MEMORANDUM
TO: CITY COUNCIL $ FROM: TERESA MCCLISH~ COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR
SUBJECT: UPDATE ON THE DRAFT INTEGRATED REGIONAL WATER RESOURCES MANAGEMENT PLAN. AND DRAFT REGIONAL RECYCLED WATER STUDY
DATE: JULY 8, 2014
RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council receive the update on the draft Integrated Regional Water Resources Managem_ent Plan (IRWMP) and draft Regional Recycled Water Study (RRWS).
FINANCIAL IMPACT: No Fiscal impact.
BACKGROUND: Integrated Regional Water Management Plan (IRWMP) The IRWM Plan presents a comprehensive water resources management approach to managing the region's water resources focused on strategies to better the sustainability of the current and future· needs of San Luis Obispo County. This plan was written to meet the latest IRWM requirements while balancing the needs of the participating agencies with the State's need to have a full, well though-out plan to base implementation of future water resources projects/programs. The County of San Luis Obispo (County) is the lead agency in the development of the updated IRWMP for the Region. The City is a signatory to the San Luis Obispo County Region Memorandum of Understanding for the IRWMP program.
Water Systems Consulting, the consultant for the Northern Cities Management Area (NCMA) prepared the attached technical memorandum to provide a brief introduction of the Public Draft SLO County IRWMP and provide prioritized sections, as attachments, of the IRWMP (Attachment 1). The NCMA is comprised of the Oceana Community Services District and the cities of Arroyo Grande, Grover Beach and Pismo Beach. The NCMA Technical Group prepared comments for the July 7, 2014 deadline comment deadline (not available at time of agenda preparation). The deadline for submitting the IRWMP to the California Department of Water Resources (DWR) is July 21, 2014. The Regional Water Management Group (RWMG) and The Water Resources Advisory Committee (WRAC) will vote to adopt the document at the August 6, 2014 meetings.
Item 8.m. - Page 1 CITY COUNCIL JULY 8, 2014 DRAFT INTEGRATED. REGIONAL WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN. AND DRAFT RECYCLED WATER STUDIES PAGE2
The IRWMP is scheduled on the County Board of Supervisor's agenda on August 12, 2014. Individual agencies will be asked to adopt the IRWMP in September. The link to the IRWMP document is: http://www.slocountywater.org/site/Frequent%20Downloads/lntegrated%20Regional%2 0Water%20Management%20Plan/IRWM%20Plan%20Update%202014/
Regional Recycled Water Strategic Plan (RRWSP) The 2007 SLO IRWMP (County, 2007) identified recycled water as one of the key strategies from providing long-term water supply reliability for the region in addition to diversifying water supply portfolios, reducing reliance on surface water imports, eliminating the discharge of treated wastewater to the ocean, and reducing conflicts associated with limited regional water sources. The Regional Recycled Water Strategic Plan (RRWSP) is one component of an update to the SLO IRWMP and is funded by a Round 2 IRWM Regional Planning Grant from the California Department of Water Resources (DWR).
The RRWSP covers region wide recycled water opportunities and has focused evaluations within four study areas:
1. Morro Bay 2. Nipomo (Nipomo Community Services District (CSD)) 3. Northern Cities (Arroyo Grande, Grover Beach, Pismo Beach, Oceano CSD, and South San Luis Obispo County Sanitation District (SSLOCSD)) 4. Templeton {Templeton CSD)
The study identifies opportunities and constraints and recommends next steps for each of the study areas. The Executive Summary is attached and the co-mplete report can be accessed at:
http://www.slocountywater.org/site/Frequent%20Downloads/lntegrated%20Regional%2 0Water%20Management%20Plan/Recycled%20Water/.
ANALYSIS OF ISSUES: Integrated Regional Water Management Plan (IRWMP) The objective of the 2014 IRWM Plan Update is directed at building upon the changes that have occurred since 2007, summarized as follows:
• Build on the successful collaboration and planning presented in the 2007 IRWM Plan • Incorporate and consider the four Proposition 50 planning studies • Address the enhanced IRWM planning standards
Item 8.m. - Page 2 CITY COUNCIL JULY 8, 2014 DRAFT INTEGRATED REGIONAL WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN AND DRAFT RECYCLED WATER STUDIES PAGE3
• Consider changed regional conditions (i.e., groundwater/surface water availability • and increased agricultural and urban water demands) and enhanced planning approaches, including a revised governance approach • Address the highest priority data gaps and planning needs as determined through a public solicitation and review process
Resolution of conflicts is identified as a 9ritical task in the implementation of the IRWM Plan. The plan identifies that conflicts and issues within the SLO Region have historical, geographic, technical, and institutional components, and center around three main areas: 1) groundwater management; 2) environmental stewardship while fostering planned urban growth; and 3) needs within low income and disadvantaged communities. Groundwater and its sustainability amongst a multitude of active groundwater basins is noted as the center of much conflict resulting in various forms of groundwater management and governance bodies. The intent stated in the plan is to continue to address conflict and foster local control of groundwater where resolution policies and programs are based on the use of high quality data for groundwater elevations, quality and sustainability. Conflicts involving fisheries and habitat are also addressed through programs that involve education and coordinated implementation for both uses throughout the SLO Region. Finally, the cost of water and decreased availability is addressed with respect to disadvantaged communities. The plan includes measures and criteria to address these issues iri project selection.
According to the plan, a list of specific implementable projects and programs was selected through a series of Sub-Region workshops, electronic notifications, and Regional Water Management Group meetings. Each project and program was prioritized within the context of this IRWM Plan, with the intent that all projects meet the Goals and Objectives described fully in Section E- IRWM Goals and Objectives. All eligible projects and programs are incorporated in the IRWM Plan (see Section G - Project Solicitation, Selection and Prioritization) and described briefly in Table G-1.
Projects specific to the NCMA area that were identified in the Long Form (initial list) include: • Oceana Drainage Improvement Project - Hwy 1 & 13th Street - South County Flood Management $1 M-$5M • Lopez Water Treatment Plant Membrane Rack Addition - South County Water Management $500K-$1 M • Lopez Lake Spillway Raise Project - South County Water Supply >$5M • NCMA_NMMA Salt and Nutrient Management Plan (SNMP) - South County Water Supply $250K-$500K • Pismo Beach Recycled Water Project - South County Water Management >$5M
Item 8.m. - Page 3 CITY COUNCIL JULYS, 2014 DRAFT INTEGRATED REGIONAL WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN AND DRAFT RECYCLED WATER STUDIES PAGE4
To reduce the list and ensure the highest priority projects, the Long Form projects were filtered by criteria including readiness-to-proceed, level of satisfying IRWM Goals and Objectives, gauged level of meeting State RMS based on applicable Objectives, and a rough equivalence of Sub-Region representation. The Lopez Spillway and the NCMA Salt and Nutrient Management Plan were excluded from the Final IRWM Project Short List due to a low readiness to proceed ranking, but are still included in the full project list and included in the IRWMP. The Oceano Drainage Improvement, Lopez Water Treatment Plant Membrane Rack Addition and Pismo Beach Recycled Water Projects were selected as the highest priority projects for inclusion in the updated IRWM Plan and likely future IRWM Grant applications.
Regional Recycled Water Strategic Plan (RRWSP) The South San Luis Obispo County Sanitation District (SSLOCSD) Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP) currently discharges approximately 2.6 mgd of disinfected secondary effluent through a jointly owned ocean outfall (shared with Pismo Beach). Approximately 1.1 mgd of disinfected secondary effluent from Pismo Beach WWTP is discharged through the same ocean outfall. SSLOCSD has the largest volume of effluent considered in the RRWSP and one of the largest opportunities for large-scale reuse; however, landscape irrigation projects are expensive ($3,000+/af) and the more cost effective reuse opportunities - agricultural irrigation, industrial reuse, groundwater recharge, seawater intrusion barrier, and surface water augmentation - will require institutional, legal, outreach, and financial planning to be feasible. Next steps recommended include:
• Complete planned treatment plant improvements and re-evaluate facilities needed to implement tertiary treatment upgrade. • Track regulatory drivers and their impacts on reuse opportunities from SSLOCSD WWTP. • Address institutional issues and potential funding mechanisms for regional projects. • Incorporate salt and nutrient management planning into water, wastewater, and recycled water planning.
ALTERNATIVES: The following alternatives are provided for the Council's consideration:
1. Receive and file the update on the IRWMP and provide comments for staff to forward to San Luis Obispo County on the RRWSP; 2. Receive and file both the IRWMP and the RRWSP; 3. Provide direction to staff.
Item 8.m. - Page 4 CITY COUNCIL JULY 8, 2014 DRAFT INTEGRATED REGIONAL WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN AND DRAFT RECYCLED WATER STUDIES PAGES
ADVANTAGES: Receiving the update on the IRWMP provides information on the status and purpose of a regional document that will have implications on how future water related projects and plans will be evaluated for possible grant funding and provide a preview of the plan that will be placed on a future agenda for Council consideration. Receiving and update for the RRWSP provides information on the potential for future recycled water projects for Council consideration and allows the Council to provide comment if desired.
DISADVANTAGES: No disadvantages have been identified.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: None required.
PUBLIC NOTIFICATION: The Agenda was posted in front of City Hall and on the City's website on Thursday, July 3, 2014. No public comments were received.
Item 8.m. - Page 5 Technical
Memorandum
Date: 6/20/2014
To: NCMA Agencies
Prepared by: Daniel Heimel, P.E.
Project: FY 2013-14 NCMA Staff Extension Services
SUBJECT: SLO COUNTY IRWMP – PUBLIC DRAFT
This Technical Memorandum is intended to provide a brief introduction of the Public Draft SLO County Integrated Regional Water Management Plan (IRWMP) and provide prioritized sections, as attachments, of the IRWMP for the Northern Cities Management Area (NCMA) agencies, comprised of the Oceano Community Services District and the Cities of Arroyo Grande, Grover Beach and Pismo Beach for review and comment.
Background The purpose of the IRWMP is to present a comprehensive water resources management approach to managing the region’s water resources focused on strategies to better the sustainability of the current and future needs of San Luis Obispo County (Region). The County of San Luis Obispo (County) is the lead agency in the development of the updated IRWMP for the Region.
The IRWMP is an important regional document that includes the following elements:
Describes the Region and its water management strategies Reviews the Region’s water issues (e.g., supply, quality, storage, conveyance, etc.) Puts forward strategies to address solutions for those issues Suggests actions, programs, and capital projects that carry out those strategies Prioritizes and integrates those actions, programs, and capital projects Establishes metrics to measure and manages collected data to show the potential improvements, benefits, and impacts of the plan Provides a methodology to carry out those actions, programs and capital projects Monitors the plan’s progress and makes adjustments when needed
Developing an updated IRWMP provides the Region and its participants with the following benefits:
Provides an in-depth listing of regional water resource problems Helps focus resources on water resource priority goals Provides opportunities for diverse and integrated solutions to water resource problems Makes a concerted and documented effort to include the entire community in water planning, including disadvantaged communities (DACs) Provides opportunities to formulate integrated programs and projects that provide multiple benefits for the Region Allows the Region to apply for and accept State funding to solve water issues
Review and Comment TM_Updated SLO County IRWM Plan_Public Draft.docx
Item 8.m. - Page 6 FY 2013-14 NCMA Staff Extension Services SLO County IRWMP – Public Draft
Makes the Region participants eligible for planning and implementation grants Provides a consolidated and inclusive planning process Aligns participants to support projects that benefit the region as a whole Presents a more economic approach to tackle regional problems by combining administrative and planning costs of several agencies for some regional issues Creates the foundation for “good” regional planning
Plan Review To ensure that the IRWMP accurately represents the water resources for the NCMA and characterizes the priorities of the NCMA agencies, it is important the NCMA Stakeholders review the Public Draft and provide comments. However, given that the IRWMP is over 700 pages long, a comprehensive review by many of the stakeholders is not feasible. To assist reviewers in prioritizing which sections to review, the SLO County Staff have provided a Recommended IRWM Plan Review Priorities list (attached). Included as attachments, are the sections of the IRWMP designated as highest priority on the IRWM Plan Review Priorities list (listed below). These sections have been further edited to be limited to those areas most relevant to the NCMA agencies. A complete copy of the IRWMP can be found at http://www.slocountywater.org.
Appendix 1. Recommended IRWM Plan Review Priorities List Appendix 2. IRWMP Section A. Introduction Appendix 3. IRWMP Section C. Region Description Appendix 4. IRWMP Section D. Water Supply, Demand, and Budget
Comments Comments on the IRWMP can be provided as comments in PDF. Alternatively, Microsoft Word versions of the report sections can be provided, if desired. Comments from the NCMA agencies will be compiled and provided to the County for review.
6/20/2014 Page 2
Review and Comment TM_Updated SLO County IRWM Plan_Public Draft.docx
Item 8.m. - Page 7
Recommended IRWM Plan Review Priorities List
Item 8.m. - Page 8 Item 8.m. - Page 9
IRWMP Section A. Introduction
Item 8.m. - Page 10
Section A. Introduction
Item 8.m. - Page 11
Item 8.m. - Page 12 Section A. Introduction
Table of Contents
Section A. Introduction A-1 A.1 Purpose of the IRWM Plan ...... A-1 A.1.1 Regions Included in the IRWM Plan...... A-1 A.1.2 IRWM Plan Financial Sponsorship ...... A-3 A.1.3 Point of Contact ...... A-3 A.1.4 IRWM Plan Adoption ...... A-3 A.2 An IRWM Plan for San Luis Obispo County ...... A-4 A.3 IRWM Plan Benefits and Need for Updates ...... A-5 A.3.1 Update to the IRWM Plan...... A-6 A.4 IRWM Plan Development Process ...... A-8 A.5 Prioritized Changes ...... A-9 A.6 Meeting the 2012 IRWM Plan Guideline Requirements ...... A-9
Figures Figure A-1. IRWM Plan Region, Sub-Regions, and Water Planning Areas ...... A-2 Figure A-2. Introducing New Material to the IRWM Plan ...... A-7 Figure A-3. Simplified 8-Step Approach to Updating the IRWM Plan ...... A-8 Figure A-4. Tiered Improvements to IRWM Sections ...... A-9
Tables Table A-1. List of Participating Member Agencies ...... A-4 Table A-2. IRWM Plan Update Standards Reference ...... A-10
Item 8.m. - Page 13
14 Page - 8.m. Item
(This page Intentionally left blank) left (This Intentionally page
Section A. Introduction
This section describes the purpose of the San Luis Obispo County Integrated Regional Water Management Plan (IRWM Plan) and the regulatory guidelines and requirements driving much of the content and material included in the plan. In addition, this section serves as a roadmap for the IRWM Plan and includes brief descriptions and references to those portions of the plan where topic-related information is located. This section states how the plan meets the overall 2012 California Department of Water Resources (DWR) Guidelines (State Guidelines), and requirements for DWR approval specified in Appendix H of the State Guidelines, The Final Plan Review Process.
A.1 PURPOSE OF THE IRWM PLAN
The IRWM Plan presents a comprehensive water resources management approach to managing the region’s water resources focused on strategies to better the sustainability of the current and future needs of San Luis Obispo County. It is built on the existing foundation of the region’s longstanding inter‐agency cooperation and stakeholder collaboration.
This plan was written to meet the latest IRWM requirements while balancing the needs of the participating agencies with the State’s need to have a full, well though-out plan to base implementation of future water resources projects/programs to provide the maximum benefit where and when needed.
A.1.1 Regions Included in the IRWM Plan
The larger region covered by the IRWM Plan is made up of the boundaries of the San Luis Obispo County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (District) and is the same as the County of San Luis Obispo (see Figure A-1). The County’s 3,304 square miles is broken down further into three sub-regions: the North Coast Sub-Region, the North County Sub-Region, and the South County Sub-Region. Within the sub-regions, there are 16 Water Planning Areas (WPAs) and 26 watersheds. Both sub-regions and WPAs are useful to differentiate local issues and allow for meaningful, focused stakeholder involvement. A detailed description of the IRWM region, WPAs, and watersheds are included in Section C – Region Description.
Item 8.m. - Page 15 San Luis Obispo Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Section A. Introduction
, and Water Planning Areas Planning Water and , Regions - Sub , , Region Plan IRWM
Figure A-1.
San Luis Obispo County IRWM Region A-2 Public Draft June 2014
Item 8.m. - Page 16 A.1.2 IRWM Plan Financial Sponsorship
The San Luis Obispo County IRWM Plan is being produced and sponsored by the District, funded in part through a Proposition 84 IRWM Plan Planning Grant from the California DWR. Additional information is available at the following Internet website:
A.1.3 Point of Contact
Questions and comments on this IRWM Plan can be directed:
Ms. Carolyn Berg, P.E. County of San Luis Obispo, Department of Public Works Utilities Division Staff Engineer (805) 781- 5536 [email protected]
A.1.4 IRWM Plan Adoption
The District Board of Supervisors adopted this IRWM Plan by resolution ___ on ____. A copy of the resolution can be found in Appendix A – Resolution of Adoption. Each individual participating member agency (see Table A-1) of the Regional Water Management Group (RWMG) is required by the State Guidelines to also adopt the DWR approved plan to be eligible to receive future state grant funding. Plan adoption by a member agency also ensures regional support for locally sponsored water resources projects funded through all state, federal, and local grant and loan programs. The IRWM Plan is considered to be a living guidance document for all member agencies to support, and re-adopt, with each IRWM Plan update (approximately every 5 years).
The 2013/14 San Luis Obispo County IRWM Plan was published as a draft document for public review on June 4, 2014. It was duly noticed in accordance with §6066 of the Government Code in the local media. The public was provided the opportunity to comment both in writing and during a public meeting and regular RWMG meeting. RWMG members were responsible for taking the document back to their respective stakeholder groups for review and comment, consolidating comments and bringing the information back to the RWMG. Public comments were reviewed and reconciled by the RWMG and a final IRWM Plan was produced for adoption by resolution. Once the RWMG adopted the IRWM Plan, the final document was taken to the
Item 8.m. - Page 17 Water Resources Advisory Committee (WRAC) for approval and recommendation for adoption by the County’s Board of Supervisors.
Table A-1. List of Participating Member Agencies Regional Water Management Group San Luis Obispo County Heritage Ranch CSD San Luis Obispo County Flood Control and Water Land Conservancy Conservation District California Men’s Colony Los Osos CSD Cambria Community Services District (CSD) Morro Bay National Estuary Program City of Arroyo Grande Nacimiento Regional Water Management Advisory Committee City of Grover Beach Nipomo CSD City of Morro Bay Oceano CSD City of Paso Robles Templeton CSD City of Pismo Beach San Miguel CSD City of San Luis Obispo San Simeon CSD Central Coast Salmon Enhancement S&T Mutual Water Company Coastal San Luis Resource Conservation District Upper Salinas - Las Tablas Resource Conservation District Note: Currently, there are 24 members to the RWMG; most are participating as project sponsors and intend to adopt this plan after adoption by the County Board of Supervisors.
A.2 AN IRWM PLAN FOR SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY
IRWM is a collaborative effort to manage all aspects of water resources in a region. IRWM crosses jurisdictional, watershed, and political boundaries; involves multiple agencies, stakeholders, individuals, and groups; and attempts to address the issues and differing perspectives of all entities involved through mutually beneficial solutions. An IRWM Plan is a significant document that:
• Describes the Region and its water management strategies • Reviews the Region’s water issues (e.g., supply, quality, storage, conveyance, etc.) • Puts forward strategies to address solutions for those issues • Suggests actions, programs, and capital projects that carry out those strategies • Prioritizes and integrates those actions, programs, and capital projects • Establishes metrics to measure and manages collected data to show the potential improvements, benefits, and impacts of the plan • Provides a methodology to carry out those actions, programs and capital projects • Monitors the plan’s progress and makes adjustments when needed
Item 8.m. - Page 18 It is a plan for near-term future water management in a region that includes a stakeholder- driven short list of the best integrated water projects for the region as identified within this current update of the plan. The use of the phrase “near-term” is indicative of the fact that the plan is updated on a fairly regular cycle (typically five year intervals), and thus the plan of the future will evolve to address water management issues beyond the current planning horizon.
The current general process, procedures, and requirements of an IRWM Plan are spelled out in the California DWR IRWM Grant Program Guidelines (2012 IRWM Plan Guidelines or 2012 Guidelines). The 2012 Guidelines document establishes what DWR will use to implement the IRWM Implementation Grant Program authorized under Proposition 84 (the Safe Drinking Water, Water Quality and Supply, Flood Control, River and Coastal Protection Bond Act of 2006) and the related Storm Water Flood Management (SWFM) Grant Program funded under Proposition 1E (The Disaster Preparedness and Flood Prevention Act of 2006). The 2012 Guidelines specify the standards that a plan should attain and includes a specific list of requirements that must be within the plan prior to the State’s acceptance and approval of the plan.
While IRWM Plans were governed by earlier Proposition 50 statutes for general items, a plan developed under the more recent Proposition 84 requirements has to address the following additional special items:
• Climate change • Flood and storm water management • Outreach to Disadvantaged Communities (DACs) • Integration with Land Use planning
A.3 IRWM PLAN BENEFITS AND NEED FOR UPDATES
An IRWM Plan provides a number of benefits for the Region and its participants. An IRWM Plan:
• Provides an in-depth listing of regional water resource problems • Helps focus resources on water resource priority goals • Provides opportunities for diverse and integrated solutions to water resource problems • Makes a concerted and documented effort to include the entire community in water planning, including disadvantaged communities (DACs) • Provides opportunities to formulate integrated programs and projects that provide multiple benefits for the Region • Allows the Region to apply for and accept State funding to solve water issues • Makes the Region participants eligible for planning and implementation grants
Item 8.m. - Page 19 • Provides a consolidated and inclusive planning process • Aligns participants to support projects that benefit the region as a whole • Presents a more economic approach to tackle regional problems by combining administrative and planning costs of several agencies for some regional issues • Creates the foundation for “good” regional planning
A.3.1 Update to the IRWM Plan
The San Luis Obispo County IRWM Plan was originally adopted in December 2005 and amended in July 2007. The 2007 IRWM Plan was the first to provide a cornerstone document for future integrated efforts that lead to more collaboration among water resources agencies and efficiencies in water resources problem solving.
The 2005 IRWM Plan identified planning efforts to fill data gaps in four areas to support the overall plan goals, objectives, and strategies, and improve the IRWM Plan itself. These projects included the following:
• Data Enhancement Plan • Flood Management Plan • Groundwater Banking Plan • Regional Permitting Plan
These planning efforts were included in the Proposition 50 Chapter 8 IRWM Planning Grant application that was awarded $500,000 to complete the focused studies. These resulting plans were completed in 2008 and thus were not incorporated into the 2007 IRWM Plan update. The 2007 IRWM Plan updated regional and project information to better represent the existing conditions and priorities for the region.
In 2011, the IRWM Region was awarded an implementation grant to construct three projects, including:
1. Los Osos Community Wastewater Project, 2. Flood Control Zone 1/1A Waterway Management Program, 1st Year Vegetation and Sediment Management Project, and 3. Nipomo Waterline Intertie Project. A condition of the implementation grant was to update the IRWM to meet ongoing updates to the 2012 IRWM Plan Guidelines eventually published by the State in November 2012. Given the seven-year period since the last update, the IRWM planners are capitalizing on the requirement to update the IRWM Plan by addressing the changed conditions and needs in the region as depicted in Figure A-2.
Item 8.m. - Page 20 San Luis Obispo Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Section A. Introduction
2013
2012
2011 Introducing New Material to the IRWM Plan Plan IRWM the to Material New Introducing
2010 Figure A-2.
2009
2008
2007
Public Draft June 2014 A-7 San Luis Obispo County IRWM Region
Item 8.m. - Page 21 The objective of the 2014 IRWM Plan Update is directed at meeting the changes which have occurred since 2007, summarized as follows:
• Build on the successful collaboration and planning presented in the 2007 IRWM Plan • Incorporate and consider the four Proposition 50 planning studies • Address the enhanced IRWM planning standards • Consider changed regional conditions (i.e., groundwater/surface water availability and increased agricultural and urban water demands) and enhanced planning approaches, including a revised governance approach • Address the highest priority data gaps and planning needs as determined through a public solicitation and review process
A.4 IRWM PLAN DEVELOPMENT PROCESS
The Region’s stakeholders have followed a systematic 8-Step process for developing project- level elements for inclusion in the plan as shown in Figure A-3.
•Form the Regional Water Management Group (RWMG) and Governancee Structure and 1 Define the region’s water problems/goals/objectives
•Suggest strategies that will help address those problems 2
•Brainstorm projects that will implement those strategies 3
•Filter the projects to make sure they are feasible; meet multiple objectives, have regional 4 benifits, and are ready to proceed
•Prioritize filtered projects for the IRWM Plan's Implementation 5
•Develop a procedure to implement well-integrated projects collectively 6
•Determine methods and tools to monitor implementation of the projects within the IRWM 7 Plan as well as the overall plan
•Complete a written 2014 IRWM Plan meeting DWR approval requirements, and is adopted by 8 the Board of Supervisors and participating agencies
Figure A-3. Simplified 8-Step Approach to Updating the IRWM Plan
Item 8.m. - Page 22
in
: : 23
-4
in Tier 1 Page
f - sections
o fully fully changes Planning
are Figure A IRWM ds 8.m. standards that that standards
more
IRWM and the and
by the by
Item nge) a ch updates consist consist updates
address new
e the in conditions
for improved for most critical nee critical most levels and listed inlisted and levels
EQUIREMENTS summarizes how the IRWM Plan Plan IRWM how the summarizes f modification to f modification
R climate
o the -2
r, three
conditions current
e
(e.g.,
approach
ent r amount
affected most standards
UIDELINE UIDELINE howev reflect cur
G modification and the and modification the
ed t LAN and governance
P
significant modification to modification significant moderate a limi
ed Tiered Improvements to IRWM Sections Sections IRWM to Improvements Tiered vis
previous guidelines previous
re IRWM
the
governance, Figure A-4. that require that that require that that require that
ect e, l HANGES 2012
ref C
ions ions ions reflect and standards plan
t t t through 3 require updating; 3 require through to
chang
Sec Sec Sec te te – onal information/modification to onal information/modification – – not included in the in included not
1 1 2 3 ress the d
EETING THE THE EETING Tier were need that Tier ad i addit planning area Tier RIORITIZED RIORITIZED ce. n M P • •
• A.6 A.5 As the IRWM Plan was developed, the RWMG maintained the list of requirements developed developed requirements of list the maintained RWMG the developed, was Plan IRWM the As the by approval and acceptance ensure to Guidelines Plan IRWM 2012 November the using Table Update. Plan A IRWM the of completion after State 1 in Tiers All sections
and clima include governa into categorized were deficiencies section Plan The IRWM satisfies Appendix H of the 2012 Guidelines. Detailed tables addressing specific requirements of the 2012 Guidelines are compiled and incorporated as Appendix Q – State Guideline Requirement Tables. Appendix Q also provides a short narrative on how each requirement is met along with the various sub-sections where information can be found in the IRWM Plan.
Table A-2. IRWM Plan Update Standards Reference IRWM Plan Standard Section Governance B Region Description C, D Goals & Objectives E State Resource Management Strategy F Integration H Project Review Process G Impacts and Benefits I Plan Performance and Monitoring J Data Management K Finance L Technical Analysis M Relation to Local Water Planning N Relation to Local Land Use Planning N Stakeholder Involvement B, E, F, G, K, Q Coordination O Climate Change P
Item 8.m. - Page 24
IRWMP Section C. Region Description
Item 8.m. - Page 25 Section C. Region Description
Item 8.m. - Page 26 San Luis Obispo Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Section C. Region Description
Section C. Region Description
Table of Contents
Section C. Region Description C‐1 C.1 Purpose and Organization of Section ...... C‐1 C.2 San Luis Obispo County Relevance as an IRWM Planning Area ...... C‐2 C.3 Importance of Sub‐Region Separation ...... C‐3 C.3.1 North Coast Sub‐Region...... C‐6 C.3.2 North County Sub‐Region ...... C‐6 C.3.3 South County Sub‐Region ...... C‐6 C.3.4 Internal Boundaries within Each of the Sub‐Regions ...... C‐10 C.4 Groundwater Basins ...... C‐12 C.5 Description of Water Planning Areas (WPAs) and Local Governments and Communities ...... C‐22 C.5.1 Reference Information and Level of Detail ...... C‐22 C.5.2 North Coast WPAs ...... C‐23 C.5.2.1 WPA 1 – San Simeon ...... C‐23 C.5.2.2 WPA 2 – Cambria ...... C‐24 C.5.2.3 WPA 3 – Cayucos ...... C‐27 C.5.2.4 WPA 4 – Morro Bay ...... C‐27 C.5.2.5 WPA 5 – Los Osos ...... C‐29 C.5.3 South County WPAs ...... C‐33 C.5.3.1 WPA 6 – San Luis Obispo/Avila ...... C‐33 C.5.3.2 WPA 7 – South Coast ...... C‐34 C.5.3.3 WPA 8 – Huasna ...... C‐36 C.5.3.4 WPA 9 – Cuyama Valley ...... C‐36 C.5.4 North County WPAs ...... C‐41 C.5.4.1 WPA 10 – Carrizo Plain ...... C‐41 C.5.4.2 WPA 11 – Rafael/Big Spring ...... C‐41 C.5.4.3 WPA 12 – Santa Margarita ...... C‐41 C.5.4.4 WPA 13 – Atascadero/Templeton ...... C‐42 C.5.4.5 WPA 14 – Salinas/Estrella ...... C‐43 C.5.4.6 WPA 15 – Cholame ...... C‐44 C.5.4.7 WPA 16 – Nacimiento ...... C‐44 C.4 Wastewater Service Areas ...... C‐53 C.5 Flood Control Districts ...... C‐53 C.5.1 San Luis Obispo County Flood Control and Water Conservation District ...... C‐53 C.6 Land Use Agencies ...... C‐55 C.7 Watersheds ...... C‐56 C.7.1 North Coast Watersheds ...... C‐63 C.7.1.1 Big Creek ‐ San Carpoforo Creek Area Watershed ...... C‐63 C.7.1.2 San Simeon ‐ Arroyo de la Cruz Watershed ...... C‐67 C.7.1.3 Santa Rosa Creek Area Watershed ...... C‐73 C.7.1.4 Cayucos Creek ‐ Whale Rock Area Watershed ...... C‐79 C.7.1.5 Morro Bay Watershed ...... C‐84 C.7.2 South County Watersheds ...... C‐89 C.7.2.1 Coastal Irish Hills Watershed ...... C‐89 C.7.2.2 San Luis Obispo Creek Watershed ...... C‐93 C.7.2.3 Pismo Creek Watershed ...... C‐100 C.7.2.4 Arroyo Grande Creek Watershed ...... C‐105 C.7.2.5 Santa Maria River Watershed ...... C‐110 C.7.2.6 Nipomo – Suey Creeks Watershed ...... C‐115 C.7.2.7 Huasna River Watershed ...... C‐119 C.7.2.8 Alamo Creek Watershed ...... C‐123 C.7.2.9 Cuyama River Watershed ...... C‐127 C.7.3 North County Watersheds ...... C‐131
Public Draft June 2014 C‐i San Luis Obispo County IRWM Region
Item 8.m. - Page 27 San Luis Obispo Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Section C. Region Description
C.7.3.1 Black Sulphur Spring Watershed ...... C‐131 C.7.3.2 Soda Lake Watershed ...... C‐135 C.7.3.3 Upper San Juan Creek Watershed ...... C‐140 C.7.3.4 Lower San Juan Creek Watershed ...... C‐144 C.7.3.5 Upper Salinas River ‐ Santa Margarita Area Watershed ...... C‐148 C.7.3.6 Mid Salinas ‐ Atascadero Creek Area Watersheds ...... C‐154 C.7.3.7 Lower Salinas‐Paso Robles Creek Area Watershed ...... C‐160 C.7.3.8 Huer Huero Creek Watershed ...... C‐167 C.7.3.9 Estrella River Watershed ...... C‐172 C.7.3.10 Cholame Creek Watershed ...... C‐176 C.7.3.11 Nacimiento River Watershed ...... C‐181 C.7.3.12 Indian Valley Watershed [Needs Description] ...... C‐187 C.8 Major Infrastructure ...... C‐188 C.8.1 Nacimiento Water Project ...... C‐188 C.8.2 Whale Rock Reservoir ...... C‐189 C.8.2.1 Operating Agreements ...... C‐191 C.8.3 Lopez Lake/Reservoir ...... C‐193 C.8.4 Santa Margarita Lake/Salinas Reservoir ...... C‐193 C.8.5 Chorro Reservoir ...... C‐194 C.8.6 State Water Project Facilities ...... C‐195 C.8.6.1 Improving the Delta ...... C‐195 C.8.7 Morro Bay Desalination Plant ...... C‐196 C.8.8 Other Desalination Projects ...... C‐196 C.9 Current Water Quality Conditions ...... C‐197 C.9.1 North Coast ...... C‐198 C.9.1.1 Watershed Health ...... C‐198 C.9.1.2 Groundwater Quality ...... C‐199 C.9.1.3 Basin Plans (By Watershed) ...... C‐200 C.9.2 North County ...... C‐200 C.9.2.1 Watershed Health ...... C‐200 C.9.2.2 Groundwater Quality ...... C‐201 C.9.2.3 Basin Plans (By Watershed) ...... C‐201 C.9.3 South County ...... C‐202 C.9.3.1 Watershed Health ...... C‐202 C.9.3.2 Groundwater Quality ...... C‐203 C.9.3.3 Basin Plans (By Watershed) ...... C‐204 C.9.4 Water Quality Protection and Improvement Needs [to be populated if data provided] ...... C‐204 C.9.5 Salt and Nutrient Management Plan by Subregion [to be populated if data provided] ...... C‐205 C.10 Environmental Resources ...... C‐205 C.10.1 Habitats of Special Concern ...... C‐205 C.10.2 Species of Special Concern ...... C‐205 C.10.3 Marine Protected Areas ...... C‐205 C.10.4 Fisheries (By Watershed) ...... C‐206 C.10.5 Other Environmental Resources ...... C‐207 C.11 Management Issues ...... C‐214 C.11.1 North Coast ...... C‐214 C.11.2 North County ...... C‐216 C.11.3 South County ...... C‐217 C.12 Climate Change ...... C‐219 C.13 IRWM Plan Regional Issues and Conflicts ...... C‐220 C.14 Economic Conditions and Trends ...... C‐221 C.14.1 State Designated Disadvantaged Communities (DACs) ...... C‐222 C.14.2 Projected Growth ...... C‐224 C.15 A Brief History of San Luis Obispo County and the Influence of Tribal Culture ...... C‐226 C.15.2 Tribal History ...... C‐230 C.15.2.1 Salinan Tribe of Monterey and San Luis Obispo ...... C‐231 C.15.2.2 Northern Chumash Tribe of San Luis Obispo ...... C‐231 C.16 Cultural and Social Profile of San Luis Obispo County ...... C‐231
San Luis Obispo County IRWM Region C‐ii Public Draft June 2014
Item 8.m. - Page 28 San Luis Obispo Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Section C. Region Description
C.16.1 The Arts in San Luis Obispo County ...... C‐232 C.17 Relationship to Other IRWM Plan Efforts ...... C‐238 C.17.1 Central Coast Funding Region ...... C‐238
Figures
Figure C‐1. Regional Setting and Neighboring IRWM Plans ...... C‐4 Figure C‐2. Sub‐Regions and County Overview ...... C‐5 Figure C‐3. North Coast Sub‐Region...... C‐7 Figure C‐4. North County Sub‐Region ...... C‐8 Figure C‐5. South County Sub‐Region ...... C‐9 Figure C‐6. Groundwater Basins ...... C‐13 Figure C‐7. North Coast Groundwater Basins ...... C‐14 Figure C‐8. South County Groundwater Basins ...... C‐15 Figure C‐9. North County Groundwater Basins ...... C‐16 Figure C‐10. Water Planning Area No. 1 ‐ San Simeon ...... C‐25 Figure C‐11. Water Planning Area No. 2 ‐ Cambria ...... C‐26 Figure C‐12. Water Planning Area No. 3 ‐ Cayucos ...... C‐30 Figure C‐13. Water Planning Area No.4 ‐ Morro Bay ...... C‐31 Figure C‐14. Water Planning Area No. 5 ‐ Los Osos ...... C‐32 Figure C‐15. Water Planning Area No. 6 ‐ San Luis Obispo/Avila ...... C‐37 Figure C‐16. Water Planning Area No. 7 ‐ South Coast ...... C‐38 Figure C‐17. Water Planning Area No. 8 ‐ Huasna Valley ...... C‐39 Figure C‐18. Water Planning Area No. 9 ‐ Cuyama Valley ...... C‐40 Figure C‐19. Water Planning Area No. 10 ‐ Carrizo Plain ...... C‐46 Figure C‐20. Water Planning Area No. 11 ‐ Rafael/Big Spring ...... C‐47 Figure C‐21. Water Planning Area No 12 ‐ Santa Margarita ...... C‐48 Figure C‐22. Water Planning Area No. 13 ‐ Atascadero/Templeton ...... C‐49 Figure C‐23. Water Planning Area No. 14 ‐ Salinas/Estrella ...... C‐50 Figure C‐24. Water Planning Area No 15 ‐ Cholame ...... C‐51 Figure C‐25. Water Planning Area No. 16 ‐ Nacimiento ...... C‐52 Figure C‐26. Land Use Agencies ...... C‐56 Figure C‐27. Watersheds ...... C‐59 Figure C‐28. North Coast Watersheds ...... C‐60 Figure C‐29. South County Watersheds ...... C‐61 Figure C‐30. North County Watersheds ...... C‐62 Figure C‐31. Big Creek ‐ San Carpoforo Creek Area Watershed ...... C‐64 Figure C‐32. Map of San Simeon ‐ Arroyo de la Cruz Watershed ...... C‐68 Figure C‐33. Map of Santa Rosa Creek Area Watershed ...... C‐74 Figure C‐34. Map of Cayucos Creek ‐ Whale Rock Area Watershed ...... C‐80 Figure C‐35. Map of Morro Bay Watershed ...... C‐85 Figure C‐36. Map of Coastal Irish Hills Watershed ...... C‐90 Figure C‐37. Map of San Luis Obispo Creek Watershed ...... C‐94 Figure C‐38. Map of Pismo Creek Watershed ...... C‐101 Figure C‐39. Map of Arroyo Grande Creek Watershed ...... C‐106 Figure C‐40. Map of Santa Maria River Watershed ...... C‐111 Figure C‐41. Map of Nipomo – Suey Creeks Watershed ...... C‐116 Figure C‐42. Map of Huasna River Watershed ...... C‐120 Figure C‐43. Map of Alamo Creek Watershed ...... C‐124 Figure C‐44. Map of Cuyama River Watershed ...... C‐128 Figure C‐45. Map of Black Sulphur Spring Watershed ...... C‐132 Figure C‐46. Map of Soda Lake Watershed ...... C‐136 Figure C‐47. Map of Upper San Juan Creek Watershed ...... C‐141 Figure C‐48. Map of Lower San Juan Creek Watershed ...... C‐145 Figure C‐49. Map of Upper Salinas River ‐ Santa Margarita Area Watershed ...... C‐149
Public Draft June 2014 C‐iii San Luis Obispo County IRWM Region
Item 8.m. - Page 29 San Luis Obispo Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Section C. Region Description
Figure C‐50. Map of Mid Salinas ‐ Atascadero Creek Area Watersheds ...... C‐155 Figure C‐51. Map of Lower Salinas‐Paso Robles Creek Area Watershed ...... C‐161 Figure C‐52. Map of Huer Huero Creek Watershed ...... C‐168 Figure C‐53. Map of Estrella River Watershed ...... C‐173 Figure C‐54. Map of Cholame Creek Watershed ...... C‐177 Figure C‐55. Map of Nacimiento River Watershed ...... C‐182 Figure C‐56. Map of Indian Valley Watershed ...... C‐187 Figure C‐57. Major Water Conveyance and Storage ...... C‐190 Figure C‐58. Disadvantaged Communities by Census Tract and Census Designated Place...... C‐223 Figure C‐59. Tribal Lands Located Within and Near San Luis Obispo County...... C‐230 Figure C‐60. Population by Census Block ...... C‐232 Figure C‐61. Exhibit on the Arts in San Luis Obispo County ...... 233
Tables
Table C‐1. Internal Boundaries within the San Luis Obispo IRWM Region ...... C‐10 Table C‐2. Groundwater Basins within the San Luis Obispo IRWM Region ...... C‐17 Table C‐3. Wastewater Service Areas ...... C‐53 Table C‐4. Land Use Agencies ...... C‐55 Table C‐5. Area Watershed Alignment with Sub‐Regions and Water Planning Areas ...... C‐58 Table C‐6. Big Creek ‐ San Carpoforo Creek Area Watershed (1) ...... C‐64 Table C‐7. San Simeon ‐ Arroyo de la Cruz Watershed (2) ...... C‐68 Table C‐8. Santa Rosa Creek Area Watershed (3) ...... C‐75 Table C‐9. Cayucos Creek ‐ Whale Rock Area Watershed (4) ...... C‐81 Table C‐10. Morro Bay Watershed (5) ...... C‐86 Table C‐11. Coastal Irish Hills Watershed (6) ...... C‐91 Table C‐12. San Luis Obispo Creek Watershed (7) ...... C‐94 Table C‐13. Pismo Creek Watershed (8) ...... C‐101 Table C‐14. Arroyo Grande Creek Watershed (9) ...... C‐106 Table C‐15. Santa Maria River Watershed (10) ...... C‐112 Table C‐16. Nipomo – Suey Creeks Watershed (11) ...... C‐116 Table C‐17. Huasna River Watershed (12) ...... C‐120 Table C‐18. Alamo Creek Watershed (13) ...... C‐124 Table C‐19. Cuyama River Watershed (14) ...... C‐128 Table C‐20. Black Sulphur Spring Watershed (15) ...... C‐132 Table C‐21. Soda Lake Watershed (16) ...... C‐136 Table C‐22. Upper San Juan Creek Watershed (17) ...... C‐141 Table C‐23. Lower San Juan Creek Watershed (18) ...... C‐145 Table C‐24. Upper Salinas River ‐ Santa Margarita Area Watershed (19) ...... C‐149 Table C‐25. Mid Salinas ‐ Atascadero Creek Area Watersheds (20) ...... C‐155 Table C‐26. Lower Salinas‐Paso Robles Creek Area Watershed (21) ...... C‐161 Table C‐27. Huer Huero Creek Watershed (22) ...... C‐168 Table C‐28. Estrella River Watershed (23) ...... C‐173 Table C‐29. Cholame Creek Watershed (24) ...... C‐177 Table C‐30. Nacimiento River Watershed (25) ...... C‐182 Table C‐31. Indian Valley Watershed (26) [NEED to Populate Table] ...... C‐187 Table C‐32. Nacimiento Project Allocations ...... C‐188 Table C‐33. Whale Rock Reservoir Allocations ...... C‐191 Table C‐34. Whale Rock Downstream Entitlements ...... C‐192 Table C‐35. Lopez Lake Allocations ...... C‐193 Table C‐36. North Coast Groundwater Quality ...... C‐199 Table C‐37. North Coast Basin Plans ...... C‐200 Table C‐38. North County Groundwater Quality ...... C‐201 Table C‐39. North County Basin Plans ...... C‐201 Table C‐40. South County Groundwater Quality...... C‐203 Table C‐41. South County Basin Plans ...... C‐204 Table C‐42. Marine Protected Areas in the San Luis Obispo IRWM Plan Region ...... C‐206 Table C‐43. Fisheries and Fish Habitat in the San Luis Obispo IRWM Plan Region ...... C‐206
San Luis Obispo County IRWM Region C‐iv Public Draft June 2014
Item 8.m. - Page 30 San Luis Obispo Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Section C. Region Description
Table C‐44. Environmental Resources within the San Luis Obispo IRWM Plan Region ...... C‐207 Table C‐45. Management Issues for the North Coast Sub‐Region ...... C‐215 Table C‐46. Management Issues for the North County Sub‐Region ...... C‐216 Table C‐47. Management Issues for the South County Sub‐Region ...... C‐217 Table C‐48. San Luis Obispo County Population Data and Projections ...... C‐221 Table C‐49. Economic Characteristics for Selected Places within the San Luis Obispo IRWM Plan Region ...... C‐222 Table C‐50. San Luis Obispo County Historic and Projected Population ...... C‐225 Table C‐51. Community Characteristics for Community Profiling ...... C‐225 Table C‐52. San Luis Obispo County Historical Timeline and Images from the Past ...... C‐227 Table C‐53. Profile of Social Characteristics: San Luis Obispo County, 2000 Census ...... C‐234 Table C‐54. Examples of Influential Social Groups in San Luis Obispo County ...... C‐236 Table C‐55. County and District Mission and Community Results Vision Statement ...... C‐237
Public Draft June 2014 C‐v San Luis Obispo County IRWM Region
Item 8.m. - Page 31 San Luis Obispo Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Section C. Region Description
(This page Intentionally left blank)
San Luis Obispo County IRWM Region C‐vi Public Draft June 2014
Item 8.m. - Page 32 San Luis Obispo Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Section C. Region Description
Section C. Region Description
C.1 PURPOSE AND ORGANIZATION OF SECTION
The November 2012 State Guidelines for this section include the following elements:
IRWM Plan Standard from November 2012 IRWM Guidelines: An IRWM Plan must include a description of the region being managed by the RWMG. This description should include a comprehensive inclusion of the following:
A description of the watersheds and the water systems, natural and anthropogenic (i.e. “man‐made”), including major water related infrastructure, flood management infrastructure, and major land‐use divisions. Also include a description of the quality and quantity of water resources within the region (i.e. surface waters, groundwater, reclaimed water, imported water, and desalinated water). As relevant, describe areas and species of special biological significance and other sensitive habitats, such as marine protected areas and impaired water bodies within the region. A description of internal boundaries within the region including the boundaries of municipalities, service areas of individual water, wastewater, flood control districts, and land use agencies. The description should also include those not involved in the Plan (i.e. groundwater basin boundaries, watershed boundaries, county, State, and international boundaries). A description of water supplies and demands for a minimum 20‐year planning horizon. Include a discussion of important ecological processes and environmental resources within the regional boundaries and the associated water demands to support environmental needs. This includes a description of the potential effects of climate change on the region. A descriptive comparison of current and future (or proposed) water quality conditions in the region. Describe any water quality protection and improvement needs or requirements within the area of the Plan. A description of the social and cultural makeup of the regional community. Identify important cultural or social values. Identify DACs in the management area. Describe economic conditions and important economic trends within the region. Describe efforts to effectively involve and collaborate with Tribal government representatives to better sustain Tribal and regional water and natural resources (if applicable). A description of major water related objectives and conflicts in the defined management region, including clear identification of problems within the region that lead to the development of the objectives, implementation strategies, and implementation projects intended to provide resolution. An explanation of how the IRWM regional boundary was determined and why the region is an appropriate area for IRWM planning. Identification of neighboring and/or overlapping IRWM efforts (if any) and an explanation of the planned/working relationship that promotes cooperation and coordination between regions For IRWM regions that receive water supplied from the Sacramento‐San Joaquin Delta, an explanation of how plan will help reduce dependence on the Sacramento‐San Joaquin Delta for water supply (SB 855 (Committee on Budgets), Section 31.(c)(1)).
In an effort to fully address each of the State Guideline requirements and maintain a concise amount of section content, thereby minimizing the number of pages, the section relies heavily on providing data in a tabular format; in most cases, a table is used to summarize more detailed information located in the IRWM Plan’s Appendices. The following appendices support this section:
Appendix L – Detailed Description of Groundwater Basins Appendix M – Detailed Description of Water Planning Areas and Local Water Districts
Public Draft June 2014 C‐1 San Luis Obispo County IRWM Region
Item 8.m. - Page 33 San Luis Obispo Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Section C. Region Description
Appendix N – San Luis Obispo County Watershed Management Planning Project Report
Section C is organized to assist in the understanding for splitting the IRWM Region up into three Sub‐Regions, 16 Water Planning Areas (WPAs), and 26 watersheds. With the completion of the 2014 Watershed Management Planning Project Study (Watershed Snapshot Study), the resolution of understanding and describing the region now occurs at the watershed level. The WPAs are still the primary boundaries for purposes of water supply planning and summarizing water supplies and demands; whereas, the watersheds provide the descriptive information needed in the Region Description Section of the IRWM Plan.
C.2 SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY RELEVANCE AS AN IRWM PLANNING AREA
The region covered by this San Luis Obispo IRWM Plan is made up of the boundaries of the San Luis Obispo County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (District) and is the same as the County of San Luis Obispo (see Figure C‐1). The County’s 3,304 square miles is broken down further into the North Coast Sub‐Region, the North County Sub‐Region, and the South County Sub‐Region. The 2012 Guideline includes the following regarding the definition of a region:
CWC §10541(f) states the guidelines shall include a standard for identifying a region for the purpose of developing and modifying an IRWM Plan, and DWR shall develop a process to approve the composition of a region for the purposes of sections 75026 – 75028 of the PRC. DWR developed the Region Acceptance Process (RAP) to approve region composition for the purpose of developing or modifying an IRWM Plan…Through the RAP, IRWM planning regions are accepted into the IRWM Grant program. IRWM planning regions can then apply for IRWM Grants subject to conditions on the acceptance through the RAP and the criteria and review process set up for each funding cycle.
The County’s boundary encompasses the appropriate geographic region and composition for integrated regional water management planning. As a result, all aspects of water management generally lie within the same physical, political, environmental, social, and economic boundaries. The County’s boundary ensures active stakeholder involvement at the local and sub‐region level based on the Region’s shared experience and community values. By linking water resources management to local land use planning, local communities can better balance economic well‐being, social equity, and environmental protection needs within their respective sub‐regions. The larger region defined as the County is the most effective size to integrate these planning efforts within the context of local community shared values and sense of place.
San Luis Obispo County IRWM Region C‐2 Public Draft June 2014
Item 8.m. - Page 34 San Luis Obispo Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Section C. Region Description
There are no regional water agencies within or overlapping the County. All of the water resources interested entities within the region participate, or are invited to participate, on the Water Resources Advisory Committee (WRAC) or on flood control advisory committees, as described in Section B – Governance, Stakeholder Involvement, and Outreach. The relationship between the County and bordering IRWM Regions is described in Section O – Coordination.
Defining the IRWM region as the County has enabled the San Luis Obispo County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (District) and stakeholders to use existing infrastructure, management systems, funding mechanisms, partnerships, and planning documents as a scaffold upon which to build the IRWM Plan. This approach has resulted in an effective, synergistic, and efficient approach to regional water resources management that provides an overarching framework for sound and sustainable Water Management Strategies (WMSs).
C.3 IMPORTANCE OF SUB‐REGION SEPARATION
The County, split into its three Sub‐Regions (see Figure C‐2), is an appropriately governed region because its boundaries exactly match those of the District. Understanding that regional water planning is a collaborative process of many cultures and socioeconomic backgrounds of urban, rural and agricultural uses, developed and undeveloped lands, the District has found that setting the emphasis of the planning unit boundaries to match three unique and separate Sub‐Regions rightfully places the responsibility for leadership at the sub‐regional level. Ownership of the IRWM Plan implementation process at the level of each Sub‐Region, where IRWM projects are conceived, will ensure that the project sponsors shape their projects to address the Sub‐Regional Priorities selected by the Sub‐Region stakeholders for each of the objectives covered in Section E – IRWM Goals and Objectives.
The County’s three sub‐regions are also appropriately sized for the inclusion of environmental values in integrated water resource management because they are neither too small to effectively manage complete ecological systems, nor too large to deal with sometimes complex biological relationships taking place at the local level (e.g., fish passage or non‐native plant species on local streams).
The information in this chapter is based primarily on the San Luis Obispo County 2012 Master Water Report. Other sources used include the 2007 San Luis Obispo Region Integrated Regional Water Management Plan, other County documents and plans, and area Urban Water Management Plans, as noted.
Public Draft June 2014 C‐3 San Luis Obispo County IRWM Region
Item 8.m. - Page 35
San
San Section
Luis Luis
C.
Obispo Obispo
Region County Integrated
Description
IRWM
Regional
Region
Water
Management
Plan C‐ 4
Public
June Draft
2014 Figure C‐1. Regional Setting and Neighboring IRWM Plans
Item 8.m. - Page 36
Public
Draft
June
2014 C‐ 5 San
Luis
Obispo Integrated San
Regional
Luis Section
Obispo
Water
C.
County
Region
Figure C‐2. Sub‐Regions and County Overview Management
IRWM
Description
Region
Plan
Item 8.m. - Page 37 San Luis Obispo Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Section C. Region Description
C.3.1 North Coast Sub‐Region
The North Coast Sub‐Region spans from the County line (San Luis Obispo/Monterey) southward to the community of Los Osos, bounded to the west by the Pacific Ocean and to the east by the Santa Lucia Range (see Figure C‐3). This Sub‐Region includes WPAs 1 through 5. This region includes the urban areas of San Simeon, Cambria, Cayucos, Morro Bay and Los Osos, and are numbered sequentially in this order.
C.3.2 North County Sub‐Region
The North County Sub‐Region essentially includes the WPAs that do not drain directly to the ocean through the County’s coastal regions, and includes WPAs 10 through 16 (see Figure C‐4). The North County Sub‐Region extends inland from the San Luis Obispo/Santa Barbara County line north to the San Luis Obispo/Monterey County line, bounded to the east by Kern and Fresno Counties, and to the west in part by the Santa Lucia range.
C.3.3 South County Sub‐Region
The South County Sub‐Region spans from the City of San Luis Obispo south to the County (San Luis Obispo/Santa Barbara) line, east to the Cuyama Valley, and west to the community of Avila Beach, and includes WPA 6 through 9 (see Figure C‐5). This WPA includes the urban areas of San Luis Obispo, Avila Beach/Port San Luis, Pismo Beach, Arroyo Grande, Grover Beach, Oceano, and Nipomo.
San Luis Obispo County IRWM Region C‐6 Public Draft June 2014
Item 8.m. - Page 38
San Luis Obispo Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Section C. Region Description
Figure C‐3. North Coast Sub‐Region
Public Draft June 2014 C‐7 San Luis Obispo County IRWM Region
Item 8.m. - Page 39
San
San Section
Luis Luis
C.
Obispo Obispo
Region County Integrated
Description
IRWM
Regional
Region
Water
Management
Plan C‐ 8
Public
June Draft
Figure C‐4. North County Sub‐Region
2014
Item 8.m. - Page 40
Public
Draft
June
2014 C‐ 9 San
Luis
Obispo Integrated San
Regional
Luis
Section
Obispo
Figure C‐5. South County Sub‐Region Water
C.
County
Region Management
IRWM
Description
Region
Plan
Item 8.m. - Page 41 San Luis Obispo Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Section C. Region Description
C.3.4 Internal Boundaries within Each of the Sub‐Regions
Table C‐1 below summarizes the relationship between the Sub‐Regions, the Water Planning Areas and other notable boundaries that assist in defining the IRWM region. Watershed and Water Supplier descriptions follow the brief description of the WPAs.
Table C‐1. Internal Boundaries within the San Luis Obispo IRWM Region Sub‐ Local Governments, Communities, WPA Watersheds Water Suppliers Region Places of Interest Community of San Simeon 2. San Simeon‐Arroyo de la Cruz San Simeon CSD San Simeon Hearst Ranch 1. Big Creek – San Carpoforo Town of Cambria 1. Big Creek – San Carpoforo Cambria CSD Cambria 3. Santa Rosa Creek Community of Cayucos 4. Cayucos Creek‐ Whale Rock Area Morro Rock MWC Paso Robles Beach Water Association Cayucos CSA 10A Cayucos Cemetery District California Men’s Colony 5. Moro Bay California Men’s North Cuesta College 4. Cayucos Creek‐ Whale Rock Area Colony Coast Cuesta College Camp San Luis Obispo (National Guard) Camp San Luis Obispo County Office of Education (National Guard) Morro Bay County Operational Center County Office of City of Morro Bay Education County Operational Center City of Morro Bay Community of Los Osos 4. Cayucos Creek‐Whale Rock Area Los Osos CSD 5. Morro Bay S&T MWC Los Osos 7. San Luis Obispo Creek Golden State Water Company Cal Poly San Luis Obispo 6. Irish Hills Coastal Watershed Cal Poly San Luis Community of Avila Beach 5. Morro Bay Obispo Port San Luis 7. San Luis Obispo Creek Avila Beach CSD San Luis City of San Luis Obispo Avila Valley MWC South Obispo/ San Miguelito MWC County Avila CSA 12 Port San Luis City of San Luis Obispo
San Luis Obispo County IRWM Region C‐10 Public Draft June 2014
Item 8.m. - Page 42 San Luis Obispo Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Section C. Region Description
Sub‐ Local Governments, Communities, WPA Watersheds Water Suppliers Region Places of Interest Community of Nipomo 9. Arroyo Grande Creek Oceano CSD Community of Oceano 11. Nipomo Suey Creeks City of Pismo Beach Palo Mesa Village 8. Pismo Creek City of Arroyo Grande City of Pismo Beach 7. San Luis Obispo Creek City of Grover Beach City of Arroyo Grande 10. Santa Maria River Golden State Water South Coast City of Grover Beach 14. Cuyama River Company Nipomo CSD Rural Water Company Woodlands Mutual Water Company Conoco Phillips 13. Alamo Creek Huasna Valley 14. Cuyama River 12. Huasna River 15. Black Sulphur Spring Cuyama 14. Cuyama River Valley 16. Soda Lake Community of California Valley 15. Black Sulphur Spring Carrizo Plain 16. Soda Lake 16. Soda Lake Rafael/ Big 17. Upper San Juan Creek Spring 13. Alamo Creek Village of Pozo 20. Mid Salinas‐Atascadero Area CSA 23 Santa Community of Santa Margarita 19. Upper Salinas‐Santa Margarita Area Santa Margarita Ranch Margarita Santa Margarita Ranch 13. Alamo Creek Community of Templeton 20. Mid Salinas‐ Atascadero Area Garden Farms CWD Atascadero/ Community of Garden Farms 21. Lower Salinas‐Paso Robles Creek Templeton CSD Templeton City of Atascadero Area Atascadero MWC City of Paso Robles 20. Mid Salinas Atascadero Area North Community of San Miguel ‐ San Miguel CSD 24. Cholame Creek County Community of Shandon Camp Roberts Village of Whitley Gardens 23. Estrella River CSA 16 (Shandon) Village of Creston 22. Huer Huero Creek City of Paso Robles Indian Valley Salinas/ Camp Roberts 18. Lower San Juan Creek Estrella City of Paso Robles 25. Nacimiento River 21. Lower Salinas‐Paso Robles Creek Area 16. Soda Lake 17. Upper San Juan Creek Cholame Community of Cholame 24. Cholame Creek Heritage Ranch 25. Nacimiento River Nacimiento Water Nacimiento Community of Oak Shores 21. Lower Salinas‐Paso Robles Creek Company Area Heritage Ranch CSD
Public Draft June 2014 C‐11 San Luis Obispo County IRWM Region
Item 8.m. - Page 43 San Luis Obispo Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Section C. Region Description
C.4 GROUNDWATER BASINS
There are 24 groundwater basins and 10 sub‐basins and Management Areas in the San Luis Obispo IRWM Region. See Figure C‐6 for a comprehensive view of both DWR listed groundwater basins and smaller unlisted groundwater basins essential to the region’s water supply. This section condenses the highly detailed descriptions of the groundwater resources based on the 2012 Master Water Report and 2014 Watershed Management Planning Project Study (Watershed Snapshot Study).
With groundwater being an essential water supply to the region’s water supply portfolio, attention is given to the following:
groundwater basins’ current sustainable yield (if available) known active storage known water quality supply quantity challenges on‐going management efforts
For additional groundwater basin detail, please see Appendix L – Groundwater Basin Descriptions. Additional information of the region’s geology can be found in Section C.7 Watersheds.
Table C‐2 provides a very brief description of the various groundwater basins and sub‐basins within the IRWM region, and is organized based on Sub‐Region, WPA, and then by Groundwater Basin (or Sub‐Basin) listed in the order of each of the WPAs. See larger size groundwater basin delineations in each of the WPA figures in the following section.
Any basin in Table C‐2 followed by an asterisk means that the County of San Luis Obispo Planning Department has determined that the basin is currently at a Level III severity rating (resource capacity has been met or exceeded) due to either, water quality, historical groundwater level declines and resulting groundwater storage losses. Consequently, water conservation measures, basin management activities, and new growth restrictions are taking place in those basins. The term “Not Available” is used where information is not available and studies should be done to develop a baseline of information (e.g., current water quality characteristics for each basin). Any listed Sub‐Basin’s are italicized and indented, and share information with the primary groundwater basin unless a significant separation exists and data is available. A thorough water budget accounting of groundwater, including other water supplies, is provided in Section D – Water Supply, Demand, and Water Budget.
San Luis Obispo County IRWM Region C‐12 Public Draft June 2014
Item 8.m. - Page 44
Public IRWM
Draft Region
June
2014
C‐ 13
San
Luis
Obispo
Integrated
Regional
Section San
Water
Luis
C.
Region
Management Obispo
Description
County Figure C‐6. Groundwater Basins
Plan
Item 8.m. - Page 45
San
San Section
Luis Luis
C.
Obispo
Obispo
Region
County Integrated
Description
IRWM
Regional
Region
Water
Management
Plan
C‐ 14
Public
Figure C‐7. North Coast Groundwater Basins
June Draft
2014
Item 8.m. - Page 46
Public IRWM
Draft Region
June
2014
C‐ 15
San
Luis
Obispo
Integrated
Regional
Section San
Water
Luis
C.
Region
Management Obispo Figure C‐8. South County Groundwater Basins
Description
County
Plan
Item 8.m. - Page 47
San
San Section
Luis Luis
C.
Obispo Obispo
Region
County Integrated
Description
IRWM
Regional
Region
Water
Management
Plan C‐ 16
Public
June Draft Figure C‐9. North County Groundwater Basins
2014
Item 8.m. - Page 48
Public IRWM
Table C‐2. Groundwater Basins within the San Luis Obispo IRWM Region
Draft Region On‐Going Management
Challenges
Efforts June
Value
2014
ID
Thickness Sustainable or Basins
Number
Sub‐ Weirs
Water
Quality
WPA
Basin Size (Ac) Yield (AFY) Region (##ft) (mg/l)
Page Rating Aquifer Water
Average BMO Levels
Storage DWR Restrictions Water
Recharge
Releases/ Rights Conservation
Demands/
GMP Treatment Figure Groundwater Basin Low Term Low Recycled Storage Salinity/Nitrates Discharges/Environ Growth Water (AFY) and Pesticides/MTBE/PCE Implement/Adjudication Long Reservoir Meeting
1. San Carpoforo Valley 3‐33 200 Not 1,800 Not Available X X X X Available 1 – San 2. Arroyo De La Cruz 3‐34 750 1,244 6,600 Not Available X X X Simeon Valley 3. Pico Creek Valley* NA 62.5 120 40 (19) Not Available X X X X X X X 4 2
C‐ 4. San Simeon Valley* 3‐35 620 1,040 4,000 TDS – 46 to X X X X X X X
17 (120ft) 2210 San 2 – Cambria 1 3
5. Santa Rosa Valley* 3‐36 4,480 2,260 24,700 Cl –80 to 933 X X X X X Luis 6. Villa Valley 3‐37 980 1,0004 Low (50ft) TDS– 500 X X X X X X X
Obispo North 7. Cayucos Valley 3‐38 580 600 Low (68ft) TDS– 500 X X X X X X Coast 8. Old Valley 3‐39 750 505 Low (72ft) TDS– 440 X X X X X X 3 – Cayucos Integrated 9. Toro Valley 3‐40 510 532 Low (50‐ Cl–129 X X X5 X X X X X 80ft) TDS–400 to 700 6
10. Morro Valley 3‐41 1,200 1,500 Low (80ft) TDS–400 to 800 X X X X X X X X X Regional 6 4 – Morro N –220 Section 7 San Bay 11. Chorro Valley 3‐42 1,900 to 2,210 Low (50‐ TDS–500 to 700 X X X X X X X X X X
Water
3,200 70ft) Luis
C.
12. Los Osos Valley* 3‐8 6,400 3,200 High with TDS–200 to 400 X X X X X X X
Region
Management Obispo Multiple 6 5 – Los Osos N –45 Aquifer
Description
County Layers 9 South 6 – San Luis 13. San Luis Obispo 3‐9 13,800 6,000 Low Not Available X X X X X
8 Plan County Obispo/Avila Valley
Item 8.m. - Page 49
San
San Section
Luis On‐Going Management Luis
Challenges
C.
Efforts Obispo Obispo
Region
Value
ID
Thickness Sustainable
Basins
or
County
Integrated
Number
Description
Sub‐ Weirs
Quality Water
WPA Basin
Size (Ac) Yield (AFY) Region (##ft) (mg/l)
Page Rating Aquifer
Water
Average
IRWM
BMO Levels
Storage DWR Restrictions Water
Recharge
Releases/ Rights Conservation and
Demands/ Regional
GMP Treatment Figure Groundwater Basin Low Term
Low
Recycled Region Storage Salinity/Nitrates Discharges/Environ Growth Water (AFY) Pesticides/MTBE/PCE Implement/Adjudication Reservoir Long Meeting
Water
14. San Luis Valley Sub‐ 8,000 2,000‐ Low (60ft) TDS–320 to 630 X X X X
Basin 2,500 Management 15. Avila Valley Sub‐ 1,10010 Not Low (60ft) Not Available X X X X X Basin Available 16. Edna Valley Sub‐ 4,700 4,000‐ Low TDS–630 to 780 X X X X
Basin 4,500
Plan C‐
18 17. Santa Maria River 3‐12 184,000 See Note High Not Available X X X X X X X X
Valley11 11 18. Arroyo Grande 3,860 Not Medium TDS–>1,50012 X X X X X X Valley Sub‐Basin Available (100ft) 7 – South 19. Nipomo Valley 6,230 Not Not TDS–750 to X X X X X Coast Sub‐Basin Available Available 1,300 Cl–64 to 130 N–3.4 20. Pismo Creek Valley 1,220 >200 (no Low (60 to TDS–620 X X X X Sub‐Basin13 max is 70ft) available) 8 – Huasna 21. Huasna Valley 3‐45 4,700 Not Not Not Available X X Valley Available Available
Public 22. Cuyama Valley Basin* 3‐13 147,200 9,000‐ High (150 TDS–755 to X X X X X 13,000 to 250) 1,000
June Draft 9 – Cuyama (8,000 N–400 (shallow Valley net wells) consump
tive use)
2014
Item 8.m. - Page 50
Public IRWM
On‐Going Management
Draft
Region Challenges
Efforts
June Value
ID
Thickness Sustainable
Basins
or
Number
2014
Sub‐ Weirs
Quality Water
WPA Basin
Size (Ac) Yield (AFY) Region (##ft) (mg/l)
Page Rating Aquifer
Water Average
BMO Levels
Storage DWR Restrictions Water
Recharge
Releases/ Rights Conservation and
Demands/
GMP Treatment Figure Groundwater Basin Low Term
Low Recycled Storage Salinity/Nitrates Discharges/Environ Growth Water (AFY) Pesticides/MTBE/PCE Implement/Adjudication Reservoir Long Meeting
23. Carrizo Plain 3‐19 173,000 8,000‐ High TDS–161 to X X 10 – Carrizo 11,000 (3,000ft) 94,750 Plain
24. Rafael Valley 3‐46 2,990 Not Not Not Available X X 11 – Rafael/ Available Available Big Spring 25. Big Spring Area 3‐47 7,320 Not Not Not Available X X Available Available C‐
19 26. Pozo Valley 3‐44 6,840 1,000 Low (30ft) TDS–287 to 676 X X X X San
Luis 27. Rinconada Valley 3‐43 2,580 Not Not Not Available X X
12 – Santa Available Available Obispo North Margarita 28. Santa Margarita NA NA 400‐600 High TDS–400 to 490 X X
County Integrated (multiple aquifer layers)
29.Paso Robles* 3‐4.06 505,000 97,700 Low to 2008 WQ X X X X X X X X X X Regional Medium Report Showed (30 to 130 Below Primary Section
San
ft Upper Drinking Water 13 – Water
Luis Unconfined Standards. Low
Atascadero/ C.
) to Medium
Region
Management Obispo Templeton 30. Atascadero Sub‐ Medium concentrations X X X X X X X Basin** (100ft) of Arsenic and
Description
County Barium are present.
Plan
Item 8.m. - Page 51
San
San Section
Luis On‐Going Management Luis
Challenges
C.
Efforts Obispo Obispo
Region
Value
ID
Thickness Sustainable
Basins
or
County
Integrated
Number
Description
Sub‐ Weirs
Quality Water
WPA Basin
Size (Ac) Yield (AFY) Region (##ft) (mg/l)
Page Rating Aquifer
Water
Average
IRWM
BMO Levels
Storage DWR Restrictions Water
Recharge
Releases/ Rights Conservation and
Demands/ Regional
GMP Treatment Figure Groundwater Basin Low Term
Low
Recycled Region Storage Salinity/Nitrates Discharges/Environ Growth Water (AFY) Pesticides/MTBE/PCE Implement/Adjudication Reservoir Long Meeting
Water
14 – Salinas/ See Paso Robles
Above. Estrella Management 31. Cholame Valley 3‐5 39,800 Not Medium to Not Available 15 – Cholame Available High (100 to 665ft)
No Regional 16 ‐ Plan C‐ Nacimiento Groundwater Basins 20
* The County of San Luis Obispo Planning Department has determined that the basin is currently at a Level III severity rating (resource capacity has been met or exceeded) due to either, water quality, historical groundwater level declines and resulting groundwater storage losses.
** The County of San Luis Obispo Planning Department has determined that the basin is currently at a Level I severity rating (resource capacity has been met or exceeded) due to either, water quality, historical groundwater level declines, and/or resulting groundwater storage losses.
Notes:
Public 1. The State Board allows a maximum extraction of 518 AFY in the Santa Rosa Valley Groundwater Basin and a maximum dry season extraction of 260 AF (Cambria CSD WMP, 2008). The California Coastal Commission Coastal Development Permit defines the Santa Rosa Creek dry period as July 1 to November 20.
June Draft 2. TDS is typically in the range of 100 to 500 mg/l with an MCL of 500 mg/l 3. Chloride (Cl) is typically in the range of 30 to 270 mg/l with an MCL of 250 mg/l 4. The State Water Resources Control Board (State Board) allows a maximum extraction of 1,230 AFY in the San Simeon Valley Groundwater Basin and a maximum dry season extraction of 370 AF (Cambria CSD Water Master Plan (WMP), 2008).
2014 5. Sea water intrusion and petroleum hydrocarbon contamination are the primary constraints. 6. Nitrate MCL is 10 mg/l.
Item 8.m. - Page 52
Public IRWM
7. Safe yield under drought conditions is estimated at 566 AFY through the State Board. 8. The San Luis Obispo Valley Groundwater Basin is part of WPA 6 and WPA 7 and encompasses approximately 13,800 acres (approx. 21.6 square miles), including the San
Draft Region Luis Valley, Edna Valley, and the newly defined Avila Valley Sub‐Basins.
9. The safe yield of the San Luis Obispo Valley Groundwater Basin is estimated at 6,000 AFY, of which 2,000 AFY is assigned to the San Luis Valley Sub‐basin, and 4,000 June
AFY to the Edna Valley Sub‐basin (Boyle, 1991; DWR 1997)
2014 10. Estimated based on San Luis Obispo Valley Groundwater Basin area. 11. The Santa Maria Valley Groundwater Basin was adjudicated in 2005 by the Superior Court of California based on a Judgment for a basin‐wide groundwater litigation case that defined three basin management areas. These management areas are the Northern Cities Management Area (NCMA), the Nipomo Mesa Management Area (NMMA), and the Santa Maria Valley Management Area (SMVMA). The portion of the groundwater basin located in San Luis Obispo County in 1975 was estimated by the Department of Water Resources to contain about 226,000 AF. 12. Downstream sections only. Upstream sections meeting drinking water standards. 13. Pismo Creek Sub‐Basin does not lie within the adjudicated areas of the Santa Maria River Valley Basin.
C‐ 21 San
Luis
Obispo Integrated
Regional Section San
Water
Luis
C.
Region
Management Obispo
Description
County
Plan
Item 8.m. - Page 53 San Luis Obispo Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Section C. Region Description
C.5 DESCRIPTION OF WATER PLANNING AREAS (WPAS) AND LOCAL GOVERNMENTS AND COMMUNITIES
The WPAs represent the geographical organization of the County. Water demand, agricultural water needs, sources of supply, and other information are organized by WPA. The WPAs discussed below were intended to recognize important hydrogeologic units or water management areas throughout the County.
In general, the following types of information (hydrogeologic variations, natural and political boundaries) were used to define the WPAs, but no single approach was followed to delineate every WPA:
Groundwater basin boundaries
Watershed boundaries
Water supplies and management practices
Urban growth boundaries
Similar demands and climate
Similar water supply issues
C.5.1 Reference Information and Level of Detail
This section provides a very brief description of the WPAs along with a short statement of on‐ going issues and concerns (i.e., Appendix M – Water Planning Area Descriptions contains the detailed information of each WPA). At this beginning point in the Region Description, the purpose is to define the WPAs using visual mapping of each, agency locations, groundwater basins, larger infrastructure, source of water supplies, source of water demands, and water related issues.
Understanding that much can be said regarding each of the WPAs, the organization and content of information included for each WPA has been modified from the published 2012 Master Water Report. As stated in Section C.1 Purpose and Organization, the sections following the WPA summaries capture the details at the watershed level (slightly higher resolution) to better align with common hydrogeologic features within the WPAs.
San Luis Obispo County IRWM Region C‐22 Public Draft June 2014
Item 8.m. - Page 54 San Luis Obispo Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Section C. Region Description
Port San Luis
The Port San Luis Harbor District (Harbor District or District) is the governing agency that provides public services and improvements for the Port and regulates the various commercial and recreational uses at the harbor. The Harbor District shares authority over land uses and development under its ownership with two regulatory agencies: the County of San Luis Obispo and the California Coastal Commission.
City of San Luis Obispo The City of San Luis Obispo is located in a coastal valley approximately 10 miles inland from the Pacific Ocean. Historically, the City of San Luis Obispo has been the sole water purveyor within its limits. This allowed the city to maintain uniformity of water service and distribution standards, and to be consistent in developing and implementing water policy. The City also serves the County Regional Airport and Cal Poly. Since Cal Poly has its own allocation of water from the Whale Rock Reservoir and has water resources that do not pass through the City’s treatment plant, the University is discussed separately.
The City of San Luis Obispo has an existing (2010) population of 44,948 and a 1 percent residential growth cap which assists in projecting future annual water needs. The current General Plan estimates that the build‐out population for the City will be approximately 57,200 people.
C.5.3.2 WPA 7 – South Coast The South Coast WPA (see Figure C‐16) includes Edna Valley (Golden State Water Company); the Northern Cities Management Area (NCMA), which includes the Cities of Pismo Beach, Arroyo Grande, and Grover Beach, Oceano Community Services District, agricultural and rural overlying users; the Nipomo Mesa Management Area (NMMA), which includes the Golden State Water Company, Nipomo Community Services District (NCSD), Rural Water Company, Woodlands Mutual Water Company (Woodlands MWC), ConocoPhillips, agricultural and rural overlying users; the Santa Maria Valley Management Area (SMVMA), which includes the City of Santa Maria, agricultural, and rural users; and agricultural and rural users outside of the three management areas.
The primary groundwater supplies include the Edna, Pismo Creek, and Arroyo Grande Valley Sub‐basins, the Santa Maria Valley Groundwater Basin, and the Pismo Formation. Other major supply sources include the State Water Project, Lopez Lake Reservoir, and recycled water from the City of Pismo Beach Wastewater Treatment Plant. A potential water supply project is the Nipomo Supplemental Water Project. The issues in this WPA include adjudicated groundwater basins, limited groundwater supply, and to some extent groundwater quality.
San Luis Obispo County IRWM Region C‐34 Public Draft June 2014
Item 8.m. - Page 55 San Luis Obispo Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Section C. Region Description
Community of Nipomo The town of Nipomo is an unincorporated area located in southern San Luis Obispo County.
Community of Oceano The community of Oceano is located immediately south of Grover Beach and Arroyo Grande and is about 1,150 acres. Oceano includes residential, commercial, industrial, agricultural, and public facility land uses. Existing population (as of July 2009) is estimated at 8,137 and the forecast population is estimated at 12,855.
The unincorporated community of Oceano qualifies under the State’s definition as a disadvantaged community (DAC Block Group MHI = $37,774) (see Figure C‐58) and consists of predominately Hispanic residents. However, these neighborhoods are contained within a larger community that is clearly not economically disadvantaged. As result, the area has the advantage of equal treatment because of their location within the larger community, but is distinct enough to qualify for various forms of financial assistance to ensure that both basic community infrastructure improvements and community amenities are provided.
Palo Mesa Village The Palo Mesa village reserve line encompasses approximately 918 acres on the northwest 7 corner of the Nipomo Mesa around the intersection of Halcyon Road and Highway 1.6F
City of Pismo Beach The City of Pismo Beach supplies its customers with domestic water service. The dominant economic activity in Pismo Beach is tourism, and as a result, the population of Pismo Beach can more than double during summer holidays. The 2010 population was 7,676 and the forecast build‐out population is 11,854.
City of Arroyo Grande The City of Arroyo Grande supplies its customers with domestic water service. Arroyo Grande is located in the southern portion of San Luis Obispo County along the banks of the Arroyo Grande Creek. Land use is primarily residential and agriculture with a small commercial sector. There are no agricultural or industrial water service connections. In 2010, the service population was 16,901 and the forecast build‐out population is 20,000.
City of Grover Beach
7 County of San Luis Obispo, South County Villages (Black Lake, Callender‐Garrett, Locs Berros, Palo Mesa and Woodlands) [Public Review Draft], January 2013.
Public Draft June 2014 C‐35 San Luis Obispo County IRWM Region
Item 8.m. - Page 56 San Luis Obispo Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Section C. Region Description
The City of Grover Beach supplies its customers with domestic water service. Grover Beach is primarily a residential community, with a small commercial/industrial sector. Approximately 80 percent of the water consumers are residents. No agricultural consumers are served by the City water system, though landscape irrigation consumes approximately 90 AFY. In 2010, the population was 13,156. The build‐out population is expected to reach 15,000.
C.5.3.3 WPA 8 – Huasna The Huasna Valley WPA (see Figure C‐17) includes agricultural and rural users only. There are no large population centers with urban demands in this WPA. The primary groundwater supply is the Huasna Valley Groundwater Basin. The issue in this WPA includes limited available data on the groundwater supply’s safe yield.
C.5.3.4 WPA 9 – Cuyama Valley The Cuyama Valley WPA (see Figure C‐18) includes agricultural and rural users, and some oil fields. There are no large population centers with urban demands in this WPA. The primary groundwater supply is the Cuyama Valley Groundwater Basin. Twenty‐two percent of the groundwater basin is in San Luis Obispo County, and the remainder of the basin resides in the counties of Santa Barbara, Kern, and Ventura. There is no separate yield estimate for the San Luis Obispo County portion. The primary issues in this WPA include critical overdraft of the groundwater basin and degrading water quality.
San Luis Obispo County IRWM Region C‐36 Public Draft June 2014
Item 8.m. - Page 57
Public IRWM
Draft Region
June
2014 C‐ 37 San
Luis
Obispo Integrated
Regional Section San
Water
Luis
C.
Region
Management Obispo
Description
County
Plan
Figure C‐15. Water Planning Area No. 6 ‐ San Luis Obispo/Avila
Item 8.m. - Page 58
San
San Section
Luis Luis
C.
Obispo Obispo
Region County Integrated
Description
IRWM
Regional
Region
Water
Management
Plan C‐ 38
Public
June Draft
2014 Figure C‐16. Water Planning Area No. 7 ‐ South Coast
Item 8.m. - Page 59
Public
Draft
June
2014
C ‐ 39 San
Luis
Obispo Integrated San
Regional Luis
Obispo Section
Water County
C.
Region Management
IRWM
Description
Region
Plan Figure C‐17. Water Planning Area No. 8 ‐ Huasna Valley
Item 8.m. - Page 60
San
San Section
Luis Luis
C.
Obispo Obispo
Region County Integrated
Description
IRWM
Regional
Region
Water
Management
Plan C‐ 40
Public
June Draft
2014 Figure C‐18. Water Planning Area No. 9 ‐ Cuyama Valley
Item 8.m. - Page 61 San Luis Obispo Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Section C. Region Description
Table C‐12. San Luis Obispo Creek Watershed (7) , Continued State climate change maps show sea level affecting portions of the town of Avila Beach with inundation along the lower reach of San Luis Obispo Creek (USGS,Cal‐Adapt, viewed 2013).
See IRWM Plan, 2014 Section P. Climate Change
Critical Issues:
Issue:263B Potential264B Causes: Reference:265B Riparian Vegetation / Removal of riparian Land Conservancy, 2002 Buffer Quality (Lack of vegetation by riparian canopy) landowners and livestock,
C.7.2.3 Pismo Creek Watershed
Water Planning Area: 7 California Hydrologic Unit: 10 Area (acres): 26,030 Watershed ID: 24 Outflow Body of Water: Pacific Ocean Major Water Bodies: None Existing Watershed Plans: Pismo Creek/ Edna Area Watershed Management Plan (CCSE, 2009)
Description:
The Pismo Creek Watershed is a coastal basin located in southern San Luis Obispo County. The drainage rises to a maximum elevation of almost 2,865 feet above mean sea level. Pismo Creek flows to the Pacific Ocean and has three major tributary basins with their headwaters in the Santa Lucia Mountains: West Corral de Piedra, East Corral de Piedra, and Cañada Verde. A fourth significant tributary, Cuevitas Creek, enters Pismo Creek from the west in lower Price Canyon. The mouth of Pismo Creek is in the dune region known locally as Pismo Beach.
The watershed is dominated by agricultural land uses in its upper reaches including vineyards, ranches and row crops. The urban core of the City of Pismo Beach is adjacent to the Pismo Creek Estuary. Other land uses include a regional landfill, oil exploration and a wastewater treatment plant.
San Luis Obispo County IRWM Region C‐100 Public Draft June 2014
Item 8.m. - Page 62 San Luis Obispo Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Section C. Region Description
Figure C‐38. Map of Pismo Creek Watershed
Table C‐13. Pismo Creek Watershed (8) Physical Setting:
Rainfall:26B Air267B Temperature: 16 ‐29 inches (NRCS Summer Range (August 1981‐2010): 54°‐ 73°F precipitation shapefile, 2010) Winter Range (December 1981‐2010): 39°‐ 63°F At Santa Maria Public Airport, CA (NOAA National Climatic Data Center, viewed 2013) Hydrology:
Stream268B Gage: Hydrology269B Models: No; Hydrology can be compared Yes; A HEC‐HMS watershed model for Pismo Creek to Arroyo Grande Creek which was developed for the Hydrology and Geology has a USGS and San Luis Obispo Assessment and looked at peak flows (Balance County stream gage station Hydrologics, 2008). (Balance Hydrologics, 2008).
Peak270B Flow: Base271B Flow: No source identified for September low flows are estimated to have ranged measured peak flows. from 0 to 7.5 cfs since 1968. This is equal to Peak flows (100‐year approximately 0 to 0.20 cfs per square mile (Balance recurrence) can be expected to Hydrologics, 2008). be on the order of 150 to 200 cfs per square mile and
Public Draft June 2014 C‐101 San Luis Obispo County IRWM Region
Item 8.m. - Page 63 San Luis Obispo Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Section C. Region Description
Table C‐13. Pismo Creek Watershed (8) , Continued intermediate (1.6‐year recurrence) flows can be expected to be on the order of 15 to 90 cfs per square mile, based on the modeling conducted, and calibrated to measured flows in nearby similar watersheds (Balance Hydrologics, 2008).
Flood27B Reports: No source identified.
Pismo Creek Mainstem channelized from Hwy 101 downstream to Pismo Beach; A levee, faced with soil sediment, was constructed along the south over bank of Pismo Creek between river miles 0.8 and 0.5 to protect the wastewater treatment plant. According to a 1997 Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) report, the levee does not confine 100‐year flood flows, and could be been washed out during an event of that magnitude; While not designed as a flood control mechanism, the private dam on West Corral de Piedra may function to hold storm water from upper West Corral de Piedra (CCSE, 2009).
Areas of Flood Risk include East Corral de Piedra upstream of intersection of Twin Creeks Way and Mira Cielo Drive and intersection of Twin Creeks Way with Hwy 227; Lower Pismo Creek from Hwy 101 downstream to Pacific Ocean and south to State Parks Campground/Carpenter Creek (CCSE, 2009).
Flood273B Control Structures: No source identified
Areas274B of Heightened Flood Risk: No source identified Water Supply:
Water275B Management Entities: Groundwater:276B City of Pismo Beach. No source Yes; alluvial and San Luis Obispo Valley (SLO County, identified. 2012)
Surface27B Water: Imported278B Water: No public reservoirs. There is a Yes; entitled to 896 AFY from Lake Lopez, 1,100 AFY private dam on West Corral de of State Water and 700 AFY of groundwater from the Piedra Creek (CCSE, 2009). Arroyo Grande aquifer (City of Pismo Beach, 2013).
Recycled/Desalinated279B Water: Infiltration280B Zones: None in the City of Pismo The rolling hills of Canada Verde’s tributaries are Beach. No source identified. largely incised into the Paso Robles formation, with limited volumes of recent alluvium. Soils are mapped in this area largely as belonging to hydrologic soil group A and B, indicating that these areas may be especially suitable for ground‐water recharge during storms, and also slow release of ground‐water to streams during base flow periods (Balance Hydrologics, 2008). Flora And Fauna:
Vegetation281B Cover: Primarily non‐native grassland with some coast live oak, mixed chaparral with chamise and buckbrush, mixed evergreen forest, black sage scrub. Some dune scrub, and urban land(SLO County, vegetation shapefile, 1990).
San Luis Obispo County IRWM Region C‐102 Public Draft June 2014
Item 8.m. - Page 64 San Luis Obispo Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Section C. Region Description
Table C‐13. Pismo Creek Watershed (8) , Continued
Forest and woodland habitats are most common in the coastal hills and in northern inland hills within this watershed. Riparian and wetland vegetation are present near Pismo Lake and along portions of Pismo Creek. Wetland vegetation is also present in patches along the margins of Pismo Estuary (Althouse & Meade, Inc, 2013).
Invasive28B Species: Arundo, Cape Ivy (CCSE, 2009)
Steelhead283B Streams: Pismo Creek; East and West Corral de Piedra Creeks (NMFS,2005)
Fish284B Passage Barriers: Fish Ladder at Railroad Crossing of Pismo Creek: stream mile 5.3, Temporary Barrier, PAD # 700044.00000; Arizona Crossing of Pismo Creek: stream mile 4.6, Temporary Barrier, PAD # 736885.00000; County bridge Crossing of West Corral de Piedra Creek at Righetti Road: stream mile 8.2, Temporary Barrier, PAD # 700080.00000; (San Luis Obispo County Stream Crossing Inventory and Fish Passage Evaluation, 2005) Other potential barriers identified by landowners: Bridge Creek Road Crossing of West Corral de Piedra Creek, stream mile 9.1; Righetti Dam spillway on West Corral de Piedra Creek, stream mile 9.8; West Corral de Piedra Creek at Hwy 227 and Old Edna where boulders may have been placed, stream mile 5.7, PAD # 731304.00000; A concrete stream crossing with two culverts observed on East Corral de Piedra Creek may also be a fish passage barrier. (CCSE, 2009) Bedrock Falls at West Corral de Piedra Creek, Total Barrier, PAD # 700079.00000 (CDFW Passage Assessment Database, 2013)
Habitat285B Conservation Plans: None.(USFWS Critical Habitat Portal, viewed 2013) Land Use:
Jurisdictions286B & Local Communities: %287B Urbanized: %28B Agricultural: %289B Other: County of San Luis Obispo, City 13% 74% 13% of Pismo Beach, Town of Shell Beach
Planning290B Areas: Potential291B growth areas: San Luis Obispo, San Luis Bay Los Ranchos/Edna Village area (Specific Plan, 2001); Coastal, San Luis Bay Inland, Los Price Canyon and Los Robles del Mar areas (recent Padres development proposals).
Facilities29B Present: Commercial293B Uses: Private Dam on West Corral de Plains Exploration and Production Company; Piedra Creek; Cold Canyon Recreation and tourism at Pismo Beach; Wineries in Landfill; Plains Exploration Oil Edna Valley; 3 Bar S Ranch Mine for decorative rock, Field; Pismo Beach Wastewater Patchett Pit Mine for sand and gravel, Tiber Canyon Treatment Plant with discharge Sand Pit Mine for sand and gravel (SLO County to Ocean. extractive resources). Demographics:
Population:294B Race295B and Ethnicity: 8,945 (U.S. Census Block, 2010) 86% Caucasian, 9% Latinos, 2% Asian, and 2% two or 7,655 in City of Pismo Beach (US more races. The remaining races each represent less Census, 2010) than 1%, including African American, American Indian, Pacific Islander, and other (U.S. Census Block, 2010).
Income:296B Disadvantaged297B Communities: MHI $79,170.8 in watershed. No; 2% of individuals are below poverty level in
Public Draft June 2014 C‐103 San Luis Obispo County IRWM Region
Item 8.m. - Page 65 San Luis Obispo Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Section C. Region Description
Table C‐13. Pismo Creek Watershed (8) , Continued MHI $65,682 in City (US Census, watershed.(US Census Tract, 2010) 2010) 4.9% of individuals are below poverty level in City (US Census, 2010) Other Unique Characteristics:
Historical298B Resource: The Price House is listed on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP, viewed 2013). The Tognazzini General Store is identified a historic site by the SLO County (Draft Los Ranchos Village Plan, 2013).
Archeological29B Resource: There was a Chumash town called Pismu at the time of European settlement (SB Museum of Natural History, viewed 2013).
Other30B Resource: No source identified Major Changes in the Watershed:
In 1772, Mission San Luis Obispo was established bringing ranching to the area. The watershed covers portions of three Mexican land grants; the San Miguelito, the Pismo and the Corral de Piedra (Effie McDermott Archives). In 1865, Edgar Willis Steele and his brothers purchased 45,000 acres in the Edna Valley and introduced the modern dairy industry to San Luis Obispo County. In 1866, Edgar Steele bought portions of Corral de Piedra, El Pismo, Bolsa de Chamisal and Arroyo Grande ranchos. They operated five dairy farms, each with 150 head of dairy cattle. Railroad Prior to 1911, Pismo Creek’s lower drainage included Pismo Lake, and what today is called Meadow Creek. Lower Pismo Creek joined with Arroyo Grande Creek in its lowest reaches and flowed into the ocean. In 1953, the Pismo Beach Wastewater Treatment Plant began operation. In 1965, Cold Canyon Landfill began accepting non‐hazardous waste. In the late 1970’s, Plains Exploration & Production started production of the oil field in Price Canyon. Climate Change Considerations: State climate change maps show sea level affecting portions of the City of Pismo Beach and town of Oceano with inundation areas along lower Pismo Creek and Carpenter Creek particularly between Highway 101 and the ocean (USGS,Cal‐Adapt, viewed 2013).
See IRWM Plan, 2014 Section P. Climate Change Critical Issues:
Issue:301B Potential302B Causes: Reference:30B Surface Water Lack of riparian canopy CCSE, 2009 Temperature
San Luis Obispo County IRWM Region C‐104 Public Draft June 2014
Item 8.m. - Page 66 San Luis Obispo Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Section C. Region Description
C.7.2.4 Arroyo Grande Creek Watershed
Water Planning Area: 7 California Hydrologic Unit: 10 Area (acres): 95,998 Watershed ID: 18 Outflow Body of Water: Pacific Ocean Major Water Bodies: Lopez Lake, Pipline Lake Existing Watershed Plans: Arroyo Grande Creek Watershed Management Plan (CCSE, 2009)
Description:
The Arroyo Grande Creek Watershed is a coastal basin located in southern San Luis Obispo County. The drainage rises to a maximum elevation of approximately 3,100 feet above sea level. The watershed includes the tributaries of Tally Ho (Corbett), Tar Springs and Los Berros Creeks. Meadow Creek is a remnant marsh drainage system that enters Arroyo Grande Creek, just upstream of the confluence with the ocean. Arroyo Grande Creek empties into an estuary adjacent to the Oceano lagoon.
The watershed is dominated by agricultural land uses including vineyards, ranches and row crops. The urban core of the City of Arroyo Grande is at the confluence of Tally Ho Creek with Arroyo Grande Creek. Other land uses include Lake Lopez Reservoir and a regional airport in Oceano.
Public Draft June 2014 C‐105 San Luis Obispo County IRWM Region
Item 8.m. - Page 67 San Luis Obispo Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Section C. Region Description
Figure C‐39. Map of Arroyo Grande Creek Watershed
Table C‐14. Arroyo Grande Creek Watershed (9) Physical Setting:
Rainfall:304B Air305B Temperature: 15 – 28 inches (NRCS, 2010) Summer Range (August 1981‐2010): 54° ‐ 73°F Winter Range (December 1981‐2010): 39° ‐ 63°F At Santa Maria Public Airport, CA. (NOAA National Climatic Data Center, viewed 2013) Hydrology:
Stream306B Gage: Hydrology307B Models: Yes; USGS 11141280 at Lopez Yes; Swanson Hydrology & Geomorphology used a Creek near Arroyo Grande (1967 HEC‐RAS to study the flood control channel in 2005. ‐ present, active) and The County Public Works Department uses a model USGS/County 11141500 Arroyo to plan. Grande Creek at the City of Arroyo Grande (1940 – 1986 by USGS 1986 ‐ present by County, active). The County has total of 9 active stream flow gages in the watershed. There are 5 USGS
San Luis Obispo County IRWM Region C‐106 Public Draft June 2014
Item 8.m. - Page 68 San Luis Obispo Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Section C. Region Description
Table C‐14. Arroyo Grande Creek Watershed (9) , Continued stream gage stations discontinued (Stetson Engineering, 2004).
Peak308B Flow: Base309B Flow: 4,620 ‐ 5,400 cfs at USGS 11 – 19 cfs at USGS 11141500 (1940 – 1986, change 11141500 (1940‐1986, change in in management to County) (USGS viewed 2013). management to County) (USGS, viewed 2013). The 100‐year discharge estimates are 19,500 cfs (Swanson Hydrology & Geomorphology, 2005).
Flood310B Reports: Yes; Arroyo Grande Creek Erosion, Sedimentation and Flood Alternatives Study (Swanson Hydrology & Geomorphology, 2006); Arroyo Grande Creek Channel Waterway Management Plan (Waterways Consulting, 2010).
The County manages Zone 1/1A Flood Control and Water Conservation District along the lower Arroyo Grande Creek including the channel and associated levees and flap gates for flood protection (SLOCountyWater.org, viewed 2013).
Flood31B Control Structures: No source identified
Areas312B of Heightened Flood Risk: No source identified Water Supply:
Water31B Management Entities: Groundwater:314B Zone 3 Flood Control and Water Yes; alluvial, Arroyo Grande Valley and Santa Maria Conservation District; City of Valley Basins (SLO County, 2012) Arroyo Grande; City of Grover Beach; Oceano Community Services District;
Northern Cities Management Area participants including City of Pismo Beach, City of Arroyo Grande, City of Grover Beach, Oceano Community Services District, small public water systems, and residential and agricultural overlying users.
Surface315B Water: Imported316B Water: Yes; Lake Lopez is operated for Yes; State Water enters the watershed and serves municipal water supply storing the Oceano Community Services District which has 49,400 acre‐feet and considered selling its surplus (in surplus years) to downstream irrigation water surrounding cities. supply. Average annual diversion in 1969 through 1996 was about 4,630 acre‐feet (Stetson Engineering, 2004).
Public Draft June 2014 C‐107 San Luis Obispo County IRWM Region
Item 8.m. - Page 69 San Luis Obispo Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Section C. Region Description
Table C‐14. Arroyo Grande Creek Watershed (9) , Continued
Recycled/Desalinated317B Water: Infiltration318B Zones: No source identified. South San Arroyo Grande Creek by releases from Lake Lopez. Luis Obispo County Sanitation Other areas undetermined. District may look into the feasibility of recycled wate. Flora And Fauna:
Vegetation319B Cover: Primarily non‐native annual grassland, buckbrush and chamise chaparral, and coast live oak forest. Contains some central coastal scrub, beach and coastal dune, agricultural land, and urban land (SLO County vegetation shapefile, 1990). Dune scrub and foredune vegetation are present in coastal areas. Dune wetlands and willow woodlands are present in back dune areas. Riparian vegetation is present along Meadow Creek and Arroyo Grande Creek, primarily consisting of arroyo willow. (Althouse and Meade, Inc. 2013).
Invasive320B Species: Largemouth bass, Black Crappie, Green Sunfish, English ivy, Cape ivy, Arundo donax, pampas grass, castor bean, and bullfrog (CCSE, 2009 and Cindy Cleveland, personal communication, 2013). Ice plant, veldt grass, and blue gum eucalyptus are present at the coast. English ivy, Himalayan blackberry, and cotoneaster are problems in Arroyo Grande Creek near downtown Arroyo Grande (Althouse and Meade, 2013).
Steelhead321B Streams: Yes; Arroyo Grande Creek. (NMFS, 2012) Los Berros (CEMAR, 2008). There are rainbow trout populations above Lopez Dam (CEMAR, 2008).
Fish32B Passage Barriers: Modify County Stream Gage at stream mile 4.98; Replace Cecchetti Road Culvert at steam mile 8, Temporary Barrier, PAD # 700030.00000; Modify Abandoned Dam at stream mile 9.5; Modify Concrete Dam at stream mile 5.82; Remove Debris at Huasna Road; Modify Los Berros Creek Gage at stream mile 5.6; Replace Los Berros Creek Culvert; Modify Tar Springs Creek Road Crossing at stream mile 0.5; Replace Biddle Park Culvert at stream mile 10.9, Temporary Barrier, PAD # 707002.00000; Hwy 101 culvert at Meadow Creek, Unknown Status, PAD # 732175.00000; Little Falls Natural Falls, Total Barrier, PAD # 735375.00000; Big Falls Canyon, Total Barrier, PAD # 735376.00000; Big falls Canyhon upper falls, Total Barrier, PAD # 735377.00000; Beaver Dam at Arroyo Grande Creek, Temporary Barrier, PAD # 736888.00000; Rip‐Rap dam at Arroyo Grande Creek, Unknown Status, PAD # 736890.00000; Concrete dam at Arroyo Grande Creek, Partial Barrier, PAD # 736891.00000; Concrete Grade Control weir at Arroyo Grande Creek, Temporary Barrier, PAD # 736893.00000; Los Berros Creek rd. crossing/ gauging station at Los berros creek, Temporary Barrier, PAD # 736894.00000; Low Flow Concrete Structure at Branch Mil Rd. on Tar Springs Creek, Total barrier, PAD # 736895.00000; Culvert Replacement at Los Berros Creek, Partial barrier, PAD # 736896.00000; Dam at Lopez drive on Arroyo Grande Creek, Temporary Barrier, PAD # 718830; Road Crossing at Valley Road and Los Berros Creek, Partial Barrier, PAD # 712029. (CDFW Passage Assessment Database, viewed 2013 and CCSE, 2009)
Habitat32B Conservation Plans: Yes; In development by County of San Luis Obispo for California red‐legged frog and Steelhead trout along mainstem Arroyo Grande Creek.(USFWS Critical Habitat Portal, viewed 2013) Land Use:
Jurisdictions324B & Local Communities: %325B Urbanized: %326B Agricultural: %327B Other: City of Arroyo Grande, City of 18% 46% 37% Grover Beach, City of Pismo Beach, Town of Oceano, County of San Luis Obispo
Planning328B Areas: Potential329B growth areas: San Luis Bay Coastal, San Luis City of Arroyo Grande, Oceano, Los Berros Village
San Luis Obispo County IRWM Region C‐108 Public Draft June 2014
Item 8.m. - Page 70 San Luis Obispo Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Section C. Region Description
Table C‐14. Arroyo Grande Creek Watershed (9) Bay Inland, South County Inland, Area, Halcyon Huasna‐Lopez, Los Padres, San Luis Obispo
Facilities30B Present: Commercial31B Uses: Lopez Dam on Arroyo Grande Cropland in Cienega Valley; Recreation and tourism Creek; Terminal Reservoir and at Lake Lopez, City of Arroyo Grande, State Park Lopez Water Treatment Plant; Beaches and the Oceano Dunes; Grieb Ranch Oceano Wastewater Treatment Quarry for dimension stone, Oceano Sand Company Plant with discharge to Ocean; Pit for specialty sand (SLO County, Extractive Arroyo Grande Flood Control resources shapefile). Channel Demographics:
Population:32B Race3B and Ethnicity: 47,830 in watershed. Watershed: 70% Caucasian (33,490), 22.9% Latino 17,249, 36.1% in the City of (10,949) Arroyo Grande. 3.2% Asian (1,517), 2.5% 2 or more races/ethnicity 13,156, 27.5% in the City of (1,213) and 1% Other (77). (U.S. Census Tract, 2010). Grover Beach. 7,286, 15.2% in the Community Arroyo Grande: Caucasian, representing 76.9%. of Oceano (U.S. Census Block, Latinos represent 15.7% of the total population in 2010) the watershed. The remaining races each represent less than 4%, including African American, American Indian, Pacific Islander, and Asian(U.S. Census, 2010).
Grover Beach: Caucasian, representing 62.3%. Latinos represent 29.2% of the total population in Grover Beach. The remaining races each represent less than 4%, including African American, American Indian, Pacific Islander, and Asian(U.S. Census, 2010).
Oceano: Caucasian, representing 47.4%. Latinos represent 47.8% of the total population in Oceano. The remaining races each represent less than 3%, including African American, American Indian, Pacific Islander, and Asian (U.S. Census, 2010).
Income:34B Disadvantaged35B Communities: MHI $63,535 in watershed (U.S. Yes, Oceano; 5% of individuals are below poverty Census Tracts, 2010) level in watershed (U.S. Census Tract, 2010). MHI $64,900 in Arroyo 7.2% of individuals are below poverty level in Arroyo Grande(U.S. Census, 2010) Grande. MHI $47,708 in Grover Beach 14.3% of individuals are below poverty level in (U.S. Census, 2010) Grover Beach. MHI $37,219 in Oceano (U.S. 14.1% of individuals are below poverty level in Census, 2010) Oceano (US Census, 2010). Other Unique Characteristics:
Historical36B Resource: The City of Arroyo Grande has a building on the National Register of Historic Places.
Public Draft June 2014 C‐109 San Luis Obispo County IRWM Region
Item 8.m. - Page 71 San Luis Obispo Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Section C. Region Description
Table C‐14. Arroyo Grande Creek Watershed (9)
Archeological37B Resource: There were Chumash towns called Chimoli, Chiliqin, and Stemeqtatimi at the time of European settlement (SB Museum of Natural History, viewed 2013).
Other38B Resource: The Los Padres National Forest, Santa Lucia District in the watershed includes one campground, portions of the Santa Lucia Wilderness and general recreation. Major Changes in the Watershed:
Chumash Indians are thought to have lived in the Lopez Valley as long ago as 2000 years. Four major villages were within the Lopez Valley, including the Chmoli and Chojuale villages. In 1772, Mission San Luis Obispo was established. Canada del Trigo, now Lopez Canyon, supplied wheat to Mission San Luis Obispo. Soon after the mission's founding, the padres established a garden and plantation on the plain of Arroyo Grande Creek where they raised corn, beans, potatoes and other vegetables. In the early 1800’s, the first white settlers move to the valley and begin a dairy and prune orchard at the junction of Arroyo Grande and Lopez Creeks. Around 1899, over fourteen oil companies bored for oil in areas including Bore Porter Huasna Ranch, Phoenix Canyon, Records Ranch, Rosa Porter Ranch, Mrs. Flora Harloe Huasna Ranch, the upper valleys and in the town of Arroyo Grande. Between 1862 ‐ 2000 there were approximately numerous flood years (Honeycutt, 2000) In 1929, fire season burned thousands of acres of AG watershed in Lopez, Clapboard, Tar Springs, and Phoenix canyons. In 1930, Plowed Hillside Farms washed out with every heavy rain; Corralitas, Corbett, Carpenter, and Oak Park Canyons. Oak Park Canyon pea farmers have to build brush and straw dykes at the head of the slopes. Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC) build drainage ditches and terraces to control runoff near Noyes Road and east of Printz Road. CCC stabilized hills in Carpenter Canyon‐Poorman Canyon. (Honeycutt, 2000) In 1957, US Forest Service Intensifies fire prevention steps in Los Padres National Service. (Honeycutt) Early 1960s, Oceano wastewater treatment plant is constructed. In 1961, construction of the flood control channel was finished. In 1968, Lopez Dam completed; Dam filled to capacity and spills April 1969. In 2001, Flood Zone 1/1A Advisory Committee convenes following March 2001 levee breaches. Climate Change Considerations: State climate change maps show sea level affecting the City of Grover Beach and town of Oceano with inundation areas along Meadow Creek and the historic Los Berros Creek (USGS, Cal‐Adapt, viewed 2013).
See IRWM Plan, 2014 Section P. Climate Change Critical Issues:
Issue:39B Potential340B Causes: Reference:341B Surface Water Lack of riparian canopy CCSE, 2009 Temperature
C.7.2.5 Santa Maria River Watershed
Water Planning Area: 7 California Hydrologic Unit: 10 Area (acres): 33,205 Watershed ID: 25 Outflow Body of Water: Pacific Ocean Major Water Bodies: Big Pocket Lake, Black Lake, Celery Lake, Little Oso Flaco Lake, Oso Flaco Lake
San Luis Obispo County IRWM Region C‐110 Public Draft June 2014
Item 8.m. - Page 72 San Luis Obispo Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Section C. Region Description
Existing Watershed Plans: Nipomo Creek Watershed Management Plan (Land Conservancy of SLO and CCSE, 2005) Santa Maria River Estuary Enhancement and management Plan (Dunes Center, 2004)
Description:
The Santa Maria River Watershed is located in southern San Luis Obispo County and northern Santa Barbara County. The watershed includes the major tributaries of the Cuyama and Sisquoc Rivers as well as a number of smaller tributaries. The Santa Maria River (downstream of the confluence with Cuyama and Sisquoc Rivers) rises to a maximum elevation of approximately 390 feet and flows to the Pacific Ocean. Drainage in the watershed is linked to the soils and geology with a dune lake complex, Black Lake Canyon slough, Oso Flaco Creek and portions of the Santa Maria River within the County of San Luis Obispo.
The watershed is dominated by residential and agricultural land uses including ranches, row crops, greenhouses and orchards. Other land uses include recreation and oil refinery.
Figure C‐40. Map of Santa Maria River Watershed
Public Draft June 2014 C‐111 San Luis Obispo County IRWM Region
Item 8.m. - Page 73 San Luis Obispo Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Section C. Region Description
Table C‐15. Santa Maria River Watershed (10) Physical Setting:
Rainfall:342B Air34B Temperature: 15 – 17 inches (NRCS Precipitation Summer Range (August 1981‐2010): 54°‐ 73°F 1981‐2010) Winter Range (December 1981‐2010): 39°‐ 63°F At Santa Maria Public Airport, CA. (NOAA National Climatic Data Center, viewed 2013) Hydrology:
Stream34B Gage: Hydrology345B Models: No; USGS 11141600 Los Berros C Yes; for Santa Maria River Estuary (Dunes Center, Nr Nipomo Ca (1968‐1978, 2004). discontinued); USGS 11141000 Santa Maria R A Guadalupe (1941 ‐ 1987, discontinued).
Limited water quality data with instantaneous discharge was collected at USGS 350146120352501,Little Oso Flaco Lake Near Guadalupe CA (years unknown, active); USGS 350121120351301 Unnamed Trib To Oso Flaco Creek Near Guadalupe Ca (2008‐08‐ 06,active); USGS 350059120351501 Oso Flaco CA Oso Flaco Lake Rd Near Guadalupe Ca (2008‐08‐06, active); USGS 345945120341301 Oso Flaco C A Hwy 1 Near Guadalupe Ca (2008‐08‐ 06,active); USGS 345955120330901, Oso Flaco C 1.0 Mi Us Of Hwy 1 Near Guadalupe Ca (dates unknown, active); USGS 350001120261101,Nipomo CA Hwy 101 Bridge Ca (1975‐02‐ 12,inactive)
Peak346B Flow: Base347B Flow: No source identified for Black No source identified for Black Lake Canyon. Lake Canyon. Overall average annual discharge [for Oso Flaco Overall average annual discharge Creek] measured over rain years 2009, 2010, 2011 [for Oso Flaco Creek] measured is 2,062.25 million gallons for Site OFC 20. The over rain years 2009, 2010, 2011 lowest monthly average flow was 5.12 cfs for Site is 2,062.25 million gallons for Site OFC20. (A&M, 2012). OFC 20. The highest monthly average flow was 17.46 cfs (A&M, The Guadalupe gage (USGS 11141000) [on the
San Luis Obispo County IRWM Region C‐112 Public Draft June 2014
Item 8.m. - Page 74 San Luis Obispo Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Section C. Region Description
Table C‐15. Santa Maria River Watershed (10) , Continued 2012). Santa Maria River] record from 1941–1987 reported periods every year of continuous zero discharge, some up to 3 years in duration (Stillwater Sciences, 2012).
Flood348B Reports: Yes; Nipomo Drainage and Flood Control Study (SLO County, 2004); No sources identified for Black Lake Canyon, Oso Flaco or Santa Maria River areas.
The [Nipomo] Mesa’s undulating topography creates numerous depressions, including low spots having no outflow drainage paths, which lead to a high incidence of localized ponding (SLO County FCWCD, 2009).
Large portions of the Oso Flaco Creek subwatershed are within the FEMA 100‐year flood zone; connecting to the Santa Maria River in large events. Flood risk is localized in the Black Lake Canyon area (FEMA, Flood Maps).
Flood349B Control Structures: No source identified
Areas350B of Heightened Flood Risk: No source identified Water Supply:
Water351B Management Entities: Groundwater:352B Nipomo Community Services Yes; alluvial and Santa Maria River Valley (SLO District; Rural Water Company; County, 2012) Golden State Water Company; Woodlands Water Company; about 29 small purveyors are on the Nipomo Mesa (LAFCO, 2010).
Surface35B Water: Imported354B Water: No public reservoirs. Planned; supplemental water from Santa Maria which is blended state water and groundwater (Douglas Wood & Ass., 2009).
Recycled/Desalinated35B Water: Infiltration356B Zones: Yes; Woodlands Wastewater No source identified Treatment Plant for irrigation of golf course; Desalinated water is not currently used but is being explored (LAFCO, 2010). Flora And Fauna:
Vegetation357B Cover: Primarily agricultural land and coastal beaches and dunes with some central coastal scrub (sagebrush and heather goldenbush), coast live oak forest, coastal and valley freshwater marsh and urban land (SLO County, vegetation shapefile, 1990). Grassland, coastal dune scrub/chaparral, riparian/freshwater marsh, cypress/eucalyptus (Morro Group, 1996). Dune wetlands and riparian vegetation are present in backdunes and along dune lakes in this watershed (Althouse and Meade, 2013).
Invasive358B Species: Eucalyptus, Giant reed, Cape ivy, Perennial pepperweed, Hoary cress, bull thistle, non‐native grasslands (Dunes Center, 2004).
Steelhead359B Streams:
Public Draft June 2014 C‐113 San Luis Obispo County IRWM Region
Item 8.m. - Page 75 San Luis Obispo Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Section C. Region Description
Table C‐15. Santa Maria River Watershed (10) , Continued
Santa Maria River (NMFS, 2005)
Fish360B Passage Barriers: Road Crossing Unnamed tributary to Santa Maria River, Unknown Status, PAD # 731125; Black Lake Canyon and Hwy 1 Culvert, Unknown Status, PAD # 731671. (CDFW Passage Assessment Database, 2013)
Habitat361B Conservation Plans: None. (USFWS Critical Habitat Portal, viewed 2013) Land Use:
Jurisdictions362B & Local Communities: %36B Urbanized: %364B Agricultural: %365B Other: Nipomo Community Services 27% 37% 36% District
Planning36B Areas: Potential367B growth areas: South County Inland, South Nipomo Mesa County Coastal
Facilities368B Present: Commercial369B Uses: Private wells and septic systems; Proposed oil processing facilities, agriculture small water companies include including greenhouses, row crops, cattle grazing, Rural Water Company, Mesa recreation Dunes Mobile home Estates, La Mesa Water Company and Las Flores Water Company and others. Demographics:
Population:370B Race371B and Ethnicity: 13,720 in watershed (U.S. Census 63.9% Caucasian (8,775), 2.5% Asian (349), 30.1% Block, 2010) Latino (4,128), 3.5% Other (U.S. Census Block, 2010)
Income:372B Disadvantaged37B Communities: MHI $56,538 (U.S. Census Tract, No; 7% of individuals are below poverty in the 2010) watershed Other Unique Characteristics:
Historical374B Resource: No source identified
Archeological375B Resource: There are a number of archaeological sites in the [Nipomo] area which are large but of a low density (Morro Group, 1996).
Other376B Resource: No source identified Major Changes in the Watershed:
Nipomo Creek, during the Pliocene Epoch, flowed to the north joining Los Berros Creek and Arroyo Grande Creek. During the Quaternary period of the Holocene Epoch, rapid melting of glaciers caused changes in sea levels and rapid migration of shoreline dunes inland blocking the flow of Nipomo Creek. The blockage created shallow lakes which broke thought the dunes of the Nipomo Mesa creating Black Lake Canyon. Further encroachment of sand eventually blocked this direct seaward exist of Nipomo. The subsequent build up of water in Nipomo valley found its weakest point to exit through a southern route becoming a tributary of the Santa Maria watershed (Ardoin/Bishop, 2004) 9,000 years. Most of the recorded cultural sites occur on the bluff of the mesa overlooking several creeks and in the
San Luis Obispo County IRWM Region C‐114 Public Draft June 2014
Item 8.m. - Page 76 San Luis Obispo Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Section C. Region Description
C.8 MAJOR INFRASTRUCTURE
This section describes the major infrastructure that provides water to the San Luis Obispo IRWM Plan Region. Many of the projects covered in this section have been presented in their respective WPA or watershed above. Provided herein is a short description of the larger regional water‐related infrastructure, their purpose, and capacity.
Regional water‐related infrastructure refers to the infrastructure used to provide water throughout the San Luis Obispo IRWM Region. This includes raw surface water transmission lines and reservoirs. 0 shows the major conveyance and storage facilities.
C.8.1 Nacimiento Water Project
The Monterey County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (now known as the Monterey County Water Resources Agency (MCWRA)) constructed the Nacimiento Dam in 1956. The dam and reservoir continue to be operated by MCWRA. The lake has a capacity of 377,900 acre‐feet (AF) and a surface area of 5,727 acres. Water is collected from a 365 square mile watershed that is comprised of grazing lands and rugged wilderness.
In 1959, the District secured the rights to 17,500 AFY from Lake Nacimiento, with 1,750 AFY reserved for lakeside users and the Heritage Ranch Community Services District (Heritage Ranch CSD). After a long series of studies and negotiations, the Nacimiento Water Project (NWP) was initiated in 2004 with the District’s Board of Supervisors adopting the Final Environmental Impact Report. The NWP is the single largest project that the District has ever undertaken. The total project cost, including administration, design, construction, construction management, environmental permitting, and right‐of‐way, was approximately $174 million (project budget was $176 million). Water deliveries began in 2011. The project delivers raw lake water from Lake Nacimiento to communities within San Luis Obispo County. The current participating entities and their contracted water amounts are listed below in Table C‐32.
Table C‐32. Nacimiento Project Allocations Nacimiento Water Project Participants Allocations (AFY) City of Paso Robles 4,000 Templeton CSD 250 City of San Luis Obispo 3,380 Atascadero Mutual Water Company 2,000 CSA 10 A (via exchange)1 25 Total 9,655 Notes: 1. See Whale Rock Reservoir Operating Agreements.
San Luis Obispo County IRWM Region C‐188 Public Draft June 2014
Item 8.m. - Page 77
San San Section
Luis Luis
C.
Obispo Obispo
Region County Integrated
Description
IRWM
Regional
Region
Water
Management
Plan C‐ 190
Public
June Draft
2014 Figure C‐57. Major Water Conveyance and Storage
Item 8.m. - Page 78 San Luis Obispo Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Section C. Region Description
exchange for CSA 10A’s purchase of an equivalent amount of Nacimiento Water for delivery to the City. The anticipated need for CSA 10A is 25 AFY at build‐out.
C.8.3 Lopez Lake/Reservoir
The District completed the Lopez Dam in 1968 to provide a reliable water supply for agricultural and municipal needs as well as flood protection for coastal communities. Lopez Reservoir has a capacity of 49,388 AF. The lake covers 950 acres and has 22 miles of oak covered shoreline. Allocations for Lopez Lake water are based on a percentage of the safe yield of the reservoir, which is 8,730 AFY. Of that amount, 4,530 AFY are for pipeline deliveries and 4,200 AFY are reserved for downstream releases. The dam, terminal reservoir, treatment and conveyance facilities are a part of Flood Control Zone 3 (Zone 3).
The agencies that contract for Lopez water in Zone 3 include the communities of Oceano, Grover Beach, Pismo Beach, Arroyo Grande, and County Service Area (CSA) 12 (including the Avila Beach area). Their allocations are shown in the table below.
Table C‐35. Lopez Lake Allocations Water Users Allocation (AFY) City of Pismo Beach 896 Oceano CSD 303 City of Grover Beach 800 City of Arroyo Grande 2,290 CSA 12 241 Total 4,530
Two issues could change the amount of water available to contractors and the safe yield. The Arroyo Grande Habitat Conservation Plan, which is currently being developed, will likely require additional downstream releases. Changes in operation of the dam are being considered for reducing spills and optimizing future deliveries. Additionally, the City of Pismo Beach, on behalf of the Zone 3 agencies, has taken the lead on conducting a study to consider the feasibility of modifying the dam to augment capacity of the reservoir.
C.8.4 Santa Margarita Lake/Salinas Reservoir
The Salinas Dam was built in 1941 by the War Department to supply water to Camp San Luis Obispo and, secondarily, to meet the water needs of the City of San Luis Obispo. The Salinas Reservoir (Santa Margarita Lake) captures water from a 112 square mile watershed and can currently store up to 23,843 acre‐feet (AF). In 1947, the Salinas Dam and delivery system was transferred from the regular Army to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Shortly thereafter, the District began operating this water supply for the City under a lease from the U.S. Army Corps
Public Draft June 2014 C‐193 San Luis Obispo County IRWM Regi
Item 8.m. - Page 79 San Luis Obispo Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Section C. Region Description
Camp San Luis Obispo has priority rights to water from Chorro Reservoir, with 140 AFY of entitlement. CMC has right to any excess. The Mainini Ranch has an agreement with the Camp for a delivery of up to 25 AFY, but has only used an average of 5 to 7 AFY over the past decade. For further discussion on agreements related to the Chorro Reservoir, see the description of the Chorro Valley Water System in the Water Planning Area Number 4 discussion below.
C.8.6 State Water Project Facilities
The California Department of Water Resources (DWR) owns and operates the State Water Project (SWP). In 1963 the District contracted with DWR for 25,000 AFY of State Water. The SWP began delivering water to the Central Coast in 1997 upon completion of the Coastal Branch conveyance and treatment facilities, serving Santa Barbara and San Luis Obispo Counties.
The treatment facility for State Water delivered through the Coastal Branch, known as the Polonio Pass Water Treatment Plant (PPWTP), is owned, operated and maintained by the Central Coast Water Authority (CCWA) for users in San Luis Obispo and Santa Barbara Counties. DWR owns the Coastal Branch transmission system, and they operate and maintain the raw water portion of the system. CCWA operates and maintains the treated water portion of the Coastal Branch. Agreements between CCWA, Santa Barbara County Flood Control and Water Conservation District and DWR are in place to establish these roles and relationships.
C.8.6.1 Improving the Delta The RWMG MOU (Exhibit 4) includes the need to update the Plan to comply with new State guidelines. Since the new State guidelines include eligibility standards for including addressing reduction in dependence on Delta water in the Plan, future updates to the Region’s Plan retain applicable goals and objectives.
Additionally, San Luis Obispo County’s Conservation and Open Space Element (COSE) of the General Plan includes Water Resources Policy 1.3, which says use of reclaimed water, interagency cooperative projects, desalination of contaminated groundwater supplies, and groundwater recharge projects should be considered prior to using imported sources of water or seawater desalination, or dams and on‐stream reservoirs. Per Provision 4 of the MOU, the District is the lead agency for the RWMG, and the WRAC is both the main advisor to the RWMG and made up of RWMG members. The WRAC reviewed and commented on the update to the COSE on September 2, 2009, with no changes recommended. Therefore, updates of the Region’s Plan will retain the goals for reducing dependence on imported water independent of State guidelines and eligibility requirements.
Public Draft June 2014 C‐195 San Luis Obispo County IRWM Regi
Item 8.m. - Page 80 San Luis Obispo Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Section C. Region Description
C.8.7 Morro Bay Desalination Plant
In the County, there is only one operating desalination facility, that being the City of Morro Bay's desalination plant. In the past, the Morro Bay has used the salt water reverse osmosis (SWRO) treatment plant to treat water from saltwater wells and to remove nitrates from fresh water wells. Recently the Morro Bay completed the installation of two 450 gallons per minute (gpm) brackish water reverse osmosis (BWRO) treatment trains. The addition of these treatment processes will enable the Morro Bay to treat both fresh water and salt water wells simultaneously, and will also reduce the energy usage of the facility as well. The SWRO trains are designed to produce approximately 645 AFY of potable water from sea water. The BWRO system is capable of treating the entire 581 AF of Morro Basin groundwater that the Morro Bay can extract by permit.
The original capital cost for the BWRO system in 2003 was about $3.1 million. The operating costs for the facility vary widely depending on the amount the Morro Bay operates the plant. Based on a nearly continuous operation, the costs are about $1,700 per acre foot, including replacement of membranes and some appurtenances on a 5‐year cycle. With energy recovery equipment installed at a capital outlay of about $1 million, the operational cost for water would drop into the $1,100 ‐$1,300 per acre foot range.
C.8.8 Other Desalination Projects
The Cambria CSD has been striving to develop a seawater desalination plant to meet existing and future water demands. This plant, if implemented, is expected to produce up to 602 AFY. This plant will operate during the summer season to augment supply during the summer and high demand period (from summer tourism). A recycled water system is also planned, with an estimated 180 AFY made available for unrestricted irrigation use.
The City of Arroyo Grande, the City of Grover Beach, and the Oceano Community Services District participated in the evaluation of a desalination project to supplement their existing potable water sources. Currently, all three agencies receive water from various sources, including the California State Water Project, Lopez Lake Reservoir, and groundwater from the Arroyo Grande Plain Hydrologic Subarea that is part of the Santa Maria Valley Groundwater Basin. Recent projections of water supply shortfalls in the region motivated the agencies to conduct a more detailed study of desalination as a supplemental water supply. The study focused on utilizing the existing South San Luis Obispo County Sanitation District’s (SSLOCSD) wastewater treatment plant to take advantage of utilizing the existing ocean outfall, while having the plant located near the ocean seawater source. The feasibility study, completed in
San Luis Obispo County IRWM Region C‐196 Public Draft June 2014
Item 8.m. - Page 81 San Luis Obispo Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Section C. Region Description
2008, was based on a 2,300 AFY seawater desalination facility. Some of the major points of interest and concern of this study include:
Some 20 or more beach wells may be needed to provide enough seawater to produce the 2,300 AFY potable water. Permitting and environmental issues could be complex, and implementation could take 8 years or longer.
Initial capital cost could be in the range of $35 million, and customer rates could be impacted by 18 percent to over 100 percent to fund the project, and would cost in the neighborhood of $2,300 per AF or more, on a 20‐year life cycle basis.
C.9 CURRENT WATER QUALITY CONDITIONS
This section summarizes current water quality conditions for surface water and groundwater bodies in the San Luis Obispo IRWM Plan Region. Surface water quality is summarized by the watershed name, timing of conditions, the pollutants that exceed the Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) according to Section 303(d) of the California Clean Water Act, potential pollution sources. Groundwater quality is summarized by groundwater basin name, estimated safe basin yield, Federal drinking water standard exceedance, and Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board water quality objective exceedance. Finally, summaries of the available basin management plans are provided.
The information presented in this section was gathered and aggregated from the Watershed Snap Shots.
Public Draft June 2014 C‐197 San Luis Obispo County IRWM Regi
Item 8.m. - Page 82 San Luis Obispo Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Section C. Region Description
C.9.1.3 Basin Plans (By Watershed) Table C‐37. North Coast Basin Plans Watershed Name Plan Title Plan Author Plan Year Santa Rosa Creek Santa Rosa Creek Watershed Management Plan Greenspace Cambria 2010 Cambria Forest Management Plan Greenspace Cambria 2002 Arroyo Grande Arroyo Grande Creek Watershed Management CCSE 2009 Creek Plan Coastal Irish Hills Irish Hills Coastal Watershed Conservation Plan Coastal Conservancy 2011 Morro Bay Morro Bay Comprehensive Conservation MBNEP 2013 Management Plan Pismo Creek Pismo Creek/ Edna Area Watershed Management CCSE 2009 Plan Santa Maria River Estuary Enhancement and Dunes Center 2004 management Plan San Luis Obispo San Luis Obispo Creek Watershed Enhancement The Land Conservancy of San Luis 2002 Creek Plan Obispo County Prefumo Creek Watershed Management Plan City of San Luis Obispo 2014
C.9.2 North County
C.9.2.1 Watershed Health
Ephemeral / Watershed 303d Listed/ TMDLs Perennial Black Sulfur Spring Perennial None Watershed Ephemeral Soda Lake Ammonia (wiki) Upper San Juan Creek Unknown None Chloride, E. coli, Fecal Coliform, Low Dissolved Oxygen, Middle Salinas‐Atascadeo Perennial and Sodium. TMDL estimated date of completion 2021. Santa Margarita Lake – Unknown Sodium, Chloride South Salinas Paso Robles Creek – North Intermittent Sodium, Chloride Salinas River Perennial Boron, Chloride, Electrical Conductivity, Escherichia coli Cholame Creek Perennial (E. coli), Fecal Coliform, Low Dissolved Oxygen, Sodium Estrella River Ephemeral Boron, Chloride, Fecal Coliform, Sodium, pH Huer Huero Unknown None Indian Valley Unknown Sodium, Chloride Lower San Juan Creek Unknown None Nacimiento River Perennial Mercury, Metals
San Luis Obispo County IRWM Region C‐200 Public Draft June 2014
Item 8.m. - Page 83 San Luis Obispo Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Section C. Region Description
C.9.2.2 Groundwater Quality Table C‐38. North County Groundwater Quality Groundwater Estimated Safe Yield Drinking Water Standard Exceedance Water Quality Objective Exceedance Basin Carrizo Plain 8000‐11,000 AF Yes; see description below. Exceeds usable mineral quality for total (Carollo, 2012) dissolved solids, chloride, sulfate, boron, sodium, and nitrogen (CCRWQB, 2011). Paso Robles 97,700 AF (SLO County Yes; see description below. None (CCRWQCB, 2011 RCS, 2011).
Big Spring Area None (Carollo, 2012) None (Carollo, 2012) None (CCRWQCB, 2011 Rafael Valley None (Carollo, 2012) None (Carollo, 2012) None (CCRWQCB, 2011 Atascadero None (Carollo, 2012) The 2008 Water Quality None (CCRWQCB, 2011) Report for both Templeton CSD and Atascadero MWC found that none of the tested regulated and secondary substances in water samples exceeded their MCL values (Carollo, 2012) Rinconada None (Carollo, 2012) None (Carollo, 2012) None (CCRWQCB, 2011) Pozo Valley 1,000 AFY (DWR 1958; None (Carollo, 2012) None (CCRWQCB, 2011) Carollo, 2012) Santa 400‐600AFY (SLO Margarita County, 2008) Basin Cholame No data available None None (CCRWQCB, 2011) Valley
C.9.2.3 Basin Plans (By Watershed) Table C‐39. North County Basin Plans Watershed Name Plan Title Plan Author Plan Year Indian Valley Upper Salinas River Watershed Action Plan US‐LTRCD 2004 Camp Roberts Integrated National Resources Camp Roberts 2013 Management Plan JLUS Nacimiento River San Antonio and Nacimiento Rivers Watershed MCWRA 2008 Management Plan Camp Roberts Integrated Natural Resource Camp Roberts 2013 Management Plan JLUS North Salinas River, Middle Salinas River, Upper Salinas River Watershed Action Plan US‐LT RCD 2004 South Salinas River
Public Draft June 2014 C‐201 San Luis Obispo County IRWM Regi
Item 8.m. - Page 84 San Luis Obispo Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Section C. Region Description
C.9.3 South County
C.9.3.1 Watershed Health
Ephemeral / Watershed 303d Listed/ TMDLs Perennial No source Coastal Irish Hills Not assessed. (SWRCB, 2010) identified. Perennial, Chloride, Chlorpyrifos, Nitrate, Nutrients, Pathogens, Sodium, Fecal Coliform, San Luis Obispo Creek Ephemeral Low Dissolved Oxygen, Nitrate, Turbidity, Perennial, Arroyo Grande Creek E coli., Fecal Coliform, Chloride, Nitrate, Sodium Ephemeral Nipomo – Suey Creeks Perennial Fecal Coliform, Nitrate, Unknown Toxicity Perennial, Pismo Creek Chloride, E. coli, Fecal Coliform, Low Dissolved Oxygen, and Sodium Ephemeral Ammonia, Chloride, Fecal Coliform, Nitrate, Sediment Toxicity, Sodium, Perennial, Santa Maria River Unknown Toxicity, Chloride, Chlorpyrifos, DDT, Dieldrin, Endrin, E. coli, Ephemeral Toxaphene, Turbidity Alamo Creek Perennial Fecal Coliform No source Huasna River Not assessed. (SWRCB, 2010) identified. Cuyama River Ephemeral for Boron, Chloride, Electrical Conductivity, Fecal Coliform, pH, Sodium Black Sulfur Spring Perennial None Watershed Ephemeral Soda Lake Ammonia (wiki) Boron, Chloride, Electrical Conductivity, Escherichia coli (E. coli), Fecal Coliform, Cholame Creek Perennial Low Dissolved Oxygen, Sodium Estrella River Ephemeral Boron, Chloride, Fecal Coliform, Sodium, pH Huer Huero Unknown None Salinas River Unknown Sodium, Chloride Nacimiento River Perennial Mercury, Metals Intermittent North Salinas River Sodium, Chloride Perennial Lower San Juan Creek Unknown None Upper San Juan Creek Unknown None Chloride, E. coli, Fecal Coliform, Low Dissolved Oxygen, and Sodium. TMDL Middle Salinas‐Atascadeo Perennial estimated date of completion 2021. South Salinas Unknown Sodium, Chloride
San Luis Obispo County IRWM Region C‐202 Public Draft June 2014
Item 8.m. - Page 85 San Luis Obispo Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Section C. Region Description
C.9.3.2 Groundwater Quality Table C‐40. South County Groundwater Quality Water Quality Groundwater Estimated Safe Yield Drinking Water Standard Exceedance Objective Basin Exceedance San Luis Obispo 6,000 AFY (SLO County, Master See sub‐basins. (SLO County, Master Water No.(RWQCB, Table Valley Water Report, 2012) Report, 2012) 3‐8, 2011) No objective for San Luis Obispo No basin yield numbers have sub‐basin. Valley – Avila been published (SLO County, No. (SLO County, Master Water Report, 2012) (RWQCB, Table 3‐ Valley Subbasin Master Water Report, 2012) 8, 2011) No objective for San Luis Obispo 4,000 AFY (DWR, 1997) (SLO sub‐basin. Valley – Edna County, Master Water Report, No. (SLO County, Master Water Report, 2012) (RWQCB, Table 3‐ Valley Subbasin 2012) 8, 2011) 200 AFY, although this is before San Luis Obispo No for basin. No any consideration for Valley – Pismo Yes; see description below. (SLO County, Master objective for environmental habitat demand Creek Valley Water Report, 2012) subbasin. (Fugro, 2009). (SLO County, Subbasin (RWQCB, 2011) Master Water Report, 2012) No objective for San Luis Obispo 2,000 AFY (DWR, 1997) (SLO Yes; see description below. (SLO County, Master sub‐basin. Valley – San Luis County, Master Water Report, Water Report, 2012) (RWQCB, Table 3‐ Valley Subbasin 2012) 8, 2011) No. No objective No estimated safe yield value for subbasin. Arroyo Grande reported. (San Luis Obispo Yes; see description below. (San Luis Obispo (RWQCB, Basin Valley Subbasin County, Master Water Report, County, Master Water Report, 2012) Plan, Table 3‐8, 2012) 2011) No objective for Santa Maria No existing yield. (San Luis No. (San Luis Obispo County, Master Water subbasin. Valley – Nipomo Obispo County, Master Water Report, 2012) (RWQCB, Table 3‐ Valley Subbasin Report, 2012) 8, 2011) Northern Cities No. No objective Management for subbasin. Yes; see description below. (San Luis Obispo Area of Santa 4,000 AFY (DWR, 1997) (RWQCB, Basin County, Master Water Report, 2012) Maria Valley Plan, Table 3‐8, Basin 2011) Santa Maria Valley‐ Nipomo 4,800‐6,000 AFY(San Luis No. (San Luis Obispo County, Master Water Yes. (RWQCB, Mesa Obispo County, Master Water Report, 2012) Table 3‐8, 2011) Management Report, 2012) Area Santa Maria Unknown. (San Luis Obispo *Santa Maria Unknown. (San Luis Obispo County, Master Valley ‐ Orcutt County, Master Water Report, Valley ‐ Orcutt Water Report, 2012) Sub‐basin 2012) Sub‐basin 124,000 AFY Safe Yield in the San Luis Obispo County portion 124,000 AFY Safe Yield in the San Luis Obispo Santa Maria *Santa Maria of the Santa Maria Valley, County portion of the Santa Maria Valley, Valley – Santa Valley – Santa reported as dependable yield, reported as dependable yield, was estimated Maria Maria was estimated between 11,100 between 11,100 AFY and 13,000 AFY prior to the Management Management Area AFY and 13,000 AFY prior to the formal establishment of the SMVMA (DWR Area (portion) (portion) formal establishment of the 2002). SMVMA (DWR 2002).
Public Draft June 2014 C‐203 San Luis Obispo County IRWM Regi
Item 8.m. - Page 86 San Luis Obispo Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Section C. Region Description
Table C‐40. South County Groundwater Quality Water Quality Groundwater Estimated Safe Yield Drinking Water Standard Exceedance Objective Basin Exceedance Adjudicated. (San Luis Obispo Santa Maria Yes. (RWQCB, County, Master Water Report, Valley Basin Table 3‐8, 2011) 2012) No objective for No existing data. (San Luis Huasna Valley No historical water quality data. (San Luis Obispo the basin. Obispo County, Master Water Basin County, Master Water Report, 2012) (RWQCB, Report, 2012) Table 3‐8, 2011) Cuyama Valley ‐ 10,667 AFY (San Luis Obispo Cuyama Valley ‐ 10,667 AFY (San Luis Obispo County, Master Cuyama Valley County, Master Water Report, Cuyama Valley Water Report, 2012) Basin (portion) 2012) Basin (portion) 9,000 ‐ 13,000 AFY (San Luis Cuyama Valley Yes; (San Luis Obispo County, Master Water No. (RWQCB, Obispo County, Master Water Basin Report, 2012) Table 3‐8, 2011) Report, 2012) Chloride content increased more than ten times from 80 ppm in 1955 to 933 ppm in 1975. Background chloride concentrations typically ranged from 30 to 270 ppm. One well had a concentration of 1,925 ppm in November 1961. The Santa Rosa Creek management plan also reports corrosivity effects by water supplies and natural or industrial influenced balance of hydrogen, carbon and oxygen in the water which 2,260 AFY (Cambria County is affected by temperature and other factors. None, CCRWQB, Santa Rosa Valley Water District, 1976; Carollo, Groundwater is found in alluvial deposits with an 2011 2012) average specific yield of 17%. Groundwater is unconfined and generally flows westward. (Ca. Dept of Water Resources, 2003) Holocene‐aged alluvial deposits consist of unconsolidated sand, clay, silt, and gravel of primarily fluvial origin. Commonly, the deposits are about 100 feet thick beneath the center of the valley and more than 120 feet thick at the coast (Ca. Dept. of Water Resources, 2003) No (CCRWQCB, Toro Valley 532 AF (Carollo, 2012) None. 2011) 1,000 AFY (DWR 1958; Carollo, None, CCRWQB, Villa Valley None. (Carollo, 2012) 2012)) 2011
C.9.3.3 Basin Plans (By Watershed) Table C‐41. South County Basin Plans Watershed Name Plan Title Plan Author Plan Year Suey Creeks Nipomo Creek Watershed Management Plan Land Conservancy of San Luis Obispo and CCSE 2005 Santa Maria River Nipomo Creek Watershed Management Plan Land Conservancy of San Luis Obispo and CCSE 2005
C.9.4 Water Quality Protection and Improvement Needs [to be populated if data provided]
San Luis Obispo County IRWM Region C‐204 Public Draft June 2014
Item 8.m. - Page 87 San Luis Obispo Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Section C. Region Description
Table C‐46. Management Issues for the North County Sub‐Region Watershed Issue Potential Causes Limited groundwater quality information – Cholame Valley basin No yield information and limited hydrogeologic information for Cholame Basin Groundwater Quality High concentrations of TDS, chlorides, sulfates, and boron Range of groundwater uses in close proximity, including agricultural irrigation, municipal supply wells, golf course Significant water level declines Estrella River irrigation, and a relatively dense aggregation of rural “ranchette”) users Groundwater Quality High concentrations of TDS, chlorides, sulfates, and boron Range of groundwater uses in close proximity, including agricultural irrigation, municipal supply wells, golf course Significant water level declines Huer Huero Creek irrigation, and a relatively dense aggregation of rural “ranchette”) users Groundwater Quality High concentrations of TDS, chlorides, sulfates, and boron Range of groundwater uses in close proximity, including agricultural irrigation, municipal supply wells, golf course Significant water level declines Indian Valley irrigation, and a relatively dense aggregation of rural “ranchette”) users Groundwater Quality High concentrations of TDS, chlorides, sulfates, and boron Significant water level declines Lower San Juan Creek Groundwater Quality High concentrations of TDS, chlorides, sulfates, and boron Significant water level declines Nacimiento Groundwater Quality High concentrations of TDS, chlorides, sulfates, and boron
C.11.3 South County
Table C‐47. Management Issues for the South County Sub‐Region Watershed Issue Potential Causes Residential development; loss of Construction of growth inducing infrastructure habitat Agricultural development; loss of
habitat Coastal Irish Hills Sedimentation and loss of riparian Overgrazing cover Proliferation of non‐native species Recreational uses Habitat degradation Recreational uses Riparian Vegetation / Buffer Removal of riparian vegetation by landowners and livestock Quality (Lack of riparian canopy) Surface Water Nutrients and Agriculture, municipal, lack of riparian canopy Dissolved Oxygen Surface Water Temperature Lack of riparian canopy Surface Water Pathogens Described in TMDL for Pathogens (RWQCB, 2004) San Luis Obispo Creek Surface Water Treated Effluent City of San Luis Obispo’s Wastewater Facility discharged Surface Water Priority Organics Unknown Natural, diversions (permitted and unpermitted), evaporation, Surface Water Quantity and exotic plants Lack of riparian canopy and instream shelter, sedimentation of Instream Fish Habitat stream cobble Fish Passage Barriers Roads, culverts, other instream structures
Public Draft June 2014 C‐217 San Luis Obispo County IRWM Regi
Item 8.m. - Page 88 San Luis Obispo Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Section C. Region Description
Table C‐47. Management Issues for the South County Sub‐Region Watershed Issue Potential Causes Development encroachment, channel incision, vegetation Streambank Stability (Erosion) removal, overgrazing, agriculture, roads and utility construction Upland Erosion and Vegetation removal, intensified grazing, unpaved roads, and Sedimentation disturbance associated with construction Exotic Plant Species None identified. Non‐Native Fish – Carp and None identified. Chinook Salmon Debris Accumulation garbage, residential, commercial and agricultural products Natural, increased impervious areas, encroachment on Flooding floodplain Surface Water Temperature Lack of riparian canopy Surface Water Nutrients and Increase in urban land use Dissolved Oxygen Surface flow Quantity Natural, groundwater diversions, impoundment Groundwater Quantity (Not IDed in WMP but can be inferred) Arroyo Grande Creek Fish Passage Barriers Road crossings, culverts, dams and other structures Natural, “hungry water” from dam release, lowering base flow Erosion and Sedimentation level of mainstem, increased impervious areas, unvegetated roads and fields Flood Management Loss of floodplain and encroachment of development Development in 100 year flood hazard zone, improperly sized Flooding culverts, lack of maintenance of existing drainage structures Habitat Fragmentation Development Nipomo ‐ Suey Creeks Erosion, Sedimentation, bacteria from wildlife, domestic Surface Water Quality animals/livestock and urban areas, nutrients from Invasive species Surface Water Temperature Lack of riparian canopy Surface Water Nutrients and Agriculture, increased runoff due to development Dissolved Oxygen Ocean Water Quality – Fecal Birds, domestic animal waste, faulty septic systems, homeless coliform encampments Pismo Creek Surface flow Quantity Natural, groundwater diversions, impoundment Groundwater Quantity Physical limitations, production Fish Passage Barriers Multiple sites inaccessible to fish traffic Erosion and Sedimentation Drought/storm years weaken banks, agricultural practices Flood Management Development in floodplains Effects of Cattle grazing Unknown Limited Study Impaired surface water quality Grazing, crop land Occurrence of endangered or threatened species on private None land and potential for incidental take. Lack of data on plant and wildlife Limited study species. Vegetation in the channel Santa Maria River concentrates and diverts flows, Vegetation in the channel and causes erosion and flooding of low‐lying areas. Land use practices on [Santa Maria River] study reach and dune Limited land available for enhancement parcels may be incompatible with plan goals Presence of levees that restrict or otherwise modify flows, flow Levees along Santa Maria River channels, and sediment transport
San Luis Obispo County IRWM Region C‐218 Public Draft June 2014
Item 8.m. - Page 89 San Luis Obispo Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Section C. Region Description
Table C‐47. Management Issues for the South County Sub‐Region Watershed Issue Potential Causes corridors Invasive riparian plant species that establish in the [Santa Maria River] study reach may impede flood flows, interfere with Invasive riparian plants agricultural operations, cause ecological degradation, and spread into adjacent habitats Sediment accretion in the [Santa Maria River] study reach and Twitchell dam changes to sediment transport erosion along the shoreline Run‐off from urban areas contributes nitrates and other Urban pollutants into the [Santa Maria River] study reach Oso Flaco Lake – DDT and dieldrin Undetermined, sediment Erosion – Upland Not identified. Alamo Creek Sedimentation of Twitchell Natural and upland erosion primarily from Cuyama River Reservoir Huasna River Sedimentation of Twitchell Dam Natural and upland erosion primarily from Cuyama River. Sedimentation of Twitchell Natural and upland erosion Cuyama River Reservoir Groundwater Supplies Natural, water extraction
C.12 CLIMATE CHANGE
The following information is based on analysis conducted for the Watershed Snap Shots. Based on a set of climate scenarios prepared for the California Energy Commission, Cayan et al. (2009) project that, under medium to medium‐high greenhouse gas emissions scenarios, mean sea level along the California coast will rise from 3 to 5 feet (1–1.4 m) by the year 2100. In the Santa Rosa Creek watershed, such a rise in sea‐level would put new areas at risk of flooding, increase the likelihood and intensity of floods in areas that are already at risk, and accelerate shoreline recession due to erosion (Heberger et al. 2009). Many Coastal residents are elderly and depend on transportation (and evacuation) routes that are at risk from erosion, flooding, wildfires, and landslides. Coastal habitats may experience increased sedimentation in marshes, estuaries and streams, a decline in number of coastal birds, sea water intrusion into estuaries, creeks and wells, decline of rare habitats, marine and nearshore marine species threatened by acidification of ocean waters and changes in ocean currents, changes in fog patterns could lead to loss of coastal oak (elfin) forests. Freshwater and riparian systems will be affected by increased groundwater pumping and dam building (ClimateWise, 2010).
Additional information related to the potential climate change impacts related to the IRWM Plan can be found in Chapter P ‐ Mitigating or Adapting to Climate Change.
Public Draft June 2014 C‐219 San Luis Obispo County IRWM Regi
Item 8.m. - Page 90 San Luis Obispo Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Section C. Region Description
C.13 IRWM PLAN REGIONAL ISSUES AND CONFLICTS
DWR IRWM Guidelines require a description of the major water management issues and conflicts within the region, including clear identification of problems within the region that focus the objectives, implementation strategies, and implementation projects that ultimately provide resolution. The IRWM Plan seeks to resolve and/or reduce conflicts among water users in the SLO Region, and to anticipate and avoid future conflicts. Conflicts cannot be resolved without a recognition and clear understanding of the problems that drive them. Conflicts and issues within the SLO Region have historical, geographic, technical, and institutional components, and center around three main areas: 1) groundwater management; 2) environmental stewardship while fostering planned urban growth; and 3) low income and DAC needs. These changes have resulted in a planning environment that is realizing how to operate under a new paradigm.
Regional water management conflicts within the San Luis Obispo Region can arise where inconsistencies between proposed water management strategies and watershed objectives exist. Recognizing these inconsistencies is a step toward cooperative planning that will aid in the prioritization of integrated water management strategies for the region and will allow the regional water managers to minimize and resolve potential conflicts.
Identifying these conflicts early in the process and working together to develop solutions to minimize or eliminate the conflict could result in a mutually acceptable or enhanced solution that furthers the goals and objectives of the originally conflicted parties. Through the IRWM Plan collaborative efforts, it is envisioned that the stakeholder process will bring together conflicting parties, foster conflict understanding and discussion, provide a forum for conflict resolution, build consensus, and identify mutually beneficial strategies. Ultimately, the hope is to mitigate conflict to the extent practicable while optimizing the potential for integrated strategies with multiple benefits.
Resolution of conflicts will be a critical task in the implementation of the IRWM Plan. Groundwater and its sustainability amongst the 36 active groundwater basins has been the center of much conflict resulting in various forms of groundwater management and governance bodies. It is the intent of this plan to continue to address conflict and foster local control of groundwater where resolution policies and programs are based on the use of high quality data for groundwater elevations, quality and sustainability. Another major conflict exists to improve fisheries and fisheries habitat. Generally, the fisheries projects are intended to maintain surface water resources for fisheries benefits that can conflict with the beneficial use of those supplies for municipal uses. Efforts will continue to be made to minimize the conflicts through education and coordinated implementation for both uses throughout the SLO Region.
San Luis Obispo County IRWM Region C‐220 Public Draft June 2014
Item 8.m. - Page 91 San Luis Obispo Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Section C. Region Description
With the ever increasing cost of water and the decreased availability, low income and DACs are finding it difficult to stabilize water rates, maintain older water systems, meet new regulatory standards, and find alternative supplies of water in drought conditions. The need to capture and quantify these issues within this IRWM Plan is paramount to selecting the best projects (or suite of projects) that will address these issues. Again, education is a big part of assisting DACs in formulating what they want and prioritizing submitted projects.
C.14 ECONOMIC CONDITIONS AND TRENDS
Historically, SLO County has moved in tandem with the state in regards to a few key economic indicators. The historic unemployment rate has consistently been approximately two (2) percent below the state unemployment rate over the last 20 years. While SLO County has grown faster than the state since 1990, it has experienced similar trends in terms of job gains 11 and losses over the analyzed time‐period.10F Table C‐48. outlines the recent population growth from 2005 through 2012 and the anticipated growth through 2040.
Table C‐48. San Luis Obispo County Population Data and Projections 2005 2010 2012 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 Cities 143,096 148,307 149,437 151,132 156,145 160,863 166,755 172,712 Unincorporated 98,775 104,324 105,575 107,452 113,789 118,982 125,467 132,023 Countywide 258,159 269,637 272,018 275,590 286,940 296,851 309,228 321,742 Source: AECOM for SLOCOG, July 2011 Note: Population projections include group quarters (estimated at 17,006 for 2010‐2040).
The regional, state, and national economic conditions influence migration flows significantly. Furthermore, the perception of the place, housing market, available jobs, etc. will influence people throughout the region, state, and nation to relocate in SLO County. As a result, the 12 economy in SLO County and the state are expected to grow slowly.1F
Since 1990, SLO County has averaged approximately 1,450 new dwelling units per year. The medium estimate is below the 20‐year average, yielding an average of 1,340 and 1,160 units, 13 respectively.12F
Table C‐49 summarizes the economic conditions for places within the San Luis Obispo IRWM Plan Region.
11 AECOM Technical Services, San Luis Obispo County 2040 Population, Housing, & Employment Forecast. Prepared for San Luis Obispo Council of Governments (SLOCOG), 11 August 2011. 12 AECOM Technical Services, San Luis Obispo County 2040 Population, Housing, & Employment Forecast. Prepared for San Luis Obispo Council of Governments (SLOCOG), 11 August 2011. 13 AECOM Technical Services, San Luis Obispo County 2040 Population, Housing, & Employment Forecast. Prepared for San Luis Obispo Council of Governments (SLOCOG), 11 August 2011.
Public Draft June 2014 C‐221 San Luis Obispo County IRWM Regi
Item 8.m. - Page 92 San Luis Obispo Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Section C. Region Description
Table C‐49. Economic Characteristics for Selected Places within the San Luis Obispo IRWM Plan Region Median Household Unemployment % Below Poverty Census Designated Place Income Rate % Level Morro Bay city $53,585 3.7 11.6 Cambria CDP $72066 5.3 5.2 Los Osos CDP $56918 5.2 8.7 Arroyo Grande city $58725 7.2 5.9 Grover Beach city $49010 6 13.1 Pismo Beach city $63802 5.6 5.5 San Luis Obispo city $40812 8.5 31.3 Nipomo CDP $61495 8.7 9.4 Oceano CDP $39843 7.3 13.2 Atascadero city $65479 7.6 8.8 El Paso de Robles (Paso Robles) city $57459 7.6 10 San Miguel CDP (San Luis Obispo County) $42176 13.9 26.6 Santa Margarita CDP $60737 13.2 12.7 Shandon CDP $63920 11.5 21.9 Templeton CDP $69,426 4.8 4.8 San Luis Obispo County $56,967 5.1 13.1 Source: United States Census Bureau, American Fact Finder, “2008‐2010 American Community Survey 3‐Year Estimates”. Accessed 06 December 2013.
C.14.1 State Designated Disadvantaged Communities (DACs)
For the Purposes of this IRWM Plan, a DAC is “a community with a median household income less than 80% of the Statewide average”, which was $61,632 in 2010 according to the US Census. San Miguel is a State designated DAC with a median household income (MHI) of $42,176. Likewise, San Simeon is a State designated DAC with a median household income (MHI) is $43,092. Figure C‐58 shows the DACs within the San Luis Obispo IRWM Plan Region.
San Luis Obispo County IRWM Region C‐222 Public Draft June 2014
Item 8.m. - Page 93
Public
Draft
June
2014 C‐ 223 San
Luis
Obispo Integrated San
Regional
Luis Section
Obispo
Water
C.
County
Region Management
IRWM
Description Figure C‐58. Disadvantaged Communities by Census Tract and Census Designated Place
Region
Plan
Item 8.m. - Page 94 San Luis Obispo Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Section C. Region Description
C.14.2 Projected Growth
Examining Census data since 1990, growth in SLO County has occurred mostly in Paso Robles and Unincorporated areas of SLO County. These two areas have attracted approximately 75 percent of net new population growth over the last 20 years. It is anticipated this trend to continue in the future, with the City of San Luis Obispo to attract more residents than its historic norms. Other jurisdictions such as Grover Beach, Morro Bay, and Pismo Beach will continue historic trends of low population growth. Forecast information is based on the work conducted by AECOM, who analyzed California Department of Finance (DOF) data, the UCLA Anderson Forecast, and the Center for Continuing Study of the California Economy (CCSCE) 14 California County Projections (2009/10 Edition).13F
Based on the projections shown in the following table, buildout population would be reached 15 sometime after 2035.14F
The distribution of building permits in the unincorporated areas of the county has averaged 62% urban and 38% rural over the last 12 years as shown in the following table. The County General Plan calls for directing development toward existing and strategically planned communities. In addition, a key element of the San Luis Obispo Council of Government’s Regional Transportation Plan – Preliminary Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP‐PSCS) is to encourage development in existing urbanized areas with access to existing businesses and 16 services.15F
A key consideration in integrated regional water resource management planning is understanding the social and cultural makeup of the community. In U.S. EPA’s Office of Sustainable Ecosystems and Communities guide, “Community Culture and the Environment: A Guide to Understanding a Sense of Place”, EPA recommends profiling the community to understand the community’s sense of place and shared community values. By understanding the social and cultural makeup of the community, social equity can be achieved through effective public participation and involvement in IRWM planning and implementation.
14 AECOM Technical Services, San Luis Obispo County 2040 Population, Housing, & Employment Forecast. Prepared for San Luis Obispo Council of Governments (SLOCOG), 11 August 2011. 15 County of San Luis Obispo, 2010‐2012 Resource Summary Report San Luis Obispo County General Plan, 12 March 2013. 16 County of San Luis Obispo, 2010‐2012 Resource Summary Report San Luis Obispo County General Plan, 12 March 2013.
San Luis Obispo County IRWM Region C‐224 Public Draft June 2014
Item 8.m. - Page 95 San Luis Obispo Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Section C. Region Description
Table C‐50. San Luis Obispo County Historic and Projected Population 2000 2005 2010 2012 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 North Coast Urban Area Morro Bay 10,152 10,338 10,073 10,100 10,152 10,244 10,482 10,778 11,078 Cambria 6,230 6,125 6,020 6,051 6,096 6,175 6,251 6,328 6,408 Cayucos 2,926 2,730 2,541 2,548 2,553 2,597 2,680 2,946 3,222 Los Osos 14,277 14,100 13,908 13,930 13,988 14,071 14,158 14,240 14,325 San Simeon 639 550 450 451 452 458 461 466 468 North Coast Total 34,224 33,843 32,992 33,080 33,241 33,545 34,032 34,758 35,501 South County Urban Area Arroyo Grande 15,641 16,360 17,078 17,256 17,524 18,407 18,933 19,591 20,256 Grover Beach 12,941 15,954 12,967 13,037 13,142 13,432 13,684 13,999 14,317 Pismo Beach 8,524 8,083 7,642 7,688 7,757 7,954 8,216 8,545 8,876 San Luis Obispo 42,312 43,125 43,937 44,229 44,668 45,969 46,704 47,622 48,550 Avila Beach/Valley 833 1,149 1,464 1,482 1,508 1,624 1,699 1,830 2,020 Nipomo 12,612 13,940 15,267 15,450 15,725 16,752 17,852 18,875 19,926 Oceano 7,244 7,176 7,108 7,194 7,322 7,799 8,153 8,670 9,001 South Coast Total 100,107 105,787 105,463 106,336 107,646 111,937 115,241 119,132 122,946 North County Urban Area Atascadero 24,945 25,966 26,986 27,138 27,366 28,003 28,940 30,109 31,292 Paso Robles 23,370 26,497 29,624 29,983 30,522 32,137 33,905 36,112 38,343 San Miguel 1,420 1,879 2,337 2,383 2,451 2,640 2,792 3,045 3,338 Heritage Ranch and Oak Shores 2,166 2,276 2,386 2,424 2,482 2,634 2,723 2,863 2,995 Santa Margarita 1,279 1,269 1,259 1,268 1,281 1,325 1,395 1,410 1,451 Shandon 979 1,137 1,295 1,316 1,347 1,562 2,002 2,630 3,306 Templeton 4,607 5,792 6,976 7,059 7,184 7,739 8,094 8,720 9,128 North County Total 58,766 64,816 70,863 71,571 72,633 76,040 79,851 84,889 89,853 San Luis Obispo County Total 193,097 204,446 209,318 210,987 213,520 221,522 229,124 238,779 248,300 Source: AECOM for SLOCOG, July 2011
Following is a list of community characteristics EPA recommends for consideration. These characteristics are described and considered throughout the IRWM Plan.
Table C‐51. Community Characteristics for Community Profiling Community Boundaries Community Capacity and Activism Community Interaction and Information Flow Demographic Information Economic Conditions and Employment Education Environmental Awareness and Values Governance Infrastructure and Public Services Local Identity Local Leisure and Recreation Natural Resources and Landscapes Property Ownership, Management, and Planning Public Health and Safety
Public Draft June 2014 C‐225 San Luis Obispo County IRWM Region
Item 8.m. - Page 96 San Luis Obispo Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Section C. Region Description
To understand the future of San Luis Obispo County, it is important to understand its past and its present. A brief history of San Luis Obispo County is presented in Table B6.1 below. Current census information provides a profile of the present.
C.15 A BRIEF HISTORY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY AND THE INFLUENCE OF TRIBAL CULTURE
For centuries (see Table C‐52), San Luis Obispo County was the heart of Chumash and Salinian Native American country. The Chumash and Salinians had a rich culture and were excellent craftspeople and artists. Exploration of the land by Europeans began in 1769 at the command of Gaspar de Portola of Spain. With Portola came the Franciscan friars to begin founding the California missions. Following the independence of Mexico and the secularization of the missions, the Central Coast entered the period of the rancheros. Many names of towns and places derive from these Spanish rancheros. San Luis Obispo was claimed for the United States in 1846. In 1850, California was admitted to the United States, and San Luis Obispo became one of the original counties.
A severe drought gripped the state in 1862 to 1864 resulting in the devastation of much of the region’s cattle industry. Several wet seasons followed which prompted immigration to the County and the emergence of the dairy industry. By the 1870’s, San Luis Obispo County began to transform from a poor, remote, and sometimes violent outpost of rural California to a locale prized for its diverse and spectacular topography, breathtaking scenery, and rich farms and mines. The 1880s and 1890s brought the railroad that connected San Luis Obispo with San Francisco and Los Angeles.
Throughout the 1900’s San Luis Obispo County remained largely an agricultural county. The World Wars and the Korean War brought economic growth to San Luis Obispo County as local suppliers supported the war effort. The second half of the century was punctuated with infrastructure projects needed to support post‐war population increases.
Presently, over 260,000 residents enjoy San Luis Obispo County’s central coast location. With the ocean and mountains, the Spanish and historical flavor, and the mild climate, San Luis Obispo County provides an enviable quality of life for residents and tourists.
San Luis Obispo County IRWM Region C‐226 Public Draft June 2014
Item 8.m. - Page 97
IRWMP Section D. Water Supply, Demand, and Budget
Item 8.m. - Page 98
99
Page - 8.m. Item
Section D. Water Supply, Demand, and Water Budget Water and Demand, Supply, Water D. Section Section D. Water Supply, Demand, and Water Budget
Table of Contents
Section D. Water Supply, Demand, and Water Budget D-1 D.1 Introduction ...... D-1 D.1.1 Intended Use of the Water Budget ...... D-3 D.1.2 Use of IRWM Plan for Determining Adequacy of Water Supplies Under Senate Bill 610 and 221 ...... D-3 D.2 Regional Water Supply Availability ...... D-3 D.2.1 Surface Water ...... D-3 D.2.2 Groundwater Supply ...... D-4 D.2.3 California Department of Water Resources State Water Project Supply ...... D-8 D.2.4 Appropriated Water Rights ...... D-11 D.2.5 Other Sources of Water Supply ...... D-11 D.2.5.1 Twitchell Reservoir ...... D-11 D.2.5.2 Desalination ...... D-12 D.2.5.3 Water Recycling ...... D-13 D.2.6 Other Cooperative Supply Opportunities ...... D-15 D.2.7 Current Water Supply Total ...... D-16 D.2.7.1 Current Urban Water Supply Breakdown by Sub-Region ...... D-17 D.2.7.2 Urban Water Supply Summary by Water Sector and WPA ...... D-18 D.3 Technical Resources for Current and Future Water Demands and Supplies ...... D-19 D.3.1 Water Demand Data Sources ...... D-19 D.3.1.1 2010 Urban Water Management Plans ...... D-21 D.3.1.2 2012 San Luis Obispo Master Water Report ...... D-21 D.3.2 Method for Developing Projected Water Demands ...... D-22 D.3.2.1 Urban Water Demand ...... D-22 D.3.2.2 Rural Water Demand ...... D-23 D.3.2.3 Agricultural Water Demand ...... D-24 D.3.2.4 Environmental Demand and Unimpaired Runoff ...... D-25 D.3.2.5 Assumptions ...... D-26 D.4 Water Demand and Supplies by Sub-Region and WPA ...... D-27 D.4.1 North Coast Sub-Region ...... D-29 D.4.1.1 WPA 1 – San Simeon ...... D-29 D.4.1.2 WPA 2 – Cambria ...... D-33 D.4.1.3 WPA 3 – Cayucos ...... D-36 D.4.1.4 WPA 4 – Morro Bay ...... D-39 D.4.1.5 WPA 5 – Los Osos ...... D-42 D.4.2 South County Sub-Region ...... D-45 D.4.2.1 WPA 6 – San Luis Obispo/Avila ...... D-45 D.4.2.2 WPA 7 – South Coast ...... D-50 D.4.2.3 WPA 8 – Huasana Valley ...... D-54 D.4.2.4 WPA 9 – Cuyama Valley ...... D-57 D.4.3 North County Sub-Region ...... D-60 D.4.3.1 WPA 10 – Carrizo Plain ...... D-61 D.4.3.2 WPA 11 – Rafael/Big Spring ...... D-64 D.4.3.3 WPA 12 – Santa Margarita ...... D-67 D.4.3.4 WPA 13 – Atascadero/Templeton ...... D-70 D.4.3.5 WPA 14 – Salinas/Estrella ...... D-74 D.4.3.6 WPA 15 – Cholame Valley ...... D-77 D.4.3.7 WPA 16 – Nacimiento ...... D-80 D.4.4 Need for Per Capita Water Demand ...... D-83 D.5 Demand Review Summary Discussion ...... D-84
Item 8.m. - Page 100
101 Page - 8.m. Item ...... D-2
...... D-29
.D-9......
...... D-17
D-18...... D-45
D-20......
and Summary (AFY) Summary and ...... D-32 D-70......
D-28...... D-41
...... D-44 D-46......
...... D-35 D-60......
...... D-38 D-45......
D-29......
D-64...... D-6......
D-67......
D-74...... D-8...... D-15
D-4......
Region and for Total Region Total for and Region D-54......
D-61...... D-28
D-80......
D-50......
D-30......
D-39......
D-77......
...... D-19 ...... D-20 D-57......
D-42......
D-36...... D-25 D-33...... D-5......
...... D-16
D-23...... oirs
Service Amount D-31...... D-7...... D-14......
D-40...... D-34...... D-37...... D-43......
nnual Average Water Demand Summary Demand (AFY) Water Average nnual
D-24......
Region Demand Totals Region Projected Demand Totals - - Morro Bay Demand Supply Balance Supply Morro Bay Demand Los Osos Demand Supply Balance San Simeon Demand Supply Balance Balance Supply Cambria Demand San Simeon Cambria Cayucos Morro Bay Osos Los Cayucos Demand Supply Balance Supply Demand Cayucos – – Cuyama Water Demands Cuyama
7 South Coast Water Demands Valley Demands Huasna 8 Water 10 Carrizo Plain Water Demands 11 Rafael/Big Spring Water Demands 12 Santa Margarita Water Demands 13 Atascadero/Templeton Water Demands 14 Salinas/Estrella Water Demands Water Demands Cholame 15 Demands Water Nacimiento 16 1 San Simeon Demands Water San Simeon 1 6 San Luis Obispo/Avila Water Demands - - -9 – ------County Reservoir Contracted Amounts - List of Communities and Water Districts with Active Water Demand Reporting 25. WPA 26. WPA 27. WPA 28. WPA 18. WPA 19. WPA 20. WPA Summary County Demand WPA Water North 21. 22. WPA 23. WPA 24. WPA 7. Map of Urban and Rural Areas 11. WPA Water Demands Cambria 2. WPA 12. Demands Water Cayucos 3. WPA 13. Morro 2. Bay Water WPA 14. Demands 15. WPA 5. Los Osos Water Demands 16. South County WPA Water Demand Summary 4. WaterRecycling Process 5. Urban Water Supply Breakdown by Sub- 6. Comparison in Urban Water Supply Portfolio 2010 and 2035 8. Agricultural Areas Sub IRWM9. Plan Summary Water WPA Demand Coast North 10. 1. San Luis Obispo County Reserv 2. San Luis Obispo County Groundwater Basins 3. California Department of Water Resources Water State Project Facilities – 20. WPA No. 4 – 21. WPA No. 5 - 22. WPA No. 5 – 23. South County WPAA 13. WPA No. 1 - 14. WPA No. 1 – 15. WPA No. 2 - 16. WPA No. 2 – 17. WPA No. 3 - 18. WPA No. 3 19. WPA No. 4 - 6. Other Developed Supply Sources 7. Current (2010) Urban Water Supply for Entire IRWM Planning Region 8. Water Supplies for 2010 Uses Urban 9. Water Supplies for 2035 Uses Urban Primary Commodities Group Crop 10. Sub IRWM11. Plan 12. North Coast Subregion WPA Annual Average Water Dem 2. In 2. 3. Groundwater Basin Yields 4. Water State Project Water 5. Existing and Projected Recycled Water Use ------17. WPA ------1. - - - - D- Table D Table D Table D Table D Table D Table D Table D Table D Table D Table D Table D Table D Table D Table D Table D Table D Table D Table D Tables List of Table D Table D Table D Table D Table D Figure D Figure D Figure D Figure D Figure D Figure D Figure D Figure D Figure D Figure D Figure D Figure D Figure D Figure D Figure D Figure D Figure D Figure D Figure D Figure D Figure D Figure Figure D Figure D Figure D List of FiguresList of Figure D Figure D Figure D
Table D-24. WPA No. 6 - San Luis Obispo/Avila ...... D-47 Table D-25. WPA No. 6 – San Luis Obispo/Avila Demand Supply Balance ...... D-48 Table D-26. WPA No. 7 - South Coast ...... D-51 Table D-27. WPA No. 7 – South Coast Demand Supply Balance ...... D-52 Table D-28. WPA No. 8 - Huasna Valley ...... D-55 Table D-29. WPA No. 8 - Huasna Valley Demand Supply Balance ...... D-56 Table D-30. WPA No. 9 - Cuyama Valley ...... D-58 Table D-31. WPA No. 9 – Cuyama Valley Demand Supply Balance ...... D-59 Table D-32. North County Subregion WPA Water Demand Summary ...... D-60 Table D-33. WPA No. 10 – Carrizo Plain ...... D-62 Table D-34. WPA No. 10 – Carrizo Plain Demand Supply Balance ...... D-63 Table D-35. WPA No. 11 - Rafael/Big Spring ...... D-65 Table D-36. WPA No. 11 – Rafael/Big Spring Demand Supply Balance ...... D-66 Table D-37. WPA No. 12 - Santa Margarita ...... D-68 Table D-38. WPA No. 12 – Santa Margarita Demand Supply Balance ...... D-69 Table D-39. WPA No. 13 - Atascadero/Templeton ...... D-71 Table D-40. WPA No. 13 - Atascadero/Templeton Demand Supply Balance ...... D-72 Table D-41. WPA No. 14 - Salinas/Estrella ...... D-75 Table D-42. WPA No. 14 – Salinas/Estrella Demand Supply Balance ...... D-76 Table D-43. WPA No. 15 - Cholame ...... D-78 Table D-44. WPA No. 15 – Cholame Demand Supply Balance ...... D-79 Table D-45. WPA No. 16 - Nacimiento ...... D-81 Table D-46. WPA No. 16 - Nacimiento Demand Supply Balance ...... D-82 Table D-47. Per Capita 20X2020 Goals for Large Urban Water Suppliers ...... D-84
Item 8.m. - Page 102
103 Page - 8.m.
Item
(This page Intentionally left blank) left (This Intentionally page
Section D. Water Supply, Demand, and Water Budget
San Luis Obispo’s IRWM planning region area is approximately 3,322 square miles, and currently includes 36 actively reporting unincorporated and incorporated communities (see Table D-1) situated within 26 watersheds including urban, rural, and agricultural water demands. The need to separate the water demand and supply budgets and balance from Section C – Region Description is prudent to the importance of keeping track of the region’s water issues. The content of this section is instrumental in the identification of the region’s trends, the stakeholders involved, and the potential solutions amongst grouped water users in each of the Water Planning Areas (WPAs).
D.1 INTRODUCTION This section of the San Luis Obispo IRWM Plan provides a discussion and analysis of the current and projected water supply and demand for the San Luis Obispo IRWMP planning region. This section is limited to descriptions of supply infrastructure and demand areas addressed in Section C – Region Description. To address the requirements of the IRWM Plan, the Region Description provides the broader descriptions of the San Luis Obispo watershed system and maintains a relatively high level evaluation of critical water issues; whereas, this section delves into the details of water demands and supplies for each water use sector of each WPA, using data from individual water districts and watersheds.
The data contained within this section is taken from existing published documents describing the water demands and supply of a water use sector, water district, or environmental demand. Unlike the 2012 San Luis Obispo Master Water Report (MWR), the analysis window used in this section specifies exact dates for the planning horizon. The years from 2010 through 2035, in five-year increments, are used to match the IRWM Plan’s planning window as well as the planning windows of many General Plans and Urban Water Management Plans (UWMPs). The ramification of this change in definition is that water demand projections need to have a higher level of scrutiny to ensure the correct comparison of water demands and supplies occur over time. Schedules for water supply projects driven by increasing water demands can be phased appropriately over time; thereby, increasing the level of confidence for IRWM project implementation.
Item 8.m. - Page 104
105
Page - Nipomo Edna Los Osos Los
– – –
8.m.
Item Shandon
–
National Guard
-
Community/Water District Name District Community/Water Miguel CSD Nacimiento Water Company Water Nacimiento Cal Poly San Luis Obispo City of San Luis Obispo 12 CSA Port San Luis MiguelitoSan MWC Golden State Water Company Conoco Phillips Co Golden State Water Company Nipomo CSD Rural Water Company/Cypress Ridge Sewer Co Woodlands Mutual Water Company City of Arroyo Grande City of Grover Beach of Beach Pismo City Oceano CSD 23 CSA Ranch Margarita Santa Atascadero Mutual Water Co C.W.D. Farms Garden Paso Robles Municipal Well Pumping Templeton CSD Camp Roberts Robles Paso of City San No. 16 SLO CSA Heritage Ranch CSD San Simeon CSD CSD Cambria Cayucos Cemetery District 10A CSA Morro Rock Water Mutual Co Paso Robles Beach Water Assn City of Morro Bay California Men’s Colony SLO Camp County Operation Center of Education Cuesta College Golden State Water Company Los Osos CSD & TS Water Mutual Company Avila Beach CSD Avila Valley Mutual Water Co
County
North Coast North South CountySouth
s
Water Districts with Active Water Demand Reporting Demand Water Active with Districts Water and and
Joint Management Agencie Joint
Paso Robles Groundwater Basin Users Nipomo Mesa Management Area Northern Cities Management Area Community of Los Osos Los of Community Organization Water Area Cayucos Water System Valley Chorro List of Communities of List
1. -
7 6 6 7 7 6 6 6 6 6 4 5 1 2 3 4 14 16 16 12 12 13 13 13 13 WPA No.
Table D Table
D.1.1 Intended Use of the Water Budget What follows is a relatively linear accounting of water supply and demand for each of the WPAs. The first subsections provide the setting for potential water supply and conservation efforts in relation to the different WPAs, and used to identify areas where: 1) water demands are known to be outpacing available water supplies, 2) opportunities for in-Region transfers exist, or 3) alternative water supply options can be studied. The importance is in the comparison between supply and demand and to Identify critical issues so that solutions can be sought.
D.1.2 Use of IRWM Plan for Determining Adequacy of Water Supplies Under Senate Bill 610 and 221 This section does not make any conclusions on the adequacy of water supplies to meet water demands, but does discuss likely deficiencies and probable actions. The rigor of analysis required as part of the required study of sustainable water supplies under Senate Bills 610 and 221 for new developments should be done as a separate evaluation supported by the latest local UWMPs and groundwater management plans.
D.2 REGIONAL WATER SUPPLY AVAILABILITY Water is drawn from a number of supply sources, both inside and outside of the County. In- county reservoirs have a significant role in water supply, drainage and flood control, potential hydro-power, and recreation for the region. Groundwater basins, while currently threatened by contamination and over-pumping, are the largest source of in-county supply currently in use. As groundwater basins are relied upon for their Perennial yield of drinking water, imported surface water from the California State Water Project helps reduce the pressure on these basins when used conjunctively, based on availability of state water and facility capacity, over hydrologic wet and dry periods.
Below are brief summaries of the current supply sources either in use or being planned for near term implementation. By establishing what is known of water supplies currently (2013), future forecasting of supply needs can be placed in context with the constraints and costs associated with each supply source.
D.2.1 Surface Water Water is drawn from a number of surface sources, both inside and outside of the County. This section describes the reservoirs in and out of the County that are used as water supply sources within the County. It also includes a brief description of the State Water Project. Allocations and key user agreements are described for each water source.
Item 8.m. - Page 106
107 Region(s) - Supplied . See
North Coast North Coast, North Coast, South County South County South County North County North County Page South County, Sub South County, -
basins
(3) 8.m.
Water
enefits. Dams and Item District Owner/ Resources Agency Conservation District Conservation Conservation District Operator (if different) (if Operator City of San Luis Obispo Flood Control & Water Flood Control & Water San Luis Obispo County Monterey County CA Dept of Dept CA Corrections / San Luis Obispo County Santa Maria Valley Water Valley Maria Santa Whale Rock Commission / U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Groundwater Basin Descriptions Basin Groundwater
holders addition in to downstream water rights, -
- sub including not basins, groundwater protection recharge Irrigation Flood control Flood Water supply Water supply Water supply Water supply Groundwater Water supply listed Flood Flood
Primary Purpose(s) purpose by providing flood control, water supply, supply, water control, flood providing by purpose hydraulically separated groundwater basins (see Figure (see basins groundwater separated hydraulically
1
(1) (2)
0
140 4,530 6,950 Average 15,750 40,660 Amount/
Contracted Contracted Annual Yield Region(AFY) in SLO IRWM
eport (District, 2012) – – L Appendix and descriptions, brief for
R
90 ater (AF) 40,662 49,388 23,843 Storage
224,300 377,900 W Capacity Capacity
fety website inventory. Master Groundwater Supply Groundwater
(4)
County Reservoir Contracted Amounts Contracted Reservoir County Region Description Region descriptions of each ba of each descriptions
In- D.2.2 (1941) (1941) (1961) (1968) (1957) Source
-2. Twitchell Reservoir Reservoir Lopez Lake (Year Built) Reservoir Nacimiento Whale Rock Rock Whale ), each relatively independent of the others, with only a few exceptions. The availability of availability The exceptions. few a only with others, the of independent relatively each ), Surface WaterSurface 40,660 AFY of Whale Rock Reservoir water is allocated to joint the right 17,500 AFY total, less 1,750 AFY for lakeside for to 15,750 1,750 SLO AFY AFY Waterusers Co available Project. total, Nacimiento 17,500 less lakeside AFY Straddles SLO County with the Dam located in Santa Barbara County which are accounted for separately. Per Dam CA Sa
Chorro Reservoir Salinas Reservoir San MargaritaSan Lake/ Based on 2012 Based 2. Notes: 1. 4. 3.
fordetailed – – C Section 1 The IRWM planning region contains 25 contains region planning IRWM The D-2 groundwater recharge, environmental, hydropower, and recreation b recreation and hydropower, environmental, recharge, groundwater control flood and supplies water supplemental for need the as constructed were reservoirs region. the in development growing with apparent became D Table staple for primary the most remain of this supplies Region’s communities fresh groundwater Groundwater areas. agricultural and in rural living owners well private the for and, especially, Local SurfaceWater - are multi reservoirs local the Manyof San Luis Obispo Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Section D. Water Supply, Demand, and Water Budget
108 Page - 8.m. Item San Luis Obispo County Reservoirs Reservoirs County Obispo Luis San
-1. Figure D
Public Draft June 2014 D-5 San Luis Obispo County IRWM Region San Luis Obispo Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Section D. Water Supply, Demand, and Water Budget
109 Page - 8.m. Item
San Luis Obispo County Groundwater Basins Groundwater County Obispo Luis San
-2. Figure D
San Luis Obispo County IRWM Region D-6 Public Draft June 2014 studies conducted in the past provide some understanding of the perennial average safe yield of the various groundwater basins, but many still are without some form of groundwater management and setting of a perennial yield amount as shown in Table D-3. Identified sources are based on the MWR identification of hydrogeologic studies and groundwater management plans containing the latest perennial yield annual volumes.
Table D-3. Groundwater Basin Yields Estimated Estimated WPA Groundwater Basin Groundwater Basin Perennial Yield WPA Perennial Yield Name Name (AFY) (AFY) Pismo Creek Valley Sub- No estimates of Arroyo de la Cruz Valley 1,244 1 7 basin(2) basin yield exist. Nipomo Valley Sub- No estimates of Pico Creek Valley 120 1 (2) 7 basin basin yield exist. No estimates of Nipomo Mesa 7 San Carpoforo Valley 1 4,800 - 6,000 basin yield exist. Management Area Northern Cities 7 San Simeon Valley 1,040 2 5,600 - 6,800 Management Area Santa Maria Valley 7 Santa Rosa Valley 2,260 2 124,000 Management Area No estimates of 8 Villa Valley 1,000 2 Huasna Valley basin yield exist. Cayucos Valley 600 3 Cuyama Valley 10,000 9 Old Valley 505 3 Carrizo Plain 8,000 - 11,000 10 No estimates of 11 Toro Valley 532 3 Big Spring Area basin yield exist. No estimates of 11 Chorro Valley 2,210 4 Rafael Valley basin yield exist. Morro Valley 1,500 4 Pozo Valley 1,000 12 No estimates of 12 Los Osos Valley 3,200 5 Rinconada Valley basin yield exist. No estimates of No estimates of 12 Avila Valley Sub-basin(1) 6 Santa Margarita Valley basin yield exist. basin yield exist.(3) Edna Valley Sub-basin(2) 4,000 6 Atascadero Sub-Basin 16,400 13 San Luis Valley Sub- 13, 14 2,000 6 Paso Robles(4) 97,700 basin(1) Arroyo Grande Valley No estimates of No estimates of 15 7 Cholame Valley Sub-basin(2) basin yield exist. basin yield exist. (5) State Permitted 13, 14 Salinas River Underflow 11,419 Sources: 2012 Master Water Report (District, 2012), Paso Robles Groundwater Basin Modeling Report (Draft, 2014) Notes: 1. Sub-basin of the San Luis Obispo Valley Groundwater Basin 2. Sub-basin of the Santa Maria River Valley Groundwater Basin 3. The average annual yield of the basin in the vicinity of the proposed Santa Margarita Ranch development may be in the range of 400 to 600 AFY. 4. Includes 16,400 AFY perennial yield from the Atascadero Groundwater Sub-basin. 5. The Salinas River Underflow is managed by the State Water Resources Control Board through issuance of water right permits; although consider to be groundwater and a sub-basin of the Paso Robles groundwater basin.
Item 8.m. - Page 110 D.2.3 California Department of Water Resources State Water Project Supply The California Department of Water Resources (CDWR) owns and operates the State Water Project (SWP). Shown in Figure D-3, it is the largest state-built water and power project in the United States. The SWP first started delivering water to Californians in the 1960s. In 1963, the District contracted with DWR for 25,000 AFY of State Water. However, the Central Coast was not served State Water until 1997 when the Coastal Branch conveyance and treatment facilities, serving Santa Barbara and San Luis Obispo counties, were completed.
Table D-4 below summarizes the regional SWP Water Service Amounts (WSAmt) for the San Luis Obispo Region. Additional detail on the SWP infrastructure delivering to the San Luis Obispo Region is discussed in Section C – Region Description and the MWR.
Table D-4. State Water Project Water Service Amount Contractor WSAmt Drought Total 6 percent 66-69% 100% WPA Buffer Reserved Allocation Allocation Allocation Year Year Year (1977) Chorro Valley Turnout Morro Bay, City of 1,313 2,290 3,603 216 1,313 1,313 4 California Men’s Colony 400 400 800 48 400 400 4 County Operations 4 425 425 850 51 425 425 Center Cuesta College 200 200 400 24 200 200 4 Subtotal 2,338 3,315 5,653 339 2,338 2,338 Lopez Turnout Pismo Beach, City of 1,240 1,240 2,480 149 1,240 1,240 7 Oceano CSD 750 0 750 45 495 750 7 San Miguelito MWC 275 275 550 33 275 275 6 Avila Beach CSD 100 0 100 6 66 100 6 Avila Valley MWC 20 60 80 5 20 20 6 San Luis Coastal USD 7 7 14 1 7 7 6 Subtotal 2,392 1,582 3,974 239 2,103 2,392 Shandon Turnout Shandon 100 0 100 6 66 100 14 Subtotal 100 0 100 6 66 100 Total Reserved 4,830 4,897 9,727 584 4,507 4,830 Total District Allocation 25,000 “Excess Allocation” 15,273 Notes: 1. Minimum, average, and maximum allocations established in the State Water Project Delivery Reliability Report 2007 (August 2008), page 51, Table 6.13. This study used 66 percent for the average allocation year.
Item 8.m. - Page 111
Figure D-3. California Department of Water Resources State Water Project Facilities
Item 8.m. - Page 112 Maintenance schedules and repair requirements can cause reduced deliveries or a complete shutdown of the delivery system. Since delivery to the Central Coast began, the SWP has provided between 50 and 100 percent of the contracted allocations, but recently, drought conditions coupled with pumping restrictions in consideration of endangered species habitat lowered that amount to 35 percent in 2008, 40 percent in 2009, and 0 percent at the start of 2014. To receive a greater portion of State Water during these shortages (up to their full WSAmts), most agencies have entered into “Drought Buffer Water Agreements” with the District for use of an additional portion of the District’s SWP allocation, as shown in the table above. For example, when the SWP can only deliver 50 percent of contracted allocations, an agency with 100 AFY WSAmt and 100 AFY drought buffer allocation can still receive 100 AFY WSAmt – 50 percent of their 100 AFY allocation plus 50 percent of their 100 AFY drought buffer allocation equals 100 AFY.
The District has 15,273 AFY of unsubscribed SWP allocation (equal to District allocation (25,000 AFY) minus Total Reserved (9,727 AFY)), commonly referred to as the “excess allocation.” Hydraulics, treatment plant capacity, and contractual terms and conditions limit how the excess allocation (or capacity) can be used. In 2011, the District evaluated the available hydraulic capacity in the treated water portion of the Coastal Branch, and compiled a report in partnership with the Central Coast Water Authority (CCWA) titled, “Capacity Assessment of the Coastal Branch, Chorro Valley, & Coastal Branch Lopez Pipelines.” This comprehensive report can be found at:
The following is a summarized list of options for use of excess pipeline capacity:
Item 8.m. - Page 113 • Direct delivery after contract-revision negotiation for use of any additional capacity available in the Coastal Branch treatment and conveyance facilities for use as a conjunctive use supply to relieve groundwater basins in the wet hydrologic years when surface water availability is at its highest • As additional drought buffer water to supplement deficiencies in other supply sources in dry and critical years • Permanent, multi-year or single year transfer or exchange to other SWP contractors, utilizing revenues to improve the reliability of existing water systems • As a source of either direct groundwater recharge through injection or spreading basins, or as a source of water for reservoir storage • As a source of irrigation supply in lieu of groundwater use in normal/wet year hydrology through extension of raw water conveyance and distribution facilities beginning at the Coastal Branch Water Treatment Plant, where the larger SWP raw water pipeline terminates, and delivering to Paso Robles Basin farmers
Further detailed discussion on the reliability of SWP supply to the San Luis Obispo Region can be found in the MWR.
D.2.4 Appropriated Water Rights The State Water Resources Control Board has historically regulated and permitted diversions from rivers and creeks for beneficial purposes. Appropriative water right permits are held by numerous entities (i.e., water agencies, landowners, industry, etc.) and typically have a maximum diversion limit stated in the permit. The seniority of water rights is based on the permit number with older permits having seniority over more recent permits. The location and diversions amounts of this type are perhaps the most difficult to site and quantify given that many diverters are private landowners using water for irrigation with no annual reporting of the quantity used. Urban water agencies, however, do report their diversion locations and amounts, and are included in the overall water budget for the IRWM Region.
D.2.5 Other Sources of Water Supply In a few cases, water originating from outside the IRWM planning region is used within a WPA. In these cases, the source of water is either from a watershed and groundwater basin shared between two regions, resulting in coordinated management, or the water comes from non- potable sources such as ocean water or treated wastewater, delivered in the form of desalinated or recycled water supplies, respectively.
D.2.5.1 Twitchell Reservoir Twitchell Dam is on the Cuyama River about six miles upstream from its junction with the Sisquoc River. Though the dam is located in Santa Barbara County to the south, and operated
Item 8.m. - Page 114 by the Santa Maria Valley Water Conservation District (SMVWCD), the reservoir straddles the county line and some agricultural land within San Luis Obispo County (South County Sub- Region) is irrigated from the Santa Maria Groundwater Basin, which is replenished by the reservoir’s and downstream Cuyama River flood plain’s natural groundwater recharge capacity.
The multiple-purpose Twitchell Reservoir has a total capacity of 224,300 AF. It stores floodwaters of the Cuyama River, which are released as needed to recharge the groundwater basin and to prevent sea water intrusion. The reservoir supplies on average 32,000 AFY of recharge to the Santa Maria Valley Groundwater Basin, though this value fluctuates significantly relative to annual precipitation. Because the reservoir is managed for flood control and groundwater recharge, the reservoir is empty much of the time. A majority of the groundwater flows towards the ocean, though a small gradient flows seasonally to the Nipomo Mesa Management Area groundwater basin.
D.2.5.2 Desalination The Cambria CSD service area is isolated from inland areas by the Santa Lucia mountain range to the east and the Pacific Ocean to the west, and there are currently no nearby aqueducts from which to import freshwater into the area. These factors resulted in the CSD’s Water Master Plan's Program-level EIR (WMP PEIR) to recommend sea water desalination as the most cost-effective alternative for supplemental potable drinking water supplies. Since 2004, the CSD has been striving to develop the desalination plant to meet existing and future
Item 8.m. - Page 115 water demands. The plant, if implemented, is expected to produce up to 602 AFY, and is planned to operate during the summer season to augment supply during the summer and high demand periods (from summer tourism). A recycled water system is also planned, with an estimated 180 AFY made available for unrestricted outdoor irrigation use.
The City of Arroyo Grande, the City of Grover Beach, and the Oceano Community Services District participated in the evaluation of a desalination project to supplement their existing potable water sources. Currently, all three agencies receive water from various sources, including the California State Water Project, Lopez Lake Reservoir, and groundwater from the Arroyo Grande Plain Hydrologic Subarea that is part of the Santa Maria Valley Groundwater Basin. Recent projections of water supply shortfalls in the region motivated the agencies to conduct a more detailed study of desalination as a supplemental water supply.2 The study focused on utilizing the existing South San Luis Obispo County Sanitation District’s (SSLOCSD) wastewater treatment plant to take advantage of utilizing the existing ocean outfall, while having the plant located near the ocean sea water source. The feasibility study, completed in 2008, was based on a 2,300 AFY sea water desalination facility. Some of the major points of interest and concern of this study include:
• Some 20 or more beach wells may be needed to provide enough sea water to produce the 2,300 AFY potable water • Permitting and environmental issues could be complex, and implementation could take eight years or longer
Initial capital cost could be in the range of $35 million, and customer rates could be impacted by 18 percent to over 100 percent to fund the project, and would cost approximately $2,300 per AF or more, on a 20-year life cycle basis; project design could begin by 2016, depending on availability of existing water supplies.
D.2.5.3 Water Recycling Several purveyors and agencies in the County recycle municipal wastewater (see Figure D-4 for illustration of water recycling process). Details of each purveyor or sanitary agency’s recycled water program are discussed later in this report. Recycled water qualities range from secondary quality (as defined by Title 22 California Code of Regulations (CCR)) to the highest level of treatment for unrestricted use.
2 City of Arroyo Grande 2010 UWMP currently cites a 2006 report entitled, Water Supply Study; Desalination, concluding that the estimated cost per acre-foot of desalination water of $2,675/AF (2010 Dollars) makes desalination infeasible.
Item 8.m. - Page 116 The most established water recycling program in the County is that of the City of San Luis Obispo. The City of San Luis Obispo currently delivers 135 AFY to nearby golf courses, schools, and commercial establishments, with expectations of increasing recycled water deliveries to 1,000 AFY. The City must also maintain treated effluent discharge from their wastewater treatment plant to San Luis Obispo Creek, and this flow amounts to approximately 1,800 AFY.
Figure D-4. Water Recycling Process
Other water recycling projects in the County include those listed in Table D-5 and are discussed briefly in the MWR, and in the draft San Luis Obispo County Regional Recycled Water Strategic Plan (RRWSP):
Item 8.m. - Page 117 Table D-5. Existing and Projected Recycled Water Use Agency / WWTP Existing Projected (2030/2035) MGD AFY MGD AFY Templeton CSD Meadowbrook WWTP 0.15 170 0.40 450 With Diversion 0.37 410 0.67 750 Morro Bay Morro Bay WRF 0.87 975 1.0 1,121 With Cayucos CSD 1.12 1,250 1.3 1,437 Northern Cities Pismo Beach WWTP 1.1 1,230 1.8 2,020 SSLOCSD WWTP 2.6 2,910 3.5 3,920 Nipomo CSD Blacklake WWTP 0.07 80 0.07 80 Southland WWTF 0.8 900 1.7 1,900 Others California Men’s Colony (Dairy Creek Golf Course) 0.18 200 0.18 200 City of Atascadero WRF (Chalk Mountain Golf Course) 0.27 300 0.27 300 City of San Luis Obispo (Golf courses, schools, and 0.12 135 0.12 135 commercial) Rural Water Company (Cypress Ridge Golf Course) 0.05 50 0.05 50 Woodlands MWC (Monarch Dunes Golf Course) 0.05 50 0.05 50 Total 7.75 8,660 11.11 12,413 Source: (Draft RRWSP, January 2014) The planned future use of recycled water from San Luis Obispo County agencies are included in their forecasted water supply portfolio discussed below.
D.2.6 Other Cooperative Supply Opportunities Other cooperative supply opportunities exist between agencies internal to the planning region. There are also future programs such as the Nacimiento Water Project (NWP). Currently, 9,655 AFY of water available from the project is subscribed for and 6,095 AFY is unsubscribed for. The following are examples from the MWR of how the use of the NWP could be used as a viable supply source in the future.
Unsubscribed Urban Use: This would entail direct delivery of the unsubscribed water to existing or new urban participants.
Unsubscribed Non-Urban Use: This would entail delivery to new rural and/or agricultural participants directly or via wheeling through existing participants’ infrastructure.
Groundwater Banking or Recharge: This would entail direct or in-lieu delivery of subscribed and/or unsubscribed water to a recharge location for later extraction and/or to benefit the groundwater basin. In-lieu delivery refers to delivering additional NWP water to existing participants in-lieu of those existing participants pumping groundwater.
Item 8.m. - Page 118 Exchanges: This would entail using the unsubscribed water in exchange of a currently used water resource. Examples include connecting CMC or Cal Poly to the NWP and freeing up State Water and/or Whale Rock Reservoir water for use by others; the City of San Luis Obispo utilizing additional water from the NWP and freeing up Salinas Reservoir water for use by others; or delivering unsubscribed water to urban areas to free up groundwater for rural and/or agricultural users.
Other more developed supply sources of the County that are outside of groundwater basins discussed above are listed in Table D-6. If the District requires more detailed information, focused studies would be necessary.
Table D-6. Other Developed Supply Sources ub-Region Area North Coast Villa/Cayucos/Old/Willow/Toro Creek Roads North County Nacimiento/San Antonio Lakes North County Adelaida North County Park Hill North County Templeton Hills South County Coast San Luis Hills/Oak Park South County Coast Nipomo Valley/Los Berros/Tematte Ridge Source: 2012 MWR
Most of these opportunities do provide a reliable source of water due to the nature of existing contract provisions and surface water rights. However, given the affordability and institutional challenges associated with new urban or non-urban participants working both inside and outside of the San Luis Obispo County IRWM region, and costs associated with a banking/recharge program that would likely only have a short-term benefit, further studies are needed to look at:
• Developing supply scenarios and evaluating each scenario regarding the needs, willingness of participants, capacity availability, stakeholder review and/or approval, exchange valuation assessments, and water rights issues. • Conducting flow tests or reservoir releases to evaluate the benefit of outside cooperative new supply scenarios.
D.2.7 Current Water Supply Total Total current water supplies of the IRWM planning region are presented in two different aggregations to present the supply totals on both a Sub-Region and WPA level. The breakdown of water supplies includes five categories of water supply sources:
1. Groundwater – groundwater indigenous to the Sub-Region 2. SWRCB Water Rights Diversions – SWRCB permitted surface water diversions within the IRWM Region 3. Imported Surface Water – includes SWP water from the Coastal Branch WTP
Item 8.m. - Page 119 4. Reuse/Recycled water – includes recycled and desalination supplies 5. Other Cooperative Supply Opportunities – includes working within and adjoining IRWM regions in securing urban and non-urban supplies for direct use or banking and exchange using groundwater basins.
D.2.7.1 Current Urban Water Supply Breakdown by Sub-Region As shown in Table D-7 and Figure D-5, approximately two-thirds of the current urban water supply comes from groundwater. Typical for many regions, the dependency on groundwater is a result of using the least cost/best quality water supply alternative. With groundwater elevations continually sliding downward causing increased pumping costs, and with the real threat of sea water intrusion and upwelling of high TDS groundwater requiring expensive treatment, the reduced availability of low cost fresh groundwater supplies is driving the need for looking to supplemental surface water, recycled water, and desalinated water supplies.
Table D-7. Current (2010) Urban Water Supply for Entire IRWM Planning Region Total Water Supply By Sub-Region (AFY) Sub- Other Region SWRCB Water Imported Cooperative Totals Rights Surface ReUse/ Supply Sub Region Groundwater Diversions Water Recycled Desalinated Opportunities North Coast 3,297 3,169 258 6,724 North County 21,135 2,272 66 132 1,700 25,305 South County 10,670 11,749 1,571 227 5,402 29,619 Region Total 35,102 17,190 1,637 359 258 7,102 61,648 Source: IRWM Database
Item 8.m. - Page 120
Figure D-5. Urban Water Supply Breakdown by Sub-Region and for Total Region
D.2.7.2 Urban Water Supply Summary by Water Sector and WPA To better represent the urban supply usage, Table D-8 and Table D-9 provide a breakdown in water supplies in the IRWM planning region by WPA and Sub-Region for the years 2010 and 2035. Urban supplies often use a mix of groundwater, surface water, imported water, recycled water and/or desalinated water. Figure D-6 illustrates the change in water supplies between 2010 and 2035 showing increases in all supply sources with recycled water and desalinated water having the largest percent change.
Item 8.m. - Page 121 Table D-8. Water Supplies for 2010 Urban Uses Total Water Supply (AFY) by WPA SWRCB Water Imported Other Cooperative WPA ReUse/ Totals Groundwater Rights Surface Desalinated Supply Recycled Diversions Water Opportunities North Coast 1.San Simeon 140 - - - - - 140 2.Cambria 673 - - - - - 673 3.Cayucos - 661 - - - - 661 4.Morro Bay 328 2,508 - - 258 - 3,094 5.Los Osos 2,156 - - - - - 2,156 North Coast Total 3,297 3,169 - - 258 - 6,724 North County 10.Carrizo ------11.Rafael/Big Spring ------12.Santa Margarita 1,785 22 - - - - 1,807 13.Atascadero/Templeton 12,452 2,250 - 132 - - 14,834 14.Salinas/Estrella 6,898 - 66 - - - 6,964 15.Cholame ------16.Nacimiento - - - - - 1,700 1,700 North County Total 21,135 2,272 66 132 - 1,700 25,305 South County Total 6.San Luis Obispo/Avila 238 11,749 - 151 - 23 12,161 7.South Coast 10,432 - 1,571 76 - 5,379 17,458 8.Huasna Valley ------9.Cuyama Valley ------South County Total 10,670 11,749 1,571 227 - 5,402 29,619 IRWM Total Urban 35,102 17,190 1,637 359 258 7,102 61,648 Sources: IRWM Database, 2014
D.3 TECHNICAL RESOURCES FOR CURRENT AND FUTURE WATER DEMANDS AND SUPPLIES Having established the baseline of water supplies above, the balance of those supplies are compared against current and future water demands. This water balance is used to recognize where problems are either already occurring or will occur, and if there are data gaps making the balance of supplies and demands not possible unless further study is completed.
D.3.1 Water Demand Data Sources The primary sources of data used to develop the water balance for the San Luis Obispo Planning Region were 2010 Urban Water Management Plans and the 2012 San Luis Obispo County Master Water Report. Additional information was provided by urban water suppliers within the San Luis Obispo Planning Region.
Item 8.m. - Page 122 Table D-9. Water Supplies for 2035 Urban Uses Total Water Supply (AFY) by WPA SWRCB Water Imported Other Cooperative WPA ReUse/ Totals Groundwater Rights Surface Desalinated Supply Recycled Diversions Water Opportunities North Coast 1.San Simeon 140 - - - - - 140 2.Cambria 809 - - 100 - 600 1,509 3.Cayucos - 661 - - - - 661 4.Morro Bay 1,923 2,948 - - 645 - 5,516 5.Los Osos 2,156 - - - - - 2,156 North Coast Total 5,028 3,609 - 100 645 600 9,982 North County 10.Carrizo ------11.Rafael/Big Spring ------12.Santa Margarita 1,785 22 - - - - 1,807 13.Atascadero/Templeton 13,447 2,250 - 475 - - 16,172 14.Salinas/Estrella 8,861 5,400 66 - - - 14,327 15.Cholame ------16.Nacimiento - - - - - 1,700 1,700 North County Total 24,093 7,672 66 475 - 1,700 34,006 South County Total 6.San Luis Obispo/Avila 238 11,749 - 400 - 23 12,410 7.South Coast 9,967 - 1,735 2,235 - 7,896 21,833 8.Huasna Valley ------9.Cuyama Valley ------South County Total 10,205 11,749 1,735 2,635 - 7,919 34,243 IRWM Total Urban 39,326 23,030 1,801 3,210 645 10,219 78,231 Sources: IRWM Database, 2014
Figure D-6. Comparison in Urban Water Supply Portfolio 2010 and 2035
Item 8.m. - Page 123 D.3.1.1 2010 Urban Water Management Plans Urban Water Management Plans (UWMPs) are prepared by California's urban water suppliers to support their long-term resource planning and ensure adequate water supplies are available to meet existing and future water demands. Every urban water supplier that either provides over 3,000 acre-feet of water annually or serves 3,000 or more connections is required to assess the reliability of its water sources over a 20-year planning horizon considering normal, dry, and multiple dry years. This assessment is included in an urban water supplier’s UWMP, which are prepared every five years and submitted to the Department of Water Resources. The following water suppliers prepared 2010 UWMPs that were used in this analysis (see Section N – Relation to Local Water and Land Use Planning, Table N-1 for list of UWMP and their URLs):
• City of Arroyo Grande • Cambria Community Services District • City of Grover Beach • City of Morro Bay • Nipomo Community Services District • City of Paso Robles • City of Pismo Beach • City of San Luis Obispo
D.3.1.2 2012 San Luis Obispo Master Water Report The Master Water Report (MWR) is a compilation of the current and future water resource management activities being undertaken by various entities within the County and is organized by WPA. The MWR explores how these activities interrelate, analyzes current and future supplies and demands, identifies future water management strategies and ways to optimize existing strategies, and documents the role of the MWR in supporting other water resource planning efforts.
The MWR evaluates and compares the available water supplies (apart from the untreated ocean) to the water demands for the different water planning areas. This was accomplished by reviewing or developing the following:
• Current water supplies and demands based on available information • Forecast water demands and water supplies available in the future under current land use policies and designations • Criteria under which there is a shortfall when looking at supplies versus demands • Criteria for analyzing potential water resource management strategies, projects, programs, or policies • Potential water resource management strategies, projects, programs, or policies to resolve potential supply deficiencies
Item 8.m. - Page 124 Given the amount of overlap between the MWR and the IRWM Plan, the District is going to manage updates of the information in the MWR as part of the IRWM Plan update process. The IRWM Plan has to update urban water demands based on all of the 2010 UWMPs, which were not available when the MWR was written. Agricultural water demands are also updated from the MWR based on a 2013 updated county survey and groundwater modeling work currently taking place in the Paso Robles groundwater basin (see Figure D-8). Much of the descriptive information has either been brought into the IRWM Plan or is summarized with a reference to the MWR. To adhere to the MWR’s methods of reporting, the water budget tables are kept very close to the same look and content, but the forecast numbers and supply sources have changed. More specifically, each demand source is assigned a supply source regardless of the uncertainty. For instance, in rural cases where the water supply comes from groundwater, groundwater supplies are assigned to equal the demand, even if “Other Groundwater Sources” is the named supply source.
D.3.2 Method for Developing Projected Water Demands The IRWM region demand analysis period starts at the year 2010, corresponding to the most recent Urban Water Management Plans, and extends through 2035; the planning horizon of this IRWM Plan Update. Unlike the MWR, the IRWM analysis does not consider a build-out demand, unless the urban area is truly built-out by 2035. It is important, in this case, to place IRWM projects on a common timeline with the availability of water supplies, and regional statewide projects.
D.3.2.1 Urban Water Demand Figure D-7 provides a mapping of population density by census block to identify urban areas requiring public water service for drinking water and outdoor water use. The Urban /Reserve Boundaries indicate the potential build-out of incorporated cities and communities. Urban water demand refers to residential, commercial, industrial, parks, institutional, and golf course water demand within the unincorporated communities and incorporated cities in the IRWM Region.
For purposes of the IRWM Plan, the urban water demand includes all unincorporated communities and incorporated cities in the County where water purveyors have provided water demand information for the purposes of reporting in the IRWM Plan. As mentioned above, the urban water demand analysis relies heavily on the 2010 UWMPs. Data analysis was completed in five-year estimates, reflecting the information provided by the 2010 UWMPs. Notification was made to all urban water districts not having a UWMP, with some not responding to the data request. In these cases, the MWR is used as the basis assuming the districts are small enough to not change significantly.
Item 8.m. - Page 125
San Simeon
Figure D-7. Map of Urban and Rural Areas
D.3.2.2 Rural Water Demand Rural water demand refers to water demands that are not considered agricultural or urban, and typically supplied through a private well or small water system. The typical land use is small to medium acreage ranchette homes of 5 to 20 acres in size with minimal urban-style landscaping. Since no update of the rural areas was conducted as part of the IRWM Plan Update, the analysis used herein, to determine rural water demands relies wholly on the estimated current and projected MWR demands. For purposes of illustration, the areas shown on Figure D-7 to be of population densities 501 to 2500 people per square mile are considered to be typical of rural residential zoning.
Item 8.m. - Page 126 D.3.2.3 Agricultural Water Demand Agricultural water demand (see Figure D-8) refers to the annual applied water in all agricultural areas in the IRWM planning region. The current agricultural water demand was calculated using the same method and crop-specific applied water variables employed by the MWR, which utilized information on crop evapotranspiration, effective rainfall, leaching requirements,
Figure D-8. Agricultural Areas
irrigation efficiency, deficit irrigation, and frost protection. The variables used in the 2012 MWR were reviewed and determined to be the most current values available. The Agricultural/Crop ArcGIS® layer for the San Luis Obispo County from August 2013 was provided to update the 2008 MWR agricultural water use estimates. The seven (7) crop categories presented in the IRWM represent approximately 37 crop types (or Primary Commodities, see Table D-10) with each category’s water demand being based on a calculation of applied water using the crop- specific evapotranspiration, contribution from rain or shallow water table, leaching requirements, irrigation efficiency, and frost protection.
Item 8.m. - Page 127 Table D-10. Crop Group Primary Commodities Seven (7) Crop Crop Types (Primary Commodities) Categories Alfalfa • Alfalfa • Christmas trees • flowers Nursery • miscellaneous nursery plants • miscellaneous • sod/turf Pasture grasses • sudan grass • mixed pasture • Avocados • Oranges • Grapefruits • Olives Citrus • Lemons • Kiwis • pomegranates • Apples • Figs • Apricots • Pistachios • Berries • Persimmons Deciduous • Peaches • Pears • Nectarines • Quince • Plum • strawberries • Artichokes • mushrooms • Beans • onions Vegetables • miscellaneous • peas vegetables • peppers • tomatoes • wine grapes Vineyard • table grapes
For the Paso Robles groundwater basin, agricultural areas were taken from the recent groundwater modeling effort to ensure consistency of the two ongoing efforts. Replacement of the Paso Basin areas in the county data was done in GIS to create a single agricultural area layer for calculation purposes.
For details on the methodology used for calculating agricultural water demands, see Chapter 4.6.3 of the MWR. For a detailed report on agricultural water demands presented in the IRWM, see Appendix J-1 Agricultural Water Demand Analysis.
D.3.2.4 Environmental Demand and Unimpaired Runoff Environmental water demand refers to the amount of water needed in an aquatic ecosystem, or released into it, to sustain aquatic habitat and ecosystem processes. The federally threatened south-central California coast steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss) was used as the primary indicator species for the development of a reasonable estimation of the amount of water needed to support this species. Mean daily flow values from stream gaging stations representative of long-term, unimpaired (or natural) flow conditions were used to derive unimpaired mean annual discharge (MAD) estimates. The Unimpaired Mean Annual Discharge
Item 8.m. - Page 128 (UMAD) is estimated to translate the total volume of water yielded from the watershed unimpaired from any impoundments or other regulated flow structures. The Environmental Water Demand and UMAD are calculated for the entire WPA and not for individual streams. These estimates, taken from the MWR, are not available for all WPAs and the calculation of both Environmental and UMAD flow volumes are described fully in the MWR.
Note: Environmental water demands were to be determined based on watershed “snapshots” provided by the County through a consultant contract being completed in parallel with the IRWM Plan Update. Given delays, the environmental demands provided in this section come directly from the MWR, unless updated demands become available prior to the Public Draft.
As noted in the MWR, DWR identified over 1,000 water rights applications and permits for San Luis Obispo County (DWR, 2009b) in 2009. Because many of those water rights are uncertain as to their use and permitted amounts, and for purposes of the MWR analysis, the Environmental and UMAD flow volumes are presented without including an analysis of the 1,000 diversion rights in the IRWM region.
In order to obtain a better understanding of how much surface water is available for aquatic life, the District would need to identify and quantify all diversion rights and instream flow requirements in the watershed. (MWR)
D.3.2.5 Assumptions As in all planning studies where projections are based on what is known today, with an eye towards the future using General and Community plans and various population projections, the goal is to minimize the level of uncertainty to the extent possible given the data available. The three primary planning documents used in this section are the 2007 IRWM plan, the 2012 MWR, and various 2010 UWMPs. To achieve this goal, a number of assumptions are made in the development of the San Luis Obispo Region water demand analysis using these three sources, including the GIS analysis conducted for agricultural demands:
• Existing and projected urban water demand values are obtained from the 2010 UWMPs, if available. If no 2010 UWMP is available, such as in the case of a smaller water district, the water district is notified of the need to update their water demands • For the purposes of IRWM Plan’s reporting of urban water demands where no UWMP or requested update exists, 2010 is assumed to be the MWR demand labeled as existing, and 2035 is assumed to be the MWR demand labeled as Build-out. Moreover, a straight-line interpolation is used in most cases to obtain the urban demands in five-year intervals, unless information is available to change the
Item 8.m. - Page 129 assumption on the rate of growth • Projected 2010 UWMP urban water demand values are assumed to include existing and planned conservation measures, including those implemented to meet the California 20x2020 Water Conservation Plan (SBX7-7) • Where the MWR water demand is used and demands are presented as a range representing conservation and maximum build-out, the average of that range is calculated and used in this analysis • For rural and agricultural water demands, MWR and GIS updated values, respectively, are used for each WPA, and straight-line interpolation is used in most cases to obtain the demands in five-year intervals • Agricultural and rural water supplies are approximated based on the area of each groundwater basin underlying the agricultural and rural land uses. Surface water use is estimated based on availability of water rights and assumed areas to utilize surface water for irrigation (e.g., areas not overlying a groundwater basin)
D.4 WATER DEMAND AND SUPPLIES BY SUB-REGION AND WPA Each of the Sub-Regions and WPAs described in Section C – Region Description are included below to represent the forecast summary of water demands and 2035 water budget in the form of a water balance showing demands for urban, rural, and agriculture water uses and available supplies. Environmental water and estimated UMAD are also included to capture each WPA’s full water supply requirements. This information is stored and managed in the Region Description Database (see Section K – Data Management) and the tables produced are exported for each WPA and Sub-Region. For further detailed information on supplies and demands, please refer to the MWR. One significant change from the MWR is the use of actual assumed values where, in some cases, supply amounts are listed as unknown. The purpose is to provide a placeholder that allows for the summation of demands and supplies for a comparison. Estimated values will be the focus of future updates to improve the understanding of a very complex water demand and supply comparison.
This section is organized by Sub-Region, starting with a summary table (Table D-11) and graph (Figure D-9) for the three Sub-Regions of the IRWM region, followed by a summary of the WPAs for each Sub-Region, and ending with detailed information for each WPA at the scale of a water district. More importantly, the collection of water demand and supply information contained below is a reporting of published material, especially the 2012 MWR and 2010 UWMPs included in Section M – Technical Analysis, and a reporting of calculated agricultural demands based upon analysis conducted by crop type for each WPA. No separate unpublished findings of water supply sufficiency are made within this section.
Item 8.m. - Page 130 Table D-11. IRWM Plan Sub-Region Demand Totals Sum Urban, Rural, Ag 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 North Coast 11,371 12,121 12,744 13,369 13,973 15,533 North County 119,294 127,077 135,110 143,108 148,324 154,120 South County 105,813 103,816 99,569 96,085 92,659 89,329 Total for IRWM Region 236,478 243,014 247,423 252,562 254,956 258,982
Figure D-9. IRWM Plan Sub-Region Projected Demand Totals
Item 8.m. - Page 131 D.4.2.2 WPA 7 – South Coast
Water Demands There are ten urban water suppliers and users in WPA 7: Conoco Phillips Company, City of Arroyo Grande, City of Grover Beach, Oceano Community Services District, City of Pismo Beach, Golden State Water Company – Nipomo, Golden State Water Company – Edna, Nipomo Community Services District, Rural Water Company, and Woodlands Mutual Water Company. Information on these water districts and water users is in Section C - Region Description.
The existing rural demand for WPA 7 is 3,466 AFY and the average projected demand is 5,661 AFY. The existing annual applied water for agricultural lands within WPA 7 is estimated at 45,746 AFY, which supports citrus, deciduous, nursery, pasture, vegetable and vineyard crops. The projected future agricultural demand decreases to 20,222 AFY due to the significant decrease in vegetable crops. The 25,524 AFY decrease in agriculture is offset by the urban (increase of 5,000 AFY) and rural residential (increase of 2,200 AFY) areas.
The UMAD for WPA 7, inclusive of the water management areas, is approximately 49,100 AFY and environmental water demand of 32,960 AFY.
Demand Supply Balance With a significant reliance on both surface water and groundwater, WPA 7 can meet its forecasted water demands through agricultural off-sets, surface water transfers, recycled water and expanded surface water and groundwater facilities. Groundwater is constrained in the region both in quantity and quality, and requires management efforts to increase its effective yield in providing for the region. See MWR for a full detailed description of the region’s water supply portfolio.
Figure D-18. WPA-7 South Coast Water Demands
Item 8.m. - Page 132
1 1 2 2 3 4 2 5 6 7 8
133 Notes Notes Notes
0
138 388 458 720 Page 6,981 2,297 6,715 3,703 2,550 3,318 1,755 1,348 1,847 4,198 1,520 1,330 5,661 5,661 - 20,222 44,927 32,960 49,100 19,044 2035 2035 2035 2035 2035
0 8.m. 441 412 720 7,107 1,051 1,983 3,520 2,364 3,176 1,703 1,249 1,690 3,995 1,386 1,304 5,222 5,222 2030 2030 2030 2030 2030
11,225 25,327 48,548 32,960 49,100 17,999
Item
0 494 412 720 7,234 1,963 1,669 3,337 2,182 3,089 1,669 1,151 1,532 3,775 1,252 1,278 4,783 4,783 2025 2025 2025 2025 2025
15,734 30,431 52,274 32,960 49,100 17,060
0 548 411 720 7,361 2,876 1,354 3,154 2,002 2,987 1,634 1,052 1,375 3,588 1,118 1,252 4,344 4,344 2020 2020 2020 2020 2020
20,244 35,537 56,020 32,960 49,100 16,139
0 601 410 954 720 984 demand range. 7,488 3,788 1,040 2,971 2,036 3,288 1,781 1,217 3,404 1,226 3,905 3,905 2015 2015 2015 2015 2015
24,754 40,642 60,567 32,960 49,100 16,020
0
655 725 410 855 720 850 7,614 4,701 2,788 1,944 2,956 1,605 1,060 2,367 1,200 3,466 3,466 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 29,263 45,746 63,179 32,960 49,100 13,967
1600 AFY. Average range of used 2035. for Straight line 1400 AFY. Average range of used 2035. for Straight line 1419 AFY. Average range of used 2035. for Straight line 1944 AFY. Average range of used 2035. for Straight line - - - - 482AFY. Average range used of 2035. for Straight line -
average of the 2035 demand range.
Sewer Co available; calculations not performed.
a range, 1260 range, a
Edna Nipomo
– –
District
Crop Types Crop
Rural Areas/Districts Rural Rural Urban Water out/2035) demand not Sum Urban, Rural, Ag Rural, Urban, Sum
- -
Environmental Category Environmental Water Demand
South Coast South
Total WaterTotal Demand 2012 MWR Future demand 2012Future given MWR as a range, 434 interpolation between 2010 demand and average the of the 2035 2035 using demand line straight calculated interpolation from 2020 and 2030 given demands. demand2012Future given MWR as a range, 1277 betweeninterpolation 2010 demand and the demand2012Future given MWR as a range, 1750 interpolation between 2010 demand and average the of the 2035 demand range. Future (Build demand2012Future given MWR as a range, 1440 interpolation between 2010 demand and average the of the 2035 demand range. demand2012Future given MWR as interpolation between 2010 demand and average the of the 2035 demand range. 2035 to 2010 Interpolation Straightline Vegetable Vineyard Total Estimated Unimpaired Annual Mean Discharge Estimated Total South Coast Total Alfalfa Citrus Deciduous Nursery Pasture Golden State Water Company City Pismo of Beach City Arroyo of Grande City Grover of Beach Oceano CSD Golden State Water Company Nipomo CSD Rural Water Company/Cypress Ridge WaterWoodlands Company Mutual Conoco Phillips Co
WPA No. 7 - WPA 8 3 4 5 6 7 1 2
-26.
Notes: Total Water Demands (AFY) Demands Water Total Environmental Water Demands (AFY)
Agricultural Water Demands (AFY) Rural Water Demands (AFY)
Table D Table (AFY) Demands Water Urban San Luis Obispo Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Section D. Water Supply, Demand, and Water Budget
482 700 160 3,646 4,979 1,035 9,577 4,289 2,235 4,927 15,271 35,850 63,179 4 (AFY) (AFY) (AFY) Total Demand SW Supply GW Supply
0 0 -
134 (AFY) (AFY) (AFY) UMAD Demand Environ
SW Supply mental & GW Supply
-
Page - 226 SW GW 2,095 3,340 5,661 3,466 5,661 (AFY) (AFY) Rural Supply South South Supply
d (AFY)d Deman Coast
-
8.m. 809 7,482 SW GW ure (AFY) (AFY) (AFY) 11,931 20,222 45,746 20,222 Supply South South Supply Coast Demand
Agricult
Item
Co SW 1,400 1,400 1,200 1,330 GW (AFY) (AFY) (AFY) Supply Supply
Phillips
Demand Conoco Conoco
Notes
1
817 817 200 850 1,520 Water Water SW GW Mutual Mutual (AFY) (AFY) (AFY) Supply Supply Company
Demand
Woodlands Woodlands
Notes
12 13
50 462 462 720 720 SW GW (AFY) (AFY) (AFY) Sewer Co Sewer Supply Supply
press Ridge Ridge press Demand Rural Water Water Rural
Company/Cy
Notes 7 3
CSD 2,367 4,198 1,448 1,448 SW GW Nipomo Nipomo (AFY) (AFY) (AFY) Supply Supply
Demand
Notes
1
–
852 852 State 1,060 1,847 SW Water Water GW Golden Golden Nipomo (AFY) (AFY) (AFY) Supply Supply
Demand Company
Notes
9
855 303 900 900 CSD 1,348 SW GW Oceano (AFY) (AFY) (AFY) Supply Supply
Demand
Notes 7 3 8
800 1,605 1,755 1,423 1,423 Beach SW City of GW Grover Grover (AFY) (AFY) (AFY) Supply Supply
Demand
Notes 5 6
160 2,290 2,956 3,318 1,323 1,483 SW City of GW Arroyo Arroyo Grande (AFY) (AFY) (AFY) Supply Supply
Demand
Notes 3
896 700 700 Beach Pismo SW 1,985 1,944 2,550 City of GW (AFY) (AFY) (AFY) Supply Supply
Demand
Notes 1 1 2
482 410 458 482 Edna State Water Water SW – – GW Golden Golden (AFY) (AFY) (AFY) Supply Supply Company
Demand
-
Area es -
South Coast Demand Supply Balance Supply Demand Coast South
South Coast South
- Lopez Lake Recycled Water Other GWOther Supply Sourc Total GW Water Surface NCMA) Arroyo Grande Plain (Part of Basin) Valley Maria Santa Nipomo Mesa Hyd Sub Basin Maria Santa San Valley Obispo Luis Valley Maria Santa Edna Valley Northern Cities Management Area Pismo Creek Valley (outside Unimpaired Summary Unimpaired Existing Demands (2035) Forecasted Demands Groundwater Water Districts/Use Districts/Use Water Sectors/Environmental/
7 – No. 7 – WPA
-27. Water Supply Source Water / Rural Demands Urban/Ag
Table D Table WPA No. 7
San Luis Obispo County IRWM Region D-52 Public Draft June 2014
San Luis Obispo Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Section D. Water Supply, Demand, and Water Budget
321 100 100 - 1,735 3,286 7,716 2,789 11,866 4 Total
0 0 0 -
135 32,960 49,100 UMAD Environ urban uses. urban
mental &
-
0 0 Page
-
5,661 Rural South South
Coast
0 0 -
8.m. ure 20,222 South South Coast
Agricult
0 agricultural uses to uses agricultural
Item 70
Co 1,400 CSD will receive approximately 1,667 AFY
Phillips Conoco Conoco
15
pomo
out demand, except for Grover Beach, which 703 903 200 - 1,720 Water Water Mutual Mutual Company is converted from
Woodlands Woodlands
ated using DWR 4. Method emporary agreement ends in 2014.
ry is 495 AFY. 495 ry is 15
0 208 258 720 Sewer Co Sewer press Ridge Ridge press Rural Water Water Rural
Company/Cy
15
end the of forecast build
583 - CSD 2,167 2,167 3,615
Nipomo Nipomo
–
15
208 208 787 - could request water service, plus other potential requests for service State 1,060
Water Water Golden Golden Nipomo
Company
10 11
495 100 698 250 - CSD 1,598 Oceano
14
g urban is for agricultural rural users golf courses and CSA 18.
09 32 209 0 4 677 1, 2, Beach City of Grover Grover 833 AFY.833
he State Parks Department golf course and a City park. The portion theof 225 AFY attributed to golfthe course predates the
14 11
112 100 667 2,502 3,985 City of Arroyo Arroyo Grande
4
Beach Pismo 1,240 4,121 4,821 2,271 City of
0 24
482 Edna
State Water Water – – Golden Golden Company
-
basin estimated safe safe basin estimated basin yield 4000is AFY and pumpin all -
WPA 7 WPA
- WPA 7
South Coast South - potable groundwater pumped from irrigation wells used on t
- - Region Transfer - and has reserved an additional 500 AFY. The will three other receive assumed 20% reduction. additional Oceano CSD has a 750 AFY allocation but no drought buffer. Therefore the 66 percent assumption Statefor Water Project delive Arroyo Grande has an active agreement purchase to 100 AFY Oceano of CSD supplies from groundwater Lopez or Lake water. This t Existing demand 2010 = demand. Currently arethere over 100 lots within servicethe area that Demand 2015 2002 Settlement Agreementprovides that groundwater allocations can be increased when land within incorporatedthe boundaries Nipomo supplemental water project includes Nipomo CSD, Woodlands MWC, Golden State Water Company, and Rural Water Company. Ni Assumes 20x2020 per capita target water use. 140 AFY the 1240 of AFY contracted amount has been allocated for Pismo Ranch. 20x2020 was use water calculated target using 1. DWR Method Provided by City of Arroyo Grande Existing Demand = Projected 2015 Demand Water using the 20x2020 interim water use target. 20x2020 target water use was calcul Non Gentlemen's Agreement. Ten percent additional water conservation (beyond what has already been accomplished) assumed for the low Demand) MWR 2012 EdnaSub Valley Transfers Nipomo Supplemental Water Project Total SW Total Supplies (Supplies Balance SWP Ag Land Conversion Credit In Water Districts/Use Districts/Use Water Sectors/Environmental/ Summary Unimpaired
4 5 6 7 8 9 1 2 3 10 11 12 13 14 15
Environmental Water Unimpaired Annual Mean Inflow Notes:
WPA No. 7
Public Draft June 2014 D-53 San Luis Obispo County IRWM Region
136
Page - use reduction reduction use 8.m. based demands is is demands based Item
ifornia Water Conservation Plan Plan Conservation Water ifornia which includes consideration of
year increments described in subdivision(a)), -
family residential; (B) Multifamily; (C) Commercial; Commercial; Multifamily; (C) (B) residential; family
Demand Water Capita Need Per for
009 requirements and conduct a publicmeeting , #1. An urban retail water supplier shall include in its urban water management plan…due in 2010 the baseline daily per capita water use, urban water use target, interim urban water use target, and compliance daily per capita water use, along with the bases for determining those estimates, including references to supporting data. #2. Urban wholesale water suppliers shall include in the urban water management plans . . . an assessment of their present and proposed future measures, programs, and policies to help achieve the water use reductions required by this part (10608.36). Urban retail water suppliers are to prepare a plan for implementing the Water Conservation Bill of 2 D.4.4 economic impacts (CWC §10608.26). (CWC impacts economic identifying the uses among water use sectors, including, but not necessarily limited to, Single of the following uses:all (A) #25. Quantify, tothe extent recordsare available, past and current water use, and projected water use (over the same five (D) Industrial; (E) Institutional and governmental; (F) Landscape; (G) Sales to other agencies; (H) Saline water intrusion barriers, groundwater recharge, or conjunctive use, or any combination thereof; (I) Agricultural (10631(e)(1) (2)). and en preferred where the correlation in daily indoor water use and population work well and and well work population use and indoordaily water in correlation the where preferred en
An IRWM Plan’s use of per capita demands in place of aggregated land use- land of Plan’sAn inper aggregated use IRWM place of capita demands oft time. over conservation water of given levels meeting in progress showing in are useful water capita a 20 per for percent calls Plan Conservation TheWater California water urban Act, Plan Management Water Urban the of part As 2020. year the by statewide goal reduction percent 10 (2015) interim an set and plan a complete to required are suppliers Cal the of goals the meet to manual guidance DWR the per as below: excerpts the in summarized briefly as The table below presents the baseline and target per capita water demands for the urban water water urban the for demands water capita per target and baseline the presents below table The Act. Plan Management Water Urban the by required suppliers
in 137
Page - 8.m. Item ve reported safe basin reported safe basin ve , the region has made a a has made region the ,
and sustainability and
ent of both the Nipomo Mesa Management Management Mesa Nipomo the both of ent
149 105 113 113 193 192 117 204 ISCUSSION 2020 Target D
167 109 127 119 217 214 120 222 2015 Interim UMMARY
S
Per Water Capita Use (GPCD) 186 125 241 236 124 240 112.4 140.7 Baseline EVIEW
R
Grande
UWMPs EMAND Suppliers Water Urban Large for Goals 20X2020 Capita Per D -47. rently in deficit and/or the basin safe basin yield in unknown. It should be noted that the the that noted be should It unknown. in yield basin safe basin the and/or deficit in rently Urban Water Supplier D.5 City Grover of Beach City of Morro Bay City of Paso Robles Beach City Pismo of City of San Luis Obispo Nipomo CSD 2010 Source: City of Arroyo CSD Cambria concerted effort to increase water reliability by diversifying communities’ water portfolios. portfolios. water diversifying communities’ by reliability water to effort increase concerted As noted earlier in this section, no “unpublished” conclusions are made by the IRWM Plan. The The Plan. IRWM the by made are conclusions “unpublished” no section, this in earlier noted As reporting control of agency water over to is behind maintainreasoning decision local this rural and agricultural including practices, management use and supply water demands and the WPAs, that, in some appears it documents, planning and various UWMPs the Fromusers. where demands water growing the up with keep cannot supply water projected and current approved. already is growth planned An additional concern is the inherent uncertainty of water demands where supplies for rural rural for supplies where demands water of uncertainty inherent the is concern additional An and demand use crop land on based current use are estimated water and agricultural uses water agricultural and rural for supply water the region, the of parts some In coefficients. is cur the out of 16 and groundwater, is applications agricultural and rural for supply of main source ha not do Region Obispo Luis San the supplying basins groundwater 37 DWR the of many Moreover, balances. water estimating when uncertainty leaves This yields. Basin Valley Maria Santa the for study the as such date, of out are studies basin groundwater establishm formal the to prior was which 2002, an Without Area. Management Maria Valley Santa and Area Management Cities Area, Northern Obispo Luis San the in sources groundwater the of all for yields basin safe the on assessment unknown. is sustainability supply future total the Region, In sources. supply water multiple of use the to due balanced more appears supply water Urban State Project metis by surface Water urban water, demand water toaddition groundwater, and with rural the as However, water. recycled as such sources alternative Water, and the in basins groundwater the of state current the knowing not applications, water agricultural impossible. to difficult comparison meaningful and any true makes Region Obispo San Luis supplies around groundwater exists While uncertainty Table D Table
138 Page - 8.m. Item , stakeholders are are stakeholders , Prioritization and Selection Solicitation, Project – G water sources, recycled water and desalination facilities to improve sustainability. As is is As sustainability. improve to facilities desalination and water recycled sources, water
Communities and unincorporated areas of the region are considering the potential for various various for potential the considering are region the of areas unincorporated and Communities surface Section in described considering a number of projects to help adapt water supplies to the changing situations this this situations changing the to supplies water adapt help to projects of number a considering etc.). droughts, extended change, climate (e.g. faces region SanSan LuisLuis ObispoObispo CountyCounty RegionalRegional RecycledRecycled WaterWater StrategicStrategic PlanPlan
Participating Agencies: DRAFT June 19, 2014 City of Arroyo Grande City of Grover Beach City of Morro Bay City of Pismo Beach County of San Luis Obispo Nipomo Community Services District Cannon Oceano Community Services District 1050 Southwood Drive South San Luis Obispo County Sanita on District San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Templeton Community Services District 805.544.7407
Item 8.m. - Page 139
THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY BLANK
Item 8.m. - Page 140 San Luis Obispo County DRAFT Regional Recycled Water Strategic Plan Executive Summary
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Introduction The County of San Luis Obispo (County) is investigating opportunities for the use of treated wastewater (recycled water) across the County as part of the San Luis Obispo Region Integrated Regional Water Management (IRWM) Plan (SLO IRWMP). The Regional Recycled Water Strategic Plan (RRWSP) is one component of an update to the SLO IRWMP, and is funded by a Round 2 IRWM Regional Planning Grant from the California Department of Water Resources (DWR). Increased interest in recycled water use has been expressed across the County through individual agency water and wastewater planning efforts, and through County-wide efforts such as SLO IRWMP and the County Master Water Plan. The interest in recycled water is driven by several factors, particularly the acknowledgement of limited existing water sources and the desire to maximize the benefit of local resources. Historically, the primary obstacles to recycled water implementation were cost competiveness with existing water supplies and some future water supplies, as well as, in some cases, public or customer acceptance of reuse. Some of these obstacles still exist and are explored in the RRWSP. RRWSP Purpose, Objectives, and Approach The purpose of the RRWSP is to identify and prioritize potentially viable next steps in successfully implementing water reclamation across the County in a safe and cost-effective manner. The RRWSP objectives are to: x Update previously defined recycled water projects, identify new projects, and identify opportunities for inter-regional cooperation. x Apply a similar cost and benefit basis to all projects to identify higher regional priorities. x Advance existing recycled water planning efforts for each study area based on the progress and needs of each area. x Define the critical next steps for individual agencies and regional entities to move priority projects forward. x Identify one or more projects for the final round of Proposition 84 implementation grant funding, which is scheduled for 2015. The RRWSP’s approach builds upon the technical information developed by each agency, including treatment plant upgrades, market assessments, and project descriptions. This work also updated relevant information for previously identified projects, and identified potential modifications to those projects to lower cost while maintaining potential benefits. The RRWSP identifies high-priority projects based on costs and benefits, and defines critical next steps for each project. The RRWSP also addresses policy, regulatory, permitting, legal, and funding / financing considerations for different types of recycled water projects. The RRWSP covers region wide recycled water opportunities, and has focused evaluations within four study areas (refer to the figure on the following page): 1. Morro Bay 2. Nipomo (Nipomo Community Services District (CSD)) 3. Northern Cities (Arroyo Grande, Grover Beach, Pismo Beach, Oceano CSD, and South San Luis Obispo County Sanitation District (SSLOCSD)) 4. Templeton (Templeton CSD)
6/19/2014 ES-1
Item 8.m. - Page 141 k e re Es C t re e ll a m la R o iv h e C L r a s H T k u a blas Cree e r h u e ro C re ek S a n Ju an Templeton Community Services District C re e k
SAN LUIS OBISPO S a COUNTY lin as R iv e
r
City of Morro Bay
C ho rro C r e ek k o Cre e P oz
P A City of Pismo Beach C I F South San Luis Obispo County Sanitation District k I e C re C o m la O A
C Nipomo Community Services District E
A
Legend N Santa Maria Ri C ve u Arroyo Grande r y a m Grover Beach a R
i v
e
Oceano r
Highways
RRWSP Study Areas San Luis Obispo County Regional Recycled Water Strategic Plan m 04812 2 Executive Summary Miles DRAFT JUNE 2014 1:500,000 Item 8.m. - Page 142 San Luis Obispo County DRAFT Regional Recycled Water Strategic Plan Executive Summary
Regional Overview The County’s water supplies consist of groundwater, local and imported surface water, recycled water, and ocean desalination. The specific water supply portfolio for each water purveyor varies according to its location and previous investments in water supply infrastructure. For example, many purveyors are entirely dependent on groundwater, while a limited number use only groundwater to meet peak season demand. As reflected in the following figure, most water purveyors have a heavy reliance on groundwater. County Water Supply Portfolio & Types of Water Use
Recycled Ocean Water Desal Surface 0.4% 0.1% Rural Water 4% 10.0% Urban 21%
Ground water 89.5% Agricultu re 75%
Source: San Luis Obispo County IRWM Region Public Draft (June 2014), Section D. Water Supply, Demand, and Water Budget
In general, there are limited untapped groundwater supplies for municipal drinking water use. As a result, many purveyors have invested in surface water supplies over the past decade, such as the State Water Project and Nacimiento Water Project. These new surface supplies have eased the stress on many groundwater basins. In addition, some historical supplies may be reduced in the future – whether from unsustainable pumping of groundwater, groundwater quality issues, or reductions in surface water availability. Climate change also has the potential to reduce the County’s water supplies. These conditions, among others, have spurred interest in recycled water, particularly in locations where treated wastewater is discharged to the ocean and no associated water supply benefit is realized. Urban water use accounts for approximately 21% of total water use across the County, which equates to approximately 50,000 acre-feet per year (afy). As shown in the following figure, approximately half of this volume is used outdoors and the other half is used indoors. All the indoor urban water use is conveyed to municipal wastewater treatment plants (WWTPs) and has the potential for reuse. After accounting for water losses and reuse within the WWTPs, approximately 20,000 afy (or roughly 10% of total water use across the County) has the potential for reuse. Finding the highest and best beneficial reuse for this volume of water is the focus of the RRWSP.
6/19/2014 ES-3
Item 8.m. - Page 143 San Luis Obispo County DRAFT Regional Recycled Water Strategic Plan Executive Summary
Estimated Municipal Water Use and Wastewater Production
50,000
45,000
40,000
35,000 Outdoor Use
30,000
25,000 AFY
20,000 Non-Potable Reuse
15,000 Indoor Use Inland Discharge 10,000 (to WWTP)
5,000 Coastal Discharge 0 Urban Water Use Waterwater Discharges / Reuse
Source: San Luis Obispo County IRWM Region Public Draft (June 2014), Section D. Water Supply, Demand, and Water Budget Recycled Water Background Currently there are six operational non-potable reuse (NPR) projects across the region primarily consisting of golf course irrigation with disinfected secondary recycled water from treatment plants serving planned residential communities. The City of San Luis Obispo operates the only recycled water distribution system in the region, serving primarily City parks for landscape irrigation. Also, the County Department of Public Works is currently constructing a recycled water treatment and distribution system for the community of Los Osos, which will be operational in 2016. In total, approximately 810 afy of effluent is currently reused across the region by the following existing non-potable reuse projects: x Atascadero (300 afy to Chalk Mountain Golf Course) x California Men’s Colony (200 afy to Dairy Creek Golf Course) x Nipomo CSD, Blacklake WWTP (50 afy to Blacklake Golf Course) x Rural Water Company WWTP (50 afy to Cypress Ridge Golf Course) x City of San Luis Obispo (160 afy to nearby golf courses, schools, and commercial establishments; in addition to a minimum of 1,800 afy to San Luis Obispo Creek for streamflow augmentation) x Woodlands MWC WWTP (50 afy to Monarch Dunes Golf Course) In addition, approximately 790 afy of discharges are counted toward groundwater rights: x Nipomo CSD Southland WWTP (640 afy percolated to Nipomo Mesa groundwater) x Templeton CSD Meadowbrook WWTP (150 afy infiltrated for Salinas River underflow) Unplanned or incidental reuse occurs in the County via discharge of disinfected secondary effluent to percolation ponds from WWTPs without an ocean outfall. The ponds discharge to the
6/19/2014 ES-4
Item 8.m. - Page 144 San Luis Obispo County DRAFT Regional Recycled Water Strategic Plan Executive Summary underlying groundwater or an adjacent river and may eventually be used for potable or non- potable use, such as agriculture. Unlike inland discharges, effluent discharge via ocean outfalls has no existing water supply benefit. Therefore, reuse of effluent from WWTPs with ocean outfalls would provide the largest water supply benefit. Approximately 6,200 afy of effluent is currently discharged to the ocean and the volume will rise as growth occurs in these areas. These discharges offer the highest opportunity for water supply benefit through reuse since the effluent does not provide any water supply benefit at this time. The following table summarizes effluent discharges and reuse across the region and the following figure shows the locations of each of these WWTPs. Summary of Existing Effluent Discharges Ocean / Existing Inland Agency / WWTP Existing Effluent Coastal Reuse Discharge Discharge North County Sub-Region City of Atascadero 1.0 mgd 1,100 afy 300 afy 800 afy -- Heritage Ranch CSD 0.2 mgd 230 afy -- 230 afy -- City of Paso Robles 3.0 mgd 3,300 afy -- 3,300 afy -- San Miguel CSD 0.1 mgd 130 afy -- 130 afy -- TCSD Meadowbrook WWTP1 0.15 mgd 170 afy -- 170 afy2 -- North Coast Sub-Region California Men’s Colony 1.2 mgd 1,340 afy 200 afy3 1,140 afy3 -- Cambria CSD 0.5 mgd 540 afy --4 -- 540 afy Cayucos CSD 0.25 mgd 275 afy -- -- 275 afy Los Osos WWTP5 1.2 mgd 1,340 afy -- 1,340 afy -- Morro Bay 0.87 mgd 975 afy -- -- 975 afy San Simeon CSD 0.07 mgd 80 afy --6 -- 80 afy South County Sub-Region Avila Beach CSD 0.05 mgd 50 afy -- -- 50 afy NCSD Blacklake WWTP 0.05 mgd 50 afy 50 afy -- -- NCSD Southland WWTF 0.6 mgd 640 afy -- 640 afy7 -- Pismo Beach 1.1 mgd 1,230 afy -- -- 1,230 afy Rural Water Company 0.05 mgd 50 afy 50 afy -- -- City of San Luis Obispo8 5.1 mgd 5,700 afy 160 afy 5,540 afy8 -- San Miguelito MWC 0.15 mgd 170 afy -- -- 170 afy SSLOCSD WWTP 2.6 mgd 2,910 afy -- -- 2,910 afy Woodland MWC 0.05 mgd 50 afy 50 afy -- -- Total 18.3 mgd 20,330 afy 810 afy 13,290 afy 6,230 afy Notes: 1. Templeton CSD is considering diverting existing sewer flows that go to the Paso Robles WWTP (approximately 0.22 mgd) and conveying the flow for treatment at the TCSD Meadowbrook WWTP. 2. Templeton CSD retrieves the percolated water at downstream wells. 3. Must maintain a minimum discharge of 0.75 cfs (0.5 mgd; 540 afy) to Chorro Creek. 4. Percolated effluent serves as a barrier to slow the seaward migration of subterranean fresh water. 5. Currently under construction and start of operations planned for 2016. 6. Trucking of recycled water for irrigation started in 2014. 7. Percolated water is accounted for in the Nipomo Mesa Management Area groundwater balance. 8. Must maintain a minimum discharge of 2.5 cfs (1.6 mgd; 1,800 afy) to San Luis Obispo Creek.
6/19/2014 ES-5
Item 8.m. - Page 145 San Miguel CSD WWTP
Heritage Ranch WWTP
Paso Robles WWTP
San Simeon CSD WWTP
Cambria CSD WWTP
TCSD Meadowbrook WWTP
Atascadero WRF
SAN LUIS OBISPO City of Morro Bay and Cayucos CSD WWTP COUNTY
California Men's Colony WWTP
Los Osos WWTP (2016)
San Luis Obispo WRF
P A Avila Beach WWTP C I F I Pismo Beach WWTP C O SSLOCSD WWTP C E Cypress Ridge WWTP A NCSD Blacklake WWTP Legend N NCSD Southland WWTF
Woodlands MWC WWTP Ocean Discharge WWTP
* Inland Discharge WWTP PQ Existing Reuse Project Highway
Stream
Lakes
Municipal Wastewater Treatment Plants within San Luis Obispo County San Luis Obispo County Regional Recycled Water Strategic Plan Executive Summary m DRAFT JUNE 2014 04812 2 Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, i-cubed, USDA, USGS, AEX, Getmapping,Miles Aerogrid, IGN, IGP, swisstopo, and the GIS User Community1:600,000 Item 8.m. - Page 146 San Luis Obispo County DRAFT Regional Recycled Water Strategic Plan Executive Summary
Common Types of Reuse Common types of water reuse can be divided into the following categories (based on USEPA 2012 Guidelines for Water Reuse): x Urban Reuse o Unrestricted: The use of recycled water for non-potable applications in municipal settings where public access is not restricted o Restricted: The use of recycled water for non-potable applications in municipal settings where public access is controlled or restricted by physical or institutional barriers, such as fencing, advisory signage, or temporal access restriction x Agricultural Reuse o Food Crops: The use of recycled water to irrigate food crops intended for human consumption o Processed Food Crops and Non-food Crops: The use of recycled water to irrigate crops that are either processed before human consumption or not consumed by humans x Impoundments o Unrestricted: The use of recycled water in an impoundment in which no limitations are imposed on body-contact water recreation activities o Restricted: The use of recycled water in an impoundment where body contact is restricted, such as a landscape feature x Environmental Reuse o The use of recycled water to create, enhance, sustain, or augment water bodies, including wetlands, aquatic habitats, or stream flow x Industrial Reuse o The use of recycled water in industrial applications and facilities, power production, and extraction of fossil fuels x Potable Reuse o Indirect Potable Reuse: Augmentation of a drinking water source (surface or groundwater) with recycled water followed by an environmental buffer and, for surface water only, normal drinking water treatment o Direct Potable Reuse: The introduction of recycled water (with or without retention in an engineered storage buffer) directly into a water treatment plant, either collocated or remote from the advanced wastewater treatment system All of the types of reuse listed above are examined in the RRWSP with the exception of: x Restricted Impoundments: Restricted impoundments are common recycled water storage methods for golf courses and agricultural fields but are not an end use. Use of recycled water for unrestricted impoundments is not considered in the RRWSP. x Direct Potable Reuse: This option has recently emerged as a viable recycled water alternative across the United States, but several years of study and development of regulations await before a feasible project could be conceived in the County.
6/19/2014 ES-7
Item 8.m. - Page 147 San Luis Obispo County DRAFT Regional Recycled Water Strategic Plan Executive Summary
Opportunities, Constraints, and Recommendations by Study Area This section presents the recycled water evaluation conducted for each of the study areas and summarizes opportunities across the region.
City of Morro Bay The City of Morro Bay is currently conducting a planning effort to define and site a new water reclamation facility (WRF). One key goal of the new facility is to produce tertiary effluent for reuse. As of February 2014, The City Council is scheduled to decide on a site in August 2014 and plans to have the new WRF online by February 2019. There are a range of recycled water opportunities in and around the city, including landscape irrigation, agricultural irrigation, and groundwater recharge / streamflow augmentation. The city wants to maximize reuse from the new WRF. However, implementation of each type of potential reuse is subject to constraints, and feasible recycled water options are ultimately dependent on the site selected for the new WRF. Next Steps x Decide on a location for the new water reclamation facility. x Pursue reuse opportunities specific to the WRF location. x Incorporate recycled water planning into salt and nutrient management planning. New WRF Sites Evaluated by Morro Bay
Source: Figure 1 from New WRF Project: Options Report – Second Public Draft (December 5, 2013)
6/19/2014 ES-8
Item 8.m. - Page 148 San Luis Obispo County DRAFT Regional Recycled Water Strategic Plan Executive Summary
Nipomo CSD NCSD has two WWTPs (Southland WWTF and Blacklake WWTP) and both currently maximize reuse. Blacklake WWTP effluent is reused for irrigation at Blacklake Golf Course. Southland WWTF is percolated into the underlying groundwater basin, and these flows are included in the Nipomo Mesa Management Area (NMMA) water balance. Reuse of Southland WWTF effluent for landscape irrigation in strategic locations, such as offsetting pumping in groundwater depressions, could provide benefits to NCSD but would not necessarily provide new water. Also, Southland WWTF would need a tertiary treatment upgrade or an equivalent soil aquifer treatment and pumping system. Potential landscape irrigation, agricultural irrigation, and groundwater recharge projects from Southland WWTF were explored in the RRWSP. However, the projects were not cost effective ($10,000+/af) primarily because NCSD would only receive a 10% water supply benefit for every unit of recycled water use since percolated Southland WWTF effluent is already part of the NMMA water balance. (The water balance assumes 10% of percolated water is lost during transport to the groundwater table and reuse of the effluent for irrigation would avoid these losses). In summary, NCSD beneficially reuses 90% of treated effluent from Southland WWTF and would only be able to receive a maximum new water supply benefit of 90 afy if all 900 afy of existing effluent is reused for irrigation. NCSD Recycled Water Project Concepts Alternative Average Unit Cost Based on Annual Annual Water Supply ID Description Demand Demand Benefit N1a Nipomo Regional Park Project 51 afy $4,790 / AF $47,900 / AF N1b N1a & Blacklake Golf Course Extension 551 afy $1,730 / AF $17,300 / AF N1c N1a & Monarch Dunes Golf Course Extension 951 afy $1,310 / AF $13,100 / AF
In addition, NCSD recycled water opportunities and constraints include: x Limited opportunity for direct offset of NCSD potable water use since largest potential customers pump water from their own irrigation well x Substantial agricultural demand exists in proximity to the Southland WWTF x Southland WWTF will require an upgrade to tertiary filtration or pumping after percolation to implement a recycled water project x Additional treatment may be needed to meet water quality requirements of specific customers (e.g., agriculture) resulting in additional costs for treatment and concentrate management Based on this assessment, a water supply benefit will not drive a NCSD recycled water project. However, recycled water projects could be driven by the need for alternative disposal methods in the future based on potentially stricter waste discharge requirements from the RWQCB. Next Steps x Continue to monitor potential mounding of effluent recharge at the Southland WWTF and, if mounding is realized, pursue reuse opportunities x Work with SSLOCSD representatives on potential cross-basin reuse projects x Incorporate salt and nutrient management planning into water, wastewater, and recycled water planning.
6/19/2014 ES-9
Item 8.m. - Page 149 Legend
WWTF
Landscape Irrigation Blacklake Golf Course Project
N1
N2
N3
Nipomo Regional Park
Monarch Dunes Golf Course (Woodlands)
Southland WWTF Item 8.m. - Page 150 Nipomo CSD Landscape Irrigation Project Concepts Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, i-cubed, USDA, USGS, AEX, Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN, IGP, San Luis swisstopo,Obispo County and the GIS User Community Regional Recycled Water Strategic Plan 000.4 .81m .6 Executive Summary Miles DRAFT JUNE 2014 1:45,000 San Luis Obispo County DRAFT Regional Recycled Water Strategic Plan Executive Summary
City of Pismo Beach The Pismo Beach WWTP currently discharges approximately 1.1 mgd (1,230 afy) of disinfected secondary effluent through the joint Pismo Beach / SSLOCSD ocean outfall. Nine landscape irrigation project concepts from the Pismo Beach WWTP were defined. In addition, use of Pismo Beach WWTP effluent in combination with SSLOCSD effluent for larger, regional projects, such as agricultural reuse, groundwater recharge, seawater intrusion barrier, and surface water augmentation are discussed under SSLOCSD in the following section.
Pismo Beach Recycled Water Project Concepts
Landscape Irrigation Project Concepts PB6: Dinosaur Caves Park PB1: Pismo Beach Sports Complex PB7: Palisades Park PB2: Caltrans and Middle School Projects using the existing effluent outfall PB3: Price House Historic Park PB4: South to Arroyo Grande PB8: Pismo State Beach Golf Course PB5: Pismo State Beach Golf Course PB9: Western Grover Beach Unit Costs of Pismo Beach Project Concepts ($/AF)
$9,000 Cost of Tertiary Treatment $8,000
$7,000
$6,000
$5,000
$4,000
$3,000
$2,000
$1,000
$0 PB1 PB2 PB3 PB4 PB5 PB6 PB7 PB8 PB9
AFY 16 89 28 26 86 47 62 77 44
Opportunities and Constraints Based on findings from the project concepts development process, preliminary recycled water opportunities and constraints for Pismo Beach include: • Maximizing reuse will require more types of uses than just existing landscape irrigation. • Approximately 130 afy of landscape irrigation demand is located within 0.5 mile of the WWTP, which offers promising reuse opportunities. However, demand estimates for several key potential customers must be confirmed before proceeding much further with planning.
6/19/2014 ES-11
Item 8.m. - Page 151 San Luis Obispo County DRAFT Regional Recycled Water Strategic Plan Executive Summary
x Tertiary treatment upgrades for small treatment plant commonly have high unit costs due to the lack of scale and could result in high project unit costs for service to customers close to the WWTP. x There is potential for large recycled water use from new development if approved by the City. x Two of the largest potential customers – Pismo Beach Sports Complex and Pismo State Beach Golf Course – are not Pismo Beach potable water customers, so their water supply benefit must be achieved through groundwater exchange. x Most landscape irrigation customers have relatively low demands and are spread across the city, which causes service to these customers have high unit costs. x Use of Pismo Beach effluent for agricultural irrigation is potentially the most cost- effective reuse project as long as the Pismo Beach receives a water supply benefit. Agricultural irrigation is included in the SSLOCSD section. x Use of Pismo Beach effluent for groundwater recharge is a viable option and is included in the SSLOCSD section. The City recently purchased abandoned oil pipelines with the intent to consider their use for conveyance of recycled water. This option could potentially reduce distribution infrastructure costs and make more landscape irrigation projects cost effective. This concept will be evaluated as part of the City’s Recycled Water Facilities Plan, which is currently being prepared and is expected to be completed in early 2015. Next Steps x Prepare Recycled Water Facilities Plan in consultation with regional stakeholders and the SWRCB. x Investigate ability to use abandoned oil lines for recycled water conveyance. The RRWSP did not consider this option and its application could make non-potable reuse cost effective for the City. x Confirm demand estimates for cost effective projects x Explore alternative tertiary treatment method geared toward relatively small flows (i.e. 0.1 to 0.3 mgd) x Evaluate the cost to retrofit Pismo Beach State Golf Course and the ability for the city to receive groundwater benefits x Refine potential projects to develop a phased recycled water program x Continue discussions with new development (if approved by the City) regarding recycled water demand and funding x Consider use of the existing outfall as a recycled water conveyance facility (but only if 100% tertiary treatment conversion is planned) x Compare costs of viable projects with alternative water supplies x Continue to participate in discussions with regional SSLOCSD projects that could put Pismo Beach effluent to beneficial use and confirm the ability of the City to receive a water supply benefit x Incorporate salt and nutrient management planning into water, wastewater, and recycled water planning.
6/19/2014 ES-12
Item 8.m. - Page 152 ^ŝƚĞEŽ͘ >ĂŶĚƐĐĂƉĞ/ƌƌŝŐĂƚŝŽŶƵƐƚŽŵĞƌ ϭ ĂLJĐůŝĨĨŽŶĚŽƐ,K Ϯ ŽŽŶƐŝŶŐĞƌWĂƌŬ ϯ ĂůdƌĂŶƐͲ,tzϭϬϭDĞĚŝĂŶ;EŽƌƚŚͿ ϰŚƵŵĂƐŚWĂƌŬ ϱ ŝŶĂƐŽƵƌĂǀĞƐWĂƌŬ ϲ ůĚǁĂLJĞŶKĐĞĂŶWĂƌŬ _`17 ϳ ǀĞƌĞƚƚ ƐƚĂƚĞ ϴ &ŝǀĞŝƚŝĞƐ^ŚŽƉƉŝŶŐĞŶƚĞƌ ϵ &ƌĂŶĐŝƐ:ƵĚŬŝŶƐDŝĚĚůĞ^ĐŚŽŽů _`24 ϭϬ ,ŝŐŚůĂŶĚWĂƌŬ _`7 ϭϭ /ƌĂ>ĞĂƐĞWĂƌŬ ϭϮ :ĂŵĞƐtĂLJ^ůŽƉĞƐDĞĚŝĂŶ ϭϯ DĂƌŐŽŽĚĚWĂƌŬ ϭϰ DĂƌLJ,ĂƌƌŝŶŐƚŽŶWĂƌŬ ϭϱ EĞǁ>ŝĨĞŚƵƌĐŚ _`25 _`23 ϭϲ KĂŬWĂƌŬ^ŚŽƉƉŝŶŐĞŶƚĞƌ ϭϳ WĂůŝƐĂĚĞWĂƌŬ 1 _` ϭϴ WŝƐŵŽĞĂĐŚ^ƉŽƌƚƐŽŵƉůĞdž _`6 ϮϬ WŝƐŵŽŽĂƐƚsŝůůĂŐĞZsWĂƌŬ Ϯϭ WŝƐŵŽ^ƚĂƚĞĞĂĐŚ'ŽůĨŽƵƌƐĞ _`5 ϮϮ WƌŝĐĞ,ŽƵƐĞ,ŝƐƚŽƌŝĐWĂƌŬ _`13 Ϯϯ ^ŚĞůůĞĂĐŚ^ĐŚŽŽů Ϯϰ ^ŽƵƚŚWĂůŝƐĂĚĞƐWĂƌŬͬtĂůŬǁĂLJ Legend Ϯϱ ^ƉLJŐůĂƐƐWĂƌŬ WWTP _`2 Ϯϲ sĞŶƚĂŶĂ/ƐůĂŶĚƐDĞĚŝĂŶ _`22 _`3 Landscape Irrigation _`9 Project Pismo Beach WWTP PB 1 _`10 PB 2 _`18 _`4 PB 3 _`11 _`12 _`14 _`26 _`15 PB 4 _`8 _`20
Item PB 5 _`16 PB 6 8.m. PB 7 - Page _`21 153 Pismo Beach Landscape Irrigation Project Concepts San Luis Obispo County Regional Recycled Water Strategic Plan 000.25 .511m .5 Executive Summary Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, i-cubed, USDA, USGS, AEX, Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN, IGP,Miles DRAFTswisstopo, JUNE 2014 and the GIS User Community 1:45,000 San Luis Obispo County DRAFT Regional Recycled Water Strategic Plan Executive Summary
Northern Cities – SSLOCSD The SSLOCSD WWTP currently discharges approximately 2.6 mgd of disinfected secondary effluent through a joint ocean outfall (shared with Pismo Beach). Approximately 1.1 mgd of disinfected secondary effluent from Pismo Beach WWTP is discharged through the same ocean outfall. SSLOCSD has the largest volume of effluent considered in the RRWSP and the largest opportunities for large-scale reuse; however, landscape irrigation projects are expensive ($3,000+/af) and the more cost effective reuse opportunities – agricultural irrigation, industrial reuse, groundwater recharge, seawater intrusion barrier, and surface water augmentation – will require institutional, legal, outreach, and financial planning to be feasible.
SSLOCSD Recycled Water Project Concepts Landscape Irrigation Project Concepts Groundwater Recharge Project Concepts S1a. Small Landscape Irrigation Project S3a. GWR via surface spreading (60% RO) S1b. Core Landscape Irrigation Project S3b. GWR via surface spreading (Full AWT) S1c. Extension to Grover Beach Project S3c. GWR via injection (Full AWT) S1d. Extension North of Highway 101 Project Surface Water Augmentation Project Concepts S1e. Nipomo Mesa Golf Courses S4a. Arroyo Grande Creek Augmentation (80% RO) Agricultural Irrigation Project Concepts S4b. Arroyo Grande Creek Augmentation (Full AWT) S2a. Direct delivery over 12 hours each day (Tertiary) S4c. Los Berros Creek Augmentation (80% RO) S2b. S2a with 40% RO S4d. Los Berros Creek Augmentation (Full AWT) S2c. Direct delivery over 24 hours each day (Tertiary) S4e. Lopez Reservoir Augmentation (Full AWT) S2d. S2a; Serving 50% of estimated demand Industrial Reuse Project Concepts S5a. Tertiary Treatment S5b. Full RO
Unit Costs of SSLOCSD Project Concepts ($/AF)
$7,000 Landscape Irrigation $6,000
$5,000 Cost of Tertiary Treatment
$4,000 Surface Water Groundwater Augmentation $3,000 Industrial Recharge Agricultural Irrigation $2,000
$1,000
$0 S1a S1b S1c S1d S1e S2a S2b S2c S2d S3a S3b S3c S4a S4b S4c S4d S4e S5a S5b
AFY 12 162 44 52 1890 1890 1810 1890 1200 2760 2390 2390 2670 2390 2670 2390 2390 1100 1100
6/19/2014 ES-14
Item 8.m. - Page 154 San Luis Obispo County DRAFT Regional Recycled Water Strategic Plan Executive Summary
Overall, the amount of reuse for landscape irrigation is limited by the demand, while supply limits the amount of agricultural irrigation during the peak demand season (summer). Groundwater recharge and reservoir augmentation are limited by supply. Stream augmentation could be limited by supply or demand depending on future regulatory scenarios related to the volume of flow required at different points in the creek in the Habitat Conservation Plan. Opportunities and Constraints Based on the project concepts development process, SSLOCSD recycled water opportunities and constraints include the following: x Reuse from SSLOCSD WWTP will require upgrade to tertiary treatment. x Additional treatment may be needed to meet water quality requirements of specific customers (e.g., agriculture) or discharge regulations for specific types of reuse (e.g., stream augmentation or indirect potable reuse). x Landscape irrigation projects have the highest unit costs due to limited demand in proximity to the SSLOCSD WWTP. x Agricultural irrigation projects have the lowest unit costs due to substantial agricultural demand in proximity to the SSLOCSD WWTP. x GWR and stream augmentation projects have moderate unit costs and include a range of costs primarily due to the level of treatment assumed for each project. x GWR regulations limit the potential for cost effective projects due to the need for blend water. x GWR and stream augmentation projects offer the highest volume of reuse. x Industrial reuse has moderate unit costs and could potentially be combined with agricultural reuse since the industrial pipeline has the same alignment as the primary agricultural pipeline. Next Steps General x Complete planned treatment plant improvements and re-evaluate facilities needed to implement tertiary treatment upgrade. x Track regulatory drivers and their impacts on reuse opportunities from SSLOCSD WWTP, including: o RWQCB Waste Discharge Requirements (NPDES Permit) o NOAA Habitat Conservation Plan o California Coastal Commission Coastal Development Permit o Flood Protection / SWRCB Statewide General WDRs for Sanitary Sewer Systems, Water Quality Order No. 2006-0003 x Address institutional issues and potential funding mechanisms for regional projects o Discuss cost sharing of projects between water and wastewater agencies or water/sewer funds. o Discuss operations and management of the project o Discuss the logistics and legal basis for groundwater exchanges. o Coordinate with Pismo Beach reuse plans to identify the most cost effective reuse projects for the NCMA. o Develop project concepts sufficiently to position for grant funding opportunities
6/19/2014 ES-15
Item 8.m. - Page 155 San Luis Obispo County DRAFT Regional Recycled Water Strategic Plan Executive Summary
o Initiate discussions with member agencies about project funding between the water supply entities (Arroyo Grande, Grover Beach, and Oceano CSD) and SSLOCSD. o Investigate funding mechanisms for regional projects that benefit NCMA pumpers in addition to SSLOCSD and its member agencies. o Discuss support for use of SSLOCSD recycled water in the NMMA and the related ability to receive water supply benefits in the NCMA. x Incorporate salt and nutrient management planning into water, wastewater, and recycled water planning. Nipomo Mesa Golf Courses x Confirm demand estimates that account for future growth x Address issues associated with use of NCMA effluent in the NMMA. Agricultural Irrigation x Initiate planning for agricultural reuse program to enable a project to be developed within 10 years. x Conduct outreach to agricultural operations in the area determine willingness to use recycled water in the future and obstacles to implementation. x Set up a pilot study potentially in conjunction with Cal Poly1 similar to the Paso Robles Recycled Water Demonstration Garden. Identify funding source for a pilot project. Industrial Reuse x Discuss reuse options with Phillips66 refinery. x Address issues associated with use of NCMA effluent in the NMMA. Groundwater Recharge / Seawater Intrusion Barrier x Track regulations associated with groundwater recharge and surface water augmentation that impact the basis of projects in the RRWSP. x Further investigate NCMA groundwater basin, potentially with a groundwater model, to identify surface recharge locations, inland injection locations, and coastal injection locations. Define the benefits of these projects to the basin, particularly the prevention of seawater intrusion. x Determine benefits of and need for a seawater intrusion barrier (via direct injection or in- lieu reuse) and groundwater levels that would necessitate its use. Determine the value of groundwater protected from seawater intrusion. Streamflow Augmentation x Continue to track developments in Arroyo Grande Creek flow requirements / restrictions. x Track new and potential surface water discharge regulations.
1 California Polytechnic State University San Luis Obispo, Irrigation Training & Research Center; www.itrc.org
6/19/2014 ES-16
Item 8.m. - Page 156 k Pismo Beach WWTP e re C e Legend d n Landscape Irrigation Projects ra G Pismo Beach o e Groudwater Recharge Projects y k o a rr L To A z Industrial Reuse Projects e p o Agricultural Irrigation Projects Arroyo Grande and L Surface Water Augmentation Projects
WWTP Grover Beach City Limit
Rivers
[Z101
Oceano SSLOCSD WWTP Item 8.m. - Page 157 SSLOCSD Recycled Water Project Concepts Nipomo San Luis Obispo County 0 0.125 0.25 0.5m Regional Recycled Water Strategic Plan Miles ExecutiveSource: Summary Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, i-cubed, USDA, USGS, AEX, Getmapping, Aerogrid,1:80,000 IGN, IGP, DRAFTswisstopo, JUNE 2014and the GIS User Community San Luis Obispo County DRAFT Regional Recycled Water Strategic Plan Executive Summary
Templeton CSD Templeton CSD is currently maximizing the water supply benefits of its Meadowbrook WWTP discharges and is planning to divert district sewer flows from Paso Robles WWTP to Meadowbrook WWTP. TCSD is evaluating the percolation capacity of the existing Selby Ponds to handle the proposed flow from the sewer diversion in addition to untreated Nacimiento water, so reuse opportunities are being explored. Most reuse options will require an upgrade to tertiary treatment. Eleven recycled water project concepts were defined for Templeton CSD.
Templeton CSD Recycled Water Project Concepts Landscape Irrigation Project Concepts Agricultural Irrigation Project Concepts T1a. Downtown Core Landscape Irrigation Project T2a. Direct delivery over 12 hours each day (Tertiary) T1b. Evers Sports Park Extension Project T2b. T2b with 40% RO T1c. Vineyard Elementary School Extension Project T2c. Direct delivery over 24 hours each day (Tertiary) T1d. Jermin Park Extension Project Groundwater Recharge Project Concepts T1e. Commercial Landscape Irrigation (Equestrian T3a. GWR via surface spreading (60% RO) Center) Project T3b. GWR via surface spreading (Full AWT) T3c. GWR via injection (Full AWT)
Unit Costs of TCSD Project Concepts ($/AF)
$15,000 Landscape Irrigation $14,000 $13,000 $12,000 $11,000 $10,000 Cost of Tertiary Treatment $9,000 $8,000 $7,000 $6,000 Groundwater $5,000 Agricultural Recharge $4,000 Irrigation $3,000 $2,000 $1,000 $0 T1a T1b T1c T1d T1e T2a T2b T2c T3a T3b T3c
AFY 27 16 20 5 160 260 260 260 530 500 500
Opportunities and Constraints Based on the project concepts development process, TCSD recycled water opportunities and constraints include the following: x Reuse via percolation at the Selby Ponds is the preferred use of Meadowbrook WWTP effluent.
6/19/2014 ES-18
Item 8.m. - Page 158 San Luis Obispo County DRAFT Regional Recycled Water Strategic Plan Executive Summary
x Significant increases to effluent flows are dependent on a combination of septic tank conversions, build-out growth, and diversions from the East Side Force Main and Lift Station Project. x Potential for reuse of up to 0.2 mgd of effluent without treatment upgrades for feed and fodder irrigation but the reuse would not offset potable water demand. x Reuse from Meadowbrook WWTP with a water supply benefit will require at least an upgrade to tertiary treatment. x Additional treatment may be needed to meet water quality requirements of specific customers (e.g., agriculture) or regulations for specific types of reuse (e.g., GWR). x Landscape irrigation projects have high unit costs due to limited demand in proximity to the WWTP. x Commercial landscape irrigation (i.e., equestrian farm) has moderate unit costs due to moderate demand. x Agricultural irrigation has moderate unit costs due to moderate demand in proximity to the Meadowbrook WWTP but a proper market assessment was not conducted. x GWR has moderate unit costs due to treatment requirements and has the highest volume of reuse all effluent. There is an opportunity to include Nacimiento Water in GWR plans as well. However, costs to incorporate blend water are not included. Next Steps TCSD plans to incorporate feasible projects into the District’s planned Integrated Water Resources Strategic Plan and must be able to adjust reuse needs based on future percolation performance of the Selby Ponds and actual increases to future flows. Therefore, TCSD should: x Incorporate commercial irrigation, agricultural irrigation, and groundwater recharge options into the forthcoming Integrated Water Resources Strategic Plan. x Continue investigation into improving recharge capacity at Selby Ponds through WWTP improvements as well as upgrades and improvements to the ponds. x Considers water supply benefits and impacts to discharge capacity of continued recharge of Nacimiento water in the Selby Ponds. x Refine feed and fodder disposal option as a temporary disposal alternative until Selby Pond recharge capacity is better known. x If Selby Ponds cannot recharge all effluent, refine agricultural irrigation and commercial irrigation options. x Survey private agricultural and large turfgrass operations in the vicinity of the WWTP for their interest in recycled water use combined with the ability for TCSD to use a similar amount of groundwater currently being used by the entity. x Consider inclusion of Nacimiento water with recycled water groundwater recharge plans. x Track GWR regulations for changes that may improve economics of GWR concepts, particularly the need for blend water. x Incorporate salt and nutrient management planning into water, wastewater, and recycled water planning.
6/19/2014 ES-19
Item 8.m. - Page 159 Legend Landscape Irrigation Projects Groundwater Recharge Projects
WWTP
Landscape Irrigation Area
Injection Well Area Recharge Basin Area Existing Private Irrigation Well Rivers
[Z101
Item TCSD Meadowbrook WWTP 8.m. - Page 160 Templeton CSD Recycled Water Project Concepts San Luis Obispo County 000.15 .30m .6 Regional Recycled Water Strategic Plan Miles ExecutiveSource: Summary Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, i-cubed, USDA, USGS, AEX, Getmapping, Aerogrid,1:50,000 IGN, IGP, DRAFTswisstopo, JUNE 2014and the GIS User Community San Luis Obispo County DRAFT Regional Recycled Water Strategic Plan Executive Summary
Other Potential Recycled Water Projects The RRWSP focused on defining projects in five areas across the region but many more relevant opportunities exist. North County x City of Atascadero: The City currently reuses non-potable discharges at Chalk Mountain Golf Course and is currently preparing a Wastewater Collection System and Treatment Plant Master Plan update that is evaluating reuse at local parks and Atascadero Lake but no projects were defined at the time the RRWSP was prepared. x Heritage Ranch CSD: HRCSD currently discharges effluent that eventually enters an unnamed tributary to the Nacimiento River. The district is considering construction of a spray irrigation discharge site to reduce discharge to surface waters. x City of Paso Robles: The City is currently upgrading its WWTP to an advanced secondary (nutrient removal) process and has begun preliminary design of filtration and disinfection processes that are necessary to produce tertiary quality recycled water. The City recently adopted a Recycled Water Master Plan that identifies areas in east Paso Robles where recycled water may be used to offset pumping from the Paso Robles Groundwater Basin. Also, a major vineyard owner has expressed interest in purchasing recycled water for in-lieu recharge of the Paso Robles Groundwater Basin. North Coast x California Men’s Colony: CMC currently reuses tertiary effluent at Dairy Creek Golf Course and helps to maintain a continuous flow rate of 0.75 cfs in Chorro Creek. CMC is also a regional site considered by the City of Morro Bay and Cayucos CSD for treatment of their effluent. x Cambria CSD: CCSD’s effluent discharges serve as a barrier to seawater intrusion. CCSD is currently pursuing an indirect reuse project involving extraction and treatment brackish groundwater near the effluent percolation ponds and is considering future non- potable reuse options. x Los Osos WWTP: The new WRF plant started construction in 2014 and startup is planned for 2016. Reuse will occur via agricultural irrigation, landscape irrigation, and discharge to leach fields. The volume to each type of use is currently being defined through potential customer outreach. x San Simeon CSD: The district installed a 36,000 gpd tertiary filtration system in 2013. Current reuse is via hauling by truck for irrigation of commercial properties. The district has plans to construct a distribution system in phases as funds become available. South County x Rural Water Company: All effluent is currently reused at the Cypress Ridge Golf Course and capacity remains to reuse more effluent at the course as flows to the plant increase. x City of San Luis Obispo: The City is currently updating its Recycled Water Master Plan to develop plans to expand the system from existing use of 160 afy. There is also a possibility of recycled water sales to agricultural customers on the edge of the city limits, but the City ordinance limits sales of City water supplies to within city limits. x Woodlands Mutual Water Company: All effluent is currently reused at the Monarch Dunes Golf Course and capacity remains to reuse more effluent at the course as flows to the plant increase.
6/19/2014 ES-21
Item 8.m. - Page 161 San Luis Obispo County DRAFT Regional Recycled Water Strategic Plan Executive Summary
Regional Opportunities, Constraints, and Recommendations Ultimately, recycled water is one of many water resources options for the region. As presented in the RRWSP, there are several potential recycled water projects across the region that can provide cost effective benefits. A number of factors must be present to successfully implement a cost effective recycled water project, including water supply needs, recycled water supply and demand, acceptable economics, and protection of public health. Local conditions across the region result in a range of recycled water project opportunities and constraints. There are also opportunities and constraints that apply across the region. This section discusses these opportunities and constraints and outlines potential recommendations to move recycled water projects forward on a regional level.
Regional Opportunities and Constraints The project concepts considered in the RRSWP revealed several recycled water opportunities across the region as well as substantial obstacles to implementation of successful projects. All the reuse projects considered in the RRWSP are technically feasible and some are cost effective but barriers remain to successful project implementation. The most common drivers for recycled water projects across the State are: x Need for new water supply x Occurrence of significant seawater intrusion x Wastewater discharge restrictions Portions of these drivers are present across the region but not to the degree to support significant recycled water investments. These drivers may increase in the future and would improve the opportunity for reuse projects. Each driver is discussed further here.
Water Supply Need The need for a new, local, and reliable water supply is the primary driver for recycled water projects in the region. However, the region currently lacks the need for a new, large water supply. (Although, the 2014 drought is testing this assumption). Recycled water projects typically have strong economies of scale since the two largest components – treatment and pipelines – have economies of scale. Several potentially viable large (1,000+ afy) recycled water projects were identified but the need for this volume of new water by the individual sponsoring agency has not been demonstrated. The need may be present when considered across multiple water suppliers. A few small, cost effective (< 100 afy) recycled water projects were defined and showed some viability until the cost of small-scale treatment is included. This is the region-wide dilemma for recycled water. On the other hand, desalination is the other primary potential large, new source of water for the county and studies of potential desalination plants in the County2 resulted in water supply unit costs ranging from $3,000/af to $3,900/af. In addition, desalination raises non-monetary concerns, such as impact to the marine setting and energy intensity. Most recycled water project concepts in the RRWSP are more cost effective and have less environmental impacts than desalination. Also, the maximum recycled water rate for willing agricultural customers is the cost of current water supplies, which is roughly of the avoided cost of groundwater pumping. Agricultural reuse
2 South San Luis Obispo County Desalination Funding Study (Wallace, October 2008); Evaluation of Desalination as a Source of Supplemental Water, Administrative Draft, Technical Memorandum 2 (Boyle, September 2007)
6/19/2014 ES-22
Item 8.m. - Page 162 San Luis Obispo County DRAFT Regional Recycled Water Strategic Plan Executive Summary project concepts are some of the most cost effective projects in the region but the full cost of recycled water is significantly higher than groundwater. As a result, successful agricultural reuse projects require creative funding and financing plans.
Occurrence of Significant Seawater Intrusion The NCMA and NMMA have reduced pumping in recent years to avoid seawater intrusion and, on a smaller scale, Morro Bay, San Simeon, and Cambria have managed pumping to avoid seawater intrusion. To date, their efforts appear to be effective and there does not appear to be a need for a new seawater intrusion barrier. However, conditions may change that could necessitate the need for a new barrier. Recycled water could be recharged via percolation or injection to create a barrier or could provide in-lieu supplies to groundwater pumpers overlying the coastal area threatened by seawater intrusion.
Wastewater Discharge Restrictions The cost to meet NPDES discharge requirements is generally attributed to wastewater rates and additional costs to produce recycled water are attributed to the recycled water system. Treatment plant upgrades can be a significant project cost, especially the initial phases, and most plants to date have not been required to upgrade to tertiary effluent. Placing the full cost of tertiary treatment plant upgrades with the benefitting recycled water project reduces the potential for a cost effective recycled water project in most cases. However, the future direction of wastewater discharge requirements is toward greater strictness and may require WWTP upgrades that would benefit reuse.
Regional Obstacles and Recommendations The following table summarizes recycled water obstacles from a regional perspective and recommendations to address these obstacles. The table is followed by a review of regional opportunities, constraints, and recommendations for specific types of reuse projects.
6/19/2014 ES-23
Item 8.m. - Page 163 San Luis Obispo County DRAFT Regional Recycled Water Strategic Plan Executive Summary Regional Recycled Water Obstacles and Recommendations Obstacle Recommendation Leadership / Advocate Water supply projects take many years (and election cycles) from concept to operations and, as a result, many are put on hold from political and/or staff turnover. Recycled water projects can also take just - Identify recycled water champions in multiple fields - scientific, public as long and can cause additional political or staff concerns due to health, environmental, and political - to support projects. public misunderstanding or misleading information. Therefore, most - Support and facilitate regional projects with costs and benefits spread successful large recycled water projects include respected scientific, across diverse entities. public health, environmental, and political advocates to move the - Advocate for highest and best use of existing potable water. project forward by being able to champion the project benefits, help gain the public’s trust, and assist to mitigate opposition. Cost - Identify new water supply needs based on existing water quantity, quality, or reliability. - Establish specific need for reuse (if appropriate) as part of an integrated water resources plan. - Complete advance project planning and/or preliminary design to for Recycled water projects costs are too high to gain support. future funding for pilot projects, WWTP upgrades, and delivery systems. - In the future, reconsider feasible projects that may not be cost effective at this time, as the value of recycled water to municipalities grows as limits and reliability of existing sources are strained further. Cost of treatment plant upgrades to tertiary treatment is an obstacle. - Plan for tertiary treatment upgrades in WWTP facility plans. Further tightening of discharge requirements will help support reuse as - Identify funding sources other than recycled water projects for WWTP funds are committed to treatment plant upgrades. upgrades. Brine disposal in the inland setting is a major hurdle for reuse (and any - Incorporate recycled water planning into salt and nutrient other salt management efforts). management planning to identify the best management measures. Benefits
Item - Grant funding can help address the contradiction between the lead Reuse has clear benefits but many of the benefits are distributed agency / primary funding source and project beneficiaries.
8.m. across all water users. Most cost effective opportunities provide water - Advocate for grant funding of recycled water projects in areas supply benefits beyond the municipalities producing the recycled water. attempting to reduce dependence on local groundwater to improve
- project economic viability. Page Legal Existing groundwater users do not have a mechanism to transfer their - Start discussions with all groundwater basin pumpers to develop a
164 groundwater rights in exchange for use of alternative water supplies as mechanism to exchange groundwater rights for use of alternatives is the case in most adjudicated groundwater basins. water supplies.
6/19/2014 ES-24 San Luis Obispo County DRAFT Regional Recycled Water Strategic Plan Executive Summary
Obstacle Recommendation Financing - Confirm recycled water demand estimates and costs to convert each Reliance on a single or low number of customers can cause payback potential recycled water customer. issues if the demand is overestimated or the customer may not exist in - Get customer commitments prior to start of design and construction to the future. properly design facilities and ensure revenue for loan payments. Institutional Recycled water projects are often times positioned to provide regional - Leverage existing sub-regional water planning groups, such as NCMA benefits that face the challenges of bringing multiple sub-regional and NMMA, to identify key stakeholders and gain support. political entities together with diverse goals. Water and wastewater are handled by separate agencies in some - Define water and wastewater benefits of recycled water projects to areas, causing cost sharing / allocation issues. support cost allocation. Public Acceptance Recycled water projects, particularly involving potable reuse, require thorough, planned public outreach efforts; however, these efforts tend - Make sure to include funding for initial and ongoing public outreach to be underfunded and reactionary instead of proactive, all-embracing, specific to the targeted groups. and well-timed. Regulatory Some aspects of SWRCB and RWQCB requirements continue to treat - New General Waste Discharge Requirements for Recycled Water Use recycled water as a waste and not a resource. The perspective is (WQO 2014-0090) (adopted 6/3/2014) provides a number of slowly shifting but still remains a hindrance. improvements to standard reuse permit requirements. Recycled water project implementation is tied to preparation of salt and - Move forward with salt and nutrient planning in all basins where reuse nutrient management plans for overlying groundwater basins and plan is being considered and incorporate recycled water plans into the effort. outcomes may hinder use of recycled water. Policies - Any jurisdiction implementing a recycled water project should adopt a mandatory use ordinance to demonstrate political support and to be eligible for most grant funds or low-interest loans. Mandatory use and other similar policies are not in place in most - Have developers include ‘purple pipe’ in new developments within a
Item jurisdictions. reasonable distance from the WWTP or planned distribution system. Consider applying California Water Code (CWC) 135513 provisions if 8.m. necessary. - Page
165 3 CWC Section 13551: “A person or public agency…shall not use water from any source of quality suitable for potable domestic use for non-potable uses… if suitable recycled water is available as provided in Section 13550.”
6/19/2014 ES-25 San Luis Obispo County DRAFT Regional Recycled Water Strategic Plan Executive Summary
Landscape Irrigation Urban landscape irrigation represents the most common type of reuse across California followed by environmental flows and agricultural irrigation. It is the first use for recycled water for most municipal areas since opportunities for agriculture irrigation or environmental flows are limited in these settings. As a result of decades of project operations, implementation of landscape irrigation projects is generally straightforward and involves the least obstacles – with the exception of cost. There is limited opportunity for cost effective landscape irrigation in the region for a combination of reasons: x There is a limited amount of large landscape areas due to long-standing water conservation measures taken. x Most of the existing large landscape areas are golf courses and most of these use at least some recycled water or non-potable groundwater. (Although significant volumes of potable water are used at these courses too to meet irrigation demand). x Potential large landscape areas identified in the RRWSP are too far from existing WWTPs and/or demands are too small for cost effective distribution to the sites. x The small opportunities that exist require WWTP upgrades to tertiary treatment, which generally have high unit costs on a small scale. Several potential landscape irrigation projects are identified in the RRWSP. The cost effective projects are close to the WWTP and/or include a golf course that uses large volumes of potable water. Implementation of the smaller projects is probably more feasible due to the total cost as long as the tertiary treatment portion of the cost can be managed. In addition, successful implementation of small recycled water projects could spur support for expansion in the future.
Agricultural Irrigation Of the types of recycled water projects evaluated in the RRWSP, agricultural reuse has the most potential across the region. Agricultural water use represents approximately 75% of total water use across the region. Agricultural reuse is advantageous because of the relatively high demand in concentrated areas combined with proximity to the existing WWTPs. Also, agricultural reuse represents matching water quality to use thus freeing potable water for potable uses. Finally, agricultural reuse in coastal locations can serve as a seawater intrusion barrier. There are many hurdles to successful agricultural reuse projects in the region: x Recycled water producers realizing a water supply benefit. The benefit can be realized if the agricultural customer agrees to reduce pumping from potable groundwater aquifer(s) by the amount of recycled water used. x Providing recycled water at a competitive price to existing agricultural water supplies. Recycled water can be sold to agricultural customers at or below their current cost of water supply (primarily groundwater at up to $300/af) but the revenue from recycled water sales would most likely not cover the cost of the recycled water project on its own. To economically justify such a project, the avoided cost of new water supply acquisition must be considered as well as the potable water revenue received from the new potable supply. x Gaining willing agricultural customers of recycled water due to real and perceived issues.
6/19/2014 ES-26
Item 8.m. - Page 166 San Luis Obispo County DRAFT Regional Recycled Water Strategic Plan Executive Summary
x Identifying or creating a lead agency with the capability and authority to develop, construct, and operate a regional project. Agricultural reuse offers one of the best opportunities for recycled water use in the region while also having several obstacles to overcome. Considering this, the region can start to take efforts to address the obstacles by starting discussions on governance, water supply benefits, and recycled water pricing. In addition, steps can be taken to address grower concerns over recycled water use so that these issues can be resolved while the other non-customer issues are addressed. Recommended next steps include: x Reach out to agricultural interests to determine steps necessary to gain willing customers. x Conduct technical studies considering specific recycled water quality, soil conditions, and crops. x Follow technical studies with pilot studies, potentially set in conjunction with Cal Poly4, similar to the Paso Robles Recycled Water Demonstration Garden. x Identify funding source(s) for a pilot project. x Conduct educational tours of existing agricultural reuse projects in Northern, Central, and Southern California. x Leverage the agricultural resources of the local Resource and Conservation Districts during outreach and implementation. x Consider application of CWC Section 135515 to gain agricultural customers based on the availability of recycled water of adequate quality and at a reasonable cost. (Refer to Section 13.2.1 for further discussion).
Groundwater Recharge Groundwater recharge with recycled water has some potential opportunities across the region, but geological constraints and treatment requirements cause most projects to be too expensive. The two primary areas considered for recharge – Northern Cities Management Area and Paso Robles Groundwater Basin – have limited areas where water recharged from the surface can reach the potable water aquifers. Injection is needed where surface recharge locations are lacking and injection requires the additional costs of injection wells and advanced treatment (beyond tertiary) of recycled water. One location where injection could make sense is along the coast as a seawater intrusion barrier. Several key steps were identified for successful implementation of a potential seawater intrusion barrier projects for SSLOCSD. Other than cost, the primary obstacles to GWR with recycled water are: x Better understanding of the groundwater basin. x Definition of benefits other than a new water supply, such as preventing seawater intrusion and/or subsidence. x Receipt of benefits by project sponsors or sharing of costs across all basin beneficiaries.
4 California Polytechnic State University San Luis Obispo, Irrigation Training & Research Center; www.itrc.org 5 CWC Section 13551: “A person or public agency…shall not use water from any source of quality suitable for potable domestic use for non-potable uses… if suitable recycled water is available as provided in Section 13550.”
6/19/2014 ES-27
Item 8.m. - Page 167 San Luis Obispo County DRAFT Regional Recycled Water Strategic Plan Executive Summary
Also, the region should track GWR regulations that impact the basis of projects in the RRWSP. For example, currently, groundwater recharge regulations limit the potential for cost effective projects due to the need for a large volume blend water.
Streamflow Augmentation Streamflow augmentation is an attractive reuse option since many streams now have minimum flow requirements for habitat and/or wildlife preservation. For example, offsetting Lopez Dam releases to Arroyo Grande Creek or increasing stream flow in other portions of the region to allow for pumping would create new water supplies. However, the largest obstacles to implementation of these projects are surface water discharge regulations. Existing surface water discharge regulations add significant treatment costs and potential regulations would require even higher levels of treatment and the associated costs. This creates a situation where the ultimate cost of a project may not be known once operations start, since new regulations may require new treatment in the future to continue project operations. To assess streamflow augmentation options in the future: x Continue to track developments flow requirements and restrictions in in Arroyo Grande Creek and other potential sites across the region x Track new and potential surface water discharge regulations
Concluding Remarks The best opportunities for reuse – agriculture and groundwater recharge – align with the region’s water resources profile: agriculture comprises approximately 75% of total water use and groundwater represents approximately 90% of water supplies. However, institutional and other implementation issues arise when attempting to allocate costs and realize benefits for agriculture and GWR projects because recycled water is produced by public agencies but beneficiaries extend beyond the municipalities. Recycled water offers one of the region’s best options for new water supplies, especially when compared with the cost and environmental impacts of desalination. However, many recycled water projects are more expensive than additional conservation or fully realizing the relatively recent investments in surface water projects. Additionally, water supply conditions and the associated need for recycled water vary by individual agency while recycled water projects require regional scale to achieve significant water supply benefits and acceptable costs due to economies of scale. The full cost of recycled water appears to be too high for many areas at this time, but will become more competitive in the future as other options become more expensive, the value of local supplies increases, and successful grant funding helps to subsidize local costs. In the meantime, the region should take the initial steps outlined in the RRWSP to address hurdles to implementation of feasible recycled water projects and provide minimal initial investment in projects to position them for grant funding.
6/19/2014 ES-28
Item 8.m. - Page 168
THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY BLANK
Item 8.m. - Page 169 Cannon Cannon 1050 Southwood Drive 1050 Southwood Drive San LuisSan Obispo, Luis Obispo, CA 93401 CA 93401 805.544.7407805.544.7407
Item 8.m. - Page 170