant fraction) to meet demand, the 

corresponding system states cannot be scaled accordingly. It 

is safe to assume, however, that if a chosen Pareto-optimal 

pumping schedule produced acceptable seawater intrusion and 

drawdowns, scaling down the pumpage would not increase 

these effects to unacceptable levels. It must also be assumed 

that no additional stress to the system is incurred during the 

simulation period. Pareto-optimal results might no longer be 

optimal if an additional well (unaccounted for in the model) 

began pumping. 

Although Borg was selected as the optimization 

algorithm partly because of its superior performance avoiding 

common EA perils (such as search stagnation in local optima), 

a global optimum can never be assured, even given a large 

number of simulation runs. If the optimization were allowed 

to run infinitely, slightly different Pareto-optimal solutions 

could be produced. The overall approximate Pareto fronts 

produced by Borg were monitored, and once no differences 

were observed for several generations of the algorithm, the 

optimization was determined to be complete. Exact values 

(as opposed to general magnitudes and trends) for schedules 

on the Pareto front are not ultimate answers to any problem. 

Instead, they represent what is feasible and optimal with 

respect to the problem formulation and the simulation model. 

An additional limitation involves utilizing the optimal 

results for the entire management horizon. The last few 

stress periods of any scenario can show increased pumpage 

strictly because there was no further restriction on system 

state (water levels and chloride concentrations) beyond the 

end of the simulation (final condition). In other words, in a 

10-year simulation, there is no year 11; therefore, pumpage 

can increase in year 10 until all of the constraints become 

binding. This can leave the system in a poor state moving 

forward, and seawater intrusion, for example, could continue 

increasing. The rates of seawater intrusion or water-level 

declines were not considered. Additionally, the first year of 

the optimal schedule can be considerably influenced by the 

initial condition. To account for changes to and uncertainty in 

the initial condition, the first year of the pumping schedules 

could also be discarded. Consequently, the middle 8 years of 

any 10-year optimization result is more reliable for planning 

and management guidance. Similar limitations are present in 

the 2-year simulations of scenario 5; however, it is difficult to 

determine the effects of the initial and final conditions because 

of the short management horizon.

Summary and Conclusions

The city of Santa Barbara is interested in identifying 

management strategies that maximize the available 

groundwater resources, while limiting seawater intrusion 

and groundwater drawdown. In order to identify the best 

management strategies, the U.S. Geological Survey in 

cooperation with the city of Santa Barbara undertook a 

simulation-optimization study that used the Santa Barbara 

flow and solute-transport model, described in chapter C of this 

report, to obtain optimal management strategies and estimate 

maximum pumping rates for a range of potential future 

climatic conditions.

The simulation-optimization problem was formulated as 

a multi-objective optimization problem and was solved using 

the Borg multi-objective evolutionary algorithm (MOEA). 

Borg was chosen as the optimization algorithm for this study 

for several reasons: (1) it is very computationally efficient; 

(2) it can run in parallel; (3) it requires little user input; 

and (4) it can solve for multiple competing objectives. The 

first three points allow the algorithm to proceed toward the 

optimal solutions at the fastest possible rate. The fourth point 

is advantageous for large, complex optimization problems 

because it is difficult to formulate the optimization problem in 

a way that produces only one optimal solution.

Results for each optimization are presented in Paretooptimal surfaces in four objective dimensions: objective A 

sought to maximize total pumpage; objective B sought to 

minimize seawater intrusion; objective Ct sought to minimize 

total drawdown; and objective Cm sought to minimize the 

maximum drawdown. The decision variables were quarterly 

pumpage for 11 production wells. Strict optimization 

constraints were pumping capacities for each well 

implemented as variable bounds. Additional constraints were 

drinking-water-quality standards for chloride concentration at 

production wells, minimum-head specifications, and minimum 

flow to the Ortega groundwater-treatment plant.
320 Santa Barbara and Foothill Groundwater Basins Geohydrology and Optimal Water Resources Management

Five scenarios were designed to assess the optimization 

results with respect to an uncertain future climatic condition. 

Scenario 1 was an optimization of a 10-year simulation 

assuming a typical climatic condition. Scenario 2 was an 

optimization of the same 10-year simulation model as 

scenario 1 but assumed a dry climatic condition to replicate 

a 10-year drought. Scenario 3 was designed to determine the 

potential for aquifer recovery if pumpage was limited to the 

minimum flow required to supply the Ortega groundwatertreatment plant. Scenario 4 was presented to create decisionrule curves from the database of scenario-1 and scenario-2 

optimization results. These decision-rule curves allow 

water managers to adapt pumping schedules on the basis of 

chloride concentrations or drawdown measurements at select 

monitoring wells. Scenario 5 was an optimization of a 2-year 

simulation under three different climatic conditions: typicalto-dry (scenario 5A), dry-to-typical (scenario 5B), and dry-todry (scenario 5C). Scenario 5 demonstrated the sensitivity of 

Pareto-optimal results to short-term climatic conditions.

For each Pareto optimal solution in scenarios 1, 2, 

and 5, a pumping schedule, a set of chloride breakthrough 

curves, and water-level contours were produced. Six pumping 

schedules (A, B, Ct, Cm, D, and E) were identified in each 

Pareto-optimal set to illustrate the tradeoffs among the four 

objectives. The goals of pumping schedules A–E were to 

maximize pumpage; minimize seawater intrusion; minimize 

total drawdown; minimize maximum drawdown; achieve 

the best overall compromise among the four objectives; and 

achieve the best compromise among objectives B, Ct, and Cm.

The results of scenarios 1 and 2 presented the tradeoffs 

among the four conflicting objectives for a 10-year horizon. 

The maximum yield of scenario 1 (schedule 1A) was 

31,300 acre-feet (acre-ft); that of scenario 2 (schedule 2A) 

was 30,000 acre-ft. These schedules are not necessarily 

preferable, but identify the extent to which the basins can 

be pumped. The best compromises among all objectives 

for the two climatic conditions were schedules 1D and 2D. 

Schedule 1D represents optimal pumping schedules, assuming 

typical climatic conditions, and resulted in an average yield 

of 2,558 acre-feet per year (acre-ft/yr), ranging from 1,829 

to 3,418 acre-ft/yr. Schedule 2D represents optimal pumping 

schedules, assuming dry climatic conditions, and resulted in 

an average yield of 2,623 acre-ft/yr, ranging from 1,617 to 

3,463 acre-ft/yr. Schedule 2D resulted in more pumpage and 

less seawater intrusion than schedule 1D; however, schedule 2D

resulted in much larger drawdowns as well.

Scenario 3 showed the potential for aquifer recovery 

from 1990 water levels to 1998 water levels under minimal 

pumpage and either typical or dry climatic conditions during 

a 10-year simulation. Aquifer recovery was illustrated by 

hydrographs that showed drawdown relative to 1998 water 

levels. There were minor differences in the recovery between 

the typical and dry climatic conditions. The drawdown at 

selected Storage Unit I wells stabilized between about 0 and 

5 feet (ft) with a typical climatic condition and about 3 to 8 ft 

for the dry climatic condition. Therefore, despite minimal 

pumpage, the water levels did not recover to 1998 levels after 

10 years of typical or dry climatic condition. Also, there was 

little difference between the extents of simulated seawater 

intrusion after 10 years for these climatic conditions. This 

scenario demonstrated that simulated seawater intrusion was 

not sensitive to recharge, even with pumpage substantially 

decreased.

The scenario-4 results produced decision-rule curves 

that can be used to help make management decisions without 

needing to run a simulation. The optimizations of scenarios 1 

and 2 produced a set of feasible pumping schedules from 

which a subset was selected for further analysis. The rule 

curves were produced as a reference for when additional 

field measurements are taken of water levels and chloride 

concentrations. In the case of a measured concentration, 

a curve was produced that showed simulated results that 

matched that concentration and the associated Pareto-optimal 

pumpage in Storage Unit I and the ensuing seawater intrusion. 

For the case of measured water levels, each decision-rule 

curve showed a subset of Pareto-optimal pumpage, separated 

by storage unit, for each production well. Combined, these 

curves provide an approach to adapt production management 

as measurements are taken in the future. In other words, total 

pumpage by storage unit can be adjusted to future conditions, 

and the associated Pareto-optimal pumping schedule can be 

derived from these results.

For scenario 5, the Pareto optimal results illustrated 

the effect of short-term precipitation patterns on preferred 

pumping schedules. In general, the Pareto optimal results 

for Scenario 5A (typical-to-dry) and 5B (dry-to-typical) 

showed a greater range of pumpage and drawdown than 

scenario 5C (dry-to-dry). The solution for the objective of 

minimal seawater intrusion (schedule B) for the typical-todry simulation (schedule 5AB) had substantially less total 

drawdown (in fact, simulated hydraulic heads increased for 

schedule 5AB) than schedules 5BB and 5CB. For the minimal 

maximum-drawdown solution (schedule Cm), there was 

much less pumpage in the dry-to-typical climatic condition 

(schedule 5BCm) than in the other two climatic conditions 

(schedules 5ACm and 5CCm). The best compromise solution 

(schedule D) in the typical-to-dry climatic condition 

(schedule 5AD) also had less simulated seawater intrusion than 

schedules 5BD and 5CD. The simulated hydraulic heads were 

similar for each producing zone in each climatic condition; 

any differences were most notable in the lower producing zone 

of the Foothill groundwater basin and the upper producing 

zone of Storage Unit I. The quarterly pumping schedules 

by well showed the increase in Foothill groundwater basin 

pumpage for minimal seawater-intrusion solutions. The 

tradeoffs among all three objectives were more pronounced in 

the scenario-5B results. Very little difference was noticeable 

in the chloride breakthrough curves for all three climatic 

conditions, however.
Chapter D: Multi-Objective Simulation-Optimization Model 321

The Borg MOEA offers the most efficient way of 

collecting simulation results by using Pareto-optimality and 

searching the decision-variable space in a logical manner. 

Typically, unanticipated climatic conditions or changing 

management preferences would require additional simulations 

and, possibly, an additional study altogether. In this study, the 

Pareto-optimal results for two climatic conditions (typical and 

dry) provide the city with a collection of simulation results to 

help make decisions without additional model simulations. 

The Pareto-optimal results for each scenario can be 

used for assessing the differences between scenarios or for 

assessing the tradeoffs among the four competing objectives. 

The differences between scenario-1 and scenario-2 results 

showed the effect on basin yield, when simulating typical 

precipitation, and indicated that it was beneficial to simulate 

a drought. In scenario 2, the complex dynamics among the 

four objectives depended strongly on climate and choosing 

an optimal schedule from the Pareto curve that produced the 

desired pumpage results in a clear tradeoff between drawdown 

and seawater intrusion.

Further conclusions can be drawn from scenarios 1 and 

2 by investigating scenarios 3 and 4. Considering scenario-3 

results, the best-case scenario (10-year typical precipitation), 

assuming minimal pumpage, was a return to water levels about 

0–10 ft lower than those in 1998. The basin responded quickly 

when pumping was reduced, but the rate of the response was 

greatly diminished after a few years. At that point, drawdown 

stabilized at about 0–10 ft less than 1998 levels with continued 

pumping of 484 acre-ft/yr from Storage Unit I. The scenario-4 

results provide a way to mitigate further seawater intrusion 

or excessive drawdown. As data are collected, regardless 

of the pumping schedule that is implemented, management 

actions can be adapted to prevent unnecessary losses in yield, 

increases in chlorides, or decreases in water levels.

Lastly, the scenario-5 results were also useful for 

assessing the consequences of assuming typical or dry 

precipitation for 2-year climatic conditions. Objective B 

values did not vary over a wide range among the pumping 

schedules of all scenarios, meaning seawater intrusion was 

relatively insensitive to a 2-year precipitation pattern. Results 

showed that optimal pumpage was more sensitive to climate 

in year one when minimizing total drawdown, and conversely, 

optimal pumpage was more sensitive to climate in year two 

when minimizing the maximum drawdown. The maximum 

pumpage in each scenario (schedule A) was distributed 

more to Storage Unit I than the Foothill groundwater basin 

in all quarters. For the minimal seawater-intrusion pumpage 

(schedule B), there were some quarters in which a larger 

portion of pumpage came from the Foothill groundwater basin 

than from Storage Unit I. The dry-to-dry precipitation pattern 

of scenario 5C generally represented conservative estimates 

of optimal pumpage, seawater intrusion, and drawdown. 

These conservative pumping schedules from drier climate 

simulations ensured the short-term annual yield of the basin 

would not jeopardize future yield if precipitation remained 

low.

References Cited

Abarca, E., Vázquez-Suñé, E., Carrera, J., Capino, B., 

Gámez, D., and Batlle, F., 2006, Optimal design of measures 

to correct seawater intrusion: Water Resources Research, v. 

42, no. 9, p. 1–14.

Abd-Elhamid, H.F., and Javadi, A.A., 2011, A cost-effective 

method to control seawater intrusion in coastal aquifers: 

Water Resources Management, v. 25, no. 11, p. 2755–2780.

Ahlfeld, D.P., and Baro-Montes, G., 2008, Solving unconfined 

groundwater flow management problems with successive 

linear programming: Journal of Water Resources Planning 

and Management, v. 134, no. 5, p. 404–412.

Ahlfeld, D.P., and Mulligan, A.E., 2000, Optimal management 

of flow in groundwater systems: San Diego, California, 

Academic, 185 p.

Ahlfeld, D.P., Mulvey, J.M., Pinder, G.F., and Wood, E.F., 

1988, Contaminated groundwater remediation design using 

simulation, optimization, and sensitivity theory; 1. Model 

development: Water Resources Research, v. 24, no. 3, 

p. 431–441.

Cachuma Operation and Maintenance Board, 2017, National 

Marine Fisheries Service biological opinion: accessed 

October 2017, at http://fmp.cachuma-board.org/nmfs.htm.

Chang, L.C., Shoemaker, C.A., and Liu, P.L.F., 1992, Optimal 

time-varying pumping rates for groundwater remediation; 

Application of a constrained optimal control algorithm: 

Water Resources Research, v. 28, no. 12, p. 3157–3171.

Cieniawski, S.E., Eheart, J.W., and Ranjithan, S., 1995, Using 

genetic algorithms to solve a multiobjective groundwater 

monitoring problem: Water Resources Research, v. 31, no. 2, 

p. 399–409.

Coello, C.A.C., Lamont, G.B., and Van Veldhuizen, D.A., 2007, 

Evolutionary algorithms for solving multi-objective problems 

(2d ed.), Genetic and Evolutionary Computation Series: 

Boston, Mass., Springer, 800 p.

Culver, T.B., and Shoemaker, C.A., 1992, Dynamic optimal 

control for groundwater remediation with flexible 

management periods: Water Resources Research, v. 28, no. 3, 

p. 629–641.

Culver, T.B., and Shoemaker, C.A., 1997, Dynamic optimal 

ground-water reclamation with treatment capital costs: 

Journal of Water Resources Planning and Management, 

v. 123, no. 1, p. 23–29.

Das, A., and Datta, B., 2000, Optimization based solution of 

density dependent seawater intrusion in coastal aquifers: 

Journal of Hydrologic Engineering, v. 5, no. 1, p. 82–89.

Dhar, A., and Datta, B., 2009, Saltwater intrusion management 

of coastal aquifers; I : linked simulation-optimization: 

Journal of Hydrologic Engineering, v. 14, no. 12, p. 1263–

1272.
322 Santa Barbara and Foothill Groundwater Basins Geohydrology and Optimal Water Resources Management

Freckleton, J.R., Martin, P., and Nishikawa, T., 1998, 

Geohydrology of Storage Unit III and a combined flow 

model of the Santa Barbara and Foothill ground-water basins, 

Santa Barbara County, California: U.S. Geological Survey 

Water-Resources Investigations Report 97–4121, 80 p., 

http://pubs.er.usgs.gov/publication/wri974121. 

Gordon, E., Shamir, U., and Bensabat, J., 2001, Optimal 

extraction of water from regional aquifer under salinization: 

Journal of Water Resources Planning and Management, 

v. 127, no. 2, p. 71–77.

Gorelick, S.M., 1983, Review of distributed parameter 

groundwater management modeling methods: Water 

Resources Research, v. 19, no. 2, p. 305–319.

Hadka, D.M., and Reed, P.M., 2013, Borg; An auto-adaptive 

many-objective evolutionary computing framework: 

Evolutionary Computation, v. 1, no. 2, p. 231–259, 

http://doi.org/10.1162/EVCO_a_00075.

Kasprzyk, J.R., Reed, P.M., Kirsch, B.R., and Characklis, G.W., 

2009, Managing population and drought risks using manyobjective water portfolio planning under uncertainty: 

Water Resources Research, v. 45, no. 12, 18 p., 

doi:10.1029/2009WR008121.

Kasprzyk, J.R., Reed, P.M., and Hadka, D.M., 2015, Battling 

Arrow’s Paradox to discover robust water management 

alternatives: Journal of Water Resources Planning and 

Management, v. 142, no. 2, 04015053, 

http://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)WR.1943-5452.0000572.

Kollat, J.B., and Reed, P.M., 2006, Comparing state-ofthe-art evolutionary multi-objective algorithms for 

long-term groundwater monitoring design: Advances in 

Water Resources, v. 29, no. 6, p. 792–807, doi:10.1016/j.

advwatres.2005.07.010.

Lefkoff, L.J., and Gorelick, S.M., 1986, Design and cost 

analysis of rapid aquifer restoration systems using flow 

simulation and quadratic programming: Ground Water, v. 24, 

no. 6, p. 777–790.

Mayer, A.S., Kelley, C.T., and Miller, C.T., 2002, Optimal 

design for problems involving flow and transport phenomena 

in saturated subsurface systems: Advances in Water 

Resource, v. 25, no. 8–12, p. 1233–1256.

McKinney, D.C., and Lin, M.D., 1994, Genetic algorithm 

solution of groundwater management models: Water 

Resources Research, v. 30, no. 6, p. 1897–1906.

McKinney, D.C., and Lin, M.D., 1995, Approximate mixedinteger nonlinear programming methods for optimal aquifer 

remediation design: Water Resources Research, v. 31, no. 3, 

p. 731–740.

Minor, S.A., Kellogg, K.S., Stanley, R.G., Gurrola, L.D., Keller, 

E.A., and Brandt, T.R., 2009, Geologic map of the Santa 

Barbara coastal plain area, Santa Barbara County, California: 

U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Map 3001, 

scale 1:25,000, 1 sheet, pamphlet, 38 p., 

https://pubs.er.usgs.gov/publication/sim3001.

Muir, K.S., 1968, Ground-water reconnaissance of the Santa 

Barbara-Montecito area, Santa Barbara County, California: 

U.S. Geological Survey Water Supply Paper 1859–A, 28 p., 

https://pubs.er.usgs.gov/publication/wsp1859A.

Molz, F.J., and Bell, L.C., 1977, Head gradient control in 

aquifers used for fluid storage: Water Resources Research, v. 

13, no. 4, p. 795–798.

Nicklow, J., Reed, P.M., Savic, D., Dessalegne, T., Harrell, L., 

Chan-Hilton, A., Karamouz, M., Minsker, B., Ostfeld, A., 

Singh, A., Zechman, E., and ASCE Task Committee on 

Evolutionary Computation in Environmental and Water 

Resources Engineering, 2010, State of the art for genetic 

algorithms and beyond in water resources planning and 

management: Journal of Water Resources Planning and 

Management, v. 136, no. 4, p. 412–432.

Nishikawa, T., 1998, A water-resources optimization model for 

Santa Barbara, California: ASCE Journal of Water Resources 

Planning and Management, v. 124, no. 5, p. 252–263.

Nocedal, J., and Wright, S.J., 2006, Numerical optimization: 

New York, Springer Science and Business Media, 664 p.

Qahman, K., Larabi, A., Ouazar, D., Naji, A., and 

Cheng, A.H.-D., 2005, Optimal and sustainable extraction of 

groundwater in coastal aquifers: Stochastic Environmental 

Research and Risk Assessment, v. 19, no. 2, p. 99–110.

Reed, P.M., Hadka, D.M., Herman, J.D., Kasprzyk, J.R., and 

Kollat, J.B., 2013, Evolutionary multiobjective optimization 

in water resources; The past, present, and future: Advances in 

Water Resources, 51, p. 438–456, 

http://doi.org/10.1016/j.advwatres.2012.01.005.

Singh, A., 2014, Optimization modelling for seawater intrusion 

management: Journal of Hydrology, v. 508, p. 43–52.

Sreekanth, J., and Datta, B., 2015, Review; Simulationoptimization models for the management and monitoring 

of coastal aquifers: Hydrogeology Journal, v. 23, no. 6, 

p. 1155–1166.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2017, Secondary 

drinking water standards; Guidance for nuisance chemicals: 

accessed on January 11, 2017, at https://www.epa.gov/

dwstandardsregulations/secondary-drinking-water-standardsguidance-nuisance-chemicals.

Wagner, B.J., 1995, Recent advances in simulation-optimization 

groundwater management modeling: Review in Geophysics, 

v. 33, p. 1021–1028.

Wang, W., and Ahlfeld, D.P., 1994, Optimal groundwater 

remediation with well locations as a decision variable; Model 

development: Water Resources Research, v. 30, no. 5, p. 

1605–1618.

Ward, V.L., Singh, R., Reed, P.M., and Keller, K., 2015, 

Confronting tipping points; Can multi-objective evolutionary 

algorithms discover pollution control tradeoffs given 

environmental thresholds?: Environmental Modelling and 

Software, v. 73, p. 27–43, 

http://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsoft.2015.07.020.

Willis, R.L., 1979, A planning model for the management of 

groundwater quality: Water Resources Research, v. 15, no. 6, 

p. 1305–1312.

Yeh, W.W.-G., 1992, Systems analysis in groundwater planning 

and management: Journal of Water Resources Planning and 

Management, v. 118, no. 1, p. 224–237.
Chapter D: Multi-Objective Simulation-Optimization Model 323

Appendix D–1: Schedule 1D Pumpage, by Well, Santa Barbara Multi-Objective 

Management Model, Santa Barbara, California
324 Santa Barbara and Foothill Groundwater Basins Geohydrology and Optimal Water Resources Management

Figure D1–1. Optimal quarterly pumpage for the Alameda Park well, schedule 1D, Santa Barbara, California.

sac16-0626_IP-075076_appendixD1_fig1a Appendix D–1

0 25 50 75 100 125 150 175 200

Pumpage, in acre-feet

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

Quarter
Chapter D: Multi-Objective Simulation-Optimization Model 325

Figure D1–2. Optimal quarterly pumpage for the City Hall well, schedule 1D, Santa Barbara, California.

sac16-0626_IP-075076_appendixD1_fig1b

0 25 50 75 100 125 150 175 200

Pumpage, in acre-feet

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

Quarter
326 Santa Barbara and Foothill Groundwater Basins Geohydrology and Optimal Water Resources Management

Figure D1–3. Optimal quarterly pumpage for the Corporation Yard well, schedule 1D, Santa Barbara, California.

sac16-0626_IP-075076_appendixD1_fig1c

0 25 50 75 100 125 150 175 200

Pumpage, in acre-feet

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

Quarter
Chapter D: Multi-Objective Simulation-Optimization Model 327

Figure D1–4. Optimal quarterly pumpage for the Ortega Park well, schedule 1D, Santa Barbara, California.

sac16-0626_IP-075076_appendixD1_fig1g

0 25 50 75 100 125 150 175 200

Pumpage, in acre-feet

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

Quarter
328 Santa Barbara and Foothill Groundwater Basins Geohydrology and Optimal Water Resources Management

Figure D1–5. Optimal quarterly pumpage for the Santa Barbara High School well, schedule 1D, Santa Barbara, California.

sac16-0626_IP-075076_appendixD1_fig1i

0 25 50 75 100 125 150 175 200

Pumpage, in acre-feet

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

Quarter
Chapter D: Multi-Objective Simulation-Optimization Model 329

Figure D1–6. Optimal quarterly pumpage for the Vera Cruz well, schedule 1D, Santa Barbara, California.

sac16-0626_IP-075076_appendixD1_fig1k

0 25 50 75 100 125 150 175 200

Pumpage, in acre-feet

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

Quarter
330 Santa Barbara and Foothill Groundwater Basins Geohydrology and Optimal Water Resources Management

Figure D1–7. Optimal quarterly pumpage for the Hope Avenue well, schedule 1D, Santa Barbara, California.

sac16-0626_IP-075076_appendixD1_fig1d

0 25 50 75 100 125 150 175 200

Pumpage, in acre-feet

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

Quarter
Chapter D: Multi-Objective Simulation-Optimization Model 331

Figure D1–8. Optimal quarterly pumpage for the Lincolnwood 1 well, schedule 1D, Santa Barbara, California.

sac16-0626_IP-075076_appendixD1_fig1e

0 25 50 75 100 125 150 175 200

Pumpage, in acre-feet

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

Quarter
332 Santa Barbara and Foothill Groundwater Basins Geohydrology and Optimal Water Resources Management

Figure D1–9. Optimal quarterly pumpage for the Los Robles well, schedule 1D, Santa Barbara, California.

sac16-0626_IP-075076_appendixD1_fig1f

0 25 50 75 100 125 150 175 200

Pumpage, in acre-feet

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

Quarter
Chapter D: Multi-Objective Simulation-Optimization Model 333

Figure D1–10. Optimal quarterly pumpage for the San Roque Park 2 well, schedule 1D, Santa Barbara, California.

sac16-0626_IP-075076_appendixD1_fig1h

0 25 50 75 100 125 150 175 200

Pumpage, in acre-feet

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

Quarter
334 Santa Barbara and Foothill Groundwater Basins Geohydrology and Optimal Water Resources Management

Figure D1–11. Optimal quarterly pumpage for the Val Verde well, schedule 1D, Santa Barbara, California.

sac16-0626_IP-075076_appendixD1_fig1j

0 25 50 75 100 125 150 175 200

Pumpage, in acre-feet

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

Quarter
Chapter D: Multi-Objective Simulation-Optimization Model 335

Appendix D–2: Schedule 2D Pumpage, by Well, Santa Barbara Multi-Objective 

Management Model, Santa Barbara, California

Appendix D–2
336 Santa Barbara and Foothill Groundwater Basins Geohydrology and Optimal Water Resources Management

Figure D2–1. Optimal quarterly pumpage for the Alameda Park well, schedule 2D, Santa Barbara, California.

sac16-0626_IP-075076_appendixD2_fig1k

0 25 50 75 100 125 150 175 200

Pumpage, in acre-feet

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

Quarter
Chapter D: Multi-Objective Simulation-Optimization Model 337

Figure D2–2. Optimal quarterly pumpage for the City Hall well, schedule 2D, Santa Barbara, California.

sac16-0626_IP-075076_appendixD2_fig1a

0 25 50 75 100 125 150 175 200

Pumpage, in acre-feet

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

Quarter
338 Santa Barbara and Foothill Groundwater Basins Geohydrology and Optimal Water Resources Management

Figure D2–3. Optimal quarterly pumpage for the Corporation Yard well, schedule 2D, Santa Barbara, California.

sac16-0626_IP-075076_appendixD2_fig1b

0 25 50 75 100 125 150 175 200

Pumpage, in acre-feet

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

Quarter
Chapter D: Multi-Objective Simulation-Optimization Model 339

Figure D2–4. Optimal quarterly pumpage for the Ortega Park well, schedule 2D, Santa Barbara, California.

sac16-0626_IP-075076_appendixD2_fig1f

0 25 50 75 100 125 150 175 200

Pumpage, in acre-feet

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

Quarter
340 Santa Barbara and Foothill Groundwater Basins Geohydrology and Optimal Water Resources Management

Figure D2–5. Optimal quarterly pumpage for the Santa Barbara High School well, schedule 2D, Santa Barbara, California.

sac16-0626_IP-075076_appendixD2_fig1h

0 25 50 75 100 125 150 175 200

Pumpage, in acre-feet

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

Quarter
Chapter D: Multi-Objective Simulation-Optimization Model 341

Figure D2–6. Optimal quarterly pumpage for the Vera Cruz well, schedule 2D, Santa Barbara, California.

sac16-0626_IP-075076_appendixD2_fig1j

0 25 50 75 100 125 150 175 200

Pumpage, in acre-feet

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

Quarter
342 Santa Barbara and Foothill Groundwater Basins Geohydrology and Optimal Water Resources Management

Figure D2–7. Optimal quarterly pumpage for the Hope Avenue well, schedule 2D, Santa Barbara, California.

sac16-0626_IP-075076_appendixD2_fig1c

0 25 50 75 100 125 150 175 200

Pumpage, in acre-feet

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

Quarter
Chapter D: Multi-Objective Simulation-Optimization Model 343

Figure D2–8. Optimal quarterly pumpage for the Lincolnwood 1 well, schedule 2D, Santa Barbara, California.

sac16-0626_IP-075076_appendixD2_fig1d

0 25 50 75 100 125 150 175 200

Pumpage, in acre-feet

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

Quarter
344 Santa Barbara and Foothill Groundwater Basins Geohydrology and Optimal Water Resources Management

Figure D2–9. Optimal quarterly pumpage for the Los Robles well, schedule 2D, Santa Barbara, California.

sac16-0626_IP-075076_appendixD2_fig1e

0 25 50 75 100 125 150 175 200

Pumpage, in acre-feet

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

Quarter
Chapter D: Multi-Objective Simulation-Optimization Model 345

Figure D2–10. Optimal quarterly pumpage for the San Roque Park 2 well, schedule 2D, Santa Barbara, California.

sac16-0626_IP-075076_appendixD2_fig1g

0 25 50 75 100 125 150 175 200

Pumpage, in acre-feet

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

Quarter
346 Santa Barbara and Foothill Groundwater Basins Geohydrology and Optimal Water Resources Management

Figure D2–11. Optimal quarterly pumpage for the Val Verde well, schedule 2D, Santa Barbara, California.

sac16-0626_IP-075076_appendixD2_fig1i

0 25 50 75 100 125 150 175 200

Pumpage, in acre-feet

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

Quarter
Chapter D: Multi-Objective Simulation-Optimization Model 347

Appendix D–3: Scenario 3 Pumpage, by Well, Santa Barbara Multi-Objective 

Management Model, Santa Barbara, California

Appendix D–3
348 Santa Barbara and Foothill Groundwater Basins Geohydrology and Optimal Water Resources Management

Figure D3–1. Quarterly pumpage (scaled from schedule 1D to meet the demand of the Ortega water treatment plant) for the Alameda 

Park well, scenario 3, typical conditions, Santa Barbara, California.

sac16-0626_IP-075076_appendixD3_fig1a

0 25 50 75 100 125 150 175 200

Pumpage, in acre-feet

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

Quarter
Chapter D: Multi-Objective Simulation-Optimization Model 349

Figure D3–2. Quarterly pumpage (scaled from schedule 1D to meet the demand of the Ortega water treatment plant) for the City Hall 

well, scenario 3, typical conditions, Santa Barbara, California.

sac16-0626_IP-075076_appendixD3_fig1b

0 25 50 75 100 125 150 175 200

Pumpage, in acre-feet

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

Quarter
350 Santa Barbara and Foothill Groundwater Basins Geohydrology and Optimal Water Resources Management

Figure D3–3. Quarterly pumpage (scaled from schedule 1D to meet the demand of the Ortega water treatment plant) for the Corporation 

Yard well, scenario 3, typical conditions, Santa Barbara, California.

sac16-0626_IP-075076_appendixD3_fig1c

0 25 50 75 100 125 150 175 200

Pumpage, in acre-feet

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

Quarter
Chapter D: Multi-Objective Simulation-Optimization Model 351

Figure D3–4. Quarterly pumpage (scaled from schedule 1D to meet the demand of the Ortega water treatment plant) for the Ortega 

Park well, scenario 3, typical conditions, Santa Barbara, California.

sac16-0626_IP-075076_appendixD3_fig1d

0 25 50 75 100 125 150 175 200

Pumpage, in acre-feet

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

Quarter
352 Santa Barbara and Foothill Groundwater Basins Geohydrology and Optimal Water Resources Management

Figure D3–5. Quarterly pumpage (scaled from schedule 1D to meet the demand of the Ortega water treatment plant) for the Santa 

Barbara High School well, scenario 3, typical conditions, Santa Barbara, California.

sac16-0626_IP-075076_appendixD3_fig1e

0 25 50 75 100 125 150 175 200

Pumpage, in acre-feet

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

Quarter
Chapter D: Multi-Objective Simulation-Optimization Model 353

Figure D3–6. Quarterly pumpage (scaled from schedule 1D to meet the demand of the Ortega water treatment plant) for the Vera Cruz 

well, scenario 3, typical conditions, Santa Barbara, California.

sac16-0626_IP-075076_appendixD3_fig1f

0 25 50 75 100 125 150 175 200

Pumpage, in acre-feet

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

Quarter
354 Santa Barbara and Foothill Groundwater Basins Geohydrology and Optimal Water Resources Management

Figure D3–7. Quarterly pumpage (scaled from schedule 2D to meet the demand of the Ortega water treatment plant) for the Alameda 

Park well, scenario 3, drought conditions, Santa Barbara, California.

sac16-0626_IP-075076_appendixD3_fig1g

0 25 50 75 100 125 150 175 200

Pumpage, in acre-feet

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

Quarter
Chapter D: Multi-Objective Simulation-Optimization Model 355

Figure D3–8. Quarterly pumpage (scaled from schedule 2D to meet the demand of the Ortega water treatment plant) for the City Hall 

well, scenario 3, drought conditions, Santa Barbara, California.

sac16-0626_IP-075076_appendixD3_fig1h

0 25 50 75 100 125 150 175 200

Pumpage, in acre-feet

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

Quarter
356 Santa Barbara and Foothill Groundwater Basins Geohydrology and Optimal Water Resources Management

Figure D3–9. Quarterly pumpage (scaled from schedule 2D to meet the demand of the Ortega water treatment plant) for the Corporation 

Yard well, scenario 3, drought conditions, Santa Barbara, California.

sac16-0626_IP-075076_appendixD3_fig1i

0 25 50 75 100 125 150 175 200

Pumpage, in acre-feet

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

Quarter
Chapter D: Multi-Objective Simulation-Optimization Model 357

Figure D3–10. Quarterly pumpage (scaled from schedule 2D to meet the demand of the Ortega water treatment plant) for the Ortega 

Park well, scenario 3, drought conditions, Santa Barbara, California.

sac16-0626_IP-075076_appendixD3_fig1j

0 25 50 75 100 125 150 175 200

Pumpage, in acre-feet

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

Quarter
358 Santa Barbara and Foothill Groundwater Basins Geohydrology and Optimal Water Resources Management

Figure D3–11. Quarterly pumpage (scaled from schedule 2D to meet the demand of the Ortega water treatment plant) for the Santa 

Barbara High School well, scenario 3, drought conditions, Santa Barbara, California.

sac16-0626_IP-075076_appendixD3_fig1k

0 25 50 75 100 125 150 175 200

Pumpage, in acre-feet

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

Quarter
Chapter D: Multi-Objective Simulation-Optimization Model 359

Figure D3–12. Quarterly pumpage (scaled from schedule 2D to meet the demand of the Ortega water treatment plant) for the Vera Cruz 

well, scenario 3, drought conditions, Santa Barbara, California.

sac16-0626_IP-075076_appendixD3_fig1l

0 25 50 75 100 125 150 175 200

Pumpage, in acre-feet

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

Quarter
360 Santa Barbara and Foothill Groundwater Basins Geohydrology and Optimal Water Resources Management

Appendix D–4: Scenario 4B Decision Rules, Santa Barbara Multi-Objective 

Management Model, Santa Barbara, California
Chapter D: Multi-Objective Simulation-Optimization Model 361

Appendix D–4

Figure D4–1. Decision rules for total Foothill groundwater basin pumpage as a function of maximum drawdown at the city of Santa 

Barbara production wells assuming scenario 1 (typical) precipitation, Santa Barbara groundwater basin, Santa Barbara, California (the 

yellow dot represents the total schedule 1D pumpage for Foothill groundwater basin), A, Alameda Park; B, City Hall; C, Corporation Yard; 

D, Hope Avenue; E, Lincolnwood 1; F, Los Robles; G, Ortega Park; H, San Roque Park 2; I, Santa Barbara High School; J, Val Verde; and 

K, Vera Cruz. sac16-0626_IP-075076_appendixD4_fig1AB

B

Pumpage, in acre-feet

Drawdown, in feet

A

Pumpage, in acre-feet

Drawdown, in feet

10,000

9,500

9,000

8,500

8,000

7,500

7,000

10,000

9,500

9,000

8,500

8,000

7,500

7,000

Well: Alameda Park

EXPLANATION

(76, 7,461)

40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120

Well: City Hall

EXPLANATION

(57, 7,461)

40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120
362 Santa Barbara and Foothill Groundwater Basins Geohydrology and Optimal Water Resources Management

Figure D4–1. —Continued

sac16-0626_IP-075076_appendixD4_fig1CD Pumpage, in acre-feet

Drawdown, in feet

Pumpage, in acre-feet

Drawdown, in feet

10,000

9,500

9,000

8,500

8,000

7,500

7,000

10,000

9,500

9,000

8,500

8,000

7,500

7,000

Well: Corporation Yard

EXPLANATION

(52, 7,461)

40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120

Well: Hope Avenue

EXPLANATION

(104, 7,461)

80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160

C

D
Chapter D: Multi-Objective Simulation-Optimization Model 363

Figure D4–1. —Continued

E

F

sac16-0626_IP-075076_appendixD4_fig1EF Pumpage, in acre-feet

Drawdown, in feet

Pumpage, in acre-feet

Drawdown, in feet

10,000

9,500

9,000

8,500

8,000

7,500

7,000

10,000

9,500

9,000

8,500

8,000

7,500

7,000

Well: Lincolnwood 1

EXPLANATION

(29, 7,461)

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

Well: Los Robles

EXPLANATION

(22, 7,461)

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
364 Santa Barbara and Foothill Groundwater Basins Geohydrology and Optimal Water Resources Management

Figure D4–1. —Continued

G

H

sac16-0626_IP-075076_appendixD4_fig1GH Pumpage, in acre-feet

Drawdown, in feet

Pumpage, in acre-feet

Drawdown, in feet

10,000

9,500

9,000

8,500

8,000

7,500

7,000

10,000

9,500

9,000

8,500

8,000

7,500

7,000

Well: Ortega Park

EXPLANATION

(90, 7,461)

80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160

Well: San Roque Park (2)

EXPLANATION

(79, 7,461)

60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140
Chapter D: Multi-Objective Simulation-Optimization Model 365

Figure D4–1. —Continued

I

J

sac16-0626_IP-075076_appendixD4_fig1IJ Pumpage, in acre-feet

Drawdown, in feet

Pumpage, in acre-feet

Drawdown, in feet

10,000

9,500

9,000

8,500

8,000

7,500

7,000

10,000

9,500

9,000

8,500

8,000

7,500

7,000

Well: Santa Barbara High School

EXPLANATION

(87, 7,461)

60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140

Well: Val Verde

EXPLANATION

(53, 7,461)

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
366 Santa Barbara and Foothill Groundwater Basins Geohydrology and Optimal Water Resources Management

Figure D4–1. —Continued

K

sac16-0626_IP-075076_appendixD4_fig1K Pumpage, in acre-feet

Drawdown, in feet

10,000

9,500

9,000

8,500

8,000

7,500

7,000

Well: Vera Cruz

EXPLANATION

(64, 7,461)

40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120
Chapter D: Multi-Objective Simulation-Optimization Model 367

Figure D4–2. Decision rules for total Storage Unit I pumpage as a function of maximum drawdown at the city of Santa Barbara 

production wells assuming scenario 1 (typical) precipitation, Santa Barbara groundwater basin, Santa Barbara, California (the yellow 

dot represents the total schedule 1D pumpage for Storage Unit I), A, Alameda Park; B, City Hall; C, Corporation Yard; D, Hope Avenue; 

E, Lincolnwood 1; F, Los Robles; G, Ortega Park; H, San Roque Park 2; I, Santa Barbara High School; J, Val Verde; and K, Vera Cruz.

A

B

sac16-0626_IP-075076_appendixD4_fig2_AB Pumpage, in acre-feet

Drawdown, in feet

21,000

20,000

19,000

18,000

17,000

16,000

15,000

14,000

Pumpage, in acre-feet

Drawdown, in feet

21,000

20,000

19,000

18,000

17,000

16,000

15,000

14,000

(76, 16,203)

Well: Alameda Park

EXPLANATION

40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120

(57, 16,203)

Well: City Hall

EXPLANATION

40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120
368 Santa Barbara and Foothill Groundwater Basins Geohydrology and Optimal Water Resources Management

Figure D4–2. —Continued

C

D

sac16-0626_IP-075076_appendixD4_fig2_CD Pumpage, in acre-feet

Drawdown, in feet

21,000

20,000

19,000

18,000

17,000

16,000

15,000

14,000

Pumpage, in acre-feet

Drawdown, in feet

21,000

20,000

19,000

18,000

17,000

16,000

15,000

14,000

(52, 16,203)

Well: Corporation Yard

EXPLANATION

40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120

(104, 16,203)

Well: Hope Avenue

EXPLANATION

80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160
Chapter D: Multi-Objective Simulation-Optimization Model 369

Figure D4–2. —Continued

E

F

sac16-0626_IP-075076_appendixD4_fig2_EF Pumpage, in acre-feet

Drawdown, in feet

21,000

20,000

19,000

18,000

17,000

16,000

15,000

14,000

21,000

20,000

19,000

18,000

17,000

16,000

15,000

14,000

Pumpage, in acre-feet

Drawdown, in feet

(29, 16,203)

Well: Lincolnwood 1

EXPLANATION

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

(22, 16,203)

Well: Los Robles

EXPLANATION

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
370 Santa Barbara and Foothill Groundwater Basins Geohydrology and Optimal Water Resources Management

Figure D4–2. —Continued

G

H

sac16-0626_IP-075076_appendixD4_fig2_GH Pumpage, in acre-feet

Drawdown, in feet

21,000

20,000

19,000

18,000

17,000

16,000

15,000

14,000

Pumpage, in acre-feet

Drawdown, in feet

21,000

20,000

19,000

18,000

17,000

16,000

15,000

14,000

(90, 16,203)

Well: Ortega Park

EXPLANATION

80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160

(79, 16,203)

Well: San Roque Park (2)

EXPLANATION

60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140
Chapter D: Multi-Objective Simulation-Optimization Model 371

Figure D4–2. —Continued

I

J

sac16-0626_IP-075076_appendixD4_fig2_IJ Pumpage, in acre-feet

Drawdown, in feet

21,000

20,000

19,000

18,000

17,000

16,000

15,000

14,000

Pumpage, in acre-feet

Drawdown, in feet

21,000

20,000

19,000

18,000

17,000

16,000

15,000

14,000

(87, 16,203)

Well: Santa Barbara High School

EXPLANATION

60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140

(53, 16,203)

Well: Val Verde

EXPLANATION

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
372 Santa Barbara and Foothill Groundwater Basins Geohydrology and Optimal Water Resources Management

Figure D4–2. —Continued

K

sac16-0626_IP-075076_appendixD4_fig2_K Pumpage, in acre-feet

Drawdown, in feet

21,000

20,000

19,000

18,000

17,000

16,000

15,000

14,000

(64, 16,203)

Well: Vera Cruz

EXPLANATION

40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120
Chapter D: Multi-Objective Simulation-Optimization Model 373

Figure D4–3. Decision rules for total Foothill groundwater basin pumpage as a function of maximum drawdown at the city of Santa 

Barbara production wells assuming scenario 2 (dry) precipitation, Santa Barbara groundwater basin, Santa Barbara, California (the 

yellow dot represents the total schedule 2D pumpage for Foothill groundwater basin), A, Alameda Park; B, City Hall; C, Corporation Yard; 

D, Hope Avenue; E, Lincolnwood 1; F, Los Robles; G, Ortega Park; H, San Roque Park 2; I, Santa Barbara High School; J, Val Verde; and 

K, Vera Cruz. sac16-0626_IP-075076_appendixD4_fig3AB

B

Well: City Hall

EXPLANATION

(69, 8,129)

40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120

Pumpage, in acre-feet

10,000

9,500

9,000

8,500

8,000

7,500

7,000

Pumpage, in acre-feet

Drawdown, in feet

10,000

9,500

9,000

8,500

8,000

7,500

7,000

Well: Alameda Park

EXPLANATION

(91, 8,129)

40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120

A
374 Santa Barbara and Foothill Groundwater Basins Geohydrology and Optimal Water Resources Management

Figure D4–3. —Continued

sac16-0626_IP-075076_appendixD4_fig3CD Pumpage, in acre-feet

Drawdown, in feet

10,000

9,500

9,000

8,500

8,000

7,500

7,000

C

Well: Corporation Yard

EXPLANATION

(68, 8,129)

40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120

D

Pumpage, in acre-feet

Drawdown, in feet

10,000

9,500

9,000

8,500

8,000

7,500

7,000

(110, 8,129)

Well: Hope Avenue

EXPLANATION

80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160
Chapter D: Multi-Objective Simulation-Optimization Model 375

Figure D4–3. —Continued

sac16-0626_IP-075076_appendixD4_fig3_EF

F

Pumpage, in acre-feet

Drawdown, in feet

10,000

9,500

9,000

8,500

8,000

7,500

7,000

(41, 8,129)

Well: Los Robles

EXPLANATION

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

E

Pumpage, in acre-feet

Drawdown, in feet

10,000

9,500

9,000

8,500

8,000

7,500

7,000

(43, 8,129)

Well: Lincolnwood 1

EXPLANATION

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
376 Santa Barbara and Foothill Groundwater Basins Geohydrology and Optimal Water Resources Management

Figure D4–3. —Continued

G

sac16-0626_IP-075076_appendixD4_fig3_GH

10,000

9,500

9,000

8,500

8,000

7,500

7,000

Pumpage, in acre-feet

Drawdown, in feet

(123, 8,129)

Well: Ortega Park

EXPLANATION

60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140

H

Pumpage, in acre-feet

Drawdown, in feet

10,000

9,500

9,000

8,500

8,000

7,500

7,000

(86, 8,129)

Well: San Roque Park (2)

EXPLANATION

60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140
Chapter D: Multi-Objective Simulation-Optimization Model 377

Figure D4–3. —Continued

I

sac16-0626_IP-075076_appendixD4_fig3_IJ

J

Pumpage, in acre-feet

Drawdown, in feet

10,000

9,500

9,000

8,500

8,000

7,500

7,000

(54, 8,129)

Well: Val Verde

EXPLANATION

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

10,000

9,500

9,000

8,500

8,000

7,500

7,000

Pumpage, in acre-feet

Drawdown, in feet

(81, 8,129)

Well: Santa Barbara High School

EXPLANATION

60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140
378 Santa Barbara and Foothill Groundwater Basins Geohydrology and Optimal Water Resources Management

Figure D4–3. —Continued

K

sac16-0626_IP-075076_appendixD4_fig3_K

10,000

9,500

9,000

8,500

8,000

7,500

7,000

Pumpage, in acre-feet

Drawdown, in feet

(78, 8,129)

Well: Vera Cruz

EXPLANATION

40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120
Chapter D: Multi-Objective Simulation-Optimization Model 379

Figure D4–4. Decision rules for total Storage Unit I pumpage as a function of maximum drawdown at the city of Santa Barbara 

production wells assuming scenario 2 (dry) precipitation, Santa Barbara groundwater basin, Santa Barbara, California (the yellow 

dot represents the total schedule 2D pumpage for Storage Unit I), A, Alameda Park; B, City Hall; C, Corporation Yard; D, Hope Avenue; 

E, Lincolnwood 1; F, Los Robles; G, Ortega Park; H, San Roque Park 2; I, Santa Barbara High School; J, Val Verde; and K, Vera Cruz.

sac16-0626_IP-075076_appendixD4_fig4_AB

B

Pumpage, in acre-feet

Drawdown, in feet

21,000

20,000

19,000

18,000

17,000

16,000

15,000

14,000

(69, 16,090)

Well: City Hall

EXPLANATION

40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120

A

Pumpage, in acre-feet

Drawdown, in feet

21,000

20,000

19,000

18,000

17,000

16,000

15,000

14,000

(91, 16,090)

Well: Alameda Park

EXPLANATION

40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120
380 Santa Barbara and Foothill Groundwater Basins Geohydrology and Optimal Water Resources Management

Figure D4–4. —Continued

sac16-0626_IP-075076_appendixD4_fig4_CD

D

Pumpage, in acre-feet

Drawdown, in feet

21,000

20,000

19,000

18,000

17,000

16,000

15,000

14,000

(110, 16,090)

Well: Hope Avenue

EXPLANATION

C

Pumpage, in acre-feet

Drawdown, in feet

21,000

20,000

19,000

18,000

17,000

16,000

15,000

14,000

(68, 16,090)

Well: Lincolnwood 1

EXPLANATION

40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120

40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120
Chapter D: Multi-Objective Simulation-Optimization Model 381

Figure D4–4. —Continued

sac16-0626_IP-075076_appendixD4_fig4_EF

F

Pumpage, in acre-feet

Drawdown, in feet

21,000

20,000

19,000

18,000

17,000

16,000

15,000

14,000

(41, 16,090)

Well: Los Robles

EXPLANATION

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

E

Pumpage, in acre-feet

Drawdown, in feet

21,000

20,000

19,000

18,000

17,000

16,000

15,000

14,000

(43, 16,090)

Well: Lincolnwood 1

EXPLANATION

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
382 Santa Barbara and Foothill Groundwater Basins Geohydrology and Optimal Water Resources Management

Figure D4–4. —Continued

sac16-0626_IP-075076_appendixD4_fig4_gh

H

Pumpage, in acre-feet

Drawdown, in feet

21,000

20,000

19,000

18,000

17,000

16,000

15,000

14,000

(86, 16,090)

Well: San Roque Park (2)

EXPLANATION

60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140

G

Pumpage, in acre-feet

Drawdown, in feet

21,000

20,000

19,000

18,000

17,000

16,000

15,000

14,000

(123, 16,090)

Well: Ortega Park

EXPLANATION

60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140
Chapter D: Multi-Objective Simulation-Optimization Model 383

Figure D4–4. —Continued

sac16-0626_IP-075076_appendixD4_fig4_IJ

J

Pumpage, in acre-feet

Drawdown, in feet

21,000

20,000

19,000

18,000

17,000

16,000

15,000

14,000

(54, 16,090)

Well: Val Verde

EXPLANATION

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

I

Pumpage, in acre-feet

Drawdown, in feet

21,000

20,000

19,000

18,000

17,000

16,000

15,000

14,000

(81, 16,090)

Well: Santa Barbara High School

EXPLANATION

60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140
384 Santa Barbara and Foothill Groundwater Basins Geohydrology and Optimal Water Resources Management

Figure D4–4. —Continued

sac16-0626_IP-075076_appendixD4_fig4_K

K

Pumpage, in acre-feet

Drawdown, in feet

21,000

20,000

19,000

18,000

17,000

16,000

15,000

14,000

(78, 16,090)

Well: Vera Cruz

EXPLANATION

40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120
Publishing support provided by the U.S. Geological Survey

 Science Publishing Network, Sacramento Publishing Service Center

For more information concerning the research of this report, contact the

 Director, California Water Science Center

 U.S. Geological Survey

 6000 J Street, Placer Hall

 Sacramento, California 95819

 http://ca.water.usgs.gov
Nishikawa and others—Santa Barbara and Foothill Groundwater Basins Geohydrology and Optimal Water Resources Management—Develooped using Density 

Dependent Solute Transport and Optimization Models—Scientific Investigations Report 2018–5059

ISSN 2328-0328 (online)

https://doi.org/10.3133/sir20185059